Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

alokmohan · Jul 16, 2006

There should me more reseach.

eudoxus18 · Jul 16, 2006

I think this was said before, but every generation as a whole often believes everything in physics has been explained by them. Especially after giants like Newton and Einstein people think "Ok, we've figured everything out". However, here is a short list of things we still have yet to discover in science. This is stuff that has been researched but still needs lots more. Fully explaining genes and genetics (We only have 50 years worth of research in this; astronomy has been around since man looked up at the stars, and even the stuff in astronomy is still being questioned!) Cancer and many other forms of disease Brain chemistry Body chemistry of humans (we don't even know the proper dosage of a lot of nutrients! there's plenty in this field that isn't agreed upon) chaos (only 30 years here) Again this is a very short list. There's still plenty in science to be discovered. Don't ever think we've gotten everything figured out! Of course after all this you run into the problem of how much can science really explain? Godel achieved much of this for mathematics when he proved that no system in mathematics can be proved to be consistent with itself. This is very interesting as it casts absolutely every in mathematics and science in doubt (technically) but of course people tend to believe because it delivers good results. On a more metaphysical level, we still don't know (from a scientific perspective) what causes inspiration in mankind. How is it that Einstein came up with his ideas? What about every writer or composer that's existed? Again, questions like these begin bordering on what science can and can't answer. But anyways.

alokmohan · Jul 16, 2006

It is nobodys case that science has learnt every thing.On the contrary science is dialectic process. One time 1908 I think,it was thought that atoms are indivisible.With more reseach we saw there are so many things at subatomic level,electron,proton....particle physics.Science is not dogmatic.Theory of relativity was radilcally different treatment of science.It never closes the chapter.Always open to cricism.But there are some well established processes of scientific theory.One should be on the line.Experiment,observation,inference are pillars of science,not just thinkig without logic,without process.

derekmcd · Jul 17, 2006

you assume our current science has figured most of the basics out I'll avoid arguing semantics, however, in a nutshell, yes. Our ability to observe, experiment and verify is now at a level that doesn't leave a whole lot of room for error. Do they get it right all the time? Of course not. Sometimes things are not perfectly clear and are left to interpretation. moreover, dark matter is not observed. it's assumed. I fully understand it is not observed and never implied that. Nor is it assumed and paraded as fact. I would consider it more of an inference based observational evidence. i would say 80% or more of what is considered a slam dunk in cosmology is actually unknown and far afield. Now that's an assumption <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

derekmcd · Jul 17, 2006

I can't argue anything you said... I agree with you. 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. That statement was the basic premise of my original opinion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

bonzelite · Jul 17, 2006

Our ability to observe, experiment and verify is now at a level that doesn't leave a whole lot of room for error. dark matter is the 800lb gorrilla. it is the string once pulled that unravels the entire garmet of what is officially believed to be sound theories that make up what is believed to be true about the cosmos and celestial mechanics. this is no assumption.

CalliArcale · Jul 17, 2006

As a minor nitpick, dark matter certainely does exist -- by definition, it's nothing more material which does not emit electromagnetic radiation and is thus very hard to detect. This includes material which can be detected by the shadow it casts. So where is the controversy? The question isn't whether dark matter exists. It definitely does. The question is whether it can exist in sufficient quantities to explain the curious fact that galaxies move in a way inconsistent with the mass that can be estimated from their EM output (light, radio, infrared, x-ray, etc). And it's only *cold* dark matter that definitely exists. For there to be that much missing mass, scientists expect that some of it must be hot. And that's harder to get one's head around. If gravity is false, then it is possible that the unaccounted-for dark matter is not required to explain galactic rotation. However, I don't think expansion is up to the task of explaining that anomalous rotation. Unfortunately, the math and physics for galactic rotation is sufficiently beyond me that I don't think I can be of much help in clarifying that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Jul 17, 2006

