It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What is gravity....exactly?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:36 PM
reply to post by Phage

Einstein figured out that the force is a result of matter increasing the curvature of spacetime.

Actually, Einstein discovered that the nature of gravity could be explained by varying the curvature of space-time. He used that model to predict its actions, but it does not necessarily follow that that model is factually correct... only capable of helping us to understand gravity's actions.


posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:37 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

And it really, really works!
Too flippant. I couldn't leave it with that.

Looked at as a whole Einstein's spacetime can be seen as an artificial construct which defines the way a lot of things work. It is a model of our reality. Within that model the way gravity works is defined.

The model works very well so far.

[edit on 4/20/2010 by Phage]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:46 PM
well there's what Einstein says about it, that it's a warping of space (and time) by energy (or mass). Basically you're not being pulled toward anything. It just happens that the lines of space (and time) are not straight but rather bent towards each other.

my thought? Gravity is purely a geometric property. It all has to do with the shape of the space we occupy. And I agree with Einstein that matter and energy can distort this space.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 10:57 PM
reply to post by sremmos

It's funny you mention that. Ed Leedskalnin, the builder of Coral Castle, seemd to know what gravity is and it has everything to do with magnetism! From his writing "Magnetic Base".

Geologists do not know what gravitation is, and what causes earthquakes and mountains. Perpetual transformation is going on with this Earth all the time. When atoms burst in the middle of the Earth, the magnets are running out from the middle, and so cause gravitation by attracting the matter that is in front of them, and when many magnets have come out, then there will be contraction that will cause earthquakes and mountains.

Keep in mind he wrote this in 1944. Some say he knew the secrets of how to manipulate gravity, so maybe gravity has everything to do with magnetism (and mass of course)


[edit on 20-4-2010 by MysterE]

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:25 PM
reply to post by nonnez

I don't think that gravity is because of rotational force, mainly because if you spin a wheel and there is water on it the water slings off. I think gravity is caused by mass and density of an object, the more mass and density the more gravity. All I know is gravity sucks, literally.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:27 PM
Gravity is still not fully understood by even the smartest of humans(dead or alive) so it's rather comical to read some of the explanations and elaborations in this thread. Chalk it up to the ATS effect I guess.

The closest you can get to understanding gravity is to study Newton's laws pertaining to gravity. They are the only applicable explanations, everything else is only twists on his work. Michio Kaku or Stephen Hawking might have some interesting thoughts on the subject however...

Side note regarding the question about the speed at which gravity propogates... our current understanding would suggest it doesn't propogate at all as that would imply that it can be created, destroyed, blocked, etc. It is possible to measure the speed of certain phenomena because they can be controlled, light for example. But gravity is everywhere.. unless an incredibly large mass could be instantly moved from one point in space to another so the force could be measured in both locations with the change in time taken into account, that characteristic will stay a mystery.

I believe the answer lies somewhere between Einstein's theories and the Unified Field Theory. String theory is helping to fill in alot of those gaps as well.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 11:56 PM
When i was a kid there was this cartoon character that called it "grabbity", because of the obvious reason of it grabbing you.

I couldn't begin to speculate seriously. but i can say that i have entertained dozens of ideas. Mostly just to practice abstract thought.

I often wonder if it might be an interaction of the EM force with tetradimensional space. That term is misleading. Let me explain...

You have up/down, left/right, forward/backward. that is 3d. The added dimension is "in/out". Taking the tesseract literally.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:16 AM
Yes, this is a good question. I find it extremely odd that in all of our apparent scientific advancement this question has yet to be answered correctly. I have done quite a bit of reading and research on this and related topics and it is my opinion that we took a wrong turn academically and this wrong turn has lead us to a dead end.

I feel that the true answers reside with an understanding of a Luminiferous Aether. The theory of an Aetherial energy in space has been put on the back shelf over 100 years ago and until we get back to this question none of the answers will be found. I have a personal theory for what gravity is, not what causes it, yet I think it would be very difficult to fully express my theory here, but I will try.

Gravity and Inertia
Gravity is the same as, or is from the same effects as, Inertia. Both Inertia and Gravity have been described as "fictitious forces", or forces that are rather a cause to a force and not a "real" force in itself.

I would like to simplify Sir Isaac Newton's Laws of motion pertaining to Inertia.

Inertia is the resistance to acceleration.
Forward acceleration is to 'speed up' and angular acceleration is to turn. Negative acceleration is to slow down and even cause to reverse direction. Since nothing is ever absolutely at rest then there is really no need to discuss things at rest. The term "at rest" is a relative term and is not needed in this discussion.

Gravity is the resistance to acceleration.
If Gravity and Inertia are the same, or of the same force, then what's true for one is also true for the other. The faster an object accelerates the more inertial mass or force will be applied to it. All objects within the Milky Way are accelerating (rotating) at a tremendous rate and this is something that is extremely difficult to accurately measure.

Gravity is a pushing force but I don't think I have the time to explain this theory so I hope some already know this one.

This is a near impossible concept to understand without getting into the theory of a Luminiferous Aether. The Aether energy, while resisting accelerations, puts a force or pressure on mass that causes gravity or what is thought of as a gravity well. A Luminiferous Aether is a theoretical energy field in all space, inner and outer, that resists acceleration of any kind. When you accelerate you feel inertial effects or a resistance to this force and the same goes when you decelerate, i.e. stop/slow down, and turn.

The Equivalence Principle states that we can not tell the difference between a 1 G gravitational force, like here on Earth, and a 1 G constant acceleration. So here again these two terms are related. It is also said that these two forces, or fictitious forces if you will, are unable to be shielded against, or so this is true at our current level of understanding.

If Gravity is the resistance to acceleration then where is this acceleration?
Think of the Earth spinning on its axis, once per day. Then imagine the Earth orbiting our Sun. Now imagine the whole solar system following the Sun as everything orbits it and our Sun orbits around other stars, oscillates up and down through the galactic plane and orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy. It boggles the mind trying to think of all the different directions we are actually accelerating.

The main acceleration that I focus on is angular, spinning/rotating/orbiting.
Why is it that rotational motions are considered an acceleration even after the original force is no longer present?

To accelerate there must always be a force causing this acceleration otherwise we would call it "Velocity". When an object 'spins/rotates' there are inertial effects, a centrifugal force, that can be felt and measured unlike any type of velocity. There must be some force causing this and it is not simply momentum because momentum is also a fictitious force and cannot create centrifugal effects (fictitious forces do not create other fictitious forces). I believe that this is the source of the cause of gravity yet this understanding is beyond me right now.

The question now becomes, What is the cause for rotational motions (angular accelerations)?, and, What is the cause for the resistance of these accelerations? I think these questions can be put together very succinctly with this question.

What is the Origin of Rotation?

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:22 AM
I heard an interesting theory that gravity is a pushing force not a pulling one. How it would work is that undetectable particles throughout the universe push against you just like air pressure does on earth. The particles that have to travel through the earth slow down slightly and so don't push as much and so you have gravity. The larger the planet the further the particles have to travel and so the higher the gravity when they slow down more.

I believe a Professor Walter Wright came up with the idea.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Phage
We know very well how gravity behaves and why. We don't know why matter has gravity but it does.

I agree we know very well how gravity behaves, but I'm not sure we know why, since as you then say, we don't even know why matter has gravity.

And as you also said the curvature of spacetime is just a model that may or may not reflect reality..just like quantum mechanics, but they are models that do make accurate predictions. I'm reminded that Ptolemy's model of the solar system made decent though somewhat inaccurate predictions though it was far from reflecting reality:

Similarly, there are questions about the accuracy of our current models of gravity, or whether or not it's just a measurement problem:

The Controversy over Newton's Gravitational Constant

I think whoever figures out what gravity really is and what really causes it should get a Nobel prize for that discovery, so the question posed by this thread is not trivial. It is a bit humbling that with all of our advances in science and technology, we still haven't figured out what really causes gravity.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:50 AM
Gravity is one of three things.

