Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

[derekmcd]

Thanks for reminding me I used the word "irregardless" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

We forgot the thread.Any way Newton was a nice guy,Hooke conceived the paper.Newton never acknowledged Hooke.

 

[bonzelite]

there is no gravity.

 

[search]

So you never read this thread? <br />I guess the "tomb raider" is to be blame if we start over again. (notty, notty) <br />The insult is to "rest a case" in a forum which is not a court case. <br />However take a look to the post dates and then you see the context.<br />Besides that do not do a favour to the crowd which is screamming for new blood.<br />Be above that.

 

[host777]

Apologies for readdressing Bonzelite’s idea.<br /><br />I read through this entire thread while sitting on the toilet (over many sessions). I have found it both entertaining and frustrating. One frustration was Bonzelite not addressing some excellent questions and then not admitting he didn’t know the answers. Equally annoying was people “writing off” Bonzelite’s view of gravity because he didn’t answer those questions.<br /><br />I share the view that gravity is an illusion and not a “force”. Many questions asked in this thread are excellent, but may be nonsense in the light of a deeper understanding of the fabric of the universe.<br /><br />For instance, an expanding earth seems ridiculous in the context of our three dimensional universe. Objects in apparent orbit around an expanding earth would indeed never be able to swing around the other side of the planet in Bonzelite’s model.<br /><br />However, when the universe is understood as existing in more than three dimensions, even the question of an expanding earth and the notion of orbits may not make sense. It is likely, should we be able to see things in a many dimensional universe, the expanding earth would actually be particles (encapsulated energy) moving in straight lines. Orbits, might also be particles moving in straight lines.<br /><br />The fact that all objects fall to earth at the same speed, irrespective of mass (and yes, I know that momentum counteracts the stronger mutual attraction of larger objects), is just all too convenient. The fact that objects approaching the earth do not “experience” gravity in their frame, that objects in orbit do not experience gravity in their frame, the fact that objects in orbit are moving and yet don’t on average get further away is cause to pause and think that perhaps an expanding earth, as stupid as it sounds, is more likely to be correct than an invisible force.<br /><br />When a round earth, rather than a flat earth, was originally put forward as an idea, I am sure many of t

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><i><br />For instance, an expanding earth seems ridiculous in the context of our three dimensional universe. Objects in apparent orbit around an expanding earth would indeed never be able to swing around the other side of the planet in Bonzelite’s model. </i></font><br /><br />ah yes. this thread is back. good lord <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <br /><br />you misunderstand the model. orbits happen because of expansion. an orbit is not much different from someone throwing a ball or rock up to the sky. or a bullet being fired across town. same thing. given proper geometric conditions of velocity and height, any of them will orbit, overcoming the expanding earth. else they fall back, being overtaken. an orbit is just a constant falling around the earth, an avoidance of being overtaken by the expanding earth by constantly --and just barely-- "outrunning it;" the velocity and height and size of the satellite in relative motion to the earth maintains the orbit, going all the way around the world. a gravity assist is a partial orbit. a thrown ball is not fast or high enough to orbit. but all events occur due to expansion and the constant acceleration of expanding bodies in relative motion to each other. <br /><br /><i><font color="yellow">that perhaps an expanding earth, as stupid as it sounds, is more likely to be correct than an invisible force. </font></i><br /><br />it's correct. not stupid at all. <br /><br />what are some questions that are unanswered --the thread became too overwhelmling and took too much of my time when it was in full swing. i was spending hours every day in this thread; i created a monster. what is a major question you want me to answer?

 

[bonzelite]

oh yes, and you must have had one marathon of a toilet session!! wow. LOL

 

[host777]

Thanks for the offer, but I don't need you to answer anything at this time. I agree with you on most things - thought you might like to know that someone else supports your view, since you've taken quite a beating in this thread. I agree that the universe, at its lowest level, is based on geometry. I'm just not sure we have got deep enough to figure it out. Circles bother me, and hence orbits bother me. I suspect that everything actually moves in straight lines - I'm still working on this.

