Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

[alokmohan]

Dark energy explains universe expansion.No doubt there is dark energy,we dont know exactly what it is.Acceleration of universe is not all that constant.Universe decelerates.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"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.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />No, that doesn't make sense. It might make sense if the Earth was flat, but it isn't, and neither are orbits. The Earth expanding should not affect the trajectory of another object.<br /><br />Assume there are only two bodies in the universe: the Earth and, say, a metal sphere of insignificant mass compared to the Earth. A force is applied to the sphere. The sphere is expanding at a rate consistent with its tiny mass. Its trajectory happens to take it near the Earth, which is expanding at a faster rate, consistent with its mass.<br /><br />Visualizing this, I see the Earth getting bigger as the object approaches, but the object does not get deflected in any way from its straight trajectory. It certainly does not get captured into orbit, no matter how fast it is approaching. I could see it impacting the Earth, if the Earth expanded fast enough to intercept it.<br /><br />This still does not make any sense to me.<br /><br />Some more points:<br /><br />Why does an object in an elliptical orbit accelerate and decelerate throughout the orbit if it there is no force acting upon it to cause this?<br /><br />Why does an object in a parabolic orbit gain momentum? (In other words, why does the so-called "slingshot maneuver" work?)<br /><br />What causes Lagrange points?<br /><br />Why is the Moon receding from the Earth? (This is a measured effect, not a computed one.)<br /><br />How can something "exhaust its ability to overtake the expanding Earth" if there is no force acting upon it to slow it down? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">Neil obviously felt lighter.</font><br />right. because the moon is smaller. and yes, the earth is expanding faster but <i>at the same rate.</i> $1,000,000 will compound <i>much faster</i> at 3% than $10 at 3% because it is proportionately <i>larger.</i> this principle is exactly the same as expanding objects. <br /><br />do you understand now? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Dark energy explains universe expansion</font><br />dark energy explains nothing. it is an invented idea that attempts to cover for flawed ideas. so they have come up with a flaw to protect a series of flaws.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">This still does not make any sense to me. </font><br /><br />that is because you are married to gravity and are attempting to incorporate that Newtonian idea with the one i am discussing. and they are not related. or based upon the same things. <br /><br />expanding objects expand towards each other. they tend to want to meet and touch each other. but velocity and trajectory can allow for them to never actually touch. the most common display of this is the orbit of objects. an orbit is nothing but a fall (expansion) towards the other object, if you will. <br /><br />if you take a rock, throw it up to the sky, and watch it fall back to earth, the earth has expanded up to meet to rock as the rock was not able to overcome the earth's far larger relative expansion to the very, very small relative expansion of the tiny rock. <br /><br />you take enough force and throw the rock way up, at a point it could possibly orbit the earth (as does the space shuttle) as it has overcome the earth's relative expansion enough to elude being "met" by the expanding earth. this geometric relationship creates the orbit. instead of the smaller object "falling" back to earth, it hangs around up there because it has been given enough energy to escape, staying on a trajectory with a velocity. and it free-floats and "falls" around the earth instead of the earth catching up to it as it expands. <br /><br />all orbits are based upon this.

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Dark energy explains universe expansion.No doubt there is dark energy,we dont know exactly what it is.Acceleration of universe is not all that constant.Universe decelerates.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />actually it is precisely opposite, the expansion was found to be accelerating, that is increasing over time and therefore something must be pushing it and hence the 'dark energy' which is supposed to be the cause behind it.<br /><br />but back on offtrack track LOL (I mean this thread wasn't about gravitation per se but who first cleared mystical obscurity surrounding it, but anyway<br /><br />this business equating gravitation to accelerated expansion remainds me strongly of the early days of special relativity when constancy of c were taken to be due to shortening and expanding of everything depending on relative velocities and how it also took some time before that faded away <br /><br />of course 'fading away' means it is still with us affecting some of us to this very day - the pole and barn paradox that people still ask about even today, not even coming against paradox have made people to back away from that business of expansion and shrinking<br />while this accelerated expansion business was never too widespread, it is still coming up here and there and now it is here once again<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

Why does Mercury orbit faster than Pluto?<br /><br />Explain that Bonzelite!

