Question The Truth Behind The Gravity In The Universe

[rayoob]

Researches always measured by logic and experiments, as a fact, humans build their results based on what they discovered and observed within their environment.

All the analysis’s built on what we learned and what the human brains can understand it, and this knowledge come from the place where we live, as in the same environment the humans and other Creatures are learning from each other and create a rules based on best practices and best results that they got from these practices. What we learn and practice in the Sea is differ than what we learn in the Desert, Jungle or on the Mountain, even countries are different from each other, every environment has its own rules, Creatures, plants, living style and culture

As a result, Space is so wide and every planet, star or any other object has its own rules, physics, chemistry and other sciences, as we cannot apply what we learned and practiced on the earth to another planet, star or space unless if the humans can live there and do the same learning path as what they did on the earth and come out with different sciences than what they produced on the earth. But human’s capabilities only allow him to learn from the place they Born and the events around him.

Gravity is what we feel it and what gives us the weight to live and move on the earth, so only the earth can produce that force to be stored in our bodies and make the balance of live on its surface and other atmosphere and inner layers. We can only apply the rules and physics what we discovered, tested and simulated.

As well for the SUN, it’s orbiting the earth to provide us the Light, the warm, the four seasons and other events, as it fit for that purpose. The Sun and the Moon are orbiting the earth at the same duration, degree and direction as provided by the recent science. So far, the gravitational theory of a consequence of the curvature of space time caused by the uneven distribution of mass and the theory that any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses are not valid. The planets including the earth will generate their own gravity with the consideration to the other physics factors on other planets.



For every theory there are always tangible evidences and events to proof that theory and what I mentioned above are based on events and related information’s connected to each other. I’ll be more than happy to discuss them P2P with any interested person, astronomy or physics scientist.

 

[COLGeek]

I am pretty sure that the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around.

 

[rod]

Wolfshadow et al. There is no gravity in the geocentric solar system of Claudius Ptolemy, Tycho Brahe et al. All taught the Sun moved around the Earth, just like the Moon. There is no gravity in flat earth teaching either. The Sun and Moon in flat earth teaching move in a circle near the *ends of the earth* that is a flat disk earth and moves in the same direction, always, i.e. no retrograde motion. The flat disk earth does not spin or move. The Sun and Moon are very close and no more than about 3,000 miles or so above the flat disk earth. In the geocentric solar system of Claudius Ptolemy and Tycho Brahe, the Sun was also very close to earth compared to the modern, heliocentric solar system measurement. In 1672, Cassini and Richer measured the Mars parallax using telescopes that showed the distance to Mars. In the 1700s and later, the solar parallax was measured using Venus and Mercury transits defining the astronomical unit. The lunar parallax was determined too using telescopes showing the distance from Earth to the Moon. The measurements support the heliocentric solar system motion for the Earth, Sun, and Moon.

 

[Helio]

As a result, Space is so wide and every planet, star or any other object has its own rules, physics, chemistry and other sciences, as we cannot apply what we learned and practiced on the earth to another planet, star or space unless if the humans can live there and do the same learning path as what they did on the earth and come out with different sciences than what they produced on the earth. But human’s capabilities only allow him to learn from the place they Born and the events around him.

Yet we were able to build spacecraft to put people on the Moon given that science was solid on how gravity works, how atmospheric friction works, the likely geological structure to land on, etc. That's where science shines; it's objective-based.

Gravity is what we feel it and what gives us the weight to live and move on the earth, so only the earth can produce that force to be stored in our bodies and make the balance of live on its surface and other atmosphere and inner layers. We can only apply the rules and physics what we discovered, tested and simulated.

But physics can be discovered and simulated that is based on visual evidence. Binary objects like stars, for instance, demonstrates that gravity works as it does here (inverse square law), as Galileo described.

 

[MadDokK]

I prefer to discuss things in the open so my facts can be checked by others. I'm no expert and don't want to give false information. Your hypothesis that physics and chemical reactions differ from planet to planet is interesting, but unproven. To say that gravity is different on earth would be a misconception. Our planet has different mass than other celestial objects, so inherently we expierence a different gravitational pull. While I say "gravitational pull," the effect is not two objects pulling each other. It's more that each object creates a bend in spacetime, causing the objects to "fall" down the slope of that bend. Forgive me if I'm butchering this explanation.

You're right that the conditions of other planets can be wildly different from our own. In our quest to recreate those conditions we have discovered things like metallic hydrogen; conductive metal in liquid form. This curious state has been hypothesized to exist in Jupiter before we even began to explore space.

