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....
™ Version 4.2