Gravity's Pitfall

Preface

The most rudimentary consensus on gravity, is it causes mass to accelerate towards mass. When the cause of this acceleration is questioned the answer is because gravity. Clearly, the fundamental concept is completely circular. However this lapse in understanding is not due to a lack of higher education, but merely a consequence of more advanced theories being equally vague and incomplete.

As more precise measuring tools become commercially available to civilians, not only will the mainstream mechanistic consensus on gravity drastically change, but the explanations to the axioms of special relativity will have to quickly adapt in order to dismiss findings pointing towards the paranormal.


"Observe the effect, invent the cause. It's Science."
einstein

Setting Bad Precedents

Einstein defrauds the Scientific method. In 1915 he submits 4 papers to the Prussian Academy of Science Proceedings, explaining General Relativity. His papers are the first peer reviewed scientific literary pieces to assert theoretical models with not a single experiment. While Cavendish (poorly) attempted to present an experiment, Einstein completely neglected to provide one.

Predicting natural phenomena based off a hypothetical model does not establish a cause without further experimentation. The cause in this case is concerned with why gravity alters the state of matter, not what it does to matter. Pointing at math equations which mimic the effect of gravity does not explain the real thing.

Observation is the first step in the scientific method, then hypothesis, a well thought out experiment and eventually a Theory. This is why the scientific method has been totally obfuscated in modern research: Einstein excluded empirical research in conjunction with an independent, dependent and a controlled variable.

A Refresher on the Scientific Method

This might sound like something we learned in Elementary school: Make an observation, form a hypothesis, conduct an experiment and postulate a scientific theory. Rinse and repeat. Let's apply the definition of the Scientific method to a common science experiment.

On Bill Nye the Science Guy, we see the dropping of a feather and bowling ball in a vacuum. We observe two objects with differing mass, density and shape falling at the same rate. Does this prove gravity? According to the Scientific method, no! We are only observing an effect; we cannot work backwards and establish a cause. The scientific method is not bidirectional. All we are able to conclude is objects fall at different speeds when they are in different environments. I'm acknowledging the effect of a downward force, however observing the effect of this force does not prove the cause of gravity (the cause is what science is concerned with) because that isn't coherent with the definition of the scientific method.

Gravity is a reification. The definition of the root, reify from Webster is: to consider or represent (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing : to give definite content and form to (a concept or idea). There are no physical attributes of Gravity itself, because I claim gravity isn't a force but an effect.

Experiments

But dude! Gravity is made of waves! It has been proved through experimentation! Great to hear. If you thought of LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory) as evidence, try again. This facility (allegedly) detects gravitational waves to prove gravity's existence. That should already raise a red flag but let's unpack this.

Firstly, a wave is not a particular, it is a happening. A wave is a type of behavior, which cannot by itself be a physical item. If I threw a pebble in a pond and asked you to point to the wave, where would you point? Where does the ripple start and end? Sure we can observe and measure the wave but that wouldn't tell us anything about why the wave is occuring. What caused the wave? The pebble.

In science, to say something exists is a natural claim. It must be a physical entity. The ripple in the pebble example is not made of ripple particles or in gravity's case a fabric of space-time but instead is an abstract idea that is reified to make sense in a pragmatic setting. We are prescribing the behavior of the water to a physical thing unto itself: an example of how the structure of language can warp our reasoning. Therefore the wave is a behavior of the water and is caused by the force of the pebble hitting it.

Observing phenomena doesn't imply a cause. In other words, it doesn't answer why something happens: Hearing something loud does not answer why it sounds loud; Seeing something fall doesn't explain why it falls. Observation is a prerequisite to establishing a physical cause.

Secondly, how do we know this wave behavior isn't something else? If we are trying to find what a gravitational wave looks like, how do we know what to look for? We have theoretical models! Right, because theory is always the same as practice. Having a candidate model wave and then looking for it in empirical data is the definition of confirmation bias. We aren't even observing gravitational waves, we are just inferring thats what we see. In the case for LIGO, how do we conduct an experiment proving an undefined variable (gravity) using undefined variables (space-time)?

Spacetime doesn't Exist

Space

Space and Time are concepts and are invalid in an experiment. Space is the privation of matter. Similarly shadows are the privation (or absence) of light. In either case we can observe effects and mistake them for forms (like in Plato's Allegory of the Cave). A shadow is not a particular, it is the effect of an object and a casting of light. The light is a variable so we can turn it off, resulting in no shadow. However there isn't even an independent variable to observe space. We know where a shadow begins and ends, but we cannot say the same about space. There is no way of verifying the distance between two points in space from only one vantage point. It'd be pretty ignorant to base a theory off of something we can't verify.

If space is the absence of matter, to claim we can measure it is nonsensical. It'd be like saying we could quantify the effect of coldness. This is really just measuring the amount of heat (average kinetic energy).

Freeman Dyson suggested that gravity might be like temperature in a way: You can measure temperature, you can talk about temperature, but you can’t quantize it, there is no way you can talk about temperature as a quantum object. There is no such thing as a tempon. This is the process of reification. There is no such thing as a graviton either.

Time

Secondly, time is conceptual. It's an abstract tool we use to measure changes in magnitude we see in the natural world. We cannot directly observe time or its properties directly. That is, it's not a material object but a perfect concept. Observing change in things is simply an observation of particulars not time itself. For example, observing that a satellite runs 38 milliseconds fast every orbit does not automatically prove time is a physical quantity that can be compressed or stretched. If anything this arrogant conclusion assumes our ability of making measuring tools are always 99.99% precise and it's impossible that there's some other variable we're not seeing. Time transcends the natural world. It's a number of motion. We can only indirectly observe time through a physical medium.

So if time and space are abstract concepts how can they be independent variables in an experiment to explain the thing in question?

Straw Men

Well can you see air? Can you see wifi? I'm not arguing that if we can't see something it isn't real. We know the composition of air by using gas laws and partial pressures: Could you tell me the composition of time? We know wifi exists because it took experimentation to engineer it. Obviously they didn't get phones working with wifi on the first try. All technology goes under extensive trial and error. The reason we've gotten so far with technology is because of electricity and magnetism. The experiments and research done with E&M are actually based in the scientific method. Furthermore, E&M has a much more solid explanation to how matter interacts with matter and is the only true source of force (and perhaps sound) we have ever undoubtedly confirmed.

For gravity, there is no such explanation. Even if we wanted to measure the bend in Space-Time like with LIGO, we'd be measuring Spacetime from within Spacetime itself. Since there is no reference point the whole experiment is not scientific.

Bending

To say Spacetime can be bent is complete absurdity. Academic articles on this stuff comes off as satire,

There is a bend in Spacetime because of this wave we saw through our machine which matches the modeled wave we created.
Wait! There isn't enough matter to justify the way the universe is behaving! Might as well misplace concreteness by inventing a negative space called dark matter. Sure it isn't verifiable, but it fits the model. You wouldn't want to question grand assumptions that has progressed us into modernity now, would you? Now that we have concluded dark matter has to exist it turns out there is exactly enough of it to justify our hypothesis of the universe! The good thing about science is it's true whether or not you believe in it! Oh wait.

Scientists outside academia laugh at these mental gymnasts. In what space and time are you observing the distortion of space and time? You can't bend something that isn't physical. That's why no one has done an experiment with gravity and Spacetime as dependent and independent variables, because it's nonsense. If at this point I have still not convinced you that there is something fundamentally incomplete about gravity and Spacetime, show me an experiment of time causing something.

Gravity's Explanation is Metaphysical

At the end of the day science has utterly failed to demonstrate the how of gravity. Soyentists can only describe the what i.e. the effect, not explain the why. They claim an immaterial magnitude, 9.81 m/s², is the cause for how objects fall which by definition is not science. We cannot recreate gravity, manipulate it or explain it through experiment. Science's explanation for gravity is not scientific because it borrows from metaphysics while claiming to be strictly mechanical. It would require just as much, if not more faith to believe this contradiction, than to accept our limited ability to comprehend the natural world was predetermined and is ultimately good.

So far as hypotheses are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest he accept as the truth ideas conceived for another purpose, and depart from this study a greater fool than when he entered it. - Nicolaus Copernicus