Newton's Law of Gravity - The WEAKEST Force in Nature!

[@michaelzap8528]

U are the best math and science teacher in the world. I like your "big picture" teaching style!

[@MathAndScience]

Thank you! 😃

[@brainstormingsharing1309]

🔴 Well done and keep it up! 👏

[@jeffreyraheem2831]

GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE PER-SE, ITS A FORCE DIFFERENTIAL WHICH IS THE DIFFERENCE CAUSED BY THE CURVERTURE OF SPACE AROUND ATOMIC PARTICLES. THE CURVETURE IS CAUSED BY THE TENSION IN EXPANDING SOACE (ENERGY) WHICH ALSO PRODUCE PROTONS & NEUTRONS WHICH ARE THE REACTION OF EXPANDIND SPACE (ENERGY).

[@SoapinTrucker]

Would you say that space time acts on or influences gravitational mannerisms of planets similarly resembling holographic interference?

[@GHosTNTHeMaCHiNe]

I Don’t Like Gavity !! 😢it’s Always Bringing Me Down 🤣 Badump dump . 👍 Great video 👍

[@frankroper3274]

These classes are great! I remember as a kid wondering why water twirled going down a drain and wondering how anything came to be in existence. To me there had to be nothing and then something came from it. I realize now my thinking had to be flawed in that there was always something in existence. There was always some force.

[@gtm5650]

That “something” which always existed is God. The original being where everything else originated from.✌🏻

[@frankroper3274]

@@gtm5650 I agree!

[@johndavis2399]

Excellent explanation and presentation. < I had been wondering about the magnitude of gravity forces on an object at depth within the earth....and G'le must have read my mind and offered up this episode of your channel. My question stemmed from a documentary on the earth's interior, in which it indicated a linear increase in pressure (in bars) all the way to the center of the earth. Is this accurate....that pressure actually increases, even though gravity decreases, at increasing depth? Thanks! jd

[@rajendranv2582]

Gravitational force is felt by a body having mass only. Though an object is in gravitational field, if the object is massless it will not get gravitational force. Now like electromagneticc force, do the gravitaional force have velocity. In case of a star about 500 light years from earth, after how many years the the gravitational effect of that star will be felt in earth.?

[@roberttarquinio1288]

Gravitation is a manifestation of space time curvature Gravitation pushes it does not pull- attract - They say gravitational waves are ripples in space time - I say gravitational waves are ripples of space time The fabric of space and time is fluidic; it flows.

[@rajendranv2582]

@roberttarquinio1288 hi, My doubt arise mainly due the culture where in I am living. We have a concept of foretelling the future based on the star position at the time of birth. Here only crux of my question- to be influenced by the star position, one should know the velocity of gravitational force in space.

[@Pradeepsolus]

This is a fantastic video i learnt a lot

[@greggweber9967]

If they are averaged out, weak over a large volume, to strong over a real small volume; do they come out to near the same number?

[@roberttarquinio1288]

Gravitation deforms space time and causes gravitational lensing effect As starlight passes through a star’s gravitational field close to a star’s surface it gets deflected due to the deformation of space time

[@siya.abc123]

I wish you were my teacher all those years ago.

[@ruperterskin2117]

Cool. Thanks for sharing.

[@RecordStudioTheLabel]

This man is a real hero.

[@rayjasmantas9609]

With a common attraction between two bodies, could it be due to: As the Solar system drifts in Space, having a invisible velocity on each body of any size in the same direction with any distance between each body being evaluated; Could be causing like the water/air current flow of 2 bodies keeping time with each other and being near, to cause them to pull into one another some what - a good Space exploration question to solve?

[@rayjasmantas9609]

Gravity is weak, but the empty Space drift feel must be even weaker, if there, but it makes things float.

[@rayjasmantas9609]

A maybe why a capacitor plate at a distance with its plates displacement works to share a energy between them, if the plates are allowed to energize.

[@rayjasmantas9609]

Reminder, as the Solar System displaced with Space and the Galaxy's positioning, the light still is found drifting with the Solar system Bodies , get this, in a straight line. {Black Hole theory, gravity does effect light.}

[@rayjasmantas9609]

OK, advancing to higher degrees study and sharing, is the secret of continued reviews of the same things. Maybe from different points of view if having time for it!

[@rayjasmantas9609]

So, if gravity builds mass objects, it depends on the object on how it represents its gravity for its own space/time logic.

