on an atomic level, do you suppose gravity is simply the effects of "leaked" atomic binding force?
447511
The atomic binding force you refer to is called strong nuclear force.  The particle that mediates this force is called a gluon.  It is bound to the subatomic quarks that make up matter, and has no strength outside of the nucleus. While the strength of its force inside a nucleon (72 tons per gluon, minimum of three) is massive, its force declines at nucleus level where it can be overcome by weak nuclear force.  Since it is entirely dependant on quarks for its existence, and will only interact with quarks and other gluons, it has no ablility to affect matter at the atomic level.  The effect of gravity on such a small scale, due to the low mass of matter involved, is negligable
345992
Yes. The gravitational force is not that weak.\nNote also that the pressure difference is not sudden at all, higher and higher into the atmosphere, the pressure becomes lower as the weight of the particles above becomes less. As the pressure gets lower, the effect of gravity is also lower.\nWe do still lose some air particles into space, but not a significant quantity.
738834
d is the most correct answer, yes.  \n\nHowever keep in mind that despite g being the "gravitational constant", acceleration caused by gravity DOES change depending on the the distance from the earth.  When we're talking about the difference of a table, there is practically no difference, however keep in mind that it does change.
909451
The energy per unit volume of a gravitational mass is the pressure holding the mass together. so if you multipy the gravitational pressure that hold the mass together by the area enveloping the gravitational mass you obtain the total force surounding the mass.\nAs Sherlock Holmes would say = "elementary...\nTherefore from this analysis we see that The gravitational force is proportional to the curvature of the gravitational mass which in turns causes a curvature of the space gravity field.\nAnd that is the whole principle of gravity.\nIt took me years to figure that one out.
469212
See if this helps.\n\nhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atomic/hund.html
248052
its the same as why does gravity not apply in the subatomic...when we know the answer a new dawning in science will amaze the world...
918873
If it were posible for the neutronium to exist in a plane, then yes, I think so. However, neutronium is so dense that its own gravity will pull it into a sphere. If you got close enough to look at it, it would pull you in and you would be a (very thin) stain on the surface.\n\nNeutron stars are supposed to be made mostly of neutronium. If two collided or got close enough for their tides to pull one apart, then small pieces might be left. But neutronium is supposed to be very unstable. It is only its own gravity that binds the electrons and protons together so that they merge and lose their identities. \n\nFor very massive neutron stars (just short of being black holes, I guess) their inner layers are supposedly a quark-gluon soup. \n\nFor very small ones or pieces broken off, if that is possible, if there is not enough gravity to keep the particles together, the electrons and protons will regain their identities and the nuclear interctive forces will reassert themselves, and the mesons will begin to interact between the electrons and protons again,. What would happen is that the small piece of neutronium would erupt in a burst of energy and high energy particles. \n\nS/F writers like H. Beam Piper (in the 60's) postulated that we would learn to control nuclear forces like we learned to control electricity and have (what he called ) 'collapsium' plated spacecraft, where the outer shells of the electrons were in contact with the nuclei (what we would now call 'degenerate matter'.) Such a plating (a tiny fraction of an inch thick) would protect like several feet of lead shielding. It would also weigh more than many feet of lead shielding! (He also proposed that we would have antigravity by now.)\n\nTheoretically, a sphere of neutronium would be perfectly reflective, and the noted s/f author Larry Niven used that feature in his classic story There Is A Tide (1968, Galaxy magazine.)\n\n15 NOV 06, 1632 hrs, GMT.
48603
In addition to Professer Beatz's answer it is good to note that it is believed that the gravitational force interacts via the graviton.  The graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that transmits the force of gravity in most quantum gravity systems. In order to do this, one theory posits that gravitons have to be always-attractive (gravity never pushes), work over any distance (gravity is universal) and come in unlimited numbers (to provide high strengths near stars). In quantum theory, these requirements define an even-spin (spin 2 in this case) boson with a rest mass of zero.  However, to date the graviton's existence is yet to be discovered by experiment.\n\nGravitons are postulated simply because quantum theory has been so successful in other fields. For instance, the electromagnetic interaction can be very well explained by the application of quantization to photons, a science known as quantum electrodynamics. In this case photons are being continually created and destroyed by all charged particles, and the interactions between these photons produce the familiar effects of electricity and magnetism. In the same way, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are mediated by gluons and by W and Z bosons, respectively.
1128645
Well, as far as scale, it's easier to think of a proton as grape in the middle of a football field, an electron would be in the endzone. As far as strength compared to gravity...its about 10^36 times as strong. So if you weighed 150 lbs, and you were converted to an "electron-thingy", you would wiegh 150,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000 lbs.
247359
Mass interacting with gravity
158544
hmm....by power I'm pretty sure you are just asking what causes the "attractive force" of gravity? .... the short answer is that matter itself (objects with mass) impose a curvature on the surrounding spacetime which we feel as the attractive force of gravity. \n\nThe more complicated answer is that a quantam theory of gravity would have to be eventually discovered as to make gravity consistent with the other three forces now explained by quantum mechanics..(electromagnetic, weak, strong). Each one of these forces is mediated by an associated particle (electromagnetic- photon, weak-w boson, strong- gluon). The problem is that at the current time no one has ever found the theorized graviton which would be the force mediator for gravity. It has also been speculated that the idea of "mass" is itself mediated by a particle known as the Higgs Boson. This particle along with the graviton would go a long way to explain the most familiar force in our daily lives... but the most mysterious as far as science is concerned.
140789
Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces.  If you take the smallest amounts of the quantities that each force depends on (mass for gravity, charge for electromagnetic, etc.) and put them the same distance apart, then gravity is by far the weakest force.   But you have to use a very small distance, because the strong and weak forces are only short-range forces; they don't extend out much beyond the radius of a nucleus.  Consider the interaction between two quarks that are 3 x 10^-17 m apart.  Their strong nuclear interaction is about 100 times stronger than their electomagnetic interaction, about 1,000,000 times stronger than the weak interaction, and about 10^43 times stronger than the gravitational interaction.
704788
According to Mark McCutcheon and his Final Theory (of everything), gravity is the result of everything in the universe expanding at a universal constant atomic expansion rate (XA) of 0.00000077 per second squared. \n\nFrom his book:\n\n"This numeric result for the universal atomic expansion rate, XA, means that we can now calculate the amount of overall expansion each second of any atom, object, or planet simply by multiplying their radii by XA. Multiplying the radius of the Earth by XA gives 4.9 meters, which is the distance an object "falls due to gravity" on Earth in its first second. So, in essence, we can now calculate the effective gravity of every atom, object, and planet simply by knowing their size. This is radically different from Newton's idea of gravity, which states that a gravitational force emanates from all objects in proportion to their mass."\n\nSo, as all atoms composing the Earth and all the atoms composing yourself are growing at a certain expansion rate, and since the Earth proportionally grows faster than you, in reality you are never falling towards the Earth, on the contrary the Earth is pushing you constantly as it grows. \n\nYou would not feel falling in a free fall (in a vacuum), the Earth would be growing towards you very fast at a speed of 4.9 meters per second. As you also grow in size yourself at the same expansion rate, the distance between you and the Earth shrinks at a speed of 9.8 meters per second squared.\n\nNo strange force emanating from objects, attracting each other. Simply shrinking distances between them due to everything expanding at a constant rate. That is gravity according to Mark McCutcheon.\n\nSee the link below. It is not very clear on that website what the new gravity theory is all about, but if you contact me I will give you all the details. This is the kind of thing that could change the future, and yet, could virtually pass unnoticed in the history of humanity. Check it out... Mark McCutcheon probably does not have all the answers, but I'm sure he is up to something important which could answer many of your questions you have asked so far.
78209
Nope, the magnetic information (not electronic!) doesn't weigh anything, it's all related to the orientation of the "magnetic moment" (up or down) of the atoms i.e. the way atoms are turning (to make it simple). they're not heavier if they turn in one sense than if they does in the other
210510
No, because you might have other forces acting on the object such as magnetic force and gravity.
666604
The reason that gravity can be described as a bending of space space is that it acts on everything equally. Electric charges and magnets don't--they attract some items, repel others, and have no effect on yet other things. I don't think that there is any way space could be bent that would be consistent with the behavior of these forces.
505249
no.its the force produced due to the movement of other particles(electrons).so..