1. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Basic premise of Push Gravity

The model assumes that gravity is caused by particles impacting massive bodies from all directions, thereby providing a push force wish causes a tendency for massive bodies to move towards each other, also because the bodies themselves cause a shielding effect, leading to pressure differentials due to the collisions not being fully elastic. This is also posited as the reason for the inverse square law – the incoming momentum flux is greater than the outgoing one. Further assumptions must be made to account for the fact that the gravitational force is primarily caused by total mass rather then surface area, namely that only a small number of particles actually interact with a massive body.
Thanks for the list. It should be interesting to work through.. Could you pick one and explain in your own words why you believe it. Your Basic premise of Push Gravity is old and incomplete and not to mention negatively bias.

Your premise assumes that "gravity is caused by particles impactingmassive bodies" The particles may have nothing to do with impactingMASSIVE bodies. The particles would only need to interact with masses thatwhere equal or below the quantum level. The impacts would have no more of aneffect than a prevailing wind pushing into the side of a hurricane, there wouldbe no extreme collisions. The combined pushing of these billions and billionsof sub atomic masses would move the total mass proportionately following theinverse square law and explaining inertia. There is no need to even bring upthe word elastic in this bias attempt to create a problem with heat or violent collisions.There would never be any solid on solid impacts. As for an imbalance in theflux, this is no different than an imbalance in curved space. And last of allIt has nothing to do with surface area but every small mass (of a massive body)would be impacted equally by a small number of the pushing particles or packetsof energy. Picture particle pushing through a galaxy and you would see thatmost would miss the observable matter.

2.

3. .There would never be any solid on solid impacts.
If there is no transfer of momentum, there is no resultant net force. Therefore no gravity. If there is transfer of momentum, there is immediately your heat problem, and shown and calculated by Henri Poincare himself. Take your pick

The combined pushing of these billions and billionsof sub atomic masses would move the total mass proportionately following theinverse square law and explaining inertia
Unsupported claim. Show the maths to see that the results are in accordance with observation, while avoiding the heat problem.

There is no need to even bring upthe word elastic in this bias attempt to create a problem with heat or violent collisions
Yes there is, because it is a mechanical model, and the scattering process is either elastic or inelastic. This is not bias, but a real problem for the model, and one of the main reasons why it was abandoned.

As for an imbalance in theflux, this is no different than an imbalance in curved space.
There is no such term as "imbalance of curved space". You just made this up.

And last of allIt has nothing to do with surface area
Uh-huh. How then do you get the inverse square law ? Show us the maths.

Picture particle pushing through a galaxy and you would see thatmost would miss the observable matter.
Yes, that's precisely problem 4, and then by extension problem 5.

Your Basic premise of Push Gravity is old and incomplete and not to mention negatively bias.
It's a definition taken from here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeSage_gravity

4. Originally Posted by bill alsept
Thanks for the list. It should be interesting to work through
All you need to do is show us the maths, i.e. the field equations for the flux field, and the equations of motion. Alternatively a Lagrangian density integral would do. It is then a simple matter to perform a few basic calculations to see if it is in accordance with experiment and observation - I shall volunteer to do that for you, but you must provide the maths for your theory.

Your theory will need to be able to account for every single one of these experimental results, and many more on top of these :

Modern Tests of Relativity

I
strongly suggest you supply those maths, or else I will do it for you based on your own claims, i.e. an inverse square law. It is a very simple matter to show that this fails miserably for even straightforward cases like our own sun, which was one of the motivations for Einstein to develop GR in the first place.

5. Could you pick one and explain in your own words why you believe it.
I start with number 8 - we know ( this is experimentally verified ) that all forms of energy ( not just mass ) are a source of the gravitational field, including the gravitational field itself, and things like stress, momentum and electromagnetism. Furthermore, all these different forms of energy interact within a gravitational field, as explained by the Einstein field equations, which, by the way, are highly non-linear. Newton's inverse square law is only an approximation for very weak fields.
How can a mechanical PG model explain this, and what do you predict for sources much stronger than the weak Earth field ?

All of this is elaborated on, and calculated, in source [4] underneath.

6. Originally Posted by Pong
Thanks. Prior to your post I'd had the encumbrance of entertaining Push Gravity as remotely possible.

Don't let main stream keep you from having an open mind. Blindly following one unproved idea only is no good for anyone.

Richard Feynman said "I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."
So far there are no theories of gravity that DON'T invent some undiscovered something to make the idea work.

Push gravity is an attempt to explain what causes gravity and GR is a nice tool to calculate what gravity will do. They don't even try to do the same things.
Right now a lot of data is being accumulated and with advances in technology maybe someday soon the math behind GR will prove push gravity correct.

Speakingof analogies there was a lab experiment where four monkeys where put in a largecage. Everyday fresh fruit was placed in the middle but each time a monkey wentto get some he was sprayed with cold water. This happened every time andeventually they all quit trying. After a while one monkey was taken away and a newmonkey took his place. As soon the new monkey went for the fresh fruit all theother monkeys screamed and screamed (translated YOU CANT YOU CANT) so the newmonkey shied away and gave up. Soon a second monkey was replaced and he too wasscreamed at for his attempt. Eventually all the monkeys where replaced andalthough none of them had ever truly made an attempt they allbelieved it was impossible.

7. Originally Posted by bill alsept
Don't let main stream keep you from having an open mind.
It doesn't. Science demands an open mind; it is all about well-managed doubt and scepticism.

Blindly following one unproved idea only is no good for anyone.
The only one blindly following an unproven (in fact, disproved) idea is you.

Richard Feynman said "I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."
And yet you seem more interested in a theory which is easily shown to be wrong than not knowing. And, of course, when it comes to gravity, you could choose to know. If you weren't so closed minded.

So far there are no theories of gravity that DON'T invent some undiscovered something to make the idea work.
Really?

Push gravity is an attempt to explain what causes gravity
Except it isn't able to. And you have failed to produce to refute the many physical reasons it doesn't.

They don't even try to do the same things.
As in GR works and push gravity doesn't.

Right now a lot of data is being accumulated and with advances in technology maybe someday soon the math behind GR will prove push gravity correct.
And maybe unicorns will fly.

Speakingof analogies there was a lab experiment where four monkeys where put in a largecage. ...
1. I'm willing to bet you don't have a reference for this claimed experiment.
2. We are not monkeys.
3. It is a stupid and irrelevant analogy anyway. Unless it was supposed to represent people who were so scared of math and science at school that they will cling on to phantasy physics with religious devotion.

8. Originally Posted by bill alsept
Speakingof analogies there was a lab experiment where four monkeys where put in a largecage. Everyday fresh fruit was placed in the middle but each time a monkey wentto get some he was sprayed with cold water. This happened every time andeventually they all quit trying. After a while one monkey was taken away and a newmonkey took his place. As soon the new monkey went for the fresh fruit all theother monkeys screamed and screamed (translated YOU CANT YOU CANT) so the newmonkey shied away and gave up. Soon a second monkey was replaced and he too wasscreamed at for his attempt. Eventually all the monkeys where replaced andalthough none of them had ever truly made an attempt they allbelieved it was impossible.
A very apt analogy. Idiots often come to this forum claiming that mainstream science is locked in dogma and scientists have closed minds. Although we patiently explain to them that this is not the case they are soon replaced by another nutter who makes the same tired arguments. It would be funny if it wasn't sad.

9. Originally Posted by bill alsept

Right now a lot of data is being accumulated and with advances in technology maybe someday soon the math behind GR will prove push gravity correct.

No, because PG has already been proven wrong. It does not work.
How many more times...?

10. Everything floats up! Were upside down...
Metal is lighter than wood!
Smoke falls!

11. John Galt, I have carefully read all the posts in this thread, especially your post of the 1st September and find it impossible to agree with you or any of the other principal posters regarding fairness or open minds. I spent almost a lifetime attempting to provide a conceptual understanding (how and why of the fundamental dynamics of physics) of gravity, gravitation, the nature and attributes of an electron and so on and you would be aware of how tk421 declared it to be tantamount to rubbish without even a skim reading of the paper. Strange was unable to imagine my description of how energy is amasses to form a unit of virtual matter and so did not read my work. Since then and to part eliminate the need for imagination to understand virtual matter at the fundamental level of reality, I have rewritten that part of the paper by the use of the background radiation, thereby providing measurable volumes and dimensions.

Because of experience with people usually referred to as crackpots or nutters, there is a dominant propensity to suspect all who suggest a change to concepts regarding physics to belong in that category. My work regarding gravitation could be crudely regarded as a push effect, even so the description is a detailed instant by instant description (time relative to an electron) that coordinates with all other phenomena. The people on this forum who have called me stupid when I attempted to state that gravitation was simply an interference to a particle of a bulk bodies gravity, have steadfastly refused to read my paper. Our technology is highly advanced but our conceptual understanding of the fundamental dynamics of physics is woefully misleading.

The paper is now available in the updated section of the General Science Journal if the above is to be corrected. For now I will continue reading the attempts to understand fundamental physics that appear to be the concern of a number of thread starters in the physics category on this forum.

12. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
No, because PG has already been proven wrong. It does not work. How many more times...?
How could PG have been proven wrong if it's never been described properly. Your arguments against PG are like me saying GR doesn't explain gravity because it offers no mechanism especialy the initial source for the force or pull.

13. Originally Posted by John Galt
Idiots often come to this forum claiming that mainstream science is locked in dogma and scientists have closed minds. Although we patiently explain to them that this is not the case they are soon replaced by another nutter who makes the same tired arguments. It would be funny if it wasn't sad.
Idiots always counter with the pathetic name calling. It would be funny if it wasn't sad.

14. How could PG have been proven wrong if it's never been described properly.
So then, how would you properly describe it ? Mind you, a proper description is one that has the appropriate mathematical formulation to support it, i.e. field equations and equations of motion.
Come on then, we are waiting.

Your arguments against PG are like me saying GR doesn't explain gravity because it offers no mechanism especialy the initial source for the force or pull.
My arguments are based on the LeSage push gravity model. If you wish to present a substantially different one, then please, don't let us stop you.

15. Originally Posted by Naggy Doggy
What is the force between masses and the push particles?
Kinetic

16. Originally Posted by bill alsept
Originally Posted by Naggy Doggy
What is the force between masses and the push particles?
Kinetic
That's what the LeSage model says. I thought PG hasn't been properly described ?
So is there is a proper formalism forthcoming or not ? Why do you keep stalling on this issue ?

17. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
That's what the LeSage model says. I thought PG hasn't been properly described ?So is there is a proper formalism forthcoming or not ? Why do you keep stalling on this issue ?
The question was "what is the force between masses and push particles" and I answered "kinetic" did you have another answer? As for my ideas I am not stalling. Like many other new ideas it takes time to formalize but I will. I only came to the forum to bounce ideas off others. So far so good, the only arguments I have heard against PG are outdated and do not counter my version of PG.

18. did you have another answer?
There are no such particles, the whole thing is just nonsense.

Like many other new ideas it takes time to formalize but I will.
It's not a new idea, it's 300 years old.

So far so good, the only arguments I have heard against PG are outdated and do not counter my version of PG.
Let us be the judge of that - present your model here. Thus far you haven't shown us anything, certainly nothing which is in any way different from the LeSage model.

19. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Motivation

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.

Basic premise of Push Gravity

The model assumes that gravity is caused by particles impacting massive bodies from all directions, thereby providing a push force wish causes a tendency for massive bodies to move towards each other, also because the bodies themselves cause a shielding effect, leading to pressure differentials due to the collisions not being fully elastic. This is also posited as the reason for the inverse square law – the incoming momentum flux is greater than the outgoing one. Further assumptions must be made to account for the fact that the gravitational force is primarily caused by total mass rather then surface area, namely that only a small number of particles actually interact with a massive body.
This is just semantics but the theory itself is not a premise.

Reasons why Push Gravity does not work
1. The gravity particles are thought of classical particles with classical interactions. This notion is inconsistent with current understanding of particle physics – there is no particle which could have all the characteristics required by PG without violating one or more physical laws

2. The particle flux filling all space must be perfectly isotropic and of very high density. No known form of radiation of particle flux has these characteristics to the degree required by the theory
Nobody says such particles have to be classical in nature. More modern pushing gravity model are aether based and the particles may go down to Planck lengths or smaller. We still haven't found dark matter yet so something vastly smaller could certainly exist.

3. The neutrino. Modern proponents of PG often posit the neutrino as the mediating particle of the theory. This has been conclusively disproved by Richard Feynman in 1995 [1].
Again such a field could be aethereal in nature.

4. Transparency of matter. With increasing mass the change in gravitational shielding becomes mathematically less then the sum of the shieldings of the two bodies. To overcome this one has to place an extremely high lower bound on the flux density of these particles. This is inconsistent with experiments conducted to detect such flux energies [2]
Again they have not found dark matter particles, yet they think it must exist. There are no flux energies, simply a transfer of pushing vectors upon atoms or related vortexes of spinning matter.

5. Drag. Any mechanical model of PG necessarily creates a drag force, or else there would be no interaction between the particles and a massive body. In order to reduce the amount of drag to levels consistent with observation, the speed at which these particles move must be in the region of 10^17 m/s, which is many orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light.
There accordingly might be a drag force but only for masses moving contrary to the motion of the gravitational field in that location, something like the Pioneer anomaly. Your criticism seems to be based upon specific pushing gravity models.
6. Heat energy. If the particles of PG really move at superluminal speeds, which is in violation of basic physical principles, they would impart a heat energy onto any massive body sufficiently high to instantly incinerate any form of normal matter.
Again this is just one specific PG model, and such superluminal speeds are not needed for some other models.

7. Aberration. In any mechanical model of gravity, the gravitational force can only act with finite speed, creating an aberration effect. Such an effect has not been observed.
This seems like an invalid criticism. The PG field develops in the first place at maybe close to the speed of light but once established matter moving into the field existing field is acted upon almost instantaneously because the field is pre-existing.
8. Sources of gravity. As we know today, and as is experimentally well verified [3], all forms of energy are a source of the gravitational field, not just mass. This is not explainable by PG.
There are two major sources of energy, EM radiation and the energy of relative motion. Both of these are easily explained by pushing gravity.

9. Time dilation. PG has no consistent mechanism to explain the well verified phenomenon of time dilation.
Pushing gravity via LT can explain time dilation of bodies in motion. Time dilation via gravity is explained by greater PG forces closer to the center of gravity slowing up atomic motions via its stronger vectors.
10. Deflection of light. PG cannot explain deflection of light rays while at the same time avoiding aforementioned problems with drag.
Light deflection is easily explained by PG vectors toward gravitational centers. There is no drag effect with a luminiferous aether by definition.
11. Thermodynamics. The flux of particles in PG would be many orders of magnitude more energetic then mass at rest. However, not transmission of energy is observed, even though there must be a form of interaction with ordinary matter. This leads to a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
In this I disagree. For some models the net aether inflow is relatively slow compared to the speed of light depending upon the model.

12. Perpetual motion. Due to shielding effects the existence of PG would make it possible to construct a perpetual motion machine. Again, this is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
What kind of perpetual motion machine? How would it accordingly work?
13. Binding energy. Binding energy of elementary particles contributes to their gravitational energy, which is not explainable by PG.
Binding energy such as the strong or weak forces are not need to explain the forces of PG.

14. Origin. There is no consistent explanation as to where those particles come from, why their flux never varies, why the field is perfectly isotropic, or why the total energy never decreases even if the universe is expanding.
This simply depends upon the model. PG along does not explain everything so it must be part of a cosmological model than can coexist with PG.

15. Mathematics. The mathematics of PG are not self-consistent, and do not produce the correct results. [4]
Pushing gravity cannot produce GR. But so far GR without an unknown field of Dark Matter cannot explain the universe at the galactic scale. If GR is wrong, a mechanical model of gravity may take its place some day.
16. Frame of reference. PG would create an absolute frame of reference, which means that the Theory of Relativity must be false. This is in contradiction to experiment and observation.
This is true. SR would be wrong and something like LT would be correct.

17. Large scale structure. Due to the necessary isotropy of the PG medium, over very large distances the net forces would cancel out. This does not explain the large scale structure of the universe.
I also agree that I don't think that PG alone can explain the large scale structure of the universe but neither can Newtonian gravity or GR. I think this is more related to a compatible model of the universe that can explain both PG and the large scale structure of the universe.
18. Non-existence. No flux field or particle stream as needed by PG has ever been observed by experiment or observation.
I disagree. I think that all observations of so-called dark matter are simply currents of aether related to PG.

Conclusion

PG was abandoned around 1900 due to some of the very serious problems listed above. It is not a viable model of gravitation, and even in its hey day ( around the time when LeSage was alive ) it had very few proponents, since even then it was recognized that there were serious problems with this model. It is in many ways in direct contradiction to empirical evidence, and would, in order to work, violate several fundamental laws of physics.
In short – push gravity is complete nonsense.
Some of what is said above was probably true at the time Le Sage and others made PG proposals but I think better PG models can eventually overcome all objections. Specific experiments are probably needed to provide evidence for such models. Not just better math, but I think a better concept than GR is needed to replace it.

20. Duplicate posting

21. Your criticism seems to be based upon specific pushing gravity models.
All of my points are based on the LeSage model of mechanical push gravity.

There are two major sources of energy, EM radiation and the energy of relative motion.
That is not correct. Please look up "Stress-Energy-Momentum Tensor" and see which sources of energy form a source of the gravitational field.

22. Originally Posted by bill alsept
How could PG have been proven wrong if it's never been described properly.
As you unable to provide a "proper" description then that is a valueless argument.

It is like me saying that unicorns exist, they are just not the horse-with-a-horn that everyone imagines. But I can't tell you what they really look like. Therefore any argument you produce that unicorns don't exist is wrong.

You seem to forget that this is a science forum, not science fiction.

23. Originally Posted by forrest noble
More modern pushing gravity model are aether based
As neither you nor anyone else has managed to articulate such a model it is on a similar dubious footing as "invisible pink unicorns".

24. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Your criticism seems to be based upon specific pushing gravity models.
All of my points are based on the LeSage model of mechanical push gravity.

There are two major sources of energy, EM radiation and the energy of relative motion.
That is not correct. Please look up "Stress-Energy-Momentum Tensor" and see which sources of energy form a source of the gravitational field.
Stress-Energy-Momentum Tensor sounds like relative motion as momentum to me. I doubt you would have to put another form of energy other than maybe temperature and/or spin into the equation, but if you could what other kinds of energies could the equation handle?

25. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Stress-Energy-Momentum Tensor sounds like relative motion as momentum to me. I doubt you would have to put another form of energy other than maybe temperature and/or spin into the equation, but if you could what other kinds of energies could the equation handle?
The elements of this tensor are composed of :

1. Energy density
2. Momentum density
3. Energy Flux
4. Momentum Flux
5. Pressure
6. Shear stress

Herein "energy" refers to any form of energy, i.e. it could be kinetic, EM, mass etc etc. All of this together forms the source of the gravitational field ( not the field itself, which is accounted for through the structure of the field equations themselves ). Refer here :

Stress

26. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
More modern pushing gravity model are aether based
As neither you nor anyone else has managed to articulate such a model it is on a similar dubious footing as "invisible pink unicorns".
Yes, I long ago developed such a model and all of the related questions/ problems above seem to be more easily explainable according to my own model. Only the related equations still need work on them once I have all the available data needed and thereafter can make the time to work on them. Maybe as soon as just a few more years I hope to have a fully functional model. It too requires a simple version of Minkowsky spacetime. Remember for 10 straight years Einstein's primary project was the development of GR so the task is not that easy. I spend much more time on extra-curricular activities than I think Einstein did.

27. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by forrest noble
Stress-Energy-Momentum Tensor sounds like relative motion as momentum to me. I doubt you would have to put another form of energy other than maybe temperature and/or spin into the equation, but if you could what other kinds of energies could the equation handle?
The elements of this tensor are composed of :

1. Energy density
2. Momentum density
3. Energy Flux
4. Momentum Flux
5. Pressure
6. Shear stress

Herein "energy" refers to any form of energy, i.e. it could be kinetic, EM, mass etc etc. All of this together forms the source of the gravitational field
(not the field itself, which is accounted for through the structure of the field equations themselves ). Refer here :

Stress

Got it thanks.

28. Originally Posted by bill alsept
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
No, because PG has already been proven wrong. It does not work. How many more times...?
How could PG have been proven wrong if it's never been described properly. Your arguments against PG are like me saying GR doesn't explain gravity because it offers no mechanism especially the initial source for the force or pull.
Yeah, the GR proposal of warped space and the analogy of a deformed rubber sheet does seem to fail as to what causes the beginning or continued accelerated motion toward the gravitational source in the absence of gravity to explain itself

Once a PG model is formulated and it becomes known, it can be criticized. Criticism can result in the proposers or others explanations otherwise, retorts, changes in the model, or others proposing alternative models to overcome seemingly valid criticisms. A particular PG model might be shown to have serious problems or flaws within it, but in my opinion all possible versions of PG models seemingly could never be disproved, as you seem to also suggest.

29. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Once a PG model is formulated and it becomes known, it can be criticized.
And we've been waiting for something other than word salad.

Criticism can result in retorts, changes in the model, or others proposing alternative models to overcome criticisms. A particular PG model might be shown to have serious flaws in it but in my opinion all possible versions of PG models seemingly could never be disproved, as you seem to suggest.
There is a huge difference between GR and PG (at least to the extent discussed so far): GR makes verified predictions. Quantitative ones.

PG proponents claim that PG is better in the sense of providing a "why" (since, assert PG adherents, GR does not give a "reason" for why gravity acts that it does). However, PG has not shown the ability to make correct, quantitative predictions over anywhere near the range of GR.

So our choices are these:

1) A theory that we may not like for emotional reasons, but which correctly describes what we see; or

2) A much older idea, which satisfies some primitive emotional need, but which doesn't work.

Does this mean that PG can never be made to work? Of course not. The same could be said of the pink unicorn hypothesis. So what? Don't fool yourself into thinking that these two understandings of gravity are in any way comparable. PG is a fantasy with a history of discredit. GR is a self-consistent description of how gravity works, as far as we can measure.

30. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by forrest noble
Once a PG model is formulated and it becomes known, it can be criticized.
And we've been waiting for something other than word salad.

Criticism can result in retorts, changes in the model, or others proposing alternative models to overcome criticisms. A particular PG model might be shown to have serious flaws in it but in my opinion all possible versions of PG models seemingly could never be disproved, as you seem to suggest.
There is a huge difference between GR and PG (at least to the extent discussed so far): GR makes verified predictions. Quantitative ones.

PG proponents claim that PG is better in the sense of providing a "why" (since, assert PG adherents, GR does not give a "reason" for why gravity acts that it does). However, PG has not shown the ability to make correct, quantitative predictions over anywhere near the range of GR.
This depends on the particular PG model. Historically some PG models allegedly can explain the inverse square law of gravity. But not the intricacies of the precession variation of Mercury, the degree that light bends, as well other precisions of GR.

Some versions of it do much better at galactic scales than GR without dark matter, however my own model is the only PG model like this that I know of.
So our choices are these:
1) A theory that we may not like for emotional reasons, but which correctly describes what we see; or
I do not think "emotional reasons" is the best description of the possible concept failings of GR, or the explanation-of-cause advantage of PG. I would say the possible advantages of PG would be as the conceptual basis concerning a far simpler mechanical model of gravity.

2) A much older idea, which satisfies some primitive emotional need, but which doesn't work.
I don't think this aspect adds appeal to the model for almost anyone.

Does this mean that PG can never be made to work? Of course not.
Agreed.

The same could be said of the pink unicorn hypothesis.
I don't think your reference to pink unicorns is an appropriate analogy. Maybe a model of a dark-energy counterpart that also pushes matter together at smaller scales, would be a better analogy.

So what? Don't fool yourself into thinking that these two understandings of gravity are in any way comparable.
I also don't think there are hardly any similarities between these gravity models.
PG is a fantasy....
This is simply opinion.

...with a history of discredit.
Some specific PG models are thought by many to have generally been discredited.

GR is a self-consistent description of how gravity works, as far as we can measure.
I would phrase it slightly differently: "GR is a self-consistent description of gravity that has been shown to be very accurate based upon observations within solar system scale systems."

At galactic scales dark matter is needed in very large quantities to try to balance equations with observation. Dark matter is still undiscovered as to what it might be, or even whether it exists at all as a form of matter to justify GR.

31. Originally Posted by forrest noble

This depends on the particular PG model. Historically some PG models allegedly can explain the inverse square law of gravity. But not the intricacies of the precession variation of Mercury, the degree that light bends, as well other precisions of GR.
You can't just pick and choose bits, Forrest (well, I guess you can, but one oughtn't). An ad hoc pastiche is not a theory. No versions of PG work, Forrest, by any definition of "work" that matters. GR, on the other hand, works.

Some versions of it do much better at galactic scales than GR without dark matter, however my own model is the only PG model like this that I know of.
Yeah, right. Post back after you get the call from Stockholm, Forrest.

Originally Posted by tk421
1) A theory that we may not like for emotional reasons, but which correctly describes what we see; or
Originally Posted by FN
I do not think "emotional reasons" is the best description of the possible concept failings of GR, or the explanation-of-cause advantage of PG. I would say the possible advantages of PG would be as the conceptual basis concerning a far simpler mechanical model of gravity.
"Concept failings" is code for "I don't like it." That's fundamentally an emotional reaction, Forrest. GR works, but you don't like "why" it works. You contort yourself into believing that there is data pointing to GR's failings, and go from there. That's an emotional motivation, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by tk
2) A much older idea, which satisfies some primitive emotional need, but which doesn't work.
Originally Posted by FN
I don't think this aspect adds appeal to the model for almost anyone.
Look at your own wordings, offered repeatedly in various posts: You find the simplicity appealing, so much so that you are willing to overlook PG's inability to explain what GR already correctly predicts. You may deny it, but it is nonetheless plainly obvious that you are driven by emotion, rather than a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence. You've been all too willing to bend facts to serve your purposes (and if you don't want further "unpleasantness" or "rudeness" from me, don't force me). That's not the attitude of a true scientist. That's the behavior of an ideologue, driven by an emotional conviction.

I don't think your reference to pink unicorns is an appropriate analogy. Maybe a model of a dark-energy counterpart that also pushes matter together at smaller scales, would be a better analogy.
I strongly disagree. The pink unicorn hypothesis is an excellent analogy to the PG hypothesis/hypotheses bandied about here in this thread: Devoid of mathematical specificity, appealing to emotion, simple in expression, and capable of "explaining" anything.

Originally Posted by tk
PG is a fantasy....
Originally Posted by FN
This is simply opinion.
PG is not a fact, nor has it risen to the level of an actual theory. It has three centuries of failure behind it. So anyone pushing PG is fantasizing -- without evidence -- that it can be made to work.

Some specific PG models are thought by many to have generally been discredited.
No PG model has ever come close to succeeding. The very bases for PG have been falsified (see Markus' thread for a summary). Your statement is weak and self-serving. The correct statement would be "PG models have failed consistently for centuries. No workable PG models have ever been published in any peer-reviewed journal." Thus those who are schooled in the subject have overwhelmingly rejected PG as having been discredited. The opinion of ignorant daydreamers doesn't count.

Originally Posted by tk
GR is a self-consistent description of how gravity works, as far as we can measure.
Originally Posted by FN
I would phrase it slightly differently: "GR is a self-consistent description of gravity that has been shown to be very accurate based upon observations within solar system scale systems."
Of course you would phrase it this way, as you believe this misrepresentation would crack the door open wide enough to admit your "theory."

At galactic scales dark matter is needed in very large quantities to try to balance equations with observation. Dark matter is still undiscovered as to what it might be, or even whether it exists at all as a form of matter to justify GR.
You conveniently neglect things like gravitational lensing, which is only observable on galactic scales. GR explains it rather well.

32. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by forrest noble

This depends on the particular PG model. Historically some PG models allegedly can explain the inverse square law of gravity. But not the intricacies of the precession variation of Mercury, the degree that light bends, as well other precisions of GR.

Some versions of it do much better at galactic scales than GR without dark matter, however my own model is the only PG model like this that I know of.
Yeah, right. Post back after you get the call from Stockholm, Forrest.
Stockholm will never call me concerning my model of PG anymore than they called Einstein after he proposed GR. For the Nobel prize my experiment concerning the speed of light might do it. I could use the money concerning dancing girls

Originally Posted by FN
I do not think "emotional reasons" is the best description of the possible concept failings of GR, or the explanation-of-cause advantage of PG. I would say the possible advantages of PG would be as the conceptual basis concerning a far simpler mechanical model of gravity.
"Concept failings" is code for "I don't like it." That's fundamentally an emotional reaction, Forrest. GR works, but you don't like "why" it works. You contort yourself into believing that there is data pointing to GR's failings, and go from there. That's an emotional motivation, plain and simple.
........You find the simplicity appealing, so much so that you are willing to overlook PG's inability to explain what GR already correctly predicts. You may deny it, but it is nonetheless plainly obvious that you are driven by emotion......
Not concerning science, religion, or dancing girls

No PG model has ever come close to succeeding.......
But you have agreed that this does not mean that no PG model could ever be valid.

Originally Posted by FN
I would phrase it slightly differently: "GR is a self-consistent description of gravity that has been shown to be very accurate based upon observations within solar system scale systems."
Of course you would phrase it this way, as you believe this misrepresentation would crack the door open wide enough to admit your "theory."
Yes, for my model or any valid PG model, or otherwise, that can mathematically function in all venues without the use of ~90% dark matter, and which also is conceptually better than GR.

At galactic scales dark matter is needed in very large quantities to try to balance equations with observation. Dark matter is still undiscovered as to what it might be, or even whether it exists at all as a form of matter to justify GR.

You conveniently neglect things like gravitational lensing, which is only observable on galactic scales. GR explains it rather well.
So can vortex currents of aether via pushing gravity. The extent of light bending via GR requires dark matter while the PG concept could be strictly mechanical vortex bending and pushing.

33. Originally Posted by tk
You conveniently neglect things like gravitational lensing, which is only observable on galactic scales. GR explains it rather well.
(Please fix the quote tags in your post; they're all messed up)

Originally Posted by FN
So can vortex currents of aether via pushing gravity. The extent of light bending via GR requires dark matter while the PG concept could be strictly mechanical vortex bending and pushing.
You've shifted the argument. Your original statement implied wrongly that GR only worked at solar-system scales. I corrected you by pointing out that GR describes gravitational lensing, which is clearly operative at galactic scales. Your weak reply is to assert that other mechanisms could also do so. But GR already does.

Invocation of "vortex currents of aether" impresses not at all. Might just as well appeal to pink unicorns. Both have yielded equivalently quantitative predictions of the effect.

ETA: What is it about vortices that appeals so much to the fringe crowd?

34. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by tk
You conveniently neglect things like gravitational lensing, which is only observable on galactic scales. GR explains it rather well.
(Please fix the quote tags in your post; they're all messed up)

Originally Posted by FN
So can vortex currents of aether via pushing gravity. The extent of light bending via GR requires dark matter while the PG concept could be strictly mechanical vortex bending and pushing.
You've shifted the argument. Your original statement implied wrongly that GR only worked at solar-system scales. I corrected you by pointing out that GR describes gravitational lensing, which is clearly operative at galactic scales. Your weak reply is to assert that other mechanisms could also do so. But GR already does.

Invocation of "vortex currents of aether" impresses not at all. Might just as well appeal to pink unicorns. Both have yielded equivalently quantitative predictions of the effect.

ETA: What is it about vortices that appeals so much to the fringe crowd?
Yes, I was amending the quote marks. I don't always notice problems in the "Advanced" until I actually post, then quite often find reasons to amend or improve the post.

I said GR only works at solar system scales without needing large quantities of dark matter. GR also requires large quantities of dark matter to explain the extent of gravitational lensing. Vortex motions may be needed by PG models at galactic scales to explain the motions of galaxies; at least I need such motions to explain galactic/ stellar rotation rates in my model. Such motion is accordingly much like a hurricane as they appear to be very similar in appearance to many spiral galaxies.

35. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Vortex motions may be needed by PG models to explain the motions of galaxies; at least I need such motion to explain my model.
Yeah. Sure.

36. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Motivation

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.

Basic premise of Push Gravity

The model assumes that gravity is caused by particles impacting massive bodies from all directions, thereby providing a push force wish causes a tendency for massive bodies to move towards each other, also because the bodies themselves cause a shielding effect, leading to pressure differentials due to the collisions not being fully elastic. This is also posited as the reason for the inverse square law – the incoming momentum flux is greater than the outgoing one. Further assumptions must be made to account for the fact that the gravitational force is primarily caused by total mass rather then surface area, namely that only a small number of particles actually interact with a massive body.
This statement is just semantics, but the theory itself is not a premise. Maybe better stated might be the basic principles of pushing gravity are: .....

Reasons why Push Gravity does not work
1. The gravity particles are thought of classical particles with classical interactions. This notion is inconsistent with current understanding of particle physics – there is no particle which could have all the characteristics required by PG without violating one or more physical laws

2. The particle flux filling all space must be perfectly isotropic and of very high density. No known form of radiation of particle flux has these characteristics to the degree required by the theory
Nobody says such particles have to be classical in nature. More modern pushing gravity models are aether based and the aether particles may go down to Planck lengths or smaller. We still haven't found dark matter yet, so something vastly smaller could certainly exist.

3. The neutrino. Modern proponents of PG often posit the neutrino as the mediating particle of the theory. This has been conclusively disproved by Richard Feynman in 1995 [1].
Again such a field could be aethereal in nature.

4. Transparency of matter. With increasing mass the change in gravitational shielding becomes mathematically less then the sum of the shieldings of the two bodies. To overcome this one has to place an extremely high lower bound on the flux density of these particles. This is inconsistent with experiments conducted to detect such flux energies
Again they have not found dark matter particles, yet they think it must exist. There are no flux energies, simply a transfer of pushing vectors upon atoms or related vortexes of spinning matter.

5. Drag. Any mechanical model of PG necessarily creates a drag force, or else there would be no interaction between the particles and a massive body. In order to reduce the amount of drag to levels consistent with observation, the speed at which these particles move must be in the region of 10^17 m/s, which is many orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light.
There accordingly might be a drag force but only for masses moving contrary to the motion of the gravitational field in that location, something like the Pioneer anomaly. Your criticism seems to be based upon a specific pushing gravity model(s).

6. Heat energy. If the particles of PG really move at superluminal speeds, which is in violation of basic physical principles, they would impart a heat energy onto any massive body sufficiently high to instantly incinerate any form of normal matter.
Again this is just one specific PG model, and such superluminal speeds are not needed for some other models.

7. Aberration. In any mechanical model of gravity, the gravitational force can only act with finite speed, creating an aberration effect. Such an effect has not been observed.
This seems like an invalid criticism. The PG field develops in the first place at maybe close to the speed of light but once established matter moving into a pre-existing field is acted upon almost instantaneously because the field is pre-existing.

8. Sources of gravity. As we know today, and as is experimentally well verified [3], all forms of energy are a source of the gravitational field, not just mass. This is not explainable by PG.
There are two major sources of energy, EM radiation and the energy of relative motion. Both of these are easily explained by pushing gravity.

9. Time dilation. PG has no consistent mechanism to explain the well verified phenomenon of time dilation.
Pushing gravity via LT can explain time dilation of bodies in motion. Time dilation via gravity is explained by greater PG forces closer to the center of gravity slowing up atomic motions via its stronger vectors.

10. Deflection of light. PG cannot explain deflection of light rays while at the same time avoiding aforementioned problems with drag.
Light deflection is easily explained by PG vectors toward gravitational centers. There is no drag effect with a luminiferous aether by definition.

11. Thermodynamics. The flux of particles in PG would be many orders of magnitude more energetic then mass at rest. However, not transmission of energy is observed, even though there must be a form of interaction with ordinary matter. This leads to a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
In this I disagree. For some models the net aether inflow is relatively slow compared to the speed of light depending upon the model.

12. Perpetual motion. Due to shielding effects the existence of PG would make it possible to construct a perpetual motion machine. Again, this is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
What kind of perpetual motion machine? How would it accordingly work?

13. Binding energy. Binding energy of elementary particles contributes to their gravitational energy, which is not explainable by PG.
Binding energy such as the strong or weak forces are not needed to explain any of the forces of PG.

14. Origin. There is no consistent explanation as to where those particles come from, why their flux never varies, why the field is perfectly isotropic, or why the total energy never decreases even if the universe is expanding.
This simply depends upon the model. PG along does not explain everything so it must be part of a cosmological model that can coexist with the PG model.

15. Mathematics. The mathematics of PG are not self-consistent, and do not produce the correct results.
Pushing gravity cannot produce GR. But so far GR without an unknown field of Dark Matter cannot explain the universe at the galactic scale. If GR is wrong, a mechanical model of gravity may take its place some day.

16.Frame of reference. PG would create an absolute frame of reference, which means that the Theory of Relativity must be false. This is in contradiction to experiment and observation.
This is true. SR would be wrong and something like LT would take its place.

17. Large scale structure. Due to the necessary isotropy of the PG medium, over very large distances the net forces would cancel out. This does not explain the large scale structure of the universe.
I also agree that I don't think that PG alone can explain the large scale structure of the universe but neither can Newtonian gravity or GR. I think this is more related to a compatible model of the universe that can explain both PG and the large scale structure of the universe.

18. Non-existence. No flux field or particle stream as needed by PG has ever been observed by experiment or observation.
I disagree. I think that all so-called observations of dark matter are simply instead vortex currents of aether at the galactic scale, related to PG and which accordingly bend light.

Conclusion

PG was abandoned around 1900 due to some of the very serious problems listed above. It is not a viable model of gravitation, and even in its hey day ( around the time when LeSage was alive ) it had very few proponents, since even then it was recognized that there were serious problems with this model. It is in many ways in direct contradiction to empirical evidence, and would, in order to work, violate several fundamental laws of physics.

In short – push gravity is complete nonsense.
Much of what was said above was probably true at the time Le Sage and other PG proposals of the time and later were made
Not really, even though Lesage’s model is wrong the list above is a joke. Almost every statement is incorrect or exagerated and I would only agree with #2 and maybe #16. Number 12 shows the bias attitude of most PG opponents. Perpetual Motion is the essence of GR and pull gravity. They are the free lunch of all free lunches. What else can reach out to every corner of the universe and attract everything and do this forever and ever and not only never run out of this magic energy but actually get stronger and stronger the more it accumulates. It is the perfect perpetual motion. No its better. On the other hand a good PG model will show that the kinetic energy that pushes everything together eventually runs out as the universe condenses.

37. Originally Posted by bill alsept
Not really, even though Lesage’s model is wrong
So, when are you going to show us the RIGHT model?

38. Indeed. If this is going to remain in the phyics forum, it's time to put up some physics or it will be moved.

39. Originally Posted by bill alsept
Not really, even though Lesage’s model is wrong the list above is a joke. Almost every statement is incorrect or exagerated and I would only agree with #2 and maybe #16. Number 12 shows the bias attitude of most PG opponents. Perpetual Motion is the essence of GR and pull gravity. They are the free lunch of all free lunches. What else can reach out to every corner of the universe and attract everything and do this forever and ever and not only never run out of this magic energy but actually get stronger and stronger the more it accumulates. It is the perfect perpetual motion. No its better. On the other hand a good PG model will show that the kinetic energy that pushes everything together eventually runs out as the universe condenses.
You've wasted many posts telling us about everything except your allegedly correct PG model. Can you not understand why "PG opponents" would remain unswayed? You would like to believe that non-acceptance is due to closed minds, but it's simply that you haven't presented a theory. As the Mods are telling you, it's long past time to present your epoch-making theory of PG. If you don't have one, just admit it. If you do have a theory, then present it, for Pete's sake. Use equations, not more word salad. We've had our fill of that.

40. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
Indeed. If this is going to remain in the phyics forum, it's time to put up some physics or it will be moved.

I agree, someone should put up some physics to back the list above and the title of this thread "Why Push Gravity Does NotWork"As I have stated I agree with number 2 and 16 on the list but the others needto be better explored or better ignored as in number 12.Lets start with #1, I agree that any two push gravity particles would have trouble staying together without violating many laws of physics. On the other hand billions and billions of them coming together would be different. At first the collisions would be violent but eventually a center would form where the activity was a little insulated from the outer violence. This center area would be the beginning of the shadow effect and once it began could never stop until there were no more push gravity particles or the vortex was broken up through some catastrophe. The violent mass would begin to accrete forming a disk and then a vortex that would smoothly intercept the push gravity particles. These miniature vortexes would then become the building blocks of everything else. Push gravity particles would ONLY interact with these vortexes and never with something as large as a quark. I'm sure there are many was to model particles coming together. We already see it in nature in the form of galaxies, black holes and atoms. Why should nature give up on this great idea at the subatomic level? The point is that this thread 'Why Push Gravity Does NotWork"is the one making the claims so lets discuss the physics behind those claims.

41. Originally Posted by bill alsept
The point is that this thread 'Why Push Gravity Does NotWork" is the one making the claims so lets discuss the physics behind those claims.[/FONT][/COLOR]
The physics has been covered here, on other threads and in the various linked articles. It has been considered by many people for hundreds of years. It clearly doesn't work.

If you don't accept the physics you need to explain why and not just keep saying "it's wrong".

42. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by bill alsept
The point is that this thread 'Why Push Gravity Does NotWork" is the one making the claims so lets discuss the physics behind those claims.[/FONT][/COLOR]
The physics has been covered here, on other threads and in the various linked articles. It has been considered by many people for hundreds of years. It clearly doesn't work.

If you don't accept the physics you need to explain why and not just keep saying "it's wrong".

I justdid above, I specifically explained why number one was wrong and blanket statementslike that do not need to be on the list. Maybe with quote classical particles with classical interactionsas main stream sees them you would have an argument butobviously there are other models and nothing classical them. Can your #1 make anargument against my hypothesis stated above and how. Do you need to change theargument in #1 to counter or can you explain why you believe in it. Don't justsay It has been considered by many people for hundreds of years. I realize that

43. bill alsept,

(Regarding my reply to the 16 OP points of criticism of Pushing Gravity)
....... even though Lesage’s model is wrong the list above is a joke. Almost every statement is incorrect or exaggerated and I would only agree with #2 and maybe #16. Number 12 shows the bias attitude of most PG opponents. Perpetual Motion is the essence of GR and pull gravity. They are the free lunch of all free lunches. What else can reach out to every corner of the universe and attract everything and do this forever and ever and not only never run out of this magic energy but actually get stronger and stronger the more it accumulates. It is the perfect perpetual motion. No its better. On the other hand a good PG model will show that the kinetic energy that pushes everything together eventually runs out as the universe condenses.
Thanks for that. Now I understand what is suggested in #12.

What seemed to be missing from pushing gravity models, other than my own, that I could not find upon reading of these models was: why does the field push upon matter? My own model explains this via a low field pressure area/ volume surrounding matter as a result of matter continuously radiating field material away in the form of EM radiation, De Broglie waves, and standing waves (virtual particles). As matter physically spins it accordingly would radiate field material away like an egg beater to a mixing bowl. Stars accordingly would be the primary producers of the high energy field vectors of PG. The back-flow from the bowl edge back to the egg beater is one of the causes of gravity that results in the G force (field pressure of the aether) pushing against all matter and is accordingly the source of matters' mass. The other cause I think is the same as other PG models which involves random field vectors in all directions. Uneven vectors are the result of shielding/ shadow effect which causes bodies to be pushed toward each other.

Answering the same related "why" questions concerning the cause of gravity, was a failure of both Newton and Einstein's models. For Newton: Why does matter pull-on/ attract other matter? For Einstein: why does matter warp its surrounding space? When asked this question Newton answered: I do not propose hypothesis. Einstein made a similar statement when asked the "why" question.

44. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by bill alsept
The point is that this thread 'Why Push Gravity Does NotWork" is the one making the claims so lets discuss the physics behind those claims.[/FONT][/COLOR]
The physics has been covered here, on other threads and in the various linked articles. It has been considered by many people for hundreds of years. It clearly doesn't work.

If you don't accept the physics you need to explain why and not just keep saying "it's wrong".
I just did above, I specifically explained why number one was wrong and blanket statements like that do not need to be on the list. Maybe with quote classical particles with classical interactions as main stream sees them you would have an argument but obviously there are other models and nothing classical them. Can your #1 make anargument against my hypothesis stated above and how. Do you need to change the argument in #1 to counter or can you explain why you believe in it. Don't just say It has been considered by many people for hundreds of years. I realize that

45. Originally Posted by forrest noble
bill alsept,

(Regarding my reply to the 16 OP points of criticism of Pushing Gravity)
....... even though Lesage’s model is wrong the list above is a joke. Almost every statement is incorrect or exaggerated and I would only agree with #2 and maybe #16. Number 12 shows the bias attitude of most PG opponents. Perpetual Motion is the essence of GR and pull gravity. They are the free lunch of all free lunches. What else can reach out to every corner of the universe and attract everything and do this forever and ever and not only never run out of this magic energy but actually get stronger and stronger the more it accumulates. It is the perfect perpetual motion. No its better. On the other hand a good PG model will show that the kinetic energy that pushes everything together eventually runs out as the universe condenses.
Thanks for that. Now I understand what is suggested in #12.

What seemed to missing from pushing gravity models, other than my own, that I could not find upon learning of these models was: why does the field push upon matter? My own model explains this via a low field pressure area/ volume surrounding matter as a result of matter continuously radiating field material away in the form of EM radiation, De Broglie waves, and standing waves (virtual particles). As matter physically spins it radiates field material away like an egg beater to a mixing bowl. The backflow from the bowl edge back to the egg beater we accordingly call the force of gravity. I don't remember why or how this pushing process works for other PG models. Do you know?
Although we are both on the side of PG it appears much of our ideas are not the same. My version of PG relies solely on the kinetic energy of the Push Gravity particles and their repulsive fields. This would be the equivalent of the gravitational constant. The only radiating involved would be in the form of bottlenecking as to much matter at one time was being pushed together. You would find this phenomena at alllevels including galaxies, black holes, solar systems, atoms etc. For me Push gravity just comes down to the kinetic energy of the push gravity particles and the shadowing caused from the density of ALL accumulated masses.

46. Not really, even though Lesage’s model is wrong the list above is a joke.
You mean it is a joke in your opinion. And since your opinion is entirely irrelevant so far as the workings of real-life physics is concerned, I think it is about time you present some proper refutations instead of opinions.

Good idea. So which type of particles are they, exactly ? Tell us, and we shall then examine in detail what happens if you insert them into a PG model.

I agree that any two push gravity particles would have trouble staying together without violating many laws of physics. On the other hand billions and billions of them coming together would be different. At first the collisions would be violent but eventually a center would form where the activity was a little insulated from the outer violence. This center area would be the beginning of the shadow effect and once it began could never stop until there were no more push gravity particles or the vortex was broken up through some catastrophe. The violent mass would begin to accrete forming a disk and then a vortex that would smoothly intercept the push gravity particles. These miniature vortexes would then become the building blocks of everything else. Push gravity particles would ONLY interact with these vortexes and never with something as large as a quark. I'm sure there are many was to model particles coming together. We already see it in nature in the form of galaxies, black holes and atoms. Why should nature give up on this great idea at the subatomic level?
Nice story, bro. Needs more dragons and stuff

The point is that this thread 'Why Push Gravity Does NotWork"is the one making the claims so lets discuss the physics behind those claims.
Not at all. GR provides us facts in the form of mathematical predictions, which can be checked against empirical observations. No mere claims here.
PG on the other hand provides us...well, what ? Unsupported claims about shadows and vortexes and unobservable fantasy particles ! I have yet to see a single piece of maths, or a single quantifiable prediction which can be checked against real-life observations.

but obviously there are other models and nothing classical them.
The list is based on LeSage's PG, which is a classical model. Perhaps I should have made that clearer in the OP. Fact is, however, that no PG model of any kind exists which gives us correct predictions for all gravitational phenomena, not even locally within, say, the solar system. Unless of course you would like to reference such a model here for us, so that we can take a look at it.

47. This would be the equivalent of the gravitational constant.
In what way exactly ?

My version of PG relies solely on the kinetic energy of the Push Gravity particles and their repulsive fields.
What repulsive fields ?

The only radiating involved would be in the form of bottlenecking as to much matter at one time was being pushed together. You would find this phenomena at alllevels including galaxies, black holes, solar systems, atoms etc.
Verbal diarrhoea, utterly devoid of any physical meaning.

For me Push gravity just comes down to the kinetic energy of the push gravity particles and the shadowing caused from the density of ALL accumulated masses.
So in your model mass density is the only source of gravity ?

48. [QUOTE=Markus Hanke;351425]

I agree that any two push gravity particles would have trouble staying together without violating many laws of physics. On the other hand billions and billions of them coming together would be different. At first the collisions would be violent but eventually a center would form where the activity was a little insulated from the outer violence. This center area would be the beginning of the shadow effect and once it began could never stop until there were no more push gravity particles or the vortex was broken up through some catastrophe. The violent mass would begin to accrete forming a disk and then a vortex that would smoothly intercept the push gravity particles. These miniature vortexes would then become the building blocks of everything else. Push gravity particles would ONLY interact with these vortexes and never with something as large as a quark. I'm sure there are many was to model particles coming together. We already see it in nature in the form of galaxies, black holes and atoms. Why should nature give up on this great idea at the subatomic level?
Nice story, bro. Needs more dragons and stuff
[QUOTE]

I stuck my neck out (unlike you) and this is the best response you cancome up with? If you really want to stand by YOUR list then tell me why youthink #1 proves my hypothesis wrong. If it cant then remove it from the listand we will move on to #2.

49. [QUOTE=Markus Hanke;351430]

In what way exactly ?
[QUOTE] The flux of the particles create a constant pressure (G) that is proportionate to every mass according to the shadows they create from their density and in the end we get the local effect of g.

[QUOTE=Markus Hanke;351430]What repulsive fields ?[QUOTE] My idea is that push gravity particles although may be the smallest component in my hypothesis are themselves tiny systems that create a field like most everything else in nature.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
So in your model mass density is the only source of gravity ?
I named two things you forgot the push gravity particles. Thanks for the responses but I got to get back to work for now.

50. I stuck my neck out (unlike you) and this is the best response you cancome up with?
Yes, pretty much, because you keep failing to provide any specifics that can actually be responded to. In the absence of such specifics all you assertions are merely unsupported fantasy. Hence my response.

If you really want to stand by YOUR list then tell me why youthink #1 proves my hypothesis wrong.
I shall do that as soon as you tell me ( and the rest of the world ) what kind of particles your mysterious PG particles actually are. Point 1 stands until you can show that your PG particles

a) exist
b) have properties which are in accordance with current particle physics principles
c) have properties that explain all elements of PG, while not contradicting any empirical observations

To help you along a bit, here is a list of basic particles :

List of particles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

51. The flux of the particles create a constant pressure (G) that is proportionate to every mass according to the shadows they create from their density and in the end we get the local effect of g.
Unsupported claim. Prove it. Show the maths.

My idea is that push gravity particles although may be the smallest component in my hypothesis are themselves tiny systems that create a field like most everything else in nature.
What type of field do they create ?

52. Markus Hanke,

Unsupported claim. Prove it. Show the maths.
The question is: If pushing gravity is valid what is the field pressure (aether pressure) and how can it be measured? Answer: the field vector net force upon any point surrounding matter, is equal to the gravitational constant G as measured from experiments on Earth to measure this constant. It is a measurement of force, not involving theoretical calculations or maths.

53. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Markus Hanke,

Unsupported claim. Prove it. Show the maths.
The question is: If pushing gravity is valid what is the field pressure (aether pressure) and how can it be measured? Answer: the field vector net force upon any point surrounding matter, is equal to the gravitational constant G as measured from experiments on Earth to measure this constant. It is a measurement of force, not involving theoretical calculations or maths.
This makes no sense. G is not a force, it is a constant in Newton's equation for gravitation, also used in GR. It has no meaning outside of that. You can't use Newton's equation in a push gravity theory.

54. Originally Posted by bill alsept
I just did above, I specifically explained ...
I think you need to look the word "specific" up in a dictionary. All you have is fairy tales about undetectable and magic particles, miniature vortices and violent masses. Maybe you should change magic particles=wizards, miniature vortices=elves and violent masses=demons and post on an SF & Fantasy forum.

Otherwise show us the math to support your claims. Then show, quantitatively, what this predicts. Then show how this matches observation, including error bounds.

If you have nothing at all to offer, why do you keep yelling, "push gravity, push gravity"? You have no theory, you have no evidence, you have no math. You have nothing.

I honestly don't understand why you are doing this. It is just bizarre. You are like someone telling a racing car designer that square wheels would be better because they are more "logical" and provide a lot more grip. And are somehow more "creative".

What on earth motivates this anti-science attitude? I am utterly baffled by humanity sometimes.

55. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Neutrinos move at close to the speed of light and this energy of motion is related to two facets of their character. One is that because of this energy they have a mass equivalence, thereby a mass potential upon rare impacts.
We know the density of neutrinos. We know how often they interact with matter. This is not enough to exert any noticeable force. We also don't see changes in gravitational force corresponding to changes in neutrino flux.

Hypothetical slowed down (aether drag) neutrinos might accordingly interact differently with matter. Such neutrinos, via their stellar production, would collectively represent vectors in all directions. Such lower energy, lower velocity neutrinos might instead often interact (instead of seldom) with matter conceivably being the primary vectors of pushing gravity.
So, to make up for the fact that neutrinos don't fit the bill, you are inventing a new class of neutrinos which have never been observed and which behave differently from real neutrinos. There is no end to stories you can make up. But this is a science site so fairy tales aren't really of any value.

56. Harold14370,

(my quote)
The question is: If pushing gravity is valid what is the field pressure (aether pressure) and how can it be measured? Answer: the field vector net force upon any point surrounding matter, is equal to the gravitational constant G as measured from experiments on Earth to measure this constant. It is a measurement of force, not involving theoretical calculations or maths.
This makes no sense. G is not a force, it is a constant in Newton's equation for gravitation, also used in GR. It has no meaning outside of that. You can't use Newton's equation in a push gravity theory.
You're right, it does not make sense as written but it certainly can be used in a PG formulation Let me try to properly reword my statement above and denote the proper formulation:

(changed from above)

Change to: "The average singular field vector force of gravity pushing upon all matter and passing through points in space, concerning my model of pushing gravity (and probably other PG models), is equal to a force of: / Fv 6.674 X 10 -11 Newtons /" ////

Where the universal gravitational constant G can be expressed as G = 6.674 ×10−11 N kg−2m2 ; (N formulation)

A Newton is the SI basic unit of force 1 N = 1 kg · m / s2

In my model of pushing gravity, and all PG models it would seem, there would need to be a constant field pressure. Removing the kg−2 m2 factor turns the G constant into a Force. The kg−2 factor is used in the above N formulation to remove the kg 2 factor from multiplying two masses together, and the m2 factor is used to eliminate meters (m-2) resulting from the squaring of their distance apart (r 2), concerning two masses in the standard Newtonian equation /??????/ F= G Mm/ r 2

I think I did the theoretical physics properly.

57. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by forrest noble
Neutrinos move at close to the speed of light and this energy of motion is related to two facets of their character. One is that because of this energy they have a mass equivalence, thereby a mass potential upon rare impacts.
We know the density of neutrinos. We know how often they interact with matter. This is not enough to exert any noticeable force. We also don't see changes in gravitational force corresponding to changes in neutrino flux.

Hypothetical slowed down (aether drag) neutrinos might accordingly interact differently with matter. Such neutrinos, via their stellar production, would collectively represent vectors in all directions. Such lower energy, lower velocity neutrinos might instead often interact (instead of seldom) with matter conceivably being the primary vectors of pushing gravity.
So, to make up for the fact that neutrinos don't fit the bill, you are inventing a new class of neutrinos which have never been observed and which behave differently from real neutrinos. There is no end to stories you can make up. But this is a science site so fairy tales aren't really of any value.

This is not my model, as I said before. I consider it an hypothesis not needed by my model, but if valid it could simplify generic PG explanations.

58. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

If you really want to stand by YOUR list then tell me why youthink #1 proves my hypothesis wrong.
I shall do that as soon as you tell me ( and the rest of the world ) what kind of particles your mysterious PG particles actually are. Point 1 stands until you can show that your PG particles

a) exist
b) have properties which are in accordance with current particle physics principles
c) have properties that explain all elements of PG, while not contradicting any empirical observations

To help you along a bit, here is a list of basic particles :

List of particles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for Push Gravity Particles, they would obviously be in the first groupc onsidering everything is made from them. Also they would be in the hypothetical particles group considering they too have not yet been found. I have looked at the particles list before and I have noticed one term not used yet. If the term hasn't been coined then I would like to call the Push Gravity Particles..........
PARTRINOS Far better than Corpuscles don't you think and short enough for discussions. It seems that the scientific method has allowed for quite a few hypothetical particles. I'm sure one more will be fine especially considering its importance. So if you can’t argue for even the first item on your list then what good is the list? Just so you know I am honestly interested in finding and discussing any problems with PG starting with #1. And just out of curiosity (not that I agree with Lesage) but what kind of particle does his model use? You claim your list can prove his wrong so what type did he use?

59. So you have a hypothetical particle, for which there is no evidence, no theoretical basis, and no justification. You can't use your idea to make any kind of quantitative prediction, and you can't answer any questions about it, nor can you articulate your idea.

Word salad seems to be all that you have.

60. Also they would be in the hypothetical particles group considering they too have not yet been found.
Thought so. In other words, they are pure fantasy. Thanks for the admission.
You may also explain why they have not yet been found, since they are assumed to permeate all space and produce a very measurable force even right here on the Earth's surface. Even the elusive neutrino, which has an extremely small interaction probability, has been directly detected. Why not your fantasy particles ?

And just out of curiosity (not that I agree with Lesage) but what kind of particle does his model use? You claim your list can prove his wrong so what type did he use?
LeSage never clarified this point ( not surprisingly ). Since his model predates everything but classical mechanics, he was thus talking about generic particles with classical properties, little "balls" of matter so to speak. That was the basic premise and motivation of his model - to be able to explain gravity in terms of classical mechanics.

Easy enough you didn't even have to explain your reasoning.
My reasoning is that there is no particle in nature which incorporates all required properties of PG while still maintaining compatibility with all laws of physics. That's all, as clearly stated in the OP.

PARTRINOS
No such thing exists. If you wish to assert otherwise you will need to provide appropriate empirical evidence. Remember that the onus of proof in all this lies with you. Besides, an official name already exists - MUP ( "Massively Undetectable Particles" ), as previously coined by our member Strange.

Not only that but now there are three requirements.
They are the same properties as assumed in the OP. I haven't added anything new.

62. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
So you still cannot explain why your #1 argument can prove my hypotesis wrong?

63. Originally Posted by bill alsept
So you still cannot explain why your #1 argument can prove my hypotesis wrong?
For one thing there is one H of a difference between your hypotesis and his hypothesis.

64. I see how this is going to go.
So do I. The same way as all previous push gravity threads.

How far can you take this without ever offering any discussion on the issues besides quoting others.
I can take it as far as necessary once you provide all parameters for your model. Tell me exactly the properties of your hypothetical particles, and I will do the maths to show you why they don't work - of course I know it will be a waste of time, because once I show that your particles aren't in accordance with the laws of physics you will start to reject those very same laws. We have been through all of this crap many times before with other people who thought PG is a viable model. None of them was ever able to produce a model that actually worked.
They all ended up either one of two places - the ban list, or the trash can.

When we finally get you to say something other than just because you come up with a list. Easy enough you didn't even have to explain your reasoning.
You realize that all I did was compile that list from preexisting sources ? All of the "reasoning" has been done long before either you or me were around. That is why we keep telling you that all of this was already considered in detail, and found not to work.

65. Originally Posted by bill alsept
So you still cannot explain why your #1 argument can prove my hypotesis wrong?
Because your particles don't exist. Clearly stated in the OP, and not proven otherwise by yourself yet.

66. Originally Posted by bill alsept
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
So you still cannot explain why your #1 argument can prove my hypotesis wrong?
You don't have a hypothesis unless you can provide the properties of your magic particles and explain, quantitatively how they produce the effects you claim.

Just how hard is it to understand that: YOU DON'T HAVE A HYPOTHESIS.

The #1 argument has been explained in mathematical detail. You claim this is wrong because your model is "different" but for unexplained reason you are unwilling to disclose what this difference is (apart from some vague waffle about vortices and imaginary particles with unknown properties, which therefore means nothing).

So the default position has to be that push gravity cannot work, because that is what all theoretical analysis shows. Until you can show mathematically and quantitatively why this analysis is wrong, you have nothing. Just saying that "my magic particles don't work like that" is not useful.

Sheesh.

67. Originally Posted by bill alsept
I stuck my neck out and explained my version of PG
You have not "explained" anything. Why can you not see that? What the hell is wrong with you?

Let us imagine that someone asks how you calculate the power output of an internal combustion engine when running at a specific speed and burning a particular type of fuel.

Do you think that the following is a valid answer to that question: "waffle billions of magic waffle, vortex energy waffles collision, made up stuff, waffle violent mass waffle"?

Or do you think it might be more useful to have equations showing the relationship between power, torgue, engine speed, cylinder capacity, energy density and flow rate of the fuel?

Which of the above types of answer do you think could be tested by experiment and/or validated theoretically?

Which of the above types of answer do you think you have provided?

If you do not have a valid model then why keep posting here (a science forum)? Because it is not science it is just a bizarre religion.

You seem to think that because you do not understand standard physics, your vague ramblings must be just as valid. Well they are not. They are just vague ramblings with no connection to reality. Grow up, for God's sake.

68. If you do not have a valid model then why keep posting here (a science forum)?
He will never provide any real physics, because once we get the proper maths involved he will immediately be shown wrong. And I'm quite sure he knows that, no matter how often he rejects that fact.

69. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
The whole thread has been hypothetical and thats why we were posting in this category. Someone else moved it to Physics, I think it was you. Anyway I will bite again for the sake of discussion. The first thing on your list says "1. The gravity particles are thought of classical particles with classical interactions. This notion is inconsistent with current understanding of particle physics – there is no particle which could have all the characteristics required by PG without violating one or more physical laws" I proposed my idea of how particles could be pushed together so we could attempt to address #1 on your list. Like many other hypothesis in science you know that Partrinos (Push Gravity Particles) have not been discovered. This is only an idea for discussion. What ever Partrinos are I'm sure their smaller and faster than anything else and I'm sure they have repulsive fields. So for the sake of argument please pick the closest particle to what I proposed (I'll trust you) and show me why my idea of particles coming together will not work. Also if you understand your answer please explain it to me. Thanks

70. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
If you do not have a valid model then why keep posting here (a science forum)?
He will never provide any real physics, because once we get the proper maths involved he will immediately be shown wrong. And I'm quite sure he knows that, no matter how often he rejects that fact.

Take a look at the vector force(s) that I determined/ calculated accordingly for all the PG gravitational fields in the observable universe : posting #55. This average PG field vector force not only should apply to my own model but I would think it would apply to generally all PG models. What do you think?

Fv 6.674 X 10 -11 Newtons /

71. What ever Partrinos are I'm sure their smaller and faster than anything else and I'm sure they have repulsive fields
And you know this how? Divine revelation? A dream caused by an undigested bit of potato? Because it isn't through physics.

72. Someone else moved it to Physics, I think it was you
I am not a moderator, I do not have the user rights to move threads.

What ever Partrinos are I'm sure their smaller and faster than anything else and I'm sure they have repulsive fields. So for the sake of argument please pick the closest particle to what I proposed
So, just to get your unambiguous agreement first; you are looking for a particle which

1) Moves at maximum speed ( speed of light ) - this means it must be massless
2) Is as small as possible, i.e. elementary ( no internal structure ), and thus a point-like particle
3) Electrically charged, hence the repulsive field between them

Is this right ? I do not want to have to go over this again later.

73. Originally Posted by bill alsept
I'm sure they have repulsive fields.
Are you sure that repulsion doesn't have to be caused by them bouncing little particles off one another?

74. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by bill alsept
I'm sure they have repulsive fields.
Are you sure that repulsion doesn't have to be caused by them bouncing little particles off one another?
Right, because that's the reason for a push gravity theory in the first place. We can't have action at a distance, even if the distance is very small, now can we?

75. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Someone else moved it to Physics, I think it was you
I am not a moderator, I do not have the user rights to move threads.

What ever Partrinos are I'm sure their smaller and faster than anything else and I'm sure they have repulsive fields. So for the sake of argument please pick the closest particle to what I proposed
So, just to get your unambiguous agreement first; you are looking for a particle which

1) Moves at maximum speed ( speed of light ) - this means it must be massless
2) Is as small as possible, i.e. elementary ( no internal structure ), and thus a point-like particle
3) Electrically charged, hence the repulsive field between them

Is this right ? I do not want to have to go over this again later.
1) Iwould say at minimum (speed of light) and that the speed of photons are governedby these Partrino fields. (hypothetically speaking of course)
2)Not as small as possible. To developed a hypothesis for PG I only need to goto the level of the Partrino (the source of kinetic energy) anything smallerdoes not matter as far as I can tell yet.
I believe a Partrino would have an internal system of its own. Something tohelp generate the repulsive fields.
3)Yes I think so
Again this whole discussion is for new ideas and hypothesis. Obviously theseare only ideas and ideas well before the math. So if we can't have ahypothetical conversation why have the category at all.

There are manythings we will never see (like curved space) but maybe we could find them by groping around in the dark.
Now I will reallystick my neck out. (Go ahead have your fun)
PARTRINO
(1)-Partrinos are the smallest particlesin a PG model and the building blocks of all matter in the universe.
(2)-Partrinos supply the kinetic energybehind the gravitational constant.
(3)- Partrinos and their fields onlyinteract with other Partrino and their fields.
(4)-Partrinos have a center mass(or energy) surrounded by (or integrated) with a repulsive field that varies in size depending on interactionwith other Partrino.
(5)-Partrinos are isotropic andhomogeneous following the laws of motion and traversing the universe in everydirection.
(6)- Partrinos can move at extreme speedscomparable to those in the Big Bang or Inflation.
(7)-Partrino fields are repulsive to eachother but at high speeds can easily go right through each other. The repulsionbuilds as the sphere shaped fields begin to align with other fields.
(8)-Active Partrinos will always have afield and will always repulse each other.
(9)-Inactive Partrinos become matter.

76. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by bill alsept
I'm sure they have repulsive fields.
Are you sure that repulsion doesn't have to be caused by them bouncing little particles off one another?
Right, because that's the reason for a push gravity theory in the first place. We can't have action at a distance, even if the distance is very small, now can we?
I answered your last question/ reply to me in posting #55 concerning clarification of a previous comment of mine. Are you interested in my answer?

This is some physics that was claimed to be absent from this thread when it was posted in the physics forum by Markus Hanke.

Actions-at-a-distance even at the smallest scales such a magnetism, the strong force, weak force, gravity, all need to be mechanically explained to propose a simpler physics without "magic," which I have done for my own model. Ultimately I think the standard model explanations concerning all of these so-called forces of nature, are totally wrong.

77. PARTRINO
(1)-Partrinos are the smallest particlesin a PG model and the building blocks of all matter in the universe.
(2)-Partrinos supply the kinetic energybehind the gravitational constant.
(3)- Partrinos and their fields onlyinteract with other Partrino and their fields.
(4)-Partrinos have a center mass(or energy) surrounded by (or integrated) with a repulsive field that varies in size depending on interactionwith other Partrino.
(5)-Partrinos are isotropic andhomogeneous following the laws of motion and traversing the universe in everydirection.
(6)- Partrinos can move at extreme speedscomparable to those in the Big Bang or Inflation.
(7)-Partrino fields are repulsive to eachother but at high speeds can easily go right through each other. The repulsionbuilds as the sphere shaped fields begin to align with other fields.
(8)-Active Partrinos will always have afield and will always repulse each other.
(9)-Inactive Partrinos become matter.
Right then, what else would you like me to say to this ? There is no particle in nature with even remotely fitting properties, and even some of the properties themselves are already in violation of laws of physics ( e.g. superluminal speeds ). This is precisely what I alluded to in point one of my list, never mind the part about classical mechanics, which was geared towards LeSage's model. I remind the reader about the rest of the original point 1 :

This notion is inconsistent with current understanding of particle physics – there is no particle which could have all the characteristics required by PG without violating one or more physical laws
And the characteristics listed above are most certainly inconsistent with current understanding of particle physics. This list is just a pure invention, a desperate effort in coming up with something which you hope might work to justify PG. You seem to think that it is ok to ignore all the rest of physics in proposing a particle with impossible properties.
And what's that nonsense about "active" and "inactive" particles ?!

In any case, the above list only further supports my original point by providing a perfect example of what happens if you try to make PG work. You just get a bunch of increasingly unphysical nonsense.

3)Yes I think so
So you are proposing that the vacuum has electric charge since it is filled by charged particles ? Not only is this not in accordance with Maxwell's equations, but it is also not what we observe in nature.

78. Originally Posted by forrest noble
This is some physics that was claimed to be absent from this thread when it was posted in the physics forum by Markus Hanke.
It is circular reasoning, forrest. You are starting with a part of Newton's theory ( the constant G, which was first introduced by Newton himself as a proportionality factor ), to arrive once again at Newton's law. It is meaningless. If you want to prove something you need to start with bill alsept's list in post 74, and show how such particles automatically lead to the inverse square law. Good luck with that

79. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by forrest noble
This is some physics that was claimed to be absent from this thread when it was posted in the physics forum by Markus Hanke.
It is circular reasoning, forrest. You are starting with a part of Newton's theory ( the constant G, which was first introduced by Newton himself as a proportionality factor ), to arrive once again at Newton's law. It is meaningless. If you want to prove something you need to start with bill alsept's list in post 74, and show how such particles automatically lead to the inverse square law. Good luck with that
Of course our models are different. My model, I believe, easily explains the inverse square law.

According to my model via particle and atomic spin, electron nuclear rotation, all matter radiates EM radiation, De Broglie waves, and standing waves producing virtual photons. The compression forces of gravity via friction, expressed by these combined waves, produce internal heat within matter via energy of kinetic motion which is conducted through and radiated away from mass at it surface, primarily in the form of heat radiation. In my model this radiation is physical in the form of field waves and particulates. This accordingly creates a lower field pressure/ density surrounding all matter and particles. The resultant back-flow of field material toward matter is accordingly called gravity.

The heat produced is proportional to the quantity of mass and its density. The excess heat over temperature equilibrium produced via gravity compression forces, is radiated away from the surface and the back-flow enters at the surface of the mass via pushing gravity, so is proportional to the surface area which for a sphere is 4pi times the square of the radius. So the inflow of gravity must be proportional to the surface radiation area, which simply results in the inverse square law of gravity since the surface area is a function of the radius. Per given mass when exterior to the mass, as the distance away from its center of mass increases the back-flowing vectors of the aether (force of gravity) decreases according to the square of the distance from this center of mass.

In my model the nature of field particulates themselves would seem in general to have little to do with the resultant inverse square "law" of gravity.

80. Originally Posted by forrest noble

Change to: "The average singular field vector force of gravity pushing upon all matter and passing through points in space, concerning my model of pushing gravity (and probably other PG models), is equal to a force of: / Fv 6.674 X 10 -11 Newtons /" ////

Where the universal gravitational constant G can be expressed as G = 6.674 ×10−11 N kg−2m2 ; (N formulation)

A Newton is the SI basic unit of force 1 N = 1 kg · m / s2

In my model of pushing gravity, and all PG models it would seem, there would need to be a constant field pressure. Removing the kg−2 m2 factor turns the G constant into a Force. The kg−2 factor is used in the above N formulation to remove the kg 2 factor from multiplying two masses together, and the m2 factor is used to eliminate meters (m-2) resulting from the squaring of their distance apart (r 2), concerning two masses in the standard Newtonian equation /??????/ F= G Mm/ r 2

I think I did the theoretical physics properly.
No, this is lame. You can't just arbitrarily toss out a number with no basis, then discard the kg squared and the meters squared just to make the units come out right. You have arrived back at Newton's law without showing how you got there. How is this even related to push gravity?

81. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by forrest noble

Change to: "The average singular field vector force of gravity pushing upon all matter and passing through points in space, concerning my model of pushing gravity (and probably other PG models), is equal to a force of: / Fv 6.674 X 10 -11 Newtons /" ////

Where the universal gravitational constant G can be expressed as G = 6.674 ×10−11 N kg−2m2 ; (N formulation)

A Newton is the SI basic unit of force 1 N = 1 kg · m / s2

In my model of pushing gravity, and all PG models it would seem, there would need to be a constant field pressure. Removing the kg−2 m2 factor turns the G constant into a Force. The kg−2 factor is used in the above N formulation to remove the kg 2 factor from multiplying two masses together, and the m2 factor is used to eliminate meters (m-2) resulting from the squaring of their distance apart (r 2), concerning two masses in the standard Newtonian equation /??????/ F = G Mm/ r 2

I think I did the theoretical physics properly.
No, this is lame. You can't just arbitrarily toss out a number with no basis, then discard the kg squared and the meters squared just to make the units come out right. You have arrived back at Newton's law without showing how you got there. How is this even related to push gravity?
As I explained before, the deletions are not arbitrary at all. The meters squared factor was added to the constant to eliminate the 1/meters squared factor when squaring the distance between the masses, and the 1/kilograms squared factor is needed in the constant to eliminate the kilograms squared factor resulting from multiplying two kilogram masses together. To end-up with a resulting force one must eliminate extra non-force related measurement such as meters squared and kilograms squared that would naturally result from applying Newtons formula. I consider this just a matter of logic.

In my model of pushing gravity this vector force: Fv 6.674 X 10 -11 Newtons is the average force of exterior directional aether vectors per second. Note: Due to the shadow effect of PG the apposing vector forces between two masses are less than this quantity causing the two masses to get pushed together.

82. Originally Posted by forrest noble
As I explained before, the deletions are not arbitrary at all. The meters squared factor was added to the constant to eliminate the 1/meters squared factor when squaring the distance between the masses, and the 1/kilograms squared factor is needed in the constant to eliminate the kilograms squared factor resulting from multiplying two kilogram masses together. To end-up with a resulting force one must eliminate extra non-force related measurement such as meters squared and kilograms squared that would naturally result from applying Newtons formula. I consider this just a matter of logic.
I consider this just a matter of word salad. You say it is not arbitrary, but the only reason you have given for eliminating the meters squared and kilograms squared is to make the units turn out right. In short, you are fudging your equation. Where did you pull the number from in the first place? None of what you posted is recognizable as physics.

When you are the only person who understands your theory, you should give serious consideration to the possibility that you are totally out to lunch.

83. Originally Posted by forrest noble
As I explained before, the deletions are not arbitrary at all. The meters squared factor was added to the constant to eliminate the 1/meters squared factor when squaring the distance between the masses, and the 1/kilograms squared factor is needed in the constant to eliminate the kilograms squared factor resulting from multiplying two kilogram masses together. To end-up with a resulting force one must eliminate extra non-force related measurement such as meters squared and kilograms squared that would naturally result from applying Newtons formula. I consider this just a matter of logic..
For a guy who has tried to argue that GR is based on ad hoc parameter adjustments, you seem to lack a sense of irony. The paragraph above is a classic example of an exercise in ad hoc circular reasoning. It is, as Harold14370 points out, an act of pure fudging, plain and simple. I can summarize your post as follows:

1) I know what the units are supposed to be, because others have told me what they are.
2) I will therefore adjust the units as needed.
3) Because the result then has the proper units, my approach is obviously based on logic.

It is amazing that your ability to deny reality is so powerful that you "consider this just a matter of logic."

84. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by forrest noble
As I explained before, the deletions are not arbitrary at all. The meters squared factor was added to the constant to eliminate the 1/meters squared factor when squaring the distance divisor 'r' between the masses, and the 1/kilograms squared factor is needed in the constant to eliminate the kilograms squared factor resulting from multiplying two kilogram mass factors together. To end-up with a resulting force one must eliminate extra non-force related measurement such as meters squared and kilograms squared that would naturally result from applying Newtons formula. I consider this just a matter of logic.
I consider this just a matter of word salad. You say it is not arbitrary, but the only reason you have given for eliminating the meters squared and kilograms squared is to make the units turn out right. In short, you are fudging your equation. Where did you pull the number from in the first place? None of what you posted is recognizable as physics.
What I said was that Newton and Einstein needed to include these factors in the gravitational constant G to "normalize the results." Obviously if you multiply two masses together you get kilograms squared, and when you square the distance between two objects you get meters squared. Your answer must end up in the form of a force. So the purpose of these factors seems to be only for the purpose of adjusting the units to represent the force of gravity as the answer.

When you are the only person who understands your theory, you should give serious consideration to the possibility that you are totally out to lunch.
My book editor and others that have read my whole book seem to totally understand the theories. -- which is almost entirely concepts and theoretical physics equations such as this one and my formulations of PG that I have already presented in other threads in this forum, when asked. This material can be found on any search engine as the Pan Theory. The gravity section of my book is on pages 57A through 57F which is on-line free. I would expect that generally all PG theories are simpler in concept than GR.

The problem is that there are few modern versions of PG that include more modern formulations that can calculate the intricacies predictable via GR. The original versions of PG simply proposed the inverse square law of gravity.

85. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by forrest noble
As I explained before, the deletions are not arbitrary at all. The meters squared factor was added to the constant to eliminate the 1/meters squared factor when squaring the distance between the masses, and the 1/kilograms squared factor is needed in the constant to eliminate the kilograms squared factor resulting from multiplying two kilogram masses together. To end-up with a resulting force one must eliminate extra non-force related measurement such as meters squared and kilograms squared that would naturally result from applying Newtons formula. I consider this just a matter of logic..
For a guy who has tried to argue that GR is based on ad hoc parameter adjustments, you seem to lack a sense of irony. The paragraph above is a classic example of an exercise in ad hoc circular reasoning. It is, as Harold14370 points out, an act of pure fudging, plain and simple. I can summarize your post as follows:

1) I know what the units are supposed to be, because others have told me what they are.
2) I will therefore adjust the units as needed.
3) Because the result then has the proper units, my approach is obviously based on logic.

It is amazing that your ability to deny reality is so powerful that you "consider this just a matter of logic."
The question becomes: why did Newton and Einstein include these units in the gravitational constant in the first place? I think the answer is obvious. They were included to "normalize" the answer so that it would be in the form of a force. To present the vector forces of pushing gravity I do not need these same inclusions because in this context such inclusions of additional units of measurement are purposeless.

86. Originally Posted by forrest noble
The question becomes: why did Newton and Einstein include these units in the gravitational constant in the first place? I think the answer is obvious. They were included to "normalize" the answer so that it would be in the form of a force. To present the vector forces of pushing gravity I do not need these same inclusions because in this context such inclusions of additional units of measurement are purposeless.
If you fudge your equation to make it come out looking like Newton's, what exactly have you added?

87. Originally Posted by forrest noble
The problem is that there are few modern versions of PG that include more modern formulations that can calculate the intricacies predictable via GR.
I don't know of any such formulations. Perhaps you can point one out to us ?

88. I think the answer is obvious. They were included to "normalize" the answer so that it would be in the form of a force.
Einstein's equations do not yield any forces.

89. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by forrest noble
The problem is that there are few modern versions of PG that include more modern formulations that can calculate the intricacies predictable via GR.
I don't know of any such formulations. Perhaps you can point one out to us ?
The only one that I know of is my own formulation, but I expect there have been other versions since the original models were proposed centuries ago. The world is a big place and much historical info is not on the net. But if there are no other such equations, then mine is the only PG attempt to explain the motions of stars in galaxies and the motions of galaxies in a cluster, and without using dark matter. As to solar system sized gravitational influences, my model contends that Einstein's equations instead of explaining warped space, are a close approximation of changes in aether density relating to pushing gravity aether motions.

The logic goes like this: Einstein's GR equations have shown great accuracy at solar system distances. If pushing gravity is the correct mechanical model of gravity and warped space is just imaginary, then there would need to be a PG explanation why GR works at solar system distances. My proposal/ hypothesis is that PG is based upon differences in aether pressure which results in aether flow, and that GR might be a good analog of these pressure differentials immediately surrounding matter. So for close range analysis I use GR with a aether premise, and for galaxy scale analysis and greater, I use my own MOND-like equations without the need for dark matter. To complete my formulations and equations eventually, I Believe, I will have to do away with Einstein's equations and formulate my own to explain the intricacies presently explainable by GR, at solar system scales. In the mean time my formulations seem to work well without dark matter.

90. Originally Posted by forrest noble
To complete my formulations and equations eventually I Believe I will have to do away with Einstein's equations and formulate my own to explain the intricacies explainable by GR, at solar system scales.
Ha ! Good luck with that
You better brush up on your tensor calculus though !

91. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
I think the answer is obvious. They were included to "normalize" the answer so that it would be in the form of a force.
Einstein's equations do not yield any forces.
Yes, you're right. According to Einstein the motions as a result of gravity are not caused by a force. The cause of the initial or continuing motion is not explained/ explainable at all. The rubber sheet analogy requires gravity to explain itself. Why does matter deform the rubber sheet? Why does matter move when influenced by gravity? The deformation/ warping of space does not explain motion without the unexplained cause for the motion. The calculated answers to GR equations involve time which relates to direction, path, and distance traveled per unit of time (velocity).

It might be pointed out that in PG models gravity is not a force either. Instead the differential field vectors within an aether, the shadow effect, and/ or aether flow, are the physical forces of the gravity impetus.

92. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by forrest noble
To complete my formulations and equations eventually I Believe I will have to do away with Einstein's equations and formulate my own to explain the intricacies explainable by GR, at solar system scales.
Ha ! Good luck with that
You better brush up on your tensor calculus though !
I'm hoping to make the formulation simpler than GR, to at least eliminate Riemann geometry and to instead use a balance of non-linear equations via vector/ tensor analysis. I'm hoping to be able to come up with mostly exact solutions, even though in my PG model all solutions would involve a small tolerance range not unlike the statistical results of Quantum Mechanics. The reason for this, according to my model, is that aether vectors have a small range of uncertainty in both the micro world and the macro world of gravity.

As I said, in the meantime the value of my present equations is in the macro world and it seems to work better than any other gravity formulation in seemingly all macro-world gravity calculations/ determinations.

93. Originally Posted by forrest noble
The cause of the initial or continuing motion is not explained/ explainable at all.
Yes it is. It is called the Raychaudhuri Equation. Look it up.

The rubber sheet analogy requires gravity to explain itself.
That why it's called an analogue.
I have a better one for you, because the rubber sheets leaves a lot to be desired : two travellers on earth stand at different points on the equator. Now they start to walk north, both at the same time, in straight lines towards the north pole. What happens ? The further they walk north, the closer they get to one another ! Why ? Because of the curved geometry of earth's surface. No forces involved, only plain simple geometry. Gravity works in a similar way - no forces, just simple geometry.

Why does matter deform the rubber sheet?
There is no rubber sheet, there's only space-time. Space-time and the gravitational field are one and the same thing - matter could not exist without the curvature of space-time.

The deformation/ warping of space does not explain motion without the unexplained cause for the motion.
Of course it does, because both space-time and world-line of the matter particles are 4-dimensional. It is the same as the travellers on the earth above - they approach each other as they walk north not because of any force or any outside cause, but simply because it is impossible for them to do anything else so long as want to reach the north pole. Why is this so difficult to understand ? It is so basic and simple.

and to instead use a balance of non-linear equations via vector/ tensor analysis.
Non-linear equations via tensor analysis ? Sounds suspiciously familiar from GR
And how do you propose to eliminate geometry from your tensor analysis ? Do you actually understand what distinguishes a tensor from just any old matrix ?

As I said, in the meantime the value of my present equations is in the macro world and it seems to work better than any other gravity formulation in seemingly all macro-world gravity calculations/ determinations.
Does it now ? Are you prepared to back up that bold claim if I pose a scenario to you, and we both do the calculations, you with your model and me with GR ?

94. Yes it is. It is called the Raychaudhuri Equation. Look it up.
Thanks, I looked it up and realize that with vorticity, shear tensors, and vectors involving time, you are going to have motion. But as far as I have ever heard, there is no known cause of relative motion without a force being involved. Try to logically explain why an object moves, based upon general relativity, without the use of a motivating vector applied over a period of time, which exactly defines a force. Again, following the shortest path has no meaning without some kind of motivation. I think the logic of warped space completely fails in this respect.

[QUOTE]....matter could not exist without the curvature of space-time.........both space-time and world-line of the matter particles are 4-dimensional. It is the same as the travellers on the earth above - they approach each other as they walk north not because of any force or any outside cause, but simply because it is impossible for them to do anything else so long as want to reach the north pole. Why is this so difficult to understand ? It is so basic and simple.

This may be true concerning assertions of GR, but again, why does matter cause space/ spacetime to warp or curve in the first place? Einstein was unable to answer this question.

And how do you propose to eliminate geometry from your tensor analysis ? Do you actually understand what distinguishes a tensor from just any old matrix ?
I cannot do away with geometry but believe I can do away with non-Euclidean geometry. Balancing analytic Euclidean geometry equations with different coordinate origins provide non-linear outcomes.

...Are you prepared to back up that bold claim if I pose a scenario to you, and we both do the calculations, you with your model and me with GR ?
As to the macro-world in my statement, I was referring to the galactic scale -- meaning galaxies, galaxy groups, clusters, super clusters.

You cannot do the calcs with GR without assuming 90% unseen dark matter that is unknown as to what it might be, or even if it really exists. Even with that assumption, GR does not come as close to observations as Milgram's MOND.

An interesting related article:

http://entangledstates.org/2009/04/2...n-dark-matter/

Here is a galaxy rotation curve comparing MOND with dark matter.

CDM & MOND rotation curve fit

95. Extract: "According to the weak form of Einstein's general relativity equivalence principle, the gravitational and inertial masses are equivalent... [To the contrary,] we have shown that the gravitational mass and the inertial mass are correlated by an adimensional factor, which depends on the incident radiation upon the particle. It was shown that only in the absence of electromagnetic radiation this factor becomes equal to 1 and that... it can be reduced, nullified or made negative by means of extra-low frequency (ELF) radiation."

96. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Thanks, I looked it up and realize that with vorticity, shear tensors, and vectors involving time, you are going to have motion. But as far as I have ever heard, there is no known cause of relative motion without a force being involved. Try to logically explain why an object moves, based upon general relativity, without the use of a motivating vector applied over a period of time, which exactly defines a force. Again, following the shortest path has no meaning without some kind of motivation. I think the logic of warped space completely fails in this respect.
Argument from ignorance. You are prone to committing this particular logical fallacy repeatedly, Forrest. Just because you don't understand a particular concept does not mean that the concept is invalid. You overlook the strong possibility that the concept is just beyond you. Or do you simply reject the idea that any concept could be beyond you?

...but again, why does matter cause space/ spacetime to warp or curve in the first place? Einstein was unable to answer this question.
Again, what you really mean is that Einstein did not explain it in a way that makes you happy. Einstein did not explain why light exists, either. Does that invalidate theories of light?

If one has a set of equations that describes what you observe, then the theory is doing all that one can ask of it. That's what we have with GR.

GR begins with a small number of postulates, from which the field equations emerge. A collection of solutions to the field equations then can be found. We find that GR describes the universe around us. It predicts surprising things, many of which have been observed.

To suggest that Einstein was "unable" to answer your question is to mischaracterize the situation rather dishonestly. GR is his answer. You may not like it, but that's a different problem altogether.

I cannot do away with geometry but believe I can do away with non-Euclidean geometry. Balancing analytic Euclidean geometry equations with different coordinate origins provide non-linear outcomes.
Nonsense, Forrest. You aren't even conversant with Newtonian mechanics. Things like frame dragging, gravitational lensing and similar phenomena will challenge you. Remember: You can't just "explain" one or two things. You must do so while also continuing to produce agreement with everything else.

You cannot do the calcs with GR without assuming 90% unseen dark matter that is unknown as to what it might be, or even if it really exists. Even with that assumption, GR does not come as close to observations as Milgram's MOND.
Here again you show your capacity for selective logic. On the one hand, you criticize GR for its alleged failure to "explain" a fundamental property of the universe to you. Then you seem to prefer MOND, a theory which is completely ad hoc.

Bizarre. Tell me: What color is the sky in your world, Forrest?

97. Argument from ignorance. You are prone to committing this particular logical fallacy repeatedly, Forrest. Just because you don't understand a particular concept does not mean that the concept is invalid. You overlook the strong possibility that the concept is just beyond you. Or do you simply reject the idea that any concept could be beyond you?
Argument from ignorance: where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary. " It is instead ignorance of your understanding of the meaning of the logical argument "Argument from Ignorance" -- to assert that any of my arguments have been based upon asserting that something is true because of a "lack of evidence to the contrary."

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You overlook the strong possibility that the concept is just beyond you.
Like anyone else including you, if I cannot understand a concept for any reason, I may or may not ever be able to understand it. However, I consider myself one of those rare people that when given enough time, can eventually figure out almost any puzzle in any subject.

Or do you simply reject the idea that any concept could be beyond you?
I can't remember of any concept that I thought was beyond my comprehension, but this might simply have been because I did not properly understand the intricacies or main points of the concept in the first place

98. Originally Posted by forrest noble
Argument from ignorance: where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary. " It is instead ignorance of your understanding of the meaning of the logical argument "Argument from Ignorance" -- to assert that any of my arguments have been based upon asserting that something is true because of a "lack of evidence to the contrary."
Sigh. I forgot I to whom I was speaking -- "Mr. Wikipedia."

There are several types of the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. The wikipedia entry you link to is incomplete. I point you to:

Argument from ignorance - RationalWiki

I could have categorized your fallacy as more specifically an argument from incredulity, but "ignorance" works fine. In any case, thanks for conceding -- albeit accidentally -- that you did commit a logical fallacy.

99. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by forrest noble
Argument from ignorance: where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary. " It is instead ignorance of your understanding of the meaning of the logical argument "Argument from Ignorance" -- to assert that any of my arguments have been based upon asserting that something is true because of a "lack of evidence to the contrary."
Sigh. I forgot I to whom I was speaking -- "Mr. Wikipedia."

There are several types of the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. The wikipedia entry you link to is incomplete. I point you to:

Argument from ignorance - RationalWiki

I could have categorized your fallacy as more specifically an argument from incredulity, but "ignorance" works fine. In any case, thanks for conceding -- albeit accidentally -- that you did commit a logical fallacy.

Argument(s) from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam in its most formal definition is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Other forms:

Another form that this fallacy can take is the form that of an argument from incredulity (also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction) which is that one's personal incredulity or credulity towards a premise is a logical reason for acceptance or rejection. This incredulity can stem from ignorance (defined as a lack of knowledge and experience) or from willful ignorance (defined as a flat out refusal to gain the knowledge). The concept of irreducible complexity is based entirely around this idea of personal incredulity, that (if) one ..... cannot see how something evolved naturally, (then concludes/ states) it can't possibly evolve naturally.

I think you're mistaken in your assertion concerning my using this logical fallacy. Can you find a specific example where you think I used this type of logical fallacy? If possible please quote me exactly but preferrably not out of context, if you think you have found something.

Nonsense, Forrest. You aren't even conversant with Newtonian mechanics. Things like frame dragging, gravitational lensing and similar phenomena will challenge you.
Apperently making accusations lacking example is your stile of "arguing" why the other person is wrong and you are right. How many logical fallacies do you think are involved in your quote above? You might start with Ad hominem

100. Originally Posted by forrest noble
I think you're mistaken in your assertion concerning my using this logic fallacy. Can you find a specific example where you think I used this type of logical fallacy? If possible please quote me exactly but not out of context, if you think you have found something.
Happy to oblige, Forrest. Here's a snippet from your post (#93):

But as far as I have ever heard, there is no known cause of relative motion without a force being involved. Try to logically explain why an object moves, based upon general relativity, without the use of a motivating vector applied over a period of time, which exactly defines a force. Again, following the shortest path has no meaning without some kind of motivation. I think the logic of warped space completely fails in this respect.
(boldface mine)

You are saying that the logic of warped space ... fails. But you offer no logic-based argument in support of the statement. None. There is no problem with the logic of warped space, as warped space follows inexorably and logically from the premises that underpin GR. GR also fully subsumes Newtonian mechanics. Since you have not shown any broken links in the logical chain of GR, there is no logic problem concerning warped space. Your statement above is equivalent to "It makes no sense to me, therefore it makes no sense." That's a classic example of an argument from ignorance.

101. You are saying that the logic of warped space ... fails. But you offer no logic-based argument in support of the statement. None
That is not an exact quote. There is no logic involved with warped space at all that I can think of, it either warps or it doesn't. There is no certain evidence that I know of that space bends, warps, expands, or has any characteristics of its own at all. Such ideas are simply premises or theory. The supposed evidence for the expansion of space is the observed galactic redshifts and related BB model, discounting all other possibilities. The only supposed evidence that space warps is that it is a premise of GR, and that GR has been very successful in solar system scale observations. All observations to date seem to indicate that the observable universe appears to be flat at all observable scales.

"It makes no sense to me, therefore it makes no sense."
This certainly is not a direct quote and I believe totally unrelated to anything the I have said or implied. It seems that ad hominems rank high in your argument arsenal, why?

Page 1 of 3 123 Last
 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