Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

alokmohan · Jul 20, 2006

What is universal expansion rate?

nova_explored · Jul 20, 2006

not to continue to barage u bonz but, another bothersome trait i'm sure you are aware of is the mechanics of the expansion itself. you would still need to decide if this is a closed system or open one (infinite or finite, universally). that matters. also, how does the expansion inside said system operate physically, subatomically? matter being expanded requires certain laws. what is keeping it together, without breaking a conservation of energy law, which if not put in, means entropy would never ever have allowed the formation of even the simplest elements and particles. i think i said before, you're entering the realms of string theory here, or one very much in tune with it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

observer7 · Jul 20, 2006

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. Again, this is a difference in the SPEED of expansion. Speed and acceleration are different quantities. In your original assumption, and to be consistent with the most basic observations you must equate gravity with acceleration, NOT SPEED! Your theory cannot be correct because you keep confusing these two things. -- <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" Albert Einstein </div>

CalliArcale · Jul 20, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />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.<hr /></blockquote> How??? I have read this entire thread. As far as I can tell, this is the first time you've even acknowledge my repeated question fo how Lagrange points work. And just like everything else, you dont' derive squat. You just say "it works". I'm sorry, it will take more than that to convince me. How does expansion cause things to be held in balance at some distance away from the bodies? If gravity is purely the expansion of the bodies in question, and there is no force acting upon the bodies, then what is holding them in balance? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />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.<hr /></blockquote> I'm getting very tired of asking you to explain how they work if expansion is what's causing them. You still have not explained a damn thing. Orbits are indeed the same thing as throwing a rock in the air -- but only if there is a force acting between them! Otherwise, it just doesn't work. Why does the ISS see sunrise every 90 minutes, if they are not actually going around the Earth? Because if expansion is all that's responsible for "gravity", then they are not going to actually circle the Earth. If you remove the force deflecting the ISS' trajectory, it is not going to go around the Earth, although terrestrial obervers may have the brief illusion that it is going around, before the Earth crashes violently into the ISS a few seconds later. After all, you still haven't expla <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>

alokmohan · Jul 20, 2006

Frankly I this is classical example of circular argument.Prechers use these type of arguments.We require subthread on logic.It difficult to teach logic.

nova_explored · Jul 20, 2006

from wikipedia: Universal expansion according to Big Bang Model "The scale factor, parameter of Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker model, is a function of time which represents the relative expansion of the universe. It relates physical coordinates (also called proper coordinates) to comoving coordinates. L = lambda ; a(t) where L is the physical distance, Lambda; is the distance in comoving units, and a(t) is the scale factor. The scale factor could, in principle, have units of length or be dimensionless. Most commonly in modern usage, it is chosen to be dimensionless, with the current value equal to one: a(t0) = 1, where t is counted from the birth of the universe and t0 is the present age of the universe: 13.7+/-0.2 Gyr. The evolution of the scale factor is a dynamical question, determined by the equations of general relativity, which are presented in the case of a locally isotropic, locally homogeneous universe by the Friedmann equations. The Hubble parameter is defined: H = {dot{a}(t) over a(t)} where the dot represents a time derivative." under this equation the universal expansion doesn't expand matter itself, but the space between. now under your theory, using earth's rate as a means to discover 'actual' rate for all matter, it is isotropic in nature for the matter itself. but that is not what we observe. galaxies are moving away from one another. there is a force at work and an expansion with a constant cannot incorporate such an observation into its equation. in your model you have stated that the two body system is obsolete regarding a force. Two galaxies moving away from one another would then require some celestial pinwheel by which the galaxies due to mass and spin aquire inertia enough to seperate from their relative expansion. but this still doesn't explain how galaxies are aquiring exponential velocities (n <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

alkalin · Jul 20, 2006

Calli, Don’t forget the effect of gravity from the sun and moon creating the tides. Or was this mentioned previously? Alkalin

Saiph · Jul 20, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />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."<hr /></blockquote> geesh. I'll agree that uniform linear motion is relative. However, rotational motion is not relative, as that involves an accelerations. Accelerated frames are not relative, as the participants can observe eachother and notice that one is feeling a different force than the other, and changing directions is acceleration. Now, I can see how an expanding planet can cause objects to "accelerate" towards it, fine, but your assertion (and that's all you've done) that it'll be a curved path is unsupported. Throw to expanding objects past eachother, and no curved path will result, real or illusory. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />------------------------ this is centripetal force: F=mv^2/R that is one equation used to create Newton's</blockquote> <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>

alokmohan · Jul 21, 2006

All these have been discussed.No point.

