Newton formulated the second law of motion: the body is accelerated only by receiving energy from another body. But where is another body - a source of energy - when a stone falls on the Earth? Is this the innate ability of the masses to attract "godlike power"?
300 years after Newton, we must deal with the nature of gravity. A. Einstein proclaimed the innate property of mass to distort space-time. The essence of the theory is that Einstein watches the stone fall, falling along with it. But where does the observer himself get energy for his acceleration? The game of tensors does not reveal the nature of gravity.
Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is the solution of Maxwell's equations. The gravitational constant is not fundamental. This means that gravity is not an innate property of mass. Gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon. More details in the book "Electromagnetic Gravity. Part 2" in my profile.
If someone achieved your second alternative they would be famous.
so Im afraid that only you first alternative is true.
somewhere along the line I think you get mixed up between
gravity and EM theory.
I already publish a preprint about this. I invite you to consult my short communication about the cosmological constant.
Juan Weisz
Dear Juan,
I did not understand you. You want to say that my result is wrong? Lok at the picture, please. It is page 35 of the book "Electromagnetic Gravity. Part 2" in my profile.
Yours
Valeriy Pakulin
Marcel Richard Balseanu
Dear Marcel,
You say: "...the results lead to identification of the physical characteristics of the smallest unit of mass that can generate a gravitational quanta."
I think that thesis "Gravitons carry attraction" is wrong. Gravitons as carriers can push only. I wrote the book "Electromagnetic Gravity. Part 2" in my profile about this things
Yours
Valeriy Pakulin
PS
I can not find your preprint about Gravitational Constant.
Dear Valerly, you can find my short communication here:
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
This prove that values found for graviton are correct.
Valery
what I say is that current understanding is that G is a fundamental and independent physical constant.
It would be an uphill battle to show otherwise.
When something falls in the gravitational field, you loose
gravitational potential energy, but gain kinetic energy.
This is conservation of energy, but has nothing to do with
subtracting energy from another body.
Revise basic physics.
Juan Weisz
Dear Juan,
1. I suggest not current but new understanding only.
2. "When something falls in the gravitational field" what creates gravity? You are talking about a stone thrown vertically up. I ask you to consider an asteroid that has flown to Earth from infinity.
3. I thank you for advice to revise basic physics. I do it every day.
Yours
Valeriy Pakulin
You do not create the gravity, the gravity is already there.
It is simply that masses have gravity.
Conservation of energy works for either up or down motion.
asteroids fall into the moon or earth all the time. what is the problem?
Juan Weisz
Dear Juan,
You write: "It is simply that masses have gravity." Your words are a model of metaphysical thinking. You consider the mass as a separate object, independent of other objects. Your mass has an innate ability to attract. But this idea was considered medieval superstition even during Newton's time.
Try to think dialectically. One mass attracts another mass through the external environment. The mass-environment system gives rise to gravity. There is no gravitational field as a material object. Therefore, G is expressed in terms of mass properties and medium properties i.e. electromagnetic field.
Yours
Valeriy Pakulin