As a minor nitpick, dark matter certainely does exist -- by definition, it's nothing more material which does not emit electromagnetic radiation and is thus very hard to detect. This includes material which can be detected by the shadow it casts. calli, dark matter is presumed to exist. it cannot be detected by any means. the absence of alleged matter that "should be there" is a relfection of an error in standard theory and not confirmation of it, nor confirmation of such missing matter. dark matter is a science-babble to cover the real issue of the incorrect models for celestial mechanics that are held as axioms. it is not a matter of mere "tweaks" to standard theory and then "we're ok." it is nothing at all like that. official "theory" has painted itself into a corner so must use this faux pas to it's benefit by inventing the legitimate sounding term "dark matter," when, really, there is no such thing. your "so where is the controversy?" remark entirely glosses over and skirts the issue of the incorrectness of standard models of celestial mechanics. nothing "definitely exists" according to your presumptuous oversight.

Saiph · Jul 17, 2006

Bonze, you and I have already gone over this. Some darkmatter does exist, it's the dust, planets, cold nebulae, etc, that do not give off detectable light. It's also neutrinos and free neutrons, as these fit every requirement of dark matter in general. The question is now quantity and composition. The part traditional models and science have problems with is the apparent need for more dark matter than any estimate of the previously listed sources can provide. That's where things get iffy. But those things listed do exist, and do satisfy the requirements for dark matter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"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" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nova_explored · Jul 17, 2006

not to mention we can perform such experiments in lab conditions under BEC models to take subatomic particles and lower their energy levels until they are barely emmitting any electromagnetic (kinetic) energy. if such an experiment can effectively be reproduced over and over with great accuracy, then for the universe to do as much on a larger scale is predelicted, since science merely mirrors the workings of the universe at large in controlled environments. more so, the conditions for low energy state particles in the vacuum of space far exceeds any experimental state we previously do here on earth. here's a case and point into the quandries and relative fractal models we have- entropy. when we view our current theories, yours included bonz, we run up against entropy somewhere and it throws it out of whack. The universe tends towards entropy (but not the version of disarray, but in physics the state of subatomic particles move towards a 50/50 balance of high and low energy states, favoring lowers levels. ) this gives way to an expanding universe and one that will eventually find uniformity subatomically. but in truth what is happening is entropy is actually favoring higher energy levels which in turn is a negative pressure that accelarates the expanding universe. it should be the opposite. this is not a result of our observation of redshift of distance galaxies either, but a measure of overall entropy of a system (and that is where the simple explanation ends.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Jul 17, 2006

The question is now quantity and composition. The part traditional models and science have problems with is the apparent need for more dark matter than any estimate of the previously listed sources can provide. That's where things get iffy. But those things listed do exist, and do satisfy the requirements for dark matter. yes. that is my whole point. your supporting my entire claim. thanks. the dark matter that is the point of issue simply is a fabrication to appease and save face against the colossal faux pas of official science as it describes, officially, our understanding of celetial mechanics. think of dark matter as the 3-card monte' of cosmologists. as this is exactly what it is. and finding the dark matter is made out to be "just right around the corner" of being confirmed, when, really, no such substance exists. and will never be found. ever. this techno-babble of dark matter is also an indirect admission of guilt by the scientific establishment that they have no idea how the cosmos functions.

bonzelite · Jul 17, 2006

but in truth what is happening is entropy is actually favoring higher energy levels which in turn is a negative pressure that accelarates the expanding universe. it should be the opposite. this is not a result of our observation of redshift of distance galaxies either, but a measure of overall entropy of a system (and that is where the simple explanation ends.) it is further ended as an explanation because the assumption that the universe, ie, spacetime, is expanding and accelerating is a total violation of the laws of physics and is never explained by cosmologists. it is simply accepted. and that is yet another faux pas of soft science. the premise of what gravity is understood to be by official science is entirely incorrect and is not a matter of "tweaks" to make it fit. it is incorrect.

