# Thread: Why Push Gravity Does Not Work

1. Originally Posted by Boing3000
Originally Posted by bill alsept
Neither statement makes sense to me could you be more specific? For example what does wobble the opposite side mean?
Well, you'll have to excuse my sorry English again. All (or most of) the points Marcus had summarized are also explained in the wiki page of PG. Maybe some of these are too complex to be understood by you, that's why I try hard to keep this to layman's level, the level were I am expert in.

Please click on the picture, it is animated. Fix you eyes on the red cross, and look at the sun, it is "pushed away" from the planet. Of course classic gravity even Newtonian explain that, PG don't. Instead for case as simple, PG predic's aberration, which does not exist.
This picture also depict the earth and its moon, and the second tides only exist because of the centrifugal force superior on the earth surface in opposition of the moon. You have to understand this:
-the center of rotation is NOT the center of the sun (or the earth) it is the red cross, the center of both masses. If anything it show's you gravity is pull not push.

What your mind should click on is the fact that this observation is local, i does not depend on an aether like field, or absolute reference or time. Any explanation that need a non-local local mechanism is just always wrong, because it introduce had hoc fix that themselves needs more had hoc fix, ad infinitum.

There is a fix for the second tide, a dark matter moon, in orbit opposite to the not-dark one. PG saved, for now...
For basic Newtonian mechanics gravity can be calculated either push or pull. Even Newton considered both. I would save your arguments for the more complicated subjects like drag or its opposite as in pull gravities never ending pulling force.

2. or its opposite as in pull gravities never ending pulling force.
Just to make this clear, this thread of mine is exclusively about push gravity. If anyone wishes to discuss objections to current scientific consensus, then please do so on your own threads. Thank you.

As for PG, I have another interesting bit of maths of my own, but am not ready to present it yet. I will come back to it in time. At the moment I am waiting for someone to address the calculation in point 88.

For basic Newtonian mechanics gravity can be calculated either push or pull.
Actually, I have yet to see anyone prove that. Can you show those calculations, or do you just believe it can be done ?

3. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
or its opposite as in pull gravities never ending pulling force.
Just to make this clear, this thread of mine is exclusively about push gravity. If anyone wishes to discuss objections to current scientific consensus, then please do so on your own threads. Thank you.

As for PG, I have another interesting bit of maths of my own, but am not ready to present it yet. I will come back to it in time. At the moment I am waiting for someone to address the calculation in point 88.

For basic Newtonian mechanics gravity can be calculated either push or pull.
Actually, I have yet to see anyone prove that. Can you show those calculations, or do you just believe it can be done ?
I was just suggesting that the complexity of drag could be as complicated as Pull gravities never ending force. If the rules are that sensitive then my hands are more than tied. I see everyone just ignored the main point. Are you agreeing with Boing that the sun pushes planets away?

4. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Actually, I have yet to see anyone prove that. Can you show those calculations, or do you just believe it can be done ?
I will take your word on that. If thats the case then I will find a way to prove it. Maybe you could help guide me to a couple of things. First are there any basic calculations that show that PG can not work. For example can these calculation prove that PG could not cause a planet to orbit a star. And second some models of PG (the ones I like) are based on the density of matter and not just the mass. Could you direct me to the best and easiest form of math that would use vectors to calculate how a sphere would filter PG particles as they traveled completely through the sphere. All vectors would have the same force and should converge onto a single point. Example, draw a point to represent Earth and the draw equal vectors pointing toward the center of this point from all sides. Now a couple of inches away draw a circle about 1" dia to represent the sphere. All vectors that miss the sphere are considered 100% and vectors coming through the very center would be 0%. Every thing in between would depend on the changing densities. In addition to that tha math would need to include the deflection angles. I can be much more specific if you think you could help. Thanks

5. If thats the case then I will find a way to prove it.
You see, here is the thing - just proving it is not enough. In order to turn PG into a viable model, you need to prove that it works without violating any basic, already well established principles of physics, while at the same time explaining all observed gravitational phenomena. It is this where PG falls down really badly, and why it was abandoned really quickly, even back in the 18th century.

Originally Posted by bill alsept
First are there any basic calculations that show that PG can not work
Yes, reference [4] in my OP links to a paper which contains a number of such calculations; post #88 was an example of that.

For example can these calculation prove that PG could not cause a planet to orbit a star.
Again, see [4]. The calculations prove that PG can only work in general if one assumes completely unphysical parameters, e.g. superluminal particles, perfect isotropy and homogeneity of the particle field etc etc. In other words, the maths show that PG does not work in the context of established physics, and by that I mean just classical mechanics for now. Promoting PG in essence is tantamount to outright rejecting most of established physics, which is never a good idea.