[@aminam9201]

Very likely that Gravity has to do with the total mass of this universe and pi and speed of light squared indicates to that this universe was built based on one indivisible unit, the big G and small g (local and universal gravity, constants,….etc Gravity is far more complicated than they can imagine.

[@WalterHolstad]

My question would be, If there is no gravitational force at the center of a planet or star, then why do black holes and neutron stars etc. happen? You would think no force is acting at the center to collapse the star?

[@aminam9201]

very likely Gravity deals with every particle independently regardless of its location to other particles in the same object and that’s why all objects fall at the same rate, the same principle has to do with equivalence principle.

[@rayjasmantas9609]

Another thought, maybe gravity isn't the weakest force, but the most neutral force.

[@rayjasmantas9609]

But gravity becomes millions of times more powerful than any other energy in the black hole region, reminder.

[@rayjasmantas9609]

And the thought of the electro-nuclear force needs a foundation to sit on, in a sense, to exist, --- which the strong nuclear force supports as a platform.

[@rayjasmantas9609]

Electro-magnetic, not electro-nuclear, but both have their own Space/Time distinction for existing at the same time.

[@DrDeuteron]

11:40 Newtons Laws are good enough for Earth orbit, but it is not good enough for "sending a spacecraft through the solar system". The JPL navigators (who are the best) use something called "Post Newtonian Parameterization" which is _not_ full scale general relativity (his 10 coupled differential equation are too hard to solve), so they use newtons laws plus a 1st order correction (hence: post-newtonian), or 2nd (post-post newtonian) and so on, esp for the gas giants where mass is large. When speeds are high, there is also "post-Minkowski" parameterization to include that part of relativity. all this takes place in something called the "JPL Barycentric coordinate system" which includes curvature and the fact that clocks run at different speeds through out the solar system. When you're flying a spacecraft through the A-gap in Saturn's rings: this stuff matters.

[@biomechanique6874]

It's beyond the grasp of 'science' today. Gravity is an exponentially accumulative force. It also interacts with magnetic plasmas of varying densities. The bottom line is that it is fundamental in the order of substance in the universe. Newton made a brilliant attempt to define it but there was insufficient data available to him. Same goes for the given understanding of the four levels of forces you tried to explain.

[@tonyhoward5675]

Good info, thanks.

[@aminam9201]

happiest thought of Einstein is incorrect, actually it’s a silly thought. Just because the physics equations work doesn't mean they are accurate or based on a deep understanding. Most likely, what he describes as the field equation (the curvature of space and time) represents the lines of the gravitational field, which is why they are more accurate.

[@aminam9201]

You are a good and dedicated teacher, but the explanation of the equivalence principle, which is related to the same topic of the lesson, is incorrect, because the current understanding of gravity is incorrect, and what Einstein said about free fall is also incorrect. The subject of gravity is more complex than just the curvature of space and time! And basically, Einstein did not understand the nature of time!

[@kennethcole1551]

Time doesn’t have a nature it’s a measurement between events, so there’s no nature to it. It’s a metric system. It’s a measurement can’t be slow down or speed up A clock can be slow down or run faster. When I have time it’s a measurement it doesn’t exist in reality

[@calebvanderwolf1777]

I repeatedly heard in this post that gravity is a force, one of the four fundamental forces. I constantly heard attraction. Equal and opposite forces. But then, according to Einstein gravity is not a force? This is a genuine question, how do you connect the two?

[@merhawisyoum6385]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ I wish if you were my teacher in hogh school. you are an excellent lecturer you explained thd theory in an excellent way and solved the math step by step professionally. well done ❤❤❤❤

[@jayfox7983]

I think it's important to say that that pebble (or you) inside the center of the planet, even though it would be like an astronaut floating in space, it would still have all of the pressure that comes from the planet pulling on itself on all sides of you, crushing you.

[@alankennedy2835]

You may gravity seem so simple thank you. This is a well stated well written well explained demonstration thank you.

[@MathAndScience]

I’m glad you enjoyed it!

[@user-target4AGI]

... what is m1 & m2 ??? ?

[@drumtwo4seven]

Nice 👍

[@ForOrAgainstUs]

I know that we say gravity is weak because we can overcome the gravity of the earth by picking up a ball. But can I mf-ing bend spacetime? Can literally anything else do that? Can electromagnetism bend spacetime?

