Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

[tj50]

I'd be grateful if anyone can state who's regarded as the inventor - creator of the Theory of Gravity. I assume that it's Isaac Newton, but am unsure if that's correct, or if Nikola Tesla is the more correct answer.

 

[qso1]

No one would be the inventor of gravity since gravity has always been. Sir Isaac Newton was the person who best described what gravity is and therefore is widely credited as the discoverer of gravity although some before him speculated on what they believed gravity to be.<br /><br />http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity<br /><br />http://www.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[superluminal]

Gravity is mass and acceleration.<br /><br />The Earth is always rolling and pushing up beneath us, plus it's traveling in orbit and moving around our star which is also traveling around the center of Milky Way which is accelerating away from the center of the original big bang.<br /><br />My question is.... Is it possible to ascertain the exact speed of Planet Earths total surface speed traveling through the universe and away from the big bang point? We know the weight of Earth, how could one discern the exact total speed? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Columbia and Challenger </font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Starships of Heroes</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Superluminal:<br />My question is.... Is it possible to ascertain the exact speed of Planet Earths total surface speed traveling through the universe and away from the big bang point? We know the weight of Earth, how could one discern the exact total speed?<br /><br />Me:<br />We know the earth travels around the sun at approximately 66,000 mph (106,217 kph) and the sun travels around the galaxy at 485,291 mph (781,000 kph) if I calculated the Wiki figures (217 km/s) right. <br /><br />which means all speed measurements are relative. The earths 66,000 mph is relative to the sun and so on. Our milky way galaxy does not orbit anything larger that we know of so pinning down an absolute velocity is probably the stuff of cosmologists calculations and I'm not sure they know.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[doubletruncation]

<font color="yellow">Is it possible to ascertain the exact speed of Planet Earths total surface speed traveling through the universe and away from the big bang point? We know the weight of Earth, how could one discern the exact total speed?</font><br /><br />First note that the big bang is not a point in space from which everything is moving away. The big bang occurred everywhere. In an expanding universe the distances between galaxies (on a very large scale) increases, which you can think of as saying that the density of space decreases. If you go back in time the density is higher and the temperature is also higher, at some point the universe would have been so hot that no electron could be bound to atoms, further back it would have been so hot that the protons and neutrons in nuclei would not be bonded together, further back the quarks would not have been bound up in the protons and neutrons. At some point the density of the universe would have been so high and the temperature so hot that we have no idea what physics happens then, so we really don't have a good idea of what the universe would have been like before that. The big bang (which is a terrible name I think, it really is just the "hot/dense early universe") occurred everywhere. From any person's perspective it is the rest of the universe that is flying away from them now, from that person's perspective they aren't moving anywhere.<br /><br />Having said that, we can still measure our velocities relative to other things (and on the local scale the velocity is not just everything moving away from us according to Hubble's law, nearby things can move in all sorts of funny ways relative to us). That is to say, you measure the velocity of something else relative to us - you can then try to understand all those velocities by making a model in which we might actually be moving. An example is if you're on a merry-go-round - from your perspective it looks like everyone else is moving around in a funny <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[robnissen]

"Our milky way galaxy does not orbit anything larger that we know of" <br /><br />I thought the best guess (granted it has not been proven) is that the Local Group is gravitationally bound and orbiting something (a central point?).

 

[bonzelite]

there is no big bang. there is no gravity. both assumptions <i>in my opinion</i> contain vast oversights of perception. Newton is an intelligent person bound by myopia, as are those fully buying into him hook, line, and sinker. gravity is a PT Barnum house of mirrors; the bb a fantasy couched in delusion buttressed by expert opinions of the official word. <br /><br />

 

[superluminal]

