Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

superluminal · Jun 27, 2006

___________________________________________ Superluminal says: Gravity is mass and acceleration. No, it is not. It might be more appropriate to say that the effect of gravity is manifested as a function of mass under acceleration. ______________________________________________ Perhaps I should have stated as I did in this thread Anti - acceleration (non gravity) Einsteins theory click here Quoting here a little from Brian Greene's book titled The Fabric of the Cosmos. Warps, Curves, and Gravity page 68 , 523.1 dew. dec. system at your local library. Through special relativity, Einstein showed that every observer cuts up spacetime into parallel slices that he or she considers to be all of space at successive instants of time,with the unexpected twist that observers moving relative to one another at constant velocity will cut through spacetime at different angles. If one such observer should start accelerating, you might guess that the moment to moment changes in his speed and/or direction of motion would result in moment to moment changes in the angle and orientation of his slices. Roughly speaking, this is what happens. Einstein ( using geometrical insights articulated by Carl Friedrich Gauss, Georg Bernhard Riemann, and other mathematicians in the nineteenth century ) developed this idea- by fits and starts- and showed that the differently angled cuts through the spacetime loaf smoothly merge into slices that are curved but fit together as perfectly as spoons in a silverware tray. An accelerated observer carves spatial slices that are warped. With this insight, Einstein was able to invoke the equivalence principle to profound effect.Since gravity and acceleration are equivalent, Einstein understood that <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Columbia and Challenger Starships of Heroes </div>

vandivx · Jun 27, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />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?<hr /></blockquote> I don't get why the 'effect', that is gravitating due to accelerated expansion of earth shouldn't be 'observable by observers not fixed to the ground', IMO it would be observable no problem. I also don't see how the 'size' (which I take means mass) of objects comes into it. However the last objection has merrit, the one about 'distance between them'. Equating gravitational accelertion with 'plain acceleration', that is with one due to expansion of earth's surface outwards falls on its face when it is noticed that the accelerated expansion has to proceed at one rate on the surface of earth (9.82 m/s2) and at another (lesser) rate higher above surface. How could the expansion have different rates at different distances?? Somehow gravitation is not after all the same thing as acceleration although it describes it perfectly in some (but not all - like that mentioned curved trajectory of flyby objects for example) given isolated situations. As to Newton and his theory of gravitation, it is patent nonsense to talk about it being riddled with anything. By such approach everything can be said to be riddled with contradictions and what not if it is not revealed ultimate truth for all time. And how do we know that with current theories and how could Newton know and would it be better if he just didn't come up with anything then. Makes one wonder if we would then even have forum like this to smear him LOL vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Jun 27, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I don't get why the 'effect', that is gravitating due to accelerated expansion of earth shouldn't be 'observable by observers not fixed to the ground', IMO it would be observable no problem.<hr /></blockquote> Precisely -- it should be observable. Yet observers in aircraft or spacecraft do not observe an accelerated expansion of the Earth. This is particularly interesting in the case of spacecraft. If "gravity" is truly a fictitious force (like centrifugal force) and is merely a byproduct of the Earth's expansion, then orbits should not work. There is no reason for a spacecraft's trajectory to bend around the Earth, and the difference between gravitation and expansion should be obvious. <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>

vandivx · Jun 28, 2006

if gravitation was due to earth expanding as said above, it would be naturally carrying atmosphere with it and airplanes would still have to lean on air with their wings to stay aloft or be brought down to suface by the virtue of the earth coming up to them in accelerated fashion, they just lean against earth with their wings same as we stand on our legs, orbiting objects though would have to figure out how to stay aloft orbiting like all satelites incl the moon, true LOL vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

siarad · Jun 28, 2006

Eb is a very sombre key & Bb a bright key. I used to play 'calls' during my RAF service, who use Eb but whenever possible used a 'valve' trumpet as they are usually Bb, the brighter key, for playing Last Post as the brighter key is more emotional. Modern keys are a little offtune as Beethoven brought in the 'equal tempered scale' of root 12 spacing so we don't hear previous music as it was actually written.