[@JSM-000A]

Earth has both gravity and a weak magnetic field. They are separate entities.Magnetic field can be measured and attracts "ferrous" objects. Gravity attracts both "ferrous" & "nonferrous" objects. Its measurement, principle, and nullification ? Physics Theory & Mathematics may explain it on paper, but practically totally different scenario. If well understood, then why cant it be nullified? Anti-gravity? Like a magnetic field can be.

[@mymysticalside2842]

15:39 The ellipse is ONLY true if you consider the Sun as stationary. Once you realize the Sun also is moving in a circle around the center then the ellipse stops being true.

[@bobbymcgeorge]

13:26: "The entire planet pulling on my body can be overcome by my simple little legs." Your simple little legs are connected to a gravitating surface, I would suggest that makes them far from simple!

[@JungleJargon]

Since we are talking about math. There’s no gravity without massive amounts of matter. There’s also no measurable distance without massive amounts of matter and there is no measurable amount of time without massive amounts matter. (No gravity no distance and no time without the existence of the formation of massive amounts of matter.) Time and distance are stretched between all of the supermassive black holes in the universe. Stretched means there is less measured distance and faster clocks, both of which contribute to a faster rate of causation and a faster speed of light compared to where there is more gravity where distance is not as stretched and time runs slower. If you can understand this, you can understand general relativity and you can see why there is no need for dark matter because causation is faster the farther away from the center of the galaxy it is. Dark energy is not needed either because the vacuum of space is from black holes that are growing by absorbing spacetime regardless of the amount of matter is being absorbed. This is the opposite of inflation. So the redshift is known to be from light leaving a galaxy and in a sense the farther away the source of the light is, the more the accumulation gravity it is leaving behind so the more redshifted the light is so that when the light enters the much smaller mass of our galaxy, the light is only slightly blueshifted back to its original spectrum. It’s really not even hard to understand or explain.

[@roberttarquinio1288]

Gravitation is a manifestation of space time curvature Gravitation pushes it does not pull- attract - They say gravitational waves are ripples in space time - I say gravitational waves are ripples of space time The fabric of space and time is fluidic; it flows.

[@nafive5675]

Fluid like waves and waves can be distorted. Gravitational distortion for time traveling. 🤔

[@thanksfernuthin]

Isn't the strong nuclear force only attractive as well? You didn't mention it propelling any atomic part.

[@peetsnort]

I want to know how the tiny rocket in the moon lander escaped the moons gravity. The Saturn's rocket was massive but if you reduced its size by 2/3 to equal the moons gravity. It's still nowhere near the size of what the moon landers should have been

[@DrDeuteron]

do some dimensional analysis. Moon is g/6 btw.

[@howiedick6857]

It's not about size, it's about mass... Something can actually be the same size as something else and be way less massive... Gravity has to do with mass

[@IMiss_OnlYours]

I do not have any sound in this video...

[@henryprovencal4933]

The man talks at such a speed that I have no time to absorb what he’s saying.

[@DieterSoegemeier]

Gravity is a pushing force, that is why other gravitational masses are always pushing away from all other gravitational masses. Light is not made of particles, Gravity just like light is made from energy waves and does not have any particles. This is why you can not quantise a field as there are no particles in it.

[@hemrajue3434]

If there were no gravity of the earth,i think we would have move the objects(even huge) with little force.

[@albertomontecarlo6231]

In Einstei General theory of relativity gravity can be at special circumstances a repulsive force, like in the Big Bang..

[@DrDeuteron]

except that's not repulsion, it's just flow with expanding space. There is no "force" in the right coordinates.

[@albertomontecarlo6231]

@ This is Brian Greene words…..

[@DrDeuteron]

@@albertomontecarlo6231 that's the problem with gravity. It all depends on your choice of coordinates, until a horizon forms.

[@albertomontecarlo6231]

@@DrDeuteron what you mean by that? For not gravity experts..

