# Thread: what's the origin of the Gravity?

1. During the last months I asked to many scientist this question: what's the origin of the Gravity?

Someone tell me that it starts from the center of the earth... but it is not enough...

Someone tell me that it's an energy that pulls a mass from an other one that actually has a major mass...

A physicist tell me that it comes from the magnetic force... and in the earth we supose the the nucleus consists in iron liquide... and the gravity is a kind of force that comes from this other force... (I'm not really convinced in this idea)

Actually I know because of my study that gravity force is produced when there is a different mass or two object with different mass so that it can start a field of energy (gravity energy) with forces' lines which are the cause of the flow of the gravity force from the mass with less mass to the other one... and of course we can say that the earth, by having a distribution of mass from the core to the surface, is controlled by the same force... which is terrestrian gravity...

BUT: WHERE IT COMES FROM THIS FORCE?

I mean:

the magnetic energy comes from an electron that is moves...

the electric energy comes from al electron itself

the electromagnetic energy comes from electric and magnetic fields that are moving at the same times...

What is the orgin of the gravity field

2.

3. The origin of gravity is mass.

The 9.8m/s/s we feel on earth's surface is due to the extensive addition of trillions^trillions of particles all adding their fields together and applying them simultaneously to objects.

An electron has charge and therefore an electric field in the same way a proton has mass and therefore a gravitational field.

From my studies I have determined that Einstein's theory of gravity is the soundest and answers the greatest number of questions with the fewest contradictions. I can't explain why I think this though since my explanation is around 20 pages long.

4. thanks cold fusion...

"An electron has charge and therefore an electric field in the same way a proton has mass and therefore a gravitational field"

My question is:

I know that an electron has charge and therefore an electric field but that attractor factor in this case is the fact that the electron itself is charged - and can attract "something" charged +.

The same issue has the magnetic field... if it is + it attract something - and vice versa!

The gravity field doesn't have - or + charge and so cannot follow the same idea and therefore I asked this question because in my mind I really cannot understand which kind of logical it follows...

I mean what's the origin of this flow of "gravitational energy" that come from a object having major mass... It come frome neutrons? from protons? which are both to elements that we consider to describe the atomic mass... (?) and what it consistency of this kind of "energy"... I mean it is not "tangible"... it is not magnetic.. it is not electrical... what is? We can feel it of course... it's the gravity that stuck us to the surface of the earth... but i cannot describe it... there's not - or +... :?

5. Mass attracts other masses...its a purely attractive force the way we understand it now. Its as if a positive electric field could attract another positive electric field.

Just because physicists have not given it a sign does not mean it is less tangible than the "+" and "-" of a magnetic field. Invent any sign you want.

All mass generates gravity and can be effected by gravity...electrons, all quarks, muons, tau, etc....

The collective scientific community tends to elaborate and develop considerably more examples and experiments pertaining to magnetism than to gravity...that is probably why you are temped to see a large difference in form methodology between the two. Where others will not, you need to create your own examples and analogies for gravity. It took me 2 years to understand it very well, it may take you just as long. As long as you keep on asking questions and thinking about it though, you will eventually get there.

My philosophy separates 'logic' from what I call 'condensed logic'/emotions. This disconnect and confusion with gravity that you are feeling is probably due to having a greater amount of logical knowledge than emotional knowledge towards it. Because of people's insolence, most are not willing to examine their minds in this way and admit that there are many 'levels of consciousness' within them. They SAY 'emotions', but alas that is just a word, and true knowledge of it is non existent. So...instead of basing your conscious recognition of status off of words, try using more abstract forms. I spent 14 years trying to do this properly and just recently reached a considerable level....thank gaia I began this process when I was extremely young, good bet on my part. Assisting me is another fun niche of my mind, synesthesia, which needless to say you are born with or not.

