What's wrong with physics?

[joelr]

I don´t care about any equations as long as scientists cannot explain the relevant force in question.

It's obvious you don't care about equations but since the middle ages they have led us to new truths. You can stay in the Dark Ages all you like.
E.M. did not have a quantum description either until quantum field theory. Does that mean it was useless. Nope. Neither is gravity.

I
Correct and therefore you can dump the gravity assumptions and count on the Atmospheric Pressure on the Earth as the reason for Newtons assumption of his misconcieved "gravity".

Whoops, you forgot to show me the atmospheric equations modified without gravity. Atmospheric pressure uses gravitational equations to determine what the forces are. Without gravity you have to re-work the entire theory of atmospheric pressure and demonstrate that an atmosphere can create these forces without gravitational weight.
Until then that is a crank idea.

Waoo! Two years? And you still dont comprehend my philosophical ponderings?

No, I comprehended your ponderings 2 years ago. No equations, no science, reliance on ancient myths.
I was just wondering if you would come back to the real world in that time. Guess not.

More of this emotional and ignorant downgrading mud, and you´ll soon end up on my ignore list.

You are the one who called peer-reviewed scientific crank then when it's turned on you you get all sensitive?
Did you not say your ideas on EM are based on a mythology about divine light from an Egyptian cult or something similar? Was that not you?



Now, please, where are the corrections for GPS that do not use general relativity? Atmospheric pressure is already accounted for. Explain time dillation from special, general relativity. As well as in atomic clocks. Explain how fusion happens instars, neutron stars, black holes and so on if gravity is fake.

Here:
Error analysis for the Global Positioning System - Wikipedia

look over the different types of corrections. Explain why relativity predicts time dillation and that happens as a separate phenomenon from atmospheric pressure. Re-work the theory of atmospheric pressure to include time dillation explaining how it's even possible? Surely if you don't believe in gravity you must have alternate answers?
Because something like GR could not possibly work so well and be wrong unless you have an alternate explanation. Otherwise it would be like sitting down at a computer in a house with lights and all sorts of electronics and saying "no, I don't think electricity is a real thing, it's definitely a fiction in scientists mind..."

 

[Native]

Until then that is a crank idea.

Would you like to rewrite this childish sentence or shall I just put you on my ignore list?

 

[Native]

Subject: "Beyond Einstein In Search of the Ultimate Explanation".

My comments to the video contents:
I`m stunned that modern scientists intellectually have gone far out in the speculative space long away from all philosophical and natural thoughts of the thousands of years human heritage of intuitive knowledge in the numerous cultural Myths of Creation. Leonard Susskind mentioned “the ancient Greeks and the atom” but he forgot to investigate and mention the very Greek Story of Creation.

As a skilled Comparative Mythologist, I find it plausible to conclude from the numerous cultural Myths of Creation, that everything is created from LIGHT. I also claim from the old mythical sources, that the Universe is eternal and infinite, but everything in the Universe undergoes an eternal transformational process of formation/creation, dissolution and a re-formation.

Hence: According to ancient myths, there was/is no Big Bang at all.

Ancient cultures also claimed everything to be connected – not by *strings* but by *intertwined forces*.

As a Natural Philosopher, I also can conclude that the very concept of electromagnetic LIGHT (and all other EM frequencies) rules the entire Universe and gives forms and life to everything.

LIGHT contains of a double helical whirling current force, which governs the very DNA motion, and the perpendicular magnetic field of the electric current works as a cyclic and spherical assembling method of atoms and molecules, which builds up the RNA and DNA structure, all according to the actual and factual available basic atoms and elements at stages.

LIGHT gives rotation to everything by its electric current and it´s magnetic fields provide orbital motion even to galaxies - and it´s central "hole" is just a "formation and birthing funnel" for everything created in galaxies, included our Solar System, which is an integrated part of the galactic formation and motion.

There are NO black holes and NO dark matter in galaxies - and NO dark energy in cosmos either.

