Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 252: Line 252:  
::::::Mr. Schlafly, I don't know about the paper you cite, but I believe there was another paper just a couple years ago arguing that redshift observations imply that gravity isn't an inverse-square law on very large scales.  I'll see if I can't dig it up. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 01:01, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
 
::::::Mr. Schlafly, I don't know about the paper you cite, but I believe there was another paper just a couple years ago arguing that redshift observations imply that gravity isn't an inverse-square law on very large scales.  I'll see if I can't dig it up. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 01:01, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
    +
:::::::I'd like to learn more about the red shift phenomenon in order to answer the question above, and welcome information here with an open mind.  I'll do some looking myself too.
 +
 +
:::::::In reply to Mark, I agree that there is a close connection between gravity and the geometry of space.  But isn't 2 and 2.0000001 close enough to satisfy that requirement?  There is probably greater imprecision in simply modeling space with mathematics, don't you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
    
==Test Answers==
 
==Test Answers==
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
126,219

edits

Navigation menu