Has gravity ever been sufficiently explained?

Question

Just curious if trhere are any breaking theories that are closer to being law than theories. Or - does gravity continue to be mostly a mystery?

To define it more - what I mean is have we discovered what gravity IS. I know we have laws that describe how it behaves - but is it a wave, a particle, bent space, etc. A more physical explanation of HOW and WHAT ot actually is.

Answer 1

No, it is not understood at a fundamental level. We have models that predict it's behavior very accurately, but we don't know what it basically is any more than we really know what matter is at a fundamental level.

Answer 2

Its the only force that stubbornly remains outside unified field theorys. Eienstein didn't solve the problem either

Answer 3

Do you mean a mystery in the scientific sense? the romantic sense? or the sense of "why does my coffee cup always fall and spill hot coffee onto my crotch, but never anywhere else?" sense?

Answer 4

there is a law of universal gravitation

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

Answer 5

Three Questions for which you have the answer - “The source for the force of gravity is …” Answer the questions honestly and see what you think!

Question 1. Is it possible for energy to be either created or destroyed? In helping you make up you mind, I’ll quote Isaac Asimov in his “Asimov’s Guide to Science,” published in 1972 by Basic Books. In paragraph two, on page 364, we find:

“What Joule’s experiments showed (Joule worked 35 years on the equivalence of heat energy to that of work) above all was that such conservation could be made exact when heat was taken into account for, when mechanical energy was lost to friction or air resistance, it appeared as heat. Take that heat into account, and one can show, without qualification, that no new energy is created and no old energy destroyed. The first person actually to put this notion into words was Heinrich von Helmsholtz. In 1847, von Helmholtz enunciated the “law of conservation of energy,” which states that energy can be converted from one form to another but cannot be created or destroyed. Whenever a certain amount of energy seems to disappear in one place, an equivalent amount must appear in another. This is also called “the first law of thermodynamics.” It remains a foundation block of modern physics, undisturbed by either quantum theory or relativity.”

Notice the sentence underlined. That thought shall be considered again later on. The conversion of dry ice into the gas CO2 does not mean the mass no longer exists. Radiation from the sun striking a mass does not mean the radiation is no longer existent. That which has existed in the past exists yet, and that which shall exist shall do so from what presently exists. Objects have just changed form and shall change form in the future. Life, as rivers and mountains, shall change but that which comprises it continues on. Life is the agent that gives reason to what mankind does. Dead people do nothing. Where there is no “life” there is no organization of elements forming a body by which life and reason give evidence of their existence. When “life” leaves a person, the body begins returning to the random organization of atoms it originally was derived from. There is no manner in the THEORY of evolution to account for the life of a person. It cannot be measured and cannot be touched, yet each of us posses life. It is interesting that the very element that comprises the difference between living and non-living is ignored. I suppose it must be that way because there can be no explanation for life by those who believe in the theory of evolution, other than to assign it the new name of Annihilation, and then ignore the reality of it in themselves. Now on to question two.


Question 2. Is it possible to perform “work” apart from an energy source? Or, one may ask, is it possible to create a perpetual motion machine? Both ask the same question. To clarify the thought, I shall quote from “The Random House Dictionary of the English Language,” published in 1979. The eleventh meaning under the term “work” reads thusly:

“Physics. Force times the distance through which it acts; specifically, the transference of energy equal to the product of the component of a force that acts in the direction of the motion of the point of application of the force and the distance through which the point of application moves.”

The concept of “work being equal to force times distance” is basic to all manner of “work” problems. When an object moves, there must be an energy source to make that happen. If there is no energy source, then there can be no movement of mass. This, then, brings us to the interesting third question.

In that it is necessary for an energy source to exist in order for mass to be made to move, and in that the force of gravity does this very thing, (causes mass to move in a particular direction) what is the energy source for the force of gravity? To quote an outside source concerning the work of gravity is unnecessary. Everyone knows this is a “force” in our lives and that it continually performs work. It is this force that we have to work against when climbing a flight of stairs, and that we have to guard against lest we slip when descending them.

There, of necessity, must be an energy source for this force to function or the first law of thermodynamics is invalid. If this force is being created in all matter at all times, then the first law has a qualification to it, meaning - “the law of gravity is exempt,” and this condition would make the first law invalid. Notice, also, that there exists no “pools” of gravity floating about the universe, causing unpredictable movement of planets. The force of gravity always associates with that of a mass. So, then, because it is continually performing work, it must have an energy source. Notice that in “A Brief History of Time” by Hawking, that on page 92, para. 3 it says, “Like light, gravitational waves carry energy away from the objects that emit them.” What can it be?

Remember the sentence we were going to reconsider? Whenever a certain amount of energy seems to disappear in one place, an equivalent amount must appear in another. The angular momentum of our planet’s spin forms the magnetic field that deflects many small solar particles from reaching us living on the surface - so that energy source is out. The singular form of energy unaccounted for in our planet is that of its heat energy. This form of energy is not felt nor is it observed by us in a general manner. But this brings forth a serious problem. In that it exists, and we all know that it does, what form of work is this vast heat energy performing? How is it performing “work” relative to the mass containing it? What is the heat source within our planet doing in the way of performing its share of work, keeping the concept “W=Fd” and the first law of thermodynamics intact?

Our planet expends 0.00444 kg. of mass in form of gravitational energy waves each second. Our sun expends nearly 665 pounds of mass in form of gravitational waves each second. Gravitational waves must have a particular kind of energy source existent in order for them to exist. If not the heat energy within a solar body - what then? What do you think it is?


http://timebones.blogspot.com
http://360.yahoo.com/noddarc