Gravity? What are the theories of it?

Im kind of curious of what the current theories of gravity are. Lets here
from everyone, what IS gravity and what causes it??

At least until the forces of gravity and electromagnitism are united. :-)

Gravity is a super luminary wave (faster than light) that 'rains' on us from deep space. This wave travels through space & imparts a pressure from above and we perceive it as a pushing effect into the earths crust and have given it the name of gravity. Conventional physics dictates that the earth itself creates gravity by its mass and PULLS us into the earths centre ??? !!!!! What a load of BS. How can mass create a force. Mass itself is another made up human word! Particles making up matter (fermions) are just tiny balls of dynamically changing energy that's in a continual flux with the zero-point-energy/dark matter/super luminary wave, etc surrounding the charged particle (or mass as we simply choose to call it).

A basic analogy is visualizing a flat, calm ocean representing this ubiquitous ZPE wave. This ocean has it's own entity and dimensions and as of yet, us humans haven't been able to detect it because of our archaic instrumentation. If a boat is now placed on this energy or ocean it now represents the real world that our simple minds can understand. The boat will have x,y,z axis & time. As the boat moves it reacts with the wave by creating a wake, this is a space-time distortion of which we can just begin to appreciate with CERN experiments et al. Tesla understood this connection that there is an energy all around and so small that we don't notice it's effects. My opinion is that we do notice because we are pushed from above by a force from this super luminary wave at a value of 9.8ms-1 or G.

It all makes sense if you allow your mind to think outside of the box and understand that we don't understand

These waves of energy from deep space traveling at faster-than- light speeds originate from black holes. These too are difficult to find but i bet your bottom dollar there are as many if not more black holes spewing out massless neutrinos that create this super luminary wave/ZPE/dark matter as there are galaxies and stars. For each star there must be a black hole that is the remnants of a former star. This black hole emits neutrinos as its last dying phase of completion.

Please feel free to email me directly (ksturch@yahoo.co.uk, 12th Nov, 2005) if you have any opinions as I'm fascinated by the subject. We need to evolve our attitude into deep space technology as sustainability on mother earth can't last forever. Humans are a virus of their own success.

Regards

Keith

"rainiing down on us"???
you have got to be kidding. then why does henry cavendish's experiment on measuring the grav. constant work? and how does your 'rainy' theory explain motion between 2 celestial bodies?
i think your theory is a load of crap

if it rains from deep space, as you said, it would rain in all directions, no? so sum of all forces would say that net acceleration is 0. so bodies would move in straight lines...

there are several possibilities of what gravity is. there is a theory for a particle called the "graviton." there is the theory of the curvature of space-time. to name a few.

one could link these two togethe and add a few dimensions to the mix. gravitons could leak out of this universe into a parallel universe. thus would explain the curve in space-time. this would also explain why the gravity force is so weak when compared to the nuclear forces and the EM forces.

the graviton passing in between this universe and the other(s) would also help to visualize the curve of space-time. current models show the earth resting on a "sheet" of space-time, meaning a 3-d sphere on a 2-d plane. since humans can only experience 3 spatial dimensions, it is difficult to visualize a sphere resting "on" a 3-d plane with the curvature caused by gravity shown.

if we want to know what gravity is, we have to leave this dimension to a higher one.

So far as I am aware, there are 3 prevalent theories. keggy46 already mentioned the "push theory of gravity" which utilizes the Zero Point Energy idea as well. An easy way to visualize this theory is to think of the universe as a giant ocean. Each celestial body is a submarine swimming through the ZPE "ocean" creating a ceasless push toward its bow. I'm uncertain how this theory would allow for the development of anti-gravity.

The most accepted theory in modern science discussion is one of two theories that Einstein proposed: gravity is a function of "spacetime". In the theory, spacetime is spread out like a blanket or sheet throughout the universe. When sufficient mass is collected in a localized spot, like a bowling ball on a bed, a depression occurs which causes all things nearby to get "pulled" toward the mass. Since gravity is a function of the fabric of the universe, this theory makes any hypothesis proposing to counter gravity complete nonsense like proposing to bleach the color from black wool. (It should be noted that a long-term experiment was just completed to prove this theory. The data should be ready for presentation by 2010.)

The third theory was also proposed by Einstein and is known as the Unified Theory. In this theory, gravity is simply another form of energy like electricity and magnetism and consists of a wave/particle duality of super high energy produced naturally by matter. Polar, like electricity and magnetism, this theory allows for "anti-gravity".

To my mind, the Unified Theory seems to be the most likely of the 3 theories.
1) It acknowledges a "sea of energy" from outer space but doesn't "blame" ZPE for pushing on us. While we have successfully measured the various cosmic rays, gamma rays, and x-rays that are incessantly bombarding our planet, neither modern nor ancient scientists have yet to identify anything in space that we could identify as an ocean to enable sufficient resistance to produce the effect of gravity. (Blame our 'archaic instrumentation', if you want.)

