>>12227933If you want to be so simple about it. Gravity is a lot of equations like.
g = GM/r2
PEg=mgh
F = GMm/R2
To try to simplify every object, the gravity they exert and the gravity they're affected requires a lot of math. Lots of equations. To try to deny the complexity of gravity is downright ignorant.
Now to say that we don't know if it's "even a real force" when we're calculating it so precisely is I'm sorry to say hard r word.
>>12227930Yes any advanced enough technology should be indistinguishable from magic but it still isn't magic. When we talk about magic and divine energy and all the other esoteric pursuits we think of almost miraculous instant things.
The way we're talking about magic is more like trying to add it to one of the universal forces which is a lot to desire given the amount of work that would need to be done on it. It would have to be proven without a shred of doubt and would have to be repeatable.
It's not that I'm not open to the idea but it's just not something I see being in a world we already know so much about. Call it hubris but I can't see magic ever being proven because all the things that magic is supposedly responsible for we can explain with science.
Except why it all is in the first place which is where that .1% of doubt in the system is.
>>12227935Please source from a reputable scientific journal your claim that we don't know if gravity is a real force.
>inb4 wordplay about it "only being a theory" 