Crackpot
First, my area of expertise is psychology. And I'm an amateur at best. I don't speak science, I try, but ultimately I will fail. Yo hablo muy poco la ciencia. I do speak English however, so, we will try and use that.

Second, I will make my statement. And then in slots 3+ I will try to get us thinking on the same page. Then, (for those who aren't of scientific minds and wish to skip directly to the question), I will pose my question at the bottom in point 10. So please bear with me.

Considering everything I know about gravity. The most probable explanation, is that gravity is the point of least resistance.

(Crackpot says what? Hopefully, I haven't lost you yet. I have a lot of faith in intelligent people. Bear with me, and hopefully you will see what I am seeing.)

Right, simple. Mass is simple, not as simple as time, but still pretty simple. If you look it up on Wikipedia, you see it defined as a collection of phenomena that occurs when two objects interact in space.

But we are going to start with the aspect of mass that has to do with the resistance to relative movement.

I hate shoe-boxes. For the record, a shoe-box is a collection of seemingly associated things that science types like to stick in one pile.

So, if we are going to talk about mass, we will talk about it in parts.

1. An object's mass is equal to the amount of space it distorts or effects.
2. An object does distort space, or an object is created by said distortion, either way, same difference. Doesn't matter.
3. The distortion in space gives the object its mass.
4. Mass, and here is the critical line, is created when two objects effect the same space.

5. Take two pieces of paper. Sheet A & Sheet B. Both objects are separate objects, and can operate as separate objects. Now crumple them together, they are now one object. You may now say, "No they're not." You are right, they are still two separate objects. And technically, they aren't even touching each other.

6. But we have just increased the amount of energy required, for each of the separate objects to behave as a separate object.

7. When two objects operate within the same mutually, effected, space. In order for either of the objects to behave as an individual object. Requires energy.

8. Mass then equals, the amount of energy required for an object to behave as a single object within a given amount of space. Obviously, then, if the object is by itself, it has no mass. Introduce a second object, suddenly, they both have mass.

(Have I lost anybody yet?)

Fourth, alright, lets get back to gravity.

We have two objects.

Object A is large, we'll call it Earth. (Object A = Earth)

Object B is something smaller. Maybe a bowl of petunias thinking, "Oh no, not again."

We are going to assume for a moment that gravity doesn't work. No gravity. Object A, is not pulling on Object B.

1. Given what we know about mass, if Object A & Object B are co-inhabiting the same space. It requires more energy for either object to behave as a separate object, then as a single object.

2. Okay, lets pause time for a second. We have the Earth with a bowl of petunias suspended above it. No gravity, so its not being pulled down. The further away from the earth you get, the less it's mass effects the space, the less energy is required to move relative to it.

3. At first glance the object should move away from the planet. But, the bowl of petunias does not have an additional source of energy.

3.2. Lets step away from gravity for a second. Are you familiar with the law of Entropy? I have a similar law. I call it the law of the circle. Which states, that the simplest, possible thing that can happen will happen.
3.3. Basically, because it requires more energy to behave contrary to the natural flow of events. "A body in motion will remain in motion until it is effected by an equal or opposite force." An object will always take the simplest, lowest energy, possible, path that it can take.
3.4. Simply said, an object always seeks its simplest, or cheapest, possible energy state.

4. We take a ball and roll it down a hill.
4.2. We take a wall and stick it half way up the hill.
4.3. It requires less energy for the ball to roll around the wall, then to plow through the wall.
4.4. But because it would require more energy to move from its current course then to remain, it plows into the wall.

5. Back to our bowl of petunias. In order for the bowl to take the easier path, requires the input of additional energy.

6. So basically, Object B has become one with Object A. But we are not seeing a pull, yet. Gravity is suspended.

7. Remember point 2? Its about to have an encore performance.
QUOTE
The further away from the earth you get, the less it's mass effects the space, the less energy is required to move relative to it.

8. You are driving down the road, and you drift off the road, so that half of the car is in the dirt.
8.2. Because it requires more energy for half the car to move forward the same distance then the other half, the car will, "pull" away from the lower source of friction, towards the greater source.

9. Unfreeze time. We have a suspended bowl of petunias rotating around the Earth. Not because the Earth is pulling on it, but because that is its simplest energy state.

10. Now, finally, we get to my question. For those of you who made it this far. This is my problem.

Theoretically. Because the near side of our bowl of petunias is moving slower. The natural tendency of that bowl, seeking its lowest energy state, should be to move closer to the larger object.

Theoretically, as resistance increases, the more the forward motion will be turned into a downward motion.

I am proposing, that since both objects are coexisting within the same space. Object B will move towards Object A without object A needing to pull on object B.

Could inertia be the cause of what we know as gravity? Can you tell the difference, between a push and a pull? Would that natural tendency of movement explain what popular science knows as gravity?
AlexG
There really doesn't seem to be much of any worth here. Seems to be lots of circular reasoning, nothing quantitative at all and very little qualitative.

You might one to pick up some books on gravity and read up on it before attempting this again.
Whitewolf4869
QUOTE (AlexG+May 30 2012, 02:15 PM)
There really doesn't seem to be much of any worth here. Seems to be lots of circular reasoning, nothing quantitative at all and very little qualitative.

You might one to pick up some books on gravity and read up on it before attempting this again.

I see you have met our village idiot !
AlexG
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+May 30 2012, 04:05 PM)
I see you have met our village idiot !

Ah, our latest troll.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.