Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

[eudoxus18]

And yes, centripetal force exists. Again this is provable, and using only definitions.<br /><br />FACT: Things can circle around other things: planets can orbit each other, electrons can orbit nuclei, a ball on a length of rope can orbit you if you spin it, you can turn your car around something.<br /><br />1. If A is circling around B, A is changing direction.<br />2. If A is changing direction, A is accelerating. (An acceleration is a change in either magnitude OR direction, or both).<br />3. If A is accelerating, A is experiencing a force.<br /><br />Whatever the force is in (3) is -defined- to be centripetal force. Defined this way, it is possible to -prove- that a centripetal force F is F = mv^2/r. I myself have seen the proof. However, it is extremely tedious and required geometry, trigonometry and calculus (er, well, and algebra too) and is extremely difficult to show using only text.<br /><br />Again, centripetal force can take many forms (I've named four several times) but they all work the same way.<br /><br />You can bob and weave and claim "you just have to see it this way" with words, but until you can prove my equations -wrong- AND produce your own -correct- equations, your theory holds no water.<br /><br />In order for the planets to orbit each other, there MUST be a centripetal force (by definition) and your expansion force CANNOT be it; it's in the exact wrong direction.

 

[eudoxus18]

Bonzelite, stop arguing with words. <i>Show me where my equations are wrong.</i><br /><br />And if centripetal force doesn't exist, how in the world can I swing a ball on a string around my head?<br /><br />And you still need to address what exactly is causing the radius vector function of sattelites to accelerate.

 

[eudoxus18]

And by the way, according to Einstein, this is how gravity works.<br /><br />Remember those marble tracks you used to play with as a kid? You'd drop a marble and it would go through all sorts of interesting loops and spirals.<br /><br />That is how gravity works, but on a fourth-dimensional scale. When mass is present it causes space to curve. Thus when an object comes nearby, it curves toward the other object, and spirals toward (like the marble does on the marble tracks). The more massive an object, the greater the force with which it attracts other objects. The exact relationship can be described by various equations, as I'm sure you know.<br /><br />So according to Einstein, gravity isn't a force in the same sense that the coulomb force is a force. Gravity is a result of the curving of space due to mass, like the marble spiraling down the hole. The more massive the object is (the steeper the slope) the faster another object will move towards the first object (the faster the marble will spiral down the hole).<br /><br />Now, this curving is on a 4-th dimensional scale, and us being 3-dimensional beings cannot "see" it, but the principle is the same. The "slope" in 4-dimensions is what causes objects to go "down the hole".<br /><br />Now why, you may ask, does mass cause space to curve? Well, we could ask the same question of you. Why does the expansion force exist?

 

[bonzelite]

your calculus is not applicable. you proved straight lines for a non-expansionary universe model. in due respect, your noble efforts to explain celestial mechanics is what is taught at university and practiced by the very people who reject such theories as the one i am debating. so listening to them for explanations will, of course, not ever mention anything near what i propose. for example, there is no curving of space due to mass. forget it. <br /><br />in the cosmos, there is only free-floating conditions. there is no action at a distance in the manner that gravity implies. there is only acceleration of objects and relative motions between these objects that expand. that is it. <br /><br />it is far simpler than any of the contradictory theories and math that you believe in. tomorrow i will work on feeding you some equations that you are asking for. and i understand your "god view" idea, ie, if someone could step out of this reality and witness "from afar" the expansion. technically, yes, there would be straight lines and only expanding matter seeking to touch other objects as things crowded together. but this is not what plays out in our experience <i>within it.</i> it does not play out literally this way because we are within it, and bodies in free-floating space seek to touch each other upon expansion. and the added relative motions between them prevents this from ultimately occurring. and this creates orbits. and things remain, to us, appearing the same size. yes, for illustrative diagramatic purposes, the "god view" will render straight lines in space. but this is not what actually happens. <br /><br />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />And if centripetal force doesn't exist, how in the world can I swing a ball on a string around my head? </font><br />it exists for the ball and string, indeed. if i mislead to imply it doesn't exist at all, then that is my apology. but i was talking about orbits. <br /><br />centripetal force it is <i>not equivalent to orbits.</i> again: centripetal force <i>does not exist for orbits.</i> orbits are purely geometric. specifically, the classic ball and string idea is not appropriate to explain orbital mechanics. <br /><br />some equations tomorrow. good night.

