Popcorn Sutton Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 I've been pondering this question for a while. Is gravity a pushing or a pulling force? I've been going back and forth for a while, but I think that the evidence points towards a pushing force. Recently, I was thinking, ok how about the tides? Gravity must be a pulling force. Well, i just thought about it, and it would seem once again that I can say that it is a pushing force. If you think about the center of the earth, it seems that it wants to expand outward, which would be a pushing force. Looking at volcanoes, the earths magma pushes through the crust. If we were able to survive on a journey towards the center of the earth, I am absolutely certain that we would be pushed to the outside of the earth. There is probably a point where the pressure from above equalizes with the pressure from below, and I dont think that that point would be at the center of the earth. Getting back to the moon though, it only seems logical to think that it is a pulling force right? Well, think about it this way, all the energy that is pushing on the earth gets blocked by the moon when the moon is above the point on earth affected by the tides. This blocking effect lets the earths gravity take over (also a pushing force) allowing that portion of the earth to rise because there is less pressure forcing that area of the planet down. You can ask yourself also, what about the comets that got "pulled" into Jupiter? That planet seems to suck everything up. Well, think about it this way. All the pressure surrounding the comet keeps the comet solid. Well, when it approaches Jupiter, Jupiter blocks a lot of that energy because of how big it is. Therefor, there is a pressure difference between the side facing jupiter and the side not facing jupiter, and because of this pressure difference, the comet gets pushed into Jupiter. You can't tell me that gravity is a pulling force anymore, at least not without sufficient evidence to back up that claim. It seems more logical that it is a pushing force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Gravity is pulling, but buoyancy can cause stuff to go up in another direction. Also, if enough pressure is generated, you can make things go against gravity. If you take a straw, and blow some water through up, and make it go up... then gravity isn't pushing it away, it is you who blows upwards. Same with a volcano, except much larger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted April 11, 2013 Author Share Posted April 11, 2013 I want to disagree with you, and the way I will do that is by saying that gravity is phlogiston. Take the label out of the equation and lets focus on buoyancy and pressure only. Now, not having the label of gravity, we can't blame behavior on gravity. So what do we blame it on now? Buoyancy and pressure right? Take a body, throw it into the vacuum of space, the body expands and eventually ruptures. Why should that be the case? It varies in degrees of solidification, the body does not have gravity, its the space that has pressure, and the varying degrees of buoyancy cause the body to expand and eventually explode. Well, after the body is deceased, it will again form a cluster out of the materials it was composed of (without the bit of mass that expanded too far outward). What will the clump look like? Maybe it would end up looking like an asteroid or a comet, but it wouldnt take the shape of a body again without having the conditions we are exposed to on this planet. Therefor, gravity doesnt exist, it's just differences in density which is exposed to the pressure fluctuations of the surrounding space. Like I said, if there is material blocking the pressure that is coming from one direction, then the materials affected will experience negative pressure between them causing them to get pushed together. Gravity is not a pulling force, "gravity" is a misleading label. Theoretically speaking, gravity is unfalsifiable. How could we simulate this "pulling" force? We can't, and no one ever has. And to add to this, there's no logical way we could. The earth is spinning, spinning something causes things to fly off its surface, not get pulled in towards it. Is there any logical way we could go about simulating a pulling force naturally? Not really. My best guess for simulating a pulling force is by having a bunch of strings connected to balls with one spinning ball on the inside that winds the strings up. Well, if that were the case, then the strings would pull the balls towards the center ball eventually causing one solidified mass, but there is no evidence for this. However, if you want to simulate gravity as a pushing force, there is a million ways you could do it, and we do it all the time (like making snowballs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 I don't know why I even responded in the first place. Popcorn, I just want to announce that you win. We have a whole bunch of formulas that perfectly predict what will happen in almost any case. Even if you would be right... why would anyone be interested to change all the books, formulas and whatever? They work. And why wouldn't the only difference be that we add two minus signs? One for the gravitational constant, and one in the formula where we apply that constant? Oh, please don't take this the wrong way, but I will also probably not respond to your next posts anymore (I already lost interest). I have been pushed away by the gravity of your claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted April 11, 2013 Author Share Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) If you are packing a snowball and continue crushing it down with your hands, someone tells you that there is another snowball you need to add, well the only way to do that is by removing one of your arms, grabbing the other snowball, and pushing it into the other snowball. Is demonstrates the negative pressure between the balls (where the force of your arms pushing on the balls is the positive pressure causing them to become one). Thank you for taking the time to respond, I appreciate it. You guys don't have to change the books, but don't go around telling people that it is a pulling force if there is more evidence of it being a pushing force. The books will change eventually right? Edited April 11, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 How do planets form? Why is there a pushing force at different places? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted April 11, 2013 Author Share Posted April 11, 2013 How do planets form? Why is there a pushing force at different places? What do you mean "pushing force at different places"? Planets form because of the negative pressure between solid objects. It's like steel, the atoms integrate wherever they can into the object which forms a more solidified object, but at the same time, the atoms vary in density, and as we all know, a piece of paper being thrown at water will land on the surface and float, whereas a piece of metal being thrown at water will sink through to the bottom. If you have air trapped under a cup under water, it will cause the cup to rise or tumble over so the air gets released to the surface. It's a question of density. Planets are complex objects because of all the material that goes into creating them. There are several different ways to answer this question, I think that the most interesting answer deals with the fundamentals of solidification though. There's got to be a method of solidifying nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 What do you mean "pushing force at different places"? Planets are at different locations. How does the force "know" where to point? What does the pushing? Planets form because of the negative pressure between solid objects. That doesn't really explain anything. Pressure requires a force, which in this case is gravity. It's like steel, the atoms integrate wherever they can into the object which forms a more solidified object, but at the same time, the atoms vary in density, and as we all know, a piece of paper being thrown at water will land on the surface and float, whereas a piece of metal being thrown at water will sink through to the bottom. If you have air trapped under a cup under water, it will cause the cup to rise or tumble over so the air gets released to the surface. It's a question of density. Planets are complex objects because of all the material that goes into creating them. These analogies are all example of electromagnetic attraction, which is a pull. F = -GMm/r^2 Tells me two masses will attract each other. How do I mathematically describe them being pushed together? In a way that gives the same result, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted April 11, 2013 Author Share Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) Well, think of all the energy coming from all over the universe, especially light. Light is a constant force that is pushing on all objects surrounding the sun. Light is also coming from other places in the galaxy providing an extra pushing force. Also, radioactive decay can account for the expansion of the universe and another force that has a pushing effect. Zero point radiation is pushing outward. If point A and point B are separated by a length of 2 units, then the line between them is a negative pressure, and the line extended beyond them is a positive pressure. On the topic of electromagnetism, I hate to comment on it because I'm not sure if I understand it well. But... When you refer to EM attraction, I think of the repelsion theory of reduction (sorry to bring it up again). These EM particles are so small and spinning so fast that the spin (when coming from the zero point) causes them to reach out to the exterior of the planet (all the while, rolling along the equilibrium of the two pressurized pushing forces), but while they are coming back in, it is also the spin that brings them inward because the particles are gaining acceleration by bouncing off of other units that have less spin, which gives those units an added spin. The spin would force the two magnetically charged objects to attract, which again, may not be a pulling force, it might be a sucking force instead. People describe a strange feeling that they have before they get struck by lightning, and I think that that feeling is the "wave of probability" that separates space just enough to suck the lightning through. I'm not going to claim that I've solved EM attraction though because I'm not very confident of that part of this message. I'd be interested to hear your take on it though. Edited April 11, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekan Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 If matter is made of physical particles, surely they can only interact by physically pushing against each other. Otherwise you get occult properties, like "attraction". What that means nobody knows, least of all Newton. He didn't finger any hypotheses, and was resisted by Descartes, who argued that vortices were more rational. But the Descartes was defeated, as the French usually are, and Newton won the day. Nevertheless, the question remains. How can a particle influence another particle, except by pushing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Przemyslaw.Gruchala Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 How can a particle influence another particle, except by pushing it? Sun doesn't push, nor touch any planet, but still they are orbiting around Sun. No energy, no force, is need to do so. Just bended timespace.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted April 11, 2013 Author Share Posted April 11, 2013 So what you are saying is that if you block all the energy from the sun with a massive sphere that literally encapsulates the entire sun, there will be no effect on the planets surrounding it? Curved timespace doesnt do it for me. I think that if you block all the suns energy, the surrounding environment will probably move toward the sun. And @swansont, i do not understand the equation you provided, I havent specialized in math, but Im sure there is a way to adjust the equation to get the same results by making the force a pushing force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 If matter is made of physical particles, surely they can only interact by physically pushing against each other. Otherwise you get occult properties, like "attraction". What that means nobody knows, least of all Newton. He didn't finger any hypotheses, and was resisted by Descartes, who argued that vortices were more rational. But the Descartes was defeated, as the French usually are, and Newton won the day. Nevertheless, the question remains. How can a particle influence another particle, except by pushing it? A rope is mede of particles. How do you push a rope? And @swansont, i do not understand the equation you provided, I havent specialized in math, but Im sure there is a way to adjust the equation to get the same results by making the force a pushing force. If you have no model, then, you need to have some kind of test that could falsify your idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Przemyslaw.Gruchala Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 So what you are saying is that if you block all the energy from the sun with a massive sphere that literally encapsulates the entire sun, there will be no effect on the planets surrounding it? There would be effect such