Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

[eudoxus18]

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 might take it as a hole in the theory if you provide what's wrong with it. Sure the "curving" (not speeding up as you put it) is a weird concept, but the universe is an outstandingly strange place. All you do is say "its entirely erroneous" and expect us to believe that proves it wrong.<br /><br />And no K = GM I do not consider a hole in the theory. It's entirely consistent with it. OK, so Kepler knew what K was with knowing G or M. So what? Newton state it was the product of G and M; that doesn't show a hole in the theory, that simply elucidates it.

 

[eudoxus18]

On a side note, just keep in mind this scrutiny is all part of the process of figuring out whether your theory works or not. Don't accuse the scientific community of being biased towards their own view of the cosmos and how much they "don't accept" new views.<br /><br />Most scientists aren't motivated by grant money; most truly just want to figure out what makes this universe tick. The reason they are "skeptical" and "unaccepting" of new views is exactly what keeps weird views like spontaneous generation and caloric from staying on too long. We shouldn't accept a theory unless it's true. So don't put on a martyr attitude of "Oh I know this wonderful secret of the universe but no one will accept it because it's just too weird." If your view truly is correct, it'll catch on eventually. Of course scientists will be skeptical at first, but they're just testing the theory to see if it works and can truly account for everything you say it does. Even Relativity didn't take very long to get accepted by most main-stream scientists.

 

[alokmohan]

The dialogue is confusing and unending for no cause.Simple thing gettig twisted.Crank?

 

[eudoxus18]

Someone didn't take their meds today. :S

 

[telfrow]

There's no need for that. Alokmohan is a valued SDC poster. His first language is not English. Please check his profile. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

Bonzelite's "expansion" does not even lead to the correct geometry for an orbit, let alone the right acceleration! Trash bag + Baseball

 

[Saiph]

derekmcd is right, and I'll throw another wrench into your "barrycenter wobble" idea.<br /><br /><br />First, with your expanding planets = gravity bit, there's no reason for the wobble (feeding into the fact that this hypothesis doesn't allow orbiting objects to complete a fully circular orbit).<br /><br />Second: The barrycenter wobble is <i>already</i> observed as a slight variation on the observed tides. The wobble creates a small decrease in the "near side" high tide, and a slight increase in the "far side" high tide. It does not account for the entirety of the tides, and creates, by itself, only one high tide. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

the bag and ball is no way describing orbits in expansion theory. go look outside at the moon and you will see how an orbit looks. your animated gif, though cute, is entirely incorrect. <br />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">So don't put on a martyr attitude of "Oh I know this wonderful secret of the universe but no one will accept it because it's just too weird." If your view truly is correct, it'll catch on eventually. Of course scientists will be skeptical at first, but they're just testing the theory to see if it works and can truly account for everything you say it does. Even Relativity didn't take very long to get accepted by most main-stream scientists.</font><br />no martyr attitude ever taken. i have no idea where you get that from. as i stated earlier, i don't care either way. things have a way of working themselves out in due course. i'm not up for some big prize money or promotion because of my posts on this hobbyist site. and some of the hostility is laughable. SDC is not material for a "matrydom cause." hardly.<br /><br />the mainstream ideas are in no time soon going away. even the most insane of the fringe knows this. many stories abound about radical ideas that went mainstream. there is always an uphill battle, a rejection, hostility towards it, and then, if it truly shows innovation, finally, it catches on and is lauded as the best thing in the world. the story is as old as the hills. <br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[derekmcd]

I do agree with you Bonz... With enough knowledge, technology, and time, holes and flaws can and will be found. I do believe that our resources for understanding the Universe far exceeds that of previous generations. With that said, I don't believe things we discover in the future will require a complete rewrite of what we currently know about cosmology and physics... certainly adjustments will be necessary. I don't think anything as extreme as realizing that the sun does not orbit the earth... something like that was a complete re-write. <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]

i agree with you. let it be shown for the record that bonzelite and derekmcd agreed on this night, about comments made in prior post <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[derekmcd]

No we didn't... <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]

really?

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I do believe that our resources for understanding the Universe far exceeds that of previous generations.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>than why our generation didn't produce at least as many advances as the previous one or two generations? How about generation that came up with relativity theories and quantum mechanics or the generation of Maxwell before that.<br /><br />Somehow it seems to me that our generation is at a standstill and things don't look too bright in near future given the current budding generation that flails about with universe like they have it for breakfast every day.<br /><br />I am not sure what resource you had in mind, technological or mind resources, only the latter could lead to anything as the former are just tools that in wrong hands won't lead us to anything much<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

I was joking, Bonz... I was going to argue a point that we didn't agree and attempt to explain it, but just left it as a one-liner. <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]

cool, i get it now. yes, we disagree on many points. but on the general blanketing point we pretty much agree <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />i think if everyone agreed on cosmological things, it would be pretty boring. and would not make fertile ground for innovations, regardless of how insane the premises may appear.