[@DrDeuteron]

@@albertomontecarlo6231 omg. It's a long story. Einstein has some great quotes about it, but I cannot find them. Under Newton, time was a universal parameter that ticked away, everywhere the same. Totally intuitive and easy to understand. Galileo explained it. Along comes Maxwell, and those equations are just not working with Galileo. Albert says the "the speed of light is constant", and the requires that time and space are relative (and they mix, mathematically). The key result is that you cannot move relative to space: no matter how "fast" you go, spacetime always looks the same. It sounds simple, but is epic: other people (who don't matter to you) will see your clock running slow, and your length compressed (but that is _their_ view, not yours). For instance, rn, in the frame of an UHECR, you are 2 nanometers tall and take 30 years to tic one seconds--for real--but you don't notice, that is _their_ perspective, not yours. Albert did away with time and space being separate. He did that in 1905, with one year of work in which he also discovered quantum mechanics and proved molecules exist. A miracle year. Then he wanted to include acceleration and gravity. That took him 10 years or complete focus. The key results was: physics doesn't care about your coordinate system. Sounds simple, but it is epic. So we, on Earth, think gravity is pulling us down with acceleration 22mph/seconds. So we have a "force", but the reason we say that is bad choice of coordinates. If we say we're in free fall coordinates, then the surface of Earth, or the floor, or the gaming chair I am sitting in, is pushing me up constantly with a force equal to my weight. We feel gravity because we chose the wrong coordinates.That is standard general relativity (GR) We are also spinning around the Earth, which leads to the so-called fictitious forces: centrifugal acceleration and the Coriolis force...but in GR, that is also gravity. We chose spinning coordinates, so we "feel" inertia forces. Most physics education leaves it at that, but a full GR treatment shows those forces are also "gravitation". If you choose the right coordinates, then there is no centrifugal force, no corilois force, and now Newton's gravity (e.g.: the space station coordinates...you just float). Fine. But Friedman-Lemaitre-Roberston-Walker applied the resulting math to the entire universe, in 1922. It was just weird speculation back then, but 100 years later, it drives cosmology. See "the FLRW metric". It showed that a static universe is unstable, and must contract or expand. The introduced "co-moving" coordinates...in these coordinates, there are no repulsive forces, space was just getting bigger, so two motionless galaxies "X" light years apart would see themselves moving apart from each other...just coasting. In normal Euclidean coordinates, it looks like they are being pushed apart, but in comoving coordinates, they are stationary. idk. I think the only way to really get it is to do hundreds of GR homework problems, because it doesn't go with our intuition. For instance, if you take GR seriously, then the geocentric model of the solar system, where the Earth is stationary at the center and the universe rotates around it every 23h 56m, with the sun moving a bit so it takes 24h...that is 100% perfectly fine, and GR applied to that case predicts physics exactly (though the math is brutal), It is just a choice of coordinates. If you ask a mathematical physics what GR is, they'd say: "physics is invariant under coordinate diffeomorphisms". which means: nature doesn't care about your coordinates, and if you choose the wrong ones, you need newton's gravity, centrifugal force, Coriolis force, and an expanding repulsive force to explain what you see, and if you pick the right coordinates: everything just coasts, but in curved spacetime, to which Einstein lamented, in SR he'd done away with space and time as separate, and in GR he did away with space and time meaning anything: it's really is "all relative".

[@omoklamok]

if gravity is the weakest force how we dont floar as the earth spin?

[@hemrajue3434]

What is the cause of asteroids?

[@yojihagiya8183]

gravity is the Coulomb force between two uncharged objects. In other words, the particles that generate gravity are electrons and protons. I think of neutrons as a pair of electrons and protons. Let us consider the sun and the earth. The electrons in the sun and the electrons in the earth repel each other. The electrons in the sun and the protons in the earth attract each other. The protons in the sun and the electrons in the earth attract each other. Protons in the sun and protons in the earth repel each other. The above four forces added together is the gravitational force between the Sun and the Earth. The forces of attraction and repulsion between objects are almost the same, but the force of attraction is slightly stronger. The reason is that the Coulomb attraction and repulsion are not the same. You may be wondering why I say that. Actually, a Scottish physicist by the name of John Robison has made such a measurement. According to his measurements, the force of attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, while the force of repulsion is inversely proportional to the 2.06 power of the distance. In other words, the result was that the force of attraction was stronger than the force of repulsion. If this is true, then it would seem natural that gravity would only generate an attractive force. However, the above measurement is quite old, so its accuracy is questionable. The question is whether repulsion really does not obey the inverse square law, or whether John Robison was mistaken and in fact it does obey the inverse square law but the repulsion is simply weaker than the attraction. If it does not obey the inverse square law, then the physics needs to be reworked. If the repulsion is simply weaker, then we can simply multiply the Coulomb constant for the repulsion by a value slightly smaller than the Coulomb constant for the attraction.