1 Newton said that particles attrace each other

2. einstien said it was a distortion in the shape of space-time, otherwise known as "the fourth dimension" or the ether.

3. More recently, theories of gravity express the phenomenon in terms of particles and waves. One view states that particles called gravitons cause objects to be attracted to one another. Gravitons have never actually been observed, though. And neither have gravitational waves, sometimes called gravitational radiation, which supposedly are generated when an object is accelerated by an external force.

Although I beleive that einstien is correct in that the fourth dimension is in fact the "zero point energy field" that enables usage of free energy divices like the bedini motor and anti gravity devices.

Gravitons or no gravitons, we know that what goes up must come down except for UFo's et-al. Perhaps someday, we'll know exactly why.

Seek and ye shall find...

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 07:38 AM
All of science is a lie etc. etc. Gravity should be called intelligent falling as clearly it's the hand of God that is pushing things down!!! Hand of God is very weak thou. Gravitation as a force is so weak (in comparison to other fundamental forces) that we almost shouldn't care about it. The way I see it gravity is like magnetism (with a different working mechanism). It's a property of matter. Matter attracts matter. I'm sure 'em physicists are about to discover the exact particle that gives matter this property

[edit on 21-4-2010 by rhinoceros]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 08:25 AM
here's a conjecture about what gravity is:

we know that particles or energy units like quarks and other quantum energies are the building blocks of all known sub-atomic particles (an implied truth)

and we understand that these energy packs can pop-in or out of time-space as seemingly random events, i think we call this non-locality...

now here's the idea,
when clusters of these subatomic then atomic atoms get concentrated together, the ability to be non-local gets screened out---something like a 'shield' prevents them from popping-in-or out of time space.

We call this 'shield' or condensed shell of denser matter ='Gravity'

so, in a way, ~gravity~ only gets produced as a result of the inability of the quanta to be free, to no longer be non-local, it has become an attractor rather than an emmiter.
A close analogy might be the case of 'Stem Cells' which can become any type of cell...but after the StemCell switches on certain codes, it determines its forever fate--- in joining together with a cluster of other like cells to form for example a body organ or muscle.

so too with quanta/atomic particles/ until the energy pacs combine 'codes' to become elements they are free just as stem cells are completely able to
morph into anything making up the body.

'gravity' is the result of accumulated matter that no longer has the spark-of-life in it... the quanta/atomic structures/ are become dense or dead or in a closed loop= gravity well

fortunately for Earth, our closed loop, gravity well is conducive for our bio-sphere to exist... other places where trillions of earth masses are amassed, compressed from the lack of 'non-local action', these become black holes... which causes more quantum fluxuations to occur at the fuzzy edge of the seeable universe as a necessary result of the black holes existance.

the explaination is not percise it is clearly a best try by a non physiscist,
Gestalt view of Gravity 'MusiVick', (YIM)... you help develop the notion & share half the prize.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 08:48 AM
reply to post by tauristercus

Since I was a youngster, I' ve been fascinated by the speed a magnet
travels when it is attracted to another magnet. Once it is drawn so close,
it covers the distance left in the same time it takes light to fill a room.
I believe magnetism is gravity and vicey versy, both can reach light speed.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by randyvs]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 09:23 AM
reply to post by Phage

The model works very well so far.

Yes, it does.

I wasn't trying to be argumentative, Phage, really. I just had to point out that even though a model is excellent at helping humans envision how something works, it is still a model and not necessarily reality.

Newton's model of gravity worked well, too... until we hit outer space...


posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Phage
We know very well how gravity behaves and why. We don't know why matter has gravity but it does.

I agree we know very well how gravity behaves, but I'm not sure we know why, since as you then say, we don't even know why matter has gravity.

