[lbo-talk] Evolutionary theory/Gravitation

[andie nachgeborenen]

No, apart from misunderstandings, the continued use of
term "gravitation force" reflects the fact that for
almost all but the most recondite purposes Newtonian
mechanics, which posits that F = g(m1m2/d2) (the
inverse square law of gravity, F standing for
gravitational force, m1 & m2 for the masses, and d2
for the distance between them -- g is the
gravitational constant) -- is perfectly suitable and 
ccurate. E.g., we don't go relativistic when building
bridges or launching rockets. Newtonian mechanics is
approximately true, and certainly completely adequate
for things happening at velocities that are negligible
compared to c, the speed of light, and distances are
are small, e.g., within a planetary system. So while
there is no such thing as F, or m either (because of
E=mc2, we know there is only mass energy, not mass),
it doesn't matter unless we are doing astrophysics,
and we can act as if F and m were real quantities.
Likewise, quantum effects are mostly irrelevant to
macro-objects, so we assume the universe is
deterministic and behaves ina  Newtonian way with
respect to mid size dry goods,a s the Oxford
philosophers used to put it.

Is that too much detail?

--- Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net> wrote:


> Justin wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >Gravity is not a force. That is the fundamental
> >negative result of GTR -- the elimination of the
> idea
> >of the "force" of gravitation posited by Newton,
> 
> 
> I remember reading a brief response from Marc Bloch,
> who made his name with 
> his two volume history "Feudal Society",to critiques
> of the continued 
> usefulness of the term feudalism.  To give a short
> version, the problem 
> people found was that feudalism was a construct
> describing a uniformity in 
> medieval Europe that did not exist.  But the
> critique particularly centered 
> on the term itself and there were calls for it to be
> abandoned.  Bloch's 
> response was that we continue to use the term atom,
> even though we know 
> atoms are divisible.
> 
> Is the continued use of the term force to describe
> gravity similar?  I 
> don't know, I'm asking?
> 
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> 

		
__________________________________________ 
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. 
Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
dsl.yahoo.com