<<Off topic comments removed by moderator.>>

 

[rod]

In post #1, "As a result, Space is so wide and every planet, star or any other object has its own rules...As well for the SUN, it’s orbiting the earth to provide us the Light..."

FYI, Measuring the size of space using the Sun moving around the Earth is an interesting idea. This indicates a geocentric view of astronomy where the Earth is not moving but the Sun is moving around the Earth. As a result, an Earth that does not move, will not show stellar parallax measurements for distances to the stars like in 1838, the star 61 Cygni. Thus we are back to the astronomy of Claudius Ptolemy for understanding the distance to the fixed stars, nothing like the heliocentric solar system where stellar parallax can be observed and measured, and a firmament, much smaller and closer

Okay, the firmament distances in Claudius Ptolemy geocentric astronomy - much smaller than stellar parallax like 61 Cygni found in 1838 and distance to that star, thus a universe with much smaller size, not a *Space is so wide*.

 

[Helio]

It may help to know that a modified Tychonic model is indistinguishable to our more heliocentric model. GR argues that there is no center, thus any point in space can be made to be a center. The problem, of course, comes in considerations for cause and effect. The massive Sun makes for a more attractive center, pun intended.

 

[rod]

Tycho Brahe taught that the Earth was immovable with the Sun and planets moving around the Earth. All the planets moved around the Sun and this system moved around the immovable Earth. In Tycho system, the star 61 Cygni in 1838 would not have a stellar parallax because the Earth did not move. In the Tycho Brahe system, the Sun was only about 1150 earth radii distance, not near 24,000 earth radii distance as the modern heliocentric solar system shows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit

Tycho Brahe attempted to refute Copernicus using the Mars parallax at opposition to show Mars was always farther from Earth than the Sun. This method failed, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JHA....29....1G/abstract, Tycho Brahe's Copernican campaign

While GR does not need a specific center, Kepler's laws of ellipses using Mars from Tycho Brahe campaign does and that is the Sun. I would suggest that stellar parallax requires this too for different stars with their parallaxes published, e.g. in 1838, 61 Cygni star. Measuring the solar parallax also requires this using Venus and Mercury transits, not an immovable Earth reference point.

 

[Helio]

Tycho Brahe taught that the Earth was immovable with the Sun and planets moving around the Earth. All the planets moved around the Sun and this system moved around the immovable Earth. In Tycho system, the star 61 Cygni in 1838 would not have a stellar parallax because the Earth did not move.

It is a little difficult to wrap all the models around our minds, but there would be the same parallax as we see today. The reason is that the Sun, as you mentioned, becomes the center of the Solar system, but it also is the center of the stars as well, so they too would slide back and forth, thus producing the parallax.

In the Tycho Brahe system, the Sun was only about 1150 earth radii distance, not near 24,000 earth radii distance as the modern heliocentric solar system shows.

Right but other modifications are required as well, including the adjustments for speed and eccentricity.

Tycho Brahe attempted to refute Copernicus using the Mars parallax at opposition to show Mars was always farther from Earth than the Sun. This method failed, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JHA....29....1G/abstract, Tycho Brahe's Copernican campaign.

That looks interesting, but I need time later to review it.

It is ironic that Tycho's remarkable astronomy (before the telescope) achieved as good as 1/2 arcminute resolution for Mars positions that served Kepler in arguing for Copernicus. Tycho was deceased by this time, however.

 

[rod]

Helio, perhaps some misconceptions about the validity and accuracy of the Tychonic system. Riccioli Measures the Stars: Observations of the telescopic disks of stars as evidence against Copernicus and Galileo in the middle of the 17th century, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1004.4034G/abstract, "...In the Almagestum Novum Riccioli uses these telescopically measured disks to determine the physical sizes of stars under both geocentric (or geo-heliocentric - Tychonic) and heliocentric (Copernican) hypotheses. The physical sizes obtained under the Copernican hypothesis are immense - dwarfing the Earth, the Sun, and the Earth's orbit; even exceeding the distances to the stars given by Tycho Brahe. Thus Riccioli felt that telescopic observations were an effective argument against the Copernican system."

The Copernicus system provided much larger stellar sizes compared to Tycho system and the fixed stars were only 20,000 earth radii distance in Tycho system, similar to Claudius Ptolemy. In the Tychonican system, because the fixed stars were calculated to be so much closer to Earth, closer than the astronomical unit of today, any stellar parallax observed would be much larger too than the 1838, 61 Cygni star measurement, as well as star sizes. Tycho argued strongly against Copernicus because of star distances implied and stellar sizes obtained. Of Mites and Men: Johannes Kepler on Stars and Size, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180203313G/abstract

Cleary the Tychonican system is very different than the heliocentric system and measurements found.

