Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

[yevaud]

Really? How, when Light is the top velocity in this Plenum? It is not easily bent into such things as the Einstein Cross.<br /><br />Again, not possible, as you are ascribing serious gravitational effects to simple expansion.<br /><br />You see, under your regime, it would be a simple "caught and stays around star, escapes and is seen by us" paradigm. It contains no lensing effect whatsoever.<br /><br />Because your star merely expands. What is there to lense the light? The expansion is not capable of the lensing effect. <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]

<font color="yellow"><br />Really? How, when Light is the top velocity in this Plenum? It is not easily bent into such things as the Einstein Cross.</font><br />you are so convinced the cross is due to grav lensing. this is but one of many things that keeps you a beiever and me a skeptic of such apocryphal claims. if that cross is due to lensing, i'm the tooth fairy. <br /><br />i'm replacing <i>all</i> grav f/x with spherical expansionary geometry. with the grav f/x being due to literal acceleration <i>in every case.</i><br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />You see, under your regime, it would be a simple "caught and stays around star, escapes and is seen by us" paradigm. It contains no lensing effect whatsoever. </font><br />ezzzzactly. you got it. a gravity assist manoeuvre is not due to "gravitational lensing." <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Because your star merely expands. What is there to lense the light? The expansion is not capable of the lensing effect.</font><br />the light is like anything else: a probe, a rock, a space shuttle. i used a probe to mars to illustrate the point; ie, a probe that instead of achieving orbit, skims the planet and is cast off. the same as a grav assist. or a rock being thrown up into the air. they're all faces of the same thing. <br />

 

[yevaud]

No they are not the same thing.<br /><br />Your expansion is uniform for each object; although each object has it's own unique expansion rate.<br /><br />This isn't the same a a concentration of mass sufficient that it bends and focusses light. Two entirely different mechanisms. One is just expansion. The other is something quite different. <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]

same thing. <br /><br />space shuttle goes up, she goes around the earth, she goes into orbit: expansionary geometry is held in check with the shuttle's speed and trajectory just spot-on. she orbits. <br /><br />MRO goes to Mars. she's on a designed trajectory to insert into Martian local space. she achieves correct spot-on geometric specificity, she orbits, she aerobrakes. we all cheer and applaud JPL --expansionary geometry.<br /><br />you take a baseball. throw it up. it achieves a velocity then is quickly overcome by the earth's greater proportional expansion. it doesn't orbit but is overcome. going too slow. falls back to earth due to expansionary geometry. <br /><br />light passes near a planet. the light paths that happen to skim the surface of the planet have sufficient speed to skim past it. however, upon nearing the vicinity of the planet, it meets the expansion of the planet and is accelerated towards it, just as the MRO probe was at Mars, just as the Space Shuttle was in attaining orbit, just as the baseball was thrown up, slowed, curved back down, and then accelerated as it hit the ground. <br /><br />all of it is based upon the same mechanics.

 

[eudoxus18]

A few things<br /><br />1. Bonzelite, in order to make yourself credible you may want to list your credentials and how many years of physics you took. Do you have any degrees?<br /><br />2. Where did you come up with this idea? Did you see it developed somewhere else?<br /><br />3. Yes, it's possible to make a system that explains "gravity" in a much less intuitive and far more complicated way that yields the same results as current gravity theory, but what exactly is the point? Shouldn't our explanations be the simplest explanations consistent with the data? Here we'll be getting into what exactly it means to "explain" something scientifically, which ironically isn't a realm for science itself; that's philosophy.<br /><br />Now about your theory itself.<br /><br />In current theory, an orbiting object's direction is tangent to its circular orbital path, and orthogonal to the direction of the gravity force vector. In your view, the shuttle would have to be directed slightly away from the Earth (its path would form an outward-goingi spiral from an "absolute" perspective) which means it would also have to be expending fuel to stay in orbit, but space shuttles have to expend no fuel to stay in orbit.<br /><br />And what about time dilation, length contraction, and mass increase that we see with Relativity.

 

[siarad]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>light passes near a planet. the light paths that happen to skim the surface of the planet have sufficient speed to skim past it. however, upon nearing the vicinity of the planet, it meets the expansion of the planet and is accelerated towards it<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I thought c was a constant unable to be accelerated & light 'deflected' by a mass doesn't, by definition, get closer during it, surely even at a BH it can only circulate. Further acceleration requires time but hasn't time ceased for light.

 

[eudoxus18]

Also, what "holes" in gravity theory are you talking about?

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />1. Bonzelite, in order to make yourself credible you may want to list your credentials and how many years of physics you took. Do you have any degrees? </font><br />oh yes, the cliche'd "you have no right to speak" line. already been done here at SDC. this is the "science is only for scientists" forum. wake me up when you come up with another line. i'm an artist and a madman. don't bother me, i'm painting. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />2. Where did you come up with this idea? Did you see it developed somewhere else? </font><br />from my own thoughts and from others. it's not really my idea. just as the Big Bang is of no individual's idea that is posting here. someone else calls it the "3rd wave." however, have you ever thought of things, even in jest, as "falling up?" that is exactly what this is about. try this guy:<br />http://geocities.com/mileswmathis/third.html<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />3. Yes, it's possible to make a system that explains "gravity" in a much less intuitive and far more complicated way that yields the same results as current gravity theory, but what exactly is the point? Shouldn't our explanations be the simplest explanations consistent with the data? Here we'll be getting into what exactly it means to "explain" something scientifically, which ironically isn't a realm for science itself; that's philosophy. </font><br />expansion theory is far simpler and unifying than what is officially accepted. and i'm giving spirited and theoretical rebuttals. i'm not talking about little green men or unicorns. i'm using the gravity vector in reverse of what is commonly accepted. that is all i am really doing. many of the equations for gravity actually still work. they must or we could not be sending craft to the planets. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />In current theory, an orbiting object's direction is tangent to</font>

 

[CalliArcale]

Sorry for the late reply; I got busy on Friday and then was unable to get online over the weekend. New house, too much to do. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><font color="yellow">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?</font><br />excellent point.<br /><br />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.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, in your model, this is how it would be perceived by the small body receiving the assist, and by the large body providing the assist.<br /><br />But to a third party, it would not appear this way. The small body would be perceived as travelling at exactly the same speed and in exactly the same direction throughout.<br /><br />In other words, Voyager 2 should still be travelling almost exactly the same speed today (when measured relative to the Earth) that it was when its spent Centaur booster separated back in the 70s, plus minor adjustments due to firings of its main engine. (The main engine does not have a lot of delta-vee; at this scale, it's negligible.) But it isn't. Relative to the Earth, it has accelerated a great deal. Where did this velocity come from?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><font color="yellow">I do not understand why there would be an "expanding orbital ring". An orbit is not a physical entity, but simply the mathematical descripti</font></p></blockquote> <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>

 

[robnissen]

Bonzelite is right about one thing: he is a "madman" (his words). I just don't understand why everyone here continues to humor him and his delusions. According to Bonz, there is no gravity only constant expansion, but there is NO evidence to support that lunacy. As has been pointed out numeous times, if objects are all expanding the distances between objects would be shrinking. The moon would be getting closer to the earth, the earth closer to the sun, etc. But once again, there is NO evidence to support that. I just don't understande why everyone here tries to have a logical conversation with (in his own words) a "madman."

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"> But it isn't. Relative to the Earth, it has accelerated a great deal. Where did this velocity come from? </font><br />from the "gravity assists" that are really nothing more than expansion geometry, exactly as i described a rock being thrown up: as it "falls" back to earth, it constantly accelerates. it is "gravity assisted." <br /><br /><font color="yellow">What's pushing the orbit out? </font><br />the solar system acts as one mass unit, as a disk of matter, in this context. inasmuch as bodies act independently as they interact, they are part of a larger mass --such as the earth and moon. they are one "thing," sharing a centre of mass between them, for example. this type of thing happens on up to the entire galaxy in scale. <br /><br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Also, if all distances between bodies are expanding in relative proportion to one another, shouldn't we see no effect whatsoever? After all, if the only thing causing objects to "fall" is the ground coming up to meet them, doesn't this imply that the space between them is *not* expanding, but is rather being consumed by the expansion of the objects? </font><br />yep.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">This seems to be a contradiction in your model, bonzelite.</font><br />an expanding universe in the sense that is of official belief violates the laws of physics, as it is said to be "speeding up." this entirely contradicts the law of conservation of energy --as it is also regarded to be the <i>actual physical space between things and <b>not</b> the actual objects</i> that are said to "expand." <br /><br />yet no one ever questions this because the idea of "spacetime" has been rammed down the throats of everybody. so this 3-card monte' of science is glossed over and just accepted, without any viable explanation given. nor any other example of this phenomenon happening on a smaller scale <i>anywhere.</i> as well, the "fabric" is then ---what? emptiness? or

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">Bonzelite is right about one thing: he is a "madman" (his words). I just don't understand why everyone here continues to humor him and his delusions.</font><br /> --another cliche'd "you have no right to speak" remark. how expected <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />matter does not run into each other everywhere because everything is in relative motion to everything else, keeping matter on paths and in orbits and at velocities --allowing all things, in myriad examples, to remain afloat at distances. and the proportional expansion into infinity, as well, allows for infinite leg room. forever.

