zcoder writes:
I don't know much about theorys, I just try to think it out
logicly.
First of all, this isn't AIM chat. Stop pressing the enter button unless you want to start a new paragraph.
Did you know that logic is actually a field of it's own in colleges? Did you know that you can major in logic? Did you know that you can get a Ph.D in logic and become a logician? In other words, logic ain't common sense. Allow me to show you why your common sense is far from logic.
So if it's true that space can not exist where mass is, then what
makes gravity on mass objects that don't spin?
Can you give me a reference where it says the current gravity theories state that "spinning" creates gravity? I honestly don't know where this came from.
The main thing I noticed was that when you watch the astronauts
playing with liquids. and what I noticed was that the liquids would
ball up together into a ball.
Liquids ball up together into a ball because of hydrogen bonding not because of gravity. What hydrogen bonding is should have been covered in your high school chemistry class.
And the larger clumbs would draw the smaller ones into it,
if they got close enough to them.
No, larger clumps don't draw the smaller ones toward them. It's just an illusion. What happens is they coincidently float into each other and hydrogen bonding takes over.
And as the clump got bigger it could draw in alot more. which means
that it is growing in mass, and gaining in gravity, enough to pull
in more.
No, as the clump got bigger, it has more volume which gives it more and more chances to encounter other clumps.
Yes, those clumps of liquid do have their own gravitational fields, but they are so minute that you might as well think it's zero.
But, what in space is making gravity on objects that are not
spinning?? Like our moon, which really has no spin to say, but
turns once every lunar month, which is such a slow spin that
that could not account for the gravity that the moon has , so
I had to conclude that the moon's mass created most of it's
gravity.
I don't get it. Where did you get the idea that gravity comes from the spin of an object?
Picture a ball in space, and as space expands in all directions
away from the ball, the effects on the ball is as if it was
falling into it's self.
This also puts the effects of gravity on the ball which is related
to the balls mass. in other words the ball is falling into it's self
in all directions, while space is rushing away from it in all directions
and it's this effect that couse's a inward force onto the ball hence gravity.
and the amount of gravity asserted is in relation to it's mass.
Ok, let's go with what you just described. If space is rushing away from an object to make the object "fall" into itself, how come more massive objects exert more gravitational force on other objects?
Is this idea flawed? is there something I did not consider?
Perhaps you forgot to consider that we're not in the dark ages anymore and that our understanding of the natural world isn't like how dark ages science worked: witches burn-->wood burns-->wood floats-->duck floats... or something along that nonsense.
™ Version 4.2