204 views

Skip to first unread message

May 24, 2006, 3:04:31â€¯PM5/24/06

to

Hello guys,

I would like to know the main reasons why the push gravity concept is

not considered as a viable concept by mainstream science. I know it

gave rise to numerous published works, amongst which we have those of

Lorentz, H.Poincare, F.Brush, Secchi, Leray, V.Thomson, Schramm, Tait,

Isenkrahe, Preston, Jarolimek, Waachy, Rynsanek, Darwin, Majorana... so

it cannot be all wrong.

Please note, I am NOT asking about Le Sage ultramundane particles

theory (which also falls under the push gravity category), which I can

easiely discredit myself. I'm mostly interested in the concept of

electromagnetic radiation pressure of high frequency radiation acting

as the gravitational mechanism, and its shadowing creating the inverse

square law, low pressure areas.

Thanks,

S.Borg.

May 24, 2006, 9:21:31â€¯PM5/24/06

to

Electromagnetism propagates as spin-1 vector bosons. If gravitation

is quantized it propagates as spin-2 tensor bosons. The selection

rules for allowed transitions are different. EM and gravitation do

not unify - not even if you are wearing Kaluza-Klein jeans. EM is

trivially shielded with alternating layers of grounded conductor

(Faraday cage) and lossy inductor (e.g., ferrite) and eventually by

electron scattering (nuclear shielding for beta-rays). Gravitation

cannot be shielded.

The source of monopole radiation is a changing monopole moment for a

charge q or for a mass m. Since charge and mass are conserved, there

can be neither monopole electromagnetic radiation nor monopole

gravitational radiation.

The source of dipole radiation is a changing dipole moment.

(Punctiliously, you need a second time derivative of the dipole

moment.) For a pair of charges

d = qr + q'r'

and there's nothing special about the derivatives. For a pair of

masses, the gravitational dipole moment is

d = mr + m'r'

and its time derivative is

mv + m'v' = p + p'

By conservation of momentum the second time derivative of the

gravitational dipole moment is zero, and you can go to a center of

momentum frame and set the first derivative to zero as well. There

is no gravitational "electric dipole" radiation.

Consider the analog of "magnetic dipole" radiation. The gravitational

equivalent of the magnetic dipole moment for a pair of charges is

M = mv x r + m'v' x r'

("x" is the cross product, "mv" is the "mass current")

But M is the total angular momentum, which is also conserved. There

is no gravitational "magnetic dipole" radiation.

The next moment up is quadrupole, with no relevant conservation laws,

so gravitational quadrupole radiation is permitted.

--

Uncle Al

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/

(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf

May 25, 2006, 2:49:00â€¯PM5/25/06

to

Isn't this exactly what Brush wrote about? A search to see who cite

Brush's paper might be revealing. Perhaps it's just the observation that,

apart from rather speculative push-gravity effects, we don't seem to be

immersed in a bath of lots and lots of ultra-gamma rays?

Modern experiments on the falling of single cold atoms might be a

conclusive disproof, since radiation pressure due to ultra-high frequency

radiation tends to be in discrete jumps; E=hf and all that. This isn't

observed.

I see you list Majorana, although perhaps his suggestion should be called

"anti-push" (surely better than "suck"!) gravity.

My impression is that while push gravity, at least in certain limits, give

plausible results, doesn't offer any improvement over other theories of

gravitation, while introducing severe difficulties related to the exchange

of energy between the gravitational particle flux and conventional matter.

A relativistic treatment of gravitational particles (relevant if photons)

doesn't seem to improve matters such as galactic rotations curves (thanks

Rob for this).

--

Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/

E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html

Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

May 25, 2006, 4:00:38â€¯PM5/25/06

to

Blaze Labs <sav...@blazelabs.com> wrote:

> Hello guys,

> Hello guys,

> I would like to know the main reasons why the push gravity concept is

> not considered as a viable concept by mainstream science.

There are a few generic objections, along with particular problems with

particular models. The main generic objections I know of are

1. Drag: As Feynman pointed out in the Feynman Lectures, anything

that's capable of "pushing" will also create drag on a moving object.

There are very strong observational limits on such drag, in the

Solar System and in binary pulsar systems.

2. Aberration: Suppose "pushing" particles move at a speed v, and

look at the effect on the Solar System. For a planet at distance d

from the Sun, the "push" will not be toward the instantaneous

position of the Sun, but towards its position at a time d/v in the

past. This is a drastic effect -- if v is the speed of light, the

Solar System would be drastically unstable over a thousand-year

time scale.

(The effect of aberration is to increase the velocity of a planet,

and you might hope that drag would cancel it. But it's easy to

check that such cancellation can occur at, at most, one radial

distance from the Sun.)

3. Principle of equivalence: It is observed that gravity acts not

only on mass, but on all forms of energy. A "push gravity" theory

would have to come with an explanation of how the particles that do

the pushing manage to push against, for example, electrostatic binding

energy and the kinetic energy of electrons in an atom, and why that

"push" exactly matches the "push" against ordinary matter.

In particular, we observe that gravitational binding energy itself

gravitates. This seems to require self-interaction among the

pushing particles. On the other hand, the accuracy of the inverse

square law over long distances requires that the self-interaction

be very small -- you certainly need a mean free path larger than

the size of the Solar System if you don't want to mess up Pluto's

orbit.

4. Gravitational screening: There are very strong limits on the kind

of "gravitational screening" one would expect from a "push gravity"

model -- see, for example, Unnikrishnan et al., Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001)

062002.

[...]

> Please note, I am NOT asking about Le Sage ultramundane particles

> theory (which also falls under the push gravity category), which I can

> easiely discredit myself. I'm mostly interested in the concept of

> electromagnetic radiation pressure of high frequency radiation acting

> as the gravitational mechanism, and its shadowing creating the inverse

> square law, low pressure areas.

You immediately run into trouble with the principle of equivalence,

for one thing. Electromagnetic waves don't interact with other

electromagnetic waves (except by truly tiny quantum effects); but

gravity bends light. Nor do electromagnetic waves interact with

internal energy, not with neutrinos; but these *are* affected by

gravity. You also run into grave problems with aberration (see above),

and very probably with drag. You would *further* have to explain why

this high frequency radiation is not absorbed by the Earth enough to

lead to gravitational screening of the type ruled out by experiment.

Note that "high frequency [electromagnetic] radiation" is gamma radiation.

There are experimental measurements of very high energy gamma rays, and

a fair amount is known about their spectrum. I suspect you would have

a very hard time reconciling your model with these observations.

Steve Carlip

May 26, 2006, 5:51:49â€¯PM5/26/06

to

carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:

snip

>

> Electromagnetic waves don't interact with other

> electromagnetic waves (except by truly tiny quantum effects);

snip

> Steve Carlip

>

Steve

Could you please provide a reference to:

"truly tiny quantum effects"

of

"interacting Electromagnetic waves"

Richard

May 30, 2006, 6:01:31â€¯PM5/30/06

to

Timo A. Nieminen wrote:

> ... Perhaps it's just the observation that,

> ... Perhaps it's just the observation that,

> apart from rather speculative push-gravity effects, we don't seem to be

> immersed in a bath of lots and lots of ultra-gamma rays?

> immersed in a bath of lots and lots of ultra-gamma rays?

OTOH, de Broglie showed that treating a particle as a standing wave

would predict many effects which were subsequently found to be just so.

If a particle is a standing wave, then (as Wheeler and Feynman got

close to saying) it is a combination of both an in and out wave at

the Compton frequency of the particle. This is indeed ultra-gamma

rays, but it is not something that "happens to the particle" but

rather "what the particle is".

I highly recommend the web site of Gabriel LaFreniere at

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

which has many animated GIFs showing how standing waves look and

produce all the effects of de Broglie, including waves relating to

particles in motion and much more.

> My impression is that while push gravity, at least in certain limits, give

> plausible results, doesn't offer any improvement over other theories of

> gravitation, while introducing severe difficulties related to the exchange

> of energy between the gravitational particle flux and conventional matter.

If the particle as a standing wave idea is adopted, then LeSage gravity

does follow still.

carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:

> 1. Drag: As Feynman pointed out in the Feynman Lectures, anything

> that's capable of "pushing" will also create drag on a moving object.

> There are very strong observational limits on such drag, in the

> Solar System and in binary pulsar systems.