What people do not realize is how important philosophy is to science, and science to philosophy. They really cannot function well without each other. Unfortunately, some people have great potential with philosophy and others do not; some start early and others do not, heavily damaging their potential. In other words, some people will have a superior understanding of certain things compared to others regardless of what the other party does on their own. I did once find an 'apprentice' and taught them physics. I taught them gravity, quantum physics, mechanics, etc...and after about 5 months at 3 hours a day they reached a notable level of understanding...however, they were only able to be taught due to their extreme intelligence. Namely, they were philosophically versed and had an extremely high level of cognitive causality. Thinking back, I probably should not have taught them so much since some of those theories turns out are a little more than what I would want anyone but myself to possess, but oh well. So...my point is that you may find it extremely difficult if not impossible to understand certain things for now if not forever if you do not possess certain traits required to comprehend this subject. Books, Wikipedia and science forums can help, but the final step ends with you. Frankly, most of what guys explain to me here is giberish at first, but at the very least it gives me a foothold with which to base my thinking off of; and that foothold can prove an invaluable asset.

I have spent an average of 3 hours a day for the past 14 years thinking about philosophy and physics....that is quite a hobby. For those who do not make a living off of their knowledge in physics, it may be very difficult to spend such a period of time learning something out of sheer curiosity. Needless to say, I never intended for it to be a mere hobby, and was prepared to reach a point where my utilization of this knowledge would become dire. I have pretty much sacrificed everything to acquire my level of ability in physics...and it was more than worth it. My understanding may often appear jaded, but that is my way of doing things, quality over quantity.

My intention behind this post had an air of pessimism....but its merely fact. Though, if you want this knowledge badly enough, you may end up with more time to acquire it than you may think.

6. wow... I'm a bit confused...

I'm not sure... but it seems to be a bit more difficult then I thought...

And I undesrtand that with my knowledges it would be a bit difficult for my to understand the logical that stand behind the laws of physics...

Of course I know that the "-" and "+" are only simplifications of something greater and more complicated but my intention actually was "only" to understand why an object having mass, only one, can produce something, some energy, gravitational energy which is the origin of the attraction toward any other object that stand around it... but after your description I understood that it's difficult to define this phenomenon easily... by simplifying it...

But instead I have an other great question for you who like both physics and philosophy... DO YOU THINK THAT ASTROLOGY COULD BE REAL?

I mean... I know that a planet placed at a very great distance actually cannot produce any influence because the law of the gravity tell us that this planet is too distant to generate attraction or maybe other magnetic or electrical influences... but maybe from you point of you... this issue have a different perspective... and the argument could be not completely foregone...

I would really like and appreciate an answer for this question... bye

7. I think the computer monitor in front of you has a far greater effect on you (electrical, magnetic, gravitationally, and in every other way) than Mercury or Saturn, or any other planet.

8. I know... but... who knows it?... maybe there are some kinds of different energy or interaction... that we yet have to find out... :?

9. Umm, no. No matter what new forms of energy (if any) we find, there are many reasons why the various planets would still have an insignificant effect on us compared to the ground beneath our feet.

For example, all energy follows conservation laws, so spreading it out over more space means less energy, so from the incredibly distance planets only a tiny amount of whatever would remain.

10. Anything is technically possible; heck, a god may even exist But, to the best of my logical faculties, a god does not exist, and neither do any of the astrological maxims. When you look at the history of astrology, you can see the reason for it coming to fruition. Essentially, astronomers during times of great civil depression made an attempt to make more money and find sponsors for their research by catering to what the nobles wanted to hear. Hence, astrology was born. Astronomers could continue their hard scientific research under the guise of the more fantastical, astrology; essentially a pseudo scientific new age religion.

Forget the details; don't believe in astronomical symbols or a god, just believe in yourself.

11. The origin of Gravity, is matter or energy warping space-time.

12. Imagine if you were to sit in the middle of a trampoline and roll a ball away from you. The ball would roll right back to you. This is probably the easiest way that I can visualize Einstein's gravity (General Relativity). An object with mass bends the spacetime continuum. So, if you were the sun, the trampoline would be spacetime and the ball would be a planet. If you were wanting to know if there is a particle responsible for the force of gravity, there is the theoretical graviton that so far has not been proven.

Gravity... a very attractive subject indeed! :wink:

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement