Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

detriech69 · Aug 1, 2006

Natural state? In whose mind? I have read enuf of the back posts to see how you answer some great debaters with plenty of creds to back themselves up with. Mental Avenger should not need to provide links to research known physics formulae. They are easy to find by any Jr. High (or much younger these days) student by Googleing physics and gravity. He is also one of my previous skeptics to FTL and rightly so. FTL is not even a theory, so much as a desire. This expansion theory is like a belief system. You believe it to be truth so you will fight for it. Great. Christians do it all the time, sometimes flying in the face of scientific fact. Do YOU believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed and the Earth was created 6,000 years ago? I certainly do not. But those that do will cling to their faith like it is Proven Fact, which, of course, it is NOT. But I base my statement on accepted and many different tested and retested ways others have performed thru the years. Geology, archeology, nuclear dating techniques (more than one type) and other methods all point to a very old Earth and a vast seperation in time between dinosaurs and us. But arguments persist in the fashion I've noticed you seem to be using. Diversion. Change of topic. Mis direction. You see, I give you credit for attempting to put this theory to a test on a forum like this. It IS a tough nut to crack. Almost everyone here will debate you on this because this theory is so incredible to even take seriously. If you aren't the author are you just one of the theory's champions? But if you want to swim with physic's police (and smart ones), you have to converse on their level and with an honest attempt to explain it to them with their own formulae. You almost have to make them read that book in its entirety on this forum and in this thread. And some of them will find the first flaw they disagree with and stop right there and say to themselves "WRONG!". I got pretty far before giving up. I doubt reading the who

Saiph · Aug 1, 2006

your idea is, at the moment, hypothesis and conjecture, not yet a theory. <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>

detriech69 · Aug 1, 2006

As far as curved paths go, why do we never see two objects hyperbole away from each other? I could say I perceive the color Red as Green, but the Cop would still give that ticket for running a red light. But nature doesn't seem to like a lot of straight lines, I must admit. Wait, I've given you room to wiggle here. No matter, my dinner's ready, gotta go.....

bonzelite · Aug 1, 2006

right. but your providing food for thought by the red/green light idea. solar systems and planets with moons are curved towards each other and orbit each other. as they expand and approach each other, they orbit as their relative motions, that which overtakes their mutual expansions into each other, keeps them at a perpetual distance. why, meaning at the very core "why"? who phoqing knows "why." why are we here? why is the universe in existence?

bonzelite · Aug 1, 2006

your idea is, at the moment, hypothesis and conjecture, not yet a theory. Saiph, expanding fabric of spacetime and accelerating universe upon expansion is entirely erroneous and conjectural. it is not a theory. nor is it in any way explained. yet is justified in cosmology as a standard of judgement. if anything, accelerating universe is laughable and a fairy tale.

detriech69 · Aug 1, 2006

I think that the more technically advanced and sensitive our observations get, the more we will have to revise and rethink our cherished theories, many times over. Same as usual, really. Only fools believe we have it all figured out, except for the fine details. So many accepted preconceptions may be wrong to start with. The Big Bang has to have Inflation to work. That's a hard pill to FTL haters, too. I guess one must have a certain set of rules your universe should follow to even have a framework to start measuring stuff within. If even one rule is based on a false assumption, the whole result is tainted. I get it. Even the great Einstein couldn't be infallible. We just can't prove all his predictions, yet. And if we find that we can't detect Gravity Waves of any kind with the most sensitive experiments, what then? Do we abandon Gravity Theory? I doubt it. Too much hinges on things staying status quo. It's a profit thing. Science is big business, just like disproving Global Warming is real. The money machine can't be restrained or governed by profit draining environmental restrictions, now can it? I hope my sarcasm isn't lost on anyone.....

