Here one could reply with the relationship between distances, masses, and the attractive forces between those masses (in Newton’s or Einstein’s terms, where Einstein’s also includes distortions of space time from gravitational fields). But in either case I get the feeling that you want to know more about the mechanisms behind gravity and why masses have the gravitational interactions that they do. Am I correct? I don’t think this is something that is fully known or understood.
I’ve never considered gravity an act. The presence of a gravitational force attracting two bodies doesn’t mean that there is action. Especially if those bodies are being influenced by other forces.
There’s a limited range of applicability to the description of gravity as we know it. Under certain ranges/scales our descriptive “law of gravity” may not be useful for describing of predicting a system.I could see how this could be possibly confused for evolution or gravity not acting. But I think it’s more of an illustration of our imperfect understanding of gravity.
Any force in nature is mediated by exchange of a particle. For example, electromagnetic force is mediated by exchange of photo. There is a quantum theory which very nicely explain the nature of electromagnetic force known as quantum electrodynamic. We however don’t know how to quantize the gravity as the energy at which the quantum effect becomes dominant is so high, around Plank point which is not accessible in our current accelerator hence we still don’t know what is the nature of gravity.
Gravity is one of the fundamental mysteries of the universe. It was well known in Aristotle’s time ( 600 B.C. ) and we don’t know much more about it now than was known in his day.
Well, that is not the definition of gravity. That is a mathematical accomodation made to " save " the appearances. Further more, neither space or time " curve. " Once again that is a mathematical accomodation. The " curves " described are mathematical points on a multi-demensional graph. The are not meant to reflect the nature of either gravirty, space, or time.
Were the earth’s distribution of it’s mass uniform and if it’s shape were a perfect sphere I might find this curious. But the variations in the “apparent gravity” are accounted for by geology, topology, and latitude among a few other factors.
See post #11.
There’s a nice Wiki entry on the variations in gravity.
Yes., It can occur on any body with a non-uniform distribution of mass. (like the moon).
Could not tell you. I can only speak on how it is usually modeled. But a model of the behaviour of the system is not necessarily the same as what is really going on behind what is observable despite those models being good for making predictions.
Counterpoint:
Well, that is not the definition of gravity. That is a mathematical accomodation made to " save " the appearances. Further more, neither space or time " curve. " Once again that is a mathematical accomodation. The " curves " described are mathematical points on a multi-demensional graph. The are not meant to reflect the nature of either gravirty, space, or time.
I documented my claim. That’s why my post commands more respect than yours.