[Aramike]

See, I differ with the general idea that you can absolutely determine for certain what our absolute limitations are. I tend to disagree that we can know for sure ANYTHING, including being certain that my last statement is correct. It's an argument based upon circular logic.

I'm not arguing or debating the scientific process (I'm not certain why that's even being discussed). MY point is merely that we cannot for all time state an absolute, including the scientific process. Much like Newton's laws, they work for now.

Einstein’s theory of relativity does not say that everything is relative, that is nonsense, although it is popular to quote him like that. What it says is that all movement is relative. But it also says two basic things: the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe, and the speed of light is not relative, but absolute.

That depends upon whether or not you're referring to Special Relativity or General Relativity. To be more precise, Einstein was saying that all spacetime was relative to velocity in conjunction with a static C.

Try to use relativity next time you play pool. Or when you launch a space probe to land on Mars, in a certain predetermined region at a predetermined time. Or when you calculate the mass of the sun and planet of a foreign solar system by measuring it’s rotation cycles. All that are just three examples of Newtonian physics pure. We have not replaced Newton in general – we have limited it’s validity to certain scales of existing matter, and understood that for other ranges, for the dimension of time and the sub-nuclear contexts, we needed to adapt to other models, since Newton does not work there anymore.

That's actually what I was saying.

What should that be? No units, no objects to which it refers? G=1? 1-what? I would say that one either bases on gravitation being dependent on the involved masses, or you base on Einstein’S idea of the assumed (not yet proven) gravitation-radiation, then it is dependent on the distance from the radiating origin, and let’s see what the candidates for such gravitational forces are assumed to be: black holes, supernovas are the most prominent suspects.

However, I was after something else anyway. Without gravitation, there would have been no speed, no movement, no gas clouds accumulating to matter, no suns, no planets, not even atoms (always assuming the Big Bang theory has a point and it all started with a big bang). In fact, gravitation both in Einstein’s and Newton’s models are one of the most profound and most basic forces there are. That in most parts of space the measurable effect of it is very low, is no contradiction to that. But still you better do not come too close to a white dwarf, a black hole or a supernova.

No one's discussing that, but you are changing original point which was that gravity is by far the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces of nature. This isn't an obscure fact by any means. As a matter of fact, this weakness is one of the key questions facing physicists today, ESPECIALLY when condering the Big Bang event. Part of the theory surrounding the event assumes that shortly following the Big Bang all the forces were combined into one super force that split off as the universe was cooling. Where the rest of gravity went is a fundamental physical problem.

Gravity is extraordinarily weak compared to the other fundamental forces. You bring up black holes. Black holes begin as massively dense objects collapse (generally due to the exhaustion of the fuel creating the atomic processes of the object). The mass of the fuel burnt off is no where near the mass of the black hole but yet the atomic processes (electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force) are strong enough to prevent the collapse of said objects prior to the exhaustion of the fuel.

My entire point was scientific (quantum and cosmological) in nature, not philosophical.

And such a universe you want to collect all data about that it holds inside, while it is ever unfolding? I think that is a philosophical utopia, or the blue flower of science. The hunt for the final and ultimate world formula (which Hawkins some years ago declared to be no longer believed in by him).

Don't get me wrong - I greatly respect Hawking; yet I don't take everything he says as "Biblical" (pun intended). He's been wrong before (he one time posited that black holes violate conservation; while he's since conceded to being wrong his alternative is still up for debate).

The bottom line, however is I think we're discussing two different things. You seem to believe that everything requires a causal relationship. I don't. If everything required causality than there would be no way for a causal existance to occur (think about this for a moment). If existance (related to the universe or even the Multiverse) is infinite than nothing caused it (hence, no "why"). Or, if something caused it to be infinite than that thing which caused it much, by extension, be infinite ergo not being caused (again, no "why").

Either way, at some point there is no point to "why" and there's only the what. Einstein errantly conjured the cosmological constant. He was wrong relating to our universe but he might have been on to something. Either way points to a limit to understanding - not that we are limited from understanding everything, but rather there is an everything which can be understood.

But I do suppose that would make you right in the sense that we cannot know the "why" - perhaps because there isn't one. And that's my entire point.

Ultimately, though, a very thought-provoking discussion this has been.