Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

bonzelite · Jul 8, 2006

you may want to rethink who is touting the irrelevant rhetoric. your example is false yet you parade it around like it is true. generally speaking, all objects do fall at the same rate regardless of their masses. this has been known for centuries as d=1/2at^2. i would recommend anyone to heavily question your claim otherwise. gravitational and inertial masses are equal for all objects in freefall. we can even forget the whole expansion thing and get back to the basics, and you are claiming something to be true that is not. you want to add aerodynamic drag on the less dense object, fine. things change for that. and why you bring up the 2-body problem is unknown, as that largely deals with paths of ellipses and orbital mechanics, ie, two bodies interacting with each other in context of orbits. and that has nothing at all do with this.

bonzelite · Jul 8, 2006

Resistance to what? If the object isn't falling, resistance is a non factor. stick your hand and arm out the window of a moving car. i guarantee your arm will encounter resistance.

mental_avenger · Jul 8, 2006

You cannot dismiss proven and verified physics with an unsupported claim. The rules of debate here require you to respond in a credible relevant manner. You cannot simply dismiss this. This has been explained to you before. Here it is again. This is the formula used to calculate the attractive force between any two bodies. This has been verified experimentally as valid many times over. 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, but it is slightly different for objects of different mass. The further the distance from the Earth, the more that figure changes. Please note that as the mass of the “other” body increases, that figure increases. As the mass of the other object approaches a significant portion of the mass of the Earth, that figure changes much more noticeably. There are plenty of links which show the calculations and examples. Look at the formula. It has been proven to be a true representation of the gravitational interaction of bodies. You can see that m1 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

derekmcd · Jul 9, 2006

what i am saying makes sense It makes perfect sense when related to interest rates. I'm fully aware how fixed rate mortgages work. However, that math does not translate effectively to support your claims as I have proven above. Either you are refusing to see it, lack the ability to see it, or just simply enjoy pushing our buttons and having a good laugh at our expense proving what is obviously obvious <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 9, 2006

can you please provide these links.

mental_avenger · Jul 9, 2006

I have already done far more than should have been necessary. You proposed your hypothesis without properly researching the data to back it up. I suggest you do that research now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

bonzelite · Jul 9, 2006

what? you suggest you have copius data and links to support YOUR claims. and now you are withholding this? what kind of evasive thing is that? this is simple. what you suggest absolutely violates traditional theory. that's a cop out, man.

spacester · Jul 9, 2006

<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> I am prohibited from saying what I think here, so I'll just <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> and shake my head in wonderment at the spectacle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 9, 2006

What I posted IS traditional theory. Furthermore, it has been validate experimentally and found to be correct. It is used in the calculations of the flight of every spacecraft we have sent. Sending a spacecraft to Mars at exactly the right trajectory, at the correct velocity, and at exactly the right time is not chance. It is calculated very carefully. If the calculations based on the theory were off by even .01%, the spacecraft would not be captured by the destination planet. Now, I have already done part of your homework for you by pointing out the error, and providing the formula that supports it. I will do no further research for you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Jul 9, 2006

........so I'll just and shake my head in wonderment at the spectacle. Oh, I wouldn’t call it a spectacle. Bonzelite isn’t the first Uplink member to attempt to coerce someone else into doing his homework for him. In fact, it happens a little too often. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

enigma10 · Jul 9, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I'd be grateful if anyone can state who's regarded as the inventor - creator of the Theory of Gravity<hr /></blockquote> The man that walked off the cliff first. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan </div>

bonzelite · Jul 9, 2006

What I posted IS traditional theory. Furthermore, it has been validate experimentally and found to be correct. It is used in the calculations of the flight of every spacecraft we have sent. Sending a spacecraft to Mars at exactly the right trajectory, at the correct velocity, and at exactly the right time is not chance. It is calculated very carefully. If the calculations based on the theory were off by even .01%, the spacecraft would not be captured by the destination planet. right. i'm never in disagreement on something such as this. trajectory design is very case-sensitive. so if such a thing is relevant to this topic, then why are you so resisting backing it up with outside references? i'm asking you to show me the validated experiments. i cannot find them. believe me, i'm trying, and i'm even asking others on other forums about it, and no such information is being produced by anyone. and you outright refuse to reference anything at all. why the extreme heuristic bias? so please, then, elucidate the reverse axiom that you claim is true. so far, every NASA site page i've visited about falling objects nary mentions such mass differences as being relevant. Now, I have already done part of your homework for you by pointing out the error, and providing the formula that supports it. I will do no further research for you. the formula you provided does not support anything in and of itself. show me the actual math derivations as corrorborated by sources outside of yourself. it should be easy for you, being that it is so true.

bonzelite · Jul 9, 2006

The man that walked off the cliff first. LOL! i think the actual "inventor of gravity" is buried in an unmarked pine box in an undisclosed location.

mental_avenger · Jul 9, 2006

Are you now doubting the validity of F=Gm1m2/d2 ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

bonzelite · Jul 9, 2006

per se, no. i don't across the board disagree with it. that is Newton's gravitational force equation. but a mathematical model only. i'm not particularly in love with models such as this. it does not describe reality. all i am doing is reversing the gravity vector premise. i'm turning it backwards to make gravity an actual acceleration due to movement of the earth's surface as it expands. that's it. many of the equations still function, but refer to actions in reverse.