Is it possible to ascertain the exact speed of Planet Earths total surface speed traveling through the universe and away from the big bang point? We know the mass of Earth, how could one discern the exact total speed? <br /><br />First note that the big bang is not a point in space from which everything is moving away. The big bang occurred everywhere. In an expanding universe the distances between galaxies (on a very large scale) increases, which you can think of as saying that the density of space decreases. If you go back in time the density is higher and the temperature is also higher, at some point the universe would have been so hot that no electron could be bound to atoms, further back it would have been so hot that the protons and neutrons in nuclei would not be bonded together, further back the quarks would not have been bound up in the protons and neutrons. At some point the density of the universe would have been so high and the temperature so hot that we have no idea what physics happens then, so we really don't have a good idea of what the universe would have been like before that. The big bang (which is a terrible name I think, it really is just the "hot/dense early universe") occurred everywhere. From any person's perspective it is the rest of the universe that is flying away from them now, from that person's perspective they aren't moving anywhere. <br /><br />Having said that, we can still measure our velocities relative to other things (and on the local scale the velocity is not just everything moving away from us according to Hubble's law, nearby things can move in all sorts of funny ways relative to us). That is to say, you measure the velocity of something else relative to us - you can then try to understand all those velocities by making a model in which we might actually be moving. An example is if you're on a merry-go-round - from your perspective it looks like everyone else is moving around in a funny way, but you can make a simple picture of it <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Columbia and Challenger </font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Starships of Heroes</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"> If you look out farther you can measure the radial velocities of galaxies away or towards us by measuring their doppler shifts.</font><br /><br />you may have meant "recessional velocities." the <i>radial</i> velocities of galaxies as observed are flat from centre to edge --further showing the slippery slope self-contradictory theory of gravity that everyone thinks is "true." <br /><br />hello, PT Barnum, the master of the circus act. step right this way to dark matter and Newton. step right up to the house of delusion.

 

[doubletruncation]

I mean the radial, or line of sight, velocity averaged over the galaxy (nearby galaxies are not necessarily receding from us). This is a term used generically for the doppler shift. It's used in the sense of spherical coordinates centered on the observer. The radial velocity is the component of the galaxy's velocity vector that is along the vector connecting the observer with the galaxy. The other two components are the tangential velocities, which are much more difficult to measure since you actually have to see the motion of the object on the sky.<br /><br />I see that you are very confident that cosmologists are fooling themselves. If you have not done so yet, you may want to consider reading a few books such as Galactic Astronomy by Binney and Merrifield, Galactic Dynamics by Binney and Tremaine and Modern Cosmology by Dodelson - just so that we all know that you really understand what it is that you're so confidently critical of. If you've already done so, then I think we can talk. <br /><br />That's not to say that cosmologists are necessarily correct - I just don't think it's as clear of a "PT Barnum" case that you're implying. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[doubletruncation]

<font color="yellow">First<br />Wouldn't it be remarkable, if the total of all these speeds, was 186,282 miles traveled away from a zero point in space in one seconds time?<br />In relation to what though? A zero point?<br />How would one ascertain a zero point?<br /><br />By a zero point I mean, to figure an exact still pin point that the solar system, galaxy and universe existed at or passed by one second ago.</font><br /><br />An interesting idea, but I guess I'm not sure how you would tell what that "still point" is. Velocity is a relative thing, so in some sense, anyone can say that they are at rest and everything else is moving. You could view things from a frame of reference in which the Earth and everything else is moving at nearly light speed (moving actually at light speed would be a problem) - but it would be a funny model that would be difficult to work with. The frame of reference that you choose to view things in is really the one that's best suited for modeling. On a cosmological scale that seems to be a reference frame in which the cosmic microwave background looks as uniform as possible in all directions. The reason is that in that reference frame the average velocity of all things on a cosmological scale (minus the hubble expansion) is 0 (we think). In that reference frame the Earth would be moving at several hundred kilometers per second, well shy of the speed of light. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">If you have not done so yet, you may want to consider reading a few books such as Galactic Astronomy by Binney and Merrifield, Galactic Dynamics by Binney and Tremaine and Modern Cosmology by Dodelson - just so that we all know that you really understand what it is that you're so confidently critical of. If you've already done so, then I think we can talk. </font><br /><br />oh. really. yes, of course. <i>**ad hominem deleted**</i>

 

[doubletruncation]

Sorry I was condescending. I didn't mean to be snobby, but I can see that I came across that way. I'm just trying to say that there is a vast body of scholarship that has been developed over the last century that suggests, in my opinion, quite strongly that there was a hot big bang. I don't think this can be dismissed so easily. It may turn out to be wrong, but I think it's the best explanation of the many observations that exists at present. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

and i apologize for my sarcasm. <br /><br />you're a rare one here on SDC: you actually offered and apology and you do not hold so fast the belief of the big bang, despite official word. there is hope. there are miracles. <br /><br />in my opinion, mankind <i>in general</i> is not near knowing how the cosmos "got here." the BB is held in such high esteem (among many reasons) for largely the official theories of gravitation that make the BB "sensical." yet flat rotational velocities in galaxies --doesn't make any sense. and that is just the beginning. <br /><br />

 

[nova_explored]

hey bonz, <br /><br />actually flat rotational velocities make sense when we start adding in hawking's blackbody radiation for galactic centers - Massive blackholes and the like.<br /><br />which is why i'm still confused as to the need of dark matter in respect to this flat roational velocity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[superluminal]