2) It seems to explain better than the "spacetime blanket" some of the "unexplained" effects like Biefeld-Brown that are still elluding modern scientists. Even in the blanket analogy, the theory is weak since the only reason that there is a rolling toward the ball is because of gravity. (Circular reasoning.) Instead, the impression of the blanket roll can be explained when the planet is producing the gravity which weakens as you get farther from the source.

4a) It allows mass and particle physics to produce the gravitational effect at the point of the mass itself. This allows for variable gravity based on variable planet sizes because of variable compositions. Differing celestial body ingredients may produce greater amounts of gravity than other compositions for the same dimensions.

4b) Since gravity is a produced by matter, this allows for "anti-gravity" by making gravity just another form of energy rather than a function of the universe. In nature, all matter produces the gravitational effect. Like any chemical formula, we simply have yet to identify properly the conditions under which the ingredients need to be "mixed" to produce the desired result. Obviously, just because it might take a whole planet to produce a gravity discharge like Earth's, with a bit of "Yankee ingenuity" we should be able to do the same thing on a smaller scale. In the ZPE theory, gravity is always push. In the blanket theory, gravity is always toward the celestial body. In the Unified Theory, gravity is a wave/particle with some manner of polarity. Whether the regular pole produces a pull and the opposite pole produces a push or even if it's always pull, the source of the gravity would be controllable and directional.

Please also note that gravity and mass are intrinsically linked in scientific discussion. Gravity is the continual acceleration of a body. Mass is defined as a measurement of that acceleration: weight. On Earth, I weigh nearly 230 pounds. In space, my mass would be 0 although my physical dimensions and composition don't really change.

-TNF

My goodness. Well, relatively detailed, if not quite entirely accurate.

Specifically, gravity is curvature of spacetime. According to General Relativity (I hope I can abbreviate that to GR- and that you will all know what SR means if I do), "space" and "time" are dimensions- and there are four dimensions in our space, three of which we perceive as one kind of thing and the fourth as another, which actually are the same kind of thing, although arranged somewhat differently in their geometric relationship. In other words, it is more accurate to speak of "spacetime" than it is to speak separately of "space" and "time."

Time is not intrinsically different from space; it is merely arranged differently with respect to the three "space" dimensions than they are to one another. Let me explain how.

The three spatial dimensions are spherically symmetric. That means that both directions in all three dimensions, and therefore any combination of them, are geometrically the same, and that you can use spherical geometric functions to do spherical trigonometry in them and describe positions, and directions, and distances, and so forth in space. Time, however, while it is geometrically the same in both directions, is not spherically symmetric with respect to space. In fact, it is hyperbolically symmetric with respect to the three spatial dimensions. That means that we have to use hyperbolic geometry, hyperbolic geometric functions, and hyperbolic trigonometry to describe positions, distances, directions, and so forth in spacetime; and hyperbolic functions are essentially different from spherical ones in certain ways. When you do math with spherical geometry, you pick a direction and call it x, and pick one of the two directions of x and call it positive; and everything comes out exactly the same whatever direction you pick as x. But when you do math with hyperbolic geometry, once you have chosen a direction for your dimension, and picked one of the two directions on that dimension to be positive, you have introduced an asymmetry into your mathematical construct. It is in fact impossible to define the meaning of "the opposite direction" using hyperbolic functions. In spherical math, this is 180 degrees; but in hyperbolic math, it is infinity degrees.

Now, the reason that hyperbolic geometry, and hyperbolic symmetry, are called that, is because from the point of view of one of the dimensions, the other dimensions are all hyperbolic; whereas from the view of the other dimensions, that same single dimension forms an axis of symmetry of those hyperbolae. If you have ever seen a hyperbola, you will know that it is curved. For this reason, you will hear physicists say, "space is curved." This type of curvature, however, is not gravity; it is merely the point of view that is enforced by choosing a special direction in time and calling it "the future," and calling its opposite "the past." Once you have made such a choice, which is called "fixing a gauge," you can define rotations that will allow you to transform space and time into one another, just as you can define rotations that will turn the space dimensions into one another; however, the only directions that will be at defined angles that are described by real numbers will be at angles that point toward the future. You will not be able to define angles that point toward the past in real terms; they will be complex numbers, which contain a real and an imaginary part added together. We know what it means to give a real number as the distance to an object; but we do not know what it means to give a complex or an imaginary number for a distance. As far as we can tell, it has no physical meaning.

Now, you will immediately think, "well, that means that there is an inherent special direction in time in the universe." Not so! Because, you see, you can reverse the past and the future, and do all the calculations for the past, and the distances in spacetime that you get from events in the future to events in the past will be real numbers; it will be the distances from events in the past to events in the future that will become imaginary! Furthermore, the distances you get between events if you choose the future as your positive direction from events in the past to events in the future, will be the same distance you get from those same events in the future to those same events in the past, if you choose the past as your positive direction. The laws of physics at this level appear to be symmetric with respect to time; it is merely that one must fix a gauge from which to view it, in order to get numbers describing distances, and once one has done so, only in certain directions are the numbers real.