My conclusions are:

1) Electromagnetic forces rule the Entire Universe. It forms everything and give life and motions to everything.
2) Gravity is a 350 year old human invention caused by Newton´s misconception of weight, which really is caused by the Earth´s orbital velocity around the Sun and a the subsequent pressure on Earth´s atmosphere.

There is no force in the Earth which pulls at anything at all. (In Newtons own time, his “gravity” was mentioned as an adding of an *occult agency* by his fellow scientists – and it still is, as it´s misconcieved and unexplained)

We really have a mythical and present E&M Theory of Everything since thousands of years ago - we just have to get rid of Newton´s superstitious gravity.

Regards Native
Comparative Mythologist & Natural Philosopher
Denmark

 

[Native]

Subject: “Physics in the Dark Searching for the Missing Matter in the Universe”.

PARTICIPANTS: Mariangela Lisanti, Joseph Silk, Erik Verlinde, and Risa Wechsler MODERATOR: Brian Greene
---------------
6:18 - "the galaxies were swirling too quickly".

What kind of a scientific statement is this? According to what and which cosmic law? Yes, according to Newtons "universal law of celestial motions" based on the planetary motions in our Solar System.

Newtons laws were contradicted by this observation and what did the scientist do with this contradiction? Did they obey and followed the Scientific Method and revised or changed Newtons laws?

No, they just invented and inserted "dark matter". Scientists failed - and still fails - to recognize the real cause of motion and now this invented dark matter concept is assumed to fill about 27 % of the universe.

Just think of it: An asumption which fills that much in the modern science!? This is not science but science fiction based on the simple lack of following the very Scientific Method itself.

 

[gnostic]

Sabine Hossenfelder asks this much needed OP question here:

(Continues here: https://iai.tv/assets/videos/linked/HTLGI2020_What's wrong with physics.HD.mp4

If the physicists counts on the apple><apple theory only to govern the Universe, they´ll logically need both energy and alternate explanations for everything which regards the 3 more stronger and real fundamental forces and their qualities.

View attachment 47754
It´s not only the definition of "gravity" which is the weakest of all fundamental forces - all its attached arguments are the weakest too.

View attachment 47759

The obvious solution: Let the E&M light into to numerous dark cracks of modern cosmological physics.

It is funny, Native, how you post Hossenfelder's video, but all your posts - including your OP - only demonstrated that you didn't understand what she was saying, and nothing demonstrated she say only EM force is the only one to exist by debunking General Relativity (gravity) or the Dark Matter or Quantum Mechanics.

Not once did she ever say EM waves or light are the only forces to exist, nor does she ever say that EM is the only forces to affect everything in the cosmology - galaxies, stars or gravity on Earth. She never postulated that air pressure alone cause objects to fall or keep objects on the ground.

All I hear what Hossenfelder have to say, is that physicists have not come up with unified solution of fundamental physics, and that progress have seemed to have stalled. Just because physicists have no solution, yet, it only means the current solution is incomplete, not wrong.

But you keep claiming that gravity and gravitation don't exist in your other posts. NOT ONCE did Hossenfelder ever claim that gravity and gravitation don't exist. That's simply you twisting what Hossenfelder have to say, to deny the existence of gravity.

Second, other physicists already know they haven't found unified theory of both GR and QFT (Quantum Field Theory). All Hossenfelder is doing, is stating the obvious, for lay-people who are no expert in theoretical physics - that there are currently no model that unified both GR and QFT.

Third, like I said earlier, Hossenfelder didn't debunk General Relativity or gravitation force or Dark Matter or Quantum Gravity or the Big Bang theory or anything else she mentioned in this video. More importantly, her video are for people like you and me, who not experts in physics. Her video also offered no alternative solutions to these so-called problems.

For instances, she say there are some cracks in the current models and the theoretical models, but in her video she provided no alternative solutions, showed no mathematical solutions, showed no evidence nor data to support alternative solution.

So for YOU to claim that Hossenfelder have been debunking Newton's model on gravity or Einstein's model on gravity or the proposed theoretical model of Quantum Gravity, IS JUST YOU, MAKING UP THINGS SHE DIDN'T SAY OR DIDN'T POSTULATE.

So, in short, she say nothing about EM force being the only solution or that YOUR silly pseudoscience model - ELECTRIC UNIVERSE - that you feverently believe in, being true.

She in no way supported your claims about gravitation or Dark Matter being nonexistent. All you have done, is blowing what she have to say out of proportions, by taking her video out-of-context, to support your own baseless claims and your pseudoscience fantasy (eg Electric Universe).

 

[joelr]

Would you like to rewrite this childish sentence or shall I just put you on my ignore list?

First, I'm using your term - "*consensus crank stamps*.

second, sure, produce a paper that demonstrated reasons and equations to replace to the relativistic corrections of the GPS corrections. Then re-works atmospheric pressure without using gravity and show that work then I'll re-write it. Or just prove it. Offer evidence backed by science.
We have an 11km error that isn't part of atmospheric corrections. It's because of relativistic phenomenon.If someone just says "that isn't true, and that science isn't real. That's crank until shown to be otherwise.

 

[joelr]

Subject: "Beyond Einstein In Search of the Ultimate Explanation".

My comments to the video contents:
I`m stunned that modern scientists intellectually have gone far out in the speculative space long away from all philosophical and natural thoughts of the thousands of years human heritage of intuitive knowledge in the numerous cultural Myths of Creation. Leonard Susskind mentioned “the ancient Greeks and the atom” but he forgot to investigate and mention the very Greek Story of Creation.

As a skilled Comparative Mythologist, I find it plausible to conclude from the numerous cultural Myths of Creation, that everything is created from LIGHT. I also claim from the old mythical sources, that the Universe is eternal and infinite, but everything in the Universe undergoes an eternal transformational process of formation/creation, dissolution and a re-formation.

Hence: According to ancient myths, there was/is no Big Bang at all.

Ancient cultures also claimed everything to be connected – not by *strings* but by *intertwined forces*.

As a Natural Philosopher, I also can conclude that the very concept of electromagnetic LIGHT (and all other EM frequencies) rules the entire Universe and gives forms and life to everything.

LIGHT contains of a double helical whirling current force, which governs the very DNA motion, and the perpendicular magnetic field of the electric current works as a cyclic and spherical assembling method of atoms and molecules, which builds up the RNA and DNA structure, all according to the actual and factual available basic atoms and elements at stages.

LIGHT gives rotation to everything by its electric current and it´s magnetic fields provide orbital motion even to galaxies - and it´s central "hole" is just a "formation and birthing funnel" for everything created in galaxies, included our Solar System, which is an integrated part of the galactic formation and motion.

There are NO black holes and NO dark matter in galaxies - and NO dark energy in cosmos either.

My conclusions are:

1) Electromagnetic forces rule the Entire Universe. It forms everything and give life and motions to everything.
2) Gravity is a 350 year old human invention caused by Newton´s misconception of weight, which really is caused by the Earth´s orbital velocity around the Sun and a the subsequent pressure on Earth´s atmosphere.

There is no force in the Earth which pulls at anything at all. (In Newtons own time, his “gravity” was mentioned as an adding of an *occult agency* by his fellow scientists – and it still is, as it´s misconcieved and unexplained)

We really have a mythical and present E&M Theory of Everything since thousands of years ago - we just have to get rid of Newton´s superstitious gravity.

Regards Native
Comparative Mythologist & Natural Philosopher
Denmark

Great, please link to a paper demonstrating how EM explains DNA, planetary motion and all phenomena associated with gravity like fusion, neutron stars... But first we need to understand how to explain error correction in GPS systems without using relativistic equations, re-working atmospheric pressure equations to eliminate gravity.
Explain how EM accounts for gravity waves being detected, gravitational lensing.

