Gravity could still be a pushing force

[Bignose]

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

Right. Unfortunately, this is the complete opposite of what happens. The atmosphere actually shows tides just like the oceans, with bulges toward the sun and moon. Almost as if the sun and moon were pulling on the atmosphere...

[Popcorn Sutton]

Or that the sun is not sufficiently providing the push necessary to overcome the push coming from the opposite side of the earth.

 

So in that case, the ridge would be towards the sun.

[Bignose]

Or that the sun is not sufficiently providing the push necessary to overcome the push coming from the opposite side of the earth.

 

So in that case, the ridge would be towards the sun.

So, now empty space can push as well? This then goes back to swansont's point... how does it know to push exactly on the back side of the Earth? Why doesn't it push just above or just below the Earth? How does the pushing know to push at exactly the right time and right spot every time?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Youre personifying something that has no observable person. Same with swansongt. Ok maybe it's legit.

 

If the sun and the planet were originally the same object and they became separated, then gravity is a pushing force.

[Moontanman]

Youre personifying something that has no observable person. Same with swansongt. Ok maybe it's legit.

 

If the sun and the planet were originally the same object and they became separated, then gravity is a pushing force.

 

If frogs had wings PS...

[ACG52]

Just another push gravity thread, only this one is more of a lightweight piece of nothing than most.

 

But then, look who's 'pushing' it.

[md65536]

I think you're all nuts, maddened by the desire for the other to be wrong while losing grip on anything right.

 

Why are you arguing whether it's a pulling or pushing force? There's nothing physical doing a pushing or pulling that makes a detectable difference either way.

 

If I were to say "General relativity's wrong because it says that gravity is due to spacetime curvature, but gravity is already known to be due to a force pulling on masses," then I'd probably get a lot of "It's not actually a pulling force" arguments. But you'll construct ridiculous arguments to show that it is a pulling force if someone says it isn't.

 

Spacetime neither pulls nor pushes from a single location. It's essentially a mathematical or conceptual convenience to call it either a push or a pull, unless you've all discovered something new here.

 

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

Edit: Okay so I reread some of the examples I was seeing, and as usual I haven't bothered to comprehend them until after I posted. Note that swansont's arguments in this thread are not in favour of physical "pull" forces but only arguing against "push" forces, and only seemed ridiculous due to my misinterpretation of them, and my mistakenly grouping them in with other ridiculous arguments for "pull" gravity.

Edited April 12, 2013 by md65536

[arc]

Why didn't anybody tell me you only have to throw in a leprechaun to get a lively debate of the merits and weaknesses of ones hypothesis! ​

[John Cuthber]

Or that the sun is not sufficiently providing the push necessary to overcome the push coming from the opposite side of the earth.

 

So in that case, the ridge would be towards the sun.

So, you are saying that if the atmosphere is flattened on the shaded side of the earth then that's because gravity pushes, but on the other hand, if it bulges there, it's because gravity pushes.

 

Clearly nonsense (even with added leprechauns)

[Popcorn Sutton]

If there is a ridge in the atmosphere (anywhere), which will probably be circular, that is evidence of a pushing force. If it is a pulling force, then it will only be a bump (and a leprechaun).

[Dekan]

I think Popcorn's premise is valid. Only "pushing" makes sense. This is seen in everyday life. Like when you use a hoover to clean your carpet. The hoover doesn't "pull" the carpet-dust up. The dust gets "pushed " into the hoover, by outside atmospheric pressure. And isn't pressure just a synonym for pushing. The air pushes the dust up the aperture!

 

This seems to demonstrate that nothing moves in the Universe moves, unless it gets pushed by something. So wasn't Aristotle right all along the line?

 

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

I think Popcorn's premise is valid. Only "pushing" makes sense. This is seen in everyday life. Like when you use a hoover to clean your carpet. The hoover doesn't "pull" the carpet-dust up. The dust gets "pushed " into the hoover, by outside atmospheric pressure. And isn't pressure just a synonym for pushing. The air pushes the dust up the aperture! This seems to demonstrate that nothing moves in the Universe moves, unless it gets pushed by something. So wasn't Aristotle right all along the line?

 

Pressure in a gas has a mechanism — collisions of particles, from which you can apply Newton's laws and get the kinetic gas model.

 

What is exerting the pressure, or push, in this model? Why does it vary the way it must in order to get things to behave like they do? Closed orbits require a 1/r^2 variation in the force if it pulls. What's the equation for pushing?

[Popcorn Sutton]

If I'm right, it would seem that every point in space is radiating which would cause the push, but the push would vary on the amount if force exerted depending on whatever is blocking the push from different directions.

 

I'm no math expert but I'll take a stab at the math.