Another point of all of this is that time does not "pass;" after all, we do not speak of any of the other dimensions "passing." We instead speak of objects, and ourselves, "moving." So do we move in time; or at least that is how we perceive matters. Actually, from our point of view, if we define our speed in time as a second per second, the math comes out right if we translate a second in time into the distance that light moves in a second in space. In other words, we perceive ourselves (and all matter that shares our velocity in space, that is all matter that we perceive as having velocity zero with respect to us) as moving at the speed of light through time. And we describe the direction we perceive ourselves as moving in as the "future."

If you think carefully about this, you will see that energy is that which moves in space at the speed of light, and matter is that which moves in time at the speed of light. There is no reason for why light moves in space at the speed of light; it is a characteristic of the universe that it does so. Similarly, there is no reason for why matter moves in time at the speed of light; it is a characteristic of the universe that it does so. These are assumptions under relativity, not conclusions.

So whenever we perceive an object as moving relative to us, what we see is that it is rotated in spacetime, such that its "direction to the future" isn't in the same direction as ours is; in fact, it points in a direction that is partly time, and partly space. Whatever movement it makes in space, that movement is taken away from it in time; but the addition of a distance in space to a distance in time is not straightforward, because the spatial dimensions are hyperbolically symmetric with respect to time, rather than spherically symmetric as they are with respect to one another.

We therefore perceive the object as moving at "less than a second per second" in time, and as having some non-zero velocity in space. In addition, the object is rotated, although we cannot see that rotation; it is in a plane we cannot see because it is defined partly by the time axis, as opposed to the three planes we can see, which correspond to the x-y, x-z, and y-z planes. In other words, it is rotated in the x-t, y-t, or z-t planes, or some combination of them. I explained this in a recent post on another thread in terms of a spaceship changing its direction in space, and "moving more slowly in x." It's worth looking up.

Now, all of this is merely the GR description of spacetime, and of motion in spacetime; we have not yet touched gravity. In fact, since I have not discussed acceleration, this so far is merely the SR special case of GR. (Not that you can't represent acceleration in SR; however, it is difficult, and deals with "non-inertial frames," for which the math is very, very complex; in GR, this math becomes much simpler, but there are conceptual complications).

Gravity is represented as curvature, not of space, but of spacetime. Now, if spacetime is curved, then an object's velocity toward the future is only completely motion in time for one particular point in spacetime; at all other points in spacetime, from that point's point of view, its velocity in time is partly in time, and partly in space. What this means is that the object spontaneously moves, and the reason it moves is because the curving of spacetime makes its intrinsic velocity in time turn into velocity in space. It is also capable of curving the path of light, in the same way.

And that is what gravity is, according to our best theory of it, GR.

Here is my theory:
Gravity is an effect caused by the time gradient induced by mass in space-time.

Yep, that's what I said.

reenforcement to sir Isac newton theory of gravity.
body's attract each other with a force directly proportional to there Masses and inversely to there distance apart. Read laws of motion.


did an experiment when i was younger. it was a negative field witch used a positive field to represent the earth. the negative was the sun ,and the mass was a nut .or metal nut .tiny to represent the moon. the positive was a spinning magnet witch tried to circle the sun, wile it was spinning in a elliptical orbit. the moon and its mass did strange things to the experiment causing the earth and moon to gain momentum around the sun. 2 large magnets flipped one on top one on bottom separated by a rod. they pushed against each other.
although a form of perpetual motion you needed the moon to create the effect of the earth rotating around the sun, wile it went positive to negative in its elliptical orbit.the moon would in turn circle the earth.
i hope you try this experiment.

New Theory of Gravity

This is from a very reputable and "SCIENTIFIC" source

that is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard!!!!!!
the way i figure it is like this..
but first why hasn't the earths core cooled to a solid. explain this and you can understand gravity. because an asteroid or meteor that is solid can be deflected by conventional means you can not influence a star, or Jupiter a gas planet. it has a magnetic molten center core. a comet smashed into it witch confirms this.
liquid molten material will not be affected as much as a solid. the heaviest stars are liquid. they also are considered to have the greatest gravitational forces.
they emit gamma and x rays produced by its dense heavy magnetic mass.
i believe the key to this is that gamma rays influence magnetics and gravity the same way electricity is produced with a magnet and vica versa.

Personally I prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster (sauce be upon Him). It explains things so much more gracefully than all that claptrap in the Bible, and it's so much easier to understand than having to actually think or anything. Got a question? I have an answer: the Flying Spaghetti Monster! He does it all. rAmen.

Check out Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity as mentioned on Peswiki, it's worth a look.

As far as I'm concerned gravity is not a force of any kind but simply a dynamic affect of field. So gravity is a condition of field which accelerates to the center of mass.

But if you look at gravity with a critical eye you will find that there is something wrong with Newtons ideas as well as Einstein's ideas.
Einstein himself finally conceded that perhaps gravity was not itself a force of any kind, but merely the affect of a yet undiscovered underlying force.

Gravitons are just a press grab, there are no gravitons.

If you can figure out why a hydrogen balloon defies gravity you will have the anti-gravity thing licked. And lighter than air is not much of an answer.

Another good site for gravity is www.gravitycontrol.org especially if you are interested in anti-gravity issues.