What “adjective” are you talking about? A “force” is a noun, not an adjective. “Gravitational” is an adjective of that noun, although “gravitation” is a noun.
And here you state something of which you know so little about (physics) as though you had proof. Why do you believe that forces exist? You believe it because someone told you they do. And they told you that because they have a reliable predictive formula which they have demonstrated. That certainly is evidence of the possibility of something’s existence. But it has not been falsifiably proven (a demand within science). Many predictive theories can be formulated out of complete non-sense. Something can’t be falsifiably proven to exist until there is no other option left but for the entity to exist.
Certainly true. But something being “practical” does not make it true. Newton’s laws were practical only to later be stated as wrong. It was practical to calculate very many things throughout society based upon the theory of the gods of Rome, Greece, and Egypt. How practical something is at that moment depends upon how much precise detail is required concerning the specific subject. The Roman gods theory was of little use in predicting the path of a cannon ball. And the forces theory is of no use in explaining why the universe exists, why protons stick together, or why charged particles separate. They merely declare these things as “fundamental”, just as the Roman gods theories used to do, “it is just the way it is”, or in the Abramic religions, “I am that I am”.
They claim that it is inexplicable (ie “magic”), at least until THEY can explain it in such a way as to make it appear as though they were right all along, no one else can for sure, nor is allowed to.
Why do you think it requires mathematics? Because they use mathematics? I made one single post on Physics Forums merely introducing the concepts and what I did to substantiate them because someone asked me of “your theory”. The post was immediately deleted and I was immediately banned for life for “arguing an alternate theory”. Is that the kind of forum you are recommending? All of the other “Science” forums do basically that same thing although usually with far less hysterical reaction. They do not permit controversy. They are there to preach THEIR gospel, not listen to alternatives. They have been invited to come here. Where are they?
On a philosophy forum, one would expect for a theory to be questioned in an inquisitive way. When I say, “It works like this”, there are three basic responses;
1) Why do you think it works that way (concerning some detail perhaps).
2) No, it works this other way instead (your response).
3) You are just demanding faith from us.
Philosophical thinking people, including scientists, would be expected to respond with option (1). Eugene Morrow did it (so as to defend his own theory), Sanjay did it (only contending with my definition of “conscious”), Mechanical Monster did it, Arminius did it. None of them have questioned it to my satisfaction and thus I know that none of them fully grasped it, but none of them could find anything contrary, logically unsound, or evidence to be otherwise. Science cannot argue with it. And thus on Science forms, it isn’t even allowed to be mentioned (I have asked ahead of time. They say “NO!” without even seeing it), the exact same treatment one would expect from a defensive Church; “Doubting us is not allowed. You are the Devil”.
When have You seen me argue it? What made it a “crackpot argument”? Is it a “crackpot argument” merely because you know that it isn’t true without thinking through it? I don’t believe those who have listened to my explanations to their proper questioning of it think it is a “crackpot argument”, whether they think it is true or not.
“Crackpot” and “not knowing your ass from a hole in the ground” refers to unsound logic. Newtonian forces, Relativity, and Quantum Physics are crackpot ideas, all of which I can shoot down even without my own theory. It takes a good philosopher to understand what the physicist is talking about and yet can’t actually comprehend.
[size=200]I will challenge any scientist or priest on Earth[/size] (and even those floating above it). And they will not win based upon logical soundness. I go easy on the priests because they are honest in admitting that theirs is an issue of faith. I understand and respect that, although every priesthood needs a higher group who truly understands beyond mere faith, else they have no Godly leadership. But if they cross that line of mere faith and proclaim certain knowing and yet contrary to me, I will tear them down as well, just as any faithful scientist who denies that he is merely of faith.
In an all out logic based competition with all theories ever proposed throughout the history of Mankind, Affectance Ontology will be the “Last Truth Standing”.