Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

mental_avenger · Jun 26, 2006

bonzelite asks: now, the question is........... how is this mass being accelerated? Gravity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

bonzelite · Jun 26, 2006

yes, but how? when one just says "gravity," that is like saying "because it just is."

Swampcat · Jun 26, 2006

"Is it a coincidence that most band trumpets are tuned to Bb?" A little off topic here... Interesting observation, but probable just coincidence. There's nothing special about the trumpet (or any other band instrument, which also tunes to Concert Bb). Concert Bb just happens to be the best pitch to tune a Bb trumpet since there are no valves depressed and other valve crooks are not involved in the basic tuning of the instrument -- among other reasons. Of course, orchestral instruments tune to A440 which has no clear connection to the BB <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

CalliArcale · Jun 26, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Is it a coincidence that most band trumpets are tuned to Bb? <hr /></blockquote> A more intriguing question might be: why do bands tune to B flat and orchestras tune to A (440)? Curiously, the reason orchestras use A is becuase it is the best tuning note for the most difficult-to-tune instrument in the orchestra: the oboe. But oboes are played in concert bands as well. Presumably, concert bands borrow from the traditions of marching bands and drum & bugle corps, which generally do not include oboes. But we digress. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

mental_avenger · Jun 26, 2006

Perhaps it is on topic. Is it possible that the note Bb has some cosmic significance? Here we have the echo from the BB and a pressure wave from a black hole, both resonating at Bb. Since that note pervades the Universe, perhaps evolution programmed a predilection Bb into everything, including our sense of music. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

observer7 · Jun 26, 2006

There is no gravity, the Earth just sucks. On a more serious note. If gravity is a "force" in the same sense as the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces are, then one day we should be able to build devices that manipulate gravity in the same way we do with electricity now. The question that comes to mind is how much processing power could you get from a "gravity powered quantum computer" ? And I bet that with one we could solve the superstring equations and have our TOE. Wouldn't that be ironic. -- <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" Albert Einstein </div>

mental_avenger · Jun 26, 2006

bonzelite says: yes, but how? when one just says "gravity," that is like saying "because it just is." Not at all. Gravity IS what accelerates mass towards another massive body. We may not fully understand the mechanism employed, but there are some things we do know about gravity. Gravity is a force. Gravity is an attractive force. (maybe that is why there are so many cute theories about it) Gravity acts across a distance. The force of gravity is proportional to the mass of the bodies and inversely proportional to the distance between them. The static force of gravity can be measured. Gravity is often expressed as acceleration, but that is only logical. A constant force applied to any object will accelerate it as long as the force is enough to overcome the resistance. So to answer your quesiton: how is this mass being accelerated? The force of gravity is applied to the massive object over a period of time. a = Delta v/t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

Swampcat · Jun 26, 2006

"...why do bands tune to B flat and orchestras tune to A (440)?" OK, Mod Calli, I'll follow along on this off topic trip <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. I started putting together a response to your post, but it started to turn into a dissertation on tuning <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. My bachelors degree is in Music Education and I was ready to cut lose and do some longwinded teaching <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. Too much for Uplink. The simple answer to your question is that bands don't have strings and orchestras do. (There are some exceptions -- some bands include double basses for some odd reason.) Violins, violas, violoncellos and double basses would find it quite difficult to tune to Concert Bb. A440 is a much better choice as all orchestral string instruments have an A string. Also, an oboist can play an A440 with one hand while holding the tuning fork in the other. A Bb requires 2 hands (I'm not an oboe player -- trumpet major, 'cello and piano minor -- but a fingering chart is easy to find on Google <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />). As far as bands using Concert Bb, you might want to read my previous post. It just so happens that Concert Bb is an open note (no valves depressed) for trumpets (although most bands use cornets instead -- picky, picky), and for a trombone Concert Bb is first position (slide all the way in). IOW, there are practical considerations for using Concert Bb rather than A. Otherwise, it is somewhat of a compromise for either an orchestra or a band -- the best tuning note for a Bb Clarinet is probably a Concert F. Here I go writing that dissertation again...I'll stop and let this thread get back on topic <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

vandivx · Jun 26, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I assume that it's Isaac Newton, but am unsure if that's correct<hr /></blockquote> Newton was the first to put forward 'scientific' theory of gravitation and that qualified him as the one who created the theory of gravitation that by the way we use as the basis of all gravitational theories to this day. vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Jun 26, 2006

and all that he did was create yet another flawed theory that is accepted as fact, when, really, it is fraught with contradictions and unknowns. there is no gravity.

vandivx · Jun 26, 2006

Mental_Avenger I don't think the guy wants answer such as you give, it looks as if he is playing the role of one throwing monkey wrench into disucssions asking what he thinks are deep questions designed to stump people, or else he is burning with pent up desire to let on that he knows some big answers but doesn't want to tell us what he knows, just to let us know that he knows so we beg him to tell us LOL vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vandivx · Jun 26, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> and all that he did was create yet another flawed theory that is accepted as fact, when, really, it is fraught with contradictions and unknowns.<hr /></blockquote> that's just smear with no substance to it, if you know better, say it, else you know what to do vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Jun 26, 2006

Prove otherwise, Bonzelite. And that *IS* an official challenge. Either prove it or retract it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

mental_avenger · Jun 26, 2006

It just so happens that Concert Bb is an open note (no valves depressed) for trumpets Yes, for Bb trumpets it is. That was my point. A few trumpets and other horns are manufactured in the key of Eb, F, A, and G, but most are in Bb. So what is it about Bb? Is there some technical reason for trumpets being mostly in Bb, or could it be that Bb is somehow “natural” to us? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

bonzelite · Jun 27, 2006

the general acceleration due to "gravity" of objects falling to earth, despite their masses, is 9.8m/s^2, right? and this is an acceleration, right? so first off, we all agree on this, yes?

mental_avenger · Jun 27, 2006

the general acceleration due to "gravity" of objects falling to earth, despite their masses, is 9.8m/s^2, right? No, not exactly, not despite their masses. For objects whose masses are very small compared to the mass of the earth, that is an approximate figure. That is a natural function of the formula. Actually, the force of gravity is calculated as F=Gm1m2/d2, where F is the force of gravity, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two bodies attracting each other, d is the distance between the center of masses of the two bodies, and G is the gravitational constant. The acceleration of gravity due to the Earth’s gravitation is a=GMe/r2 where G is the gravitational constant, Me is the mass of the Earth, and r is the distance to the center of the Earth. Since the radius of the earth is very large compared to the dimensions of most objects under consideration, for an object near the surface of the earth, r is approximately constant and equal to the radius of the earth, Re. Therefore an object near the surface of the earth will experience a nearly constant acceleration. For most objects that we see “fall” to Earth, that acceleration is approximately 9.8 m/s2 near the Earth. Please note that as the mass of the “other” body approaches a significant portion of the mass of the Earth, that figure changes in a measurable way. There are plenty of links which show the calculations and examples. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

bonzelite · Jun 27, 2006

Therefore an object near the surface of the earth will experience a nearly constant acceleration right. that is what i meant. generally that is true. obviously this is not the same for the moon or mars relative to the earth, or a body in orbit like the space shuttle, etc... in such cases, the geometric relationships are different, but the principle that creates their orbits, or "falls," is the same. it is a geometric phenomenon due to acceleration of objects. i'm talking from a height above the ground that is not in orbit. and objects like a person, a truck, a rock, a feather, minus wind resistance. it's all the same. we agree, then. these things fall at a constant rate regardless of their mass --to a point (as you mentioned). now. these examples of objects are well within the earth's "gravity well." that is, the objects are not attracted to the earth, per se, yet the free-floating objects meet the ground as the earth is falling up to meet objects. the objects are not falling to the earth. this is proven as their masses, as described, matter very little, almost none, as their fall is a constant 9.8m/s^2. the earth is falling up to the objects equally. gravity is a result of the geometric expansion of the earth itself, thus accelerating outwardly, holding objects on it's surface near it. or objects in it's near vicinity that are thrown upwards to then "fall" back to the surface. the acceleration of the expansion of the earth's surface holds objects onto it, or orbiting about it. there is no difference between acceleration upon objects and gravity. they are one and the same.

derekmcd · Jun 27, 2006

Here we go again <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. Just because Einstien's equivalence principle states the 2 are "indistinguishable" does not make them the same. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

vandivx · Jun 27, 2006

yeah, the gravitation behaves exactly as if the earth's surface was expanding outwards in accelerated fashion but the point is it is not in fact doing that, else the earth would be the size of galaxy at least these days or whatever, something huge, and it is not, what gives then. I am dissapointed, I thought you would tell us how really really gravitation works, that is how the earth can do what it does without having to suffer the accelerated expansion outwards vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vonster · Jun 27, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />the free-floating objects meet the ground as the earth is falling up to meet objects<hr /></blockquote> you know, ive tried to follow along with your reasoning before on this and i applaud your maverick spirit however - its still not making rational sense. are you somehow implying that all of the matter in the percievable universe is expanding internally .. ie is the entire subatomic structure of the matter in the universe "blowing up" such that (we being part of that universe) can only detect this as what we call "gravity"? .

nova_explored · Jun 27, 2006

bonz, if "there is no difference between acceleration upon objects and gravity. they are one and the same," how do we then explain free floating objects, say helicopters and planes, gliders. They perform enough thrust to maitain an altitude. So, is this expansion of the earth somehow nullified? or does the helicopter suddenly fine balance with an ever expanding earth and not get overtaken by expansion as a plane flying overhead at a greater speed goes by? it makes more sense if: due to spin and mass of an object, relegates a constant by which all other objects are attracted to its center. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Jun 27, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />i'm talking from a height above the ground that is not in orbit.<hr /></blockquote> Minor quibble: being in orbit is determined by your trajectory (in particular, your velocity), not by your altitude. Theoretically, an object could be in orbit at an altitude of a foot, but it would surely run into things. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> (And of course the fact that the Earth's mass is not perfectly distributed will have a profound effect at such close range.) <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />there is no difference between acceleration upon objects and gravity. they are one and the same. <hr /></blockquote> They can be treated the same, but although all gravitational fields produce acceleration, not all acceleration is due to gravity. The transitive property of equality does not apply in this situation. It is true that you could, with some serious mathematical calisthenics, produce a model where gravity is actually the Earth's material accelerating outwards. After all, as we well know, everything is relative and no frame of reference is to be preferred, therefore it's valid to do this. Not neccesarily sensible, but valid. But this will get far more complicated than I think you expect. Your model will have to explain why the trajectory of a passing object is deflected by a large mass if there is no force acting between them, and produce mathematical equations to predict this. (In short, you'll need to derive the classic gravity equations from your model, and that won't be easy.) In fact, the mathematics may be insoluble. A similar problem faced Renaissance astronomers such as Tycho Brahe, who were attempting to derive equations which would predict the motion of the planets in a geocentric solar system. They were getting close, but it seemed that with each advance, the model simply got more complicated. Reading the history of <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>

mental_avenger · Jun 27, 2006

bonzelite says: these things fall at a constant rate regardless of their mass 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. The center of mass of the Earth (barycenter) is different for different points on the surface. The current limit of instrumentation can only measure the differences in acceleration due to the difference in the radius of the Earth of a few meters. Of course, this also applies to objects falling from different altitudes. For more on the subject, research the Two Body Problem As to your contention regarding the ” geometric expansion of the earth itself”, that falls apart immediately on several fronts, not the least of which is the difference in acceleration due to the difference in masses of various objects and also the difference in acceleration due to the difference in the distance of various objects from the barycenter of the Earth. there is no difference between acceleration upon objects and gravity. they are one and the same. The phrase ”acceleration upon objects” is an incomplete and indefinable concept. It cannot be used in a direct comparison with gravity because it is not phrased properly to do so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

CalliArcale · Jun 27, 2006

Just to clarify my post above (I can get confusingly long winded at times, and for that I apologize), I think that the challenge in reconciling reality with bonzelite's premise is so difficult as to actually be impossible. But I would be interested in seeing how bonzelite proposes to reconcile it with reality. In particular, how do orbits work? Why is the effect not observable by observers not fixed to the ground? Why is the acceleration not, in fact, constant between all things but is affected by both the size of the two objects and the distance between them? In short, I do not think it is possible to derive F=Gm1m2/d2 mathematically from bonzelite's model. And that equation does accurately predict reality. <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>

vonster · Jun 27, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />In short, I do not think it is possible to derive F=Gm1m2/d2 mathematically from bonzelite's model. And that equation does accurately predict reality<hr /></blockquote> this is exactly what i think ... although i would have no clue of what specific mathematical formula(s) it would break down against .. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> my intuition said that - although what he is saying has merit as an exercise in outside the box thinking - it probably would not hold up against real world facts and would be unable to make all the predictions it needed to. i like the way of thinking though, because it can definitely lead to breakthroughs in other areas that you would have never come acrost otherwise ... if merely as an exercise in imagination and freedom of thought (which science needs a whole lot more of anyway imo) . . .

Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

mental_avenger

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

observer7

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

vandivx

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

vandivx

Guest

vandivx

Guest

yevaud

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

vandivx

Guest

vonster

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

vonster

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page