Who invented or created the theory of gravity ?

[eudoxus18]

I'm still not convinced this system accounts for orbits.<br /><br />Let's use a polar coordinate system, and let the center of the earth be the origin of that coordinate system. Using this system (in current theory) can describe orbits very well. r(t) = k, where k is some constant, and theta(t) depends entirely upon the force.<br /><br />1. Every object outside the earth can be described in terms of an angle theta and a radius R as functions of time, no matter what system is being used.<br />2. The derivates of these functions of time describes their velocities.<br />3. As far as your system is concerned, the theta function is completely immaterial; it could be a sine function for all we care. It only matters what the radius function is doing; as long as the radius function is behaving properly and staying greater than the radius of the earth, we're fine. And by your own admission, the earth is expanding with a constant acceleration. This means the radius function component of every sattelite's orbit -must- be accelerating at the same rate. For every acceleration, there must be a force. What force is this?

 

[eudoxus18]

And just as a side note, if you really want this idea to be accepted, you need to give it a mathematically rigorous basis. You can skirt around definitions and arguments if all you use is words, but if words are all you use, then this system is absolutely useless for calculations.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>and i want to thank Calli and Yevaud and Mental Avenger for putting up with me and guiding the posts. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You are very welcome; it has been a stimulating experience! I wish I could keep up today, but unfortunately I don't think I will be able to. I've got a bit of a headache and it's making it hard to wrap my brain around things. All my brain wants to do is go to sleep.... So good luck, have fun, and keep on keeping it civil! That's when it's fun. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I'd be especially interested to see if anybody can address Eudoxus point about the mathematics. That's where the rubber will meet the road; in words and logic and Einsteinian thought-experiments, we can discuss the plausibility of the theory. But to really test it, we'll need to describe it more concretely -- in other words, mathematically. <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>

 

[derekmcd]

Cali... I believe I provided some very basic math many posts ago to refute the theory.<br /><br />Bonz... Exodus briefly hit on the same concept I did. You still haven't addressed my issues. Nobody here has backed up my math contending your theory, but I'm still confident I showed flaws at the most basic level concerning proportionality. <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]

<i>yes. their calculations are near approximations. and they are generally near enough to send craft out. but the moons 1/6 g is merely an approximation, as that body's centre of mass is more than likely off-centre from it's geometric dead-centre, rendering actual gravity for it's surface to vary from region to region.</i><br /><br />If the moon is 1/6g on the near side and 1/4g on the farside, I think NASA would have figured this out at their first attemp with a gravity assist manuever. 1/6 and 1/4 is a HUGE difference when inputing the figures. Look at the Mars Climate Orbiter when they don't get the math perfect... <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"><br />If the moon is 1/6g on the near side and 1/4g on the farside, I think NASA would have figured this out at their first attemp with a gravity assist manuever. 1/6 and 1/4 is a HUGE difference when inputing the figures. Look at the Mars Climate Orbiter when they don't get the math perfect...</font><br />i said the moon's grav is 1/4 overall. not on the far side. on the less dense and larger far side (as it is a larger region relative to the moon's centre of mass), the grav should be 1/3 --<i>greater</i>. when averaged together, 1/6 and 1/3, you get the 1/4 ballpark that i speak of. <br /><br />NASA has not figured this out. <br /><br />and you are incorrect about proportionality. it <i>does occur.</i> your simple math does not refute anything that i am saying. your math does not take into account the atomic expansion rate of 0.00000077m/s^2. as well, there is continually an absolute distance decrease between objects as they expand. and a relative distance decrease between ojbects as they expand. your math does not take this into account. <br /><br />upon expansion, all objects remain appearing the same size, as if nothing is changing. but, really, everything expands in proportion to each other. the appearance of sameness is an illusion. but we can never step out of it to actually see things growing. we're part of it.

