Yes but to the absolute extreme.
OK, why does God exist?
Hmmm, that’s a very good question Zen. I think that metaphor illustrates my problem. If I ask Why does gravity exist, it necessitates either 1. a gradeous mechanical process which adheres to a set of rules (say some infinite mathematical proof) or 2. God. But in both instances I’ve skewed the answer because I’m looking for something that may or may not be there. Thereby I’ve asked a biased question. Interesting. It all comes down to “Why am I here”, which only one of two answers, either 1. God has a “plan for me” or however that logic goes or 2. Just because (call it the randomness of being.)
I guess I’ve answered the other question that’s been bugging me, that is “are there really any stupid questions?”
It works because if it didn’t, the universe would fall apart. Duh.
Ahem,
Gravity works because his woman gets really twitchy if he sits around the house all day and gets in the way of her vacuuming and ironing. Also brings home some money to spend on stuff the grandkids dont need.
where does the molecular force figure into gravity? I thought gravity was the magnification of the molecular force and that was why denser objects had more specific gravity than less-dense objects.
by the way, i was a business major, so go easy on me! 
Because if it didn’t, planning a sit-down meal for twelve would be considerably more difficult.
There are a lot of theories for why the Universe is exactly as it is (most of them relating to matters more fundamental than gravity, such as the value of the fine structure constant and the exact charge on an electron). Stephen Hawking explores such questions in his books, which border on philosophy at times (since the ‘why’ of it really is beyond physics). A simple theory, proposed numerous times, is that things are the way they are because if they were different, we wouldn’t be here to ask about them. This is the ‘Anthropic Principle,’ and it’s basically an appeal to the basic randomness of the Universe: If things had chanced to go differently, humans wouldn’t have evolved (probably), so we wouldn’t be here to ask interesting questions. I like it: It does not call up ill-defined (and often logically inconsistent) ‘deities’ or other entities for which there is no empirical evidence.
>>I can see that massive objects on the sheet deform it more than little ones, but the fact that a passing object rolls into the depression relies on gravity; the analogy is recursive.<<
No, the analogy is inadequate, especially if you do it in real life. Real life involves gravity, so of course you’re going to see gravity working.
What the analagy is supposed to show you is the smaller ball’s path curving around the bigger ball because “space” (the rubber sheet) is ITSELF curved.
So what would normally travel in a straight line, through “straight” space, is now traveling in a curved line, through "curved’ space.
So?
You open an 11 year old thread to post “so?”
[moderating]
Since there’s nothing of value being added to this decade-old thread, I’m closing it. Please feel free to start a new one if you have something else to say on the subject.
[/moderating]