Notices

View Poll Results: What do you choose?

Voters
4. You may not vote on this poll
  • Pull gravity

    3 75.00%
  • Push gravity

    1 25.00%
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Pull gravity versus controversial Push gravity

  1. #1 Pull gravity versus controversial Push gravity 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Most would like to think that it is pull, since that would explain the homogenus force remarkebly well. What more is appealing with pull gravity, the low energy density of space perhaps? the feeling of being special, unique, superior, that we are rare being mass, that small pleasures are worth more then whatever energy we can produce relatively free? That it feels safe to not take energy from gravitons since the amount of energy would be so extremely high?

    May I even post this here?

    Good luck in explaining why you support either way.


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Push or pull.

    Both the same..............ask any woman...........or man............

    I mean, maybe NEWTON with his apple forgot about adam and eve (the apple there), and all that pushing and pulling that was ALSO associated to the atom..........I mean, "apple".........sex, as people would think.

    Indeed, what is more relevant, insertion or extraction............does anyone know.

    It sounds "bad", I know, but what "exactly" was Newton presenting with his apple............that he was illuminated by something at even his time was a knock on his cranium.........care of "gravity"?

    It "does" sound bad, what has just been presented, as bad as the whether a pushing or pulling is going on with gravity.............we will never know............otherwise with sex we would just freeze in one another's loins.

    Think about it, people...........the "philosophy itself" of Newton saying that the "apple" inspired him to understand gravity. Why "not" therefore engage in this push-pull debate regarding gravity..............especially in the regard of an "apple".


     

  4. #3 Re: Pull gravity versus controversial Push gravity 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Most would like to think that it is pull, since that would explain the homogenus force remarkebly well.
    It isn't a homogenus (sic) force. It is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. I recall it as being thirty six orders of magnitude weaker than the electromagnetic force. (I stand ready to be corrected quantitatively, but not qualitatively.)
     

  5. #4 Re: Pull gravity versus controversial Push gravity 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    13
    Gravity is not a fundamental force.

    Gravity is caused by the spiralling of electro-magnetic waves forming particles. That spiral cannot be geometrically reversed so as to make a "push".
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    You are both misinformed.

    As gravity WILL BE the LAST THING we understand, it is the thing that is always LEFT OVER, right now.

    It WILL be the last thing we understand, because to understand it, is to either go UP or DOWN.

    .........and no one wants to go there, they leave that for the last time definition of the whatever of time definitions (aka "the sabbath").
     

  7. #6 Re: Pull gravity versus controversial Push gravity 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Siau
    Gravity is not a fundamental force.
    .
    This runs counter to the general consensus. Would you like to defend it, ideally with citations.
    Certainly gravity differs from the other three fundamental forces, but it generally considered one, as faras I am aware, by most (nearly all) physicists.

    Gravity is caused by the spiralling of electro-magnetic waves forming particles. That spiral cannot be geometrically reversed so as to make a "push".
    On the face of it this seems a quite bizzare statement. Can you elaborate?
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Just a little add to the discussion, a short and simple post explaining the controversial push gravity, and why to believe in it:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69577

    And Ophiolite, I meant: Similar or uniform structure or composition throughout.
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=sv&r...ition&ct=title

    Rather grey, then black and white that is. As the chemical definition.

    Though, I'm sure you are right, Ophy. After all, with a very strong microscope...
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    enthalpy-entropy is a type of "force".......many citations there......it is a manner of energy conversion.

    it would not be unreasonable to suggest that gravity can be a "everything left over" force, how space-time balances everything into it's PLACE, as this solar system "appears" to be structured with "gravity" most of all......

