Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

Saiph · Jul 18, 2006

fair enough, though I think the expanding bodies discourse is also a bit tangential to the original topic <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> even if it is the current main topic. Bonz, if ye want my response on dark matter, just PM me, or start a thread (or resurect another pertinent thread). Anyway, on to expanding bodies: Tidal forces don't fit, as was mentioned (and I don't recall your rebuttal), and you've never made clear to me why an object can have a fully circular orbit in such a case. All paths intersect the surface at some point if it's an expanding earth creating gravity. <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>

yevaud · Jul 18, 2006

...if it's an expanding earth creating gravity. And it doesn't actually create gravity either. It's merely the expansion of an object relative to another. It may mimic many aspects of simple gravity, but once off into anything farther on, it can't explain itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Jul 18, 2006

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 yeah they do fall at the same rates. you are incorrect. we've already been over this long ago.

bonzelite · Jul 18, 2006

And it doesn't actually create gravity either. It's merely the expansion of an object relative to another. It may mimic many aspects of simple gravity, but once off into anything farther on, it can't explain itself. gravity is acceleration. that is all that it is. it's not coming from "mass attraction." in my opinion that is the lie of the ages. Newton's law of gravitation is a lie. v^2R=K is what Newton ripped off like a liar and created the fake idea of GM. orbit insertion is possible by using the above equation without GM. objects fall at same rates regardless of M. G is FAKE and a LIE.

bonzelite · Jul 18, 2006

this summary is entirely incorrect and misses the point: To summarize. - Gravity and Acceleration are not equivelant. - Objects do not fall at the same rate if their mass is different. - In order for everything in the universe to remain at the same scale (relative to each other) everthing must expand at the same rate, however if this expansion is what we pecieve as the gravitational force [sic] then it must vary to allow for different gravitational strengths (Moon vs Earth) - Expansion cannot sufficiently explain (replace?) centripetal force.

CalliArcale · Jul 18, 2006

What is incorrect about it? Can you be specific, instead of simply saying that it's wrong? As far as I can tell, in all of these cases you have refuted people's points without actually explaining why you object to them. I still do not understand why orbits should be elliptical in your model, or why an orbital ring should expand at a rate consistent with the mass of the parent body, and having no relationship to the mass of the orbiting body. And I also want to know how the Earth, Sun and Moon can seem to be the same size today as they did thousands of years ago if they are expanding at different rates (which is how in your model they come to have different apparent gravitational forces). I do not follow your reference to compound interest; in compound interest, two things do not end up the same size if the starting values are different, so it doesn't really help your argument. (I should know; I used to work in finance.) And why are you so sure that objects fall at different rates if they have different masses? It is true that for small objects, such as the metal balls that Galileo experimented with, the difference is negligible. But it is not negligible with large objects, which is why the Moon's orbit is a bit different than, say, the ISS's orbit. The Moon makes the Earth wobble; the ISS does not. This is a different outcome of the same effect. <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 18, 2006

and again, i maintain: 1. objects in space do not have absolute momentum, it is only relative. from 1, we can say that 2. all models we built about the motion of objects will then be relative. 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." 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. 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." ------------------------ this is centripetal force: F=mv^2/R that is one equation used to create Newton's law of universal gravitation. v^2R=K is the equation for orbits, minus any reference to g, which is not important. where K = 1.325 X 10^20 m/s^2 (is the constant for bodies orbiting the sun). R = orbital radius of planet orbiting the sun. v = velocity of the planet. this is all anyone really needs to send craft to the planets. orbits are created by relative geometry only. there is no rock-on-a-string type of centripetal force with mass anywhere needed to know anything. 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). the K was replaced by GM. not the other way

bonzelite · Jul 18, 2006

And I also want to know how the Earth, Sun and Moon can seem to be the same size today as they did thousands of years ago if they are expanding at different rates they're not, darling. they remain in the same relative proportions to each other. And why are you so sure that objects fall at different rates if they have different masses? never said that. things fall at same rates regardless of mass. this is fully accepted in our science today.

