who knows what gravity is?

[MisterJingo]

Imagine a 2d plane.  If it is flat, there are no distortions in placement of the plane's grid.  However, if you have to wrap part of the grid around a sphere, it distorts the dimensions.

Assume the sphere has a radius of r, and the coordinate system is centered at the core of the sphere.

For simplicity, I'll limit the warp to one dimension on a hemisphere model.

Every x dimension between y's r and (-r) has the following displacement applied to it:

for |y|<=r and x>=r:
x'=x-(pi/2)*r*sin(acos(y))

The grid displacement would look similar to this:



(green lines = distorted x-lines, white circle = sphere, white horizontal lines = y-lines)

So imagine an object going along an imaginary or real string that has the same distortion applied to it as the the x-axis lines in the image.  A straight course would skew off into a tangent towards the sphere, when it reaches y=r or y=-r.

For example, look at a rollercoaster.  When an object is trying to go one way, and is forced to go another, g-forces (artificial gravity) are produced.

Imagine spheres in space causing rollercoaster-like warps in superstring 'track'.  Objects wanting to go 'straight' are being re-directed into another direction, thus producing gravity.

But such a view does not indicate how gravity propagates outside the immediate area of indentation. Also, the idea of a 2D plane is more a conceptual model used to help us understand rather than a direction translation of what is occurring (like 'imaginary time' in mathematics). In truth, the 'indentation' would propagate along the 3 physical dimensions (gravity is not only evident on a plane) and into the 4th (time) and, if we follow certain ideas from M-Theory (theory attempting to unite the 5 superstring theories), it is one of the only forces which can propagate across branes (our physical universe being a brane) and the other proposed dimensions – but this is mainly theoretical as yet.

[MisterJingo]

My definition of gravity is a multi-dimensional transcending force that is weak yet effective in our dimension.
If you think about gravity it is a force weaker then magnetic forces, yet strong enough to keep us grounded.

It truely is a amazing and complex force to understand, one beyond my comprehension.

I'd like to think of it as a force that seeps into our dimension,
yet its real origin stems from elsewhere and that is where its true nature and strength lyes.

In our dimension it must abide by different laws and rules of physics.

There was a theory that suggested our brane intersected (collided) with another brane (possibly causing the big bang due to the release of immense energy), and gravity itself is seeping from the other brane into our universe - which might explain gravities strange properties. But as yet, this is just one of countless ideas.
Perhaps when the LHC at CERN starts working (hopefully later this year) we will find more pieces of the puzzle.

[Jelal67]

Hopefully... the LHC has alot banking on it. Of course, if it doesn't validate our theories, then what?

[Awakened_Mind]

Einstein generalized his theory of relativity to encorporate gravity, not as a force, but a distortion in spacetime geometry. In this theory, spacetimes is not flat, obeying the usual rules of school geometry, but curved or warped, giving rise to both spacewarps and timewarps.

I particularly like the way Einstein related gravity to spacetime phenomenon.

-AM

[rygoody]

I had a sight in a meditation once that I felt hinted at something about the mechanisms of gravity. I saw sort of the planets imposed with something that most resembled something like a portion of the mandelbrot fractal.

What was peculiar though was the flow of the fractal I then realized was the path of flowing particles. Not the particles themselves. But it was showing me the path particles took. It was at this point that I realized that the entire formation of the universe could be simulated by merely fluid simulation. Fluid simulation of the two base particles. Bosons and fermions. Only one fermion can occupy the same space (physical matter), infinite number of bosons can occupy the same space (non-physical things like light, gravity).

Imagine an explosion in a body of water (yes relation to big bang). But imagine how an explosion underwater would work. The middle would just be all over the place. But then it would trickle out to the sides at which point the water would begin to swirl. Sort of like when you run an oar through the water and it leaves a little whirlpool. Thousands of whirlpools of this manner would form from the explosion.

But thats water. Imagine if this same thing occurred in a big body of non-descript bosons and fermions. Fermions flowing in a little whirlpool would just be a typical whirlpool (cause water is fermions), they'd have friction on themselves and stop swirling, only one fermion could occupy the exact space in the center there all flowing into, so they'd have to exit out the bottom and go somewhere else. Bosons however would operate on a completely different dynamic. Bosons would flow into the center of the whirlpool and just infinitely condense into that singular point in the center. Since they have no friction, it'd just be infinitely flowing.

Now I suppose gravity is the product of bosons flowing in a whirlpool like manner. The whirlpool structure created by the product of fluid dynamics from an explosion of some sort. The thing to note though is since bosons have no friction and would flow in this whirlpool infinitely once established. It means they would become the predominated energy that dictates the flow of the fermions. Planets are the product of fermions all following the boson flow into a whirlpool. Since only one fermion can occupy one space at a time, rather than condensing infinitely into a single point in the center like bosons. Fermions would began piling up around that bosonic center point. They would begin forming the planet.

This basically would insinuate that gravity was established first and it is gravity that dictates where matter forms. Typical science I would assume has it wrong. Physical matter doesn't create gravity, it's the other way around. Gravity is merely what causes physical matter to flow to where it is and form. Understand, this doesn't actually contradict science at all. Science merely recognized the relation between matter and gravity, it has no evidence to the causal relationship between them. There is no proof that matter creates gravity. But as I explained here, I think it's much more plausible that gravity formed matter.

Which keep in mind Quantum mechanics does now as well suppose that gravity is a particle, a graviton. Which yes, gravitons are bosons.

Also this does have implications to the concept of channelers and your 'cosmological path through the universe' Because, how the earth is formed by physical matter following the flow of an non-existent energy. We are also formed by following the flow of a non-existent energy. 

Oh and that bosonic center point where they infinitely condense? Thats the sun Yes this does provide some support for the hollow earth people. But I'm not so much sold on that yet.

[Sharpe]

Everyone in this thread is more or less right on how gravity works.

I believe, in as to why it is there and why it works is:

It's a simple law, just like temparature, light, time and space, they are all here to let everything be what it is.