 

[derekmcd]

<i>Than why our generation didn't produce at least as many advances as the previous one or two generations? How about generation that came up with relativity theories and quantum mechanics or the generation of Maxwell before that.</i><br /><br />I would have to say because such profound discoveries as made by the likes of Einstein, Hiesenberg, Schroedinger, Maxwell, etc... are becoming less available. I'm not implying we have learned everything... far from it. Their works are now part of the resource pool that we work from. There really aren't that many big bombshell type discoveries that will throw physics on it head left to uncover. Technological resources allow us to experiment with these theories and essentially verify them. We now see things smaller and farther than ever before. A vast majority of new discoveries can be explained with prevailing theories. There quite simply aren't that many fundamental ideas, concepts or physical things that we can't explain with prevailing theories. <br /><br />Not sure if any of that makes sense... bit tired here, but that is what I was trying to say. <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>

 

[robnissen]

"There really aren't that many big bombshell type discoveries that will throw physics on it head left to uncover."<br /><br />I could not disagree more. For just one example, understanding and proving the existence of "dark energy" could definitely throw physics on its head. And that's something that noone even guessed at 10 years ago. The claim is that dark matter and dark energy comprise about 96% of the known universe. My guess is that our physics knowledge does not begin to even approach 4% of what a physicist will know in 3006. There is still virtually an infinite amount of things to be learned (although gravity not existing based on a continuous expansion of mass is certainly not one of them.)

 

[eudoxus18]

Another problem. Theoretically, (according to Bonze) two planets the same size would have the same "gravity", even if one is twice as dense as the other, because the radial acceleration must be the same. This creates a problem as black holes can be the size of a single marble, and a marble and a black hole (obviously) don't have the same gravitational pull.<br /><br />Further, this theory does not account for the accelerated expansion of the universe. This only states that objects themselves are expanding, which provides no force which causes these objects to accelerate from each other.<br /><br />lol I said I was done with this but I'm eating my words I guess. I must just be in a better mood or something.

 

[derekmcd]

<i>I could not disagree more. For just one example, understanding and proving the existence of "dark energy" could definitely throw physics on its head. </i><br /><br />I understand what you are saying. I never implied we are running out of discoveries... I stated <i> "I'm not implying we have learned everything... far from it.</i>"<br /><br />I guess is should try to define "throw physics on it's head" with a few examples:<br /><br />Galileo's Law of Falling Bodies.<br />Copernicus/Galileo "The earth orbits the sun"<br />Newton's Universal Law of Gravity<br />Einstien's Theories of Relativity<br />Hubble's Expansion<br /><br />One's that make you completely throw away text books or change the "common man's" perception. Dark matter/energy are merely ways to explain something that is observed. Although very profound if someday verified, these theories will fit quite snug with physics as we know it. I'm refering to new discoveries such as transferring information FTL, flaws major enough to completely dispell the BB theory, etc, etc... <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]

derek, you assume our current science has figured most of the basics out. moreover, dark matter is not observed. it's assumed. assumptions abound in science today. and they're paraded as fact. i would say 80% or more of what is considered a slam dunk in cosmology is actually unknown and far afield.

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I would have to say because such profound discoveries as made by the likes of Einstein, Hiesenberg, Schroedinger, Maxwell, etc... are becoming less available. I'm not implying we have learned everything... far from it. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> I think it appeared to be like that to the generations before those you name here did their work and the generations before them... It always seems like big exciting major discoveries (not necessarily upturning previous physics) are a thing of the past to current scientists. And its understandable that it should be so.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> There really aren't that many big bombshell type discoveries that will throw physics on it head left to uncover. [...] There quite simply aren't that many fundamental ideas, concepts or physical things that we can't explain with prevailing theories.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />For one, there is the unexplained infinitely fast transfer of something between two particles when they are in entangled state. There is still the old problem in QM how to explain particles that can interfere with themselves and all that relates to it. There is the phenomenon of particle spin (among other similar particle properties) that has so far no physical explanation. There is the still unexplained inertia of matter and there are gravitational waves that still remain to be confirmed - there is the potential revolution that it could bring into physics. There are those still puzzling quasars out there and those anomalously accelerating (decelerating) Pioneer probes and of course that dark matter and energy phenomenons, all those are potentially indicating something major to be found once we get to understand those phenomena even if most of them might seem like little blemishes and inconsequential to most folks nowadays. <br /><br />And to get really futuristic, we have no clue how men's mind works (I suspect the clue will <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Dark matter and dark energy are no doubt important things,as they make most of the Universe.We should really get all available data on them .

 

[arragon01]

In cosmology, dark matter refers to matter particles, of unknown composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation (light) to be detected directly, but whose presence may be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and galaxies. (Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter)

 

[arragon01]

Dark energy is,afterall, a hypothetical form of energy which permeates all of space. <br /><br />