[@DrDeuteron]

bro, this is a mainstream site. The sign dependence depends on the symmetry of the field: +/- for an antisymmetric 4-tensor electromagnetism, and + only for symmetric 4-tensor gravity.

[@nafive5675]

According to this newton law. Is it possible to move mars in our habital orbit zone? 😮

[@ThanikaSalamT-fy1ms]

Gravity is basic energy in the matters &photons

[@tonyhoward5675]

What if gravity is just the force that emerges from the angular momentum of a universe that not only expands but also spins.

[@aminam9201]

Oversimplification is not always good because that could indicate to wishful thinking!

[@jeshuamathis9013]

I wanna meet this human 🎉 👽

[@siobhancallahan5279]

This is a joke eh? Dr E was a fool.... Newton is/was the greatest mind this world has ever known... he failed to understand that nothing can "pull or attract".... keep pushing guys !

[@assistantto007]

How are we supposed to understand gravity when science doesn't even know for sure what gravity actually is ? I've heard a reasonable argument that defines the pressure of aether as the actual culprit.

[@OBGynKenobi]

Not a force. Rather it's motion through the "surface" of space time geodesics.

[@howiedick6857]

Eye roll 😒🙄😮‍💨

[@mymysticalside2842]

26:60 OK, if mass is kg and the astronaut is in space (weightless) then he has no mass and your mathematics goes out the window...

[@rayjasmantas9609]

Something to consider of how to consider Earth's attraction to a man's attraction on Earth, is Earth is settled with inertia.

[@rayjasmantas9609]

Space travel logic support.

[@rayjasmantas9609]

As Newton found, inertia disguises gravity existence/exists.

[@rayjasmantas9609]

Thus gravity as a neutral force is placement.

[@bahunegn]

Teach DENSITY then gravity. In free fall or Upward DENSITY governs.

[@josippetkovic389]

What?

[@jamespfrancis776]

❤👍🌷❤👍

[@aminam9201]

Ultimately you want to extract a numerical value from physical equations, but numbers have a deeper meaning than just being mathematical objects! what does big G means ? what do constants in general mean ? are they just a numbers in conventional way of thinking ?! what is the role of Pi ? does it has to do with infinity?!,…etc Humans are very simple-minded !

[@AspartameBoy]

Not a fundamental force. Rather merely the shading of repulsive forces already classified

[@bassaseven]

Gravity isn't a force!

[@MRSomethin1]

The best way to study gravity is to watch the effect of net inverse proportional e radion verse on your farts

[@chriscarson1256]

Gravity is not a force.

[@user-target4AGI]

... Minutes 38-40 , you should clearly understand that your proposed logic (Einstein's) doesn't work ..

[@behnamashjari3003]

Gravity is not a force. According to the General Theory of Relativity, gravity is caused by geometry of space-time. The space time is bent around a mass and objects that fall follow a curvature. It's not a force.

[@DrDeuteron]

it's a force in the wrong coordinates.

[@dalecarpenter8828]

what is magnetism ,what doe crystals do , ,they can not tell you what it is ,they can only tell you some of the effects ! see the thunderbolts project for real science !

[@staceymyers5610]

Your facts are wrong, not cool of you

[@martijnsinninghedamste253]

Could you explain what is wrong? Just making that statement without backing it with arguments is not very nice either.

[@dsfadsfas7036]

Define what is a force and show it and i will congratulate you. Force is a term which means nothing.

[@mikel4879]

You don't understand correctly what gravity is in REALITY. For the past 400 years the so-called "gravity" is wrongly understood, and that classical explanation is nothing but a theoretical epicyle.

[@deadmanswife3625]

I know Newton's law very well if you eat one Fig Newton you will eat three

[@deadmanswife3625]

Oh gravity that's something different sorry😂

[@MathAndScience]

lol

[@Flaystray]

You know a science video is good when the stupid trivializing jokes come in

[@raydelaforce8149]

Jason, there is a group if deluded people that believe the earth is flat like a gian pizza, but they also deny that gravity exests. I think it would be good if you were to tackle the flat earth nonsense and the concept of gravity to enlighten these deluded folk,

[@MathAndScience]

Hmmmm good idea!

[@ryand76]

If you backup all the science with all the equations the flat earthers will not accept it 😆 They have bogus theories and will never believe even the best examples. It would be a waste of time. Trust me 😂

[@gtechnosinc2518]

Gravity is a theory, is not a fact, just like evolution, the cores of the earth they say is liquid, lava like, and they have never drill a hole deep enough to know what they teach in schools, they just lie, and we say the same lie for generations, and yes ,the earth is flat.