 

[CalliArcale]

That doesn't help, bonzelite. You still aren't explaining this in a way that makes sense to me. I described it using your terms, even though you claim I'm "married to gravity and attempting to incorporate that Newtonian idea". You also have made no attempt to address any of my specific questions.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>an orbit is nothing but a fall (expansion) towards the other object, if you will. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's the Newtonian, gravity-based way of describing it, yes.<br /><br />I'm looking for your non-Newtonian, expansion-based way of describing an orbit. I do think I see what you're getting at, but it really doesn't work.<br /><br />If you throw a rock straight up in the air, and the Earth is expanding, the Earth will rise up to meet it at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2. I understand that. But if you throw the rock up at, say, 17,000 MPH, how will this put it into orbit? There is nothing to cause the rock's path to curve towards the Earth. The Earth will expand upwards, yes. But the rock will continue to fly away.<br /><br />If you throw the rock *straight* up, relative to the Earth, not fast enough to escape Earth, using your model, the Earth will eventually overtake it at a rate consistent with what the conventional scientists call gravity. So far, your explanation makes sense.<br /><br />But if you throw the rock *at an angle*, it won't work out quite like that. Say you throw it at 17,000 MPH. We know from experience that this is fast enough to orbit, provided your trajectory doesn't intersect the Earth. But if the Earth is continually expanding at an ever increasing rate, doesn't this mean it is impossible to escape the Earth? That the Earth's expansion will overtake the rock fairly quickly? And that if you hurl the object into orbit at night, it will never ever see the Sun?<br /><br />If "gravity" is merely the linear expansion of the Earth, then it would be impossible for the ISS to see sunrise on <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

objects expanding, and thus expanding towards each other, is not Newtonain. we're getting away from that error of explanation. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> do think I see what you're getting at, but it really doesn't work. <br /></font><br />yeah it does. you just don't understand what i'm saying because you are married to the ingrained idea of gravity and literal "falling." <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />If you throw a rock straight up in the air, and the Earth is expanding, the Earth will rise up to meet it at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2. I understand that. But if you throw the rock up at, say, 17,000 MPH, how will this put it into orbit? There is nothing to cause the rock's path to curve towards the Earth. The Earth will expand upwards, yes. But the rock will continue to fly away. </font><br />right. you get that. what don't you understand? <br /><br />it will go into orbit (or not) depending on many factors. if it is not specifially geometrically set up, as per your example, sure, it will just sail off on a far trajectory (provided it maintains a constant velocity and acceleration). it will not be an orbit-type of trajectory. but if you dial in the velocity and trajectory correctly for orbital conditions, it will orbit. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">But if the Earth is continually expanding at an ever increasing rate, doesn't this mean it is impossible to escape the Earth?</font><br />not at all. a craft can be accelerated beyond the expansion rate of the earth, as are missiles, rockets, etc. if you simply throw a rock up to the sky, that act alone, very briefly, overcomes the expansion rate of the earth. but because it no longer accelerates, it reaches an apex, it's path curves back down, and it "falls" back to earth. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">If "gravity" is merely the linear expansion of the Earth, then it would be impossible for the ISS to see sunrise once every ninety minutes. Instead, it would always stay on the same side of</font>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">orbits are the geometric result of expanding objects in proximity to each other at relative velocities.</font><br /><br />If I have an expanding trash bag, that expands say at 40 mph. If I throw a baseball tangent to the expansion of the trashbag, will the baseball orbit the trash bag?<br /><br />If not under the earth's influence, would it work in deep, deep space, where the influence of the earth and the sun is negligible?<br /><br />Mind you, the expansion is due to the expansion of space, not due to mass, or inflation of the trash bag.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">=P =P =P =P =P =P =P =P =P =P =P =P</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[bonzelite]

