25
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 174:
Line 174: + +
Talk:Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness (view source)
Revision as of 14:14, February 15, 2009
, 14:14, February 15, 2009→The gravity question
:::::: Brian, it's a fool's errand to argue with a closed-minded person, and I'm not interested in nitpicky semantics to justify it. Are you willing to admit that gravity, an observed phenomenon, could vary with the inverse of r<sup>2.00001</sup>? Euclidian geometry does not define gravity, and it's close-minded for anyone to imply that it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)
:::::: Brian, it's a fool's errand to argue with a closed-minded person, and I'm not interested in nitpicky semantics to justify it. Are you willing to admit that gravity, an observed phenomenon, could vary with the inverse of r<sup>2.00001</sup>? Euclidian geometry does not define gravity, and it's close-minded for anyone to imply that it does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Yes, I agree it is entirely possible that the way gravity works in our universe is something other than an exact inverse-square law. I was only trying to point out that Newtonian gravity is a specific physical theory and also part of a specific theoretical framework. I don't see how using technical definitions in a precise and well-defined way is nit-picking: "gravity" and "Newtonian gravity" are not the same thing. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 09:14, 15 February 2009 (EST)