Pre-Newton gravitation

Prior to Newton’s (and others’) concept of gravity, how did people explain objects falling to the ground?

Elements “want” to be in their proper sphere. That is why air bubbles up through water, sparks fly up through air, water and earth fall. Eventuall, all of Chaos will be sorted out, and all earthly motion will cease.

Pretty much the same way they did after Newton. Newton never really explained why objects fall and, if I recall correctly, he bemoans this failure in his writings. The main thing Newton did is was write equations that described how things fell and these same equation could be used to explain planetary orbits.

An explanation as to why things fall wasn’t offered until Einstein published his theories of warped space time. Even now, it really boils down to “Things fall because that is way the universe works.”

Yep. First person who actively gives us a ‘why’ on gravity wins him or herself a shiny neat medal in Oslo. We’re good on what happens…but we’re still weak on why and how.

I haven’t done a really obnoxious nitpick in a while, so here is my chance. I guess you’re referring to the Nobel Prize in Physics, but that is awarded in Stockholm; the only Nobel Prize awarded in Oslo is the one for Peace.

But… Didn’t Newton invent gravity? :confused:

(I keed! I keed! :stuck_out_tongue: )

No, he founded Apple.

Yes, and Apple invented Newton. The universe is well-designed like that.

Not really. One of his biggest innovations was the idea that a single set of rules applies everywhere, instead of their being an Earthly set of laws and an entirely different set of celestial laws. It was an insight that has become so basic to the way we think that we don’t really consider it anymore; we just assume that matter on say, Mars or Pluto obeys the same laws of gravity, electromagnetism and so forth as matter on Earth.

So yes, he did change things; presuming that we can actually figure out why the planets move as they do by studying objects on Earth and applying the same rules to the planets is a major difference. And Newtonian physics explains how things act far better than older concepts, even if they didn’t add much insight into why.

Exactly. Galileo (the apocryphal leaning tower of Pisa experiment) showed that objects fell at the same rate, and IIRC extended that to show why pendulums swung at a constant frequency dependent on length from point of rotation… So the mechanics of “gravity” were well known. Kepler showed the path and speed of orbital dynamics for the planets and moons.

Newton’s brilliance was to unite the work of Galileo and Kepler and show that this one force also explained the bizarre movements of heavenly bodies, which at the time seemed to have no relation to earthly mechanics. (and to also show that gravity must diminish with distance and was related to mass to explain celestial dynamics)

one of the other things he did 9with some fudging) was to show that the gravitational attraction of a spherical lump was the equivalent of an equal mass concentrated at the center of the sphere - meanwhile (co-)inventing calculus.

Only Nobel price awarded in Oslo is the Peace price. Not that there couldn’t be a physics price awarded here that I haven’t heard of …

The theory of Impetus

No, Newton actually represented a third phase in the development of gravitational theory.

First, the flat earthers simply thought everything went down.

Round earth thinkers realized that everything went toward earth, as there was no absolute down.

Then Newton explained that everything had its own gravity, and the earth and other objects pulled each other, as do any other two objects anywhere.