> 2. Aberration: Suppose "pushing" particles move at a speed v, and

> look at the effect on the Solar System. For a planet at distance d

> from the Sun, the "push" will not be toward the instantaneous

> position of the Sun, but towards its position at a time d/v in the

> past. This is a drastic effect -- if v is the speed of light, the

> Solar System would be drastically unstable over a thousand-year

> time scale.

When the in and out waves are considered, it seems to me that both the

drag and aberration problems are solved. That is because there is an

almost exactly equal and opposite effect from each of the two parts

of the wave.

I say almost equal and opposite because there does have to be a

difference of 1 part in 10^40 between the two fluxes in order to

explain why gravity is that must weaker than other forces.

That difference also leads to a correct prediction of the

cosmological redshift as being a side effect of the imbalance.

These relationships are deeply satisfying.

> 3. Principle of equivalence: It is observed that gravity acts not

> only on mass, but on all forms of energy. A "push gravity" theory

> would have to come with an explanation of how the particles that do

> the pushing manage to push against, for example, electrostatic binding

> energy and the kinetic energy of electrons in an atom, and why that

> "push" exactly matches the "push" against ordinary matter.

If particles are a type of e/m standing wave then this would of

course be so.

> 4. Gravitational screening: There are very strong limits on the kind

> of "gravitational screening" one would expect from a "push gravity"

> model -- see, for example, Unnikrishnan et al., Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001)

> 062002.

There are of course observations of effects of shadows from eclipses

on pendulums (Maurice Allais) and on gravitational acceleration

(Wang and Wang(?)) which do show that there is screening, although

it might better be described as a mixture of screening and scattering.

Ray Tomes

http://ray.tomes.biz/

http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/

May 30, 2006, 6:02:47â€¯PM5/30/06

to

<carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message

news:e54rdf$qcb$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...

> Blaze Labs <sav...@blazelabs.com> wrote:

>> Hello guys,

>

>> I would like to know the main reasons why the push gravity concept is

>> not considered as a viable concept by mainstream science.

>

> There are a few generic objections, along with particular problems with

> particular models. The main generic objections I know of are

>

> 1. Drag: As Feynman pointed out in the Feynman Lectures, anything

> that's capable of "pushing" will also create drag on a moving object.

> There are very strong observational limits on such drag, in the

> Solar System and in binary pulsar systems.

news:e54rdf$qcb$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...

> Blaze Labs <sav...@blazelabs.com> wrote:

>> Hello guys,

>

>> I would like to know the main reasons why the push gravity concept is

>> not considered as a viable concept by mainstream science.

>

> There are a few generic objections, along with particular problems with

> particular models. The main generic objections I know of are

>

> 1. Drag: As Feynman pointed out in the Feynman Lectures, anything

> that's capable of "pushing" will also create drag on a moving object.

> There are very strong observational limits on such drag, in the

> Solar System and in binary pulsar systems.

I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you are referring to the paragraph

in Vol. I, pages 7-9 to 7-10, in which Feynman commented on the theory

of a mechanism of gravitation. I was thinking that if these

"push-particles" are traveling at the speed of light, c, something like

the following might hold. Let F be the flux of these particles thoughout

space (i.e., the number of particles passing through unit area in unit

time.) Also, assume the flux is isotropic in direction. Consider a thin

sheet of matter traveling at speed u in the +X direction (traveling

broadside so you see the full area when looking along X.) To simplify,

consider only those particles going either in the +X or -X direction.

(Nothing is lost, in principle, by doing this, as you could integrate

over velocity components for other directions.) When the object is at

rest, it sees the same particle flux, F,coming from both the front side

and the hind side. But in motion, the flux it meets is increased to

F(c+u)/c and the flux from behind is decreased to F(c-u)/c. If Feynman's

anology with running in the rain applies, the thing would certainly

absorb more particles from the front than from the back per unit time,

and would feel a resistance to the motion. (With raindrops, if they hit,

they are absorbed.) However, the sheet of matter is composed of

individual absorber particles, say "atoms". Looking at a single atom,

the number of encounters per second it has with a push-particle is

proportional to the particle flux in the vicinity of the atom. The

number absorbed per second by that atom is equal to the number of

encounters per second times the probability, p, of absorption per

encounter.So, for push-particles coming from the front, an atom in the

sheet of material would absorb

N(1) = ApF(c+u)/c particles per second (1)

where A is the proportionality constant mentioned above for encounters,

and p is the probability of absorption per encounter.

