Science Forums 2

[ldsoftwaresteve]

That was a very thoughtful reply, k. I hope that you wish to discover truth, if indeed there's any there to discover.

You say, "He writes about an object falling straight down, in which there is a distance traveled, and the work function shows there is work, so energy must be expended. However, he claims there is no energy source, so Newton’s law of gravity is violating the (other) Laws of Physics. This is called a Straw Man argument, which is a logical error. The author either intentionally or unintentionally is a frequent user of this kind of argument. Yes, there is no energy source powering gravity as he wants us to think there must be. However, there was an energy source. Remember, that all matter is always pulling against all matter (by that model)."

Why should I accept the idea that all matter is always pulling against all matter? Isn't it possible that our conclusion about that phenomenon is wrong? We conclude that objects pull on one another. But what if they don't? Incredible as it seems, McCutcheon shows that there is another explanation.

K, it's the model that he says is wrong. You cannot expect him to accept the premises of the model in order to disprove it. Remember, that all matter is always pulling against all matter (by that model). I'm sure with your understanding of logic there's a name for that fallacy too (stolen concept?). It's too bad you didn't read the whole book. He proposes a different model, one in which all matter NEVER pulls against all matter.

The issue is simply this: McCutcheon says our understanding of gravity is wrong. Both he and Newton cannot be correct since the two theories are contradictory. Therefore, at least one is wrong. The funny thing is this: if we vote on the issue (which seems to be the coin for truth these days), we can still - all of us - be wrong.