 

[CalliArcale]

<mod hat><br />Sorry, I missed that one in my haste to catch up after the weekend. Folks, don't call other people madmen. I realize in this case it was a quote, but that's pushing the line a bit. While I remain unconvinced of bonzelite's idea (I don't think he's really answered my questions, although that is probably a deficiency in my questions), I think it's a fascinating intellectual exercise, and heck, who can't use one of those once in a while?<br /><br />Bonzelite is treating his opposition respectfully. It behooves us to treat him the same way.<br /></mod hat /><br /><br />Regarding qualifications, as that was asked about, it is actually relevant. I myself have a Bachelor of Arts in English and Computer Science. Should that affect your opinion of my posts? Probably. I'm not formally trained in this stuff. I'm mostly going it on my own, plus what I've happened to pick up through the years, mostly through popular literature on the subject. But it shouldn't be the only yardstick you use to judge a person's posts. It just means you may need to reorient your criticism a bit. If I totally gaff some terribly obvious point in classical physics, this doesn't mean I slept through Celestial Mechanics. Fact is, I never took Celestial Mechanics, so maybe it means I deserve a little slack, and probably a little education, if I screw up on that. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Treat bonzelite the same way. He's an amateur, like most of us here. A regular person who reads a lot and has no formal training in these fields. Respect his intellect, but give him a bit of slack if he doesn't know something that you learned in your post-graduate program.<br /><br />That's basically what the qualifications mean. <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>

 

[yevaud]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>i'm replacing <i>all</i> grav f/x with spherical expansionary geometry. with the grav f/x being due to literal acceleration <i>in every case</i>.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That isn't the answer. Masses expanding, as you say, are not the same as mass producing a gravitational field. <br /><br />It will not produce lensing; warped and stressed spacetime via gravitational effects will. <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>

 

[siarad]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But it isn't. Relative to the Earth, it has accelerated a great deal. Where did this velocity come from? <br />from the "gravity assists" that are really nothing more than expansion geometry, exactly as i described a rock being thrown up: as it "falls" back to earth, it constantly accelerates. it is "gravity assisted." <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />No way! gravity provides nothing but <i>assistance,</i> the velocity increase comes by slowing the planet, gravity is in-consumable. Therefore the entering acceleration of the passing object is matched by deceleration on leaving.<br />

 

[eudoxus18]

From what I understand of Bonzelite's model, it would indeed produce gravitational lensing because of relative motion. But even though it explains one small part of physics, it doesn't explain others, like time dilation, mass increase, and length contraction.<br /><br />Bonzelite, yes it is true that "science is only for scientists". Someone who has absolutely no training in painting just isn't going to produce a good painting. If you had better training in math and science, you probably encounter people or concepts on your own that would debunk this theory. If you don't know impulse from work (an example, I'm not saying you don't) then I would be a little reluctant to lend you much credit. The Greeks were wrong, you can't just reason your way to scientific truth, it has to be based upon experiment. If you had more scientific training, you may just realize that current gravity theory is self-consistent. Is it absolutely true? No, there are phenomenon that current gravity theory does not explain, but it's self-consistent.<br /><br />And if indeed matter is increasing in size with constant acceleration, then wouldn't the objects also have to be accelerating to stay apart? Where is this force coming from.<br /><br />Again, what holes in gravity theory? Name them.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />That isn't the answer. Masses expanding, as you say, are not the same as mass producing a gravitational field. <br /><br />It will not produce lensing; warped and stressed spacetime via gravitational effects will.</font><br />size matters. that is what i'm saying. i will explain it again in a bit. i must go to the dentist now. i'd rather stay here and post some more. <br /><br />if i don't get to or answer questions for others, i not ignoring you. i will get to them bit by bit. the premise i am talking about is very far-reaching in consequences. <br /><br />i'm having fun, by the way, and i hope others are too. it is just a theory, folks <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

