Starblade Darksquall:
There seems to be a very big split between those who beleive that
gravity is a force between two bodies mediated by the graviton 2-boson

You mean spin two graviton, which makes the graviton a boson. I also
don't think any such "big split" exists. I think many if not most
physicists would tend to say that the two approaches are equivalent
or at least compatible. There might be some gravitational physicists
who would argue against gravity admitting a particle description,
but I'm not a gravitational physicist so I'm not familiar with all
of the nuances. The problem is that gravity is not a yang-mills field
or at least is not in the usual understanding of yang-mills theories.
Two articles which describe some of the problems in quantum field
theories a

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2002-5

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-1

and can be unified with the other forces, and those who beleive that
gravity is the bending of timespace, and that freefall can be taken to
be a proper reference frame. But there is a test we can do which will
distinguish between them.

Not by any theory of gravity which exists. In particular, general
relativity doesn't really address the physics at the scale where
quantum effects are presumably important. If for some reason, the
two approaches are incompatible and would lead to different predictions,
no one knows what those would be.

If gravity is a force that can be mediated by graviton particles, then
in a non-free falling reference frame, Newton's laws would be
preserved.

Not so. A quantum field theory of gravity would have to reproduce
general relativity, at least at the level general relativity is known
to be correct, which covers everything macroscopic. Also, a quantum
field theory would presumably be relativistic in some way.

This means anything that can be effected by gravity also
has a gravitational effect on the first object. Since we all know that
light is effected by gravity, then analogously it ought to have a
gravitational field, so that Newton's laws are then correct in a
regular inertial reference frame.

The simplest way to picture the relation of a graviton to general
relativity to picture the graviton as carrying the curvature that
general relativity describes with the cristoffel symbols. In particular,
in a field theory, the field is described by the covariant derivative.
In E&M, the covariant derivative is:

D_u = d_u + ieA_u

A_u is the electromagnetic field and the E and B fields are given by the
field strength tensor obtained from the commutator of covariant derivatives:

F_uv = (1/ie) [D_u, D_v] = d_v A_u - d_u A_v


In general relativity, the covariant derivative operates on a vector,
rather than a scalar as above, so I'll include it explicitly:

D_u V^a = d_u V^a + C^a_ub V^b

And again, the commutator gives the riemann tensor, the gravitational
equivalent to the electromagnetic field strength tensor,

[D_u, D_v]V^a = R^a_buv V^b


In the electromagnetic case, A^u is the photon. It carries the
eloectromagnetic field. You could, in a naive sense, picture
the christoffel symbols as the gravitational analogy.


However, if gravity is the bending of timespace, and is a natural
state of motion like inertia, then Newton's laws would only be
conserved in a state of free-fall. Newton's laws would be preserved in
a reference frame of free fall. Since light falls with a constant
acceleration, then it would not be required to exert a gravitational
force on anything in order to preserve Newton's laws, and therefore it
would not have a gravitational field of any sort.

Light has a hard time with newton's laws, general relativity or
not. Light propagates at `c' and _defines_ a null ray.