^^^there needs to be more parameters than what you provide, as it depends on the specific geometry between the bag and the ball at the given time. if you throw the ball fast and hard enough past the bag, the ball will sail off into space. if you throw it at velocity that is not too fast or too slow, it may orbit the bag, sure. but it depends. it depends, too, on the sizes of the objects relative to each other. generally, a larger object will expand out farther than a smaller object --even when the actual rates of expansion are constant. a larger sum of money will compound more than a smaller sum of money even if the rates between the two are fixed. <br /><br />relative expansion rate is due to size of the objects, and to an extent the mass, and not the actual space they occupy.

 

[CalliArcale]

<b>not at all. a craft can be accelerated beyond the expansion rate of the earth, as are missiles, rockets, etc. if you simply throw a rock up to the sky, that act alone, very briefly, overcomes the expansion rate of the earth. but because it no longer accelerates, it reaches an apex, it's path curves back down, and it "falls" back to earth.</b><br /><br />But missiles/rockets/etc aren't accelerating any more either past their boost phase. Why does the continually accelerating Earth's surface not catch up with them?<br /><br /><b>the ISS orbits the earth. as far as i know, the ISS orbit is not geosynchronous. but that actually raises another great point: geosynchronos orbits. a geosych orbit occurs as the orbiting object, say a communications satellite, speeds past the surface of expanding planet actually faster than the planet is turning, but as the planet expands towards the satellite, the geometry of the planetary expansion continaully catches up to the satellite, thus giving the appearance of a "locked" or "synchronous" orbit. but really the satellite remains orbiting because it is overtaking, in speed, the relative expansion rate of the planet. </b><br /><br />I wasn't claiming that the ISS would only see one point on the Earth's surface, but that if it were placed into orbit directly between the Earth and the Sun, for instance, it would never see the Sun set. It would stay between the Earth and Sun until it was ultimately crushed between them (or the expanding Earth caught up with it and impacted it).<br /><br /><b>no. the earth's orbital path or "ring" is bent into an ellipse because the earth is traveling fast enough past the sun to overcome the expansion rate of the sun. but not fast enough to fly off into space far and away from the sun. the earth's expansion and the sun's expansion, as they expand to each other, is geometrically balanced in the relative velocities in relation to each other. </b><br /><br />What bends the Earth's orbital path into an ellipse? The <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<b></b>

 

[CalliArcale]

Okay, this is very crude, but maybe it'll show you what I'm hearing from you.<br /><br />I've drawn an object travelling in a straight line. Things travel in straight lines unless acted upon by an outside force. I know that's a Newtonian law, but it has nothing to do with gravity and it's been demonstrated pretty conclusively many times. In the four frames, the object makes a close encounter with a massive object. The massive object is expanding rapidly because it is so massive. Because the object is travelling fast, it escapes the massive objects and does not collide, but goes merrily on its way after this close encounter. To an individual on the surface of the expanding planet, the object will have seemed to have a very strange, curved trajectory. But to an observer standing somewhere else, the object will appear to travel in a straight line.<br /><br />From what you've told me, bonzelite, this is how it will happen. The object will not be going any faster after this encounter, nor will its direction of travel have changed. It is still continuing in that straight line. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

*grumblemumbleforgottoattachthefile* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

i wish i knew how to post pics. i'd draw lots of things, too. but i'm a dum$$ with that. <br /><br />anyway, yeah, you're coming around to seeing how my opinion plays out. but you should modify your cool diagram to include, too, an orbital ring expanding with the planet. it is true that an object going fast enough past anything will not go into orbit. this is why, for example, we all bite our nails and have white knuckles over the orbit insertion period for our mars craft. this is a very difficult thing to achieve, as the geometry must be spot-on or the craft will just fly past the planet. <br /><br />i will address more of your stuff in a bit. i have to go do stuff. and posting can be addicting. and i will address the plastic bag and ball thing. that's neat, by the way, kmar! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

neat animation. how did you do that? <br /><br />yeah, the ball will only go into orbit around the bag if the specific conditions between them are right. only hurling something past or at anything does not necessarily constitute correct conditions for orbit. <br /><br />i need to draw stuff out and post it to help the cause. <br />

