What Is Gravity, and Why Does It Cause The Apple To Fall? . . . Or, “Picture Yourself In A Boat On a River.”

November 8, 2012 7:02 AM (updated with this *.gif April 2, 2017)gravity

I like this graphic *.gif that demonstrates spacetime bending toward the massive object as it travels in spacetime.

Vinaire:  Gravity is due to attraction between masses.                                                         Chris:  This seems to be a conjecture only to me. I see how we get to that conjecture, the apple falls, but why? It must possess a characteristic which attracts it to the earth.  Right?

The curvature of spacetime around the source o...

The curvature of spacetime around the source of the gravitational force (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And yet, is this the only possible solution? We have to do more on this and although I’ve written this post on gravity,  I think it belongs under the heading of space and space-time.  I am going to promote the idea that gravity may have more to do with space than it has to do with mass.  Even mass may be a characteristic of space.  We accurately measure the forces involved but are the forces the reason for gravity?  I say no, and this is why I’ve posted up this topic for discussion.  I am promoting the idea that SPACE IS A DYNAMIC SUBSTANCE WITH ELASTIC AND STICKY PROPERTIES.

Gravity at a macroscopic level.

Look at gravity as a property of space;  as a river of space flowing toward accretion points forming vertices in that matrix of space.  Picture the accretion points as “sticky bits of space” creating the vertices of space and you will see how I am trying to model this.

We might one day discover that “self” is one of the products of the properties of space.  How could this be so?  It would require space to be composed of a substance.  Rather than being empty, space may be a matrix; a structure;  a scaffolding which supports the accretion points.  It may be a dynamic and flowing dimension which invisibly supports and makes possible the visible.  Its observable effects, which are pervading every aspect of existence, may be pointing toward an as yet, undiscovered dimension.

Think of it this way: Mass might not have any intrinsic “gravity” at all and may simply be formed by and held in place by the elastic characteristics of space. This is crude, I know; however, it is a direction that is different than the extant view of physics. Is this idea a brilliant light to shine on the “dark matter” of extant physics; or is this idea as short-sighted as Aristotle’s <em>spontaneous generation theory</em>? Maybe.

And what of <strong>dark matter</strong>? Is dark matter the congealed but invisible portion of unconsolidated space? Or could dark matter be a type of well-spring from which dark matter emanates?  And was dark matter always present, underpinning original space since the big bang?  Or possibly has it made its appearance by first making the old universe milky with the initial evolutions of accretion?  Did space congeal into mass?  This seems to have happened but atomic particles and sub-atomic particles are generally regarded as separate and existing separately from space.  But is this so or are there sub-sub-atomic particles which comprise space in a way we haven’t looked at?  Regardless, space through the force of gravity, like the rest of the universe appears to be evolving.  Gravity as a quality of space may be the force but not the only force at work.

Take a look at this wide-angle photo of The Universe and let your imagination unwind!  These are not stars, neither are they galaxies nor even clusters of galaxies.  The bright points are super-clusters of galaxies!


61 thoughts on “What Is Gravity, and Why Does It Cause The Apple To Fall? . . . Or, “Picture Yourself In A Boat On a River.”

    • Attraction between masses is one consequence of gravity. Here is another clue from Wikipedia:

      “Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, and coalesced matter to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence of planets, stars, galaxies and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe.”

      This tells me that gravity is a phenomenon of space because it acts through space. And the mass of objects somehow derives from space too.

      Space is not nothing. General Relativity talks about spacetime curvature. What is the substance of space then? It is not true that there is no substance. We need to look at space more closely.


  1. Gravity is a phenomenon of space. I am getting around to defining space and energy as follows:



    A location is a consideration.
    A Point is a consideration of location that is non-dimensional.
    A Line is a path traced by a moving point. It is one-dimensional.
    A Surface is a path traced by a moving line. It is two-dimensional.
    A Block is a path traced by a moving surface. It is three-dimensional.


    The considerations at any location may shift and evolve into more complex considerations.



    The KHTK Axioms developed so far are available here:

    KHTK AXIOMS: A Work in Progress


        • Vinay, a consideration seems, but not one created by us or breakable by us. It is a reality to be observed and used with a purpose since the time of his creation. I am still in the process of reaching higher concience levels to fully understand why it is so, but I have a clue and opinions on this, however, it is another thread.

        • That’s right Rafael. We have defined ourselves out of being able to do that. I might have to go another direction. Rather than reach for ultimates, I will continue to try to understand as best I can what has been and is being manifested. There is plenty to look at. For instance, in my fractal concept of this universe’s mechanics we would need a basic iteration mechanism which would take the result of each iteration and reload it into the mechanism to be run and iterated again. We have a perfect model for organic iteration in sex. In forming and reforming land masses we have a perfect model in plate tectonics. For watching clouds we have the water cycle, and so forth. Many operations in this universe can be mapped by using fractal math. This seems like a great game to learn and to play. I might even get the chance to contribute something along the way.

