What Creates Gravity?

According to conventional BBT, was matter a property of spacetime at what is known as the singularity or did matter come to be at some point after spacetime first existed?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I still think that it is not possible to define a infinitely small frame of reference.
If infinitesimal reference frames exist then such frame should be able to make infinitesimal measurements.
Which makes the infinitesimal small frame of reference comparable with any large frame of reference.
How the infinitesimal frame of reference proposes to measure speed of ligth or laws of gravity ??
A frame of reference not only carries physical vectors and other physical attributes but also allows the inside observer to discover its own laws of space time and physics..
Such a frame runs into an infinite loop of problems.

mass is particles of "matter" in a collective. the collective "of"= atoms.atoms are varied in structure, and a lot about the models of atoms although fairly accurate by current tests, are still an "unseen" model, which is a "best guess" of what one looks like.these atoms structure is (as best known and modeled) a nucleus of charges with surrounding charges that move about a perimeter of the nucleus in a fashion and spacing that is different for each atom type. the types are what determine the type of material that makes up the object of matter.ie: steel, hydrogen etc have unique atom structures.now what I'm about to tell you is strictly my own theory, for, after seeing yours, i see the ability for you to think outside the box. however, the true answer is actually, "inside" the box. as i believe, and after reading my theory I'm sure you can agree the potential of truth extremely high, but as yet untested and unproven.matter works in a fairly predictable fashion. our math has been able to prove that statement, but our math only is only very useful as of yet, on collective matters, and not within the subatomic regions of mass. this mass that i speak of is mass that has enough collection to show measurable amounts of "gravity".now lets take an object of mass..say..a table. and lets apply the logic of force on this table. take a paper clip and a magnet, and a small rock..say..granite or any gravel on this table. place the objects on the far side of the table spaced from each other. now..walk to the other side of the table and bang your fist on it.nice bounce huh? thats force. waves of kinetic energy pass through all the masses and they will all jump from the force. so:force travels through matter.now, bang on the table again and again one after another..the objects will continue to bounce. again and again..thats a never ending force.. but its an outward force..and gravity is inward..so how does that help? step 2:now take 2 paper clips and the magnet. the magnet will have no trouble picking up the paper clip ..and place the other paper clip within the range of the other paper clip that the magnetic force and pick it up..it will..paper clip to paper clip..and you can make a fairly good chain of it..even longer than the magnets normal range of attraction..because the other paperclips being within contact of the magnetized force of magnetic attraction, utilizes and relys the force through the other objects, which have become an extension of the origin of the magnetic attraction.but it dont attract the stone..and gravity does.there is alot known about magnetism, but i wanted to relay the collective sharing since it is an inward force and not an outward kinetic strike, but an attraction instead.if you study the other attractive forces of matter, you'll find the greatest is actually not the large collective, but the very powerful force that holds atoms together themselves. it is infinitely more powerful than gravity, and the disruption of the force is what leads to atomic explosions, like the atomic bomb.since gravity is collective, and a collective of billions of atoms containing this "strong force", my theory is: the more collection of atoms, the greater the gravity, because gravity is the collective echo of the strong force in atoms. but like the magnet and the paper clips, the further away atoms are from each other, and the least the atoms, the less the gravity, because the less amplification of the atoms initial "strong" force.so the question them i ask is: from whence comes the constant striking? because as long as you strike a table the force that runs through it maintains the outward energy..but with an attractive force..in magnetism, its polarity..but in matter..its just a constant.my belief: the force that holds atoms together is the veins that hold everything together. its is the life of all things, maintained by existence. and without it, existence is not possible. because it is the very life of all energy and all that exists only works because it exists.something for you to think about at any rate. good luck in your journey.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Homogeneous gravity when applied to a group of test particles the mutual attraction between them is supposed to vanish. Which means that the mutual and self interactions of points have no effect of the geodesic.
At the same time all points are considered moving reference frames...
Now as I said the a point "reference frame" is no different from large reference frame. Therefore we end up with circular logic which cant be simplified for logical deductions...in other words the point to point gravitational interactions can not be neglected in point reference frames analysis.
Therefore the GR is wrong and inconsistent.

Just wondering how my basic physics-thinking is:1. The earth is spinning and therefore there is angular momentum 'throwing' us away from the earth. (or is this negligible? ...in which case the rest of my thoughts below are void)2. The earth's gravity due to it's mass is pulling us towards the centre (of mass) of the earth.3. The force from earth's gravity is greater than the angular momentum (obviously... since we're still on the surface).4. If the earth stopped spinning (and all the other disasters that would happen... didn't happen...) would the gravity caused by earth's mass "feel" a lot greater because there is no more angular momentum 'throwing' us off the planet?

You'd gain 1 part in 446.AbE: You'd gain 1 part in 11.3. See below.Edited by lyx2no, : Correct my self for the umpteenth time. Umpteenth is probably low.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

Really? I am not disputing your answer. Just surprised it is so low and interested to know how you calculated this figure.

Not at this latitude

r”g/v²v=1.9”10³ m/s
r=4.156”10⁶ m
g=9.81 m/s²I have a calculator, one of a dozen, that does something strange when using sin functions, but I'm too frugal to throw it away. I almost never use it, and I am always surprised when it gives me a wrong answer. (I had to use the sin functions to calculate v @ 49.25.)Edited by lyx2no, : Invert it.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.‘—

Thanks for your time.So we'ed feel about a tenth heavier.
At least I can still think in Newtonian terms :Thanks for all the calculations too.

Theory of GR fails on several accounts..
1.It fails to incorporate the local variation in Gravity.
2.It fails to explain why the space time should curve.
3.It fails to explain the effects of measurement on point particles.
No measurement can be made without changing the state of the system.
4.It fails to explain why should we ignore the temperature or randomness in initial conditions...
5.It fails to explain why only curved space time should be the only solution. There are several other possibilities... Including the Whitehead solutions and the SVT solutions.
6.It fails to explain why curvature should be understood as mass(gravity).
7.It fails to explain why should mass manifest in the nature.
8.It fails to account for the zero acceleration inside a massive shell and a real zero acceleration in space.
Overall the GR theory is a waste of time.

Einstein said nothingness of space has a weird property it can expand but when it does it has its own energy.P.S. Everyone is talking about when space expands being the opposite of gravity. Is it not possible that space curving is just space shrinking instead of expanding due that spacetime has ability to shrink too?Einstein said when space expands nothingness has its own energy and is not diluting spacetime when space expands thus is not the reverse happening when spacetime shrinks (curves)? is nothing taking its part of spacetime energy so the present and the future space energy is not being diluted ? yet nothingness (shrinking and expanding) is this part of what is propelling the earth forward from the present as the earth is moving forward thru spacetime? Is the earth a mini time machine shrinking spacetime (yet not diluting existing space energy) to move the earth forward thru time? Is not that what Einsteing relativity is a bit about why on a spaceship the clock would turn at a different rate? Are they not talking about the rate time moves from the present forward thru spacetime? Energy is said not able to be created nor destroyed but appears nothing is taking its part of space time energy forward from the present and not diluting spacetimes energy but shrinks space because nothing just takes it out of the present. If energy can not be destroyed then is the expansion simply nothing carrying energy from the past expanding space outward from the present? Is not this why we hear terms like the fabric of spacetime, etc...P.S. If the past is shrinking and the present expanding is that a problem with the big bang theory? Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Really? I am surprised... Of course GR incorporates the local variation in Gravity - why would suggest otherwise? Of course GR explains why space time should curve - you just don't understand the explanation Of course GR explains the effects of measurement on point particles - you're really out of your depth by now... What temperature or randomness in initial conditions? Amd which initial conditions are you talking about? And what has this to do with GR? You really have no clue as to what you are talking about. Oh FFS, where do you get this garbage? GR may be thought of as a meta-theory but it's not a sodding meta-meta-theory, with the ability to explain why other specific theories are not correct Good job too, as curvature is not mass, nor is it "gravity". But it certainly explains the relationship between curavture, mass and "gravity" - you just don't understand the explanation. Actually it gives some of the deepest insights into the nature of mass that we have - unsurprisingly, you have no clue as to these insights... Of course it accounts for it - how the fuck do you think we KNOW that there is zero acceleration inside a massive shell For your little mind? I quite agree... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

1.Particles which experiences "any" force in GR moves on a curved space time along the straight lines...
However it is equally possible that particles move on flat space time along the curved lines...
Did you notice the difference ?
Moving along straight lines helps satisfy our desire for inertial movement... Except this difference the point of views are computationally same.
Moving along straight lines on curved space time is related to the flat space time but curved motion by coefficients of space metric.
There is no difference except in the choice of background geometry.
This is sign of a false theory which atleast conceptually creates an impression of absolute theory.
2.Apart from the mathematical difficulty there are physical problems too. The main problem is with the local group of particles which are used in the derivation... the point particles are assumed to be the reference frame which is either wrong or leads us into a circular logic becuase due to any small mass, the flat minkowski space time can not exist in the frame of reference of any particle.
Therefore derivation cant proceed in the beyond the ideal SR theory(non-gravitational).It is a useless theory which creates a mathematical monster but provides no new insights into the problem expect reformulating "all" mechanical problems in hypothetical curved space time to satisfy the desire to achieve inertial motion.Here "all" stands for all kinds of tensors... gravitational,non-gravitational.

Oh, so you completely agree with Special Relativity? Which derivation? Can you show me? For real particles, it doesn't. So? Next? Ah, if you define "useless" to mean "one of the two most successful theories that science has ever discovered" then I'm in complete agreement. Just for laughs, if GR is completely incorrect, how do you explain the evidence? Just coincidence?