bdewoody · Jun 28, 2006

My question is: If gravity reveals itself to us in the form of a wave, like sound or maybe light, will we ever discover a way to cancel it and therefore have anti-gravity. To me anti-gravity is the only way space travel will become widespread so we won't have to re-enter the atmosphere like a flaming rock. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Bob DeWoody </div>

Swampcat · Jun 28, 2006

"Eb is a very sombre key & Bb a bright key." That effect is not as apparent in modern equal temperament, but you're right and may even have something to do with why the Bb trumpet became the most popular. I thought about this Bb thing while traveling yesterday. If I get a chance, I'd like to find the frequencies for Bb in other methods of tuning (particularly non-equal temperament) and see how they align with M_A's thinking. Note: I wouldn't say modern keys are "offtune" (depends on one's perspective), but it is true that older music was played on instruments tuned somewhat differently than modern instruments. <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 28, 2006

canceling gravity and antigravity are different things, the first simply means exemption from gravitational attraction so that a simple jump would carry men into space (if it was just men that were exempt and if we discount atmoshperic influences), the second - the antigravity (again as applied to men) means that we would have to hold onto dear old earth in some way so as not to be carried away up into cosmic space with the initial acceleration of 9.82 m/s2. We could carry lead weights in pockets to keep us down (assuming only our bodies would antigravitate). In analogy with electric charge, cancelation of gravity would mean being electrically neutral while antigravity would mean acquiring 'opposite gravitational charge'. I imagine that one day we might be sending spaceships up in rocket like starting manner and it will be done by altering space in the immediate neighbourhood of the rocket while it sits on launch pad so as to cause effective decrease of the mass of the ship during the start (that would be in effect partial cancellation of gravity). It might be effective only for the very takeoff, maybe for the first hundred meters, but that's where most energy goes into when rockets are taking off, into the very first few seconds of travel when they are gaining the initial momentum. If that could be relieved, then rocket engines wouldn't have to be so bulky and dangerous and expensive. Total cancelation of gravity might never be possible since gravity is so basic to matter, turning it the other way to have antigravity would seem more like doable in that light although it belongs to pipe dream category today. vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

minotast · Jun 29, 2006

Nikola Tesla was born in 1856. Sir Isaac Newton was born in 1643. Now which of the two do you think first discovered Gravity?

derekmcd · Jun 29, 2006

I believe the moon is 1.6 m/s^2?... How do we not percieve it getting smaller if it is accelerating outward at a slower rate? This assuming the rate of expansion of space between the moon and earth remains constant. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

derekmcd · Jun 29, 2006

not to mention, Tesla was an electrical engineer. Not sure he dabbled to much with gravity and the laws therein. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

sphynx · Jul 5, 2006

I have understood that the rapid expansion of the Universe is constant and that its density enlarges with time, for which if this expansion does not stop in some moment, inside thousands of millions of years few galaxies will be seen, all to go being moved away each time more some of other. Nevertheless, although the expansion of the Universe was formulated initially by the Theory of the Relatividad and then verified by different observations, nobody has been able to venture a convincing explanation of the causes cosmológicas of this expansion. The expansion of the Universe is attributed to a gravitational repulsion force species, the thus called dark energy, that represents the three quarters parts of the universal energy and that is known also as energy of the empty one, in allusion al empty quantum. In final the head is the Gravity, the acceleration of the Universe cannot be explained by force known, but is the result of unexpected properties that declares the Gravity in the end of the cosmos. Well, we imagine for a moment that to exist hidden dimensions in the Universe, just as the teoria of the cords suggests it us. We suppose also that the enlargement temporary space that verify in the Universe was not unlimited. After the Big Bang we find us with an expansion of the Universe, then a slowing of the impulse and now, unceremoniously a new acceleration. Reasoning: something has occurred that is escaping itself us, a point of inflection in the Universe has existed that are not recognizing. The gravitational forces that were exhausting their energia initial suddenly they recover it! What is that, what has occurred that we have not seen. ..? For me the solution is the following one: The gravity, is escaping from the system. It is being filtered toward an unknown dimension that only emerges when two heavenly bodies reach a distance cosmológica critical. Th

