Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

derekmcd · Jul 25, 2006

Bonz... I've already shown your universal expansion rate is not universal... Unless my math or thought process is wrong. <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 25, 2006

The sphere experiment

Saiph · Jul 26, 2006

[qoute]i've already shown that GM are not necessary, and have nothing at all to do with orbits, or insertion into orbit. moreover, once G is jettisoned as an idea, then M cannot be derived from G. so mass cannot really be accurately determined from afar. we only have gross approximations. some near. some very way off.<hr /> Not to my satisfaction. you've really only stated that it isn't necessary, just as you have yet to walk me through, step by step, how an object can orbit in your expansion theory. As for determining mass from afar, we did really good job with the moon (confirmed by us landing there and doing some on site experiments). Can you list examples for a wide scale inaccuracy (or gross approximations) specifically those you say are really far off the mark? <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 27, 2006

the moon. in my opinion, it's avg gravity between the near and far side is 1/4. this makes the moon's density unevenly distributed. but overall, the moon is not less dense than the earth. it is of the earth. and this: Not to my satisfaction. you've really only stated that it isn't necessary, just as you have yet to walk me through, step by step, how an object can orbit in your expansion theory. i've shown that v^2R=K is what Newton altered to come up with his equations. there is no G or M present in this equation, and this equation can be used to insert craft into orbits. G and M, insofar as constants and variables dropped into an equation, are fabrications of the imagination. how is this not able to make sense to you?

bonzelite · Jul 27, 2006

Bonz... I've already shown your universal expansion rate is not universal... Unless my math or thought process is wrong. and i've shown that it is universal. with math as well. theory against theory.

bonzelite · Jul 27, 2006

And I don't care about relative or absolute expansion rates, Bonz. i provided such an equation and you just "don't care." then i don't care about your derivation, either. so what's for dinner? let's all go to a movie, then.

derekmcd · Jul 27, 2006

dividing the expansion amount, in 1sec, of anything by it's radius results in .00000077/s^2. My math for the moon is .00000046 which is not the same as .00000077 for the earth. How is that universal? <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 27, 2006

you're stuck on 1/6th g for the moon, as if the entire moon has that value throughout. that is your opinion as well as millions of others. my opinion is not of yours. the average g for the moon is 1/4, in my opinion. because the moon is about 1/4 the size of the earth. Newton predicted 1/4, as well. so go hang out with him. he's your buddy.

derekmcd · Jul 27, 2006

So you are stating that any celestial body has to have a g force proportional to the size of the earth? I.E. The moon is 1/4 the size of the Earth, therefore it's g force MUST be 1/4. You can't seriously believe that, can you? How would you explain a white dwarf that is similar in size to the earth with gravity 100,000 times stronger. I guarantee your "universal expansion rate" formula will not produce .00000077 unless you believe that particular white dwarf's gravity is at 9.8m/s^2. I wish I could hang out with Newton, but I hear he was a bit of a recluse... Not to mention, he's a bit dead, too. <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 27, 2006

Let's try an experiment... Two people with identical spheres on a 10 story building. One on the 10th floor and the other on the 5th floor. Person on the 10th floor drops the sphere. At the very exact moment the ball is the same elevation of the person on the 5th floor, that person drops their sphere. Now freeze the camera and take a picture. What we have are 2 identical spheres free floating (according to your theory) at the same elevation. Also according to your theory, the earth is accelerating up to meet those spheres at a specific rate. Roll cameras. Now, we all know via observation that, in fact, the sphere dropped from the 10th floor will hit the ground first. Your expansion theory would dictate them hitting the ground at the same time. Explain this little phenomena with your theory... I look forward to hearing your explanation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

enigma10 · Jul 27, 2006

Laws of attraction. Eventually, all our bal.. erm spheres end up on the ground. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan </div>

observer7 · Jul 27, 2006

i've shown that v^2R=K is what Newton altered to come up with his equations. there is no G or M present in this equation, and this equation can be used to insert craft into orbits. G and M, insofar as constants and variables dropped into an equation, are fabrications of the imagination. how is this not able to make sense to you? The problem with your "K" is that it is different for different bodies. K for the sun is not the same as k for the Earth. (Let me guess this is another one of those relative vs absolute parts to your theory) and you certainly cannot use the same K value to compute orbits around the sun and Earth. But if K is based on a universal constant of attraction and the mass of an object then things start to make sense. Or at least we have a method of computing the required K value for different bodies. So again I ask, and have not been answered. What is the big advantage of your theory over the accepted theory of gravity as a force? Show me an equation, or thought experiment, or how your theory explains something better. -- <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" Albert Einstein </div>

derekmcd · Jul 29, 2006

Did ya give up, Bonz or are you still try to ferret out answers? Either way... it was fun debating with ya. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

nova_explored · Jul 29, 2006

"do you mean as in gravity assists? expansion explains that. gravity does not. there is no such thing happening via a gravitational force. there is no momentum transfer. for example, a craft accelerated in gravity assist would, then, be slowed on it's path of departure from the vicinity of the planet, as the planet pulled back on the craft. the craft would not undergo a net speed increase via gravity assist. yet this logic is never questioned. conversely, it has become an axiom and matter of fact. when, really, it is a fantasy." I was a little confused at this and stayed from replying, but then re-reading some of the thread here it now makes more sense. in gravity assist and 'slingshot', which most everyone here knows is a very real phenomena used by NASA with their satellites, the craft, in approaching a planet, has enough velocity to overcome an orbit trajectory, and can thereby use the planets gravity to further accelerate it. Planets however do not have enough velocity to overcome the Sun's attractive force and thereby, due to the inverse square law, the sun will eventually slow the planet down (where planet eventually reaches the apex of the second focii in orbit- forget the term used...). since we are dealing with varying speed, kind of proves the inverse square law at work for a force. it takes more time to eventually pull the planet back, directly related to speed and inversely to its distance. the craft in a trajectory already has enough velocity to overcome the orbit (at whatever distance) and hence the slingshot effect. As the planet pulls on it, it accelerates even more, the planet has even less pull on its outward trajectory and the craft not only escapes crashing in or finding orbit, but has additional velocity tacked on--- momentum transfer. yes yes yes. we also note this subatomically with electrons and their orbits around a nucleus. free electrons will use atoms close by to bounce off (s <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

cmecu2 · Jul 30, 2006

What is gravity? Isaac Newton asked this question in 1686, and concluded that gravity was an attractive force between all objects. He realized that the same force that causes an apple to fall to the ground also holds the moon in its orbit. Earth’s gravity actually causes the moon to fall about one millimetre away from a straight-line path, each second, as it orbits the earth (Figure 1). Newton’s universal Law of Gravity is one of the great science discoveries of all time. more at .... http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/gravity.asp

hohoho · Jul 31, 2006

In reply to dereckmcd I’m no science or physics wiz and I don’t subscribe to this expansion theory, but your experiment doesn’t make any sense. You’re assuming the fifth floor sphere is in a stationary position. Wouldn’t the sphere being held on the fifth floor be travelling at the expansion rate prior to release? By the time the fifth floor sphere (after release) slows to the floating stage, the ten floor sphere would have gained a gap. If anything you’ve given the expansion theory more credit!!

bonzelite · Jul 31, 2006

Wouldn’t the sphere being held on the fifth floor be travelling at the expansion rate prior to release? By the time the fifth floor sphere (after release) slows to the floating stage, the ten floor sphere would have gained a gap. If anything you’ve given the expansion theory more credit!! correct. the higher/lower ball idea only approves expansion theory. thank you HoHoHo (LOL) for that. the first ball is free-floating and "falling." the 2nd one is being held by someone, and is therefore maintaining expansion position with the earth's surface. therefore, the first ball, the one "dropped" from the higher position, will meet the earh sooner! why? because it is not being held back from hitting the ground that is racing up to meet it! but the 2nd lower ball --- that one is maintaining a distance from the earth's surface racing "upwards." and is being accelerated with the earth's expanding surface. therefore, it falls later because it was being held away by a "force" acting to prevent it from hitting the earth's surface sooner.

eudoxus18 · Jul 31, 2006

Except gravity accounts for the phenomenon perfectly anyway, too. And you still haven't answered the objection to the conservation of energy problem and the Cavendish experiment.

bonzelite · Jul 31, 2006

Except gravity accounts for the phenomenon perfectly anyway, too. that is because, as i have shown, gravity is a derived rip-off of geometric principles that function perfectly fine without it. And you still haven't answered the objection to the conservation of energy problem and the Cavendish experiment. don't worry. that's coming.

tdamskov · Aug 1, 2006

While you're at it, please include the following observation in your hypothesis: Satellites have measured differences in the Earths gravity field while orbiting the planet. According to your hypothesis that would be caused by slight differences in the amount of expansion of the planets surface?

bonzelite · Aug 1, 2006

right.

detriech69 · Aug 1, 2006

I have a copy of The Final Theory. Stopped reading it when I realized the incomplete explanation of orbits was flawed. The theory explains part of an orbit, but stops short of even half of a revolution. This was obviously a stumbling block for the author who, I understand has agreed that orbits present a problem for his theory. I suppose if two expanding spheres kept close enuf to one another kept expanding, at some point they would collide, but they must rotate about one another through some sort of mutual attraction such as bolos do by a string or Force. Expansion is fun to debate about, but like so many other fantastic ideas, it is just too hard for even me to swallow, and I believe Faster Than Light could someday be possible. Of course, Expansion Theory does rule out FTL, so perhaps that is a plus for die hard physics police. A complete, no let's make it two complete orbits from two free floating sheres approaching each other in free space. Prove it to me with easy to understand figures or charts and easy to grasp explanations. Some of us aren't Calculus majors. Intuitively, expansion is like someone being told that "God spoke to me" by a trusted and level headed friend. Not the current U.S. President. I don't consider him level headed or someone we should trust. But I digress. 2 complete orbits, please. With charts/graphs and no difficult math. Even Einstein had to use difficult math to put forth General and Special Relativity. Personally, I don't think we will ever detect Gravity Waves, but that's another discussion. Forgive me, if this complete orbit test was already brought up. I will never be convinced without "proof" of convincing, understandable orbital mechanics. And gravity assists are explainable by current gravity theory. Momentum is taken in miniscule amounts by the spacecraft from the planet providing the assist. It is a matter of scale. Rather simple to grasp, really. Arguing to the contrary won't change the fact that it works. Gravity

bonzelite · Aug 1, 2006

i'm not offended at all. i have said before that in the very least, the expansionary principle sheds light on the seriously erroneous claims considered to be scientific pillars. insofar as orbits, that is fully explained and discussed. you must not have understood that part, nor saw it. it's been profusely discussed in this thread. i don't know where you're getting partial orbit from. the explanation does not stop short with only that.

detriech69 · Aug 1, 2006

I agree, many pillars of "accepted" science are on shaky ground at best. Shameful that we assume that the "great" ones had it right, especially when you consider Newton was quite a ways back in history. I'll review the entire thread and see what explanation of orbits you refer to. I was on a science site a while back and the Final Theory was being debated there, too and I read that the author conceded the part about orbits. Perhaps my memory is faulty. Perhaps you have debated there as well. H something. I can't begin to compete at college level with most eggheads on this board, let alone that one. But I consider myself as having above average intelligence and have subscribed to Astronomy magazine since it's debut in 1973. Trouble with the Web is that there are lots of ideas and pseudo-science out there that steer a lot of us non-comformists the wrong way with just a slight promise of the big pay off of a Grand Truth. Have you heard about the theory about point particles actually having structure and waveforms and some parts of the waves travel FTL around the center of the proton or maybe it was the electron. See about my memory? But point being, that grabbed my attention for a few weeks earlier this year with a lot of other spirtual gobaldegook thrown in with it to make it appear to have a "ring of truth". Problem is when you ask for proof, there is none, or science can't currently disprove or prove it as it is beyond our technology to do so. Convenient. Anyway, thanks for the speedy reply and sorry for jumping in with both feet w/o reviewing the material presented first. HAGO.(Have a Good One).

bonzelite · Aug 1, 2006

it's okay. it's only a theory anyway. let's not forget that part. all of it is theory. newton and all else. insofar as orbits, that is a natural effect of all objects. the natural state is not a straight line, as is assumed in gravitational mechanics.

Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

derekmcd

Guest

siarad

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

enigma10

Guest

observer7

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

cmecu2

Guest

hohoho

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

eudoxus18

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

tdamskov

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

detriech69

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

detriech69

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page