Who has proved that Gravity is an attraction rather than an external push cause by power stored in Space time?
354594
I don't think anyone has. Some years ago, I read about this topic at a web site called weirdsience.com (or some such thing). The hyposthesis in that article was that wave energy (light, electrons, and so forth) push from all directions. However, only a certain group of wavelengths can fit between a fixed set of points, based on the separation distance. For example, fewer wavelengths can fit between the Earth and the Moon than can fit between either body and the rest of the Universe. Therefore, there are many more waves, hence much more energy, pushing the two bodies towards each other than pushing them apart. On other hand, there is some evidence that gravity is conveyed through a supposed graviton particle. But such a particle has not yet been observed. Short answer, gravity is still one of the major mysteries of physics.
714564
Oz gave a pretty good answer, but a magnetic field doesn't create a gravitational attraction.  Gravity and electromagnetism are two different forces (at least under normal conditions--some scientists think they may be the same under extreme heat and pressure).
794968
.  Gravity and magnetism are two very different kinds of forces.  Gravity is always attractive and is proportional to the masses of two objects and how close together they are.  Magnetism can be attractive (pulling objects together) or repulsive (pushing them apart).  Magnetism is due to electric fields, either in the atoms of certain materials or electric fields resulting from electric currents in a sizable quantity of material.\n.  The earth might be a large magnet, with a net magnetic orientation in its solid iron inner core making the core a magnet, but its magnetic field is due mostly due to electric currents in the molten iron outer core which are generated by interactions with other magnetic fields.  We know that the earth is not like a permanent magnet because its magnetic field reverses periodically, about every 100,000 to 200,000 years.\n.   There are four basic forces in physics: gravity, the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force.  Gravity seems to be quite different from the other forces.  Quantum mechanics can explain the other three forces and demonstrate how, at very high particle energies, they could be a single force.  Gravity,so far, can not be united in theory with the other forces.
49395
There is a confusion about magnetic attration and gravity attraction. First of all,nothing has been proven to show that there is something in the earth that pulls you down.It makes more senseto believe that gravity is an external phenomena rather than an internal one.\n\nThere is no magnetic response unless two poles exist in a material. In this case we have an internal phenomena which has to do the atomic structure of the material which forms\nan external circuit of twisted space. It requires two opposite ends to observe a magnetic response. The poles of a material which is magnetized can exhibit both attraction and repulsion.\nMost material display some magnetism.\nFerrous material are able to store magnetic power more so than other material because of the arrangement of their electronic structures.\n\nIt is believed by scientists that  the magnetism of the earth is caused by a molted iron core;however ,it has\nbeen shown that at high temperature a magnetic field cannot be established.\n\nThe best explanation presented was that the earth magnetic field is caused by the motion of the ocean around the earth.
23542
Others, especially Stephens Hawkins, described black holes.  Albert Einstein proposed the theories of relativity that astronomers used to better describe the Universe, including black holes.  So far most scientists still believe that Einstein's theories are correct.  They have been shown to predict how the gravitational forces of a massive star can bend nearby space to such an extreme that light attempting to leave will fall back much as a tennis ball you throw into the air will return to Earth.  Since all light near the star's event horizon falls into it and none can escape, we can not see it and we call it a "black hole."  Astronomers can detect black holes by recording their influence on nearby stars or light passing by on its way to us that has not been captured.  Actually, Einstein's therories were proved in part by the influence on light passing by our own Sun.
278823
Lets not confused inertia with Newton first law of motion.\nFirst of all Einstein showed that what is called Inertia is really the field curvature of Space.The first law has been translated and interpreted different ways.\nIt could be stated this way.A mass moves because Power has been invested to make it move.The mass continues to move with a set amount  amount of energy unless  interaction of another mass changes the energy of the motion.\n\nThe word Newton used for power was not force. He used the word impetus.Pehaps Newton has been Misunderstood.\n\n Inertia means gravity Power that is stored in \nspace.\n\nTo make an object move you must Use Power to  counter act the Gravity power that is holding it down.