nova_explored · Jul 19, 2006

point being on this part of the discussion- you really cannot have expansion without some inverse action. the universe has shown us that it does not take without giving in exact measure. even the laws governing energy transformation show that everything in accord is accounted for in the constant ebb and flow of things. the sun needs a force to combat matter loss in order to maintain structure. that force is the result of the fusion of heavier elements at its core and is directly related to contraction on the inner most levels which give it positive pressure. i see where you are coming from with your theory though, bonz. everything does expand. the sun most definitely is (at its surfaces), the earth exhibits the same. but just not in the form of a force like that of gravity. my point in bringing up the sun in this sense is that, yes, it could be argued that it is not gravity at work at all. we have the strong force of nuclei acting in its stead, while a general expansion takes place. but under your theory, everything expanding means subatomically as well. i thought about this one for a while. is it possible for expansion to nullify distance subatomically and give the same attractive force between the ever expanding nuclei. in QM matter is a defintion in spatial geometry. that is a key. the more we condense nuclei together the more massive it becomes (exhibited in white dwarfs- remnants of ordinary stars much like our own, which tells us that this is in fact how the core of our sun is too operating), the more massive it becomes the more we see a stronger arc in parrallax in light paths. so we see the universe giving us the clues as to its functioning abilities. under your expansion model though, this condensing is not feasible. there is a severe contradiction going on here under your model- when we have simultaneous contraction and expansion within the exact same system (namely, the nuclues of an ato <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

observer7 · Jul 19, 2006

OK, so you will not or cannot provide anything other then "this is wrong" and "my idea works" even though there appear to be a number of people who have provided a number of lines of reasoning that put holes in your theory. You still have not answered my main questions which are: What is the advantage of viewing 'gravity' as an expansion of everthing (and thus acceleration)?? Why does your theory make more sense then conventional views? What advantage, new understanding, basic physic breakthrough does this view provide? How can we use this new knowledge to build better rockets, improve our calculations of orbits, increase our understanding of how 'gravity' and QM unite? Please answer these questions, since they don't require any math or hard proof you should be able to at least address them in some way. -- <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" Albert Einstein </div>

alokmohan · Jul 19, 2006

What is point is refuting established scientifc truth without reason.Is this fun?

drwayne · Jul 19, 2006

"established scientifc truth" I am not sure there is such a beast as established scientific truth. The scientific process leads, at most, to generally accepted theories that are in fact generally accepted up until the point that something that explains the observations better comes along. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

alokmohan · Jul 19, 2006

At least present discussions are not of those exceptional categories.Honestly it is repetition of some personal beliefs. Recurring decimal type,leading nowhere.

drwayne · Jul 19, 2006

Some iterative process converge very slowly. Witness my brain Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

alokmohan · Jul 19, 2006

Frankly it is all vapid.

drwayne · Jul 19, 2006

Yep, thats been said about my brain before, probably my wife, in somewhat more colorful terms. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

alokmohan · Jul 19, 2006

Again we are beside the point .Sick to the topic ,dont digress .This thread is now a threat.Lets not post anymore

CalliArcale · Jul 19, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />And I also want to know how the Earth, Sun and Moon can seem to be the same size today as they did thousands of years ago if they are expanding at different rates they're not, darling. they remain in the same relative proportions to each other.<hr /></blockquote> How? If the Moon is expanding at one-sixth the rate the Earth is, why does it retain the same relative proportions? If it surface is accelerating at a different rate, it stands to reason that the proportions will change. Saying it works and proving it works are two different things -- you still have only said it works. You have not said how, why, or even given a reason for me to deny basic mathematics. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />And why are you so sure that objects fall at different rates if they have different masses? never said that. things fall at same rates regardless of mass. this is fully accepted in our science today. <hr /></blockquote> I could swear you did say that they fall at the same rate, and fairly recently. Unfortunately, I'm very short on time right now and can't search the thread. Maybe you've changed your stance? Maybe I'm misremembering? I don't know. In any case, if gravity is purely an illusion caused by the expansion of the Earth, why would objects fall at different rates? It works with two objects motionless relative to one another -- their net acceleration towards one another will be the sum of each body's expansion. But I don't think it explains more complicated situations which are really the same thing in a context with relative motion, such as an orbit. If it does, I'm really not seeing it. Related questions: Why do objects travel faster at periapsis and slower at apoapsis if gravity is simply the expansion of their surfaces? Why do <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 19, 2006

you don't get it. all things expand at a universal rate. i'm not denying jack diddly bop. i derived this rate many pages ago. you ought to do well and recap a bit. and your coveted lagrange points exist the same as they ever were. instead of the fake gravity force it's the expansionary forces held in a balance some distance away from the bodies. and all of the talk of periapsis and apoapsis, etc.. it's the same reason why when you throw a stone up to the sky, it slows, arcs over, turns back to earth, then speeds right back up. it's all the same game, yo. grav assists: same thing. orbits: same thing. it's all the same process. did you read my post just prior about the orbit effects and the v^2R=K stuff? it's hella tyte, yo. you ought to read dat again. at it's very baisc level, GM is a fake abomination of the sciences and should be thrown into the deep six where it belongs. out, yo.