This same atom would absorb from behind,

N(2) = ApF(c-u)/c particles per second. (2)

If the probability were the same in each case, the atom would certainly

absorb more per second from the front than from behind. However, the

atom (or whatever absorbing "particle") may be assumed to have an

effective absorbing diameter,d. A particle can be absorbed by it only

when it is traversing this distance through, or close by, the atom. It

takes a time t(1) = d/(c+u) for the particles meeting the atom to

traverse its sphere of influence. And for those coming from the rear, it

takes a time t(2) = d/(c-u) for them to get away from its influence. The

probability of absorption per encounter should also be proportional to

the time lapse of the encounter. (if it stays in the vicinity of the

atom longer, it should have a higher probability of absorption.)

Therefore, the probability of absorption in each case would be p(1) =

Bd/(c+u) for particles meeting it, and p(2) = Bd/(c-u) for particles

coming from behind, where B is the proportionality constant.

Replacing the probability p in equations (1) and (2) above with these

probabilities as a function of the time lapse of encounter, gives:

the number absorbed from the front per second by a given atom as

N(1) = A[Bd/(c+u)]F[(c+u)/c] = (ABdF)/c

and the number absorbed from behind per second by the same atom

as:

N(2) = A[Bd/(c-u)]F[(c-u)/c] = (ABdF)/c

The result is the same, which shows that a moving object will absorb the

same number per second of push-particles from the front as from the

back. Therefore the object will feel no net force due to motion in this

isotropic flux of particles. (If one worries about the energy build-up,

we may assume that the particles, once absorbed, are very quickly

re-scattered isotropically.)

Whether I'm right or not,

Have one on me!

May 30, 2006, 6:02:52â€¯PM5/30/06

to

> snip

>> Electromagnetic waves don't interact with other

>> electromagnetic waves (except by truly tiny quantum effects);

> snip

> Could you please provide a reference to:

> "truly tiny quantum effects"

> of

> "interacting Electromagnetic waves"

One place to look is www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/opal/gammagamma/gg-tutorial.html.

For observations involving real (not virtual) photons, see, for example,

Burke et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 1626 and Bamber et al., Phys.

Rev. D 60 (1999) 092004. There is even a proposal to build a photon-

photon linear collider -- see, for example, www.desy.de/~telnov/ggtesla/

and diablo.phys.northwestern.edu/~mvelasco/gg-papers.html.

For a description of the process in QED, you can look at most quantum

field theory textbooks, under "photon-photon scattering." For example,

see section 7-3-1 of Itzykson and Zuber.

Steve Carlip

May 30, 2006, 6:03:06â€¯PM5/30/06

to

Steve Carlip pointed out that

> Electromagnetic waves don't interact with other

> electromagnetic waves (except by truly tiny quantum effects);

> Electromagnetic waves don't interact with other

> electromagnetic waves (except by truly tiny quantum effects);

Richard Saam <rds...@att.net> asked for references for this.

The usual phrase for this is "photon-photon scattering". A brief

bout of googling this phrase found (among others) the following pages

which look quite informative:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb99/919892082.Ph.r.html

http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/opal/gammagamma/gg-tutorial.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0512033

The last of these is an M.Sc thesis on the possible observability of this.

Cheng and Wu,

Phys Rev D 1, 3414 (12 June 1970),

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v1/i12/p3414_1

give a detailed calculation of photon-photon scattering cross sections.

Chiao,

http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/chiao/EOY00/chiao6.pdf

gives an experimental observation, abeit in a dilute gas rather than

in a vacuum (which would be a "purer" situation).

ciao,

--

-- "Jonathan Thornburg -- remove -animal to reply" <jth...@aei.mpg-zebra.de>

Max-Planck-Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut),

Golm, Germany, "Old Europe" http://www.aei.mpg.de/~jthorn/home.html

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the

powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."

-- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam

Aug 15, 2018, 1:25:30â€¯AM8/15/18

to

On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 4:36:58 AM UTC+3, Y Porat wrote:

> On Saturday, August 11, 2018 at 6:43:41 PM UTC+3, Gregor Scholten wrote:

> > Y Porat wrote:

> >

> > > so we see that

> > > for gravity we need 2 **active physical entities*

> >

> > Which entities do you mean?