eudoxus18 · Jul 17, 2006

Bonz, I think you need to answer our 3983493 objectinos to your theory before you call the current theory garbage. It seems pretty pompous to me for you to say everyone up to this point has been an idiot and you alone have the answer to life, the universe, and everything. And another thing, can your theory explain chaos? Why would scientists purposely purport a theory they know is untrue? It seems like there would be a lot more grant money in creating a theory that explains the universe much better than anything previous than using a garbage theory. And anyway, cosmologists are just doing the best they can.

bonzelite · Jul 17, 2006

Bonz, I think you need to answer our 3983493 objectinos to your theory before you call the current theory garbage. It seems pretty pompous to me for you to say everyone up to this point has been an idiot and you alone have the answer to life, the universe, and everything. i'm not claiming such answers to everything. i have put forth the seeds of a theory that seeks to unify the pastiche of inconsistent and contradictory assumptions about celestial mechanics that are passed off as legitimate cosmology. it is the accepted views that are entirely alarming in that they are actually taught as legitmate science.

bonzelite · Jul 17, 2006

another thought, i'd respect official science more were it to officially admit to the gaping errors it has made instead of trying to patch it together with more lies like dark matter and dark energy to explain away their lack of knowledge about celestial mechanics. that way, they would be doing the best they can. but, nope. they cover lies with more lies. so i fail to sympathize.

robnissen · Jul 17, 2006

"they cover lies with more lies." What I don't understand is why the sane people here insist on having a conversation with this lu..... er.... person.

bonzelite · Jul 17, 2006

^^^because i appeal to the debate-hungry people who cannot wait to prove me wrong, as i raise excellent points about the travesty that is modern cosmology and it's 3 card monte' illusionist game of dark matter, that is --in my opinion-- a techno-babbling front to cover up the gigantic mistake of accepted theories about celestial mechanics. a techno-babbling front that average joe-sixpack and family will just accept blindly, that which is an unethical policy to allow to continue and remain acknowledged by the general public. in my opinion, such information is disinformation. dark matter is a lie that is necessary to cover for the gigantic mistake of cosmology having painted itself into a corner by adhering to Newtonian ideas for celestial mechanics that quickly fail outside of the local solar system. this is further why we have the schtizophrenic policy of the magical disparity between quantum mechanics and classical newtonian mechanics. and never shall the two meet in agreement. but you can expect more garbage terms such as dark matter and other ideas to force them to agree --all-- in my opinion--- as an elaborate means to continue the lie-paradigm that is stifling actual forward progress in cosmology.

eudoxus18 · Jul 18, 2006

Bonze, you're still touting your theory as the dawn of a new human era and that all previous generations were doing idiots with cavemen intelligence and "Why couldn't they just see the light? Because they for some reason they really don't want the answer!" First off, you haven't pointed out any legitimate holes in current cosmology. The one hole you did point (the equation relating v, r, and K) was actually just a simplified version of one of the equations we use today. If there are other holes, please point them out. And it seems you had to "invent" a convenient force that works at a subatomic level and expands the universe. Sure gravity is a convenient force to have too, and so is dark matter. But at least these are not things that by your own admission will forever be impossible to observe and detect; you said that anyone with the reference frame of, well, the universe would not be able to detect the expansion because they are within it. And exactly how much fact is needed for you? It is impossible to prove anything 100% in science; it's just kinda the way it is. It is however possible to give so much overwhelming evidence for a proposition that only a lunatic would disagree e. g. the earth is approximately a sphere. The scientists have gotta be doing something right. We got a man on the moon. I just don't like the picture you've portrayed of scientist. You accuse everyone of the past of being stupid and everyone in the present in denial. So the pinnacle of human understanding rests on you, eh?