In other words, the Tycho geo-heilocentric system is still very different than the heliocentric solar system and we have very real differences in measurement too, including stellar parallaxes and star sizes Tycho was never able to measure the Mars parallax at opposition because Mars was much too far away from Earth than in the Tycho geo-heliocentric solar system. The Mars parallax came later in 1672 using better telescopes.

 

[rayoob]

Very interested comments received, but just need to have a close view of what is going around:

As stated at the beginning, things are evaluated by logic and practice, Earth gravity is an independent force generated by the earth itself only otherwise the earth will stay at instability condition as long it moves around, passing between the planets and asteroids around this giant mass which is the sun, if as it claimed the sea tide accrue due to the gravity of the moon, how we as human and other objects not get effected by external or the other gravities while we are moving in the space.

Simply, the earth has its own characteristics as well for the other planets, Mercury is egg-shaped orbit takes the planet as close as 29 million miles (47 million kilometers) and as far as 43 million miles (70 million kilometers) from the Sun, so based on general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915), which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of space time caused by the uneven distribution of mass. In this case we must orbit the Sun similarly with other planets, even the earth taking its own orbit shape as it claimed.

Again, we don’t have enough rules or physics to understand the universe, space is an endless science, every day we discover new thing and in the other day we correct what we discover. So when its end?

what we discovered on the earth is enough to understand the earth and the events around it, The sun is a star not rotating or causing any curves in this very light density space (dark matter) to drag all these heavy planets, so we have to simplify the things not to complicate it just to push our rules and physics.

Passing a distance 1KM between A and B, how we can proof that object A is moving to B and not B to A, same thing for the sun, how we can proof that not the sun moving around the earth, Just to push the parallax model to calculate the distance to stars, and the earth orbiting the sun same thing to push the gravity theory.

We need to work with tangible evidence not with assumptions, and we cannot push the gravitational theory by simulating a bunch of balls moving around on the trampoline.

 

[rod]

FYI folks. Kepler did not use *the gravitational theory* to show the planets and Earth moved around the Sun in an ellipse. 'From the epicycles of the Greeks to Kepler's ellipse - The breakdown of the circle paradigm', https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107009

"Johannes Kepler developed his three planetary laws of motion using planet observations of Tycho Brahe. "Kepler's First Law, presented in the 1609 treatise Astronomia Nova (The New Astronomy), states that a planet follows an elliptical orbit and that the Sun occupies one focus of the ellipse. The second focus is vacant. Kepler's Second Law,…explained how varying orbital velocities relate to varying distances of the planets from the Sun, the body which Kepler correctly suspected to physically control the planets.", Governing the Planets, Sky & Telescope 138(2):58-62, 2019, August 2019 issue.

One of the arguments used by the geocentric teachers in the time of Copernicus and Galileo to argue against the heliocentric solar system, if the Earth was moving, the Moon moving around the Earth would be left behind as the Earth continued to move (MS WWT teaching video, Galileo's New Order). Galileo showed that at Jupiter, this clearly did not take place with his telescope observations of the 4 Galilean moons. Jupiter moved relative to the fixed stars yet the tiny lights continued to move around Jupiter and did not get left behind Newton's gravitational theory came later and explains nicely along with elliptical orbits the events observed at Jupiter featuring Galilean moon eclipses, transits, etc., all very observable using telescopes and all very predictable and testable.

 

[Helio]

Helio, perhaps some misconceptions about the validity and accuracy of the Tychonic system. Riccioli Measures the Stars: Observations of the telescopic disks of stars as evidence against Copernicus and Galileo in the middle of the 17th century, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1004.4034G/abstract, "...In the Almagestum Novum Riccioli uses these telescopically measured disks to determine the physical sizes of stars under both geocentric (or geo-heliocentric - Tychonic) and heliocentric (Copernican) hypotheses. The physical sizes obtained under the Copernican hypothesis are immense - dwarfing the Earth, the Sun, and the Earth's orbit; even exceeding the distances to the stars given by Tycho Brahe. Thus Riccioli felt that telescopic observations were an effective argument against the Copernican system."

The 1 arc-minute resolution of the eye wasn't recognized, surprisingly, in earlier times. The apparent disk appearance of stars indicated they were much closer to us than they should be if Earth orbits the Sun.

