Sorry, no, that isn't correct. In the Newtonian explanation, objects fall because gravity pulls objects with mass toward each other. In Relativity, space is warped by the presence of mass, pulling/pushing objects together. None of that has anything to do with motion/rotation.NewToThis said:I'm not very knowledgeable on this subject and it's well beyond my understanding, but from what I do understand objects do not fall, it is the Earth crashing into them because the Earth is rotating and traveling through space...
russ_watters said:Welcome to PF!
Sorry, no, that isn't correct. In the Newtonian explanation, objects fall because gravity pulls objects with mass toward each other. In Relativity, space is warped by the presence of mass, pulling/pushing objects together. None of that has anything to do with motion/rotation.
That's just how I've come to understand how gravity works, but I thougt it was wrong.rootone said:Earth's rotation has nothing to do with gravity, why do you think it should?
I can understand your concept about the Earth moving through space causing it collide with other stuff, although that's also wrong
If that were true then only stuff ahead of the leading edge would fall on to Earth, while on the trailing edge stuff that wasn't tied down would float away.
When he says "When Newton was sitting there under the tree, according to Einstein, it is not that the apple fell on his head; his head rushed up and hit the apple." I can see why it might lead you to the interpretation you had, but what you said is not what he's talking about and the way he described that is not very good. He's referring to the equivalence principle, where acceleration and gravity are observed to behave the same as each other:NewToThis said:Brian Greene discusses it briefly in this video from about 9.20.
russ_watters said:When he says "When Newton was sitting there under the tree, according to Einstein, it is not that the apple fell on his head; his head rushed up and hit the apple." I can see why it might lead you to the interpretation you had, but what you said is not what he's talking about and the way he described that is not very good. He's referring to the equivalence principle, where acceleration and gravity are observed to behave the same as each other:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
It is clearer from the demonstration he gives than the description he gives.
Clearly, if we were just in the way of Earth's motion through space (he never says "traveling through space"), people on the other side of the Earth would be left behind as it moved away from them.
rootone said:Start with Newton's law first, and then when you have you grasped that one, take a look at how relativity eventually replaced that as a more accurate theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
Gravity is a force that exists between any two objects with mass. It is responsible for the attraction between objects and is what keeps us grounded on Earth.
Sir Isaac Newton is credited with discovering the concept of gravity in the 17th century. However, the concept of gravity has been studied and theorized by many scientists throughout history.
Gravity is a fundamental force of nature that works by pulling objects towards each other. The strength of gravity depends on the masses of the objects and the distance between them.
Yes, gravity exists in space. In fact, gravity is what keeps planets and other celestial bodies in orbit around each other. However, the effects of gravity may be weaker in certain areas of space due to the distance between objects.
As far as we know, gravity cannot be manipulated or controlled. It is a natural force that cannot be artificially created or changed. However, scientists are constantly studying gravity and its effects in order to better understand it.