What Creates Gravity?

I wanted to know if anyone here could show me if my idea is
flawed or not. My idea is to try to explain the nature of space
and gravity, that they are both related becouse the expansion
of space, what exerts gravity on mass objects.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. and that the larger clumbs would draw
the smaller ones into it, if they got close enough to them.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.But, what in space is making gravity on objects that are not
spinning?? Like our moon, which really has no spin in it, 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.but I still needed to explain how mass makes gravity.
and this is what I came up with.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 in ward force onto the mass object
hence gravity. and the amount of gravity asserted is in relation to it's
mass.Is this idea flawed? is there something I did not consider?Zcoder....

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

What does "spinning" have to do with gravity? Newton was able to explain the force gravity exerts on objects without motion of any sort being involved, and he did so three centuries ago. A "space is rushing away?" Where is any evidence for that?Liquids "ball up" because liquids have a property we call surface tension. The only thing different about being free-floating on the Shuttle is that the droplets are easier to see. Exactly the same phenomenon happens with a leaky spigot or a rainstorm - the "balls" just happen to fall if they're non in "zero-G."

I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps he saw the movie Armaggedon and got the idea that gravity comes from spinning?

This is the third time you've posted the same thing while ignoring previous responses to this very same cut & paste stuff. I think when you asked us if there was any flaw in your so-called logic you didn't really mean for us to answer you. I think you are here just to look for confirmation and some pats on the back for what a wonderful theory you've come up with.And stop pressing the enter button. This isn't AIM chat.On a side note, beside English what other language(s) do you speak?

yes.
you need to consider reading what gravity is first.

I'm not sure anyone really knows exactly how that works. Are there gravitons or no? Can gravitation be linked to any of the other fundamental forces? And so on.

---

"And, lo, a great beast did stand before me, having seven heads, and on each head were there seven mouths, and in each mouth were there seventy times seven teeth. For truly there were seven times seven times seven times seventy teeth, meaning there were. . . okay, carry the three, adding twenty. . . plus that extra tooth on the third mouth of the sixth head. . . Well, there were indeed a great many teeth" - The Revelation of St. Bryce the Long-WindedHelp inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

It must have something to do with it. Angular momentum is a variable in the Kerr metric and related solutions.But physics isn't my field, so I'm just going off what I can research.Edited by Doddy, : speeling

---

"And, lo, a great beast did stand before me, having seven heads, and on each head were there seven mouths, and in each mouth were there seventy times seven teeth. For truly there were seven times seven times seven times seventy teeth, meaning there were. . . okay, carry the three, adding twenty. . . plus that extra tooth on the third mouth of the sixth head. . . Well, there were indeed a great many teeth" - The Revelation of St. Bryce the Long-WindedHelp inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Spin has nothing to do with "gravity", but it certainly affects "gravitation" - the difference being that gravity is what pulls us down, where-as gravitation is curvature of space-time causing the appearance of what we call gravity.Ang mom is a source of stress-energy, and a spinning object will also drag space-time around with it - an effect we have measured around the Earth (another great prediction+observation for GR)But in no way is "spin" the source of "gravity"

That's like asking "how does two legs, two wings, a beak, and feathers make a bird???" That's what it is!!!Mass is that which causes warping of space-time - and via some clever stuff, inertia. Our only experience of mass is in this context - it is just hidden by everyday life. It is not some unusal secondary aspect of mass.At our current level of knowledge, the universe is made of up fields (which we try to unify into one field) Excitations of these fields all contribute to affecting one particular sub-field (or master field), the metric. The level of excitation we call gravitational mass and the actual effect on the metric field we call warping of space-time.So, "how does mass make gravity?" is easy - that's what it does by definition.But, "why does mass make gravity?" is at a deeper level: "why do the fields interact in this way?" and this is where String Theory, SuperGravity and the like come in...Edited by cavediver, : inserted an 'a'... to 'make bird' sounds a little dubious

Thermodynamics Second law "quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time."which I knew back when I was a kid. so sence we don't really know what
in space is cousing gravity on mass objects then can we still say that
gravity is a force of energy that is being expelled all over the univers
by mass objects?Zcoder....

OMG, out of all the years I've tried to explain this to people, this is the best way I've ever seen anyone put it. Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

That's caused by surface tension, not gravity.

No, we can't. Force and energy are two different things.

yeah, thats right, but if that force has already pushed things down
to the surface of an object, then was it not used as energy?
expelled as work?Umm, I am confused.Zcoder....