Here are some other reasons against Copernicus's model:

• Wind. A fast rotating Earth (~ 1000 mph at equator), would cause incredible winds, and all to the west.
• Free-falling objects would fall a little to the west as the Earth slides under it.
• The lack of parallax would require absurd distances to them. [Why would God do that? IOW, teleology played a key role.]
• All things are known to fall toward the center of the Earth. But orbits around the Sun would shift those motions toward the c.g. of the solar system instead.
• Direct observations show the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West. The simple view is usually the best.

Here is a fun blog that articulates these views and more:
The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown

In other words, the Tycho geo-heilocentric system is still very different than the heliocentric solar system and we have very real differences in measurement too, including stellar parallaxes and star sizes

The Tycho model, however, can be modified to "fit the appearances". It simply changing the reference frame to Earth as in any other kinematic model. The key point is that the modifications are such that they reproduce eccentricities, etc. Physicists call those weird forces needed to accomplish weird motions, as in a Geocentric model, "fictitious forces".

There was a U. of Texas prof. that produced a paper demonstrating that, using today's distance values, etc., that even the Ptolemaic model could be surprisingly accurate with only about 9 or so deferents and epicycles total, IIRC.

The big advantage for the heliocentric model of Copernicus is that it was more a model of physics because of its unification of forces, etc. Ptolemy was only interested a mathematical model to predict planetary locations in the future for calendar use and astrology, which was needed also for doctors.

The model required a lot of table updates. Coperniucs, I suspect, felt this weakness was worth thinking about a better model. Cop also translated some early Greek works and learned about those Greeks who favored a Sun-centered model. [He mentions some of them in his Revolutionibus book.] So, it was likely a combination of things that pushed him to write his book. Some pushing came from the clergy who liked what they saw.

 

[Helio]

One of the arguments used by the geocentric teachers in the time of Copernicus and Galileo to argue against the heliocentric solar system, if the Earth was moving, the Moon moving around the Earth would be left behind as the Earth continued to move (MS WWT teaching video, Galileo's New Order). Galileo showed that at Jupiter, this clearly did not take place with his telescope observations of the 4 Galilean moons.

Yes, that was objective evidence against that hypothesis. His earlier observations of the Moon, which he noted had mountains, etc., may have been as damaging since heavenly bodies were deemed to be perfect and not of this diminished world.

Jupiter moved relative to the fixed stars yet the tiny lights continued to move around Jupiter and did not get left behind Newton's gravitational theory came later and explains nicely along with elliptical orbits the events observed at Jupiter featuring Galilean moon eclipses, transits, etc., all very observable using telescopes and all very predictable and testable.

Yep. Today we, of course, can take it much further. Using quasars for fixed references, the moment-to-moment changes in the rate the Earth rotates -- due to things like air mass movements, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc, in tens of milliseconds -- makes for a strong argument that the tiny Earth is the body that changes in its rotation rate rather than the entire universe changing in rate and for no apparent reason.

 

[rayoob]

FYI folks. Kepler did not use *the gravitational theory* to show the planets and Earth moved around the Sun in an ellipse. 'From the epicycles of the Greeks to Kepler's ellipse - The breakdown of the circle paradigm', https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107009

"Johannes Kepler developed his three planetary laws of motion using planet observations of Tycho Brahe. "Kepler's First Law, presented in the 1609 treatise Astronomia Nova (The New Astronomy), states that a planet follows an elliptical orbit and that the Sun occupies one focus of the ellipse. The second focus is vacant. Kepler's Second Law,…explained how varying orbital velocities relate to varying distances of the planets from the Sun, the body which Kepler correctly suspected to physically control the planets.", Governing the Planets, Sky & Telescope 138(2):58-62, 2019, August 2019 issue.

One of the arguments used by the geocentric teachers in the time of Copernicus and Galileo to argue against the heliocentric solar system, if the Earth was moving, the Moon moving around the Earth would be left behind as the Earth continued to move (MS WWT teaching video, Galileo's New Order). Galileo showed that at Jupiter, this clearly did not take place with his telescope observations of the 4 Galilean moons. Jupiter moved relative to the fixed stars yet the tiny lights continued to move around Jupiter and did not get left behind Newton's gravitational theory came later and explains nicely along with elliptical orbits the events observed at Jupiter featuring Galilean moon eclipses, transits, etc., all very observable using telescopes and all very predictable and testable.

