Pushing gravity

[pantheory]

Every force needs a energy ? What is the energy source of gravity ? how is it made?

Newton's motivation source for gravity was matter/ mass. When Newton was asked why mass causes gravity, he said that he did not propose hypothesis. Einstein's motivation source for gravity was the warped space concept that accordingly surrounds all matter. When Einstein was asked why mass warps the space that surrounds it he accordingly gave an answer similar to Newton. Few alternative gravity models such as gravitons, for instance, cannot answer the energy-source-of-gravity question either. Maybe the simplest alternative model of gravity (alternative theory) that might answer this question is pushing gravity. This theory requires currents of something like dark matter or aether to inflow into all matter from all sides pushing matter together. There are various proposed reasons for this supposed inflow and radiation cycle depending on the model.

 

Presently General Relativity is the mainstream gravity model which does not propose an energy source for gravity.

//

Edited August 29, 2011 by pantheory

[Realitycheck]

If pushing gravity exerts pressure to keep us pressed against the planet from space, why isn't it affecting us differently indoors? Traditional gravity is a "force", but pushing gravity is just air pressure, which doesn't really add up to that much.

[pantheory]

If pushing gravity exerts pressure to keep us pressed against the planet from space, why isn't it affecting us differently indoors? Traditional gravity is a "force", but pushing gravity is just air pressure, which doesn't really add up to that much.

Pushing Gravity is based on an omni-present aether-like atmosphere of particulates in the ZPF, something like dark matter, gravitons, or smaller Planck size particulates/ strings. The atmosphere would have its own pressure on itself and would push matter together in the field since it could not push back. In some models the aether passes through matter and only some of it is stopped, in other models it may not totally penetrate matter but will leave its inward moving vector force within the matter. This is an old gravity model with a great many versions, some new and some old. One of the most famous is Le Sage's model.

 

http://en.wikipedia...._of_gravitation

 

You can find many other models by searching "Pushing Gravity."

//

Edited September 2, 2011 by pantheory

[Realitycheck]

Then why is pushing gravity on the Moon not the same as pushing gravity on the Earth?

[pantheory]

It is explained by the many pushing gravity models, as indicated by the link that I provided above.

 

http://en.wikipedia...._of_gravitation

 

If you read this wiki article you will understand the general mechanics. The Moon has less mass than the Earth, about 1/6th as much. The force of the inflowing field is proportional to the mass of the object, just like all other models of gravity. Each pushing gravity model proposes somewhat different mechanics.

 

The mechanics of my own model can be seen here , starting at page 57a.

 

For my model aether flows through matter and only a portion of it is stopped carrying the vector of its motion inward, compressing matter. The larger the matter the greater the compression. The inverse square law is based upon the surface area of all the matter involved which has as its basis 4 pi r² . This is why gravity has its limit in the formula based upon 1/r², called the inverse square law of gravity. The aether particulates are accordingly very small, roughly on the Planck scale, 10^-35 m. You might equate them with dark matter except they are much smaller and accordingly are mass-less like photons at rest, and their mechanics are strictly a physical pushing. A better description might be a physical aether with vortex motions and fluid dynamics.

Edited September 2, 2011 by pantheory

[Pincho Paxton]

Yes I agree with this. The site is doing well today, two things that actually make sense.

[pantheory]

Thanks Pincho Paxton,

 

Of all of my theories this model of pushing gravity is over 50 years old and still I believe one of the best

 

This being the Labor Day Weekend in the U.S. , more people should be leaving comments in the forum

[Pincho Paxton]

Yeah it's a good theory. I don't know why you have all these Pan fields though. They seem too helpful to your theory, like they have been thrown in to tie up loose ends. There's a simpler solution to get rid of them.

[pantheory]

Yeah it's a good theory. I don't know why you have all these Pan fields though. They seem too helpful to your theory, like they have been thrown in to tie up loose ends. There's a simpler solution to get rid of them.

The entire model is a field hypothesis concerning the Zero Point Field, which accordingly is space containing a large number of physical entities like the dark matter hypotheses. So accordingly I can't get rid of them because they are the only thing that exists, period. These particles in the field are accordingly the elementary particulates that when forming looped strings of the same particle, make-up all matter (no quarks or gluons), and they have a mechanical innate motivator that causes them to unwind. Once these strings of particles are forced into loops they spin and we can observe them as atomic particles or otherwise.