 

[eudoxus18]

in the cosmos, there is only free-floating conditions. there is no action at a distance in the manner that gravity implies. there is only acceleration of objects and relative motions between these objects that expand. that is it. <br /><br />it is far simpler than any of the contradictory theories and math that you believe in. tomorrow i will work on feeding you some equations that you are asking for. and i understand your "god view" idea, ie, if someone could step out of this reality and witness "from afar" the expansion. technically, yes, there would be straight lines and only expanding matter seeking to touch other objects as things crowded together. but this is not what plays out in our experience within it. it does not play out literally this way because we are within it, and bodies in free-floating space seek to touch each other upon expansion. and the added relative motions between them prevents this from ultimately occurring. and this creates orbits. and things remain, to us, appearing the same size. yes, for illustrative diagramatic purposes, the "god view" will render straight lines in space. but this is not what actually happens. <br /><br /><br /><br />I was simply trying to tell you what exactly the current view of gravity and celestial mechanics is. That was simply information for your benefit. More to the point, what "holes" are there in the current view? You've yet to list <i>any</i> of these.<br /><br />And if there is no force with action at distance, then free-floating objects in space are experiencing zero force (F = 0). <i>From that information alone</i> I proved using calculus that from a "God view" as you put it, the objects are moving in straight lines. Of course, we don't experience it because we are accelerating (in your view), I grant that.<br /><br />From now on I am using "absolutely" as, you put it, "from a God view" for simplicity.<br /><br />However, if from an absolute perspective, all free-floating objects in space are moving in straight l

 

[eudoxus18]

And by the way, there's still a HUGE problem with the conservation of energy. You claim the entire universe is expanding due to a constant force. Force applied through a distance is work, and energy is the ability to do work. Given that this is the entire UNIVERSE we're talking about, where is all this extra energy coming from?<br /><br />And by the way, gravity does no work on orbiting objects. In order for it to be work, the force must be in the same direction as the path, and gravity is perpendicular to the orbital path, therefore no energy is required to maintain orbits. "What about when an object falls to earth? Does gravity do work then?" Yes. The gravitational potential energy is turned into kinetic energy; being in orbit means no change in the magnitude of the velocity (obviously it's accelerating but its "speed" isn't changing) being in orbit means no change in kinetic energy.<br /><br />And you can't just say that when things are in orbit, they're velocity is balance by the expansion of the earth and expect us to believe it. That's like saying, "Draw a circular square. Come on. You can do it. Just draw a square, but make it <i>circular</i>, too." You can say that all you want, but the fact remains that it's impossible. That's what I mean by "skirting around the arguments with words".

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>the equation F=mv^2/R for centripetal force should never have been introduced into orbit equations ever.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Why not? And what do you propose to replace it?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>planetary oribts are not at all like this. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Then what are they like? You have not explained how orbits work; you have merely said that they do, and that gravity doesn't cause it. In fact, you are ignoring an awful lot of questions about your theory:<br /><br />* Why do slingshot maneuvers appear to accelerate an object when viewed from an outside point of view? How, indeed, can they appear to accelerate an unpowered object at all if no outside force is acting upon it? (The large mass used in a slingshot is, according to you, is expanding outwards at an accelerating rate. Therefore, the small object making its flyby should seem to slow down relative to the large mass, not speed up, because an observer on the large mass is accelerating towards it.)<br /><br />* Can you solve a three-body problem with your model?<br /><br />* Why do Lagrange points work?<br /><br />* How does an object orbiting the Earth get to see sunrise and sunset repeatedly (that is to say, why would an observer on the Sun see it appear to go around the Earth) if orbits are merely an illusion of relative motion? Your model explains why an observer on Earth sees a satellite orbit the Earth; it does not explain why an observer on Earth could also see a satellite orbit the Moon. The Apollo missions would not have worked; Apollo 8 would still be flying away out into deep space (until the expanding Earth and Moon catch up to it, naturally; as it isn't accelerating and the Earth and Moon are).<br /><br />* Why would an orbit expand along with the parent body if there is no force acting upon either?<br /><br />* Getting back to the last question I asked you (which you did answer, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

bonzelite is undisovered Einstein.Einstein was thought to be crank when propounded special theory of relativity.Hitory proved he is correct.We are to for bonzites turn.It may take years.Have patience .