siarad · Jul 21, 2006

In the South Seas there is no Moon tide only a Sun tide for some Islands. Moon/sun tides can occur once twice or four times a day.

siarad · Jul 21, 2006

OK I see what you're getting at. There was no BB it is going on right now & everything is expanding including space. By now everything is infinite in size. Well I grew up using the c.g.s. system which was similar, in straight lines being on the circumference of a circle of infinite radius. We could all see a distance between railway lines but they were still on an infinite circumference. Well infinity is infinity not a number & fits your idea, so that's OK except for that darned pi being everywhere. So according to you with everything being infinite in size all must be straight lines. Aha! you're a FLAT EARTHIST <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

alokmohan · Jul 21, 2006

We now go to flat earth?good.

kmarinas86 · Jul 21, 2006

Ok, can you also explain electromagnetism using your expansion idea?

derekmcd · Jul 21, 2006

or star formation... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

siarad · Jul 22, 2006

Well this topic was going round & round so I thought I'd level it out a little but it was germain too <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

bonzelite · Jul 22, 2006

You still have not explained a damn thing. Orbits are indeed the same thing as throwing a rock in the air -- but only if there is a force acting between them! as long as you continue to insist there is some "force" acting between bodies, as in traditional gravitation, you will continue to not see the idea for what it is. there is no force of gravity. there is only acceleration and relative motion between bodies.

bonzelite · Jul 22, 2006

Now, back to curved paths: can you do explain why the moon completes a 360 degree orbit about the earth? All you've done so far is state that it does. i've explained ad nauseum. the two objects are expanding towards each other, as all objects are. in free-floating space, there is only relative motion between bodies. there is no inherent inner gravitational force. as long as an object, such as the moon, has enough velocity to overcome the earth's expansion rate, it will orbit the earth and not "crash" into it. the moon perpetually overcomes this "falling into the earth" demise by just, just having enough specific geometrically "sweet" attributes that it stays aloft. otherwise, like the falling stone that fails to overcome the relatively larger expansion of earth, it would come to the earth. change the parameters again, giving the moon an entirely different geometry, it may fly off into deep space. but the moon is held in a balance between it's own relative velocity to the earth and the expansion of the earth towards it. long ago, in all likelihood, the earth/moon were one rotating disc of matter. as the disc coalesced and clumped, the earth and the moon were created, maintaining this geometry for aeons, forming a barycentre of mass between the two distinct bodies. that's it. do i need to explain it again?

bonzelite · Jul 22, 2006

by the way, this thread is entirely hilarious. the idea that i am putting forth is far simpler than anything existing today for gravitation.

Saiph · Jul 22, 2006

you haven't realy explained, you've stated. Now, onto my critique: If the moon maintains a constant distance from the earths "expanding" surface (which is expanding so as to produce a constant apparent acceleration) it cannot do so by maintaining a constant velocity. The moon must be under constant acceleration equal to earths, away from earth, in order to maintain that height by merits of motion alone. here's an example of your merely stating that it stays aloft <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />just having enough specific geometrically "sweet" attributes that it stays aloft<hr /></blockquote> Right...and that means what? You don't really explain anything with that. What attributes? How do these differ from a rock? How does a rocket transition from a thrown rocks set of attributes to one's sufficient for orbital flight? Also, how in your expansion paradigm did the matter for the earth and moon coalesce and clump? And how come that same mechanism doesn't cause the moon and earth to clump together now? <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 22, 2006

Hmm. You keep describing acceleration as if it was a force at a distance, and it isn't. Acceleration (unless some other qualifying conditions) is experienced only by the observers within it's frame of reference. You travel by the stationary me in space, 25 feet away, under 4 gees acceleration. You feel it; I do not. I am that close and I feel no acceleration, because I am not in your frame of reference. I don't care if you're expanding, contracting, or doing the hokey pokey. Acceleration is an equivalent to gravity, but still not the same thing. <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 22, 2006