39911
Just to expand on the answer by "twertyto", the answer to your question is "We don't know yet". This is one of the major questions in physics right now. There are some ideas but none of them have been proven either mathematically or in laboratory experiment. It is believed by most leading minds in physics that once we learn the exact relationship between gravity and the other known forces (electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear), we will then understand how gravity works. To understand this relationship will take what is called the "grand unified theory", which is not yet a theory at all but a hoped-for theory to be developed in the near future. The "grand unified theory" would explain how gravity is related to mass and energy and the "known forces" mentioned above, and would do for gravity what Einstein's "E=MC2" (relativity) did for understanding the relationship between mass and energy. (Some quick background: E=MC2 explained the exact relationship between mass and energy, showing they are both different aspects of the same thing, and can therefore be converted into each other). \n\nTo sum this up in a simple fashion: scientists believe that gravity, energy, mass and even time are all made of the same "stuff" at some super-fundamental level, but they haven't yet figured out this fundamental level. Once someone does (which would pretty much be a guaranteed Nobel prize), we will know how gravity works. Until then, we can only speculate.
64226
Whoa!  These are very different questions, but here is Joule's law is a physical law expressing the relationship between the heat generated by, and the current flowing in, a conductor. It is named for James Prescott Joule who studied the phenomenon in the 1840s.  As for The Theory of Everything, it is a hypothetical theory which would unify all known phenomenon and make them explainable. The Grand Unified Theory.  In the universe, there are 4 fundamental forces. The Weak, the Strong, the Electro-Magnetic and the Gravitational.  However, gravity does not 'fit in' with the other forces (in that it does not appear to exist at very small scales).  If this is the case, then why?  We believe that there is a theory so complete that it can do everything from explain the aparent randomness of quantum phenomenon (for example an apparent lack of causality) all the way up to the orderings of filaments and other grand structures.  String Theory is one of many 'Theories of Everything' which is being explored.  There are many different flavors of string theory, but most of them agree on the fact the our universe has more than 4 dimensions and some suggest as many as 10 or more.  Further, the theory suggests that all matter and energy is composed of tiny 'strings', which vibrate.  The type of vibration determines what type of fundamental particle the string is.  In theory there would be a 'vibration' representing a gravity particle (the graviton), but as of yet no particles resembling gravitons have been seen to exist.  On a less scientific note, many Theories of Everything have the fall back that they do not allow for testable, quantifiable and observable results - the core of modern science - and thus fall within the realm of philosophy in that they attempt to explain the way things are, yet leave specific details lacking.
1128517
The dynamic theory of gravity was an alleged unified field theory which, late in life, the distinguished inventor Nikola Tesla claimed to have constructed. According to a 1937 press statement by Tesla, he had succeeded in unifying gravity and electromagnetism.\n\nSince Tesla never published his own theory, and since no notes describing it in detail seem to be extant, it is impossible to say much with certainty about it. Even the claims allegedly made by Tesla himself before his death, as described below, appear difficult to verify. Tesla's apparently unverifiable claims concerning his own work cannot be said to constitute a contribution to theoretical physics, but they nonetheless remain of absorbing interest to a minority.
1171587
Gravity is one of the universal forces of nature. It is an attractive force between all things. The gravitational force between two objects depends on their masses, which is why we can really only see gravity in action when at least one of the objects is very large (like the Earth).\n\nIsaac Newton was the first scientist to define gravity using math. There will be a larger pull due to gravity if the objects' masses are larger and if the objects are closer together.\n\nOne thing we can do with Newton’s law is calculate an escape velocity for the Earth. That is the speed something has to go for it to escape the gravity of Earth. This number for Earth is about 11 km/s. This means that if you could throw a baseball at 11 km/s, it would never come down!
270647
Gravity is a term to explain a phenomenon. The theory of gravity is a theory to explain a fact. The pull between bodies(known as gravity) is a fact.\n\nWe can measure this pull with a good degree of accuricy since the days of newton. Yet untill this moment we don't have a complete explanation as to why gravity occurs!\n\nNewton didn't really explain gravity, he just offered methods to measure its effect. Modern physics describe gravity as a result of the bend in the fabric of space-time.More theories will develop later.\nThat's what science is about, offering explanations, then making them better with time, then even better and so on. There is no best of final explanation ever, but there are always better ones that could be used to make life easier.
180507
Imagine two ships at the opposite ends of the equator moving towards the equator. They move closer to each other as reach the poles. For a person on the ships this is puzzling since there is no force pushing them towards each other. But for an observer in the third dimension it is obviously due to the curvature of the earth.\nAccording to Einstein attraction due to gravity is not an independent force but it exists due to curvature of space.\nThat is the curvature of Space-Time.
555537
What Einstein developed in his General Theory of Relativity (published in 1916) was a totally new, mathematical description of gravity—one that linked space to time and mass to energy in a fundamentally geometrical fashion. In other words, mass(-energy) shapes space(-time) instead of acting like a “force” in the traditional Newtownian sense.  The equations are sometimes collectively referred to as “Einstein’s Field Equations.”\n\nSo…  In Newton’s description of gravity, one would say that all bodies exert an attractive gravitational force on one another. In Einstein’s conception, one would say that all bodies change the underlying geometry of space (and time) in a way that causes them to be attracted to one another.\n\nThus, a gravitational “field” in that sense is the manner in which gravity affects the shape of space.  One often hears that space is “warped” by the presence of mass(-energy). \n\nThe caveat is that curvature or warping really only provides an analogy to what the equations tell us. If you want to imagine the effects of an object on its surrouning space(-time), then you can think of it as changing the shape of space(-time) in its vicinity. The distortion is real—we can measure its effects—but the images that are often presented (of flexible sheets of space-time with bowling balls or marbles rolling around on them) simply present analogous situations.\n\nWhew!  With all that said, I’d also point out that other fields—notably electric and magnetic fields—can also exist in space.  These have very different properties from a gravitational field, but they are affected by gravity in that gravity affects the underlying geometry of space(-time).\n\n\nRyan Wyatt\nRose Center for Earth & Space\nNew York, New York
953783
did he? \nhe talked about attraction force (F) between bodies (m1, m2, staying d distance apart) though\nF = G (m1. m2) / d^2
103856
Newton' and Einstein's on relativity
233240
To answer this, it's necessary to review something of the landscape. \n\nForces in the universe have been quite successfully treated as gauge forces, using gauge theories. \n\nSo each of the following forces is a gauge force, as shown by the very successful gauge theories that have been developed to describe them. \n\nstrong nuclear force\nweak nuclear force\nelectical charge force\n\nA 'force transmission particle' (or particles), has been found for each of these, and it is the exchange back and forrh of them which seems to "be" the underlying force between two particles. Some of these particles have mass, some have charge, some have spin, ... Finding these things, and understanding how they work, has earned many a Nobel Prize. \n\nFor gravity, the particle which transfers the force has been called the 'graviton'. But, none (and no sequela attributable only to them) has been observed to date. Gravity should have some wave properties, which might tell us something more about it, but gravity waves have not been observed either. Two large experiments are running now which might turn some up so stay tuned. \n\nEinstein's General Relativity treats gravity as an alteration of the character of spacetime itself, and the alteration is stronger closer to the mass. But, there is no limit on the distance of the alteration in the theory, nor in observational reality, as may be seen by gravitationally predictable behavior across galactic and more than galactic distances. Our Local Cluster of galaxies is an example, as they seem to be responding to each others' gravitational influence.  \n\nIf gravity is a gauge force, and the graviton exists, then gravity may have a transmission speed, and if so, there's some reason to believe it cannot be faster than light transmission. If it is not a gauge force in the manner of the others, we are dealing with something which may not have a top speed at all. If so the example of the Earth's orbit not noticing the disappearance of the Sun for about 10 minutes might not be very applicable. \n\nShort answer, we don't know how 'fast' gravity is as compared to light, and are still trying to understand fundamental things about gravity and its behavior. Merely being able to send exploring probes to Neptune and Jupiter's moons and Mars and such is not really evidence that we understand the fundamentals involved. \n\nAfter all, there has been quite recent work on the fundamental nature of friction which may turn out to be, finally, an actual understanding of how it works. We've been able to use it for a very long time, even if we didn't really understand quite what it is. Every basketball player understands friction well as a practical matter of not sliding into the crowd, and hockey players manipulate it very carefully to move quickly, or stop more or less quickly, but neither understands much about its fundamnetal nature. After all, we've only just in the last year or so understood how zinc compounds in oil reduce bearing friction (as in car engines) as they most certainly do. \n\nObviously, science has quite a long ways to go in explaining even some everyday phenomena. It's the nature of the beast.
756183
Undisputed laws of physics as we experience it in our universe.\n\nThe mutual attraction between all masses and particles of matter in the universe. In a sense this is one of the best-known physical phenomena. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries gravitational astronomy, based on Newton's laws, attracted many of the leading mathematicians and was brought to such a pitch that it seemed that only extra numerical refinements would be needed in order to account in detail for the motions of all celestial bodies. In the twentieth century, however, A. Einstein shattered this complacency, and the subject is currently in a healthy state of flux.\n\nNewton's law of gravitation\n\nNewton's law of universal gravitation states that every two particles of matter in the universe attract each other with a force that acts in the line joining them, the intensity of which varies as the product of their masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them.