mental_avenger · Jul 9, 2006

That is fine. But what you must realize is that m1 and m2 are multiplied together to reach a solution. Because of this, BOTH masses are relevant, not just one. If F=Gm1m2/d2 is valid, then your expanding Earth/Universe hypothesis cannot work. I hesitate to say this, but your hypothesis was actually quite clever. If it were not for the fact that the rate of attraction of one body to another depends upon the mass of both bodies, your hypothesis would be difficult to refute without getting into some rather complex celestial mechanics. There it could be proven to be invalid, but the math and the data involved would require a far larger investment of time than I am willing to allot to this discussion. all i am doing is reversing the gravity vector premise. If all objects, regardless of mass (factoring out friction, drag etc) fell at the same rate, it would work. They do not, and it does not. Sorry, but that really is the bottom line. BTW, do you realize that your premise (ignoring for a moment the mass differential stopper) requires expansion at an accelerating rate? Do you also realize that it requires that the further an object is from a given point, the faster it is accelerating relative to that given point? And do you realize that all would translate into an expansion rate that far exceeds something like ccc after 17 billion years? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

bonzelite · Jul 9, 2006

yes, i do realize all of that. the acceleration must be constant and is compounding in order for the entire idea to fly. in theory, we are already beyond c by several orders of magnitude. anyway, i'm going back to the drawing board. i am going to research this idea further <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> i think it can work even within the current equation. you do realize that equation is derivative from pre-Newtonian equations? and you realize that equation-only based things runs into danger?

yevaud · Jul 9, 2006

Hmm. The expansion hypothesis cannot explain frame-dragging, gravitational lensing, or various relativistic effects: all seen, understood, and measured. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Jul 9, 2006

it possibly could. just because there is a bone of contention with some math does not throw out the whole story. or necessarily kill it (yet).

yevaud · Jul 9, 2006

Not a bone of contention: glaring problems. I repeat, How? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Jul 9, 2006

You see, there are the findings of the recent (and highly successful) Gravity-B probe, which showed that the theory about Frame-Dragging conformed to the theory to many decimels. And Frame-Dragging in totalis has many aspects, such as velocity and rotational Frame-Dragging (and others). An Expansional aspect (vector, magnitude, and relativistic time-delay) would have been measured, and wasn't. Let's take Gravitational Lensing. I'd truly like to hear how a mass-proportional expansion effect can explain this. It cannot. How about relativistic effects? How in the name of Jehu do you get time-dilation effects out of expansion? I don't see that either. All of which are aspects of gravity as the effects of mass affecting Spacetime. Not of masses expanding. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Jul 9, 2006

An Expansional aspect (vector, magnitude, and relativistic time-delay) would have been measured, and wasn't. it would not have. we are within it. the expansion is uniform and observable as acceleration only. nothing can sit there and watch things ballooning larger and larger within the 100% inclusion of the expansion of everything. because of this, it appears as if everything stays the same, ie, an illusion. but it is not. and it is already happening much faster, as well, than light speed. c has been breached aeons ago as all matter must continually accelerate like compounding interest on a loan.

yevaud · Jul 9, 2006

Nope. You are postulating a vast concatition of variously expanding masses. They will each exhibit different and measurable Frame-Dragging effects if what you say is true. Yet what you're saying is that does not happen, and that is not possible. That's simple Physics. You cannot on the one hand say masses expand at varying rates dependant on mass and then say that the Frame-Dragging effects of each will all be identical. It is just plain not possible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Jul 9, 2006

Let's take Gravitational Lensing. I'd truly like to hear how a mass-proportional expansion effect can explain this. It cannot. it bends around the planet or body for the same reasons associated with gravity assist manoeuvres: the planet expands out to the light particles (traveling in rays), and these photons' speed relative to the planet deflect rather than go into orbit around the planet (same thing would happen if a probe were incorrectly sent to mars --instead of hitting a sweet spot to go into orbit, it deflected and was sent off into space, with it's path bending to mars). same idea as a rock being thrown to the sky: it goes up at a velocity, reaches a peak, slows down, turns around in a curve, then accelerates back to the ground. this is because there was insufficient speed to overcome the earth's expansion, and the earth, then, catches up (very soon) to the airborne rock. were there enough force behind the rock being thrown, it may overcome the earth's expansion and be cast off into space, or, if specific conditions were met, may go into orbit. and the light is doing the same thing, but because it's going so fast, it curves slightly around the planet only instead of going into orbit (and of course, it's source is far away and not thrown up from a person on the ground). mind you, because the light is being cast out from the source in all directions, much of the light does crash into the planet.

bonzelite · Jul 9, 2006

i'm saying the objects are expanding in proportion to each other according to their sizes. not masses. and the mass issue is the mathematical contention that Mental Avenger was pointing out. and i contend that to be a result of a flawed understanding of Newton's orbit/gravity equation, which is a derivative of preceeding others. and "loaded," if you will. the constant "G" for example, is not necessary for the equation to garner usable results.

Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

spacester

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

enigma10

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page