Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

bonzelite · Jul 7, 2006

i never cited an actual numerical percentage rate. i've been using examples of compounding interest on money for illustrative purposes. all matter expands at the same rate. period. nothing "gets smaller." you are not completely following my premise. i will explain it again: the earth and the moon expand in relative proportion to each other --as does all matter-- at the same actual expansion rate for all matter in existence. do you understand this premise? the moon is literally smaller than the earth. therefore, even at the same actual rate of expansion as the earth it's relative size and expansion relative to the size of earth is much less. a fixed annual rate of return on $10 is far less than on $1,000,000. the actual rate is fixed between the two sums of money. however, the relative returns on them is far different. the earth/moon is the same idea.

derekmcd · Jul 7, 2006

Illustrate it with some actual numbers. I understand your premise, but it does not relate to what is observed in reality. I'm fairly certain my math is correct, and, if so, your idea is flawed and does not work. The fact is, the g force on earth would be far less in order to maintain proportions with the moon according to your math. I can't think of anyway more simple to push my point across. Again... toss some actual math at me. Even theoretical physics (which is what you are attempting) requires math. <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 7, 2006

ok. let me attempt to elaborte on this. The fact is, the g force on earth would be far less in order to maintain proportions with the moon according to your math. my premise is for the most part about size. and relative proportion. the earth/moon remain in relative proportion as they expand at a constant actual rate. it does relate to what is observed in reality. take d=1/2at^2, for example. this is distance traveled due to constant acceleration. in 1 second (time as "t"), then, the earth expands at a certain rate. this is: d=1/2(9.8)(1)^2 = 4.9metres. so the earth's expansion is 4.9m/sec. this is corroborated as it takes 1 sec for any object to fall to earth dropped from 4.9m in height (disregarding wind resistance). but the object is not really falling to earth. the earth is going up to meet the object. as well, objects expand outwardly from their centres (of mass). this would establish an expansion in all directions out from the centre --a radial expansion. once we have established the earth's specific expansion rate from it's centre of mass, which we have done: 4.9m/s, we can then arrive at finding how quickly everything expands, as the earth's expansion is in relative proportion to everything else. the "constant" rate of expansion, then, can be derived as a fraction of the earth's own radius relative to it's own expansion rate ---->we can take the radius of the earth and divide it into 4.9 --and this gives us the expansion rate of "everything." that is, we can solve for the "constant rate of expansion of all things" by knowing the expansion rate and radius of the earth alone. the radius of the earth is approximately 6,371,000 metres. 4.9/6,371,000 = .00000077/s^2 all matter expands at this constant rate. and the relative expansions of these things, all things, will vary according to relative size and m

yevaud · Jul 7, 2006

I see. I think my issue would be that each object would have a different expansion rate (based on it's mass, correct?). I would think the different rates would have been noticed somehow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

CalliArcale · Jul 7, 2006

i wish i knew how to post pics. First, make sure the pic is in .gif or .jpg. (Search Google for freeware image conversion programs if you need help with that.) Second, make sure it's not too big -- less than 100K, and ideally not so wide it screws up the formatting. (When you look for an image converter, you can also look for one that will resize pictures. There are quite a few out there, although they're free, and consequently often aren't all that user-friendly. I'm a cheapskate, though, I use the free stuff.) Second, type up a post. *Do not uncheck "I want to preview my post and/or attach a file."* That's where I usually screw up (as above). Hit "Continue" and you'll get to the post preview page. There's a "Browse" button to attach an image. Use that; it works the way you'd expect. Then submit your post. A mod will review your image (feel free to nag us about it in the image approval thread in Suggestions -- you don't have to tell us where it is, because we can see the entire image approval queue all at once). And voila! You have your image. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I actually drew the above crude drawing with Paint, and converted it from .bmp to .gif using Corel PhotoPaint, because I have access to a free version of that. Well, free to me, anyway. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> 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. Well, the thing I was trying to point out is that what we actually observe about objects flying past <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>

CalliArcale · Jul 7, 2006

Oh, and for anyone interested, what kmarinas posted is called an animated GIF. You can find free utilities to build those, too. Basically, you need to draw each frame of the animation, and then get a utility to stitch them together into the frames of a single animated GIF. There are also utilities that will convert movies into animated GIFs, but bear in mind two things: * multiple frames can take up as much space as if you had an individual GIF for each frame * GIF compression works best on simple graphics; it is somewhat inefficient with photographs Another cool GIF trick is transparent GIFs. Unlike JPEGs or most other formats, GIFs permit the definition of a transparent channel. The actual gif is still rectangular, but a portion of it is defined as transparent. A compatible browser (i.e. virtually all of them, these days) will render the background color of the page in each pixel defined as transparent. It can be a cool effect, but you need a utility that supports transparent GIFs in order to create one. <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 · Jul 7, 2006

I notice that you have ignored my comments which showed that your geometrically expanding hypothesis is false. This information is not theory, but measurable fact. Here it is again.<ul type="square">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.</ul> Since you ignored it as a comment, it is now a challenge. By the established rules of debate on the Science Forums, you must provide a credible, relevant response to the challenge. how does your hypothesis account for the fact that objects of different mass do indeed fall at different rates, proportional to their relative mass. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

bonzelite · Jul 7, 2006

Since you ignored it as a comment, it is now a challenge. By the established rules of debate on the Science Forums, you must provide a credible, relevant response to the challenge. how does your hypothesis account for the fact that objects of different mass do indeed fall at different rates, proportional to their relative mass. i'm not ignoring that. i must establish the premise in a simple form to have it relatable. i've been talking about that very thing, actually, inadvertently, in the discussion of orbits. orbits are a classic example of different rates of "falling" due to the specific geometries of the objects involved. the reason is very simple: all objects expand. therefore, the larger the object (and the more massive), the more it will relatively expand towards another. this is exactly why things "fall" at different rates. for very small things, the difference is not very noticeable. and it is often overlooked and generalized. and for teaching purposes at the outset, this is fine because the range of objects that do appear to fall at the same rate is very broad. so it does illustrate the point very well: generally speaking, this "gravity" acts the same upon these objects enough to have terms like "9.8m/s^2" become axioms in equations. but, really, yes, objects do fall at different rates and this is taught much later. i've never had a problem with that at all. moreover, since the expansion is radial (and thus relative to this radius), relative proportions are preserved as expansion continues. and, again, the larger and more massive the object, the more it will relatively expand.

mental_avenger · Jul 7, 2006

That doesn’t work. Reduce this to the most basic example. Two objects of the same physical dimensions, but different masses, falling towards the Earth. Measure the distance from the center of each object to the center of the Earth over a period of time. The center of the more massive object will approach the Earth at a faster rate than the less massive object. If gravity was caused by expansion as you claim, the centers would approach at the same rate. They will not. Your hypothesis is invalid. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

bonzelite · Jul 7, 2006

So, it is not only observed that objects paths are affected by moving near large masses, but the fact is exploited with great precision. How does this work if gravity is merely the property of expanding bodies? excellent point. the perceived "gravity assist" manoeuvres are nothing more than the same thing behind a rock being thrown up to the air: it is thrown up at a velocity, it coasts a bit, slows down at it's highest point, then speeds back up more and more as it nears the ground --all due to the parent body's larger relative expansion going outward to meet the smaller body. that is what causes orbits, gravity assists, and rocks tossed in the air to come back to the ground. I do not understand why there would be an "expanding orbital ring". An orbit is not a physical entity, but simply the mathematical description of an orbiting body's trajectory. Or are you arguing that there is some sort of actual thing there? right that is for illustrative purposes only. i'm not implying Saturn or things like that. the trajectories themselves expand, rather, are preserved, as expansion happens inasmuch as the objects themselves expand. the solar system's entire structure and mass, and all distances between bodies, are expanding in relative proportion to each other. this is how the solar system itself is very gradually approaching the pioneer craft (that which is perceived to be "slowing down," but is, really, being moment-by-moment approached by the solar system as it expands out to meet the pioneer craft, just as a rock falls back to the ground --same thing).

nova_explored · Jul 8, 2006

okay bonz, i'm starting to get a clearer picture of your model. but lets talk about those trajectories. we have a rock being thrown, bullets fired, helicopters hovering and planes flying on an orbital path inside our earth's atmosphere. how does expansion account for so many varying and unique trajectories which, in your model, would suggest more of a spiked expansion, not smooth as you are suggesting. and i guess another question is, why does it do this in the first place? what property of matter is telling it to expand? or put another way, how does the earth know a rock is being thrown? wouldn't the rock itself expand? given that it is of the same matter as the earth, part of the same system and therefore attributed the same properties of spin and velocity as its larger part, wouldn't it as well affect even smaller objects and itself expand? wouldn't everything then expand, because to keep a conservation of energy, you cannot have some parts of a system independent of the other in any way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Jul 8, 2006

MentalAvenger, i will get to your premise soon. nova, good points. aerodynamic principles still fully apply. we have a gaseous atmosphere. lift, downforce, all apply and are functional. it is the relative proportions of objects and distances that are preserved, whilst everything else can go about it's merry business of being physically interactive. you shoot a gun, the bullet will fly out. you make a glider and launch it, it can catch a thermal updraft and sail for extended periods. the bullet, the glider, the air, all expands in relative proportion. so the projectiles remain aloft according to their designs that interact in the atmosphere. we still have thunderstorms, lightning, car crashes, acoustic waves, sand castles. we go about our lives. motion of objects determines interaction as much as expansion of objects. and i guess another question is, why does it do this in the first place? unno. you got me there. the atoms themselves expand. and why? dunno. why are we here? what property of matter is telling it to expand? or put another way, how does the earth know a rock is being thrown? it's at the atomic level, at the electron's level. it's in the material size, mass, and compositon of the varied objects that interact as they float or are on trajectories, or sitting. i cannot speak to how stuff "knows" what it is. that's a very interesting question, though. i'd like to know,too. wouldn't the rock itself expand? yes. it does. you're getting it. that is part of the whole premise. everything expands.