 

[nova_explored]

bonz,<br />what you are describing seems to be a metaphysical translation of the physical (mathematical) model of gravity. In that spirit, we can attribute these traits to it that seem logical even, mathematically however, it becomes too complicated. The universe tends towards the simplest explanation, and as Calli and others have pointed out, those mathematical models are simple and accurately predict reality proof positive.<br /><br />in keeping with your model though, how does an expanding earth or any other system for that matter find balance? <br /><br />does it fall back to equate that constant, which it would need. action-reaction must be in place. otherwise the constant cannot find validity. an ever expanding system may work in that metaphysical rhelm, where taking away reference points, coordinate systems, and the more sphoisticated euclidean planes and geometricies, it looks good. but the reality is, as space expands and the distance between atomic structure duelly expands, the attractive forces diminish. <br /><br />expansion would actually speed up the pioneer craft, not slow it down. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Well, I do have a curious question about this.<br /><br />If this concept is so, how and why do tides occur? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

tides question has been asked a few times. it's the barycentre wobbling that creates the tides, not the pull of gravity.

 

[derekmcd]

Bonz and I have had that discussion before here <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>

 

[derekmcd]

Of course, we never finished it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <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>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">what you are describing seems to be a metaphysical translation of the physical (mathematical) model of gravity.</font><br />no, it's quite physical and real. and the mathematical model of gravity is of geometric-only origin. one without need for an "attractive" force. therefore, the Newtonian explanation of "gravity" is entirely erroneous as objects in space are free-floating only. bodies do not attract others from within. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">mathematically however, it becomes too complicated.</font><br />no. it's very simple. the currently accepted theories are too complicated and contradictory. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">those mathematical models are simple and accurately predict reality proof positive. <br /></font>o. the current models fail to predict as you say. this is why we have dark matter and 2 entirely different schools of thought to explain the same thing. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">in keeping with your model though, how does an expanding earth or any other system for that matter find balance? <br /></font>t is all in perfect balance as the actual rate of expansion is constant. all things remain in constant relative proportion. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">does it fall back to equate that constant, which it would need. action-reaction must be in place. otherwise the constant cannot find validity.</font><br />? sounds like you're the metaphysical one in this statement. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">an ever expanding system may work in that metaphysical rhelm, where taking away reference points, coordinate systems, and the more sphoisticated euclidean planes and geometricies, it looks good. but the reality is, as space expands and the distance between atomic structure duelly expands, the attractive forces diminish. </font><br />the way you phrased that is a bit vague. don't follow. <br /><br />there are no attractive forces insofar as orbits or trajecto

 

[bonzelite]

then we can continue it here. it's open-season <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />so far, this is much more fun than prior forays into this topic. for the most part, everyone is pretty civil and just seeming to have fun. remember, too, that the ideas i'm talking about are only theoretical. i'm not entirely married to them, but i believe in them a bit more than current --and highly contradictory-- official ideas of gravity.

 

[derekmcd]

No, I don't understand. I believe you have a fundamental flaw with your percentage rate. <br /><br />I will point it out. We agree that (according to your theory) the moon is expanding outward at 1.6 m/s^2 and the earth at 9.8 m/s^2 in accordance with Einstien's Equivalence Principal to justify the force felt at our feet.<br /><br />The Moon's radius is 1738km (i'm dropping decimals for ease of math) and Earth's is 6378km for a ratio of 27%. The Moon expanding at it's rate for 10^6 seconds is 3,338km. The earth expanding at it's rate for same period of time gives us a radius of 16,178km. The ratio is now 21%... the moon should be getting smaller. In order to maintain the same ratio of 27%, the earth would have to be expanding at 5.984 m/s^2 which is a much slower rate than what is observed.<br /><br />Is my math flawed? <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>