 

[yevaud]

There's something just completely off about this.<br /><br />For example, if gravity is only due to apparent acceleration, then why is gravity experienced from a larger body by a smaller body? That is to say as a measurable force, measured from the smaller body with respect to the larger body. That's not acceleration: it's deriving from an outside source.<br /><br />Gravity is an attractive force. Where does the attraction come from if gravity doesn't esist? <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">For example, if gravity is only due to apparent acceleration, then why is gravity experienced from a larger body by a smaller body? </font><br />gravity is determined by overall size of an object as it expands. and <i><b>both</b> the smaller and larger body are expanding towards each other</i>, in proportion to each other. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Gravity is an attractive force. Where does the attraction come from if gravity doesn't esist?</font><br />in the premise, gravity as an accelerative force created by movement of expanding bodies. attraction, as you put it, is created by acceleration <i>only.</i> no such attractive force from within a body, based upon it's mass, exists at all. "attractive force" is the acceleration of bodies based upon their sizes. a smaller sized object, then, expands relatively less moment to moment than a larger object. so it possesses less accelerative force at it's surface. yet <i>all things expand at the same atomic rate.</i> all things remain, in appearance, the "same size." things all expand and maintain proportion to each other. so it appears as if everything remains the same. but it doesn't. it's all expanding. including you and me.

 

[yevaud]

Still doesn't work.<br /><br />Gravity is a measurable force. It can be measured at a distance as originating from an object.<br /><br />Now that's not the effects of acceleration; it's a force. Simple expansion will not and cannot do this. Whatever the apparent equivalent via acceleration. <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>

 

[derekmcd]

<i>i said the moon's grav is 1/4 overall. not on the far side.</i><br /><br />I misunderstood... <br /><br /><i>on the less dense and larger far side (as it is a larger region relative to the moon's centre of mass), the grav should be 1/3 --greater. when averaged together, 1/6 and 1/3, you get the 1/4 ballpark that i speak of.<br /><br /><br />NASA has not figured this out. </i><br /><br />This only makes my point more clear. NASA uses the figure of 1/6g for gravity assist maneuvers. If it was 1/4 they would need to accelerate the craft faster. Even more to the point, if the far-side was 1/3, the momentum of the craft would not be close enough to complete the slingshot. The craft would be overcome by the stronger gravity on the farside.<br /><br />NASA has, indeed, figured it out.<br /><br /><i>and you are incorrect about proportionality. it does occur. your simple math does not refute anything that i am saying. your math does not take into account the atomic expansion rate of 0.00000077m/s^2. as well, there is continually an absolute distance decrease between objects as they expand. and a relative distance decrease between ojbects as they expand. your math does not take this into account. <br /><br />upon expansion, all objects remain appearing the same size, as if nothing is changing. but, really, everything expands in proportion to each other. the appearance of sameness is an illusion. but we can never step out of it to actually see things growing. we're part of it.</i><br /><br />ehh???? Now the distance DOES decrease? And please show me how to take into account atomic expansion. My math is correct using observable and verifiable numbers. <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"><br />Still doesn't work. </font><br />it's already been working for years. equivalence principle. einstein was on the right track. but fell short and went into erroneous claims thereafter following newton. <br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />Gravity is a measurable force. It can be measured at a distance as originating from an object. </font><br />no.<br /><br />such attractive force is not explained by science, as if it were magic. orbits can be calculated geometrically <i>only, without the made-up concept of "g".</i> g is not mass-dependent. it is size dependent. <br /><br />

 

[bonzelite]

derek, i have to work today. so i am not ignoring you. please bear with me.

 

[yevaud]

<font color="orange">Gravity is a measurable force. It can be measured at a distance as originating from an object.</font><br /><i>no.</i><br /><br />With all due respect, you are clearly, utterly, dead wrong here. Your expanding bodies idea cannot and does not explain how gravitational force is experienced. <br /><br /><br />When a slingshot manuever, e.g. a gravity assist is performed, what is causing the gravity assist? It cannot be acceleration due to expansion. It is a measurable force. <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

My brain's still a bit foggy, but if lunar "gravity" (whether due to an attractive force or the actual expansion of the Moon) were 1/3 on the far side and 1/6 on the near side, why has this not affected the trajectories of any objects orbiting the Moon, such as the Apollo spacecraft, Lunar Orbiter, Lunar Prospector, Clementine, etc?<br /><br />Orbits have a direct relationship to the mass of the object being orbited. Regardless of the mechanism causing it, this is an observed fact. So this doesn't make sense if the Moon's gravity is so dramatically variable from one side to the other.<br /><br />Plus, shouldn't it be dramatically different in, say, Oceanus Procellarum as opposed to, say, Mare Tranquilitatis? Apollo missions landed in both locations, yet followed the same basic descent profile. If the perceived gravity is different, a different amount of propellant would be required to effect a safe landing. Surely the astronauts would've noticed this.<br /><br />And I still have yet to see why Voyager 1 appeared to accelerate from the Earth's perspective when it passed Jupiter. <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>

