>>4954257I don't think you've thought this through. Lets imagine that Newton's laws are false, that gravity is not an equal and opposite force, and that the bread does not attract the earth, it is only the earth that attracts the bread.
Lets extrapolate. We know that the earth attracts the moon. Your claim is that small things do not attract big things, only big things attract small things.
We can go in one of two directions: Either it is always the bigger thing that attracts the smaller thing, or we can assume that there is some critical mass, below which, an object is not capable of generating attraction.
Lets try the first hypothesis, that only the bigger thing attracts the smaller thing. Right out of the gate, this is disproven by the observations of the tides, we can measure and reliably predict the tides based on the motion of the moon, so this idea goes out the window.
Now, lets think about the idea that there's a cutoff mass. There's a problem though: What constitutes an object? If we call that cutoff mass "M", and we have an object that is 1.5M, and we break it in half, does it stop generating attraction? When? How does the universe "Know" when its now two separate objects that aren't massive enough to attract things? Keep in mind that an "object" is just a human construct, to differentiate between things at a scale that is relevant to us.
The only idea that matches observation is that all things generate attraction, no matter how small, and that attraction is equal between two objects, its merely the effect of that attraction that is unbalanced.