> >

> >

> > > and mass becomes an ** active physical entity

> > > NOT A PASSIVE PHYSICAL ENTITY ANY MORE ??!!

> > > ie

> > > producing forces !....

> >

> > Already Newton considered mass as producing gravitational forces, so in

> > that sense, mass has always been considered as "active".

> >

> >

> > > so how'suddenly ' active ??!! by what ??

> > > while 'we....'see' in mass (until now)

> > > just a passive physical entity ??!!

> >

> > Following you definition of "active", we have never seen a passive

> > entity in mass.

> -

> ==================

> if so

> just give us an **explanation**:

>

> HOW CAM A MASS*-( only by itself!!) - ** ACT **

>

> in a distant location from itself ???

> ===

> TIA

> Y.P

> ====================================

>

> [[Mod. note -- In classical physics this is precisely why we introduce

> the concept of /field/, e.g., the (Newtonian) gravitational field.

>

> In general relativity spacetime itself is the medium in which the

> gravitational interaction propagates.

> -- jt]]

==================

thank you scholten

now

did you ever hear about the

ALL **PUSH THEORY ??

iow

at the 'end of the day ' it is always

push not pull !!

--

it took me just BTW 80 YEARS !!...thaT IS my age ..

to understand for instance

how is our breathing is done ??!!:

ONLY PUSH !! NOT never PULL !!!!!!..

so

many times we have to invest

much more thoroughly - more intensively !!

and is you kike

see more :

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract

please note

it is only the abstract** there !!

a remark to the moderator

let me once in my life

to get yoUr permission to your important ng

please note the name of your ng *RESEARCH !!

research can be many times

**trial and **error!!!

you may be surprised how many times

''trial and error'' worked !!!!!

TIA

Y.Porat

======================

[[Mod. note -- In a 2006 article <e54rdf$qcb$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>

(which I have added to the References: header of this article)

Steve Carlip explained some generic problems with "push gravity":

-- jt]]

> On Saturday, August 11, 2018 at 6:43:41 PM UTC+3, Gregor Scholten wrote:

> > Y Porat wrote:

> >

> > > so we see that

> > > for gravity we need 2 **active physical entities*

> >

> > Which entities do you mean?

> >

> >

> > > and mass becomes an ** active physical entity

> > > NOT A PASSIVE PHYSICAL ENTITY ANY MORE ??!!

> > > ie

> > > producing forces !....

> >

> > Already Newton considered mass as producing gravitational forces, so in

> > that sense, mass has always been considered as "active".

> >

> >

> > > so how'suddenly ' active ??!! by what ??

> > > while 'we....'see' in mass (until now)

> > > just a passive physical entity ??!!

> >

> > Following you definition of "active", we have never seen a passive

> > entity in mass.

> -

> ==================

> if so

> just give us an **explanation**:

>

> HOW CAM A MASS*-( only by itself!!) - ** ACT **

>

> in a distant location from itself ???

> ===

> TIA

> Y.P

> ====================================

>

> [[Mod. note -- In classical physics this is precisely why we introduce

> the concept of /field/, e.g., the (Newtonian) gravitational field.

>

> In general relativity spacetime itself is the medium in which the

> gravitational interaction propagates.

> -- jt]]

==================

thank you scholten

now

did you ever hear about the

ALL **PUSH THEORY ??

iow

at the 'end of the day ' it is always

push not pull !!

--

it took me just BTW 80 YEARS !!...thaT IS my age ..

to understand for instance

how is our breathing is done ??!!:

ONLY PUSH !! NOT never PULL !!!!!!..

so

many times we have to invest

much more thoroughly - more intensively !!

and is you kike

see more :

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract

please note

it is only the abstract** there !!

a remark to the moderator

let me once in my life

to get yoUr permission to your important ng

please note the name of your ng *RESEARCH !!

research can be many times

**trial and **error!!!

you may be surprised how many times

''trial and error'' worked !!!!!

TIA

Y.Porat

======================

[[Mod. note -- In a 2006 article <e54rdf$qcb$1...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>

(which I have added to the References: header of this article)

Steve Carlip explained some generic problems with "push gravity":

Aug 18, 2018, 7:35:11â€¯AM8/18/18

to

Y Porat wrote:

> now

> did you ever hear about the

>

>

> ALL **PUSH THEORY ??

