Sure it is. It’s both accurate and precise.

If mass is all it takes then why don’t huge ships like our space stations have gravity once they are out of the earths influence

They do have gravity. So do you and I, it’s just really weak. But you can use something like a Cavendish experiment to measure it.

Sometimes I think Science depends on math too much and though it is great to have math it limits the framework with which to explore new ideas.

No it doesn’t. You can have all the ideas you want. Math simply quantifies those ideas.

Does the spinning of a object contribute to its gravity?

It does a bit, since rotation is a form of energy, but not much.

Have the observed gravity on objects that aren’t spinning?

Yes. See the Cavendish experiment for one.

I mean technically mass is dependent on the distance between the molecules of a single object but doesn’t spinning an object really fast condense objects into a smaller space thus in effect making them more massive and thus having more gravity?

No, spinning an object tends to cause its equatorial region to expand a bit.

I can’t think of anything I have heard of with gravity that isn’t spinning.

That’s just because lots of things spin. But spin is not really related to gravity.

Sorry I guess I should go take some physics course or something?

Yes, if you’re interested in the subject.

In a sense, there is no way to understand what causes them. We can make a predictive model, but that’s the extent of it. There could be several models which reproduce equivalent predictions and we’d have no way to know which of them (if any) were correct. It’s actually debated by some people that there is no fundamental theory of everything, no ultimate underlying cause. I generally disagree with that idea, but I can’t really point to anything to prove it wrong. The way we currently model the fundamental forces is through the use of Lagrangian densities and tensors. There are tensors for all of the interactions in the Standard model.

Gravity is a local phenomenon, meaning its effects do not propagate faster than c. This is true for every force we know of, save for some footnotes about quantum effects. Relativity (both kinds) guarantees that the term “instantaneous” is meaningless. Different reference frames have different apparent instants.

“the presumption is an expansion of space that was instantaneous” – No.

“If the expansion was instantaneous, why is it stated that space continues to expand?” – Because the evidence shows that it does.

The very foundation of classical physics calculations rests on this complete presumption with no actual empirical evidence. – That’s where you’re wrong, kiddo.