This is why I quoted Laplace because his scientific method did not need a supernatural power to explain laws of astronomy. But again, it is very tempting to invoke such power when one cannot understand things especially when one cannot "feel and touch" them and a lot of proofs are indirect and abstract.
Yes... gravity is quite an interesting animal, isn't it?
I remember one physics teacher i had put
F = ma
up on the board and called it "mother". Not just because of the 'ma' pun... but because it was one of physics' fundamental laws.
So for Newton, gravity was a force (like a string perhaps) pulling on the apple. When the stem became weak, that force "pulled" the apple to the ground. Sure seems that way, doesn't it? But -- in Newton's universe -- time was always a constant (and unalterable) entity. And since the velocity of the apple was so slow (compared to "light"), everything appeared precisely right (mathematically).
Then along comes Einstein. What was gravity doing to the apple? Merely (mysteriously) pulling like some invisible string on its mass? No, more than that. Gravity was warping the **time** component of the space-time field between Earth and the apple, and thusdirectingthe apple'sfuturein space. That's some heavy $#!+.
We have all the equations, and we can synthesize and manipulate electromagnetic waves until we're blue in the face. But not so with gravitational forces (other than taking some mass and accelerating it). Why can't *we* build a UFO saucer?
--
[i guess the upshot of all that is: formulas are one thing... while actual knowledge, understanding, reasons and "explanations" are another.]