> iow

> at the 'end of the day ' it is always

> push not pull !!

> --

> it took me just BTW 80 YEARS !!...thaT IS my age ..

> to understand for instance

> how is our breathing is done ??!!:

>

> ONLY PUSH !! NOT never PULL !!!!!!..

What's the difference? According to Newtonian equation of motion
> now

> did you ever hear about the

>

>

> ALL **PUSH THEORY ??

> iow

> at the 'end of the day ' it is always

> push not pull !!

> --

> it took me just BTW 80 YEARS !!...thaT IS my age ..

> to understand for instance

> how is our breathing is done ??!!:

>

> ONLY PUSH !! NOT never PULL !!!!!!..

F = m a

a force F makes a body undergo an acceleration a. One could say the

force F "pulls" the body as well as the force "pushes" the body - there

isn't any difference except in wording.

In GR, a free-falling body is force-free, i.e. F = 0, it just follows

its natural geodesic path in spacetime, so it is neither pulled nor

pushed.

When we say that gravity is attractive or that gravity pulls a body, we

just describe the effect that two bodies that interact gravitationally

tend to approach each other. In Newtonian theory, this means that the

direction of the gravitational force on the one body points to the

position of the other body, in GR, it means that the bodies influence

the curvature of spacetime in that way that the geodesic lines which the

bodies follow are bend towards each other.

Aug 19, 2018, 12:52:15â€¯AM8/19/18

to

gravitation as either push or pull. In general relativity there is

no such thing as a force. There is only a force if there is some

material response that resists the geodesic deviated paths of

particles.

If one thinks of a Gaussian surface around a source of gravity that

is a black cloak the motion of particles is then due to mass-energy

inside. This has some appearance of a pull. However, once we pull

away the cloak we if we find a planet or star there is a force due

to material properties or pressure that is outwards. This would be

maybe a push.

A star is a nuclear fusion system and gravitation provides the

pressure in the core. Our attempts to get fusion in the lab involve

a pressure from the outside. The difficulties faced are Rayleigh-Taylor

instabilities. We then have a sense of the difference between the

maintenance of fusion by gravitation that is from the interior and

fusion in the lab that is induced by pressure from the outside.

Aug 19, 2018, 3:46:57â€¯AM8/19/18

to

On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 2:35:11 PM UTC+3, Gregor Scholten wrote:

> Y Porat wrote:

>

> > now

> > did you ever hear about the

> >

> >

> > ALL **PUSH THEORY ??

> > iow

> > at the 'end of the day ' it is always

> > push not pull !!

> > --

> > it took me just BTW 80 YEARS !!...thaT IS my age ..

> > to understand for instance

> > how is our breathing is done ??!!:

> >

> > ONLY PUSH !! NOT never PULL !!!!!!..

>

> What's the difference? According to Newtonian equation of motion

>

> F = m a

>

> a force F makes a body undergo an acceleration a. One could say the

> force F "pulls" the body as well as the force "pushes" the body - there

===========================
> Y Porat wrote:

>

> > now

> > did you ever hear about the

> >

> >

> > ALL **PUSH THEORY ??

> > iow

> > at the 'end of the day ' it is always

> > push not pull !!

> > --

> > it took me just BTW 80 YEARS !!...thaT IS my age ..

> > to understand for instance

> > how is our breathing is done ??!!:

> >

> > ONLY PUSH !! NOT never PULL !!!!!!..

>

> What's the difference? According to Newtonian equation of motion

>

> F = m a

>

> a force F makes a body undergo an acceleration a. One could say the

> force F "pulls" the body as well as the force "pushes" the body - there

sorry Sir

pullis one thing

and push is completely different thing !!

----

---

> isn't any difference except in wording.

not only words at all !!

if i pull you -you come closer to me

if i push you

you getting further from me !

it is the difference between

through

and not through !!

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

> cetime, so it is neither pulled nor

> pushed.