that Earth doesn't receive visible light and uv rays thus it's cooling with time without outside source of energy.. But to gravity it has no effect. Curved timespace doesnt do it for me. I think that if you block all the suns energy, the surrounding environment will probably move toward the sun. Nonsense. Moon is orbiting Earth without Earth sending any energy to Moon, Some asteroids are orbiting each other in pairs. And they are extremely cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Well, think of all the energy coming from all over the universe, especially light. Light is a constant force that is pushing on all objects surrounding the sun. Light is also coming from other places in the galaxy providing an extra pushing force. Radiation pressure is a push in the direction from the source. Your gravity model is not. The push comes from somewhere else. Given that gravity has an infinite range, it appears to come from everywhere, and infinite distance away. How does this push "know" to push toward the center of the orbit? Where is the push coming from? Also, radioactive decay can account for the expansion of the universe and another force that has a pushing effect. What? Zero point radiation is pushing outward. Again, what? On the topic of electromagnetism, I hate to comment on it because I'm not sure if I understand it well. But... When you refer to EM attraction, I think of the repelsion theory of reduction (sorry to bring it up again). These EM particles are so small and spinning so fast that the spin (when coming from the zero point) causes them to reach out to the exterior of the planet (all the while, rolling along the equilibrium of the two pressurized pushing forces), but while they are coming back in, it is also the spin that brings them inward because the particles are gaining acceleration by bouncing off of other units that have less spin, which gives those units an added spin. The spin would force the two magnetically charged objects to attract, which again, may not be a pulling force, it might be a sucking force instead. One made-up explanation does not justify another made-up explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 If you are packing a snowball and continue crushing it down with your hands, someone tells you that there is another snowball you need to add, well the only way to do that is by removing one of your arms, grabbing the other snowball, and pushing it into the other snowball. Is demonstrates the negative pressure between the balls (where the force of your arms pushing on the balls is the positive pressure causing them to become one). Thank you for taking the time to respond, I appreciate it. You guys don't have to change the books, but don't go around telling people that it is a pulling force if there is more evidence of it being a pushing force. The books will change eventually right? The books will change? What timescale do you have in mind? Gravity has been known to pull for about 400 years Nobody has aver found any evidence for it pushing. Yet you expect the books to change because you say it pushes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted April 11, 2013 Author Share Posted April 11, 2013 If I've learned anything john, it's that words are contagious, ideas are as well, but the more complex the unit gets, the less probable it will spread. Ok, heres a test. Fill a capsule with jello and two balls connected to two strings. Pull the balls apart by the strings, and let go of the strings, watch the balls move back toward each other. That will simulate the push toward each other. Space is a different consistency than jello though, but I assume it has the same effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 If I've learned anything john, it's that words are contagious, ideas are as well, but the more complex the unit gets, the less probable it will spread. Ok, heres a test. Fill a capsule with jello and two balls connected to two strings. Pull the balls apart by the strings, and let go of the strings, watch the balls move back toward each other. That will simulate the push toward each other. Space is a different consistency than jello though, but I assume it has the same effect. Here's a test of what? My likelihood of doing something pointless? When you have finished talking balls and jello, gravity won't have changed. It will still pull. Do you not understand that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted April 11, 2013 Author Share Posted April 11, 2013 Another test I was going to suggest had to deal with the flatness of the atmosphere. It should be alot more flat on the opposite side from the sun. There should be a noticeable ridge Maybe I'll shut up on this one. Just some food for thought. Gravity is a pushing force, no doubt in my mind. Nuff said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwagen Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 It should be alot more flat on the opposite side from the sun. There should be a noticeable ridge It's not though, so it's falsified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Another test I was going to suggest had to deal with the flatness of the atmosphere. It should be alot more flat on the opposite side from the sun. There should be a noticeable ridge Maybe I'll shut up on this one. Just some food for thought. Gravity is a pushing force, no doubt in my mind. Nuff said Your mind is, it seems, the only place where no such doubt exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted April 11, 2013 Author Share Posted April 11, 2013 Did you already check? Maybe the ridge is at the edge of the shadow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 If gravity is pushing, then whatever pushes on a planet has to rotate with the planet, around the sun. Around every planet, about every star. Epicycles all over again. Gravity pulling in to the center is much simpler to give the same result (since gravity, as a model, works) Gravity is a pushing force, no doubt in my mind. Nuff said An incredibly unscientific statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) I can't believe i just got pushed/sucked/pulled into reading this thread... Edited April 11, 2013 by Moontanman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted April 11, 2013 Author Share Posted April 11, 2013 Alright I'll compensate for you guys. Gravity, conceptually, is/was a pulling force. In reality, it doesn't exist, theres a bunch of variables involved. If it did exist, it's a push. Think about rockets, they don't blast off instantly, it takes time for the space to come back and start pushing them up In other words, the leprechauns are pulling, while the space is pushing. -5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts