| |
Paul Davidson <tinman@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:G3qGAn.LCs@lugnet.com...
>
> > > Right. The theory of *gravity* is just a theory.
> >
> > Um, actually, it's the Law of Gravity. It's been proven (at least the • basic
> > aspects) over and over enough times that you can accept it as a Law.
>
> The only Law of Gravity is that it exists. Many *theories* of gravity of
> been used to explain it, Relativity being one of the most recent (prior to
> that, Isaac Newton's was used).
That is a misleading statement. General relativity explains and reliably
*predicts* the observed behavior of matter far better than anything that
came before it. And for the record, Newton's equations work just fine with
small masses at low velocities. They only break down at (very) high
velocities and with (very) massy objects. Newton's equations are subsumed
within general relativity. Anything that replaces general relativity will
need to subsume general relativity and Newton's equations for gravitation
because they *work*. In other words, general relativity is a law with
powerful predictive powers, but further refinement could produce a more
comprehensive law with even greater predictive powers.
-Doug
^V^^V^
I am: Damraska@Excite.com
Minifig Suns: http://pages.prodigy.net/damraska/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Relativity Question
|
| (...) basic (...) The only Law of Gravity is that it exists. Many *theories* of gravity of been used to explain it, Relativity being one of the most recent (prior to that, Isaac Newton's was used). Paul Davidson (24 years ago, 9-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.space)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