bonzelite · Jul 18, 2006

First off, you haven't pointed out any legitimate holes in current cosmology. i just did. The one hole you did point (the equation relating v, r, and K) was actually just a simplified version of one of the equations we use today. right. and we went on about that. and i will say it again so you get my point: the equation beforehand, with K only, was perfectly fine and functional without any added delusional idea of gravity. the ultimate Newtonian equation for gravitation is a ripped off and manipulated equation from the original v^2R=K --as this is purely geometric and fine the way it is, as it is a measure of the relationiship between velocity and orbital radius ONLY. so let me say it again: mass is not directly related to orbits. would you like me to say it again? and again? and again? because G is a constant value, as is K, with the addition of "M" into the equation with G, we have the misleading idea that we can calculate, with fair accuracy, the actual mass of a body at a distance. and this is not possible because G and M are entirely made up stand-ins for K. you said that anyone with the reference frame of, well, the universe would not be able to detect the expansion because they are within it. right. and you can detect it by seeing that all objects fall at the same rates regardless of their masses. and the equation v^2R=K is equivalent to the Newtonian ripped-off equation that substitutes GM for K --as the original K version does not need mass, just as rate of fall does not need mass. so mass is not necessary in either case. therefore, all of this talk of mass and gravity is --in my opinion-- wholesale bunk and a complete fabrication and a lie. how many more holes do you want?

Saiph · Jul 18, 2006

See, here's where you lose me bonze... You claim science a) refuses to acknowledge the gaping hole in cosmology and b) that it claims absolute knowledge of the unconfirmable. But, "a" isn't true, as these issues are discussed within the field, and the dark matter arguements have a lot of weight behind them. But even within the dark matter camps there's dissent, as nobody's sure of location, dynamics, composition, etc, so there are several dark matter models. Now, the front presented to the public via Sky and Tel, and Astronomy magazines does paint a much more definitive picture, but that's usually the case in popular media. The reality is Dark matter is the problem under attack by the current generation of astronomers. It'll be another decade at least before we come to any truly solid conclusions. Now, you also overstate the claims of cosmology. It initially posits that the presence of non-visible matter can explain what we see, then analyzes observations to see how well that assumption stands up. The answer: Very well. We can explain a lot of what we see with dark matter, even beyond what we'd expect via extrapolations/estimations of known types. This supports (but does not absolutely confirm) the presence of dark matter. Now, the other problem I have with you're position is in part "b" You claim science is overstating it's evidence, and then say that there absolutely, positively, never, ever, will there be evidence of dark matter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"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" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Jul 18, 2006

You claim science a) refuses to acknowledge the gaping hole in cosmology science indeed fully acknowledges the gaping hole --a faux pas. and they fill this hole with a fantasy bulk, non-existent, dark matter that cannot be detected, seen, measured, otherwise known --all because they simply are not admitting that they are not just needing some little "tweaks" to theory, but, instead, that the entire corner they have painted themselves into by fully touting the officially decreed ideas for celestial mechanics is entirely wrong and erroneous. Now, you also overstate the claims of cosmology. It initially posits that the presence of non-visible matter can explain what we see, then analyzes observations to see how well that assumption stands up. The answer: Very well. We can explain a lot of what we see with dark matter, even beyond what we'd expect via extrapolations/estimations of known types. This supports (but does not absolutely confirm) the presence of dark matter. indeed, you can explain "a lot of what we see with dark matter" becasue it fills the holes in the theories quite well. just say "oh, yes, that's dark matter there acting, so this balances out our observations perfectly well." that is nearly like saying "oh, yes, well ---that's the hand of Zeus acting there. we cannot see it, detect it, measure it, know it from other sources, prove it -- so it makes our current ideas about mechanics work out fully well." and the observations in question are then seen through the lens of beliefs based upon the paradigm of newtonian-based celestial mechanics --which is incorrect. dark matter is a failed attempt to reconcile these beliefs with observation.

