[MD] Gravity

[MarshaV]

At 02:56 PM 4/6/2008, you wrote:

Greetings Bo,

>Hi Marsha
>
>Fri. April 4 you wrote:
>
> > In Our Times has a program on Newton's Laws of Motion.  It seems that
> > gravity did exist before Newton.  But it was thought gravity was caused by
> > ether, invisible fluid, or the earth being magnetic.
>
>The Newton example is not about things not falling to the ground
>before Newton, but about us being cock sure that the gravity
>explanation has been there - always - only for Newton to
>discover....etc.

A while back I stated to you, I believe, that I didn't believe 
gravity existed before Newton.  At that point I believed that Newton 
was the first to isolate the pattern of 'things falling down', and he 
named it gravity.  I was wrong, prior to Newton taking up the 
phenomenon of gravity, others were trying to figure out how it worked 
and the name had already been coined.

By "gravity explanation" I assume you're referencing Newton's theory 
of gravitation.  It seems to me that gravity was created as a concept 
when some individual or group of individuals isolated it as a 
separate pattern.  It was not Newton, but he was the one who created 
the best theory.


>Hopefully the said program enlightened its viewers
>about when the concept "gravity" came into usage, because my guess
>is that it is part of modernity (SOM). And, yes, the very point is that this
>tendency was caused by something else than gravity. However those
>causes you mention - magnetism, ether, invisible fluid - sound quite
>recent and "scientific".

The program was about Newton's Laws of Motion. Gravity was not its 
focus.  The point for me was that the phenomenon of 'things falling 
down' was a concept identified and named before Newton.  Magnetism, 
either and an invisible fluid were theories being speculated in the 
"scientific" community before he took it up to study.


>Anyway note that Pirsig gives another example
>of the "theories create reality" phenomenon by Phlogiston.  Yes, even
>his platypus example is the same thing in another wrapping.

Theories do seem to create reality of a sort.  But that just says 
that reality is tentative, even within the science 
community.  Besides gravity does not inherently exist.  It's a 
pattern that for some reason of usefulness has been separated from 
other interconnect or unnoticed patterns.  Oh you know what I'm 
saying.  Everything is connected to everything.

Bo, my knowledge of science is almost nonexistent, so if I've made a 
mess of my explanation I wouldn't be surprised.  But I hope I've made 
the point.  Gravity doesn't inherently exist.  It exists only as a 
static pattern, as a pattern of convenience.

>
>Consequently there is no unaffected moon "up there". In the case of a
>metaphysics - a theory of everything - it encompasses everything. To
>the cave inhabitants the lights in the sky were goddesses and gods
>while they - to us - are planets and stars.

In a few hundred years, I image people will think our knowledge of 
science is as naive as a god in the sky.



>PS
>Regarding gravity, Einstein's General Relativity has another
>explanation, namely that of a "dents" in the space-time fabric caused
>by the heavenly bodies, no "gravity force" propagating through empty
>space. So the last word is not said on that issue.


Maybe it will prove a better explanation.  I don't know.  General 
Relativity may someday be replaced too.


Marsha








Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...