I don't know, Eudoxus. It seems to me that any such effect produced, even if by expansion hence acceleration, would defacto have to <i>be</i> a gravitational force to produce lensing. Acceleration I do not accept. <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]

<font color="yellow"><br />From what I understand of Bonzelite's model, it would indeed produce gravitational lensing because of relative motion. But even though it explains one small part of physics, it doesn't explain others, like time dilation, mass increase, and length contraction. </font><br />thanks, Eudoxus, for seeing that it DOES create grav lensing. and it CAN explain STR effects. i will get to that. i'm not ignoring you <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

I'd say enjoy, but since it's the Dentist... <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]

<font color="yellow"><br />I don't know, Eudoxus. It seems to me that any such effect produced, even if by expansion hence acceleration, would defacto have to be a gravitational force to produce lensing. Acceleration I do not accept.</font><br />it cannot be grav lens because she doesn't really exist. it's accel effect. not grav <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="orange"><br />I'd say enjoy, but since it's the Dentist...</font><br />LOL thanks. i appreciate your humor. wish me luck. i will tell ya'll how it went. i really must go now... <br /><br />back in a while, folks....

 

[bonzelite]

ok. i went for the 1 month post-deep-scaling cheque up. and it was excellent. <br /><br />they were happy to see that i had actually been flossing daily and keeping a constant oral hygiene regimen. literally, i was scared sh!_less into doing it once they gave the initial assessment a month ago: as i had neglected my teeth and gums for years, i had to undergo 2 deep-scaling visits, both of which were <i>very</i> painful. with the 2nd visit being the more painful of the two (they broke it into 2 visits as the local anesthetic + the amount of bleeding, swelling, and facial numbness would shut down one's ability to eat or speak). after the 1st scaling, half of my face had no feeling so i could not spit very well, would drool blood, and yet the residual pain of the main "booster shot" to the mouth (one of about a dozen shots per side) was brutally upon me if i even barely chewed anything or drank. it was like going to hell (they gave several gumline numbing shots, like little pinpricks, then one giant "main" shot deep into the bottom of the jawbone that was so painful that i clutched the arms of the chair as to break them off --the "pre-numbing" gum gel nearly useless in effect). <br /><br />however, they said that my gums have actually been healing, ie, "closing," as the diseased lesions inside my gums have nearly all but vanished except for a couple of stubborn areas. moreover, i do need to revisit in 3 months, as one of my wisdom teeth at top is targeted for extraction, as it's placement in my mouth is actually rotting healthy bone to neighboring teeth. that is ultimately the choice of me and the oral surgeon who will see me in 3 months. however, the doctor remarking on my gums said, provided i maintain my flossing and brushing as instructed, that i may not need additional gum scaling. <br /><br />i will never again wait so long to see the dentist. and i will never ever neglect flossing. for years i was lazy and took for granted my oral health until i began to notice uncont

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">And if indeed matter is increasing in size with constant acceleration, then wouldn't the objects also have to be accelerating to stay apart? Where is this force coming from. </font><br />they do accelerate. i explained this in the rock being thrown up example, as well as gravity assists. acceleration is happening in perpetuity under expansion geometry. the force is coming from atomic expansion and is experienced as an acceleration upon ojbects. this acceleration keeps ojects on the earth held to it's surface (as but one example).<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Bonzelite, yes it is true that "science is only for scientists". </font><br />that is <i>absolutely untrue</i> to an extreme absolute --science is for everybody. it's everybody's cosmos. your mentality expressed about it is exactly one large reason why flawed ideas are kept afloat by the establishment. and the contradictory and theoretically inept complexities of the math shy most people away from understanding our cosmos when it is fundamentally very simple and unified. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />Again, what holes in gravity theory? Name them.</font><br />my entire last few dozen posts have been pointing them out. gravity as it is commony held to be known is non-existent. that about covers all areas. <br /><br />

 

[mental_avenger]

I think that you need to address the heretofore unanswered challenge I made several days ago, before addressing these new concerns. Essentially, if you cannot successfully refute that challenge, all other questions regarding your hypothesis are moot. If two separate objects of identical physical dimensions but different mass “fall to Earth” at different rates, your hypothesis is invalid. End of discussion. Please provide a relevant response, which is corroborated by verifiable science, before continuing dialog with other members. Use the specific parameters provided earlier. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>