Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 176: Line 176:     
:::::::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)
 
:::::::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)
 +
 +
:::::::: Brian, you haven't admitted that "gravity, an observed phenomenon, could vary with the inverse of r<sup>2.00001</sup>."
 +
 +
:::::::: I'm not going to waste any more time debating with a closed mind.  Please contribute to the encyclopedia, but I'm not optimistic about your ability to add insights.  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,208

edits

Navigation menu