# Gravity -Questions and Ideas

1. Jul 20, 2010

### Jcskehan

So I (like probably everyone else in the world) am pretty lost on the idea of gravity. I've ready plenty stating it doesn't exist, blah blah blah. Maybe I'm holding onto what i see with my eyes too firmly, but I'm under the impression it IS real.
I, however, would like a few things. I'd like a clean, precise, and detailed explanation of why gravity isn't real, or proof that it IS real.

On a side note about gravity, I have a cool idea of what might drive it (It's dumb and rudimentary I know, but It's some simple deduction I've been doing.)

So gravity is something that pulls everything with mass together, assuming it does exist, and has an infinite range of pull. That leads me to believe that something must provide the push and pull. So what do all things effected by gravity have in common : mass. This leaves me to believe that the idea of mass is what creates gravity. So everything that has mass has a few things in common : It's made up of "stuff", and it takes up space.

If the fact that it takes up space is what drives gravity, then something about existing in 3 dimensions drives all things to take up zero dimensions. The amount of entropic forces in the world leave me to believe this is probably not the right answer, but still one to toy around with.

This leaves the obvious choice. Something about what all things with mass is made of, provides the force of gravity. So i decided that the particles I've thus far studied haven't given me a good grip of what causes the force of gravity, so I've thought up a fairly convincing idea of what could cause it. (ridicule isn't necessary, keep in mind i have no degree in this, it's just a hobby.)

So what if everything was had these particles inside of them, I'll call them S-particles for now. So everything wants more of these S-particles than it already has. So because each wants them, one gets more than it wants from the other one, so it is happy, immediately, the other wants more from the happy one so it takes them - a constant and near instant exchange is constantly taking place between everything with mass - and gravity's infinite pull has more to do with the fact that the S-particles bounce of everything - an exchange between already happy and non -happy particles. looping around. This would present some problems though, for one : it would mean that these S-particles travel faster than the speed of light, but think of it this way. As it approaches the speed of light, it gains mass, giving it more S-particle pull so gives it more drive to go faster, breaking the speed of light by the laws of relativity themselves.

Just a bad theory based on a dream i had last night - haven't though it through really or what not - suggestions, shoot me down. :) anything.

anyways, thanks in advanced for any answers (remember i came here for proof or anti-proof of gravity.)

2. Jul 20, 2010

### 6Stang7

The problem is that gravity waves don't break the speed of light. They, in fact, travel at the speed of light. If the sun were to suddenly vanish, you would not be able to notice a difference in gravity until some 8 minutes later.

3. Jul 20, 2010

### Jcskehan

I had heard something like that, but when trying to prove it mathematically , which I prefer over experimentally, I didn't notice a correlation between the gravitational constant and the constant for the speed of light. Was it wrong to assume that a correlation would exist, or what I missing something?

Also - Do you know where I could read a bit more about those gravity waves and why it is believed they travel at the speed of light?

Looking back though - how do you feel about the exchange of S-particles idea? If gravity waves DO travel at the speed of light, then there would be no need for it to be broken, keeping the basis of the exchange idea fairly reasonable.

4. Jul 20, 2010

### 6Stang7

I agree with you that, between two object under gravitational influence from one another, that there is some sort of exchange going on. I think a lot of your question can be answered be researching http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton" [Broken].

Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
5. Jul 20, 2010

### Jcskehan

I see - so sad to say im not the first to think of the idea. xD regardless - theoretically , if my exchange idea is correct - what if there were no S-particles in something - could it defy the laws of gravity, and if an exchange would be required for gravity to exist, what happens in a singularity, such as the center of a black hole?
I'd think that the black hole would compress the S-particles so close together that something could "share" the S-particles, preventing an eternal singularity. Once they got close enough, they would share them so no more pull, they begin to spread out, so there is once again a pull. but that would involve like a wave: of pull, release, pull, release. That could be measured around black holes. which could prove the S-particles to be discovered experimentally.

right?

Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
6. Jul 20, 2010

### 6Stang7

What do you mean by "no s-particles?" Are you asking if, for some undefined reason, an object did not interact with your s-particles (akin to something not interacting with gravitons)?

As for the black hole thought experiment, if we assume what you're postulating is true, how would said s-particles escape the black hole?

7. Jul 20, 2010

### Jcskehan

no i mean like something that just didn't have any s-particles, no push or pull. no desire to have them. nothing.

and it wouldn't be a wave that would emit from the black hole - just that , as the singularity formed, the would be packed so close together that it, instead of drawing more s-particles in, shared the s-particles amongst itself, to the point where there was no longer any gravitational pull, when that happens, the singularity would spread out, s-particles separating into the matter that used to make up the black hole, then the gravitational pull would resume, once again forming a singularity. that would create a cycle of pulling in more, settling out, pulling in more, settling out, over and over again. which would make the pull of a black hole non-fluid. it would be spikes up and down up and down, instead of a steady pull. if we were to closely monitor if the mass being pulled into a black hole was pulled fluidly or in incredibly short bursts, we could prove / disprove the idea of s-particles.

OR - s-particles are never shared and it just keeps on sucking mass in.

come to think of it - the idea of sharing s-particles seems a bit absurd, but could explain a variety of sub atomic structures.