He took a Louisville Slugger to both head-lights

Joe wrote:

There's a strain of mind-poisoning - sui-generis - to this cult, contaminating it like a cloud of radioactive dust. By capitalizing the letter "g" in the word "gravity", Jerry contends that his linguistic concoction ("a Gravity") refutes the theory of gravitation. Despite what has been known for 400 years, gravity spritzes-out of the nozzle of reality - as an illusion. Einfühlung, a.k.a. Jerry, an insipid, konks both Newton and Einstein on their noggins with his magic word-wand.

Einfühlung wrote:
i also say 3 doesn't exist, but examples of 3s exist. you're no equipped to understand this. you can't show me a Gravity anymore than you can show me a 3. you can show instances where the force between objects that we call gravity is taking place, but you can't show me a Gravity. you can show me groups of things that amount to 3 objects, but you cannot show me a 3. all you can point to are signs. Gravity is not a thing. it's a connection between things.

Jerry manufactures a tautology - as no such occult "a Gravity" can be shown. It's logically impossible for "a Gravity" to exist. Neither physicists (nor anyone else) assert that a Thing-Number ("a Gravity") must be observed in the universe for the physical law of gravitation and the physical constant, G, to be mind-independent features of reality; further - according to 400 years of physics, gravity is more than a mere "connection between things". (If Jerry seeks to overthrow a scientific theory, then he must do so by presenting stronger evidence and a superior theory - than the evidence and the theory which we now have.) A screw-ball word-game does not suffice to turn physics into myth. To redefine gravity as both a thing and a number, then emptily complain that physics is rubbish - because "a Gravity" has never been observed is just plain potty.

The next 5 paragraphs are the clearest exposition of Jerry's Thing-Number mind-rot. They're bold and breathtaking, revealing his contempt for normal human cognition. Keep this in mind: to physics, gravity need not be a number nor a Thing-Number for gravitational theory to be a viable scientific theory.

Einfühlung wrote:
gravity is NOT a "law" of nature. it is a natural force. "beware speaking of laws in nature. there are no laws in nature. no one commands; no one trespasses." -nietzsche

This crack is a category error. A physical law of nature is neither a human-made law nor is it comparable, as above, to the number 3. Jerry is playing 2 games at once: the science game and the post-modern "science is a lot of hooey" game. In a discussion, concerning a scientific theory, he's permitted to play only the science game. To discharge General Relativity (GR), powerful counter-evidence, showing its predictions wrong, is required. Quoting Nietzsche or demanding that "a Gravity" (an absurdity) be detected in the universe will not cut it.

Einfühlung wrote:
gravity will not be constant from one place to another because one place to another is not identical. love will not be the same from couple to couple because people are not identical. the speed of light changes because shit gets in the way of the light. this makes the real not constant.

If the physical constant, G, is not real, then the theory of gravitation collapses. For 400 years of physics, gravitation cannot occur without a real G, bound to it. The gravitational constant, G, and the inverse square law precisely explain how "gravity will not be constant from one place to another". The local effects of gravitation are not constant throughout the universe, and the theory of gravitation predicts these fluctuating gravitational fields. Jerry slaps a perverse side-constraint on Einstein: if GR does not predict that the local effects of gravitation are invariant (i.e. the same, measured rate of attraction by all objects at all distances), then GR is - mysteriously - broken. GR also contains real constants.

Einfühlung wrote:
gravity is nothing but a force, a physical fact (not a law or rule or anything like that).

This is Jerry's ex cathedra (Pope-like) utterance: Newton, Einstein and every physicist living or dead are banished to a knowlegeless-hell - because they would reject his idiocy. Asserting that gravity is not a "rule" is another manufactured tautology. Jerry needs to read 1 physics text-book - before taking on Newton and Einstein. From his imaginary seat as the sole physics authority, Jerry conflates science with nescience (ignorance), then he polishes-off science.

Einfühlung wrote:
Gravity is not a thing.
Einfühlung wrote:
i did NOT say "gravity is not a fundamental force of nature". were did i say that. i said "Gravity is not the case" (as in there is a Form of Gravity somewhere, all we have are instances of gravity, not Gravity itself, pay attention, i speak with great detail).

For gravity to be "a fundamental force of nature", one condition holds that a physical constant, G, operate in the universe. Capitalizing "g" in the word "gravity" then screaming that: "Gravity is not the case" is beyond meaningless. It's the prattle of an absurdist infant. To physics, gravity is neither a "Form" nor a blended-together Thing-Form.

To Plato, there are archetypes (Forms) subsisting, and there are appearances (Things) existing. Forms subsist, are changeless and are intelligible. Things exist, change and are percievable. Fusing together (a subsistent with an existent), (a changeless with a changeable) and (an intelligible with a perceivable) contraption called "a Gravity" then imagining that physicists are compelled to detect this for General Relativity, the physical constant, G, the inverse square law, etc. to accurately depict how things stand in the world is to wonderfully fall into an unrecoverable delirium - as to what gravity has meant to science.

Decreeing that there's no "a Gravity" - because a Thing-Form of gravity has not been detected is a manufactured tautology. It's a self-contradiction to maintain that any such "a Gravity" could be shown to exist. Jerry does not demonstrate his point that physics has gotten gravity stunningly wrong. He - ruthlessly - slugs away at an apparition with his tautological word-club, flailing about spastically and hitting nothing but the air with it.

Instead of mauling, mutilating and murdering science, logic and minimal human reason, why not accept that the locally proportional, non-uniform gravitational fields observed throughout the universe among planets, stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies are: (1) governed by the physical law of gravitation, (2) that a real, physical constant, G, is involved and (3) that both the law and the constant are real, mind-independent features of the world?