GR doesn't say gravity is a"pulling force". You might first learn the current theory before you try to debunk it.
Explain why atomic clocks read the predicted time dillation when flying a a fast plane with the Earth's atmosphere, down to the billionth of a second.

 

[joelr]

6:18 - "the galaxies were swirling too quickly".

What kind of a scientific statement is this? According to what and which cosmic law? Yes, according to Newtons "universal law of celestial motions" based on the planetary motions in our Solar System.

Newtons laws were contradicted by this observation and what did the scientist do with this contradiction? Did they obey and followed the Scientific Method and revised or changed Newtons laws?

They didn't do that because Newton's laws DO work for space travel, planetary motion in the solar system, clusters of galaxies, superclusters of galaxies, star formation, fusion in stars, neutron stars, nebulas, the speed of objects in space like the asteroid people thought was an alien ship. They work perfectly for gravimeters which measure local gravity. The superconducting gravimeter achieves sensitivities of 10–11 m·s−2 (one nanogal), approximately one trillionth (10−12) of the Earth surface gravity.
Explanations will be needed as to why these devices work exactly as Newtonain math would predict as well.


"
Gravimeters
Gravimeter instrumentation for precise geodesy is classed as absolute gravimeters that normally use the acceleration of an object falling in vacuum or superconducting instruments that measure changes in gravity on a test mass that is cooled to very low temperatures to minimize the random accelerations from thermal noise. The applications and development of these classes of gravimeters are discussed in Chapters 3.03 and 3.04. The absolute gravimeters provide absolute measurements that are suitable for monitoring long-term changes in gravity due to either uplift or secular mass movements. These instruments are normally moved from place to place to make repeated measurements often over many years. The superconducting gravimeters provide continuous high-precision gravity measurements at observatory locations. They are suitable for tidal studies, particularly the effects of the fluid core on tidal amplitudes, seismic modes from large earthquakes, and atmospheric mass change excitations."

So a galaxy with a fast spin will be investigated. But a force already proven to be real isn't dropped without an alternative. All these other aspects of gravity still work. Your GPS still works. SO let's get that EM theory complete so we can switch completely to just EM error calculations. Can't do it? None of your group can?
Maybe it's time to re-evaluate what your putting your energies on.

 

[Native]

It is funny, Native, how you post Hossenfelder's video, but all your posts - including your OP - only demonstrated that you didn't understand what she was saying,

It´s funny Gnostic, that you miss and ignore the very title "What is wrong with physics" in Sabine Hossenfelder´video.

In all her videos, she critically analyse and describe the "modern scientific standards and problems" in astrophysics and cosmology.

All I hear what Hossenfelder have to say, is that physicists have not come up with unified solution of fundamental physics, and that progress have seemed to have stalled. Just because physicists have no solution, yet, it only means the current solution is incomplete, not wrong.

Correct and so what? Does that mean that nobody are allowed to have second thoughts of what could be the solutions?

NOT ONCE did Hossenfelder ever claim that gravity and gravitation don't exist. That's simply you twisting what Hossenfelder have to say, to deny the existence of gravity.

Hello Strawman. Have I said she did? You´re conflating Sabine´s critical analysis of science with mine statements of what really is wrong.

And that also goes with the following:

Second, other physicists already know they haven't found unified theory of both GR and QFT (Quantum Field Theory). All Hossenfelder is doing, is stating the obvious, for lay-people who are no expert in theoretical physics - that there are currently no model that unified both GR and QFT.

Third, like I said earlier, Hossenfelder didn't debunk General Relativity or gravitation force or Dark Matter or Quantum Gravity or the Big Bang theory or anything else she mentioned in this video. More importantly, her video are for people like you and me, who not experts in physics. Her video also offered no alternative solutions to these so-called problems.