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />And by the way, there's still a HUGE problem with the conservation of energy. You claim the entire universe is expanding due to a constant force. Force applied through a distance is work, and energy is the ability to do work. Given that this is the entire UNIVERSE we're talking about, where is all this extra energy coming from? <br /></font><br />good question. you just made a case against, too, an expanding universe that is <i>speeding up</i>. thanks for that, by the way. the expaning universe model that is "speeding up" that is accepted in official science today is a complete violation of conservation of energy. and is never explained. but blindy accepted by the masses. <br /><br />thanks for clarifying that. <br /><br />my premise assumes an infinite cosmos. no expansion of space. you must not have read my posts prior to your registration. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">no energy is required to maintain orbits.</font><br />that is another violation of the laws of physics. no energy is for free. you may believe that is true because, again, via "equations," there is no work function for orbits. so, then, the centripetal force idea is contradicted, as it requires much work to keep the string taught and that ball flying around there. try it and see how tired you get. but, yet, you've done not a lick of work? orbits are for free? yet are centripetal? that doesn't make any sense. but our physics for orbits is based upon these claims. <br /><br />insofar as mass relevant to orbits, for inertial reasons, that is fair game. knowledge of payload and fuel capacities are very relevant. but to actually insert a craft into an <i>orbit</i>, no such knowledge is necessary. <br /><br />i will restate it:<br /><br />v^2R/K<br /> <br />v = velcocity of planet<br />R = orbital radius of planet (distance from sun)<br />K = constant for all planets orbiting our sun = 1.325 X 10^20 [m^3/s^2]<br /><br />from this, the distance of orbiting craft can be deter

 

[eudoxus18]

The whole "expanding" universe that is accepted by some modern scientists is still considered fringe science. And they propose things like "dark energy" may be causing the acceleration, anyway.<br /><br />At this point, I'm unconvinced that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, because I'm not an evolutionist/big bang theorist like most scientists are today.<br /><br />Anyway, even if they accepted your model, they would still have this problem (of conservation of energy). The most recent, fully accepted theory of the universe is Einstein, and Einstein didn't even approach the subject of the "expanding universe". His theory does not have the problem of conservation of energy.<br /><br />I'm asking for holes in Einstein's theories, not super-string/11-dimensional theories we have being bandied about today.<br /><br />The reason why the rock on earth requires work to keep in "orbit" is because gravity keeps pulling it down. In that case, gravity is doing work by pulling the rock down, and thus it DOES require work to keep it up (However, the work IS being done against gravity, NOT the centripetal force of the rope). In space, gravity is the only force working, thus it requires no work.<br /><br />"v^2R/K <br /><br />v = velcocity of planet <br />R = orbital radius of planet (distance from sun) <br />K = constant for all planets orbiting our sun = 1.325 X 10^20 [m^3/s^2] "<br /><br />That can't possibly be correct. That expression (if you cancel units) doesn't work. The left side's units is the reciprocal of the right's.<br /><br />Bonzelite, I proved to you from <i>definitions</i> that when something circles around something else <i><b>there must be a centripetal force</b></i>. Stop going off into little tangents and show me where my proof is wrong. I also proved that if trajectories are always straight lines (which under your system they MUST be) then a rocket would never be able to reach the other side of the earth. <i><b>Tell me where my proof is fallacious</b></i>

 

[bonzelite]

v^2R/K is a typo. <br /><br />sorry. i meant v^2R=K. i posted this several posts ago, but you either ignored it or did not see it. the thread is very long by now. this is an equation used to calculate orbits. and it has been used years before Newton existed. it has been revised over and over to include a "force" of gravity that is not existing. or necessary. <br /> <br /><font color="yellow"> Stop going off into little tangents and show me where my proof is wrong. </font><br />i just proved it wrong w/above equation. i'm not going off on tangents or ducking to hide. you are not correct. and your claim that no work is done in orbits, when a force is introduced as gravity, is entirely misleading and incorrect. the ball and string idea as analagous to orbits is incorrect. gravity "force" was never needed to calculate orbits in the first place. <br /><br />at it's very basic level, the logic of gravitational force is flawed. <br />

 

[eudoxus18]

1. Given: Object A is circling around Object B. <br />2. If A is circling around B, it is constantly changing direction. <br />3. If A is constantly changing direction, it is accelerating (acceleration is change is either speed OR direction, or both) <br />4. If A is accelerating, A is experiencing a force. <br />5. This force -is defined to be- the centripetal force. That is, CF is -whatever- keeps something circling around something else.<br /><br />Bonzelite, tell me where my reasoning is flawed. You didn't "disprove" this with your equation. Your equation could very well be consistent with gravity. Here's how:<br /><br />According to current theory, when an object orbits something else in space, centripetal force in this case is gravity. So we equate the two.<br /><br />1. C = F<br />2. mv^2/r = GmM/r^2<br />3. v^2 = GM/r (m and r cancel)<br />4. rv^2 = GM<br /><br />So your K is just GM, where G is the universal gravitational constant and M is the mass of the object being orbited around. I even Googled "mass of sun" and multiplied it with G (which I happen to have memorized and programmed into my calculator) and I got the same number for your K. <i>Your equation is consistent with the current theory of gravity</i>, which of course means you most certainly didn't prove me wrong with it. <br /><br /><br />And about work, must I really explain it again? In order for a force to do work, it must in the same direction as the path. It can even be angled, too. When it's angled the work W is W = Fd cos(theta). But in the case of gravity and orbits, theta is 90, and cos90 is zero, thus no work is done by gravity to satellites in orbit (W = Fd cos90 = Fdx0 = 0).<br /><br />Again, when something is falling yes work is done by gravity. The gravitational potential energy is changed into kinetic energy (which is why a faling object speeds up as it falls). But while in orbit the gravitational potential energy is remaining the same, and thus kinetic energy for the satellite remains the

 

[bonzelite]

1. objects in space do not have <i>absolute momentum</i>, it is only relative.<br /><br />from 1, we can say that<br />2. all models we built about the motion of objects will then be <i>relative.</i><br /><br />via Newton's theory, we make an object go in a straight line and have it pulled internally by a force. but it is not going in a straight line. why? because absolute motion of matter is unknown. there is none. and the dynamic between the expansion and expanding matter causes orbit and "attraction."<br /><br />we do not know the real absolute motion of matter. according to Newton, this is a straight line. but this motion, added with the expansion of matter, causes orbits when an object approaches another one at the proper relative speed/direction. orbits are about relative motion.<br /><br />since everything expands, you will always see a curve motion between 2 objects in motion because they get closer together. so there is a "Natural Orbit effect." and an object will either "go toward one another" or "orbit around each other."<br /><br /><br />

 

[eudoxus18]