Could you direct me to the best and easiest form of math that would use vectors
Vector (field) calculus is what you are looking for; it is also what classical field theories like for example Newtonian gravity or electromagnetism are formulated with. Here is a good, elementary introduction :

Bear in mind though that you would need to know your basic calculus, i.e. differentiation and integration is a prerequisite to understand this field of math. You might need to revise that if you don't have a firm grounding. I am afraid this is the easiest possible formalism for this type of problem.

calculate how a sphere would filter PG particles as they traveled completely through the sphere.
This is more of a physical than a mathematical problem, because it obviously depends on the exact properties and behaviour of your particle; specifically it depends on exactly how they interact with "normal" matter.

All vectors would have the same force and should converge onto a single point. Example, draw a point to represent Earth and the draw equal vectors pointing toward the center of this point from all sides. Now a couple of inches away draw a circle about 1" dia to represent the sphere. All vectors that miss the sphere are considered 100% and vectors coming through the very center would be 0%. Every thing in between would depend on the changing densities.In addition to that tha math would need to include the deflection angles.
Hm. Please don't be offended, I genuinely do not mean to be rude or anything, but my advice would be to start in the beginning with elementary analytical geometry ( vectors ). I don't think you have a very clear notion of how vectors operate. This one is a good resource to make a start :

http://www.stewartcalculus.com/data/...ofanalgeom.pdf

6. bill alsept, just out of interest now : do you really believe that there is anything to PG in particular, or is it just that you are not happy with GR, and are looking for an alternative ? I find it rather odd that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary you are trying to resurrect an mechanical model which was already shown not to work long ago, and btw, had never been widely accepted in the first place. It has never been more than a historic curiosity. In my mind you are wasting your time and resources; even if you could somehow circumvent all my 18 points without violating basic physical principles ( which would be quite an achievement, mark my word ! ), the fact remains that there are strong constraints on the nature of the particles involved, and if they were real ( with the density and kinetic energy needed to make the model work ), they would long since have been found in particle accelerators. Remember that modern accelerators have energies in the region of several TeV; your PG particle would need to be very light so as not to rapidly decay, while on the other hand interact strongly enough in order to produce the gravitational effects we observe in nature. I think interaction cross sections comparable to those of the neutrino are a good estimate of what we would expect - and neutrinos as well as antineutrinos have been detected since the 1950s, even without accelerators.
So why are we not seeing your PG particle in particle experiments, considering their abundance and kinetic energy ?

If you are looking for alternatives to GR, than you should be aware that there are much more viable hypothesis than PG out there. Perhaps you'd be better off researching in that direction.

7. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
bill alsept, just out of interest now : do you really believe that there is anything to PG in particular, or is it just that you are not happy with GR, and are looking for an alternative ? I find it rather odd that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary you are trying to resurrect an mechanical model which was already shown not to work long ago, and btw, had never been widely accepted in the first place. It has never been more than a historic curiosity. In my mind you are wasting your time and resources; even if you could somehow circumvent all my 18 points without violating basic physical principles ( which would be quite an achievement, mark my word ! ), the fact remains that there are strong constraints on the nature of the particles involved, and if they were real ( with the density and kinetic energy needed to make the model work ), they would long since have been found in particle accelerators. Remember that modern accelerators have energies in the region of several TeV; your PG particle would need to be very light so as not to rapidly decay, while on the other hand interact strongly enough in order to produce the gravitational effects we observe in nature. I think interaction cross sections comparable to those of the neutrino are a good estimate of what we would expect - and neutrinos as well as antineutrinos have been detected since the 1950s, even without accelerators.
So why are we not seeing your PG particle in particle experiments, considering their abundance and kinetic energy ?

If you are looking for alternatives to GR, than you should be aware that there are much more viable hypothesis than PG out there. Perhaps you'd be better off researching in that direction.
I enjoy it

8. Originally Posted by bill alsept
I enjoy it
Ok, that's fair enough

9. Markus Hanke,

......do you really believe that there is anything to PG in particular, or is it just that you are not happy with GR
I'm going to weigh in on this question to Bill.

For those that believe in a background field like dark matter, Higgs particles, gravitons, or particles much smaller, or energy field like dark energy, then PG might seem like a more logical model than the curved space of GR, or the force at a distance of Newton.

Although there are no known models of PG that explain reality as well as GR with dark matter, many theorists believe PG is the future of a better gravitational model.

Halton Arp is the only well known theorist that promotes PG, but there are very many not so well known, some working on a better PG mathematical model.

A modern discussion of PG model(s) here: http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html

Modern discussions concerning non-specific, and specific PG models
:

10. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Although there are no known models of PG that explain reality as well as GR with dark matter,
Yes, exactly.

