Recapping. If we are to suggest the Photon has somehow a gravity component, then we must also say the Electron has one due to the fact that the Electron creates the Photon. Yet if that were the case then why would the Electron be orbiting the Nulceus? Yes of course, while those 2 remain slim chances for the net macro gravity field eg. "gravity radiation", in the subatomic world, the source of "gravity" is within the Nucleus.

We also know that the graviton wherever it may be, must be a spin 2 particle because a gravity field is a vector.
That is actually not my conclusion but others, and I take it with a grain of salt, because should a new particle, the graviton, not be discovered, therein may lie the mistake.

"Jefferson Lab experiments shed light on proton spin mystery"

"It's a conundrum that's confounded the curious for several decades. In the past, some called it a crisis. More recently, it's come to be known as a puzzle: a mystery that has occupied the minds of thousands of researchers worldwide. Call it the Case of the Missing Spin. A mathematical property of all subatomic particles, including quarks, spin is roughly equivalent to the physical rotation of an object in the macroscopic world.

Physicists have long wondered how the properties (including the spin) of the protons and neutrons inside an atomic nucleus can be explained in terms of quarks, their most elementary building blocks."

"...The extremely surprising thing we found out is that the spin of the quarks is not contributing much to the proton or neutron spin: maybe 25 percent, or even less."

"Seen individually, at high resolution and at small distances, quarks are point-like, and appear independent from each other. But subatomic particles (like protons) are essentially "built" at medium distances; that is, the interactions of one or more quark varieties at intermediate ranges determine the structures of protons and neutrons. It is at these distances that the quarks are coupled to one another, like springs in a mattress that move together in response to weight."

"Scientists think that the "missing" spin could in fact be hidden in plain view, a component of the complex, extended structures that include quarks and the quark-binding particles known as gluons. As quarks move around, they may exchange gluons at medium distances. By understanding such interactions, and how they determine and affect spin, scientists will have a far clearer knowledge of how protons and neutrons hold together inside a nucleus, enabling atoms, and eventually molecules, to form and endure."

"...probe medium distances so we see what's happening in the transition region, where quarks are no longer free and individual, but conspire to form protons and their resonant excited states." (http://www.jlab.org/)

The Proton is a + charge on the Electron, it is a 1/2 spin consisting of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark.

The Neutron is also a 1/2 spin, with 1 up quark and 2 down quarks.

Here is a very interesting paper in short suggesting that in order to get to quantum gravity, we must merge quantum field theory with topological quantum field theory that would provide a mathmatical foundation in which general relativity and quantum theory come together. It stresses the need to find a background-free quantum theory with local degrees of freedom propagating causally.

(1999 John Baez) http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/planck.html

"Modern theoretical physics is difficult to understand for anyone outside the subject. Can philosophers really contribute to the project of reconciling general relativity and quantum field theory? Or is this a technical business best left to the experts? I would argue for the former. General relativity and quantum field theory are based on some profound insights about the nature of reality. These insights are crystallized in the form of mathematics, but there is a limit to how much progress we can make by just playing around with this mathematics. We need to go back to the insights behind general relativity and quantum field theory, learn to hold them together in our minds, and dare to imagine a world more strange, more beautiful, but ultimately more reasonable than our current theories of it. For this daunting task, philosophical reflection is bound to be of help."

On the perception of gravity.

http://www.tompotter.ws/menu.html

I'm starting to think finding a "gravity particle" is like trying to find a "time particle", it's a phenomenon caused by spin and angular momentum and the very definition of gravity is based on a false perception.

If we are to describe, ignore a gravity component for a second and go to a space experiment involving liquids, you'll see that in space, 0 G effectively, that when you spin a liquid in free space you get a spining vortex or whirlpool and imagine if you will the bubbles and in particular thier angular momentum and "orbit". Spin along with the understanding of classical mechanics is something that should not be forgotten no matter how simple it is. If spin was not important to what we see, percieve and feel, then it would not be of any use in the atomic, subatomic structure. Mass is the distortion of space-time. If we spin mass, we are moving a space-time component around it so that without breaking space-time, space-time itself fills the void by its own self. When we move space-time around, we create a drag or pull effect in the direction of the spin, that pull is felt by other bodies. Example the spin of the Sun will pull the Earth. Another example, if you drag your hand through water, you are creating a drag or pull effect to whatever is behind your hand. Blackholes... We are ultimatly talking about the existence of a free moving ether that is space-time.