bonzelite · Jul 5, 2006

you know, ive tried to follow along with your reasoning before on this and i applaud your maverick spirit thanks. the cosmos is mysterious. i don't think we've even barely begun to understand it. i think a lot of precepts and laws are far afield, regardless of how rock solid some of them have become through habitual thinking. however - its still not making rational sense. i can see that. i understand. i have only proposed a simplified explanation. 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"? yes. you got it. exactly. everything expands at a universal "rate" if you will that is a constant. therefore, via our perception, everything maintains it's relative size and proportions. those objects that are of greater mass obviously expand --proportioately- at greater "rates." for example, if interest at 10% is set on $10 and on $1,000,000, the "10%" rate is the SAME between the the $10 and the $1mil, but the $1mil will give a far greater rate of return on 10% over the same amount of time as is compounded on the $10. this is where mass does matter. this is why, as MentalAvenger points out, that the "rates of falling" are actually not the same. mass does matter. that is true. but the "falling" is not what is happening. the varing masses and the rates of fall are due to varying rates of expansion due to relative mass. the premise of perterbations in orbits, for example, fulfills this premise. traditionally thought of as "the moon attracts the earth as the earth attracts the moon" is somewhat true, but an abstract model o

bonzelite · Jul 5, 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. excellent points. aircraft are expanding as well, as is the atmosphere they are within. they maintain relative proportion to all surroundings. however, craft can temporarily overcome their free-falling state by maintaining altitudes under power and under aerodynamic principles. once the power is cut off, or the glider no longer is able to maintain aerodynamic balance within the gaseous atmosphere, these craft ultimately fall back to the ground, as the rate of expansion of the earth ---relative to the craft--- is far greater. this probably accounts for the "pioneer anomaly." the actual solar system itself, as one unit, is expanding towards the non-accelerating pioneer craft. therefore, it "appears" as if the craft is slowing down or going backwards. in essence, it is, but only because it is no longer under accelerative power. and eventually, given enough time, it will "return" to the vicinity of the earth's orbital path.

bonzelite · Jul 5, 2006

about orbits: simpy, given close enough relative mass between objects (and specific geometrically balanced conditions between objects), instead of one object "falling" back onto a surface of another, the objects instead "fall around" each other, thus orbiting each other. the entire cosmos is composed of objects in myriad trajectories and velocities and masses doing this eternal "dance" of geometry. orbits are expansion-derived and vary in eccentricites based upon the factors that i stated above, ie, relative speeds, masses, proximities. it is all geometric and not gravitational. gravity is geometric.

CalliArcale · Jul 5, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />simpy, given close enough relative mass between objects (and specific geometrically balanced conditions between objects), instead of one object "falling" back onto a surface of another, the objects instead "fall around" each other, thus orbiting each other. the entire cosmos is composed of objects in myriad trajectories and velocities and masses doing this eternal "dance" of geometry.<hr /></blockquote> I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying. Objects falling aorund one another is precisely how gravity explains the observed properties of orbits, and is very much the way Sir Isaac Newton described the concept centuries ago. How does expansion produce this effect? If the Earth and Moon are both expanding, how does this cause the Moon's trajectory to deflect towards the Earth? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />orbits are expansion-derived and vary in eccentricites based upon the factors that i stated above, ie, relative speeds, masses, proximities. it is all geometric and not gravitational. gravity is geometric.<hr /></blockquote> I don't understand what you mean by that at all. "It is all geometric and not gravitational. Gravity is geometric." Those two sentences seem to directly contradict one another. <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>