Halton Arp is the only well known theorist that promotes PG,
Never heard of him before, but judging by his website this gentleman is definitely not to be considered mainstream, and neither is he well known. More like the opposite, actually. And what he promotes is just standard LeSage PG, which has already been shown not to work.

A modern discussion of PG model(s) here: http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html
forrest, or you serious ?? This is not a modern discussion of anything, just some guy's private website. It voices a lot of anti-mainstream sentiment ( most of which is utter nonsense ), but nothing of any substance to support the validity of PG.
You are doing a lot more harm than good to your course by providing links like this one.

Ah yes. A colourful hodgepodge of cranks, crackpots and general nonsense, interspersed with a helping of quotes from other forums.
Why don't you simply address the maths provided in post #88, instead of linking this nonsense ?

11. Guys, please do not try to sidetrack this discussion by posting a wall of links. You have asked me for a mathematical argument to show that PG doesn't work, and I have provided same in post #88. Please just address that - all you need to do is provide a straightforward refutation of the calculations provided. I do not really care who else promotes this, the topic on hand is "Why PG does not work". Let's stick to it please.

12. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by forrest noble
Although there are no known models of PG that explain reality as well as GR with dark matter,
Yes, exactly.

Halton Arp is the only well known theorist that promotes PG,
Never heard of him before, but judging by his website this gentleman is definitely not to be considered mainstream, and neither is he well known. More like the opposite, actually. And what he promotes is just standard LeSage PG, which has already been shown not to work.

A modern discussion of PG model(s) here: http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html
forrest, or you serious ?? This is not a modern discussion of anything, just some guy's private website. It voices a lot of anti-mainstream sentiment ( most of which is utter nonsense ), but nothing of any substance to support the validity of PG.
You are doing a lot more harm than good to your course by providing links like this one.

Ah yes. A colourful hodgepodge of cranks, crackpots and general nonsense, interspersed with a helping of quotes from other forums.
Why don't you simply address the maths provided in post #88, instead of linking this nonsense ?
Your maths in posting #88 are based upon a "conservative" PG field. Since this can only lead to the inverse square law of gravity, it could never represent a complete mathematical model. The only related PG maths that I know of are my own, which is not generic. If you want to discuss my model, name an appropriate forum. The rules generally preclude discussions of specific non-mainstream models in a mainstream thread.

Everybody knows that you will find few mainstream sites discussing PG because it is alternative theory. To call something crackpot has no meaning at all unless you show that some particulars of what is being said can readily by disproved. Because there is no direct evidence for dark matter, for instance, does not mean it does not exist. In the same way because there is no evidence for a PG background field, also does not mean one does not exist.

13. Your maths in posting #88 are based upon a "conservative" PG field. Since this can only lead to the inverse square law of gravity, it could never represent a complete mathematical model.
Of course, this entire thread is based on LeSage PG. So can we at long last agree that LeSage PG simply does not work ?

To call something crackpot has no meaning at all unless you show that some particulars of what is being said can readily by disproved.
Isn't that exactly what I have done in post #88, in the case of LeSage.

In the same way because there is no evidence for a PG background field, also does not mean one does not exist.
Ok, granted - but then, the question pops up as to why there is no evidence for it. It would be realistic to expect an interaction cross section comparable to that of the neutrino ( otherwise it couldn't generate gravity as observed ), and neutrinos have been experimentally detected since the 1950s. Modern particle accelerators operate in the TeV domain. So why was your PG particle never found ?

Once again - this all refers specifically to LeSage PG, which is what this thread is based on. I want to put this baby to rest once for all.

14. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Your maths in posting #88 are based upon a "conservative" PG field. Since this can only lead to the inverse square law of gravity, it could never represent a complete mathematical model.
Of course, this entire thread is based on LeSage PG. So can we at long last agree that LeSage PG simply does not work ?

To call something crackpot has no meaning at all unless you show that some particulars of what is being said can readily by disproved.
Isn't that exactly what I have done in post #88, in the case of LeSage.

In the same way because there is no evidence for a PG background field, also does not mean one does not exist.
Ok, granted - but then, the question pops up as to why there is no evidence for it. It would be realistic to expect an interaction cross section comparable to that of the neutrino ( otherwise it couldn't generate gravity as observed ), and neutrinos have been experimentally detected since the 1950s. Modern particle accelerators operate in the TeV domain. So why was your PG particle never found ?

Once again - this all refers specifically to LeSage PG, which is what this thread is based on. I want to put this baby to rest once for all.
There is evidence that dark matter exists based upon the way galactic light bends. That same evidence, however, can be used to support the existence of currents of a background field causing light to bend, which accordingly could be the source of Pushing Gravity. Also here on Earth the certainty of the ZPF could be considered clear evidence for dark matter, as well as a evidence for a background corpuscular field of pushing gravity. So there is some evidence for both, just not conclusive evidence.

Such a background field of PG may have particulates down to Planck lengths, impossible to detect by such particle accelerators. Even for larger particles like the dark matter hypothesis proposes, there is no accelerator evidence as yet for dark matter or gravitons.

No one here thinks that Le Sage's model is valid as an ultimate mathematical model, but the basic principle of it is valid as it relates to the most basic principles of PG. Where it might fail, I believe, is that it does not provide for currents/flows of the PG particulate background field, since it proposed a conservative field only. Such currents could have a mathematical analog in the form of fluid dynamics or vortex modelling.

15. Originally Posted by forrest noble
No one here thinks that Le Sage's model is valid as an ultimate model, but the basic principle of it is valid as it relates to the most basic principles of PG.
I am sorry Forest, but that is going in circle, and if you apply logic and or rational thinking the first part of your sentence is factually true (excluding Bill) and contradicts the second part of your sentence. Because those most basics principles have been studied extensively, and their are wrong, manyfold (so far).

I'll ask you one last time a question on the other thread, and I think you should be able to provide an answer.

16. Originally Posted by forrest noble
No one here thinks that Le Sage's model is valid as an ultimate mathematical model, but the basic principle of it is valid as it relates to the most basic principles of PG. Where it might fail, I believe, is that it does not provide for currents/flows of the PG particulate background field, since it proposed a conservative field only.
Excellent. So in this case we can put LeSage PG safely to rest
This is all I wanted to achieve with this thread. Everything else are personal theories, and that is what they will forever remain.

Such currents could have a mathematical analog in the form of fluid dynamics or vortex modelling.
And what would be the source of those "currents" ? Where does the energy come from ?
And why would currents in the field influence light, given that in PG gravity is supposedly the result of shadow effects ?

Such a background field of PG may have particulates down to Planck lengths, impossible to detect by such particle accelerators.
That is nonsense. If it only emerges at very high energies, or has a very large mass scale, it could not be a stable particle, which is required to make PG work.

Even for larger particles like the dark matter hypothesis proposes, there is no accelerator evidence as yet for dark matter or gravitons.
Firstly, gravitons are not needed to make GR work.
Secondly, massive weakly interacting particles ( WIMPs ) - which is the most common proposal for what constitutes dark matter - would not directly interact with baryonic matter, except via gravitation. Therefore, such particles would not be directly detectable in a particle accelerator; one would need to employ other methods, for example vibrating crystal lattices. This might surprise you, but there actually are candidate events for such detections; it is just that they are not considered statistically significant enough :

Dark Matter Search Results from the CDMS II Experiment

Now, the important thing is that your PG particles cannot be identified with WIMPS, because they would need to have a large enough interaction cross section with "normal" baryonic matter to generate the proposed shielding/shadow effects, which explicitly rules out WIMPS.

17. I think we can at this point conclusively say that LeSage PG does not work.

18. [QUOTE=Markus Hanke;384439]

Excellent. So in this case we can put LeSage PG safely to rest
This is all I wanted to achieve with this thread. Everything else are personal theories, and that is what they will forever remain.
QUOTE]

That is not true Marcus. In post #1 you stated "Too many people seem to think that Push Gravity, or indeed any mechanical explanation, is a valid model for gravitation. This is erroneous, as these models are either not internally consistent, or require physically impossible assumptions." Then you based YOUR premise of PG on what appears to be the only model of PG you have ever heard of, LeSage. Many times Forest and I have asked you to argue or discuss something other than this out dated model of PG.
Thats like claiming there are no such things as orbiting systems because the Ptolemaic system has been proven wrong. You are intentionally using LeSage as a straw man argument. Yes as for LeSage's idea in whole is concerned we have asked you many times to put it to rest. On another note you or anyone else on this thread have still never answered if you agree with Boeing that the sun pushes planets away.

19. Originally Posted by bill alsept
Many times Forest and I have asked you to argue or discuss something other than this out dated model of PG.
But neither of you are able to say what this "other" model of gravity is (except that it isn't LeSage and "magically" none of the existing arguments apply).

Provide a quantitative model and it can be criticised. Produce vague assertions and it seems entirely reasonable to dismiss them with equally little detail.

20. Originally Posted by forrest noble
For those that believe in a background field like dark matter, Higgs particles, gravitons, or particles much smaller, or energy field like dark energy, then PG might seem like a more logical model than the curved space of GR, or the force at a distance of Newton.
Once again you show your total ignorance of physics by throwing random buzz words around.