 

There accordingly is nothing else in all of reality. They collectively comprise everything, the whole of the universe. This one particle type forms all matter as well as all of finite space, in their vast numbers. Everything in reality can be explained and/ or defined by this single simple particle alone, including the beginning of time. Accordingly nothing else exists! So to get rid of them I would end up with nothing at all, which accordingly is an impossible state of existence/ reality

 

Since this is a pushing gravity model, there needs to be something pushing from all sides, right? You can call this an aether hypotheses/ model (a type of dark matter model if you like) involving the physical particulates and mechanics of pushing gravity. It has many similarities to older pushing gravity models which also required particulates to do the pushing

//

Edited September 6, 2011 by pantheory

[md65536]

If pushing gravity exerts pressure to keep us pressed against the planet from space, why isn't it affecting us differently indoors? Traditional gravity is a "force", but pushing gravity is just air pressure, which doesn't really add up to that much.

 

If you have a model (like "pushing gravity") that one says accounts for gravity, then it can only do so by predicting that gravity works as we observe it working. You can discredit the model by finding ways in which the model and observations do not agree. You're not going to get anywhere by assuming the model works differently from gravity (eg that instead of working like gravity, a pushing force would instead work like air pressure). So you can safely assume that any model of gravity is going to work "like gravity" unless it states otherwise. It works through walls. It works in air and in a vacuum. A pushing force vs. a pulling force isn't going to differ there.

 

Also... gravity does work differently indoors. For regular "pulling" gravity, the walls of a building pull (negligibly) on each other. In a more extreme example of "indoors", the inside of a spherical shell contributes 0 gravitational force everywhere inside the shell (off topic but integration can show this) while to the outside everywhere it contributes a gravitational attraction towards the shell.

 

Also... with GR you can treat gravitational acceleration as a type of inertial motion through curved spacetime (rough interpretation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Geometry_of_Newtonian_gravity). You don't need to treat it as a force at all, I believe, in order to model it. So if it is modeled by a force, whether it's pushing or pulling doesn't matter (I am guessing); either should be workable???. I don't think you would need to invent anything new (like an aether) to model it. I think it would be silly to argue either for or against a "pushing force" model by assuming the existence of an aether and/or to assume that it behaves at all like air pressure.

 

For or against a pushing force, I think it makes more sense to treat gravity behaving like gravity, not like something else that behaves very differently.

[Pincho Paxton]

The entire model is a field hypothesis concerning the Zero Point Field, which accordingly is space containing a large number of physical entities like the dark matter hypotheses. So accordingly I can't get rid of them because they are the only thing that exists, period. These particles in the field are accordingly the elementary particulates that when forming looped strings of the same particle, make-up all matter (no quarks or gluons), and they have a mechanical innate motivator that causes them to unwind. Once these strings of particles are forced into loops they spin and we can observe them as atomic particles or otherwise.

 

There accordingly is nothing else in all of reality. They collectively comprise everything, the whole of the universe. This one particle type forms all matter as well as all of finite space, in their vast numbers. Everything in reality can be explained and/ or defined by this single simple particle alone, including the beginning of time. Accordingly nothing else exists! So to get rid of them I would end up with nothing at all, which accordingly is an impossible state of existence/ reality

 

Since this is a pushing gravity model, there needs to be something pushing from all sides, right? You can call this an aether hypotheses/ model (a type of dark matter model if you like) involving the physical particulates and mechanics of pushing gravity. It has many similarities to older pushing gravity models which also required particulates to do the pushing

//

 

Oh I see. yes I use those fields in my theory, I just don't call them fields, I would more likely call them chains, that's all, because they are linked particles. So I didn't know what you meant.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[pantheory]

...........Also... gravity does work differently indoors. For regular "pulling" gravity, the walls of a building pull (negligibly) on each other. In a more extreme example of "indoors", the inside of a spherical shell contributes 0 gravitational force everywhere inside the shell (off topic but integration can show this) while to the outside everywhere it contributes a gravitational attraction towards the shell.