          We may be jumping the gun to pretend that we are ready to confront Unknowable. First I am going to continue along this path of dissolving inconsistencies to see what I can see. Then one day I may be surprised at what I can see. “Small moves Ellie.” (from the movie “Contact”)

  2. Please see


    Corollary: A consideration cannot be manifested before it is manifested.

    Cause is a consideration, therefore, cause of consideration has to be projected backwards to seem as if it occurred before the manifestation.


    It seems that the concept of Cause has an alter-is built into it.


  3. By elastic and sticky, I am describing how I view it mechanically. Fluid is the view of the view of space that I see after the big bang. Then I see accretion as the resulting phenomena of the elasticity of space. The elastic force may be what we call “gravity.”

      • I am trying to be careful not to consider too much about the locations in space. We already accurately calculate the forces at work between these locations in space and leap to the conclusion that the forces are caused by the locations. However counter-intuitively, I want to concentrate on the characteristics of the space “between the locations” as a possible source for the accretion of those locations.

  4. We seem to have a fractal here:


    (1) ‘What is” could very well be the fundamental filter one is looking through to comprehend the unknowable.

    (2) The next layer of filter many be generated in an attempt to comprehend the first layer of filter.

    (3) Thus, successive layers of filters may be generated in attempts to comprehend the previous layer of filter.

    (4) Thus, we have the make-up of self as an “onion” of filters.

    (5) The “Individuality” of self may come from a few outermost layers of this onion.


  5. I revised and added to the Original Post. I did this rather than commenting about the OP here in the body of comments. I am trying to promote the idea of space as a dynamic substance with properties.

  6. I’ve added this pertinent comment about desire here under “what is gravity” as well as writing it in Vinaire’s blog under comment 6138.

    Desire to be seems manifested throughout the universe as gravity. It is woven utterly into the physics of the two terminal universe as attractive force. Even inertia is expresses itself as “desiring” bodies in motion to remain in motion and bodies at rest “desiring” to remain at rest.

    Anthropomorphically we call this desire, affinity, love, sex, and etc.,. Physically we have “charged” particles, gravity, electromotive forces, vacuums, and all manner of instabilities.

    Maybe a better understanding of the physics of gravity will improve our understanding of our own desire. This is consistent with the definition and sense of “universe.”

  7. Before accretion there is gravity. Describing gravity as being caused by mass seems secondary to me. Before there is mass, what is there? There is both gravity and spacetime which in its earlier states contains all the ingredients for energy and matter and mass. Because accretion seems to be both ancient and extant, I believe that space contains the both the malleability and elasticity (picture taffy) to gather (gravity) itself together into perceivable energy and matter and then like peeling the skin off cooling fresh pudding the perceptible world coalesces leaving space yet composed of “dark” energy and yet enough mass to hold the universe together.

    Possibly we could say that “Mass is condensed gravity.” But why is and how is there such an attractive force? Every moment of our lives we feel its force like a rushing liquid, the force of gravity washes over us dragging at us toward the center of the Earth. The entire subject of balance is the subject of stabilizing ourselves and the objects in our world against the coursing forces of space time rushing toward and gathering itself toward the center of our Earth. This is our relativity and our frame of reference.

    • Nice job on the OP, Chris.

      Re: “We might one day discover that “self” is one of the products of the properties of space.”, I will still contend that self is the creator of space, not the other way around. I contend that because I can causatively change my volume – or create my own space – within the common 3-space. That is real to me whereas the concept of 3-space creating me is not real to me.

      If self has the ability to create space, then all of creation becomes understandable in a very simple way. If space can be created in various geometries then properties will be seen to ensue from the geometry. Take, for instance, a tornado as an example of observable geometry. Fantastic force resides within the vortex yet just a short distance from the vortex little or no force is felt.

      This geometric model seems the most appropriate model for gravity. The force encountered in the vortex does not rely on some mass different from the vortex and vortices that chanced to come together would probably add to appear as a singular vortex with increased force. This would be what I would expect from space vortices: that they would add and seem to focus on a common point. This also shows why gravity appears as unidirectional: the force vectors are always pointing along the axis of the vortex and towards the bottom of the vortex, irrespective of the spin direction of the vortex.

      The vortex model could be shown to fit from one particle all the way up to a black hole. To date I haven’t come across any data that leads me to think this is not possible.

  8. Pingback: Quora

  9. My eldest son sent me this *.gif showing a good graphic of the motion of a massive object in spacetime. It shows the space deflecting toward the center of the massive object. The deflection is most acute nearest the center of that massive object. Gravity is neutralized at the very center of that massive object.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s