Dark matter isn't a "background field". Neither, strictly speaking, are Higgs bosons or gravitons (although there is a Higgs field). But none of these things have the properties need to be the medium for a push gravity model.

21. Originally Posted by forrest noble
[There is evidence that dark matter exists based upon the way galactic light bends. That same evidence, however, can be used to support the existence of currents of a background field causing light to bend
Could it? Really? Can you prove that?

, which accordingly could be the source of Pushing Gravity.
Could it? Really? Can you prove that?

Also here on Earth the certainty of the ZPF could be considered clear evidence for dark matter
What? That makes no sense to me at all.

, as well as a evidence for a background corpuscular field of pushing gravity.
Could it? Really? Can you prove that? Sounds like made-up nonsense to me.

So there is some evidence for both, just not conclusive evidence.
There is zero evidence for anything supporting push gravity.

No one here thinks that Le Sage's model is valid as an ultimate mathematical model, but the basic principle of it is valid as it relates to the most basic principles of PG.
As the "basic principle" has been shown not too work, that doesn't bode well.

Such currents could have a mathematical analog in the form of fluid dynamics or vortex modelling.
Ah, if only you knew enough mathematics to make such a claim plausible....

22. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Everybody knows that you will find few mainstream sites discussing PG because it is alternative theory.
It is not an "alternative theory" at all. It is a disproved, falsified, junk theory.

To call something crackpot has no meaning at all unless you show that some particulars of what is being said can readily by disproved.
It us a crackpot theory as the only people who cling on to it, for purely emotional reasons, are ignorant of maths and physics and ignore all the counter-evidence.

Because there is no direct evidence for dark matter, for instance, does not mean it does not exist.
Except there is direct evidence.

In the same way because there is no evidence for a PG background field, also does not mean one does not exist.
There is no evidence at all, direct or indirect, for any such field. And no need for it. So I think we can safely assume it doesn't exist except in the mind of a few crackpots.

23. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Everybody knows that you will find few mainstream sites discussing PG because it is alternative theory.
It is not an "alternative theory" at all. It is a disproved, falsified, junk theory.

To call something crackpot has no meaning at all unless you show that some particulars of what is being said can readily by disproved.
It us a crackpot theory as the only people who cling on to it, for purely emotional reasons, are ignorant of maths and physics and ignore all the counter-evidence.

Because there is no direct evidence for dark matter, for instance, does not mean it does not exist.
Except there is direct evidence.

In the same way because there is no evidence for a PG background field, also does not mean one does not exist.
There is no evidence at all, direct or indirect, for any such field. And no need for it. So I think we can safely assume it doesn't exist except in the mind of a few crackpots.

24. [QUOTE=Strange;384498]

But neither of you are able to say what this "other" model of gravity is QUOTE]
We have but you have been to busy making sarcastic remarks to bother reading. Some of the ideas have been presented as well as we can without getting baned from the forum and they are obviosly not LeSage.

25. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
For those that believe in a background field like dark matter, Higgs particles, gravitons, or particles much smaller, or energy field like dark energy, then PG might seem like a more logical model than the curved space of GR, or the force at a distance of Newton.
Once again you show your total ignorance of physics by throwing random buzz words around.

Dark matter isn't a "background field". Neither, strictly speaking, are Higgs bosons or gravitons (although there is a Higgs field). But none of these things have the properties need to be the medium for a push gravity model.
Yes, I agree. In this case my meaning for field is a vector field caused by a background of generally omni-present particulates such as PG proposes. As not being possible candidates for PG, you are correct, and they are not considered fields. They were used as examples of presently theorized background particles.

Even for PG, the word "field" may not be the best verbal description.

*In physics, a field is a physical quantity associated to each point of spacetime. A field can be classified as a scalar field, a vector field, etc.

26. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
Everybody knows that you will find few mainstream sites discussing PG because it is alternative theory.
It is not an "alternative theory" at all. It is a disproved, falsified, junk theory.

To call something crackpot has no meaning at all unless you show that some particulars of what is being said can readily by disproved.
It us a crackpot theory as the only people who cling on to it, for purely emotional reasons, are ignorant of maths and physics and ignore all the counter-evidence.

Because there is no direct evidence for dark matter, for instance, does not mean it does not exist.
Except there is direct evidence.

In the same way because there is no evidence for a PG background field, also does not mean one does not exist.
There is no evidence at all, direct or indirect, for any such field. And no need for it. So I think we can safely assume it doesn't exist except in the mind of a few crackpots.

This entire posting of yours is opinion only, with no details at all to support any of your contentions.