 

[derekmcd]

me, too... i'm leaving shortly. <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"><br />With all due respect, you are clearly, utterly, dead wrong here. Your expanding bodies idea cannot and does not explain how gravitational force is experienced. <br /><br /><br />When a slingshot manuever, e.g. a gravity assist is performed, what is causing the gravity assist? It cannot be acceleration due to expansion. It is a measurable force.</font><br />go back some posts and read them. i addressed this. many, many, many times. grav assist is due to expansion. grav force is experienced as acceleration <i>only.</i> in a sense, everything is riding einstein's elevator. <i>everything.</i>

 

[bonzelite]

ok, derek. i may not be able to add much today. if so, it may be later tonight. i got busy. self-employed. schedule is often different. <br /><br />and thanks for being a good sport. this is only a theory <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[derekmcd]

I'm assuming that was for Bonzelite. <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>

 

[yevaud]

That is still wrong. Acceleration is experienced as apparent gravity by someone in that frame of reference, say standing on the surface of an expanding planet (using your examples).<br /><br />Your explanations explain nothing about the gravitational force as experienced by someone not standing on that planet. Acceleration will not produce a force that is measurable and experienced by an outside observer. <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>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NOTE TO EVERYONE: Keep in mind just because Bonzelite can't answer every objection does not mean his theory is bunk. Every modern theory in every branch of science has holes in it somewhere, it's just that it can take years to find it. Newton's own theory stood for a few centuries before it was debunked by Einstein.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> It is not right to say beforehand about every theory flat out that 'it has holes in it somewhere' before you can see them in particular theories, that's as arogant statement as it can get. <br />Nevermind that you put by this pronouncement every bubling lunacy of an idea into the same basket as Newton's and Einstein's theories (that's not necessarily allusion to current ideas put forth on this thread but a general statement), how's that for cutting giants to every incompetent's size because they can't be raised to their level.<br /><br />Second, Einstein did not 'debunk' Newton, by such claim you just show that you don't have a clue how science proceeds. I am dead sure Einstein himself would be the first to distance himself from any such claim and he wouldn't be motivated by some false charity on his part towards Newton. <br /><br />You 'debunk' frauds or fraud theories, not theory that still holds today and was just refined. Newtons theory of gravitation is today still being used daily and is tought in schools daily and it will be so as long as mankind will be here baring some fall into savagery.<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

calli, those lunar sites are on the near side of the moon. that is where i suspect the gravity to be 1/6 as measured --as that side is probably <i>denser --more concentrated-- as that is where the moon's centre of mass is closest.</i> because of this, that side expands relatively <i>less</i> from moment to moment than the larger and less-dense far side. the moon's far side should have much <i>greater</i> gravity than the near side. <br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">And I still have yet to see why Voyager 1 appeared to accelerate from the Earth's perspective when it passed Jupiter.</font><br />i talked about that many times: "gravity" assist. you throw up a stone. it goes up, peaks, slows down, arcs back over, then accelerates again as it approaches the ground. this is gravity assist. probes do the same thing but they are sailing through space and are not rocks being thrown up. they have enough speed to overcome the expansion of the earth, unlike the rock that falls back down. <br /><br /><br />both are same thing. <br /><br />

 

[derekmcd]

That's the same concept I used when refering to tides in a previous thread... <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>

 

[yevaud]

Yes it is, but different too.<br /><br />Acceleration does not produce action at a distance, as with a gravitational force. <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 />Your explanations explain nothing about the gravitational force as experienced by someone not standing on that planet. Acceleration will not produce a force that is measurable and experienced by an outside observer.</font><br />all objects are accelerating as they expand themselves. all objects, too, are perpetually expanding towards each other. we're not standing on the sun, but we feel it's "pull" because it is expanding to the earth. our relative speed motion to it, as we also expand, maintains our orbit, keeping us from "falling into it." <br /><br />a rock thrown up from the earth (by someone's arm) has no such benefit, as it's relative speed and motion to earth has it falling to the earth, accelerating all the time until it hits terra firma. if someone were standing on the small rock, and they were ant-like, they'd feel the earth "pulling" the rock down. but, really, the earth is expanding outward to meet the rock in mid-air. <br /><br />orbits, grav-assists, grav lensing f/x --all the same. <br /><br />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"> Newtons theory of gravitation is today still being used daily and is tought in schools daily </font><br />and it is misleading as a concept and theory. <br />