"The Theory of Gravity"

Messon · Post by **Messon** » 2002-09-05 05:44pm

I just read in an English 12 lit book that Britain "produced the theory of gravity." Is there something wrong with that statement or is it just me?[/u]

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-09-05 05:59pm

Not really, Newton came up with the idea of gravity, who was english.

Messon · Post by **Messon** » 2002-09-05 06:12pm

I knew that they were refering to Newton, it just seemed odd to say 'the theory of gravity.' I suppose that I was just nitpicking. If it had said 'laws' instead of 'theory' it would have been correct. To my knowledge, the closest thing to 'the theory of gravity' would be Special Relativity, and that didn't come from Britain.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-09-05 06:29pm

Actually, Newton's law of gravity is a theory. Physical laws are just theories which are so reliable that they are considered laws.

Messon · Post by **Messon** » 2002-09-05 06:50pm

Gah, I must have looked like a fool by saying that a law was not a theory. My origional qualm with the quote was its use of 'the' rather than 'a.' I was not sure if I was right in thinking that 'the' should have been 'a' or if it was fine just the way it was.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-05 09:17pm

Odd. My science teacher said today that it was the 'Universal Law of Gravitation'

Guess not.

RayCav of ASVS · Post by **RayCav of ASVS** » 2002-09-05 10:22pm

Darth Wong wrote:Actually, Newton's law of gravity is a theory. Physical laws are just theories which are so reliable that they are considered laws.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, Wong, but I was taught that a law was merely a model, while a theory actually attempted to explain the model

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-09-06 11:48am

Gravity is a well documented phenomenon, Newtons theories were mainly related to its effects on the physical environment, not theories as to how gravity actually works.

I remember I had a physics teachher once who was talking about multi-dimensional calculations (or some such thing) and began talking about hwo gravity and time may just be other dimensions (like our X, Y and Z dimensions) but they don't have a noticable and measureable physical presence in our world but their effects still exist.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2002-09-06 01:45pm

weemadando wrote:I remember I had a physics teachher once who was talking about multi-dimensional calculations (or some such thing) and began talking about hwo gravity and time may just be other dimensions (like our X, Y and Z dimensions) but they don't have a noticable and measureable physical presence in our world but their effects still exist.

Silly. Still, you think that's something, my physics professor apparently went on a drinking binge and then asked us all to propose the life habits of a being who existed in 4 dimensions the way that we live in 3 (that is, we exist and can move in three dimensions, and travel in ONE direction in the 4th. He asked us to propose how a creature would move in 4 dimensions - and assumedly move linearly in a 5th).

Before you ask, no, I don't know why. It was mostly for fun. People went off arguing about it for hours. Not one shred of learning was done that afternoon, but my classmates showed some significant insight into their knowledge of physics and biology.