10 Controversial Theories About The Universe's Toughest Questions
6. Gravity: Not A Force
OK, so gravity can't be controversial right? You throw a ball in the air it comes back. We know the Earth and the other planets go round the sun because of gravity, so how can it possibly be controversial?
Well, here's the thing, nobody really understands gravity. That's not to say we can't describe it mathematically and use its properties to describe many of the things we see around us, but there are several problems with it. First of all, it's too weak. Why are you able to jump at all when the gravity of an entire planet is pulling down on you? We can calculate and describe this effect, but gravity doesn't seem to exist as a fundemental force of nature- at least at the quantum level.
Gravity certainly has an effect, we can see that when comets hurl into Jupiter or fly round the sun, we can see it with star formation and the three body problem. But our current theory of gravity alone cannot explain why the stars at the outer edges of a galaxy move at the speed they do. They should be moving much slower, but they're not.
Here is your controversial theory: Gravity is a cumulative effect of the displacement of space-time due to matter. Matter exists within space-time but they cannot exist in the same space so as matter condenses and comes together it distorts the space around it. As the space expands in a wave the matter around it reacts like surf being pulled in together causing a chain reaction. This distortion then acts like a plughole in a sink pulling in all the matter in its wake. Once you get to a certain level the next set of forces kick in, pushing the particles away from each other. If there is sufficient mass pushing down on a cloud of gas, say, then nuclear fusion takes place as the strong force is overcome and protons merge to form new elements. The heavier the element, the more protons and neutrons it has, the more it distorts space, the greater its gravity.
Gravity is an effect, not a fundamental force.