27. Originally Posted by bill alsept
We have but you have been to busy making sarcastic remarks to bother reading. Some of the ideas have been presented as well as we can without getting baned from the forum and they are obviosly not LeSage.
I have been away for a while. Maybe I missed it. Could you point me at the post(s) where a quantitative model of push gravity was provided. Why you think you would be banned for producing a quantitative model which matched observation and experiment (i.e. a scientific theory, as opposed to pseudo-scientific theory) I have no idea.

28. Originally Posted by forrest noble
This entire posting of yours is opinion only, with no details at all to support any of your contentions.
Well, to take them in order:

1. There are no valid, working, scientific theories of push gravity. Even you cannot point to anything published in a peer reviewed journal supporting such a theory. Therefore it is not an "alternative" theory; it is just "not a theory".

2. As it is not a scientific theory, the only possible reason for continuing to promote an idea which is prima facie wrong, scientifically disproved and unnecessary must be some sort of religious or emotional need.

3. Direct evidence for dark matter:
a) Galactic rotations
b) Galactic clusters
c) Gravitational lensing
http://physicscentral.com/explore/ac...rkmatter-1.cfm
Evidence for Dark Matter
Dark Matter

4. Absence of evidence for push gravity or the particles which cause it... well, you admitted that yourself.

29. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
This entire posting of yours is opinion only, with no details at all to support any of your contentions.
Well, to take them in order:
1. There are no valid, working, scientific theories of push gravity. Even you cannot point to anything published in a peer reviewed journal supporting such a theory. Therefore it is not an "alternative" theory; it is just "not a theory".
There is no acceptable mathematical model of PG as yet, that I know of, therefore most would not consider it theory. On this I agree.

2. As it is not a scientific theory, the only possible reason for continuing to promote an idea which is prima facie wrong, scientifically disproved and unnecessary must be some sort of religious or emotional need.

3. Direct evidence for dark matter:
a) Galactic rotations
Galactic stellar rotation rates of spiral galaxies is equally evidence for MOND or another theory of gravity.

b) Galactic clusters
Such orbital motion of galaxy clusters also could be considered support for some PG models as well as other theories of gravity.

c) Gravitational lensing
Conceivably explainable by PG models involving fluid dynamics or vortex field motions.

4. Absence of evidence for push gravity or the particles which cause it... well, you admitted that yourself.
Yes, there is no direct evidence for PG particulates, or the particulates of dark matter either.

30. Originally Posted by forrest noble
a) Galactic rotations
It is equally evidence for MOND or another theory of gravity.
Except that MOND doesn't work to explain both this and the behaviour of galactic clusters. Or gravitational lensing.
b) Galactic clusters
Supports some PG models as well as other theories of gravity also.
Of course it doesn't support push gravity because, as we all agreed, that is not a scientific theory because it has no support.

c) Gravitational lensing
Conceivably explainable by PG models involving fluid dynamics or vortex field motions.
Equally conceivably explainable by invisible pink unicorns. You can waffle all you like about "aether vortices" but you can not explain gravitational lensing so stop pretending you can.

And, of course, we come back to the old chestnut that you want to produce three separate (and quite possibly inconsistent or even contradictory) explanations for each observation. Whereas any rational person would prefer a single model that explains all in a consistent manner.

4. Absence of evidence for push gravity or the particles which cause it... well, you admitted that yourself.
Yes, there is no direct evidence for PG particulates or the particulates of dark matter either.
There is evidence for dark matter. Stop lying.

31. Strange,

....equally conceivably explainable by invisible pink unicorns
I disagree

......you can not explain gravitational lensing.....
I think gravitational lensing would not a problem for some PG models. Think of PG field flow inward toward the galaxy center while light bends within these moving fields, for instance.

32. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Equally conceivably explainable by invisible pink unicorns
I dissagree
Then show us the mathematics for "PG models involving fluid dynamics or vortex field motions." Otherwise all you have is a religious belief.

33. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
Equally conceivably explainable by invisible pink unicorns
I disagree
Then show us the mathematics for "PG models involving fluid dynamics or vortex field motions." Otherwise all you have is a religious belief.
Obviously there are no generic PG models that do this. And details of specific PG models being promoted, cannot be presented here. For such discussions ask related questions concerning the maths in the appropriate forum.

34. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Obviously there are no generic PG models that do this. And details of specific PG models being promoted, cannot be presented here. For such discussions ask related questions concerning the maths in the appropriate forum.
Start talking real science or stay the hell out of the physics forum. This does not mean invoking some mythical vortex for which you have no actual theory.

35. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by forrest noble
Obviously there are no generic PG models that do this. And details of specific PG models being promoted, cannot be presented here. For such discussions ask related questions concerning the maths in the appropriate forum.
Start talking real science or stay the hell out of the physics forum. This does not mean invoking some mythical vortex for which you have no actual theory.
I thought Vortex field motions was a part of physics? Besides that there are many examples in nature Blackholes, galaxies, hurricanes, tornados, magnets and who knows how micro they could be. There are vortices of every size, why not very small ones?

36. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by forrest noble
Obviously there are no generic PG models that do this. And details of specific PG models being promoted, cannot be presented here. For such discussions ask related questions concerning the maths in the appropriate forum.
Start talking real science or stay the hell out of the physics forum. This does not mean invoking some mythical vortex for which you have no actual theory.
I think I'm done with this guys. Its hard enough discussing PG with are hands tied always having to worry about saying the wrong thing. Now we can't even say vortex. IF its still safe to discuss this in the TRASH CAN then I will just continue my thread there. Its sad when ideas and very interesting subjects have to be treated like trash but if thats what it takes then I'm in.

37. Originally Posted by bill alsept
I thought Vortex field motions was a part of physics? Besides that there are many examples in nature Blackholes, galaxies, hurricanes, tornados, magnets and who knows how micro they could be. There are vortices of every size, why not very small ones?
So your argument is that, since vortices are part of physics somewhere, they ought to be part of physics here?

The problem with that argument is that it is at best a precursor to a hypothesis. Forrest hasn't even gotten as far as an actual theory. He offers only a series of assertions. That's quite tiresome, and ultimately a waste of time. The pink unicorn hypothesis works fully as well.

38. We obviously are not talking about a specific PG model, because my interpretation of the rules is that no specific non-mainstream model can be discussed or promoted in a mainstream thread, especially any personal models.

This thread is about Markus's thread and statement above stating "why pushing gravity does not work." It's not talking about just one model of pushing gravity. It implies all conceivable PG models cannot work. Maybe Markus has changed this in posting #116, to state that he is just making this statement concerning the LeSage PG model. If so then I think there is no longer disagreement.

My comments about vortex equations and possible fluid-dynamic equations being conceivably involved in PG models were based upon ideas proposed by others, some historical and others more modern, specifically involving PG.

Mechanical explanations of gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Note vortex PG model)

Gravity current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

39. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Obviously there are no generic PG models that do this.
I don't know why you have the word "generic" in there. There are no models that do this. Full stop.

And details of specific PG models being promoted, cannot be presented here.
Then stop dragging your crackpot fantasies and displays of ignorance into these threads.

For such discussions ask related questions concerning the maths in the appropriate forum.

40. Originally Posted by bill alsept
I thought Vortex field motions was a part of physics?
Of course they are. We can observe, measure and model them (see the difference?)

There are vortices of every size, why not very small ones?
Shows us either the evidence for them or a formal, mathematical description of how they cause gravity.

Originally Posted by bill alsept
Now we can't even say vortex.
Don't be ridiculous. It is nothing to do with the word vortex. It is the total lack of science. Forrest has no evidence, no mathematics and no theory. All he has is some weird obsession fuelled by ignorance. That is what is being complained about.

Show us the science behind push gravity (not hand waving and speculation) and there will be no problem.

Otherwise, keep it in Trash where it belongs.

41. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Note the following from that page:
Originally Posted by wp
However, such models are no longer regarded as viable theories within the mainstream scientific community
Originally Posted by wp
such ideas continued to be studied occasionally by physicists until the beginning of the twentieth century, by which time it was generally considered to be conclusively discredited.
And, re. vortices:
Originally Posted by wp
Because of his philosophical beliefs, René Descartes proposed ...
So, like you this is a philosophical/religious opinion not science. And clearly doesn't work.

So please stop posting links to this non-scientific nonsense and present some science to support your fantasy. Or shut up.

42. Originally Posted by bill alsept
That is not true Marcus. In post #1 you stated "Too many people seem to think that Push Gravity, or indeed any mechanical explanation, is a valid model for gravitation. This is erroneous, as these models are either not internally consistent, or require physically impossible assumptions." Then you based YOUR premise of PG on what appears to be the only model of PG you have ever heard of, LeSage. Many times Forest and I have asked you to argue or discuss something other than this out dated model of PG.
I have made it clear on several occasions across this thread that I based my arguments on the LeSage model; pursuant to that I have also been quite clear in stating that

[I think we can at this point conclusively say that LeSage PG does not work.
That is all I have stated. Whether or not you think that LeSage is outdated is irrelevant here, the point is that it does not work. All other theories are personal theories, and will be treated as such.

I concede I should have made it clearer in the OP that I base my argument on LeSage in particular. That was my mistake, which does not change the fact that it does not work.