 

[bonzelite]

the tendency of objects in proximity to each other is to orbit, not to remain in straight line paths. drop the idea of an <i>absolute</i> straight-line path as the "natural" state. the farther away objects are relative to each other, the straighter the paths, but this is not an <i>absolute state possessed by objects.</i><br /><br />and thank you by the way for your words of support. that is a rare gesture, indeed <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> i'm glad your mind is open to seeing past much of the erroneous mythology supported today in our science. <br /><br />

 

[stoonroon]

Basing an "Expanding Matter" model of gravity on Einstein's Equivalence Principle is not a new enterprise among "crackpots and amateurs." I say this lightheartedly, as I myself am one of them. To my knowledge, the 360 degree orbit problem has not been satisfactorily addressed, with one possible exception. A simple diagram of an expanding massive body at the center of a cartesian grid showing a very fast projectile launched horizontally from the y-axis should convince any reasonable person that the large body's expansion, by itself cannot cause the projectile to leave the first quadrant (90 degrees).<br /><br />But if the outward motion is conceived as generating space as well as expanding matter and if the motion is regarded -- by analogy with a uniformly rotating body -- as curving that space, then 360 degree orbits may be possible. A poignant comparison with General Relativity is presented by noting that General Relativity's Schwarzschild solution describes the "field" around a spherical mass as an utterly static thing. In some unknown way, this static field causes motion. The new idea is to regard MOTION as the cause of the curvature.<br /><br />The variation of acceleration with distance is another common and seemingly valid objection. This too, has not been adequately answered by "expanding matter" advocates ... with one possible exception. If the expansion were envisioned as occurring in a pre-existing three-dimensional space, the objection would stand and the expanding matter hypothesis would fall. But perhaps the expansion is better thought of as the projection of matter and space into (or outfrom) a fourth dimension of space. This might explain the inhomogeneity (inverse-square law) of the expansion. <br /><br />Rather than present more details here, interested readers should please go to:<br /><br />http--redshift.vif.com-JournalFiles-V14NO4PDF-V14N4BEN.pdf.webloc<br /><br />The above link is to a paper that has recently been published in the peer-reviewed journal,

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re Apeiron:<br /><br />"APEIRON publishes high-quality research papers in the area of <font color="yellow">ancient Greek and Roman philosophy and science. </font>The journal is interdisciplinary; submissions are expected to meet appropriate standards both of classical scholarship and of philosophical insight. APEIRON welcomes submissions in any aspect of ancient philosophy and science up to the end of the classical period, roughly the seventh century CE. "<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[stoonroon]

Evidently, there's more than one Apeiron. The one to which I referred is a modern physics journal, as stated in its author instructions:<br /><br />"Apeiron is a scientific journal devoted to cosmology and fundamental physics. It publishes only convincingly argued, adequately documented papers in English, as well as English translations of historically important texts."<br /><br />http://redshift.vif.com/author_instructions.htm<br /><br />The paper referred to above, "Laboratory Test of a Class of Gravity Models," can be found among those in the current issue:<br /><br />http://redshift.vif.com/current_issue.htm

 

[MeteorWayne]

"Apeiron is applying a peer review system involving internationally established researchers, most of whom, however, cannot be regarded as mainstream. Apeiron has become a forum for "dissident" researchers and opinions not accepted by the conventional system, mostly on the plea of speculation and fringe science. Apeiron has had notable contributions from authors involved in the early work of quantum mechanics and relativity such as JP Vigier.<br /><br />Apeiron is not indexed by the Web of Science abstract and citation database."<br /><br />That was from Wikpedia.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[stoonroon]

Of course I recognize Apeiron as a "fringe" journal.<br /><br />The mainstream accepts work that is in the mainstream. There's plenty of evidence which suggests that that stream is not wide enough to include the essence of physical reality. For example, they've been stuck pretty much about where they are for a really long time.<br /><br />One of the more critical members of the mainstream, Lee Smolin, has commented:<br /><br />"I believe there is something basic we are all missing, some wrong assumption we are all making. If this is so, then we need to isolate the wrong assumption and replace it with a new idea....I strongly suspect that the key is time. More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the origin of physics....Motion is frozen, and the whole history of constant motion and change is presented to us as something static and unchanging. If I had to guess (and guessing is what I do for a living), this is the scene of the crime....We have to find a way to unfreeze time."<br /><br />In my opinion, this frustration WITHIN the mainstream indicates that the solutions they are supposedly looking for will not be found in the mainstream. But even if this is not so, rather than implicitly impugn the value of a work because it's been published in a fringe journal, it may be more fruitful to encourage readers to seek out the truth, or attempts to find it, wherever it may be found. Perhaps you should read the Apeiron paper referred to above.