# Theory of Gravity?

The theory of Gravity is still just that, a theory. Like all mysteries of the world I like to wonder why with all the brains in this world there is still no solid answers to obvious questions like what is gravity and how is it caused. I have many other questions but for now let’s stick on this topic. Before I start I also would like to say this is my Theory and I have not trouble shooted, cross-checked, or contacted Einstein from the grave to get a professional second opinion.

The first popular theory of gravity was Isaac Newton’s theory which is based on the amount of mass is what defines the strength of gravity. So the more dense a object the more gravity it has. In this theory all particles and asteroids in space and all particles and objects here on earth have gravity. The amount of gravity is depending on their density.

Albert Einstein‘s theory of gravity is based on space and time working together to shift the fabric of that moment. Somehow the in-balance of time and space creates a vacuum that connects objects together.

Charles Yarbrough‘s theory of gravity is something new but growing on the internet. My theory is that gravity is created by the core of planets along with density. In the center of our planet is a spinning core that to this day has no popular explanation to why it exists. I believe simply as planets die the core dies and gravity dies down. I believe a planet is different then asteroids because they have a core that adds a balanced gravity allowing them to stay in position to the sun.

My contest to Newton:

If density was the main and only reason for gravity then the largest planet Jupiter would have more matter gravitating around it. But as we all know Saturn has the rings of matter gravitating around it. I think simply Saturn has a bigger more active core.

Another example is the size of the SUN (which also has a core), it’s huge compared to the earth and in matter much more dense. So if density was the only factor for gravity then the Sun would suck us into it about a million times over. I think more logically the Sun is a core just like what’s in each planet and slowly losing it’s power hence why mars was a habitat at one time. The sun’s dwindling gravity has allowed mars to drift to far for life to survive there. Next Earth will drift someday (if the Sun doesn’t implode first) and Venus we will be the lucky one. In fact I think the suns fading core will end earths life support faster then Earth losing it’s own core. I base this on Mars and other planets still having their core active beyond the life support distance tot he sun.

But I also wonder if oil is a lubricant for the earths core and we are sucking it dry. This of course would mean fossil fuels are a myth and oil comes from the earth’s lava core and simply grabs fossils and junk on the way to the earths service. If this is true then we might kill our core before the Sun allows us to drift out of the life supporting distance to the sun.

I also question why asteroid’s do not have gravity, they only have trails which are caused from the vacuum of flying though space. I base this on comets only having trailing matter if it had gravity you would see matter off to the sides or even in front.

As for Einstein’s theory, it’s still a little to heavy for me to challenge. Once you enter the world of Quantum mechanics ideas can get really out there and have no proximity for cross or fact checking. I have watched the secret, but I have my own explanation for self manifestations.

So if my theory is true then the Earth has a deadline three different ways (Sun Core Loss, Natural Earth Core Loss, Unnatural Earth Core Loss), and eventually life will ultimately lose support either way. In which case we will need to move to a new planet. Now whether god will re-locate us or we will need to master space travel we will just have to decide when time is more of the essence.

As for now I just wanted try and close two questions we should of figured out long ago. But of course this is only theory and the majority of the world would say different.

1. The core of planets is a generator for gravity along with mass. To be a planet you need the addition of a core to keep the planet in position to the sun and moons. Yet
2. All planets are slowly moving away from the sun as the cores of planets and the sun fade.
3. Gravity simply exists on planets and moons because their cores are still active.
4. Mass only attracts smaller connections.
5. The sun is one big exposed super-core with a even stronger center core.
6. Moons would not exist if the core of planets and the sun did not exist.

### I believe in web 2.0

• serhat
August 25, 2012 at 12:23 pm

A lot of the information you have provided is incorrect. the theory itself may be. I have even wrote a 10000 work document on this. However I did this 6 years ago.

• chazeAuthor
August 30, 2012 at 9:27 pm

Yeah I realize this, but I also question everything we think is fact up to this point. I wish I could jump ahead a 1000 years and see what they know. Fact is based on stable cell structures, when you understand that there is nothing stable in the universe it gives a whole new understanding to anything is truly possible. Then factor in time perception and that a fleeting moment for a different being could be a 200 years span for another, then add that a thought could seem real if caught in it long enough like many people we call insane or delusional and then factor in the size of the universe, and well the simple fact is all we think is real and fact is still subjective when so many unexplained things still exist. I would guess in (100-200 years hopefully I will be here) electricity will be transported without wires. I think it’s just a matter understanding the linear waves that these can be passed on. Kind of like what Einstein Said, that all life is on waves rather then one line like we see it. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/einstein.html

Then if you factor all the repressed knowledge and government and corporate detours (like renewable energy still not being used even though it’s obviously available) in science and technology I just like the idea of thinking far out of the box despite obvious current fact.

• James
March 9, 2014 at 9:33 pm

So I tried to read this article with an open mind, which I did. But there are far too many flaws in your argument for this to be seriously considered. However, you did have very good questions, questions I had always wondered as well. So now that I have the answers to some of these questions I will try to inform you as well. First of all, let me correct you on one thing, according to Newton (and Einstein) the force of gravity is NOT dependent on density, it is dependent upon mass. Density is defined as the mass per unit volume of an object. In other words, a ball of clay is going to weigh the same, even if you compress it (make it more dense) it is going to read the same amount on a scale. Although you might have used the term density by mistake. You also say that because of the density (although I believe you meant mass) of the Sun the earth would be sucked into it. This is not true. The earth is moving very fast around the sun, this allowing the earth to keep its distance (look up some orbital mechanics, its very interesting stuff). You also question why asteroids don’t have gravity. Simply put, they do. I don’t know who told you they didn’t but they were wrong. As for the tails that comets have, this arises actually from solar winds (also something I recommend looking up). As a comet gets closer to the sun, it heats up. This causes ice inside of the comet to become a gas. This shoots water vapor (along with dust that comes along for the ride) to exit the comet. The solar wind from the sun then pushes the dust and water vapor back behind the comet. Hope this helped