43. Originally Posted by bill alsept
I think I'm done with this guys.
Great!
Its hard enough discussing PG with are hands tied always having to worry about saying the wrong thing. Now we can't even say vortex. IF its still safe to discuss this in the TRASH CAN then I will just continue my thread there. Its sad when ideas and very interesting subjects have to be treated like trash but if thats what it takes then I'm in.
Feel free. As soon as you add any science at all to your thread, I will be happy to move it to Physics.

44. Right, let's move on from LeSage, which we have established does not work.

I am going to put a very simple challenge out to you guys : since you are so vehemently defending the idea of push gravity, would someone please present a PG model that actually works, and does so within the framework of established physics. And by "present" I mean a proper presentation, with maths and all, to show that it works and gives the correct predictions. Simply saying "it is non-linear because of vortices in a hypothetical background field" is not good enough. Show us the equations of motion of those vortices, show us where they come from, show us that they produce the right numbers.

So, I am looking for a PG model that
- gives the same predictions as observation and experiment, i.e. as GR
- stays within the framework of established physics, i.e. no superluminal motion, particles with impossible properties etc etc
- is internally self-consistent in terms of maths

Feel free to post your proposals, and we will then keep track of how many free parameters / assumptions they need to work properly; this can then easily be compared to mainstream gravity.

Good luck

45. What, no takers ??

46. ok my thought is that the BB, w/e it is, didn't push out energy but expanded it out; which then cooled out and changed state to heavier stuff that could "resist" the force and accumulate enough in 1 area to create an opposite force. no matter what, i can't see how push gravity fits into this.

47. Originally Posted by curious mind
ok my thought is that the BB, w/e it is, didn't push out energy but expanded it out; which then cooled out and changed state to heavier stuff that could "resist" the force and accumulate enough in 1 area to create an opposite force. no matter what, i can't see how push gravity fits into this.
You're right, pushing gravity does not seem to fit well with the Big Bang model. No proposers of pushing gravity that I know of historically or modern, have believed in the Big Bang model. The Big Bang model is based upon the gravity formulations of Einstein's cosmological equations which are based upon General Relativity (GR). Pushing gravity (PG) instead is an entirely different concept of gravity. So one could probably say that if the Big Bang models turns out to be correct then PG is probably wrong. We will know by about 2022, about 4 years after the James Webb goes up whether the BB model is correct or not. If they find nothing but very blue very small galaxies at the farthest distances, then almost all other cosmological models will be disproved. On the other hand if they find the same things at the farthest distances as they are now seeing with the Hubble, then I think that will be the beginning of the end for the BB model.

For a PG model to replace GR it would need to come up with a better formulation than GR; one that would work in all venues, probably without needing or using the dark matter hypothesis. No such known PG model presently exists. If the BB model runs into trouble maybe some theorists will then be looking for alternatives to GR, a PG model might be one of the possibilities

48. If the BB model runs into trouble maybe some theorists will then be looking for alternatives to GR, a PG model might be one of the possibilities
Actually there is quite a number of alternatives to GR in existence already, some of which are very promising; however, none of them is mechanical in nature, and none of them involves push gravity.

49. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
If the BB model runs into trouble maybe some theorists will then be looking for alternatives to GR, a PG model might be one of the possibilities
Actually there is quite a number of alternatives to GR in existence already, some of which are very promising; however, none of them is mechanical in nature, and none of them involves push gravity.
Yes, none of the possible alternatives presently are PG models.

50. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Right, let's move on from LeSage, which we have established does not work.

I am going to put a very simple challenge out to you guys : since you are so vehemently defending the idea of push gravity, would someone please present a PG model that actually works, and does so within the framework of established physics. And by "present" I mean a proper presentation, with maths and all, to show that it works and gives the correct predictions. Simply saying "it is non-linear because of vortices in a hypothetical background field" is not good enough. Show us the equations of motion of those vortices, show us where they come from, show us that they produce the right numbers.

So, I am looking for a PG model that
- gives the same predictions as observation and experiment, i.e. as GR
- stays within the framework of established physics, i.e. no superluminal motion, particles with impossible properties etc etc
- is internally self-consistent in terms of maths

Feel free to post your proposals, and we will then keep track of how many free parameters / assumptions they need to work properly; this can then easily be compared to mainstream gravity.

Good luck
More than nine months later, and still not even a single response to this challenge, let alone a viable model.
Go figure.

51. I've moved Bill's latest nonsense and replies thereto to his thread in the trashcan forum.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash...h-gravity.html
He obviously did not meet Markus's challenge.

52. hkyraizi's posts and responses to said has been split off to here:

Push Gravity (hkriazi)

53. Moved adsind's post and responses to it here. It does not belong in physics.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/perso...er-theory.html

Page 2 of 2 First 12
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement