[guest39538]

This may be thrown into new theories and I anticipate that. To overcome inertia we required an input of energy proportional to the mass we wish to move. Gravity appears to distribute its force throughout a mass. Should this action make it easier for gravity? Could it be the case that gravity acts to change the amount of inertia of an object over very small timescales?

I think gravity is a really strong force, I do not think it is weak in the slightest and is related to the strong nuclear force being one and the same thing. If we was to becomes particles the strong nuclear force/gravity is what holds them particles together to form objects/us.  I observe gravity on a macroscopic scale but it also applies at a microscopic scale, so therefore what ever holds things together is gravity.


I drew this yesterday,

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

I like to draw a picture of what I am thinking about, it helps me in my thoughts. 

[guest39538]

That was a valued question Colin, you have practically just denied that air has gravity by moving this to that cant be true.


It is exactly true and accurate to your information and the ideal gas laws, gases contract and become more dense having a greater mass in a smaller area by the density function, when the gas expands it has less mass in the same smaller area and less gravity causing it to rise.

You  insist the strong nuclear force is what holds quarks together stating this to be the mechanism for gravity. the force of gravity is what holds particles together, the strength is strong enough to stop you falling apart, gravity is the strong nuclear force if you state this is what holds quarks together.



I dont even know why I bother to join in a discussion, clearly you are biased against me when you let discussion on make believe such as dark energy to remain, I accuse science of not wanting to discuss science and they would rather discuss imagination .

[Colin2B]

That was a valued question Colin, you have practically just denied that air has gravity

Rubbish
It was moved beause you stated gravity and strong nuclear farce are one in the same. There is no evidence for that and we've been over the reasons why it isn't before.

There is a big difference between making random off beam comments and engaging in a discussion on a recent field where there is considerable debate still to be had.

[guest39538]

It was moved beause you stated gravity and strong nuclear farce are one in the same. .

Your typo was correct, gravity holds everything together, the strong nuclear force is gravity, 1e+1e=1e² etc etc


It is very simple Colin, your science ''box'' is full of too many things that are the same thing, science has too many different things occupying the same space.