Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑
Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:43 am
"Neither of them are theories." Yet gravity (or the general theory of relativity) is a theory which is confusing. Is general relativity a theory (along with QM)?
It's very simple. As I said above, if you drop something do you:
A. Have a theory that it will fall to the ground?
B. Know for a fact that it will fall to the ground?
(Purists and smartypants please note that for the purposes of discussion I will be ignoring Hume and the problem of induction and assume...)
The answer is B.
Things fall to the ground too regularly for it to be a coincidence, so it is reasonable to infer that something
is making things fall to the ground.
Whatever that something is, it is called gravity.
Therefore gravity is not a theory; it is a fact.
So what causes gravity? Well, there are a number of different ideas that account for gravity very well. General Relativity is the best known*, but the philosophical model on which it is based i.e. that matter warps 'spacetime', like the dozen or so ideas listed above, is just a theory.**
With QM, it is similarly not a theory that energy comes in packets of a particular size; it is demonstrably the case-a fact, in other words.
There are a number of theories about why this should be so.
*Newton didn't have any idea what causes gravity, he just did the maths, which is why it's a 'law'. The theoretical part of Newton was that the force that makes things fall to the ground, is the same one which keeps planets going round the Sun.
**So is my idea that gravity is basically refraction, but it's easy to understand and there's no maths involved. p32-37 https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk