The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What causes gravity?  (Read 41770 times)

Offline hamza

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
    • Blog Hamxa
What causes gravity?
« on: 30/07/2007 19:20:08 »
what i mean is that is it caused by the earth's spinning motion?? or what? if not than what causes the earth to spin?? why is it spinning??
« Last Edit: 14/10/2015 23:43:44 by chris »


 

another_someone

  • Guest
what causes gravity??
« Reply #1 on: 30/07/2007 19:38:02 »
The Earth's spinning motion is totally separate from gravity.

Gravity is a feature of mass, and anything that has mass will have a gravitational pull (i.e. if you have a 1Kg block of lead, that too will have a gravitational pull, but it would be so very slight that you would need extremely sensitive instruments to even measure it was there; but the earth is a massive 5.97361024 kg, and so has many of orders of magnitude stronger gravitational pull than the 1Kg mass does).

The Sun is even more massive, and so has an even stronger gravitational pull, but because it is far further away, we feel its pull less than we feel the pull of the Earth beneath our feet.

The Earth is spinning because it was always spinning, and was created that way.  The Earth formed out of the primordial solar system, and that was a swirling cloud of gas, so everything that formed within it was spinning one way or another.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #2 on: 30/07/2007 20:42:53 »
The most genrally accepted theory of gravity is that put forward by A Einstein in his theory of general relatively that the presence off matter produces a distortion of space-time so that the motion of a particle that would normally move in a straight line follows a differant course so that it appears to be attracted to a mass (the shortest and least comprehensive account of general relativity published see Wiki for better ones).
The alternative theory is that gravitational attraction is mediated by an as yet hypothetical particle the Graviton but the mass of such a particle would be so small that there is no hope of detecting individual particles     
« Last Edit: 30/07/2007 20:53:07 by syhprum »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
what causes gravity??
« Reply #3 on: 30/07/2007 21:02:42 »
The most genrally accepted theory of gravity is that put forward by A Einstein in his theory of general relatively that the presence off matter produces a distortion of space-time so that the motion of a particle that would normally move in a straight line follows a differant course so that it appears to be attracted to a mass (the shortest and least comprehensive account of general relativity published see Wiki for better ones).
The alternative theory is that gravitational attraction is mediated by an as yet hypothetical particle the Graviton but the mass of such a particle would be so small that there is no hope of detecting individual particles     

Would not the mass of a graviton have to be massless, or else gravity would have a finite range?

In any case, although difficult, we are able to detect (at least indirectly) the existence of neutrinos, which are probably massless.

George.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #4 on: 30/07/2007 21:27:05 »
What evidence is there that the range of gravity is infinite?, the postulated mass of the Graviton is very very small, we used to believe the neutrino was massless but we have had to get used to the idea that it has a small mass!
With the aid of very large detectors we can detect individual neutrinos but according to a 'Scientific American' article (that I cannot find) the mass of the Graviton was 10^-11 that of the Neutrino and a detector the size of Jupiter would be required to detect individual ones.
It could well be that the size of the observable universe could be too small to test whether the range of gravity is infinite.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2007 05:56:45 by syhprum »
 

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #5 on: 31/07/2007 07:06:42 »
Since almost all of the mass of individual atoms is in their nucleus, gravity must be a nuclear force.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
 

another_someone

  • Guest
what causes gravity??
« Reply #6 on: 31/07/2007 12:04:15 »
Since almost all of the mass of individual atoms is in their nucleus, gravity must be a nuclear force.

Are you saying that it is exclusively a nuclear force, or merely a predominantly nuclear force?

Ofcourse, the real problem is that because gravity is such a week force, we really have little idea of how gravity behaves at sub-atomic levels.
 

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #7 on: 31/07/2007 13:40:58 »
Since almost all of the mass of individual atoms is in their nucleus, gravity must be a nuclear force.

Are you saying that it is exclusively a nuclear force, or merely a predominantly nuclear force?

Of course, the real problem is that because gravity is such a week force, we really have little idea of how gravity behaves at sub-atomic levels.

The fraction that is nuclear is the fraction of the mass that lies in the nucleus, ~99.9%.

Calculate the force of gravity at sub-nuclear distances, <10^-13 cm, to see if it is "weak."

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
 

Offline G-1 Theory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
    • http://edward-e-kerls.com
what causes gravity??
« Reply #8 on: 31/07/2007 13:46:27 »
Since almost all of the mass of individual atoms is in their nucleus, gravity must be a nuclear force.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com

Good to see you Prof. Manuel,

This Ed Kerls, how is your work going.
Did you ever get around to reading my paper of FIELDS OF IRON RULE THE UNIVERSE.
I have been keeping up with your work.

Let me know when you mite be in the Houston area again.

And as allways you right on with saying that GRAVITY has got to be a manitation of one of the nuclear forces.

And the Iron Cores of the Stars and planets have a lot to do with that manitation of the strong-forces in to Gravitational fields.

Also it is nice to have another on this site that is not afrid to give their full name.

Edward E. Kerls

« Last Edit: 01/08/2007 13:36:26 by G-1 Theory »
 

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #9 on: 07/08/2007 23:56:59 »
Greetings Colonel Kerls,

Thanks for the message.

We do not understand gravity, but there is no doubt of its importance.

In fact, we have evidence that the Sun and other stars in the cosmos are not powered by hydrogen fusion.  They are instead powered by competition between

a.) attractive forces of gravity, and

b.) repulsive forces between neutrons.

Here are links to two papers where this is discussed:

1. "The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse and Dissociation", Hirschegg Workshop 06: Astrophysics and Nuclear Structure, Hirschegg, Austria, 15-21 Jan 2006

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379

2. "On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars", Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114

http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com


 
 

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #10 on: 26/06/2009 23:02:19 »
THE ROLE OF GRAVITY IN THE COSMOS

Since almost all of the mass of individual atoms is in their nucleus, gravity must be a nuclear force.

Are you saying that it is exclusively a nuclear force, or merely a predominantly nuclear force?

Of course, the real problem is that because gravity is such a week force, we really have little idea of how gravity behaves at sub-atomic levels.

1. Gravity is a weak force over long distances.

2. Gravity cannot overcome repulsive forces between neutrons to convert neutron stars into black holes.

3. Gravity is a very strong force over very short distances.  http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1667v1

The Sun contains a very dense, energetic core of neutrons.  A dynamic competition between long-range attractive gravitational forces and short-range repulsive forces between neutrons generates solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and solar-wind Hydrogen [a neutron-decay product] in exactly the proportions observed.

The Sun is an ordinary star.  It appears that other stars and galaxies also contain compact neutron cores.   On a cosmic scale, it is the dynamic competition between long-range attractive gravitational forces and short-range repulsive forces between neutrons that powers the cosmos and fills interstellar space with Hydrogen, a neutron-decay product.

If the universe is finite, then neutrons themselves may be the particle-sized black holes that were made in a Big Bang and compressed into massive, highly energetic neutron stars.
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1667v1

If the universe is infinite, then it may oscillate between expansion as interstellar space is filled with Hydrogen from neutron decay, and contraction after the neutron stars have evaporated and gravitational forces become dominant.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
what causes gravity??
« Reply #11 on: 27/06/2009 17:22:57 »
If the graviton is responsible for the existence of gravity, is it also responsible for its propagation?  If this is so, and gravity propagates at 'c', then the graviton would seem to be massless.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3823
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #12 on: 27/06/2009 21:03:51 »
Either that or more likely its mass is so small that it is beyond our technology to measure how much it deviates from c.
back in 1986 when a supernova explosion was observed with both a neutrino burst and electromagnetic radiation it was very difficult to measure any delay in the neutrino burst and it is postulated that the mass of the Graviton is 10^-11 times that of the lightest neutrino. 
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #13 on: 27/06/2009 21:34:46 »
A lot of times people ask: what is the cause for gravity?
I don't understand this question. Why there *must be* a cause? Then I could ask what is the cause of mass, the cause of time, the cause of space, the cause of energy........
 

lyner

  • Guest
what causes gravity??
« Reply #14 on: 27/06/2009 21:59:49 »
Hear hear!
It's as if being able to answer that particular question actually would solve anything. Because, whatever it was that 'caused' gravity would also need a cause to explain it. The best we can hope for is to be able to predict, as well as possible, how things will behave.
 

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #15 on: 28/06/2009 04:38:25 »
A lot of times people ask: what is the cause for gravity?
I don't understand this question. Why there *must be* a cause? Then I could ask what is the cause of mass, the cause of time, the cause of space, the cause of energy........

I agree.  What is, is. 

Good science requires us to accept what is.

Foolish science encourages us to invent a cause.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09 
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
what causes gravity??
« Reply #16 on: 28/06/2009 17:02:34 »
If gravity were to be exactly the same everywhere then I'd agree that there need not be a cause for it, but the fact is that the degree (or strength) of gravity is not the same everywhere, so there must be a cause for its variation, if not it's origin.

Perhaps the question should not have been 'What causes gravity? but 'What is gravity?

Even then though, there's very strong evidence that the presence of gravity is linked to the presence of matter (and I'm not going to get into arguments about it being the other way around ;) )
 

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #17 on: 29/06/2009 18:01:53 »
OBSERVATIONS THAT I HAD TO ACCEPT

Below are a few of the unexpected observations that I had to accept after I started a study in 1960 to rewrite the Biblical story of Genesis, i.e., the origin of the Earth, from a scientific prospective:

1960:  Meteorites contain decay products of  short-lived I-129, Pd-107 and Pu-244  from a supernova [J. H. Reynolds, Phys. Rev. Letters 4 (1960) 8-10; V. R. Murthy, Phys. Rev. Letters 5 (1960) 539; P. K. Kuroda, Nature 187 (1960) 36-38].

1962:  Earth and meteorites formed simultaneously on the I-129 time scale [P. K. Kuroda and O. K. Manuel,  Journal of Geophysical Research 67 (1962) 4859-4862].

1964:  Some mysterious process severely mass fractionated Ne isotopes in meteorites [O. K. Manuel, Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta 31 (1967) 2413-2431].

1967:  Iron meteorites are as old and trapped as much short-lived I-129 as "primitive" meteorites [E. C. Alexander, Jr. and O. K. Manuel, Earth & Planetary Science Letters 2 (1967) 220-224].

1970:  Ne and Xe isotopes in meteorites, the Earth, Moon and Sun show a common mass fractionation [P. K. Kuroda and O. K. Manuel, Nature 227 (1970) 1113-1116]. 

1971:  The Earth's interior still contains decay products of extinct I-129 and Pu-244 at detectable levels [M. S. Boulos and O. K. Manuel, Science 174 (1971) 1334-1336].

1972:  Xe-124 from the p-process and Xe-136 from the r-process of a supernova are enriched by as much as a factor of two in the "strange" xenon observed in some meteorite minerals [O. K. Manuel, E. W. Hennecke and D. D. Sabu, Nature 240 (1972) 99-101].

1973:  Meteorites contain mono-isotopic O-16, probably from stellar fusion of helium [R. N. Clayton, L. Grossman, and T. K. Mayeda,  Science 182 (1973) 485-488].

1975:  "Strange" xenon accompanied primordial helium at the birth of the solar system; "normal" xenon was devoid of helium [R. S. Lewis, B. Srinivasan and E. Anders, Science 190 (1975) 1251-1262; O. K. Manuel and D. D. Sabu, Transactions Missouri Academy of Sciences 9, (1975) 104-122].

1976:  Different classes of meteorites and planets each have characteristic levels of oxygen-16 [R. N. Clayton, N. Onuma and T. K.  Mayeda, Earth & Planetary Science Letters 30 (1976) 10-18].

CONCLUSION:  Our elements were produced locally and condensed directly into planetary solids.  They neither entered nor traversed interstellar space.  The Sun exploded as a supernova (SN) and gave birth to Earth and the solar system [D. D. Sabu and O. K. Manuel, Transactions American Geophysical Union 57 (1976) 278; O. K. Manuel and D. D. Sabu, Science 195 (1977) 208-209; O. K. Manuel and D. D. Sabu, paper NUCL 52 presented 2 Sept 1976 at the 172nd ACS National Meeting, San Francisco, CA;  O. K. Manuel, Proceedings of the Robert Welch Foundation Conference on Chemical Research XII: Cosmochemistry (1977) 263-272; R. V. Ballad et al., Nature 277 (1979) 615-620; D. D. Sabu and O. K. Manuel, Meteoritics 15 (1980) 117-138; O. Manuel, Icarus 41 (1980) 312-315].


a.): "Normal" xenon came from the iron-rich deep interior of the supernova.
b.): "Strange" xenon came from the outer, helium-rich layers of the supernova.
c.): The Sun exploded axially; Chemical SN layers remained in the equatorial plane.
d.): Elements and isotopes were not homogenized, nor ejected to interstellar space.
e.): H|He|C|O|Mg|Si|S|Fe regions formed diamonds/graphite, SiC, silicates, sulfides & metals. 
f.): Iron-rich SN debris near the Sun formed iron meteorites; cores of rocky planets.
g.): Earth accreted heterogeneously, first forming its core from iron meteorites.
h.): Iron cores of inner planets became accretion sites for silicate meteorites.
i.): Material from outer SN layers formed giant, gaseous planets like Jupiter.
j.): The p- and r-processes made "strange" xenon in outer, helium-rich SN layers
k.): The s-process made mirror-image xenon where SiC carborundum formed.

The above conclusion has been confirmed by many measurements over the past 33 years, many designed and conducted by my students, colleagues, and me.  It was also confirmed by measurement made by others, including many who refused to accept the close association of all primordial helium with "strange" xenon at the birth of the solar system.

The above conclusion was the basis for our 1983 prediction that the Galileo probe would find "strange" xenon in the helium-rich atmosphere of Jupiter [O. K. Manuel and Golden Hwaung, Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222].  The prediction was confirmed when the xenon isotope data from Jupiter were released in 1998 [O. Manuel, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33 (1998, extended abstract 5011) A97. 

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
http://www.omatumr.com
« Last Edit: 05/07/2009 12:25:33 by om »
 

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #18 on: 04/07/2009 04:53:02 »
ACCEPTANCE IS THE ANSWER

Hear hear!
It's as if being able to answer that particular question actually would solve anything. Because, whatever it was that 'caused' gravity would also need a cause to explain it. The best we can hope for is to be able to predict, as well as possible, how things will behave.

Sophiecentaur is correct.

Acceptance of observations is the first requirement of intellectual honesty in science.

Most NASA-funded scientists refused to accept empirical evidence of:

a.) Severe mass fractionation because they did not know the cause.
b.) Primordial helium linked to "strange" xenon because they didn't know why.
c.) Poorly mixed supernova debris forming the solar system because it didn't fit textbook descriptions.
d.) "Strange" xenon in Jupiter because that would destroy the illusion of homogeneity in the solar system.

Their research programs "died on the well-nourished vine" of federal research funds.

Neither did I anticipate any of the observations cited above, but I accepted "what is" (perhaps because I was too poorly educated to know better).  That was the key to the natural evolution of my research from:

a.) Genesis (The Origin of the Earth) to
b.) The Evolution of Planet Earth to
c.) The Origin of the Solar System to
d.) Local Element Synthesis to
e.) The Composition of the Sun to
f.) The Source of Solar Energy, Solar Neutrinos and Solar-Wind Hydrogen Pouring From The Surface of An Iron Sun to
g.) Interactions between Nucleons (Neutrons and Protons) in the Nucleus to
h.) Neutron Penetration of Gravitational Barriers in Neutron Stars to
i.) The Similarity of Nuclei and Stars to
j.) Dynamic Competition between Long-range Attractive Gravitational Forces and Short-range Repulsive Forces between Neutrons As the Driving Force That Powers the Cosmos and Fills Interstellar Space with Hydrogen, a Neutron-decay Product.

I will be forever grateful that my research mentor, the late Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda, started me on this joyous "road less traveled" almost 50 years ago.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
« Last Edit: 05/07/2009 12:39:28 by om »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #19 on: 05/07/2009 23:48:47 »
erm... can I ask a silly question? If you hypothesise that gravity is a nuclear force, how does it affect photons?
 

Offline Engave

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #20 on: 08/07/2009 09:36:44 »
My intuition calls for a return of the ether.

Not the purely electromagnetic conduit of old, but an ether that all energy, all matter travels through...

it would require that the fabric of space be that conduit, but seperate from an absolute space.

There would be clumping and dispersal of this conduit that would account for all gravity in the universe.

Matter is not held together by gravity, its force is too weak, it is the strong and weak nuclear forces that bind matter so tightly.  Gravity is the effect of that grouping of engaged conduit space on the surrounding matter that is also using available ether to move.

What is this conduit?
String theory offers a glimpseof what might be possible...
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
what causes gravity??
« Reply #21 on: 08/07/2009 09:58:30 »
This subject seems to be a nest of right loonies and wierdos. A lot of the surff above is scientifically very incorrect or just wordy garbage. Like all good misleading documents it contains a fair number of real pieces of information linked in a misleading way with a seeming gloss of authority.  I think that this topic should be reviewed by the administrators and considered for deletion because it containd so much misleading information and conclusions.   The real problem is the question which is put the wrong way.  It is not a matter of what causes gravity but an understanding of the fact that gravity causes the universe.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #22 on: 08/07/2009 10:07:18 »
Soul Surfer has a point - as with all things, it's worth double checking before you take anything posted on a forum as gospel.

Many of the comments on this thread are personal opinions, or pet hypotheses, and so could be misleading.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #23 on: 08/07/2009 10:39:21 »
Said this before somewhere on the forum but feel it needs repeating. The alignment of the majority of particles are offset on a planet and not perpendicular to the core so could be shown to cause a spin much the same as a Catherine wheel firework causes it to spin when ignited. Every single particle on the planet contributes to the attracting force we call gravity. I read somewhere that in some places the alignment of gravity is observably offset and people notice they are standing at a slight angle rather than upright. I think Eureka was one such place mentioned.
The particles that make up the planet have repelling forces and attracting forces.

Another interesting point to consider is that if gravity can alter the direction of water swirling as it flows through an outlet on either side of the equator, then it must be doing the same at the molten core, surely this could also influence the motion of the planet? I do not know whether anyone has mentioned this on the forum?

Subsurface structural features of the Saline Range and adjacent regions of eastern California as interpreted from isostatic residual gravity anomalies
Richard J. Blakely1 and Edwin H. McKee1
1 U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
New gravity data indicate a large unexpected anomaly in the Saline Range and other anomalies in neighboring ranges and valleys of eastern California. Residual gravity anomalies, calculated by subtracting the field due to an Airy model of isostatic compensation, show the effects of lateral density contrasts in the upper crust. A well-defined negative gravity anomaly is centered over the Saline Range and connects the Eureka Valley and Saline Valley gravity minima. Apparently, the Saline Range is a thin veneer of young volcanic material lying on a major alluvium-filled basin connected on the north with Eureka Valley and on the south with Saline Valley. We suggest that the basin formed in a pull-apart zone that filled with low-density alluvium and became the site of voluminous Pliocene volcanic eruptions. The age of this depression predates volcanism of the Saline Range dated at about 4 Ma. Other significant anomalies are as follows: (1) An offset in the Owens Valley fault at lat 3701'N appears in the isostatic residual gravity data and marks the western end of a major gravity depression that continues across the Inyo Mountains at Papoose Flat. The gravity depression suggests that the Papoose Flat pluton is larger than suggested by its surface exposure and may extend on the order of 10 km below the topographic surface. (2) A density boundary trends west-northwest across the Inyo batholith and Proterozoic and Paleozoic rocks of the White Mountains. This trend is anomalous to exposed geologic structures and may reflect a structural boundary buried at relatively shallow depth. (3) A large gravity low, unexpected on the basis of exposed geologic features, is in the eastern Sierra Nevada southwest of the town of Lone Pine.



what i mean is that is it caused by the earth's spinning motion?? or what? if not than what causes the earth to spin?? why is it spinning??
 

Offline jdsmith02115

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
what causes gravity??
« Reply #24 on: 20/07/2009 17:19:14 »
I've sought this forum as a result of certain thoughts that came to me while riding my bicycle and feeling the effects of gravitation as I negotiated hills and such.
I began contemplating the nature of gravity. My thoughts immediately went to the diagrams most of us are familiar with that show an object in "space" distorting a grid like arrangement meant to convey the idea of space being warped by the presence of an object. I then thought that this diagram is actually somewhat misleading in terms of it attempting to accurately convey this idea as it shows only one aspect of the phenomenon. I thought that it is more accurately described as the object being totally enveloped by the distortion. as to how it describes gravity, Just a hypothesis here; The space that is warped by the object is warped in relation to the mass and volume of the object. relatively small objects warp the space only a little therefore they have very little gravity. Conversely larger objects warp a lot of space and are heavier. But this line of reasoning leads to much bigger questions. I began to imagine space-time as a kind of medium that has a nature whose qualities we understand very incompletely. Perhaps I thought, space is "stiff"; that when an object is warping it, it is actually "compressing" the space and the space is perhaps denser close to the object and this compression is actually exerting a reciprocal force towards the object equally on all points on the object toward the center. In short the larger the object the, more space warped, the more reciprocal force exerted on the object, the more gravity the object has, the harder it is for an object on the surface of the object warping this space to escape this warped space surrounding the object. Once something on the surface of such an object does escape the area of densely warped space surrounding the object, it becomes weightless.
For this to work in the way I'm attempting to describe, there would necessarily need to be a constant density of the spatial medium everywhere in the known universe,or else this medium would simply take a path of lesser resistance whenever changes in the mass and volume of objects within it occurred. which leads to yet another thought; The universe, if all of this works in the way I believe it might, must be finite. That is if the density of this spatial medium is constant, it must somehow be confined (perhaps by so called "dark matter")by forces that exert pressures on this spatial medium equal to the  expansive force of the spatial medium that occur when objects within it change volume and mass. I short I guess I'm suggesting that universe may be finite and that is what ultimately causes the effect we describe as gravity. Other thoughts please!   
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

what causes gravity??
« Reply #24 on: 20/07/2009 17:19:14 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums