Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
For those of us who have never read Isaac Newton or the Principia and who don't know that the hypothesis of gravitation says God did it: Isaac Newton, General Scholium
Not just Newton. Everyone else with a brain.Newton was having trouble with the fact that his theory involved action at a distance.
General Relativity is a pre-Space Age myth.General relativity rectifies this trouble.
Do you claim to know more about the technical aspects of the subject in question than the above referenced thinkers?Let's see...do I care about the opinion of someone who I suspect has no grasp of any of the technical aspects of the subject in question?
Since we don't follow Newton's exact original formulation, your point is moot. Newton may have attributed various things to God, but we do not. And if nothing else, Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by Einsteinian mechanics.For those of us who have never read Isaac Newton or the Principia and who don't know that the hypothesis of gravitation says God did it: Isaac Newton, General Scholium
Since you reject Newtonian gravitation, what do you claim gave the planets and moons their perfect orbital velocities?Since we don't follow Newton's exact original formulation, your point is moot. Newton may have attributed various things to God, but we do not. And if nothing else, Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by Einsteinian mechanics.
Gravity. I reject Newton's own personal explanation for gravity, but any fool can see that gravity itself exists.Since you reject Newtonian gravitation, what do you claim gave the planets and moons their perfect orbital velocities?
Gravity and gravitation are two totally different concepts.I reject Newton's own personal explanation for gravity, but any fool can see that gravity itself exists.
If, let's say, a moon has too much inertia it will reach escape velocity and fly off into outer space.And I'm hesitant to call their orbital velocities 'perfect'; what's perfect about them?
The terms are synonymous. Gravity and gravitation both refer to the readily observable phenomenon. There are various ideas about how gravity works, from Newton's 'Goddidit' to Einstein's relativistic model, but these ideas aren't 'gravitation', they're hypotheses (or theories) of gravitation.Gravity and gravitation are two totally different concepts.
Gravity is an ancient observation.
Gravitation is a 17th century hypothesis.
It already has, that's how the Moon was formed in the first place. An orbit is simply a prolonged freefall.If, let's say, a moon has too much inertia it will reach escape velocity and fly off into outer space.
If a moon doesn't have enough inertia, it will fall on the planet that captured it.
That may be Newton's hypothesis, but that's not the Newtonian hypothesis, which is simply a mathematical model based on Newton.So the Newtonian hypothesis of gravitation says that the reason why the moon doesn't fall on the Earth is that God gave the moon a perfect orbital velocity.
In case you haven't noticed, science has advanced somewhat since Leibniz was around. Don't forget that in those days, they thought space was littered with stars in a uniform fashion. It was only relatively recently that we understood they were bunched together into galaxies (much as Newton foreshadowed).Newton gives the example of stars falling on eachother by their gravity:
"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687
So if not God, divine intervention, or miracle works, then what?
"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710
I just demonstrated to you that they are not.The terms are synonymous.
No they do not.Gravity and gravitation both refer to the readily observable phenomenon.
I agree.There are various ideas about how gravity works, from Newton's 'Goddidit' to Einstein's relativistic model, but these ideas aren't 'gravitation', they're hypotheses (or theories) of gravitation.
That does not answer the question.It already has, that's how the Moon was formed in the first place. An orbit is simply a prolonged freefall.
In what way does Newton foreshadow stars bunching together into galaxies?That may be Newton's hypothesis, but that's not the Newtonian hypothesis, which is simply a mathematical model based on Newton.
In case you haven't noticed, science has advanced somewhat since Leibniz was around. Don't forget that in those days, they thought space was littered with stars in a uniform fashion. It was only relatively recently that we understood they were bunched together into galaxies (much as Newton foreshadowed).
You simply asserted that they're not, without backing up your claims at all. Gravitation is "the fundamental force of attraction that exists between all particles with mass in the universe. It is the weakest of the four forces, and possesses a gauge boson known as the graviton." In other words, it is just another word for gravity, which itself is defined as:I just demonstrated to you that they are not.
Really? Because a few paragraphs ago you said gravitation is a 17[sup]th[/sup] century hypothesis. Either it is, or it isn't. Which?No they do not.
Gravity is an ancient observation.
Gravitation is a 17th century hypothesis.
"... to what Agent did the Ancients attribute the gravity of their atoms and what did they mean by calling God an harmony and comparing him & matter (the corporeal part of the Universe) to the God Pan and his Pipe?" -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 169-
I agree.
You didn't ask any question. I was the one who asked a question, which you've yet to answer. You mentioned something about the Moon's orbit, but that hardly constitutes perfection, and it has nothing to do with a 'perfect orbital velocity': the Moon could take any orbit it likes, there is no privilidged distance or velocity. This is exemplified by systems having several moons (including the Earth itself).That does not answer the question.
Exactly: lest the stars fall on each other. Though Newton had no idea about galaxies, and believed that the stars were immeasurable distant from one another, his words foreshadow the fact that we would eventually discover that the stars do fall on each other. He dismissed this as contrary to his observations, but we know that such an eventuality is not only possible, but ubiquitous of the universe.In what way does Newton foreshadow stars bunching together into galaxies?
In fact, Newton claimed precisely the opposite.
"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687
....annnnnyways, the point is that unless you start worrying about radiation, the basic reason the electron doesn't decay into the nucleus is that the electron's "velocity" (to use classical terms; properly you can't really describe electrons in atoms that way) is at right angles to the attractive force, so the net effect is circular motion.
So you deny the facts that gravity is an ancient observation and that gravitation is a 17th century hypothesis. Interesting.You simply asserted that they're not, without backing up your claims at all.
The OP's already warned us about derailing the thread. CiaoSo you deny the facts that gravity is an ancient observation and that gravitation is a 17th century hypothesis. Interesting.
Why don't you think gravity existed prior to July 5th 1687?
Any bets on how many here can name the points where for an ellipitcal orbit the force is at a right angle to both the orbit and the motion of the orbiting body?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?