It would seem to work the same way with pushing gravity. When inside a building there is a little bit of pushing toward the walls and a little less pushing on you, not perceptible to any degree, but still there. Inside a spherical shell you would be pushed in all directions equally toward the outer shell so you would not move. Accordingly there could be no space without the ZPF, in this case an aether. As you said, there seems to be little difference concerning pushing and pulling gravity. Pushing gravity is called a mechanical explanation of gravity which it would seem that pulling gravity could never be. I don't believe there are any other known mechanical explanations of gravity.

 

Also... with GR you can treat gravitational acceleration as a type of inertial motion through curved spacetime (rough interpretation of http://en.wikipedia....wtonian_gravity). You don't need to treat it as a force at all,

The Pushing gravity model is not a "a priori" force. It is simply that this pushes that, which pushes that ... and so on. And acceleration of gravity is extremely simple. The vector toward matter is greater than the force pushing away from matter so a continuous net force is applied to matter in an inward direction, which causes matter to accelerate which we describe as gravity.

 

I believe, in order to model it. So if it is modeled by a force, whether it's pushing or pulling doesn't matter (I am guessing); either should be workable???. I don't think you would need to invent anything new (like an aether) to model it.

You are correct. I do not need to have an aether to explain the inward pushing of gravity as a force, but "force theory" is always infinitely more complicated than simple mechanical theory. All past pushing gravity models including my own, us particulates like dark matter, for the pushing process. In aether theory the aether along can explain everything, including matter, EM radiation, and all of reality including the laws of physics, all by the simplest of explanations.

 

I think it would be silly to argue either for or against a "pushing force" model by assuming the existence of an aether and/or to assume that it behaves at all like air pressure.

 

For or against a pushing force, I think it makes more sense to treat gravity behaving like gravity, not like something else that behaves very differently.

As far as I'm concerned, how it is explained must be based solely upon observation and logic, and any other reason for explanations I think should run a distant third Accordingly everything that exists in the whole universe is simple to understand and explain! excepting when trying to make a mathematical estimation of it for prediction purposes

 

Oh I see. yes I use those fields in my theory, I just don't call them fields, I would more likely call them chains, that's all, because they are linked particles. So I didn't know what you meant.

I use different names for a physical aether field in my model, but usually I call it a Pan Field, because I call the most fundamental particles (like the "god-particle, aka Higg's particle) Pan. A string of these particles I call a Pan Chain. So as a field I call them collectively concerning a particular volume, a Pan Field. But for the purposes of this discussion I think I should call it simply an aether so that I don't need to discuss details of the whole theory, just details of the pushing gravity model

Edited September 6, 2011 by pantheory

[Pincho Paxton]

It would seem to work the same way with pushing gravity. When inside a building there is a little bit of pushing toward the walls and a little less pushing on you, not perceptible to any degree, but still there. Inside a spherical shell you would be pushed in all directions equally toward the outer shell so you would not move. Accordingly there could be no space without the ZPF, in this case an aether. As you said, there seems to be little difference concerning pushing and pulling gravity. Pushing gravity is called a mechanical explanation of gravity which it would seem that pulling gravity could never be. I don't believe there are any other known mechanical explanations of gravity.

 

 

The Pushing gravity model is not a "a priori" force. It is simply that this pushes that, which pushes that ... and so on. And acceleration of gravity is extremely simple. The vector toward matter is greater than the force pushing away from matter so a continuous net force is applied to matter in an inward direction, which causes matter to accelerate which we describe as gravity.

 

 

You are correct. I do not need to have an aether to explain the inward pushing of gravity as a force, but "force theory" is always infinitely more complicated than simple mechanical theory. All past pushing gravity models including my own, us particulates like dark matter, for the pushing process. In aether theory the aether along can explain everything, including matter, EM radiation, and all of reality including the laws of physics, all by the simplest of explanations.

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, how it is explained must be based solely upon observation and logic, and any other reason for explanations I think should run a distant third Accordingly everything that exists in the whole universe is simple to understand and explain! excepting when trying to make a mathematical estimation of it for prediction purposes

 

 

I use different names for a physical aether field in my model, but usually I call it a Pan Field, because I call the most fundamental particles (like the "god-particle, aka Higg's particle) Pan. A string of these particles I call a Pan Chain. So as a field I call them collectively concerning a particular volume, a Pan Field. But for the purposes of this discussion I think I should call it simply an aether so that I don't need to discuss details of the whole theory, just details of the pushing gravity model

 

Well, your model is almost identical to mine.

 

You might like my video..

 

 

I also know how to make the mathematical model for it, but there isn't a computer powerful enough to run it, considering that the Aether is so abundant.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[pantheory]

Thanks Pincho,

 

Looked at your Universe generator link. Pretty cool. I watched the whole thing

[adventureswithjim]

The pushing gravity thing is fun a fun but old theory...has anyone come up with a physical test yet?

[Pincho Paxton]

The pushing gravity thing is fun a fun but old theory...has anyone come up with a physical test yet?

 

If you had two spherical particles, and you were told to make one particle move the other particle, what would you do?To make them pull you have to add some invisible magic. But pushing them is easy. The easy answer is don't add invisible magic to the Universe, if you have a way to do the same thing without any magic.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[pantheory]

The pushing gravity thing is fun a fun but old theory...has anyone come up with a physical test yet?

Yes I've designed a test of the speed of light up vs. down. For this I need very precise timing devices which I believe I have found, accurate to a couple billionths of a second, and some extruded fiber optic material that slows down the speed of light be a factor of about a 1000. Instead of the speed of light through it being 186,000 miles per second, it would be about 2000 miles per second. Such materials do exist but maybe not 2 pieces of high quality material, both need to be a mile long. No other model of gravity or test for aether predicts a difference in aether or light speed to such a small extent, up vs. down of about 60 feet per second difference, or ~41 mph.

 

It will likely be 2 years or longer before I will be able to conduct such an experiment based upon the time and money needed to do it.

,,

 

If you had two spherical particles, and you were told to make one particle move the other particle, what would you do?To make them pull you have to add some invisible magic. But pushing them is easy. The easy answer is don't add invisible magic to the Universe, if you have a way to do the same thing without any magic.

 

I certainly agree. The simpler answer is usually the better answer. There are no "a priori" forces of any kind in my over-all cosmology model. Magnetism in all of its facets is also accordingly a pushing force concerning a background field aether in my magnetism model.

Edited September 7, 2011 by pantheory

[Pincho Paxton]

Yes I've designed a test of the speed of light up vs. down. For this I need very precise timing devices which I believe I have found, accurate to a couple billionths of a second, and some extruded fiber optic material that slows down the speed of light be a factor of about a 1000. Instead of the speed of light through it being 186,000 miles per second, it would be about 2000 miles per second. Such materials do exist but maybe not 2 pieces of high quality material, both need to be a mile long. No other model of gravity or test for aether predicts a difference in aether or light speed to such a small extent, up vs. down of about 60 feet per second difference, or ~41 mph.

 

It will likely be 2 years or longer before I will be able to conduct such an experiment based upon the time and money needed to do it.

,,

 

 

 

I certainly agree. The simpler answer is usually the better answer. There are no "a priori" forces of any kind in my over-all cosmology model. Magnetism in all of its facets is also accordingly a pushing force concerning a background field aether.

 

Yes, magnetism is also a push force.

[pantheory]

Yes, magnetism is also a push force.

Thanks for keeping the ball rolling Pincho. My overall model asserts that only substance by contact or physical connection can create what we presently call a force

//

Edited September 8, 2011 by pantheory

[Pincho Paxton]

Thanks for keeping the ball rolling Pincho. My overall model asserts that only substance by contact or physical connection can create what we presently call a force

//

 

I have entropy as the force. A membrane surrounding the particles is the feedback loop (the bubbles that I have been using) When Aether overlaps it raises the energy at that overlap position. the raise in energy travels to the membrane outside, and bounces back. the bounce back pushes the particles apart again. Entropy.

[michel123456]

IMHO you are all wrong. Nothing is pushing or pulling. My pet theory is that matter is expanding/contracting and the attractive effect of gravity is caused by acceleration. Something like inertia.

[pantheory]

I have entropy as the force. A membrane surrounding the particles is the feedback loop (the bubbles that I have been using) When Aether overlaps it raises the energy at that overlap position. the raise in energy travels to the membrane outside, and bounces back. the bounce back pushes the particles apart again. Entropy.

In my own model the observable universe is generally not expanding. Your model seems both interesting and sophisticated. Mine is not. Accordingly the original black holes of the universe starting as clumpings of field material that eventually got pushed together into very large dense orbs of field material. In the observable universe now, matter accordingly most often is the original seed for the clump which again becomes compressed down to field material only as it becomes very massive and dense.

 

In this model field particles, which also make up matter, must unwind and in so doing slowly become smaller. By calculations using redshifts, field particles and matter lose back to the field about 1/000 part every 5 million years. That is my separation mechanism of renewal.

//

 

IMHO you are all wrong. Nothing is pushing or pulling. My pet theory is that matter is expanding/contracting and the attractive effect of gravity is caused by acceleration. Something like inertia.

Michel, in this model matter does not expand or contract but it does slowly get smaller, about 1/1000 part every 5 million years; calculations are based upon the observed redshifts. In time these discarded string-like segments are reformed into new protons and electrons by the torsion forces surrounding galactic black holes. The result is a relatively constant matter density in the observable universe. A surrounding aether-like field would act like atmospheric gases by pushing on us in all directions. This force would act somewhat like gas pressure trying to push itself apart and material within the field together.

Edited September 8, 2011 by pantheory

[michel123456]

Michel, in this model matter does not expand or contract but it does slowly get smaller, about 1/1000 part every 5 million years; calculations are based upon the observed redshifts. In time these discarded string-like segments are reformed into new protons and electrons by the torsion forces surrounding galactic black holes. The result is a relatively constant matter density in the observable universe. A surrounding aether-like field would act like atmospheric gases by pushing on us in all directions. This force would act somewhat like gas pressure trying to push itself apart and material within the field together.

 

My concept is different:

each second, matter is reducing 300000 km in radius. Kilometers are measured relatively to the observer. So when 1 second of time have passed, matter can, again reduce 3 10^6 km. It is a scaling operation, there is no end to it.

[pantheory]

My concept is different:

each second, matter is reducing 300000 km in radius. Kilometers are measured relatively to the observer. So when 1 second of time have passed, matter can, again reduce 3 10^6 km. It is a scaling operation, there is no end to it.

Michel,

Mine also is a Scaling theory of sorts. The slowly decreasing size of matter relates to larger matter in the past producing longer wavelengths of EM radiation which we accordingly call redshifts .

 

3 10^6 km per second, per what quantity of matter? On what basis is this calculated? Is this reduction based upon diameters or what dimension? For what reason does this reduction take place?

//

Edited September 8, 2011 by pantheory

[michel123456]

3 10^6 km per second, per what quantity of matter? On what basis is this calculated? Is this reduction based upon diameters or what dimension? For what reason does this reduction take place?

//

 

It is the Speed Of Light.

 

The principle is almost the same as Pancho's

If you had two spherical particles, and you were told to make one particle move the other particle, what would you do?To make them pull you have to add some invisible magic. But pushing them is easy. The easy answer is don't add invisible magic to the Universe, if you have a way to do the same thing without any magic.

 

My principle is that when you have in your left hand something called "matter" and in the right hand an unexisting thing called "nothing", the most evident explanation must reside in the left hand, not in the right hand. Instead of looking into this "nothing" and trying to give some properties to it, like an aether for example, it is more logic to "give" some property at what is existing.

 

This "property" could be scaling.

Why scaling? or as you wrote "for what reason does this reduction take place?'

 

The answer would be an hypothesis on top of an hypothesis.

I support largely Masreliez work which is well based. Masreliez concept is about expansion, not contraction. I have to admit that I change my mind every week about that. I have sometimes a feeling that in the end, it doesn't matter: the observational result might be the same.

IOW, I don't know.

--------------------

I notice there is no wiki page in English for Masreliez

Here is the link in French

Edited September 9, 2011 by michel123456