You missed a couple of points IMO, but it was an interesting little story.
You might propose an expanding near singularity that is surrounded by a large near vacuum, which is then encompassed in a much larger mass body that surrounds the whole thing. It that scenario the mass object in the center might indeed be accelerated by the external mass. You missed an an important essence of gravity
Doesn't work, MM.
By your own rules, "
an expanding near singularity" is not "
real things and real objects", it doesn't "
show up in real experiments", it has "
failed to show up in the lab".
You also missed the mark on the math part being indistinguishable from magic. If you're talking about math related to an EM field, I can physically measure the movements of plasma in lab, test your math formulas and see if they match the essence of the plasma movement.
I have no doubt that tusenfem can do this, and, very likely lots of others too (ben, Zig, Tubbythin, ...).
However, there is no objective evidence to support the hypothesis that MM can do any of it.
Let's go back to a question I've asked you several times: explain what "
an EM field" is, comprehensively, without reference to Maxwell's equations, QED, or some variant thereof.
Likewise if we're talking about gravity, we can physically test it's ability to accelerate other objects of mass. We can test to see how that acceleration might vary in different conditions. Again, we can compare the math to the physical world and see that it works. Nothing requires 'faith' on my part.
I have no doubt that sol can do this, and, very likely lots of others too (ben, Zig, Tubbythin, ...).
However, there is no objective evidence to support the hypothesis that MM can do any of it.
A variant of the above: explain what "gravity" is, comprehensively, without reference to GR.
Oh, and remember the many posts on GR? Like the one PS wrote?
When "
we compare the math to the physical world", we do indeed "
see that it works"; ergo, CDM and dark energy (lambda) are just as real as Neptune.
That you cannot understand this is consistent with your apparent Aristotelian/animist worldview (in this case, that "attraction" is the essence of "gravity").
If you could show any sort of 'cause/effect' relationship between your invisible forces/masses we could in fact test their various 'properties/essences'. What you're essentially doing is making up the "essences/properties" in a purely ad hoc manner as you point at the sky.
Yes, we all know, by now, that that's how you understand it.
And what I have done - maybe - is produce an explanation for
why you understand it that way.
The "
invisible forces/masses" are magic to you, made up "
in a purely ad hoc manner", because you do not understand GR (or, more accurately, the EFE).
You're simply 'making up" a whole mythological external heaven's that are completely and utterly unrelated to the earth. Us mere mortals are only privy to a lowly 4% of what exists in the heavens and can never experience the essence of the heavens here on Earth.
Yes, we all know, by now, that that's how you understand it.
And what I have done - maybe - is produce an explanation for
why you understand it that way.
What seems to you to be "
completely and utterly unrelated to the earth" and something you think "
can never experience the essence of the heavens here on Earth" is only that way because you do not understand GR (or, more accurately, the EFE).
I'm sorry but your brand of "science" isn't even science at all. It's pure woo, like astrology. Like astrology you throw in some physical explanation (like movement of planets) and a little math to justify your claims. Like astrology however it's completely 'untestable" in any controlled experiment. You can't predict the outcome of *anything* that might happen in a controlled test using any of that 96% of the universe you claim is "out there somewhere".
Yes, we all know, by now, that that's how you understand it.
And what I have done - maybe - is produce an explanation for
why you understand it that way.
What seems to you to be "
completely 'untestable" in any controlled experiment" is only that way because you do not understand GR (or, more accurately, the EFE).
I'm sorry, but this is just silly in the sense that you refuse to even acknowledge that you've never demonstrated any cause/effect relationships between "acceleration" and "infatlion" or "dark energy", nor have you demonstrated any cause/effect relationships between "exotic matter" and gravity because you've never demonstrated that exotic matter exists, let alone whether it's "hot or cold" matter! The whole thing is purely "make believe" with make believe entities galore.
Yes, we all know, by now, that that's how you understand it.
And what I have done - maybe - is produce an explanation for
why you understand it that way.
What seems to you to be a lack of "
demonstrated cause/effect relationships between "acceleration" and "infatlion" or "dark energy"" and no "
demonstrated any cause/effect relationships between "exotic matter" and gravity" is only that way because you do not understand GR (or, more accurately, the EFE).
When you demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between lambda an your invisible friends, let me know. Until they you might as well call them godflation, god energy and god matter and be honest about the fact it's a 'religion'.
Yes, we all know, by now, that that's how you understand it.
And what I have done - maybe - is produce an explanation for
why you understand it that way.
What seems to you to be an inability to "
demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between lambda an your invisible friends" is only that way because you do not understand GR (or, more accurately, the EFE).
