The electroweak force works at the quantum level but not very well at the macro level... There is always a trade-off.

Just as photons are the intermediary particle for the electromagnetic force, gravitons are *supposedly* the intermediary particle for the gravitational force.

You can also imagine gravity as a "field" that gets stronger as you approach the center of mass... Just as an electromagnetic field gets stronger as you approach its center of charge.

Yet another way of visualizing it - Physicists have been speculating the *possible* existence of "negative energy" particles, which implies negative mass also. Tachyons are one example. A really big object in space is most likely gonna be electromagnetically neutral. Really small objects such as baryons, mesons, leptons, quarks, electrons (some are inclusive with each other) usually have some sort of electromagnetic charge. You can do the same with the gravitational force... A really large object is likely to have a really large gravitational field while a really small object is likely to have almost no gravitational field whatsoever.

All of this, especially the last paragraph, is just off the top of my head. I usually give myself a little while to think on the topic, but I have to go :-p. Actually I can see some glaring errors in my post, but I hope it will at least help to fuel the flames to keep the ideas coming :)

• RE: RE: Is Gravity a misnomer? - Roq - October 20, 2000 - 03:27 UTC
  • RE: RE: RE: Is Gravity a misnomer? - Bladesinger - October 20, 2000 - 03:49 UTC
    • RE: RE: RE: RE: Is Gravity a misnomer? - CL - October 23, 2000 - 02:50 UTC
      • RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Is Gravity a misnomer? - Bladesinger - October 23, 2000 - 04:12 UTC
        • Thanx!! - CL - October 23, 2000 - 23:25 UTC
      • RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Is Gravity a misnomer? - Roq - October 23, 2000 - 09:37 UTC
        • RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Is Gravity a misnomer? - Bladesinger - October 24, 2000 - 01:08 UTC