 

G = P(u|o)*m(u)/r^2

 

Gravity equals the probability of a unit given the origin times the mass of the unit divided by r^2

 

 

Or it might be -r^2

 

That should give you a measurable tension between two points of interest

Edited April 12, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[John Cuthber]

What does "it" brace itself against, in order to push?

[swansont]

If I'm right, it would seem that every point in space is radiating which would cause the push, but the push would vary on the amount if force exerted depending on whatever is blocking the push from different directions.

 

 

If every point pushes, it should all cancel out.

 

What could block the pushing? Do we see periodic variations in this pushing, as things block it? Do we see a drop in gravity during a lunar eclipse, for example?

 

And, as John Cuthber points out, how do we get around the apparent violation of Newton's 3rd law?

[Popcorn Sutton]

During a lunar eclipse we should be able to notice a strengthening of the push on the opposite side of the planet, so the atmosphere should be pretty thin compared to normal and the tides should be extra low, the atmospheric ridge should be larger on the side facing the sun. And I have to look into newtons third law to answer that question

[swansont]

During a lunar eclipse we should be able to notice a strengthening of the push on the opposite side of the planet, so the atmosphere should be pretty thin compared to normal and the tides should be extra low, the atmospheric ridge should be larger on the side facing the sun. And I have to look into newtons third law to answer that question

 

Tides are actually highest at an eclipse. Your model fails in its prediction.

 

This is the point where you either (a) admit you were wrong or (b) admit you aren't doing science because you insist you're still right.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I didn't say that the tides wouldn't be high. Are the tides highest on the opposite side of the planet from the moon and the sun or on the same side? The answer to this question could indicate several different possibilities.

[swansont]

I didn't say that the tides wouldn't be high.

 

Oh, come on. You said "the tides should be extra low".

[Moontanman]

I didn't say that the tides wouldn't be high. Are the tides highest on the opposite side of the planet from the moon and the sun or on the same side? The answer to this question could indicate several different possibilities.

 

 

 

Actually the tidal bulge is on both sides of the planet even if the sun and moon are in alignment on the same side of the planet...

[John Cuthber]

What does "it" brace itself against, in order to push?

I seem to have missed the response to this (as required by the site's rules).

[Popcorn Sutton]

Youre personifying it, what do you mean I'm not sure if the question is legit. I still think it's a pushing force mostly, part suction, but the tide thing threw me over. There could always be other variables involved.

 

For the most part, because of the tide thing, I'm almost willing to concede, but it's not only because of the tide, it's also because of length contraction. I'm trying to see if there are other variables involved in the tide (like jupiter blocking some of the energy), but jupiter is so small I can't even accurately squeeze it with my fingers held at arms length from my eyes so I don't think it would be blocking too much force.

 

The force, in my opinion, is expanding from a place very near the zero point of gravitation. I assume that the zero point is separate from the center of mass. It seems to be necessary for solidification, but I could be entirely wrong about that.

[John Cuthber]

If gravity pushes then it must push against something or it breaks Newton's third law.

I'm not "personifying " anything.

[Popcorn Sutton]

it could be bracing itself against the membrane of the galaxy or even the universe

[md65536]

it could be bracing itself against the membrane of the galaxy or even the universe

You're doing this wrong, over and over again.

 

Don't make up an idea and show that it explains one or two things that are already explained. If you want to explain something new, go find something that existing theory doesn't explain. Perhaps some connection between gravity and other forces or phenomena.

 

Or, if you're going to try to explain what accepted theories of gravity already explains, you're going to have to explain it ALL. You can do that by showing that your theory is equivalent to what already exists. For example, you can show that a "pushing" theory is equivalent to a "pulling from a point" theory by showing that if something is pushing from all points EXCEPT where some mass is, the resulting force vector is equal to a pull from that one point. You can handle distances in different ways, preferably in a way that you don't have to worry about the shape of space at infinite distances.

 

Then, you could figure out a testable difference between your pushing and an otherwise equivalent pulling theory. Since there are no known testable differences, no mechanism that shows a pulling force, and certainly no known pushing mechanism, then unless you found one you would come to the conclusion that it is impossible to say for certain that gravity is either a pushing or a pulling force. And that conclusion fits with our current understanding of gravity: it is an effect of spacetime curvature, and that explains it, without needing a mechanism for either pushing or pulling force.

 

Based on what is known, there's no point in arguing that it's either one or the other. To say either for certain, you're going to have to find something new. Also, it is foolish to assume that the effects of tides or orbits are unexplained by existing theory with respect to gravity. Why not look up or ask about what things are currently not explained by accepted theories? (Why not look up anything? Why make foolish claims that could easily be checked?)