nova_explored · Jul 18, 2006

well what i do know, outside of excellent points...from both sides of the argument...is that in speaking with very real physicists in excellent standing within their respective disciplines is that science is not one of concrete answers and those doing the work are not claiming one (theory) over another. in truth they are just as hungry for answers as any of us, unbiasely testing the leads that the universe gives through theory and postulation. that this method makes its way to a stern explanation of one theory over another is very misleading. but what i am seeing more and more is a hyprocritical voice creeping out in your premise bonz as you seem to be pushing your own theory just as incredulously as you are lambasting the general scientific community for doing. i don't know, it just seems that you're choking on your own foot in the mouth so to speak here. and that isn't to sound vindictive by any means. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nova_explored · Jul 18, 2006

dark matter however is certainly not being seen through newtonian based celestial mechanics as you put though. newtonian mechanics are a very real part of the universe and so do play a significant role, as does the rest of well proven theories by others. when we speak of dark matter however, it is certainly not based on any paradigm involving newton. it is QM at work. it is bose, einstein, fermi, dirac, pauli, etc, etc. it is energy levels at planck length in relation to maxwell's electrodynamics. we can test these theories directly in controlled environments with lasers at wavelengths that are the result of our understanding of physics, and the results confirm the hypothesis set forward. again, this is the universe verifying our findings, not the other way around as you are suggesting, may say, accusing. i think, as someone pointed out, you are seeing a liberal mainstream that is not the consensus of the scientific community in respective fields. i've never heard Hawking tout any theory over another, yet alone his counterparts in theoritical physics. but point being, in relating it to the public is misrepresentative of thw whole. fact though: we have proven through experiement that dark matter is very possible. (see my above posts for reasons for this.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Jul 18, 2006

We're straying from the discussion here, folks. It's getting into a question of whether scientists are being willfully ignorant, and that's not only not pertinent, it's also awfully petty -- and ad hominem, although not the kind of ad hominem we edit around here. Let's confine ourselves to the single subject of gravity, okay? The question is: can the effects commonly described as "gravity" be explained by the expansion of massive objects? Please do not digress into unrelated matters, such as the controversy of dark matter or whether mainstream cosmologists have some kind of beef against new concepts. I realize I participated in that digression as well by nitpicking about what constitutes dark matter, but it wasn't really on topic even then. We all have to discipline ourselves to stay on the subject or this discussion is pointless. So, let's get back to the many unanswered questions you have left, bonzelite. You say that you have shown gaping holes in gravity, but you have not; you have merely stated that the holes are there without really showing us where they are. I also remain perplexed as to how your model explains orbits, Lagrange points, slingshot maneuvers, or indeed any variation on the three-body problem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

observer7 · Jul 18, 2006

Gravity and Acceleration They can be treated the same, but although all gravitational fields produce acceleration, not all acceleration is due to gravity. The transitive property of equality does not apply in this situation. ---- bonzelite says: these things fall at a constant rate regardless of their mass No, they do not. They actually fall at slightly different rates, depending upon their mass. But since their mass is such a very small percentage of the mass of the Earth, the difference is very small and difficult to measure, although it can be calculated ---- No, I don't understand. I believe you have a fundamental flaw with your percentage rate. I will point it out. We agree that (according to your theory) the moon is expanding outward at 1.6 m/s^2 and the earth at 9.8 m/s^2 in accordance with Einstien's Equivalence Principal to justify the force felt at our feet. The Moon's radius is 1738km (i'm dropping decimals for ease of math) and Earth's is 6378km for a ratio of 27%. The Moon expanding at it's rate for 10^6 seconds is 3,338km. The earth expanding at it's rate for same period of time gives us a radius of 16,178km. The ratio is now 21%... the moon should be getting smaller. In order to maintain the same ratio of 27%, the earth would have to be expanding at 5.984 m/s^2 which is a much slower rate than what is observed. Is my math flawed? ---- Oh my goodness! I've got it, it's been staring me in the face the whole time but I didn't think of it till now. I haven't used my brain in some time I guess. To put it simply your theory requires that all bodies are expanding at the same rate for their relative sizes to remain the same. In other words, in the time the Earth takes to double its size, in that time the Moon must also double in size. BUT the downward acceleration the Earth exerts on objects on its surface is g. On the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" Albert Einstein </div>

Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

alokmohan

Guest

eudoxus18

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

eudoxus18

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

robnissen

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

eudoxus18

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

observer7

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page