observer7 · Jul 19, 2006

Now you have done it. all things expand at a universal rate. i'm not denying jack diddly bop. i derived this rate many pages ago. you ought to do well and recap a bit. FROM 07-05-06 the varing masses and the rates of fall are due to varying rates of expansion due to relative mass. You condradict yourself. Also from 07-06-06 right. because the moon is smaller. and yes, the earth is expanding faster but at the same rate. $1,000,000 will compound much faster at 3% than $10 at 3% because it is proportionately larger. this principle is exactly the same as expanding objects. You say the Earth is expanding faster but at the same rate as the Moon. Ok, I can see that because the Earth is larger, the same rate will cause a greater degre of expansion in the same amount of time. But that is speed not acceleration and therefore would have no effect on the percieved gravity. I believe that everyone else has seen this and a review of the post shows that you do not ever address this issue. I'm trying to explain this in yet another way and show you that your assertion is internally flawed and inconsistent. -- <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" Albert Einstein </div>

bonzelite · Jul 19, 2006

no dude, you don't get it either. they vary only in that they are of relative size to each other. this is why a larger object will have "more gravity" than a smaller. why? because the larger object expands outward by a relatively larger amount than the smaller one. this is why a stone or sheet of paper falls back to earth: the earths relative expansion in size to the rock or paper is GREATER. but all things expand out at the same absolute rate. so the earth is expanding, moment to moment, relatively more than the moon, as the moon is smaller. yet both expand at the same absolute rate --retaining size and proportion from moment to moment. therefore, everything around you looks as if it's just sitting there. staying the same. no such expansion is experienced visibly. but is perceived as all objects fall at the same rate, and that GM to replace K in v^2R=K is a useless fabrication. in both cases, mass is entirely irrelevant. orbit design and insertion is calculated geometrically without regard to mass of the orbited or orbiting body. objects falling do not heed mass. gravity is useless and a fantasy. there is no contradiction of anything here.

kmarinas86 · Jul 19, 2006

If gravity does not exist, jump off a building. Okay?

derekmcd · Jul 20, 2006

so the earth is expanding, moment to moment, relatively more than the moon, as the moon is smaller. yet both expand at the same absolute rate --retaining size and proportion from moment to moment. therefore, everything around you looks as if it's just sitting there. staying the same. Bonz... you keep repeating the same thing and I gave you the math that shows it is wrong. I would be very interested to know why you either will not show me how I am wrong, or your reasoning as to why you either can not or refuse to understand it. Here is what I posted previously: 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. Edit: added emphasis on the last line <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 20, 2006

Bonz... you keep repeating the same thing and I gave you the math that shows it is wrong. I would be very interested to know why you either will not show me how I am wrong, or your reasoning as to why you either can not or refuse to understand it. derek, there is an absolute rate and a relative rate of expansion going on. your math does in no way take into account the universal expansion rate. Eudoxus put it this way: "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." again: expansion rate is determined by using the earth's own rate as a means to discover the "actual" rate for all matter. and since this is basically a talk about spherical expansion from a centre of mass, we must derive this rate using the earth's radius. in a prior post i related this derivation, so for your benefit, i will do it again: take d=1/2at^2, for example. this is distance traveled due to constant acceleration. in 1 second (time as "t"), then, the earth expands at a certain rate. this is: d=1/2(9.8)(1)^2 = 4.9metres. so the earth's expansion is 4.9m/sec. this is corroborated as it takes 1 sec for any object to fall to earth dropped from 4.9m in height (disregarding wind resistance). but the object is not really falling to earth. the earth is going up to meet the object. as well, objects expand outwardly from their centres (of mass). this would establish an expansion in all directions out from the centre --a radial expansion. once we have established the earth's specific expansion rate from it's centre of mass, which we have done: 4.9m/s, we can then arrive at finding how quickly everything expands, as the earth's expansion is in relative proportion to ev

derekmcd · Jul 20, 2006

your math does in no way take into account the universal expansion rate. That's because there is no such beast... unless were talking about hubble's constant, expanding universe, dark energy and such, but I don't think we should go there. But I digress... Let's use your Universal Expansion Rate formula and apply it to the moon. d=1/2at^2 d=1/2(1.6)(1)^2. d=0.8 .8/moon's radius .8/1,737,000 meters (give or take a few... it will not matter as we shall see) equals = .00000046 This is not even close to your .00000077 "actual" rate for all matter. Your words: all matter expands at this "actual" rate. and the relative expansions of these things, all things, will vary according to relative size and centre of mass. therefore, dividing the expansion amount, in 1sec, of anything by it's radius results in .00000077/s^2. I doesn't work... unless I completely misunderstand which is quite possible. Hard to follow how absolute rates, relative rates, and universal rates all apply to 1 single entity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

Saiph

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

observer7

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

drwayne

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

drwayne

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

drwayne

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

observer7

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page