For instances, she say there are some cracks in the current models and the theoretical models, but in her video she provided no alternative solutions, showed no mathematical solutions, showed no evidence nor data to support alternative solution.

So for YOU to claim that Hossenfelder have been debunking Newton's model on gravity or Einstein's model on gravity or the proposed theoretical model of Quantum Gravity, IS JUST YOU, MAKING UP THINGS SHE DIDN'T SAY OR DIDN'T POSTULATE.

-----------------

So, in short, she say nothing about EM force being the only solution or that YOUR silly pseudoscience model - ELECTRIC UNIVERSE - that you feverently believe in, being true.

She neither said that the EM force and an Electric Universe was silly or pseudoscientific, did she? So why are you taking her out of context?

All you have done, is blowing what she have to say out of proportions, by taking her video out-of-context, to support your own baseless claims and your pseudoscience fantasy (eg Electric Universe).

Isn´t it funny Gnostic? Your fantasy is very short when it comes to the 3/4 E&M part of the fundamental forces and hugely extended when it comes to the 1/4 part which cannot be explained and needs lots of dark things and energies which, according to the superstitious science, fills 96 % of the Universe?

 

[Native]

GR doesn't say gravity is a"pulling force". You might first learn the current theory before you try to debunk it.

And where did I say that? All I´ve said about this is that Einsteins "curved spacetime" is nothing but a speculative nonsense because Einstein held onto Newtons superstitious gravity concept.

 

[Native]

They didn't do that because Newton's laws DO work for space travel, planetary motion in the solar system,

Hopefully you´re aware that our Solar System is an obiting part in our galaxy in which Newtons "laws of celestial motions" were contradicted by direct observations?
Hence these claims of "Newtons gravity" logically also are very questionable.

clusters of galaxies, superclusters of galaxies, star formation, fusion in stars, neutron stars, nebulas,

They work perfectly for gravimeters which measure local gravity. The superconducting gravimeter achieves sensitivities of 10–11 m·s−2 (one nanogal), approximately one trillionth (10−12) of the Earth surface gravity.

Of course they do since the atmospheric pressure works all over the places on Earth.

So a galaxy with a fast spin will be investigated. But a force already proven to be real isn't dropped without an alternative.

According to the higly praised "Scientific Method", a theory has to be seriously revised and discarded if contradicted. Inventing undetected dark things and energies isn´t scientific at all.

SO let's get that EM theory complete so we can switch completely to just EM error calculations.

I´m not the one who claims the EM to play a role in the so called "gravitational matters" on and around the Earth, as you apparently do.

Your GPS still works. SO let's get that EM theory complete so we can switch completely to just EM error calculations.

Your GPS wouldn´t even work without EM. You even couldn´t lauch a spacecraft and a satellite without the EM, and your PC wouldn´t work either. Isn´t that funny

Even life on Earth wouldn´t exist without the EM.

 

[gnostic]

She neither said that the EM force and an Electric Universe was silly or pseudoscientific, did she? So why are you taking her out of context?

I didn’t write that she “said” EM forces were silly, I said that she never said that EM was the predominant force or the only force (that’s your claim, not hers) that effect the universe, galactic motions, planetary motions, etc.

She have never deny the existence of other forces (gravitation, weak nuclear & strong nuclear).

All she stated that the solution for theory of unification of all forces were to slow (stalled) and incomplete. She didn’t attempt to refute gravitation, like your posts have been doing.

And lastly, in order to refute the current theories on the gravitation forces on Solar System orbits, on gravitation forces that governed galactic motions, on the Big Bang cosmology, etc, she needs to provide alternative solutions or alternative models for each ones, BACKED BY observational evidence and data.

Her videos didn’t provide such alternative answers/evidence/data to the current theories.

All she did was “talk”, how the current theories are incomplete and have stalled, and that doesn’t refute gravitation force at all. She never tried to gravity, you did. So you are the the one (with all your posts) who have twisted her video out of all proportions.

As to ELECTRIC UNIVERSE, she never offered that as alternative model or alternative solution. I very much doubt would even consider EU as an alternative.

EU is only supported by cranks and conspiracy theorists. Hoseenfelder isn’t a crank, she just don’t have her own solution.

 

[gnostic]

According to the higly praised "Scientific Method", a theory has to be seriously revised and discarded if contradicted. Inventing undetected dark things and energies isn´t scientific at all.

Actually, you don't discard any model based on what you just said.

We don't discard Maxwell's EM model because his knowledge and model was incomplete, where Maxwell knew nothing about the relationship between EM fields and the atoms, particularly the atomic charged particles - electrons and protons.

It was Joseph John Thomson who discovered electrons (1897) and Ernest Rutherford who discovered atomic nucleus (1911).

I am not scoffing Maxwell's contribution and achievements, Native, all I am saying is incomplete, not wrong.

All Maxwell could do was test, what he was able to postulate at that time. Other physicists built upon his model, to encompass what he missed.

Likewise. Just as the theory of gravity is incomplete, but not wrong. Newton's knowledge on gravitation, forces and motion were limited by what he could do. Einstein expanded upon it with General Relativity, just as future physicists may or may not expand.

No one here is denying EM as fields/waves and forces, but you deny gravity exist, based on your favorite model (Electric Universe), which is untested and untestable.

joelr and polymath257 have repeatedly ask you to supply evidence and data to support your model (explanation plus mathematical equations) about air pressures, not gravity being responsible for what keep things grounded or falling, but you have provided nothing but empty claims.

They even provided you with example - does object falls in a vacuum? - and you were never able to answer them. Your evasion to their simple questions only demonstrated how little you understand physics.

Unlike you, I have no favorites, I just go by what models currently are testable and tested.

 

[Native]

I didn’t write that she “said” EM forces were silly,

And I didn´t say she said that. Only silly persons does that:

or that YOUR silly pseudoscience model - ELECTRIC UNIVERSE - that you feverently believe in, being true.

And lastly, in order to refute the current theories on the gravitation forces on Solar System orbits, on gravitation forces that governed galactic motions, on the Big Bang cosmology, etc, she needs to provide alternative solutions or alternative models for each ones, BACKED BY observational evidence and data.

Nonsense. Sabine Hossenfelder are just analysing and describing problems in physics and cosmology without claiming any model for herself.

Her videos didn’t provide such alternative answers/evidence/data to the current theories.
All she did was “talk”, how the current theories are incomplete and have stalled

Correct. Sabine mentions the problems.

She never tried to gravity, you did. So you are the the one (with all your posts) who have twisted her video out of all proportions.

Nonsense again. You´re twisting it all as I´m only using Sabines videos which points at troubles.

As to ELECTRIC UNIVERSE, she never offered that as alternative model or alternative solution. I very much doubt would even consider EU as an alternative.

I didn´t say she does either, so why are you posting this personal guessworks?

Hoseenfelder isn’t a crank, she just don’t have her own solution.

I´ve already stated this above.

EU is only supported by cranks and conspiracy theorists.

Yes I know very well "standard thinkers" thinks so. But then again, these persons are filled with so much cosmological darkness that they can´t see the light = Electromagnetism.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
According to the higly praised "Scientific Method", a theory has to be seriously revised and discarded if contradicted. Inventing undetected dark things and energies isn´t scientific at all.

Actually, you don't discard any model based on what you just said.

OH? So what happend to your often mentioned claims of following the Scientific Method? But maybe this only goes when you´re dealing with other and alternate debaters here?

We don't discard Maxwell's EM model because his knowledge and model was incomplete, where Maxwell knew nothing about the relationship between EM fields and the atoms, particularly the atomic charged particles - electrons and protons.

Why are you even bringing this subject up? Maxwell hasn´t been contradicted and it´s up to new scientists to extend his equations on both the atomic and cosmological scales. (That is: If they can get their mind out of the standard black boxes)

All Maxwell could do was test, what he was able to postulate at that time. Other physicists built upon his model, to encompass what he missed.

