zlacker

>>schmuc+(OP)
Growing up I read Dilbert in the paper every morning. At some point I got one of the compilation books and for some reason in an epilogue Adams included his alternate theory of gravity which was essentially that gravity as force didn't exist and things pressed down on each other because everything was expanding at the same rate. He said he had yet to find anyone who could refute this.

Even at 12 I could tell this guy was an annoying idiot. Loved the comic though.

>>app+B5
I don’t know Scott’s theory, but gravity as a force indeed doesn’t exist. That’s a classical physics concept.

For the last century, the accepted theory is that gravity is indeed not a force but a manifestation of the space-time curvature. That’s one of the main points of general relativity.

>>wtcact+s81
My physics is very rusty and very basic, but I don't think classical physics said gravity was a force either. eg in Newton's 2nd law or engineering mechanics, gravity is the "a" or the "g" not the "F".

>>antod+bh2
:) I see your confusion. But the F is caused by gravity there. The special case you are refering to (I think you are thinking about the Weight = g * mass of body) comes from a more universal expression.

If you look at the proper expression that calculates it's force, it becomes clear:

F = G * m1 * m2/ r^2 (so, gravity is the force between masses).

P.S. G is the universal constant of Gravity here, not the gravity itself.