@rahulpsharma I think you have too much time on your hands but they also thought Einstein was crazy at first.
Maybe you should take up knitting

 

What does it take to move something or change the movement of something? It takes force.

The amount of force it takes.....is the mass. That's how mass is defined. Usually, we call that force, weight. We have X lbs. of mass. Or kilograms, to be European.

A simple dimensional analysis will show that this is wrong: in SI units, mass is measured in kilograms and force in kilogram-meters per square-second (newtons). Another big hint is that mass is a scalar quantity, while force -- which has both magnitude and direction -- is a vector quantity.

Fundamentally, mass is not defined; it is a primitive, an axiom of some particular physical theory. In Newtonian mechanics, we use (the axiom of) inertial mass to define force. In relativity, we use (the axiom of) rest mass to define relativistic mass.

All the gravitation equations are for elliptics.

I've corrected you on this before: ellipses are one of the possible solutions to the gravitational equation only for the very particular case of two point-like bodies, an unphysical idealization that only exists in textbooks. Actual orbital dynamics are never elliptical; please stop with this strawman argument.

By the way, your "orbits are helical not elliptic" argument is especially silly when you consider that a helix is just a parametrized ellipse.

There is another definition of mass. Mass attracts mass. Mass is gravitational. THIS IS NOT TRUE. ONLY UNSYMMETRICAL MASS, ATTRACTS UNSYMMETRICAL MASS. Gravity has no affect on symmetrical particles or symmetric mass. What is UN-symmetrical mass? It's a dipole or an atom.

This is somehow both nonsensical and wrong. Newton's universal law of gravitation presumes perfectly symmetrical (point-like) particles. In relativistic quantum mechanics, the electron is perfectly symmetrical and explicitly affected by gravity.

Modern science uses math models. Classical science uses physical models.

Wrong. Physics is precisely about using mathematical models to understand natural phenomena. It's been this way since before Newton, and with good reason: without math all we have are stories.

This is usually bout the time I get called a crackpot.

Your crackpottery was evident a few sentences in.

 

Your crackpottery was evident a few sentences in.

He actually gets a fairly low grade on the index. He's only a Demi-Crack and needs to up the game.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

 

He actually gets a fairly low grade on the index. He's only a Demi-Crack and needs to up the game.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

I'm curious how many of those BR would self-identify with.

How would you score yourself, BR?

 

I would score the highest, but only because of your reference. I think science uses the wrong references. I am not smart enough to make stuff up. But there are, and always has been, alternate, sensible, interpretations of experimental results. Especially on the real small, or the real far away, or the real fast, or the invisible. Think about explaining something that is small, and fast and invisible.......and yes, even far away because of the size. It has all the traps for observing and measuring.

It's not as if modern science knows for sure. Many alterative theories are being considered. Although they would use the word refined theory, so as not to upset anybody.

I believe physical reality is simpler than we suspect. And by physical reality, I mean everywhere, except here. Life is not natural. Probably not physical. If it were physical, it would probably be all over the place.