bonzelite · Jul 5, 2006

"gravity" is due to the acceleration of the expanding earth. drop the notion of gravity due to a body "pulling something in to it." there is really no such thing, per se, as "gravity" as "explained" by Newton. he was on to something that does happen, but his actual reasoning for it's existence is flawed. he had it backwards, in a sense: the earth is "falling up" to meet free-floating objects. you must drop the ingrained idea of gravity as we know it to begin to see what i am saying. otherwise, it will be confusing. replace the term gravity with expansion of objects. and during the expansion process, which is perpetual, the acceleration of the objects' expansion interacts with free-floating objects (which are all expanding, too). a pen, wallet, paper clip, car, will "fall" back to the earth if thrown up because very quickly the earth expands "up" to the thrown objects to meet them. objects with trajectories and velocities that overcome the earth's expansion rate will either go into orbit around the earth (as in the case of the moon --it's orbital velocity around the earth perpetually overcomes it's fallilng into the earth. were one to throw a ball hard and fast enough from the earth, that ball would go into orbit around the earth) --or be flung far off into space, as the voyagers and pioneers have done (at least at the outset). yet, once these craft exhaust their ability to overtake the expanding earth --and the entire solar system's expansion rate-- the solar system itself will begin to catch up to the craft, eventually overtaking them. i will expound on this, by the way <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

derekmcd · Jul 6, 2006

Bonz... when ya get time, answer my post from 6/29. I'm interested in your explanation. Shall we discuss tidal forces again <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. <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 6, 2006

i'd be happy to. what is the essence of the post? the question?

derekmcd · Jul 6, 2006

i posted it on 6/29... it's above. <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 6, 2006

what about Tesla would you like to talk about?

bonzelite · Jul 6, 2006

ohh. this one: I believe the moon is 1.6 m/s^2?... How do we not percieve it getting smaller if it is accelerating outward at a slower rate? This assuming the rate of expansion of space between the moon and earth remains constant. what do you mean getting smaller?

derekmcd · Jul 6, 2006

I'm might be completely off base with my logic here. Say, for example, I, here on earth, must be expanding in proportion with the earth or else the earth would appear to me to be growing exponentially. The moons gravity... errr, acceleration... is 1/6th that of earth. Considering I am expanding at a rate to keep up with the earths size in proportion... what happens when I travel to the moon. It is accelerating out at a slower pace than my personal expansion. I would percieve it to become smaller. Did I make any sense? <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 6, 2006

yes, you make perfect sense. the expansion rates are relative to the objects' masses/sizes. the actual expansion rate is a constant, like an interest rate on a sum of money (or debt). the larger the lump of money or debt, at a constant rate of "interest," the ever larger the money grows. a smaller amount of money will compound less than a larger sum --whist both are at the same fixed rate (whatever that may be). say your body is $10 @ 3% interest over a year. and say the moon is $1,000,000 at the same 3% fixed rate. your body and the moon maintain relative proportions and sizes conserved through the course of the year at this "3%" interest rate. but the moon remains larger than your body --but both are at a fixed 3% "interest rate." in other words, all objects expand in relative proportion to each other equally, so you would perceive no such smallness or odd sizing adjustments. everything would remain appearing as if it is all the same size, relative to the other objects, including your body, from moment to moment. did i make any sense? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

derekmcd · Jul 6, 2006

Actually, no... it doesn't make sense. Take Neil Armstrong for example... when he was on the moon, both he and the moon were expanding at your "3% interest rate". Since the moon is "expanding" at 1.6 m/s^2 (approx 1/6th of the earths "expansion"), Neil obviously felt lighter. Now, I understand the "3%" analogy in order to maintain proportionality between Neil and the moon, however... In traveling back to earth which must be expanding at 18% (6 times the moon), how did Neil's expansion change to 18% in order to maintain proportion with the earth? It must be at 18% (9.8 m/s^2) in order for Neil to feel the weight difference... The earth must be expanding faster. Edited for clarification if that is possible... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

superluminal

Guest

vandivx

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

vandivx

Guest

siarad

Guest

bdewoody

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

vandivx

Guest

minotast

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

sphynx

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page