Along with the above, take for example Tom Potter's description of how subatomic particles move and shift around based on location and surroundings to that of other particles, to create and form the most stable structure it can.
Large organizations of particles are less stable than a single particle. This is how matter moves around and organizes, groups up builds itself based on the simple principle of stability.

I will quote a few paragraphs from it now.

"Quantum mechanics is the statistical treatment of single objects in multiple quantum spaces."

"Thermodynamics is a one body statistical treatment of many interacting bodies. It treats an aggregate of bodies as a single whole. It is an outgrowth of Newtonian Physics and came about because conventional math could not handle problems involving many bodies."

"Field Theory is about single objects moving in a continuum of spaces (Fields). Field Theory is about fields or properties existing about objects, and affecting the objects. About 1845 while experimenting with magnets and polarized light, Michael Faraday(1791-1851) came up with a radically new view of space and force. Space was not "nothing", but was a medium in which electric and magnetic lines of force could be strained He perceived that energy was not localized in the particles but rather in the space surrounding them. Thus, as acknowledged by James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) who formalized Faraday's ideas into his famous equations, was the birth of field theory. Note, that whereas Newtonian Physics and Thermodynamics postulates events happening in a homogenous and isotropic medium, Field Theory postulates electric, magnetic and gravitational lines of force forming non-linear mediums (Fields) about bodies. The field concept is an effort to cope with non-linear time intervals. The problem with field theory, is that fields, are mapped onto hypothetical Euclidian spaces. A more fundamental approach would be to work with equal-probability, time-interval lines, as the most fundamental thing that can be measured between a cause and an effect, is not a space, nor a field, but is a time interval."

Field theory has almost everything to do with electric or magnetic charge, or radiation.

"Newtonian Physics is the treatment of two bodies interaction. Because of the limitations of two body math, one body is perceived to be fixed in media, the second body is perceived to be varying in media, and the background is assumed to be neutral (Homogenous and isotropic)."

This basically is like saying the Sun is fixed with regards to the Solar System.

"General Relativity is basically a marriage of Newtonian Physics and the Faraday/Maxwell Field Theory.

Whereas Newton envisioned massive bodies interacting in straight lines in a homogenous and isotropic medium, and whereas Maxwell and Faraday envisioned fields existing about, and affecting, charges, Einstein envisioned fields existing about, and affecting, masses. In order to express gravitation as a field theory, Einstein replaced Newton's acceleration with the reciprocal of his "radius of curvature", pressure with the square of the reciprocal of "radius of curvature", and mass density with his "stress energy tensor"."

"Special Relativity is an adjustment to Newtonian Physics to account for the constant velocity of light."

If you notice, I do believe there is one missing. Take Field Theory and add it to Classical Mechanics. It is this marriage that should have been General Relativity, not Newtonian Physics, because we already can assert that Newtonian Physics are flawed by it's fixed entity logic can we not? Nothing is fixed in space-time, nothing but a system center of mass coordinate by which two bodies interact, this includes subatomic particles. Although I should mention Newton's first, second and third laws of motion still hold as true as ever.

With regards to time. Between 2 bodies we have a common center of mass, the distance from body A to the CM is known as T(A) or "time interval A" and the distance from body B to the CM is know as T(B). There is a 3rd time relative to the the System know as T(Period). Both bodies share the time period but have separate time intervals. Whereas the more massive body would have a shorter time interval to CM than the less massive body.

The fact that our Sun is so massive compared to the planets, that tells you the Solar System CM is extremely close to the Sun and or the Sun's geometrical/physical center. If the Sun was lighter the CM would extend further away from the Sun's physical center. The mass of the Sun also tells us why it appears to be a fixed object eg. no substantial wobble.

Now back to T(A) and T(B). There is another time interval to be percieved T(Radius) which is T(A) + T(B). Newtonian Physics use this false time interval T(Radius). With T(Radius) the CM is always the physical center of the Sun.

A more difficult challenge awaits now when describing something more down to Earth, for instance, when you jump in the air, you ground. The common CM between you and the Earth is albeit almost the physical center of the Earth due to it's greater to the Nth degree mass over you. But going back now, what angular momentum and spin is associated with such an instance? Are You spinning? Do You have angular momentum? Is space-time pulling on you?

The short answer to all is yes. But I will explain the last one because it's most confusing. Earth is spinning, and because so it is constantly distorting space-time in the direction of the spin. When you jump, you get are caught in this space-time vacuum and pulled in the direction of the spin. It looks at though you are jumping straight up and down right? You aren't, but the effect is unnoticable do to the magnitude in mass and geometry differences.

Consider now the actual ether or space-time medium and it's geometry or path from a point A slightly above you, to a point C over the horizon. Now add to that a point B directly under your feet. As you will conclude due to the curvature of the Earth, point A and point B come together at point C. This creates a downforce on you jumping in the air.

This next concept has to do with the force you exert on the Earth. You being a massive body, have a net spin or a space ether distorting property associated with you and consequently your actions or location relative to the Earth. Not only by jumping do you imaginatively alter the CM between you and the Earth, you pull space ether away from the Earth in the direction of your travel, pulling the Earth to you. The Earth being many times more massive laughs at your attempt to attract it.

This final concept is crucial and once you know it, you will know what gravity is. It has long since thought that gravity was sourced from the topological surface. I posulate that gravity is not sourced at the surface alone but rather by the whole quantum body. Ether or particles of space that are very small will easily pass through most matter. The passing of such ether creates a vacuum by which all matter and ether near the surface is pulled to the surface. This aside from the previous examples is by far the greater source of gravity felt.

AND IT IS THIS DOWNFORCE THAT IS GRAVITY.

To further clarify. The spin of the Earth is a net effect of a quantum combined effort -- that is, because subatomic particles all have spin associated with them, we get a magnified effect when mass is localized.

Each spinning subatomic particle within the whole body does it's part to distort or attract space ether. The exact magnitude of individual effect can be calculated by it's spin velocity or momentum, it's geometry and mass along with volume of ether in which to influence.

The orbit of bodies in our Solar System can be described as a perpetual motion in an ether of a free space-time.

The exact nature or origin of the subatomic spin is unknown at this time as well as the combined effort orgainizations to achieve cooperative net spin as seen in macroscopic bodies.

I postulate an energetic, magnetic or electric component varible may be the source of such spin. The spin itself is maintained by the interation of matter. Without interaction the spin subsides and time ceases to exist. Just as the Solar System can maintain a perpetual motion in space, a perpetual energetic link is maintained in the subatomic world.

To further go out on a limb I will suggest now that the subatomic world obeys the mechanical physics of the macroscopic world according to organization - stability and classical mechanics.

The discovery of miscellaneous ultrasmall, ultrafine particles or otherwise, is in part the ether of both the macroscopic and the subatomic realm. In stating so we link the greater mechanical physics to both realms.

The bending of light around massive bodies can be explained by the fact that light travels through and acting by means of this medium, which in turn is pulled to the massive body. Einstein was close.

Speed of gravity -

Ironically the speed of gravity is not so important anymore, but this model hints at the solution to be found with a drag coefficient formula for given conditions and particles. The very concept of the speed of gravity is under a false context of gravity itself eg. gravity field, gravitons.

{added later}

There are many misconceptions about the speed of gravity. The speed of gravity has much to do with any particular perception. I can explain to you the speed of gravity is instantaneous, the speed of light and slower than the speed of light, let me explain each perception starting with instantaneous. The effects of gravity from a star are existing in the future path of any given planet, the planet only needs to pass over it to feel it's effects. While you - the planet, are passing over it and feeling it's effects you percieve gravity as instantaneous because you see your distance from the star.

Now a second perception the speed of light. This one is almost false all together as mass can never travel at the speed of light. You would percieve gravity as the speed of light in the context of observing a change in light direction as affected by gravity. An example is when you see light bend around celestial bodies.

Yet a third perception according to slower than the speed of light. Because the motion of the Ether of space is the force by which is known as gravity, also know that Ether is mass, and according to known laws can only travel at near or well below the speed of light. The speed of gravity is all relative to the forces acting on space Ether, and so thus it is also known as the speed of that Ether at any given local. As you can perceieve it now, gravity is well below the speed of light some distance away from massive bodies. The closer you get to the mass source, the faster the speed of gravity. You might percieve that also as, the closer you get to a mass source, the stronger gravity is.
You may as well use the phrases, speed of Ether, magnitude of downforce, to avoid confusion.

Going back to the solution to the speed of gravity to be found within a drag formula, I'll add to that, as far as it is known, there is not much drag in space. Why is it that there is little to no drag or friction in space? If we now take a look at the periodic table of elements, it comes to no surprise that most of what you would call "empty space" are two of the lightest elements on the chart, Helium and Hydrogen. Ignoring subatomic particles for a second, Ether is mostly comprised of Hydrogen atoms. When you compress, add to or alter light element atoms, such as Hydrogen, it may change into other heavier atomic elements according to the theory of atomic stability - and thus we start to form mass in otherwise known as empty space or Ether. But know that Helium is a noble gas and unlike Hydrogen does not form compounds readily. It is this reason why Hydrogen may be absorbed yet Helium will not. If we could say that the Earth lies within a Helium space-time structure then we could explain such mechanics of orbit in relation to perpetual motion perhaps.

Distance of gravity effect -

The distances by which gravity is felt is hard to imagine. When we consider a field theory, we can image a translucent shell around the whole star, it is the radius from the surface of the star to the shell that is the distance to which gravity is felt by other bodies. There is a border between unbelieveable and reasonable, when we start to extend the radius to that of a binary companion star to that of our Sun, we are really pushing gravity to it's limits with Any given model of gravity. However with that said, I believe the distances that are covered by a field theory are also allowable by Ether theory. In these great distances it helps to think of gravity as a current, analogous to water. A star can be subtly effected by being in this weak current. I doubt that there is any space that is completely still. The strength of the current is the idea. One might suggest, the Big Bang created the ultimate force of current by which we are still being pushed along, yet again, that is entirely false because there is no significant measurable friction or drag in space eg. once you get pushed you dont stop.

Nov 15 2003

After further thought the above is clearly incomplete, knowingly so even while writing it. I will attempt to detail it now and in the future.

Let me start.

First I will go over two false ideals of gravity and lastly will present more clearly, my model. These two models are important not only for their logical concepts but it's necessary to eliminate them to in part help provide a correct model. This is called scientific deduction. And it is only these two that warrant attention based on conclusions.

First we have a Fabric of Space model as suggested by General Relativity. Massive object create a "gravity well".
This model suggests a fixed space or matrix, think of it in a 2D-sense as a grid, think of it in 3D as a cubed matrix or volume. A question is, to what degree if any can this fabric of space be distorted? - In other words, is it fixed without distortion or is it allowable to twist, bend ect. That is the 600 million dollar question as NASA would have us know with it's launch of it's latest experiment Gravity Probe B. Einstein would have us believe it does twist, so imagine that if you will, the space cubed matrix around planet Earth twisted and dented. I pose the question to you, does this model have anything to do with gravity as you know it? For instance, when you jump on planet Earth and fall back, how exactly is a distorted grid a force by which to act on you? This distorted grid would, if anything, make you distorted. If your confused don't worry, it's not because my questions are wrong it's because the model is. Let me just emphasize it again, the distortion of this fabric of space has no means by which to act a force on you.
Let me also state that, a fabric of space would assume gravity from top down, meaning that it is the gravity of stars below the horizen, x axis, of our system that really is affecting us, causing us to roll down into the well.
With that understood, are we then to say that a planet in a solar system at the absolute bottom of our galaxy is not affected by gravity? eg. It wouldn't roll down because there is no underlieing gravity foundation.

Second model, any particular field theory. A field theory gravity model will deal with the idea of a radiating wave or particle based flow of force, usually outward from source. 2 examples, the Photon and it's Electromagnetic connection, the Electron and it's electric charge and magnetic connection. I have reason to believe that Mass in Motion = Gravity. Gravity is not an effect of an energetic component directly. But at the same time, I still have hope for a field theory to explain gravity if nothing else.

Let me mention this here, General Relativity is a combination of mechanical physics and a field theory. I do not believe this works in the sense that it is being used to describe gravity. Often it is confused as to which is the force and which is only there to cover all bases. While GR describes light well by these means, lets explore a different model by which to explain gravity.

Last model deals with an aquatacious free Ether space-time. This is my model to explain gravity. It is the solution to the greater mechanics of gravity eg. the broad sense, the basics. The details are slowly coming together, but I will present the general theory now with more clarity.

Space-time is a free moving, particle based "Ether". It is not fabric or any sense of the concept. It is as simple as it should be, matter. As you may recall, the term Ether as described by me, is the idea that "empty space" is atoms. In other words, there is no such thing as "atomless space". Now there are many atomic substructures and particles and energy within, this I equally refer to Ether. There is nothing about that you cannot understand, it's very simple and true. No concept of a grid is nessessary, no "fabric", topology, just Ether. Yes I realize that a fabric of space would consider Ether in a sense, but lets move on.

Here we have free moving Ether, partly comprised of a type X unknown/undetected or otherwise known substance. But first ask yourself, what is the one thing in common almost all subatomic particles have? SPIN. Again, spin of subatomic particles is the key to the theory of gravity. Spin is rarely ever mentioned, but it is this spin now that I want to shed some light on for it's role in gravity.

Due to the spin of subatomic particles, Ether - which ironically refers to in part the former, is attracted to the spinning cause, which in a greater macroscale sense effect, distorts - like water. Eg. the motion or mechanics of the spin is the cause of the force of attraction to that of this Ether. It couldnt be any simplier; yet the simpler something is, it would seem, the harder it is to describe. While still focused on the macro world and the effects of spin, one may suggest that it is this spin also that is the reason the stars and planets have spin to them. Not necessarily orbit, as an orbit takes an initial differencial, directional momentum to form - that being explained nicely by Classical Mechanics.

About now your asking yourself, if Ether is being mechanically attracted to a massive body and it is this attraction that causes a downforce aka gravity, wouldn't the Earth be long since saturated by Ether, thus the continued attraction stops? Indeed if would be. We can thus assume to two logical things that are occuring to continue the attraction. One is, matter - the Earth, on contact with this X substance Ether converts this X Ether into energy.
A condition of this action is that we introduce a time period by which we will refer to as rate of conversion or perhaps period of occupation. It goes like this, atom attracts this Q quanta of Ether per this T period of time. In doing so we create a device by which to continuously attract new quanta of Ether in the future. It is also understood that we must also assume a full or occupied atom state by which Ether is saturated within the atom itself and thus can no longer attract any more Ether until the current Ether is converted or passed on (passed on, this is our second option to be dicussed). In understanding this, we allow neighboring atoms to absorb this Ether, and it in turn is now occupied until T expires. The whole system ensures global occupation of Ether, thus the reason why there is still gravity deep underground and also elmininates the global saturation problem halting attraction. It also assumes a great quanta of Ether available, meaning most Ether at surface topology is not absorbed but allowed to propagate through subsurface matters awaiting absorbtion from an unoccupied atom. Either A we have a substantial amount of locally available Ether, or B the time period of occupation is slightly longer to offset the reduced amount of Ether - or perhaps reduced rate of attraction.

Now onto our second option which was that Ether was not converted to energy but was in turn occupied but then passed on. In passing it on we accomplish the same effect as described previously but it is different non-the-less. The concept of this device is that we could say when an atom is in an occupied state, from the bottom up any atom in which is not occupied is attracted to the atom with the occupied state, perhaps even the quanta itself within the atom. So imagine now a stack of atoms. The top one gets it's quanta first, the next to top is thus attracted to this top atom and according to T will be passed that quanta whereby the top one then absorbs new Ether from space and so on. I didnt say that was the best device, but only that it was a option. Both work in theory, I prefer the previous and I will now dicuss this conversion of energy it presumes.

With the concept of E=MC^2 in mind, we want to adjust that so we concieve of matter converting matter into energy.
Atoms converting Ether into energy. A question is what kind of energy do we want? I might suggest that we would want to explain why in the first place subatomic particles have spin. The energy we ultimately want is mechanical energy to spin subatomic particles. I don't know the specifics and details of it, the substructure particles involved in it but it is what I consider a very pressing issue that I can not otherwise explain. This conversion of Ether into energy to drive the mechanical spin solves the mystery. I do not believe in effortless free perpetual spin in relation to the subatomic world, it doesn't even exist in the macro world. You need a fuel to run an engine. You need a cause for an effect, that is the law by which everything exists. You cannot have spin for no reason, this much I know.

Now I will consider what other energy or otherwise could be created by this device. It's to early to rule out any one particular energy force and our options are unlimited. For instance, a force may be otherwise known as a interaction of 2 particles by means of a mediator particle. Altough we must be careful not to confuse a pure energy force with a mechanical interactive force. True, there might not be such a thing as pure energy when speaking of the subatomic realm as it is mostly understood and logically so to believe in mediator particles to create a field theory of bonds. Speaking of which, we have the Strong Force and the Weak Force to be explained in more detail and also by any means other than a mediator particle. Really, every option is open and it's quite mind boggeling what we are dealing with in the unknown and unproveable, unobserved... I present to myself and you previously, a fuel by which a countless number of particles, interactions, forces could be created as a result or effect of this fuel in part or in whole.

So in the general sense I believe I have explained my model of gravity, many details to yet be discovered.