Interested information’s, although i didn’t revert much back to the history in my research but its a logical concept when using standard and best practices method in doing any research and that why these scientists are much closer to the facts than the others in the modern ERA.

 

[rod]

FYI folks. If you use quality telescopes, you can observe the heliocentric solar system in motion. Tossing out gravity and the constant, G makes for an interesting approach to explain telescope observations today as well as tossing out the heliocentric solar system model using elliptical orbits centered on the Sun. When I use my 10-inch Newtonian, I can see 5 moons as tiny lights at Saturn. As Saturn slowly changes its position in the sky, those 5 lights stay with Saturn and change their position relative to Saturn as well as the ring system remains with Saturn. None get left behind as Saturn moves Jupiter is much closer to Earth so telescope views show how quickly those moons move around Jupiter, in a three hour period or so of observing, very fast Galilean moon changes at Jupiter as well as Great Red Spot movement across Jupiter's face is easy to observe in the eyepiece Mars as it approaches opposition like this year in October, undergoes dramatic differences in visible surface areas and surface illumination, and Mars arcsecond measure increases, more and more. Same for Venus as it undergoes dramatic differences in angular size and illumination, all very testable and visible in good telescope eyepieces.

On 12-May this year, Mars was about 8 arcsecond size, fainter and now it is some 18 arcsecond size with much more surface area visible in telescope views as well as surface area illumination changes and much brighter in the sky too. The small, angular size changes in Mars and surface detail differences that modern telescopes show is something that Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, and Kepler did not see. Modern astronomy software like Stellarium, Starry Night, Sky Safari, will generate planetary ephemerides for use showing the details and differences using the modern, heliocentric solar system model. Such software also generates simulation views of Mars for example showing the surface areas visible in your telescope when viewing.

 

[rayoob]

FYI folks. If you use quality telescopes, you can observe the heliocentric solar system in motion. Tossing out gravity and the constant, G makes for an interesting approach to explain telescope observations today as well as tossing out the heliocentric solar system model using elliptical orbits centered on the Sun. When I use my 10-inch Newtonian, I can see 5 moons as tiny lights at Saturn. As Saturn slowly changes its position in the sky, those 5 lights stay with Saturn and change their position relative to Saturn as well as the ring system remains with Saturn. None get left behind as Saturn moves Jupiter is much closer to Earth so telescope views show how quickly those moons move around Jupiter, in a three hour period or so of observing, very fast Galilean moon changes at Jupiter as well as Great Red Spot movement across Jupiter's face is easy to observe in the eyepiece Mars as it approaches opposition like this year in October, undergoes dramatic differences in visible surface areas and surface illumination, and Mars arcsecond measure increases, more and more. Same for Venus as it undergoes dramatic differences in angular size and illumination, all very testable and visible in good telescope eyepieces.

On 12-May this year, Mars was about 8 arcsecond size, fainter and now it is some 18 arcsecond size with much more surface area visible in telescope views as well as surface area illumination changes and much brighter in the sky too. The small, angular size changes in Mars and surface detail differences that modern telescopes show is something that Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, and Kepler did not see. Modern astronomy software like Stellarium, Starry Night, Sky Safari, will generate planetary ephemerides for use showing the details and differences using the modern, heliocentric solar system model. Such software also generates simulation views of Mars for example showing the surface areas visible in your telescope when viewing.

Exactly and this is where every planet has its own orbit, some of them are orbiting the earth with constant speed and move and some just pass near by and get closer to the earth, as the others planets only seen in summer and the other in winter after the sun set but they are all around us all the year but with different distant as per to their orbits

 

[Helio]

It was surprising to me that when I applied Ptolemy's epicycles to a circle, but picking the appropriate radii for both circles, just how close it came to the correct elliptical orbit. The problem was their insistence that the orbital motion be a fixed rate.

I think Kepler spent about 3 years struggling intently with finding the right solution to the remarkable data given him by Tycho. A little less effort by Tycho might have set things back decades, until the telescope could improve things.

 

[rod]

Helio et al. Some duplicated the Mars observations showing the planet moves in an ellipse around the Sun.

Demonstrating the Elliptical Orbit of Mars using Naked Eye Data, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161005750K/abstract

The abstract has some details and the 23 page, arXiv paper is available at the link too. It is interesting that the naked eye method used shows Mars moving in an ellipse and Earth is moving too, thus the heliocentric solar system where the Earth is moving around the Sun, along with Mars.