I´ve already said that above.

Likewise. Just as the theory of gravity is incomplete, but not wrong. Newton's knowledge on gravitation, forces and motion were limited by what he could do. Einstein expanded upon it with General Relativity, just as future physicists may or may not expand.

And WHY did Einstein binned Newtons gravity?

joelr and polymath257 have repeatedly ask you to supply evidence and data to support your model (explanation plus mathematical equations) about air pressures,

And I´ve posted this link several times to explain Newtons occult force. All you and they have to do is to binn the superstitious occult force and think differently.

They even provided you with example - does object falls in a vacuum? -

I don´t deal with anything else but natural and explainable condition and not with modern speculative a la Newton fiddlings with nature.

Your evasion to their simple questions only demonstrated how little you understand physics.

On the other hand, they don´t react when I´m asking them to explain what Newtons superstitious occult gravity force contains of.. Apparently they (too) don´t understand physics enough to do so.

Unlike you, I have no favorites, I just go by what models currently are testable and tested.

I´ve known this for a long time. You´re just another copy-paste cat without any independent cosmological thoughts of your own - and at the same time you´re picking on persons who has.

In fact you should be grateful for other persons who does the critical and constructive works for you.

 

[gnostic]

Nonsense. Sabine Hossenfelder are just analysing and describing problems in physics and cosmology without claiming any model for herself.

But you are still missing the points.

The video is more like a blog, not a scientific paper.

She never explain IN DETAILS what those problems are; she spoke in general terms. HENCE, THE VIDEO ISN'T SCIENCE.

Hossenfelder also offer no alternative model, no alternative mathematical solutions, and no evidence and data to support her generalized description. HENCE, HER VIDEO ISN'T SCIENCE.

Like I said, you have blown her video out of proportions. Her video isn't science, and yet you think it is.

You are attempting to use her video to prove gravitation don't exist. She did no such things.

 

[Native]

But you are still missing the points.

WHAT?

The video is more like a blog, not a scientific paper.

WHAT?

She never explain IN DETAILS what those problems are; she spoke in general terms. HENCE, THE VIDEO ISN'T SCIENCE.

I know: To you - and to lots of other non independent dark cosmology thinkers, it´s not science to point out the scientific problems and to act accordingly and appropriately to this.

Like I said, you have blown her video out of proportions. Her video isn't science, and yet you think it is.

May I suggest you to read your sentenses twice before posting your inconsistent nonsens?

You are attempting to use her video to prove gravitation don't exist. She did no such things.

How can you refer to Sabine in this case as you even don´t think her video contents is science at all? Your arguments goes in no and all directions at the same time, completely disconnected.

It would be nice if you took a course on consistent logics before posting more replies to me.

 

[Native]

Subject: At least SOME independent thinkers questions gravity

"A New View on Gravity and the Cosmos" - By Professor Erik Verlinde

About the concepts of gravity at timestamp 10:35.

Eric Verlinde tries to get rid of both Newtons and Einsteins gravity perceptions, but he STILL inconsistently uses the consensus gravity constants and equations, hence he never will get the solutions.

Unfortunately Eric Verlinde STILL keep on babling of "gravitational black holes" instead of looking at the problems from other fundamental forces. And he apparently also accept the miraculous Big Bang and it´s impossible linear time scale.

The galactic centers are simply "inwards and outwards funnels of transformations".

 

[rational experiences]

Basic human understanding. You human scientist did not invent creation.

 

[Native]

Basic human understanding. You human scientist did not invent creation

One otherwise should think so But so far, the scientists only understand 4 % of it all according to themselves. The 96 % rest is human inventions of darkness, nicely mirroring the consensus scientific intellectual activity.

Edit: BTW. The cosmological scientists don´t even understand much of the 4 % either if only counting on the weak superstitious gravity.