A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass

[sm0ky2]

I agree with the proposal that the sun is increasing the mass of the planets. This comes in the form of ionic matter streams ("solar winds") that encompass most of our solar system.

These are composed of charged protons, neutrons, and ionized atoms that gather enough energy to be ejected out of the sun's gravitational pull. 

It is the earth's gravity that traps some of these partcles and brings them down to earth, thus increasing the mass of our planet.

Now, what this may or may not have to do with gravity actually having a mass of its own, im not sure...

----------------------------------------------------------------
As for photonic-mass increasing the mass of the earth...  I would say yes. But this is because i consider a photon to actually HAVE mass.

We know a photon has mass, because it has Momentum. in fact, we can calculated and measure the mass of a photon of given energy, by its momentum, and velocity (c) .

Science does not accept this, because it contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, so they therefore, assume an anomoly exists with respect to a photon, having momentum without mass.

This, however, contradicts our definition of momentum, as well as the way in which we define "time", therefore, Einstein cannot be entirely correct..
This is one of the major reasons why Einstein's theories are not, and never will be considered "laws".

So, if you accept a photon as "having mass", then the light from the sun, is increasing the mass of the Earth.

Again, i dont have a way of relating this back to the "mass of gravity".
    Except in an obscure relationship between the effects of gravity and the angular vector of a photon of a given mass - but hey, we may be onto something there....

[brian334]

Apply the same standard to the experiments you use to prove mass changes when things move.

[onthecuttingedge2005]

Brian is right.

there are 'no' Gravitons. Gravitons went out the window with the Higgs particle(God Particle). it doesn't exist. Gravity remains a tensor field period.

Jerry

[sm0ky2]

You half to ask the question-why don’t the planets get sucked into the sun by gravity?
Something is making the planets move away from the sun.
The combination of sunlight pushing the planets away from the sun and the increased mass of the planets makes them move away from the sun.

the planets do infact get sucked into the sun, very slowly..  This will not entirely occur with all the planets within the lifespan of our sun, but Mercury will surely be the next to fall into the sun. We are observing Mercury's orbit amidts the enevetable orbital decay, its orbital velocity is decreasing, as is its rotational speed (increase in the length of "days"), and eventually it will slow fall into the next closer orbital ring, and be closer to the sun than it currently is,  some time after that, it will fall even closer, and closer until the sun consumes the entire planet, then my very excellent mother will only have 7 pizza pies [R.I.P. Pluto 1930 - 2006]

[onthecuttingedge2005]

the planets do infact get sucked into the sun, very slowly..  This will not entirely occur with all the planets within the lifespan of our sun, but Mercury will surely be the next to fall into the sun. We are observing Mercury's orbit amidts the enevetable orbital decay, its orbital velocity is decreasing, as is its rotational speed (increase in the length of "days"), and eventually it will slow fall into the next closer orbital ring, and be closer to the sun than it currently is,  some time after that, it will fall even closer, and closer until the sun consumes the entire planet, then my very excellent mother will only have 7 pizza pies [R.I.P. Pluto 1930 - 2006]

I have to agree with smoky on this one, planets are like the diamond needle on a vinyl record being played on a record player, the planet follows the grooves in the record until it reaches the inward event horizon of the star in question. the solar system doesn't play 45's does it?

sorry, I had to say it.
Jerry