sure gravity is real, has a detectable magnitude and direction. that is one side of the coin called the equivalence principle whereby acceleration is the other side of the coin. each side of the coin has valid uses for dealing with the universe and understanding it. with respect to understanding, the classical gravity side compliments the idea of forces, while the other side disregards the idea of forces and embraces the idea that mass curves the geometry of spacetime and that mass moves with in spacetime according to the curvature of that geometry.

at least thats how i understand the situation.

regards, tim

• Other points - jetty - April 23, 2003 - 12:26 UTC
  • alternative views.... hmm - sagefr0g - April 24, 2003 - 02:31 UTC
    • Heaver objects do fall faster. - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 03:45 UTC
      • perhaps in a universe with only two objects - sagefr0g - April 24, 2003 - 15:40 UTC
        • Other objects pull both ways. - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 17:30 UTC
          • those other massive objects "out there" - sagefr0g - April 24, 2003 - 19:44 UTC
            • Inertia is the attraction of a mass to its own gravity field. - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 22:49 UTC
              • basketballs do not fall consistently - sagefr0g - April 25, 2003 - 03:52 UTC
          • my bad - sagefr0g - April 25, 2003 - 02:32 UTC
          • still digging at your equation... - sagefr0g - April 25, 2003 - 18:31 UTC
            • I think I have a solution you will like. - duordi - April 25, 2003 - 20:49 UTC
              • another wrinkle is that - sagefr0g - April 27, 2003 - 14:20 UTC
                • You lost me on that one. - duordi - April 27, 2003 - 20:19 UTC
                  • drop a basketball from height X - sagefr0g - April 28, 2003 - 01:18 UTC
                    • So your saying.... - duordi - April 29, 2003 - 01:53 UTC
                      • uhmm - sagefr0g - April 30, 2003 - 22:15 UTC