[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

So how does your proposal differ from what is already known about gravity?

Thanks for your question.
There is not a difference between my view of gravity and the view presented by GR , what I did is to falsify a misconcption about gravity extension and present new information about the topic.Making me one of the greatest scientists and deserve Nobel prize.

[Kryptid]

what I did is to falsify a misconcption about gravity extension

What was it that you falsified?

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

what I did is to falsify a misconcption about gravity extension

What was it that you falsified?

Gravity is everywhere.

[Kryptid]

Gravity is everywhere.

You need to take into consideration the expanding sphere of gravitational influence of each individual particle in the Universe, not just one of them. Although it might be the case that the gravitational field of the Earth has not yet reached some location a trillion light-years away by now, there should be matter at or near that location which already has gravitational influence there.

Existing observations indicate that the visible universe is highly isotropic and homogeneous at very large scales (meaning that matter is roughly evenly distributed at those scales). By extension, we have no particular reason to believe that this "cosmological principle" suddenly stops applying outside of the visible universe. So for that reason, any random location in the Universe should have matter nearby and therefore gravity.

[Bored chemist]

what I did is to falsify a misconcption about gravity extension

What was it that you falsified?

Gravity is everywhere.

No.
You have claimed it is false.
That's not the same as proving it's false.

You can't scientifically make claims about stuff that's simply too far away for us to tell.
But you made them
So you are not acting as a scientist.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

there should be matter at or near that location which already has gravitational influence there.

Existing observations indicate that .........So for that reason, any random location in the Universe should have matter nearby and therefore gravity.

So what ?each mass has its own gravity range if their ranges intersect they will affect each other if not they wn't affect each other.
Space-time is infinite it's beyond our universe.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

You can't scientifically make claims about stuff that's simply too far away for us to tell.
But you made them
So you are not acting as a scientist.

"Far away for us to tell "? what does that even mean ?

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Science is not a religion if several scientists accepted it there is not a reason for the rest not to accept it even though I don't know after what time I would be recognized worldwide " giving the idea that I'm not native speaker to publish in physics journals to spread it worldwide.

[Bored chemist]

"Far away for us to tell "? what does that even mean ?

Why did you leave out the important bit?
"Too far away for us to tell" means "too far away for us to tell".

Did you not understand it?
Which bit don't you get?
Do you understand "too far away"
How about " for us to tell"?
Do you know about the second use given here?
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+tell&oq=define+tell&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2143j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
ell1
/tɛl/
verb
1.
communicate information to someone in spoken or written words.
"I told her you were coming"
synonyms:   inform, let know, notify, apprise, make aware, mention something to, acquaint with, advise, put in the picture, brief, fill in, break the news to; More
2.
decide or determine correctly or with certainty.
"you can tell they're in love"
synonyms:   ascertain, decide, determine, work out, make out, deduce, discern, perceive, see, identify, recognize, understand, comprehend; More

[alancalverd]

I haven't seen the original article but here's the problem.

Science begins with observation. Our observation is that gravity always sucks, and the influence of gravity seems to travel at the speed of light.

Now suppose a large source X emits a single graviton Γ from position A. This is detected by a much smaller test mass Y, which begins to move towards A. Thus Γ has a vector property - a tail pointing back to A. But in the zillion years it has taken to reach Y, source X has moved to position B. Γ has no way of knowing where  B is, and there is no other force acting on Y, so it doesn't actually collide with X. However if X emits another graviton, that can change the trajectory of Y  which will spiral around X and may end up in orbit.

Interesting lemma: gravitons contain the history of the universe in their tails!

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

My view is the only way to solve this contradiction in physics:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=77027.new#new

[Bored chemist]

My view is the only way to solve this contradiction in physics:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=77027.new#new

There is no contradiction there.
You can not make mass appear suddenly, you can only bring it from somewhere else.
Any of the worlds more or less competent scientists would recognise that (especially after it had been explained to them)