you're going in circles with this. with relative motions and expanding objects, the earth/moon is not clumping together because of the very nature of their relative motions to each other. their relative motions prevent the other from slamming into the other, even though both bodies are expanding in proportion to each other. this is an explantion. it's just as much of an explanation as asking "where did you get those scratches on your arm?" and i answer "from the cat." and that's that. the attributes are the bodies' relative motions to each other because that is all that exists in space: relative motion. there is no "absolute momentum" or "absolute motion," ie, a straight line, via Newton. there is no absolute state of rest. there is no absolute momentum. there is no straight line path that gravity acts upon. if you throw up a rock, with your arm strength, it will not overcome the expading earth. the free-floating rock will soon meet the earth as it expands up to the rock. if you were able to throw the rock hard enough, it may overcome the earth's expansion enough to reach "escape velocity." but this entirely depends upon how much strength is behind the throw of the rock. there is no guarantee that the rock will go into orbit or fly off into space. but it could do either depending upon the specific angle you throw it, and the velocity at which you threw it. when they take the space shuttle up, for example, they compute these parameters for orbit insertion using v2R=K --as this denotes the natural behavior of objects in space. nowhere is mass known, nowhere is gravity known. nowhere is centripetal force associated. orbits are not analogous to rocks on strings. if you believe in centripetal force insofar as orbital mechancis as related to "gravity", you believe in a lie. The moon must be under constant acceleration equal to earths, away from earth, in order to maintain that hei

bonzelite · Jul 22, 2006

acceleration is gravity. you raise good points about relative motion and the hokey pokey. you are correct in that, for all purposes, one object may be "stationary" while the other is moving, and vice versa. which one is really moving? for all purposes, you could be the moving one, 25 feet away, stationary. there is no absolute state of rest in the cosmos. there is only relative motion between bodies. you will feel 4g if you are constantly accelerating to maintain that experience. you will not if you are coasting. a coasting object can effectively maintain distance on a trajectory away from an expanding body, as long as the speed and direction of the coasting body, like the Pioneer craft, is fast enough and far enough way. given enough time, however, the constantly accelerating expansion of a body, ie, the solar system, will eventually catch up to it. it may take a long, long time, because Pioneer is very, very far away and going very, very fast. but it is no longer accelerating. some day, long from now, it will be overtaken and probably go into orbit about the sun.

kmarinas86 · Jul 22, 2006

given enough time, however, the constantly accelerating expansion of a body, ie, the solar system, will eventually catch up to it. it may take a long, long time, because Pioneer is very, very far away and going very, very fast. but it is no longer accelerating. some day, long from now, it will be overtaken and probably go into orbit about the sun. Your expansion idea may explain the Pioneer Anomaly, and perhaps even quark confinement with a constant force (linear confining potential), but it will NOT explain gravity as a whole.

eudoxus18 · Jul 22, 2006

Okay, I have it. Finally a purely mathematical proof that Bonz's theory can't work. Alright, so one of Bonz's assumptions is that the moon and the earth are increasing at the same rate, i. e. in the time that the earth doubles in size, the moon also doubles in size. So the ratio of earth's radius to the moon's radius must at all times be the same. Let's call it k. This means that k must be the same at t = 0, t = 1, etc. Let's see if it holds up. Let's take t = 0 and t = 86, 400 (the number of seconds in a day) and check k to see if it is indeed the same. Let t be time, R the radius of earth, r the radius of the moon, G be "gravitational" acceleration on the earth, g be "gravitational" acceleration on the moon, and k be the ratio of the earth's radius to the moon's radius. At t = 0 R = 6, 378, 100 m r = 1, 737, 400 m G = 9.8 m/s^2 g = 1.6 m/s^2 So we calculate k = R/r and get 3.67 At t = 86, 400 We find the new radii. We know the new radius will be = old radius + 1/2at^2. So let's calculate New R = Old R +Gt^2/2 = 6, 378, 400 + (9.8)(86, 400)^2/2 = 36, 584, 682, 100 m New r = Old r + gt^2/2 = 1, 737, 400 + (1.6)(86, 400)^2/2 = 5, 973, 705, 400 m Now let's calculate k at t = 86, 400. According to Bonz, it should be the same k = 36, 584, 682, 100/5, 973, 705, 400 = 6.12 In other words k is not the same at t = 0 as it is at t = 86, 400, whick SHOULDN'T be the case according to Bonz, but it is. Under Bonz's assumpsions k would have to be the same at all times in order for proportions to remain the same. But under his other assumptions (the outward acceleration is constant) this cannot be the case. QED

yevaud · Jul 22, 2006

*Kudos* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

alokmohan

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

observer7

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

alkalin

Guest

Saiph

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

siarad

Guest

siarad

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

siarad

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

eudoxus18

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page