On 11/27/2010 04:53 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: > In reply to Mauro Lacy's message of Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:39:30 -0300: > Hi, > [snip] >> Take into account that although gravity can be related to mass and >> density, that is, it can have a dependency on mass and density, that >> does not mean mass and density are the causes of gravity. Indeed, it >> makes a lot of sense to think just the opposite: that which "causes" >> mass (or the effects of mass) has to be massless in itself, to avoid a >> circular argument. The cause of gravity must be immune to the effects of >> gravity, by the very definition of cause. > [snip] > It's possible that cause and effect are indistinguishable, i.e. that the > concept > of cause and effect is not applicable.
I don't think that the concept of cause and effect is not applicable. Why would it be so? It could be that what we call gravity is the end result of a number of different factors, but in principle nothing prevents us from identifying those factors, and from determining their interaction, the resultant of which is what we ordinarily call gravity. But yes, it's possible that we are actually not able to separate causes from effects in the case of gravity. That seem to be the case at the moment. That will change in the future, I'm completely sure about it. And that change could even happen sooner than we expect. In a sense, it's happening right now, although it's not fully taking the form of a scientific or mathematical formulation. Maybe that's the most important point in all this: to understand "gravity" as what it really is, independently of attaining a mathemathical description of its workings. That, correctly understood, would produce a revolution far deeper than the frutis of a new gravitational formalism. And that understanding is happening right now, I can assure you. Best, Mauro
