Is Gravity Caused by Mass or Other Factors?

[ZapperZ]

I don't think this has been determined.

May I suggest you refrain from making this type of response UNTIL you can show me HOW you would solve the equation of motion of an object in a gravitational field WITHOUT unambiguously knowing how to handle the potential term in the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian.

Zz.

 

[Ki Man]

in fact whut would be the difference?

the difference would be that everything would float as far as it can from everything else

 

[Sir_Deenicus]

the difference would be that everything would float as far as it can from everything else

Not only would it float, it would fly (i.e accelerate) away..

 

[Ki Man]

yep. and that would apply on a molecular scale too. solid objects would be physically impossible

why is it a pull and not a push though? maybe it has something to do with how opposites attract on a molecular scale.

 

[Mk]

yep. and that would apply on a molecular scale too. solid objects would be physically impossible

Gravity is usually ignored at the scales you are speaking of, it wouldn't matter if it was attracting or repelling.

 

[Ki Man]

good point maybe it wouldn't be on a scale that small, but objects would be limited to a small size.

the universe would be nothing but a bunch of small clusters accelerating away from each other as fast as possible

 

[Dook]

If gravity is a wave emitted by all objects at the speed of EMR (light) wouldn't that explain why so much energy (an increasing amount) is needed for an object to obtain light speed?

Like a supersonic aircraft trying to break the sound barrier, a spacecraft nearing the speed of EMR needs much, much more energy applied to continue to increase speed because gravity builds up in front of it like a wave or wall that cannot get out of the way.

 

[ZapperZ]

If gravity is a wave emitted by all objects at the speed of EMR (light) wouldn't that explain why so much energy (an increasing amount) is needed for an object to obtain light speed?

Like a supersonic aircraft trying to break the sound barrier, a spacecraft nearing the speed of EMR needs much, much more energy applied to continue to increase speed because gravity builds up in front of it like a wave or wall that cannot get out of the way.

That doesn't explain why photons can't go faster than c... unless you are claiming that photons themselves also give out this "gravitational wave".

Zz.

 

[Dook]

If it is found that photons have no mass then it wouldn't seem that they could possibly have their own gravity. But then our current theory of gravity is that it comes from mass. The greater the mass, the greater the gravity field. What if it doesn't necessarily?

What if there are particles, or other, that emit a gravity field but have no mass?

 

[ZapperZ]

If it is found that photons have no mass then it wouldn't seem that they could possibly have their own gravity. But then our current theory of gravity is that it comes from mass. The greater the mass, the greater the gravity field. What if it doesn't necessarily?

What if there are particles, or other, that emit a gravity field but have no mass?

But now look at what you are doing. You have now come up with an explanation for something using a highly speculative scenario. Notice that if we all can just speculate, all bets are off. Why not go to the extreme and use angels on dirt bikes as a possible explanation?

Now don't take this as a criticism, because it is an important exercise in how we need to think of how to formulate an answer in physics. If we propose something, we need to see the consequences of that proposal. If the reason why an object cannot move faster than c is because it is bumping into its own "gravitational waves", then you look at all possible consequences of that idea. You would run into trouble with photons, and that causes you to now make wild speculation on "other particles that emit a gravity field but have no mass". At some point, you are going to go way to far out on a limb that it will just break!

Notice that this is only ONE of the possible questions that I could bring up to counter your idea. I haven't even point to the the fact that an object can certainly move faster than the 'wave' that it is generating. It is why we get sonic boom and Cerenkov radiation.

Zz.