4 ms·

Right. Well, by the same logic my theory of gravity isn’t wrong: everything falls at 9m/s. It’s not wrong, it’s just a pretty good model of gravity in a certai

• danbruc 2y ago
  Everything falling at a constant speed of 9 m/s takes this probably a bit too far, on Earth this will only be true for tens of milliseconds before the speed is of by a few percent. Had you said every objects accelerates with 9.81 m/s², that would be a pretty good theory of gravity on the surface of Earth, probably still the dominant theory for solving gravity related problems on Earth. Your example reminds me more of the difference between Aristotelian and Newtonian physics. Aristotle - looking at the world around him - thought that the natural state of motion is being at rest and that it requires a force to make an object move. Newtonian physics realizes that this is not the case, that without forces objects keep moving instead of coming to rest, that Aristotle lacked a proper understanding of the role of friction. To come back to gravity, space flight probably still heavily uses Newtonian gravity and it works, for that reason alone I would not call it wrong. Objects falling at a constant 9 m/s seems to have much less practical use and does not even get the most important characteristic of gravity - that it accelerates objects - right, so I will agree with you and call it wrong.
• FeepingCreature 2y ago
  The difference is that the region your theory of gravity is a good model in, is not inhabited, whereas the region that Newtonian gravity is a good model in is the one where most of us spend most of our time.
  • moi2388 2y ago
    You spend time in a region where the propagation of gravity is instantaneous? Cool.