[@btpcmsag]

There is nothing more deluded than they who have chosen not to see.

[@staceymyers5610]

Why on earth would you talk about newtonian gravity? It is wrong. You are confusing people.

[@jwt242]

I wouldn’t say it’s wrong; a better description would be that it is incomplete.

[@floooogy]

At 10:45 he answers your question.

[@staceymyers5610]

@@floooogy Okay, enough. This person on the video is just holding people back. Newton is wrong and the argument it took 10 years to develop special and general relativity does not mean it is hard for us to calculate today. Today we have computers, just like the ones we are typing on now, so math is pretty speedy. Perhaps, if you want to help people become mo' smarter we can teach them reality. Going the lazy route is not helping. Gravity is NOT a Newtonian force, to say it is is similar to Santa and flat earth. Please, help people learn.

[@staceymyers5610]

And while you're at it, my bet is the reason we don't have quantum gravity or a unified theory or a 'graviton' is because gravity is NOT a force at all, it is the result of a curvature of space (well spacetime). Likely in our lifetimes we will realize there are only 3 fundamental forces, and gravity is not one of them because it is simply a property of space itself. Teaching people Newtonian gravity is holding back the next Einstein or Newton who had to overcome the 'wrong' stuff they were taught. Do kids a favor, teach them the truth so they can build on it, don't make people doubt what you teach. Why the heck are we teaching people wrong science?

[@staceymyers5610]

I am not being nice, that is rude of me. Kudos to the person making the video for trying. Would suggest it could use a clear relativity disclaimer, but the person is energized and inspiring and that is good. Seems like a nice fella so I should not be as harsh as I am being. Good man, merry Christmas to you and your family.

[@gtechnosinc2518]

Neil deGrasse Tyson said nobody knows what gravity is, I know he's an idiot but gravity is just a theory, is not a fact, just like evolution,just a theory,and the shape of the earth is a pear shape, lol.

[@howiedick6857]

"theory" in science is a placeholder for " a known truth that has strong evidence to support it. Theory and fact are equivalent. It's just that theories are an amalgamation of many facts...

[@dexter8705]

🤡

[@neildegrassetitan2465]

There's ignorance, and then there's willful stupidity. I say the latter applies to you. 🤣

[@charleshendry5978]

Idol licker? 😅

[@gtechnosinc2518]

@@neildegrassetitan2465 I don't follow nobody even if he is my brother or family member is he is an idiot, I just can't, I go for the right thing, I don't just go for the color of the skin, white,black,brown,yellow, don't care, if the person is wrong,no matter is the color of the skin, he is wrong,and Neil is an idiot, and you know him because all the stupidy he talks, starting with the shape of the earth, pear shape, so you believe him?

[@geodad4782]

The center of the earth is solid, not liquid.

[@someguy-g4r]

If that were true there would be no magnetic field around earth. There would be no life on this planet.

[@raydelaforce8149]

This is in despute my friend!

[@gtechnosinc2518]

The thing is that "scientists" say something they don't know, the Russians drilled a hole some mile down and that's it,nobody have drill more than the russians,but they can for sure say what we know now that the earth is liquid like a lava, but like gravity, is just a theory, they don't know shit nothing about it ,but they say is a fact.And everybody say the same thing,like this guy.

[@geodad4782]

@ No, it’s not. Seismic waves travel at different rates through solid and liquid. It’s pretty clear from years of data that there is a liquid outer core and a solid inner core.

[@someguy-g4r]

@@geodad4782 While Earth's core is not entirely solid, the innermost part of the core, called the inner core, is considered to be solid due to the immense pressure at that depth, while the outer core surrounding it is liquid.

[@apachepete4967]

Did someone say that it was Gravity that held the Moon in it's orbit around the Earth? . . can't be THAT weak after all. I don't even believe thee is such a thing as "Gravity" . .However, I do believe there is DENSITY. Everything stays in place because it is more dense than the surrounding atmosphere. The ball is in your court.

[@roberttarquinio1288]

Gravitation is a manifestation of space time curvature Gravitation pushes it does not pull- attract - They say gravitational waves are ripples in space time - I say gravitational waves are ripples of space time The fabric of space and time is fluidic; it flows.