bonzelite · Jul 8, 2006

That doesn’t work. Reduce this to the most basic example. Two objects of the same physical dimensions, but different masses, falling towards the Earth. Measure the distance from the center of each object to the center of the Earth over a period of time. The center of the more massive object will approach the Earth at a faster rate than the less massive object. If gravity was caused by expansion as you claim, the centers would approach at the same rate. They will not. Your hypothesis is invalid. there is more to this picture. i've mentioned size and mass as being relevant beforehand. but i expound further: lets call one planet "whipped cream" and one "lead." and they are the same size. the whipped cream planet's "gravity" will be lesser than the "lead" planet's because the whipped cream planet would be pushed into itself by it's own expansion forces --pushing outwardly from it's centre of mass-- to a larger amount than the very hard and rigid lead would experience. therefore, when in contact with another object, the greater porosity of the whipped cream, if you will, reduces it's ability to accelerate objects on it's surface --thus creating a lesser state of "gravity." in this sense, density and mass do matter a great deal insofar as acceleration effects. therefore, identically-sized objects that are of lesser and greater density than the other, "approach" our earth at differing rates because the lighter object absorbs some of it's own expansionary forces that radiate from within it to the surface. so a lighter object of the same size, with less inertia than a heavier object, appears to arrive slightly later to the surface of the earth.

derekmcd · Jul 8, 2006

t does relate to what is observed in reality. take d=1/2at^2, for example. this is distance traveled due to constant acceleration. in 1 second (time as "t"), then, the earth expands at a certain rate. this is: d=1/2(9.8)(1)^2 = 4.9metres. This is absolutely correct. so the earth's expansion is 4.9m/sec. this is corroborated as it takes 1 sec for any object to fall to earth dropped from 4.9m in height (disregarding wind resistance). This would only be true after 1 second. After 2 seconds, the expansion would be 19.6, 3 seconds: 44.1 and so on. This is not constant expansion as you state. The formula clearly states this. Here is a different way of looking at it as directly related to gravity at 9.8m/s^2: The object starts at zero velocity and reaches 9.8m/s after 1 second. The average speed is 4.9m/s after 1 second, thus it has traveled 4.9m. After 2 seconds is reaches a speed of 39.2m/s: 0 to 39.2m/s gives an average speed of 19.1 over a period of 2 seconds, thus the distance traveled. You never answered if the math in my previous post is flawed. I'll ask again if my math in either post is flawed. Is it? <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 8, 2006

This would only be true after 1 second. After 2 seconds, the expansion would be 19.6, 3 seconds: 44.1 and so on. This is not constant expansion as you state. The formula clearly states this. Here is a different way of looking at it as directly related to gravity at 9.8m/s^2: oh, but my dear man, you are now hot on the trail: the expansion is exactly like compounding interest on money as i have explained previously. the rate is fixed, but the relative expansion is ever larger. you da man. You never answered if the math in my previous post is flawed. I'll ask again if my math in either post is flawed. Is it? let me look at it again over the weekend. i'm very slow with math and it is very very late right now. overall, it appears correct. but perhaps you were applying the math without fully grasping the premise. so it was misdirected. not wrong. but misdirected. but give me a bit to look at your full post <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

derekmcd · Jul 8, 2006

I have to applaud your tenacity (or is it stubborness) in trying to defend your idea, but using whipped cream as an analogy vs. using basic math is IMO ruining your credibility. You tried giving it a good run, but at some point you have to concede that it does not work. This, by all means, does NOT mean you have to accept the current prevailing theories, but, instead, maybe go back to the drawing board. <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 8, 2006

good advice. i will heed that. i'm open to learning. i will attempt to put it into mathematical terms again. but, derek, it does work, whip cream or not. the example is very clear.

derekmcd · Jul 8, 2006

oh, but my dear man, you are now hot on the trail: the expansion is exactly like compounding interest on money as i have explained previously. the rate is fixed, but the relative expansion is ever larger. you da man. You previously stated that the expansion is constant and it is the size/mass of the object that is the "compounding interest" What is "relative expansion"? Either the rate of expansion is fixed, or it is not. If it is not fixed rather exponentially accelerating, we would be crushed. As you stated... the earth is expanding at a constant 4.9m/s. How does the 9.8m/s^2 fit in your formula? If anything, the earth is expanding at 9.8m/s^2 and not at a constant 4.9m/s. If it were a constant, we would feel like we are floating. If it is compounding using the distance traveled formula, we would be crushed in quick order. Very little of what you are saying makes any sense at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 8, 2006

This is a Science Forum. It is time to set aside your double-talk and address the issue seriously. The math required to solve the question as it relates to orbits is considerably more difficult than most members here can handle. This is illustrated by the complexity of the Two Body Problem . Therefore you can dance around the subject indefinitely using grade school math. However, the linear acceleration two separate bodies of different mass towards the Earth due to gravity is another matter. It is straightforward and can be illustrated and solved easily. Your whipped-cream-and-lead analogy is invalid on its face for several reasons, not the least of which is that such variations in expansion would result in measurable variations in physical size in a rather short time. Over the long term, the variations in physical dimensions would be dramatic. The only valid way to look at the problem is as I presented it, based on the positional relationship of the centers of the objects. In the absence of friction (from atmosphere) two bodies of different masses will be attracted to the Earth (fall) at different rates (as measured from their centers). That proves your expansion hypothesis to be invalid. It is time to resolve this discussion. If you cannot substantiate your claim with valid, credible, and [I[relevant facts, this discussion is over. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

bonzelite · Jul 8, 2006

It is time to set aside your double-talk and address the issue seriously. The math required to solve the question as it relates to orbits is considerably more difficult than most members here can handle. This is illustrated by the complexity of the Two Body Problem . speak for yourself. the 2-bod problem appears to have not anything to do with this situation. the situation is far more simplistic than you make it out to be. the average person can grasp this. you also neglect to consider aerodynamic drag upon the lighter object. that is as easy to see as the broad side of a barn. this drag will arrive the centre of the lighter object later. your attempt to discredit me is expected.

bonzelite · Jul 8, 2006

What is "relative expansion"? Either the rate of expansion is fixed, or it is not. If it is not fixed rather exponentially accelerating, we would be crushed. erek, this is easily relatable with money. ever heard of a fixed-rate mortgage? regardless of the amount of the mortgage, be it $200,000 or $2,000,000, if the rate is fixed, the interest will compound at that fixed rate. but the larger sum of debt will balloon far larger in proportion to the smaller. that is, the actual rate is fixed. and the expansion of the larger debt at this fixed rate is far greater relative to the smaller. if you will, then, the "gravity" of the larger debt is perceived as far greater. this is not very difficult to understand, especially by a smart math guy like yourself <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> what i am saying makes sense. it may not to you because you are resisting seeing it's validity. and you are trying to see it from the traditional perspective. nothing is being crushed. and the rate of expansion is constant in that as it compounds, it creates perpetual acceleration which we perceive as "gravity."

mental_avenger · Jul 8, 2006

you also neglect to consider aerodynamic drag upon the lighter object. No I didn’t. I specifically stated ” In the absence of friction (from atmosphere)” You aren’t going to slip out of it that easy. In a problem such as this, factors such as aerodynamic drag are usually assumed to be taken into account. Since those factors are external to the problem under examination, they are not included. Also, factors such as uniformity of density and sphericity can make the computations extremely complex, so “ideal” conditions are assumed to simplify calculations. For example, if aerodynamic drag were factored out of my example, the more massive object would Because you are apparently going to be deliberately obtuse, I will spell it out for you. The problem: Object #1, a sphere with a mass of 6.587 x 1024 kilograms, a volume of .510 x 1015m2, uniform density, perfectly spherical, no atmosphere. Object #2, a sphere with a mass of 1000 kilograms, a volume of x 100 m2, uniform density, perfectly spherical, no atmosphere. Object #3, a sphere with a mass of 100 kilograms, a volume of x 100 m2, uniform density, perfectly spherical, no atmosphere. Object #1 and Object #2 are placed 1000 kilometers from the surface of object #1, with relative velocities of zero. They are released and begin to fall towards object #1. Object #2 will accelerate faster towards object #1 than object #3 will accelerate towards object #1. Merely blowing this off with irrelevant rhetoric is no longer going to be sufficient. Since objects of the same physical dimensions, but different masses, will fall towards the Earth at different rates, (in the absence of atmosphere OR compensating for aerodynamic drag) your hypothesis is proven to be invalid. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

pocket_rocket · Jul 8, 2006

If there is no gravity and objects only appear to be falling due to earth expansion, how could aerodynamic drag effect the speed of an object. The object is not falling so the atmosphere should have no effect.

bonzelite · Jul 8, 2006

not true. the atmo is expanding upwards, too. this creates resistance.

pocket_rocket · Jul 8, 2006

Resistance to what? If the object isn't falling, resistance is a non factor.

Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

bonzelite

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

pocket_rocket

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

pocket_rocket

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page