 

[rayoob]

Planets motions is subject to another theory as there are many questions up to now on how we can see some planets moving using the naked eye for observation.
But its not connected to any gravitational facts as our study focus if the earth orbiting the sun due to Gravity caused by the curve created by the sun, then we can build any other cosmic phenomenon based on the results of this theory. as strongly believe, they are not connected to each other.
I’d like to get some inputs for this matter focused mainly between the earth and the sun.

 

[Helio]

Helio et al. Some duplicated the Mars observations showing the planet moves in an ellipse around the Sun.

Demonstrating the Elliptical Orbit of Mars using Naked Eye Data, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161005750K/abstract

The abstract has some details and the 23 page, arXiv paper is available at the link too. It is interesting that the naked eye method used shows Mars moving in an ellipse and Earth is moving too, thus the heliocentric solar system where the Earth is moving around the Sun, along with Mars.

That's interesting. Notice you don't see much on Venus, which has a very circular orbit. I wonder if this was an impediment in getting away from that axiom?

 

[Helio]

Planets motions is subject to another theory as there are many questions up to now on how we can see some planets moving using the naked eye for observation.
But its not connected to any gravitational facts as our study focus if the earth orbiting the sun due to Gravity caused by the curve created by the sun, then we can build any other cosmic phenomenon based on the results of this theory. as strongly believe, they are not connected to each other.
I’d like to get some inputs for this matter focused mainly between the earth and the sun.

I'm a little unclear just what you are asking, but maybe this will help.

Gravity was addressed only a few times by Copernicus. But, like others, it only was considered applicable to Earth and not an "action at a distance". Kepler, however, did start to see the forest and not just the trees. He argued that tides were due to the Moon's gravity. Galileo involved the Sun for tides but tried to argue, but erroneously, that it proved the Copernicus model.

 

[rayoob]

I'm a little unclear just what you are asking, but maybe this will help.

Gravity was addressed only a few times by Copernicus. But, like others, it only was considered applicable to Earth and not an "action at a distance". Kepler, however, did start to see the forest and not just the trees. He argued that tides were due to the Moon's gravity. Galileo involved the Sun for tides but tried to argue, but erroneously, that it proved the Copernicus model.

How about Eienstine, how you can explain his theory with the one before him

 

[Helio]

How about Eienstine, how you can explain his theory with the one before him

Science progresses in steps. Kepler, through observations, produced the three laws of planetary motion, but they were mathematical, not physical explanations (physics).

Galileo, through experiments, developed the inverse square law for gravity and began to think of action at a distance.

Newton built on these and other's works to bring us his robust law for gravity, which included the gravitational constant. It was the first law that could be applied throughout the universe.

Einstein saw issues with the way physics worked in different reference frames. Finally, his General Relativity resolved those issues and gave new meaning to "gravity". But, the laws of Newton are plenty accurate unless traveling at speeds nearing that of light, or addressing regions of severe gravity (e.g. black holes). If extreme accuracy is needed for things like GPS satellites, then both GR and SR are required for those extra decimal places. Otherwise, Newton's law are the most practical physics, and they are what engineers are still taught.

 

[Stellarwest]

Wolfshadow et al. There is no gravity in the geocentric solar system of Claudius Ptolemy, Tycho Brahe et al. All taught the Sun moved around the Earth, just like the Moon. There is no gravity in flat earth teaching either. The Sun and Moon in flat earth teaching move in a circle near the *ends of the earth* that is a flat disk earth and moves in the same direction, always, i.e. no retrograde motion. The flat disk earth does not spin or move. The Sun and Moon are very close and no more than about 3,000 miles or so above the flat disk earth. In the geocentric solar system of Claudius Ptolemy and Tycho Brahe, the Sun was also very close to earth compared to the modern, heliocentric solar system measurement. In 1672, Cassini and Richer measured the Mars parallax using telescopes that showed the distance to Mars. In the 1700s and later, the solar parallax was measured using Venus and Mercury transits defining the astronomical unit. The lunar parallax was determined too using telescopes showing the distance from Earth to the Moon. The measurements support the heliocentric solar system motion for the Earth, Sun, and Moon.

Flat earthers would have a hard time over turning the coriolis effect. If we need evidence the earth is a sphere watch the video.

The case of Coriolis deflection on objects moving east and west is a little trickier since it depends on a slightly tougher concept and also on the fact that the object is confined to the surface of the sphere. In the absence of any constraint (such as gravity or the ground) the effect is much less noticeable.
https://stratus.ssec.wisc.edu/courses/gg101/coriolis/coriolis.html

View: https://youtu.be/pWc9SfwnSxM