Given: F = 0 <br />1. F = ma(t) (Newton's 2nd Law, a(t) means acceleration as a function of time) <br />2. ma(t) = 0 (Substitution) <br />3. a(t) = 0 (Divide both sides by m) <br />4. v(t) = k (Integration with respect to time; this statement means the objects velocity as a function of time is some number, may be 2, 3, or a million but it's some number)<br /><br />In your model, yes something can travel in a straight line. In current theory, nothing will because every object in the universe will affect its trajectory through gravity. In your model, gravity doesn't exist, which means there's no force that's acting at a distance (through space) on an object in space. This means there is no force exerting on objects floating in space. If force is zero (F = ma = 0) then acceleration is zero (a = 0) and thus (if you integrate that equation), velocity is some constant (v = k). If velocity is constant, neither speed NOR direction is changing, and it is thus travelling in a straight line. <br /><br />"1. objects in space do not have absolute momentum, it is only relative. "<br /><br />Bonzelite, my proof is right here. <i>Show me where I went wrong.</i><br /><br />One of the premises of <i>your</i> theory is that objects in space experience no forces, they are just free-floating (F = 0). v(t) = k is a <i>direct</i> result of that statement. The proof is above. Where is the flawed reasoning? Go through and tell me "You integrated wrong" "This variable isn't there". If you can't, there is no flaw in it.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Bonzelite, tell me where my reasoning is flawed. You didn't "disprove" this with your equation. Your equation could very well be consistent with gravity. </font><br />that is my whole point. K has been supplanted by GM. and for what? it was not needed to begin with. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Your equation is consistent with the current theory of gravity, which of course means you most certainly didn't prove me wrong with it. </font><br />it proves a lot and my entire premise: i <i>exactly wanted to show you that very thing</i> --that it is absolutely consistent with current models-- where do you think the current theories derived from? thin air? <br /><br />they were <i>ripped off</i> and altered from an equation long ago that <i>absolutely did not need gravity to garner physical results.</i> you are only helping to elucidate my entire point. <br /><br />thanks. <br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

<i>that is my whole point. K has been supplanted by GM. and for what? it was not needed to begin with.</i><br /><br />Supplanted? No. Eudoxus' point is that with the sole exception of changing the constant to K from GM, you haven't replaced the GM. Only renamed it as K. <br /><br />my .02 cents. Back to your regularly scheduled debate. <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>

 

[eudoxus18]

. Given: Object A is circling around Object B. <br />2. If A is circling around B, it is constantly changing direction. <br />3. If A is constantly changing direction, it is accelerating (acceleration is change is either speed OR direction, or both) <br />4. If A is accelerating, A is experiencing a force. <br />5. This force -is defined to be- the centripetal force. That is, CF is -whatever- keeps something circling around something else. <br /><br />Furthermore, from this we know that orbits must have some centripetal force working on them. Your expansion force works in the wrong direction. Further, it doesn't work at a distance, and there -must- be some force that does in order for planets to stay in orbit (again this is provable by definition, see the proof above). What force is keeping those satellites up there? Don't say centripetal force "doesn't exist"; <i>the proof that it exists and must exist with orbits is above. If that proof is wrong, where is it wrong?</i>

 

[bonzelite]

Eudoxus, i am not disagreeing with you about centripetal force in general. your math is correct. i am not saying that it isn't. your math is actually excellent. can we agree on that? <br /><br />my disagreement is simply that a rock and string centripetal force is not analogous to planetary orbits in general. we can talk solely about that and nothing else and that would be an entire discussion (like this one). <br /><br />the K was replaced by GM. not the other way around. K was first. and it predicts orbits purely on geometric terms without the introduction of GM. you can say about your equations: "so why do they all work, then?" because they are built upon prior ones that did not introduce G or M. <br /><br />from v^2R=K , an orbit equation that pre-existed Newton and is purelly geometric, and from the cetripetal force equation F = mv^2/R, they created this (substituting v for sq rt of K/R):<br /><br />F = mK/R^2<br /><br />since there are actually 2 ojects in an orbit we can make:<br />F = m(sub)1 X m(sub)2/R^2 that became F =G(m1m2)/R^2 (the G constant added to make the units of "force" tenable).<br /><br />all for what? it was working fine without these tweaks. the results are exactly the same as if you were to stay with K, as you point out. <br /><br />

 

[eudoxus18]

my disagreement is simply that a rock and string centripetal force is not analogous to planetary orbits in general. we can talk solely about that and nothing else and that would be an entire discussion (like this one). <br /><br />My entire point is that the same thing is happening. You have a rock (A) circling around you (B). Therefore according to my proof, there is a centripetal force. You have earth (A) circling around the sun (B). Therefore according to my proof, there is a centripetal force. The premises of both situations are the same, and therefore the conclusion, that there is a centripetal force acting, must also be true for both of them. And your expansion force doesn't work, it's vector is in the exact wrong direction. The expansion force vector points out from a circle, the centripetal force vector MUST point in.

 

[derekmcd]

Bonz... the unanswered questions are piling up on ya <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. I've got another for ya. <br /><br />Explain how the earth can have 2 simultaneous rising tides on opposite sides. <br /><br />I know i'm digressing to a previous thread we had this discussion, but I don't believe we ever finished. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

yes, this is a vast area to take on. basically, every major component of celestial mechanics must have a viable alternative explanation. i'm not done, mind you. this is a <i>theory.</i> and it requires much investment of time to explain it. i will come around to most issues in due course. there are others who support this theory, by the way. i am sort of elaborating upon it. http://geocities.com/mileswmathis/third.html<br /><br />about tides, i have answered that many times prior. it's the wobble of the earth/moon's barycentre of mass. it's geometric. not gravitional. i will get to the other questions as i can. this thread has become a good bulk of my time for the past few days <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />i'm looking into the lagrange point question, too. as that is very interesting. but don't worry. i've seen threads go to like 50 pages. i'm working right now, so i may not be on anymore tonight or tomorrow <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> i'm taking this in good stride because, if you've been taking some of my points seriously, there are huge contradictions in standard theory. it is by no means airtight.

 

[eudoxus18]

I've read over some of your website there. It seems to me what happened is you learned something in high school chemistry or physics, and when you had a question because something didn't quite line up, and instead of investigating what the answer could be, you concluded the theory was "wrong" and began creating your own theory.<br /><br />I have better things to do than this, so here's some things Bonz needs to do.<br /><br />1. Explain what force is causing satellites to accelerate outwardly.<br />2. Show where my proof of centripetal force is incorrect.<br />3. Show where my proof that "from a God view" all trajectories are perfectly linear, and thus rockets should never be able to reach the other side of the planet.<br />4. Point out "holes" in Einstein's theory (all "holes" you've pointed out so far were actually consistent with the theory)<br /><br />I've seen many an upstart physicist or mathematician produce a 6-line proof that would theoretically undermine all of mathematics. They say mathematicians have been making the same mistake for centuries when in fact this new mathematician is in fact making a far more elementary mistake than he supposes mathematicians of years past have been making. Guys like that are a dime a dozen.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />I've read over some of your website there. It seems to me what happened is you learned something in high school chemistry or physics, and when you had a question because something didn't quite line up, and instead of investigating what the answer could be, you concluded the theory was "wrong" and began creating your own theory. </font><br />i began to realize that many things that are taken for granted as true do not jibe upon closer scrutiny. not all of it is wrong. but i can tell you, the rock and string analogy for orbits is not correct. if anything, it's more like a rock and rubber band. but that is not even correct either, but is closer. yet nobody mentions that. and you will not give any credence to K being far preceding of GM, working nicely without any concept of gravity. yet that is not a hole in theory? or something to take note of? even by seasoned professionals? <br /><br />similarly, as i've said, the speeding up of "spacetime" is entirely erroneous. that is not a hole in theory? yet this premise is embraced as a standard of judgement and a springboard in official theoretical physics circles. <br /><br />i have better things to do as well than take valuable time to posit theories on a hobbyist site that is largely unaccepting of anything but the official "word." but it's interesting to do, and so i will continue posting and face being attacked from all sides. because, really, i don't care one way or the other. nobody here knows the actual hows or whys of the cosmos. and it is of primary arrogance and myopia to assume otherwise. <br /><br />

 

[derekmcd]

<i>about tides, i have answered that many times prior. it's the wobble of the earth/moon's barycentre of mass.</i><br /><br />That's the answer I knew you would offer. IIRC, you used the term "sloshing". My contention is that this can only account for 1 high tide using your theory. The lack of centripital force (centrifugal force some might say) can not possibly create 2 simultaneous high tides. Take a bucket of water and "rotate" it around where a barycenter might be in a 2 body system and you will see what I mean. The GIF I attached below might help you visualize it, too... note that the high tide (under your theory) would be on the opposite side of the moon and low tide would be nearest the moon. This is not what is observed in reality... There are 2 simultaneous high tides on opposite sides of the earth closest to and farthest from the moon. <br /><br />Again, I ask... how do you account for this under your "gravity doesn't exist" theory? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>