Wait a second, forget gravity! We don't even know why a positive electric charge is attracted to a negative one! Seriously, for all the complexity of scientific tools at our disposal, one just has to say sooner or later "this is the way field equations work, as far as we can tell it's supported by facts".

And as you also said the curvature of spacetime is just a model that may or may not reflect reality..just like quantum mechanics, but they are models that do make accurate predictions. I'm reminded that Ptolemy's model of the solar system made decent though somewhat inaccurate predictions though it was far from reflecting reality:

But that was inconsistent with emerging knowledge, and most of knowledge anyway as science progressed. So this doesn't count at all.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 10:18 AM
What we have to realize is that all we know about any of the observed forces is how they interact with and effect the matter around them.

We model fields, measure charges relative to other points of reference, and have formulas that allow us to reasonably model observed and predicted behaviors. But, when it is all said and done that is all we know.

We do not actually know why an electron has a negative charge. We do not know how that actually interacts with other charges over distances, so we talk of electric fields, magnetic fields, and yes even gravitational fields. The mechanics of what is happening in that particular area of space to create these fields, and even how they differ is uncertain as of yet.

In this sense we understand gravity almost as well as any of the other known forces. We can model it, measure it, and observe its effects. How it is transmitted and what causes it are not understood about any of the forces.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 01:26 PM

Seems to me that an even better question than "what is gravity?" would be actually "what makes gravity so different than magnetism (or electro-magnetism)? Both phenomenons are doing the same things, are influenced by the same factors (such as heat, as noted by another poster here), and have the same direct effect on celestial bodies as well as matter in general...

But for some mysterious reason, the scientific community is still mostly dedicated at presenting "gravity" as a phenomenon that is distinct from the larger and deeper phenomenon of magnetism.

I got this theory that gravity is nothing else than just the face value of magnetism, its easily observable and measurable manifestation through visible matter around us, while it is only a thin layer of a deeper set of things, which would be more accurately defined as "dynamic electro-magnetic process".

Here are the simple facts to support it:

- The Earth is producing an strong electro-magnetic field by rotating on its own geomagnetic axis and with the help of continuous internal movement of its negatively-charged iron core and multiple flowing streams of magma.

- The Sun,generating an exponentially stronger magnetic force upon the Earth, and radiating constinuous positively-charged radiations towards the ionosphere.

- The ionosphere, directly interacting with the magnetic field (telluric currents) emitted from the ground, creating a layer of atmosphere of both positive and negative charges making life possible by keeping most particles to the ground, towards the Earth's core and the seas, both negatively charged, thus acting as a protection from the Sun's deadly radiation. As efficiently as a quasar but in a different way, the Sun could obliterate ALL LIFE in here if we didn't have that electro-magnetic shield around the Earth, and it is NOT thanks to "gravity", but to a powerful geomagnetic process. Forget the ozone layer, it is just a by-product of that massive shield, that is only protecting us from a very specific aspect of the Sun's radiations, that is the ultra-violet light (gamma rays are a lot nastier than UVs rays!).

- The Moon, acting as an indirect and alternate body of geomagnetic influence, that has a strong influence on the tides, ionosphere and the magnetic particles in the ground and probably animals as well.

Gravity buffs seem to be always avoiding this dynamic and relativistic nature of gravity, as they were programmed into thinking it as absolute and static. They just have a narrow-minded approach to the problem, reflecting their fragmented programming through a poor education system.

Well... that's my theory!

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:21 PM
Good question, well presented, deserves an answer....

Absolutely no idea. But, while it's stopping me floating off into the void, I'm willing to live with the mystery.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:29 PM
Well, gravity certainly acts like an attraction by some component of mass into an unknown dimension. And gravity acts like mass "falling" into two opposite directions in either this same unknown dimension or perhaps a different one. (Who knows how many there might be?)

It's pretty hard to visualize "falling" at a right angle to "reality." Or seemingly solid things being sucked into themselves. But I'm thinking that's pretty much what we're dealing with here.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in