Hi all<br /><br />returning to the discussing who invented the theory of gravity.<br /><br />I don't think one could possibly discern an individual person in history ( or the future ) that invented or created the theory of gravity.<br /><br /> Al-tho, I'm sure all here know the greats from whom shoulders we stand at this point in the time continuum.<br /> <br />The early Egyptians certainly understood about balancing huge mass obelisk on a center point and aligning them with true north, south, east and west.<br /> <br />About gravity.<br /><br />An identical sized styrofoam earth model would take up the same amount of space (volume) (in the void of space) than the real Planet Earth does.<br />The difference would be in its weight mass because of the density of compaction.<br /><br />Earth is (let's estimate) approx. 5.4 surface compaction density <br />The Styrofoam earth model compaction would be , (lets estimate) 1.4 of Earth's real mass and compaction.<br />1.4 is 5.4 divided by 3.14 or pi.<br /><br />Now bare with me please...<br /><br />Lets take the equation out side the other box and create an earth model (2547 miles in diameter) with a surface density of 16.956 at surface ( earth density times pi) ( 2547 is 8000/pi.)<br /><br />Now! all three planets models are journeying through space at the same speed as the real earth model with 5,4 surface density.<br /><br />The Styrofoam model and real Earth are the same volume. (approx. 8000 miles in diameter) but certainly different mass<br />The 16.596 compaction model earth is 2547 miles in diameter but has three times the gravity of the real earth and three times the mass as the real Earth does. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />According to what I assimilated from Brian Greene's, The Fabric of Space ,<br /><br />(If) all three models were traveling equal speeds <br />( whatever that speed is )<br />Their gravity would be determined by their mass weight and speed not by their volume.<br /><br />The point I'm trying to figure out here is t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Columbia and Challenger </font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Starships of Heroes</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

Superluminal says: <font color="yellow"> Gravity is mass and acceleration. </font><br /><br />No, it is not. It might be more appropriate to say that the effect of gravity is manifested as a function of mass under acceleration.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

doubletruncation says: <font color="yellow"> First note that the big bang is not a point in space from which everything is moving away. The big bang occurred everywhere. </font><br /><br />That is one hypothesis, not necessarily a correct one. IMO, matter expanded <i>into</i> space, spreading from a point. (Assuming there was a BB)<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

bonzelite says: <font color="yellow"> there is no big bang. there is no gravity. </font><br /><br />While the Big Bang is still a hypothesis, gravity is a fact. We can observe and measure its effect on mass.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Or, as John Archibald Wheeler once stated, "Mass tells space how to curve; space tells mass how to move."<br /><br />Now, this is specifically directed at Bonzelite: you keep saying continually, "I don't believe it." That's not a scientific debate - it's mere repetition.<br /><br />So, in as concise a way as possible, please inform us of what occurred to create the universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

After Penzias and Wilson finished cleaning the pigeon doots out of their microwave feedhorn, they confirmed their discovery of an all sky microwave glow. Something for which their paper on the phenoma recieved a Noble Prize in the early 70's.<br /><br />To date, BB remains the best explanation for their discovery under such humble beginnings.<br /><br />Scarecly seems fair for such a controversy (in some circles) to have been confirmed by the removal of pigeon residue. Surely someone has something more, shall we say, conspirial, to base the whole brouhaha on?<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

no, i'm well aware, with full-on sobriety, the CMBR. that is nothing new. <br /><br />i've heard it all before. however, the pigeon shiessen part is pretty damn funny.

 

[bonzelite]

this is correct:<br /><font color="yellow">the effect of gravity is manifested as a function of mass under acceleration. <br /></font><br /><br />now, the question is...........<br /><br /><b><i>how</i></b> is this mass being accelerated? <br /><br />let's explore that.

 

[mental_avenger]

Also note that Penzias and Wilson found that the background radiation is vibrating at 4080MHz. This is about 23 octaves above the note of B played a little flat. Not quite Bb, but B, flat. <br />BB echo = 486.37<br />B = 493.88<br />Bb = 466.16 <br /><br />Coincidentally, the letters used for the Big Bang are BB and for B-Flat are Bb. I don’t know how accurate their measurement was, perhaps the echo from the BB really is Bb.<br /><br />In addition, NASA’s Chandra X-Ray Observatory detected a pressure wave -- a sort of sound wave in space -- emitted by a super-massive black hole in the Perseus Galaxy Cluster. The frequency is about one cycle per 9.5 million years. The note is a deep bass B flat, 57 octaves below the B-flat above middle-C, and therefore far below the hearing range of humans.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

Is it a coincidence that most band trumpets are tuned to Bb? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>