LS Re: Peter & gravity

Ant McWatt (
Thu, 2 Apr 1998 17:25:47 +0100

On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:18:40 -0500 (EST) wrote:

> ...all we know right now is that things fall towards each
> other, and we call it gravity, and it seems to predict
> things just fine. So the statement "we all still
> experience gravity" is actually loaded with a cultural
> context. for instance, what if 10 years from now we
> realize that it's not really gravity that pulls us down,
> it's rather an as-yet-unknown force/action?


I am pretty impressed that you and Doug answered Mary`s
questions so quickly - those questions don`t seem that
straightforward to me.

However, I thought I better point out that with Einstein`s
theory of General Relativity (GTR) of 1915 gravity has not
been thought of as a force. He basically said that gravity
is not a force but is the relationship between mass and the
four dimensions of space-time. (The curved trajectory of a
small ball thrown just to the left or right of a static
heavier ball in the middle of a piece of canvass being
an analogy of what happens with gravity).

Of course, the general thrust of your argument here that
any model of reality (or in science) is subject to change
is a good point I wouldn`t argue with.

Best Wishes,


post message -
unsubscribe/queries -
homepage -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:06 CEST