Hm this is just a thought and I'll probably be criticized for ignorance, that and some one probably already talked about this, and I couldn't even tell you what gravity is, so this might be it and I'm stating a fact. Idk.

What if "gravity" is nothing more than the universe trying to fill in gaps?
What I mean is-
Whenever a planet or star appears, it pushes the "space" around it so it can exist. the universe responds by trying to put the "space" back in space, pushing inward resulting in gravity. the bigger the objest, and the more mass-meaning it takes up more "space" the more the space resists, causeing a greater gravitational force.


if this has been said before, proven, I'm probably stupid, etc. let me know please

im beginning to think einstein said this... i dont feel like google right now, though

There is nothing stupid in asking questions to expand your knowledge, nor is there anything stupis in not understanding how gravity works. Isaac Newton himself believed that only God could fully understand gravity and it is still not fully understood today.


Not exactly.

Einstein talks about space/time. This is a four dimensional view of the universe that encapsulates the 3 spacial dimensions we are familiar with plus time. Einstein says that mass distorts this space/time. Think of a rubber sheet pulled tight. Then place a heavy object on that rubber sheet. The rubber sheet will be distorted by the mass of the object. Any nearby small obyrcts will be pulled into the dent in the sheet. This is how gravity works, except in the 4 dimesions of spacetime rather than the two dimensions of the rubber sheet.

An interesting prediction was made by Einstein's theories, if his understand of gravity was correct then light should be bent by massive objects. An experiment took place to map the positions of some stars and then remap them during a solar eclipse. If Einstein was correct the mass of the Sun should bend the light and the positions of some of the stars should shift. This was exactly what happened.

Gravity is one of those theories that completely breaks the law of conservation of energy, but is accepted because there is no way to explain it.
The only hole in your theory is that space is a vacuum-what particles would be pushing back onto the surface of planets/stars/any other celestial object?

You visual perception is identical to the process of hearing. You have selective hearing and you have selective vision.
Another thoeory of gravity is out there, but the mind has been trained to see this Einstein character with his blond fluffy hairdo. He has given the human theory of gravity and we just love it. Gives us more space in the brain to fill with rediculousness and stupidity.

Good thinking Forever Lost!

It's nice to see aware minds in this sometimes depressing world.

I would want you to check out this site : http://www.space-time-mass.com/ as you'd probably find it interesting


Enjoy!

Hahah, I always laugh at that analogy... it is used to explain what "gravity" is... but the analogy itsself depends on gravity, lol.

Some people think that gravity is caused by particles called gravitons, but they havn't proven it.
I'm sticking with the rubber sheet thing

thanks guys for replying. 0_o heh heh a moderater replied!
thanks III I lookked at the website and even though space is a vaccuum theomegacode, (if you look http://www.space-time-mass.com/hubble.html) couldn't the "pure energy" be the force that pushes back? even though it has very little mass, it has to build up around something as big as a planet or star, right?

bleah why cant we just break the laws of nature? if we cant understand gravity than 1) turn it off 2) negotiate with it until it becomes simple 3)blow it up


i like 3...

It's an interesting thought Forever_Lost. I can find one slight flaw with it though.

According to our current understanding, .gGravity doesn't depend on the SIZE of an object, but rather it's MASS, and the mass of an object depends on both size, and density. (hence a planet made of feathers would have less mass than an equally-sized planet made of lead).

In your scenario, the 'feather' planet and the 'lead' planet would have the same surface gravity, because they are each 'pushing aside' the same amount of the universe, in turn because they are the same size. However, in our observed universe, the lead planet would actually have a FAR greater gravitational field than the feather one.

Meow Purr.

well everyone here had answered thy question.

How does gravity break that law? Aren't the only two types of energy that are effected by gravity kinetic and potential energy, which always add up to be the same number for any given object? I'm confused.