    many citations there as well.
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Ok who voted for push :P
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Ok who voted for push :P
    Honestly Neutrino, you don't need to ask if you allready know, it's called spam.
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    What do I already know, who voted for push? Actually I don't know that. There are some...well, weird posts in this thread and none of them seem to clearly indicate a preference for push.
    Thanks for your input though.
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Don't know what I believe now, I've made a conclusion recently and I figure that either way would equally effective describe the phenomenon. I will give you an update on that through my undertext later. Perhaps you have some idea how you can explain the mechanism behind any of the theories? If you do, make a post in pseudoscience and refer to it here.
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Is GR pseudoscience now? You must have some really strict requirements for what you consider science if GR doesn't even make it in.
    Now if you want to argue that objects following a "straight" path through curved spacetime is neither a push or a pull then feel free - but your question of "Is gravity a push, or pull?" is not a valid one in that case.
    If you're picking one, I'm not sure how you can avoid choosing pull. The massive object is the center of the effect - other objects are being drawn towards it - that is pretty much a classic definition of pulling.
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    No GR is not pseudoscience, ever since Einstein said "nuclear bomb", and on baboonish that means "true", because, god forbid anyone can say nuclear bomb and false simultaneously.

    However GR can very well be true even though Einstein never explained the mechanism of gravity (as he clearly stated), which was the question if you can explain it, nor believed in quantum theory, which only heisenberg did.
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    "science" is a word that has become self-aware according to the SET AXIOMS of inquiry that it employs, hence the term psuedo-science that represents anything that tries to BE science yet isn't.

    Science, as the eminent colleagues of science well understand, is a tough discipline. Anyone therefore who challenges the set theorums of contemporary science are challenging a very tough discipline.

    I have studied much science, from a scientific background, and even the best scientists who regard they also have stuided much, have "often" been accused of beig psuedo-scientific. In fact, many articles in "New Science" are psuedo-science, well, they have toned down falling on their own sword and called it "pop-science".

    My point is, it perhaps is a little "out there" to challenge the current set-beliefs/theories of gravity. I mean, whoever made those theories what they are worked really really hard to make them happen, convinced, more importantly, a LOT of people. Leave them be. Congratulate them. Seriously, if anyone really knows what gravity is, they won;t waste their time with science chat-rooms, they would go straight to an aerospace agency and develop all the necessary patents.

    Personally, I think a scientific reformation is overdue..........this is a time of "know it all" pop-science professors, to such a degree that it is only a matter of time before someone shuts everyone up on that front.
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    I agree with some of your post. The thing I always keep in mind is the scientists know *way* more about their subject than I do. It is, and would be, very arrogant for "science enthusiasts" like myself to think they know better than the true experts in their field. I think pretty much everyone here who challenges the Big Bang, evolution, GR, whatever - think a little too highly of themselves to without training think they know more than the the collective consensus of all scientists in their given field.
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Kings' Lynn, norfolk, U.K.
    Posts
    9
    Why all the hostility to push, as opposed to pull ? A certain professor Higgs has got enough people interested in the Higgs Ether, oops meant to say Field,(Whats in a name eh?) for billions of pounds to be spent on a little thing called the Large Hadron Collide r. Why shouldn't this field have fluid like properties and push objects together the same way that boats get pushed together ("Fact" Boats are my living.) I'm new to this forum, but haven't had to read too many posts to realize what Einstein meant when he said........ "The intuitive mind is a gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant, we have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Was it really necessary to post on a thread that is almost to its 5th birthday?
     

  20. #19  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by contrarotational logic View Post
    Why all the hostility to push, as opposed to pull ? A certain professor Higgs has got enough people interested in the Higgs Ether, oops meant to say Field,(Whats in a name eh?) for billions of pounds to be spent on a little thing called the Large Hadron Collide r. Why shouldn't this field have fluid like properties and push objects together the same way that boats get pushed together ("Fact" Boats are my living.) I'm new to this forum, but haven't had to read too many posts to realize what Einstein meant when he said........ "The intuitive mind is a gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant, we have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
    It's not hostility, it's dismissing a silly theory that can't be substantiated.

    Since this thread is 5 years old, I am locking it.
     

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
  •