bonzelite · Aug 1, 2006

Even the great Einstein couldn't be infallible. We just can't prove all his predictions, yet. And if we find that we can't detect Gravity Waves of any kind with the most sensitive experiments, what then? Do we abandon Gravity Theory? detriech, G and M are entirely unnecessary to the functioning of craft inserted into orbit. G is already abandoned every time a craft is sent to the planets. orbit is a relationship between relative velocity and orbital radius of the body. it is entirely presumptuous to say that einstein has not been entirely proven correct yet. in my opinion, this is equivalent to waiting for Godot --he never will arrive. nearly the entire paradigm of cosmology today is a tapestry of misguided beliefs about physical reality. i maintain this opinion regardless if expansion theory is correct or not. your statement below says it all very nicely: Too much hinges on things staying status quo. It's a profit thing. Science is big business,/i>

siarad · Aug 2, 2006

G is not abandoned it's the Universal constant therefore applying equally to the two objects. So all that is necessary is 'ratio' calculation. We could always use individually measured values for g it's just much easier to use the ratio & G. I remember using a ratio, 1/273?, for temperature calculations but the discovery of Absolute zero made it much simpler I recall getting no marks in an exam as I took two lines to the correct answer instead of nearly a page because I did it by ratio. The impedance of free space is 377 Ohms only to fit the system just like the value of G. Maybe if we knew what the unknown gravity was we could fill it in instead of the known value, G representing the unknown, just as with Absolute zero of temperature, or maybe it is just a constant hiding nothing. The value of the speed of light, C, depends upon others, u & e, of free space maybe G too. These factors such as 1/273 & speed of light, C, are just to fit the calculation system which is a representation of our thoughts of the universe. There's a system where C is one, not 670+ million miles an hour, some-one here pointed me to it. Your representation of thoughts about the universe don't seem easier then the existing system & according to other's, more able than I, insufficient to describe what we see. Testing existing systems is good as when something new comes up everyone is wrong except the new discoverer/inventor who tends to be derided. Maybe you will come up with the Absolute value of gravity similar to the Absolute zero of temperature no-one else seems to be looking <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

derekmcd · Aug 2, 2006

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. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I have to admit, my "traditional newtonian thinking" made me overlook that little scenario. Good catch on HoHoHo's part. However... I wouldn't mind seeing that effect backed up with a bit of math. I can, with absolute precision, describe what happens with the 2 spheres using d=1/2at^2. What you are describing is a parabolic effect similar to the Vomit Comet (err, Weighless Wonder)... except, there is no parabola, it is straight up and down. This effect should be measurable. I know you will contend that since everything is expanding it is not measurable. What I am trying to figure out is how d=1/2at^2 works with your contention. Under your theory, the formula would have to be adjusted to be more gradual in its acceleration if only for a brief moment until that sphere is in actual free-fall. What I'm trying to say is that under Newtonian gravity, both spheres are adhering to d=1/2at^2 the instant the 2nd sphere is released. Considering the earth is expanding at 9.8m/s^2, I'm trying to understand how that formula works if, when released, a sphere is still accelerating with an expanding earth until it reaches a floating state. I think I contradicted myself somehow trying to find a flaw in this one. I think this one might work for ya, Bonz... glad I could help <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. Irregardless, still too many unanswered questions or insufficient answers that need to be resolved in order for this theory to be plausible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

Saiph · Aug 2, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Saiph, expanding fabric of spacetime and accelerating universe upon expansion is entirely erroneous and conjectural. it is not a theory. nor is it in any way explained. yet is justified in cosmology as a standard of judgement. if anything, accelerating universe is laughable and a fairy tale.<hr /></blockquote> Well, it may be wrong, but nobody's shown that to be the case yet. First, it is a valid solution to GR equations, and GR is a very accurate and tested theory, so expanding space-time is at least a valid solution to the red-shift problem. Second, it accurately reproduces the distance vs redshift relationship, and is robust enough to easily incorporate a curved relationship, as opposed to a purely linear one. Third, other observations feed into it as well, such as distance vs age and composition. Further objects look universaly younger, as opposed to having a wide range of development amongst objects. As such, it answers a lot of questions in a coherent fashion, and is pretty well developed, bringing it beyond the hypothesis stage (right or wrong). <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>

etfonehome · Sep 19, 2006

Bonzelite, I applaud your effort in trying to explain this new concept. As for the "partial orbit" diagram that some may have been complaining about in the TFT book. Well, let me take a shot at it. The "partial orbit" that is shown in the diagram is actually an entry into an orbit, not an orbit in itself. The "orbit" is established once the two balls are at 'equilibrium'; when the two balls heading away from each other seem to end up not moving at all. Geometrically speaking, the two balls moving away from each other and yet keeping the same distance (in relation to our units of measurement) because of the accelerated expansion toward each other is considered an orbit. Picture for a moment these to balls in space, seemingly just floating next to each other. Now, imagine one of those balls simply spinning on it's axis. If you stood on the ball that was spinning, it would look as if the other ball was rotating or orbiting around you and the spinning ball. As you can see there is an orbit and yet there is no "force" required to explain the orbit! As for the 1/6th moon weight issue. Some have tried to falsly debunk the idea of a gradient difference in the moon's effective gravity by saying that our satillites that orbit the moon did not detect any difference in gravity. Well, let me clarify something for you. Gravity cannot be PHYSICALLY measured unless you are actually in contact with the surface. For example, it is common knowledge that if you drop a feather and a car from the same distance from the earth, they will hit the ground at exactly the same time. This is not to say you cannot predict the gravity of other celestial bodies from a distance. Newton did, although not accuratly, with his calculations of what the moon's gravity should be. He predicted nearly 1/4th that of earth's gravity. Which is what ET predicts. The reason why I said Newton wasn't exactly accurate was because he based his e

search · Sep 19, 2006

Hello TJ50 Only now I saw this thread and I noticed 3 things: 1. This thread as been running now for a few months deviating from objective. 2. I could not really find any post answering in concrete to your original question. 3. You did not reply to all those who who tried to answer it. So even though I am risking 3 things: 1. That you will never read this. 2. That I will spoil the interest of this thread due to the many interesting posts I have found here. 3. That I may be totally wrong. I will try to answer: Who invented or created the theory of gravity? First there is no Theory of Gravity. There is a Theory of Universal Gravitation which was presented by Isaac Newton in his book "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" in 5 July 1687. Newton work derived from Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion . First two laws written in his book Astronomia Nova from 1609 and the third law from his book Harmonices Mundi from 1619. Kepler was influenced by Tycho Brahe and was comtemporary of Galileo Galilei . Galileo corresponded with Giovanni Battista Baliani which made some very interesting observations: "In his 1638 tract De motu naturali gravium solidorum he describes the correct laws of gravity, movement on inclined planes and th

alokmohan · Sep 19, 2006

We have shifted from the original topic.Newton wrote Principia based on papers of Robert Hooke.He never acknowledge that.However, I say Robert Hook first wrote it . At first glance Newton appears to outshine and outclass Robert Hooke. When Hooke is mentioned to this day, we usually speak of Newton as well, but not the other way around. They influenced one another far more than either would ever admit and, though each deserves his own separate identity, Hooke has rarely been granted his. This is largely because, though Newton and Hooke had much in common, they were bitter enemies, and Newton was able to exert far more influence over the Royal Society and, thereby, over the entire scientific community of his day. Robert Hooke's genius is hidden in shadows created partly by Hooke himself, but largely by Isaac Newton, a man who could not speak without contempt for Hooke, even long after Hooke's death, and who may well have taken steps to obliterate much of Hooke's contributions to science. http://starryskies.com/~kmiles/spec/hooks.html

search · Sep 19, 2006

Absolutely Alokmohan Robert Hook lost his place in history due to this mutual problem. "In 1679, Hooke wrote to Newton advocating an inverse square law of gravitation. He had probably discovered the relationship before 1660 but lacked the mathematical ability to formally prove it." Isaac Newton never gave credit to Robert Hook "important contributions" proving once again that: "History belongs to the winner". Anon However as a Theory...Isaac Newton

vandivx · Sep 19, 2006

<"Robert Hook lost his place in history due to this mutual problem. "In 1679, Hooke wrote to Newton advocating an inverse square law of gravitation. He had probably discovered the relationship before 1660 but lacked the mathematical ability to formally prove it." Isaac Newton never gave credit to Robert Hook "important contributions" proving once again that: "History belongs to the winner". Anon However as a Theory...Isaac Newton" /> the problem with debates like this one is that people don't fully realize the value of a whole theory vs the individual parts that it ties together and from this failure to appreciate the theory come those harkings that this or that scientist did come up with this and that before and shouldn't be forgotten (or worse - he came with it first and another one stole his idea and/or didn't acknowledge it...) also another thing is that in school when one first learns about those things, one only hears the simplified version and that is also all that general public knows, I am sure that anybody with some interest in history of science knows very well that there was some Hooke and what he did etc etc., only one can't expect his name to be known to general public or science acolytes one can belittle anybody's achievements that way when one first gets acquainted with history of science and finds that this or that geinus didn't come up with his theory single handed tabula rasa so to speak but that he had many precursors who had some partial insights or incling of his later theory another problem is that once you sow something you reap it, Hooke fell out with Newton for various reasons and Newton felt bitter then to the person of Hooke and would try his best to not acknowledge him even if he otherwise might have had (I can imagine) and he had easier work of it than most because if he said he arrived at something on his own independently, it could actually very well have <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

search · Sep 20, 2006

I agree with most of what you say The question itself prompts the debate between Newton and Hook. The other part of the question which I did not adress because I do not think it was intentional is the difference between "Invented" and "Created". Invent is the creation of something that did not exist before and to a certain extente, Hook invented the inverse square with distance law but did not create the theory which was the work of Newton. Newton failed in the recognition of Hook's work. The fact is that the theory is alive and kicking and if you just learn the content or the history of it it is pretty much a personal or interest choice. The question was an historical question not a scientific one.

alokmohan · Sep 20, 2006

Newton was a cantankerous person.He fell out everybody except persons in authority.There is no end to his meanness.He wanted to hang Robert Hooke after death to hang him.He had a guilty conscious about Robert Hooke.Which brings me back to Hooke and Newton. It is often suggested that not only did Newton "borrow" ideas from Hooke, he wasn't always inclined, the above quote notwithstanding, to give Hooke as much credit as he deserved. In fact there is evidence to suggest that Hooke had a more accurate picture of gravity and planetary motion than did Newton. Yet it is Newton who we think of when it comes to both. We often refer to Newtonian physics yet Hooke had done much of the work that made Newton's work possible. Robert Hooke was definitely recognized in his day. For example he was appointed curator of experiments for the New Royal Society on the 5th November 1662 a post he held for 40 years. The year Hooke died in 1703, Isaac Newton became (some say finagled his way into) President of the Royal Society. It may be a coincidence but the only known portrait of Hooke which had been housed in the President's office, was mysteriously lost as were the records of much of Hooke's work. In Newton's defense it could be argued that the lack of acknowledgment for Robert Hooke and his contribution to science could be blamed on Hooke himself. Being a polymath, involved with many diverse projects, experiments, explorations, and activities he may not have always followed through with proper publication of his work. He was above all a hands-on experimenter who made significant contributions to microscopy, optics, time keeping, geography, meteorology, the nature of gases, architecture and construction to name but a few. He was also inclined to freely share his thoughts with others such as Van Leeuwenhoek, Robert Boyle and Christopher

vandivx · Sep 20, 2006

alokmohan, it would be more believable if it wasn't for sad reality that just about any genious could be said to have such dark side, depending on who you ask, there is always plenty of those with grievances against them, including Einstein (it started with askance why there wasn't single quote of attribution in his famous 1905 papers and Lorenz could be said was almost his 'Hooke' LOL), Rand (in humanities) who was called just about every name and who fell out with everybody and attacked for not being original at all because others before her came up with almost everything that made up her philosophy system of Objectivism... I think that his 'dark side' in the case of Newton was unfortunate and was the result of rivalities that he had to face and that the 'real Newton' wasn't like that, just read his letters responding throughout his life to scientific querries from various personages of his day, nice letters, polite to fault (admitedly as times required) from which no cantankerousness was visible unless touching upon those sore spots that Newton had with particular people (one such letter fresh in my mind is the one regarding infinity since I happen to have written something on the subject) ultimately what speaks for Newton (and for others like him) is his work which it is hard to believe could be the work of an embittered, cantankerous and spitefull 'small man' that he is painted to be you just have to imagine how it is when you work out some new truth about universe and come out with it before public and instead of gaining approval, you reap alegiation of having stolen this or that idea and other critique of similar hue while nobody seems to see the whole picture, perhaps because it is too new for the times, no wonder Newton was at times sorry for coming out with his work at all after being embroiled in controversy over it bottom line is that without geniuses who are able to integrate and thus advance the whole field paving i <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

alokmohan · Sep 22, 2006

Newton misused his position as Chair man of Royal society ,he might have tampered also.Read entry on Newton in Encyclopedia Briitanica,we may agree.

vandivx · Sep 22, 2006

yes, all that might have happened for all we know but what really matters to me is that he knew how to think and look at the world with his own eyes, not through preconceived notions of others, his dabling in religion in his later years notwithstanding all those scientific disputes Newton had with Hooke and others were really like that scene from the film Amadeus where Salieri composed a short piano piece for his majesty to play at the ocasion of giving audience to Mozart at the court and Mozart then played the piece from memory, hearing it just once while waiting for admission at the door and immediately he enlarged upon it and made it into a finished piece of music... if Mozart would later on included that finished piece in his other work and perhaps write a whole opera around it there might very well have been grudge and dispute on Salieri's part if he wouldn't be explicitly acknowledged and I doubt if Mozart would have done that in that film it was made like that Salieri's tune was no good and likely people saw it that way when viewing the film but it wasn't so, not even genius could make it into something worth hearing if it wasn't good basis that was just unfinished in the first place, Salieri wasn't bad composer but 'just' good one that lacked the touch of genius of Mozart in similar way that's how it might have been with Newton and Hooke and Leibnitz with the calculus dispute etc., when he might have used an idea of theirs as departure point and build a whole symphony around it as the master he was while at the same time not feeling indebted to them for it, perhaps because he really had come up with that himself or just didn't see much value in unfinished ideas as such that could have been at best just departure points to something valuable and so didn't warrant credit in his eyes, especially if some ideas have been freely circulating in scientific community for some time without leading to something fruitfull Y <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Sep 23, 2006

I think I contradicted myself somehow trying to find a flaw in this one. I think this one might work for ya, Bonz... glad I could help . Irregardless, still too many unanswered questions or insufficient answers that need to be resolved in order for this theory to be plausible. it's all good, derek <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> there are too many unanswered questions in standard theory for it to be plausible as well. it just happens to be most popular regardless of year-to-year discoveries that further contradict it's validity.

alokmohan · Sep 24, 2006

Gravity tugs at the center of a priority battle By I. Peterson CAMBRIDGE, England, July 1686 — A bitter dispute over who came up with a fundamental rule of gravity threatens the publication of a sweeping new theory on the nature of planetary motion. The theory at issue is the work of Isaac Newton of Trinity College in Cambridge, already known and highly respected for his research in optics and mathematics. Newton proposes a law of gravity based on the idea that bodies attract each other in proportion to their masses and inversely as the square of the distance separating them. Doubling the distance between two celestial bodies, for instance, would reduce the gravitational force between them to one-quarter of its previous value. Newton's forthcoming book, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, explains how his theory accounts for the elliptical orbits of planets, the motion of comets, the occurrence of tides, and a variety of other phenomena. It's an "incomparable treatise," says Edmond Halley, clerk to the Royal Society for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge in London, who is in charge of publishing Newton's book and has studied the first two parts of the manuscript. Now, Robert Hooke, secretary to the Royal Society, contends that Newton did not himself invent the notion that an inverse-square force law governs planetary motion. "Newton stole the idea from me," he insists. Hooke says that he had written to Newton about planetary and projectile motion in 1679, after developing his own "system of the world" to explain natural phenomena. He admits, however, that he was unable to master the mathematics required to show how elliptical orbits arise from an inverse-square law. Acknowledging that Newton had succeeded in solving the mathematical problem but incensed that his own name is not mentioned in a section of Newton's treatise recently read at a Royal Society meeting, Hooke has demanded that N

search · Sep 24, 2006

stevehw33 Is this post regarding any post I made before? Because I could not find any references to what you are saying in any of my previous posts. Maybe you could be more specific...

search · Sep 25, 2006

Yes... You should rest...your case seems to be serious. ...sed quid in infernos dicetne?

alokmohan · Sep 25, 2006

Einstin regretted thtat Newton did not acknowledge.

Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

detriech69

Guest

Saiph

Guest

detriech69

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

detriech69

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

siarad

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Saiph

Guest

etfonehome

Guest

search

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

search

Guest

vandivx

Guest

search

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

vandivx

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

vandivx

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

search

Guest

search

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page