Pushing gravity (split from alternative to gravity)

[Orobouros]

@sceptic 1 :

 

A possible contribution to what you are saying, with the earth as example, could be my following idea. ( speculation, (but interesting?) ) :

 

The earth does not pull objects towards it's core,
it is force-particles pushing the object towards the earth's core.

Why ? Because there is no such thing as 'pulling particles', particles can only push things, plain and simple.

So what happens is that in the 'force-steady' atmosphere, the earth is an objekt disturbing this statusquo. Like a ball in water experiencing force from the water all around equally. (If gravity of the earth were excluded)

So if a smaller object get's near theearth, it will experience forces towards the earth-centre, force-particles PUSHING it towards the ball-centre, not the ball pulling in the objekt.

So the power of the gravity does not come from within the earth, but from the field around it.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

This has been split into a new thread; answering/responding with speculation is considered thread hijacking. Please discuss this idea here and only here.

 

Also, please limit the use of highlighting or other nonstandard text formatting. It's for emphasis, not for general writing.

[Mellinia]

Is the supposed field spherically oriented inwards?

[Orobouros]

Is the supposed field spherically oriented inwards?

Yes

[Mellinia]

How does mass concentrated on one point in space contribute to more "force particles" pushing into it?

 

p.s. Currently GR approaches gravity to say that space time is curved when mass-energy is there, nothing pushing, nothing pulling, the object just follows that curved path.

[WWLabRat]

If all matter were in a state of pushing vs pulling, then the universe as we see and know it wouldn't be able to exist. All matter would have gone from a state of high density to a state of low density. As the particles push around, they would of course collide with other particles and would then continue equal and opposite movement from there. Yes, we see this in the universe already. Where? In gaseous matter it's the most apparent. However, to say that gravity is an outward force you would have to see that nothing in the world would be able to hold together. The dust clouds that formed the sun and other stars along with the planets wouldn't be able to exist because there would have been no force to draw them to that center of gravity. If your assertion that gravity acts outward is correct, then as those particles got closer together, they would then start to push each other away.

[Orobouros]

The idea does not have to be contradictory to Einsteins theories.

In fact they talk of one and the same phenomenon in my oppinion :

Gravity particles pushing towards the core of the objekt concentrically is what causes the curvature.

 

The above discribed analogic image of the ball in water (given no earth gravity) is the same as a 3D-spacetime image.

The concept has beenput forward many times in the past : An interesting read :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation#Recent_activity

 

 

Other authors in the wiki article : (I'd like to buy the book by Matthew Arwards) :

 

Recent activity[edit source | editbeta]

The re-examination of Le Sage's theory in the 19th century identified several closely interconnected problems with the theory. These relate to excessive heating, frictional drag, shielding, and gravitational aberration. The recognition of these problems, in conjunction with a general shift away from mechanical based theories, resulted in a progressive loss of interest in Le Sage’s theory. Ultimately in the 20th century Le Sage’s theory was eclipsed by Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

In 1965 Richard Feynman examined the Fatio/Lesage mechanism, primarily as an example of an attempt to explain a "complicated" physical law (in this case, Newton's inverse-square law of gravity) in terms of simpler primitive operations without the use of complex mathematics, and also as an example of a failed theory. He notes that the mechanism of "bouncing particles" reproduces the inverse-square force law and that "the strangeness of the mathematical relation will be very much reduced", but then remarks that the scheme "does not work", because of the drag it predicts would be experienced by moving bodies, "so that is the end of that theory".^[59][60]

Although it is not regarded as a viable theory within the mainstream scientific community, there are occasional attempts to re-habilitate the theory outside the mainstream, including those of Radzievskii and Kagalnikova (1960),^[61]Shneiderov (1961),^[62] Buonomano and Engels (1976),^[63] Adamut (1982),^[64] Jaakkola (1996),^[65]Tom Van Flandern (1999),^[66] and Edwards (2007)^[67]

A variety of Le Sage models and related topics are discussed in Edwards, et al.^[68]

Correct link :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation

Somehow the link won't get in correctly, sorry

 

>> just google on " pushing gravitiy ", and go to the wiki article on Le Sage

Edited September 22, 2013 by Orobouros

[Klaynos]

OK, if you think it's as useful as general relativity lets go for a nice simple opener.

 

Please derive the distance from the surface of a geostationary orbit around earth. To be accurate this will have to be numeric.

 

 

edit: If something has been put forward, and dismissed many times in the past what does that tell you?

[Mellinia]

The idea does not have to be contradictory to Einsteins theories.

In fact they talk of one and the same phenomenon in my opinion :

Gravity particles pushing towards the core of the object concentrically is what causes the curvature.

My dear, GR does not push anything. The object just follows it's path in spacetime, it won't know the path is curved until there's another Frame Of Reference.

 

You have not answered "How does mass concentrated on one point in space contribute to more "force particles" pushing into it?".

Is there something that produces the force particles?

[Orobouros]

I am so bored of these standard comments, does nobody take an effort to think for themselves anymore ?

 

I'll be leaving now, sad to see that even the younger generation gets trapped in this dogmatic non-progress attitude.

 

Call me a crank, i will ware the title proudly, as someone who goes against the grain.

 

I wish you future wisdom, and goodbye.

[swansont]

I am so bored of these standard comments, does nobody take an effort to think for themselves anymore ?

 

I'll be leaving now, sad to see that even the younger generation gets trapped in this dogmatic non-progress attitude.

 

Call me a crank, i will ware the title proudly, as someone who goes against the grain.

 

I wish you future wisdom, and goodbye.

!

Moderator Note

OK then. Since you will not present details of your model in response to these inquiries, in violation of the rules, the thread is locked. Only acknowledging comments that agree with you is not how one does science.

 

(BTW, making these claims while refusing to provide supporting evidence is dogmatic. Gotta love the irony.)

 

Do not re-introduce the subject elsewhere.