>

> When we say that gravity is attractive or that gravity pulls a body, we

> just describe the effect that two bodies that interact gravitationally

> tend to approach each other. In Newtonian theory, this means that the

> direction of the gravitational force on the one body points to the

> position of the other body, in GR, it means that the bodies influence

> the curvature of spacetime in that way that the geodesic lines which the

> bodies follow are bend towards each other.

geodetic lines are lines are ** just lines** on our actual

**globus model**

in empty space it is not proven obligatory

empty space

is not our earth !!!!!

iow

geodetic'' in Einstein theory

are just words

just guesses

if you will say

it is** stemming from our mass**

it will be much more reasonable

===

TIA

Y.P

=============

Aug 19, 2018, 6:04:45â€¯AM8/19/18

to

Y Porat wrote:

>>> now

>>> did you ever hear about the

>>>

>>>

>>> ALL **PUSH THEORY ??

>>> iow

>>> at the 'end of the day ' it is always

>>> push not pull !!

>>> --

>>> it took me just BTW 80 YEARS !!...thaT IS my age ..

>>> to understand for instance

>>> how is our breathing is done ??!!:

>>>

>>> ONLY PUSH !! NOT never PULL !!!!!!..

>>

>> What's the difference? According to Newtonian equation of motion

>>

>> F = m a

>>

>> a force F makes a body undergo an acceleration a. One could say the

>> force F "pulls" the body as well as the force "pushes" the body - there

> ===========================

> sorry Sir

> pullis one thing

> and push is completely different thing !!

As I already pointed out, it is no such completely different thing.
>>> now

>>> did you ever hear about the

>>>

>>>

>>> ALL **PUSH THEORY ??

>>> iow

>>> at the 'end of the day ' it is always

>>> push not pull !!

>>> --

>>> it took me just BTW 80 YEARS !!...thaT IS my age ..

>>> to understand for instance

>>> how is our breathing is done ??!!:

>>>

>>> ONLY PUSH !! NOT never PULL !!!!!!..

>>

>> What's the difference? According to Newtonian equation of motion

>>

>> F = m a

>>

>> a force F makes a body undergo an acceleration a. One could say the

>> force F "pulls" the body as well as the force "pushes" the body - there

> ===========================

> sorry Sir

> pullis one thing

> and push is completely different thing !!

>> isn't any difference except in wording.

>

> =========

> not only words at all !!

>

> if i pull you -you come closer to me

> if i push you

> you getting further from me !

- I come closer to you (due to a force, due to curvature of spacetime or

due something else)

AND

- whatever makes me come closer to you is *caused by you*

In turn, when saying that you "push" me, it means that

- I get further from you (due to a force, due to curvature of spacetime

or due something else)

AND

- whatever makes me go further from you is *caused by you*

So, if we transfer this to gravity, we can either imagine that two

bodies that come closer due to a gravitational effect do so because the

gravitational effect is caused by the two bodies itself - then we can

say that the two bodies "pull" each other - or by something different

that is around the two bodies, then we can say that something "pushes"

the bodies to come closer.

So, obviously, what you imagine is that the gravitational action that

makes two bodies come closer is not caused by the bodies itself (what

you would denote as "the bodies pull each other"), but by something

around the bodies. E.g. by empty space or by other (maybe insivisible?)

bodies.

So, the next question is: what is the advantage of such an understanding

of gravity? Why should we prefer this understanding of gravity against

the conventional understanding that the gravitational action that makes

bodies come closer is caused by the bodies itself?

>> cetime, so it is neither pulled nor

>> pushed.

>>

>> When we say that gravity is attractive or that gravity pulls a body, we

>> just describe the effect that two bodies that interact gravitationally

>> tend to approach each other. In Newtonian theory, this means that the

>> direction of the gravitational force on the one body points to the

>> position of the other body, in GR, it means that the bodies influence

>> the curvature of spacetime in that way that the geodesic lines which the

>> bodies follow are bend towards each other.

>

> ================

> geodetic lines are lines are ** just lines** on our actual

> **globus model**

> in empty space it is not proven obligatory

> empty space

> is not our earth !!!!!

surface, i.e. in a two-dimensional space. However, geodesics can easiely

be generalized to spaces with more dimensions, including

three-dimensional space and four-dimensional spacetime.

> iow

> geodetic'' in Einstein theory

> are just words

> just guesses

guesses. This is the way the scientific method works: we first make

observations, then we guess how the observations can be described (i.e.

we formulate theories that use words), and then we compare the

consequences of our guess to nature.

This applies for GR as well as for any other theory.

> if you will say

> it is** stemming from our mass**

> it will be much more reasonable

masses, i.e. you guess that such particles make a proper description of

nature, then these particles and their property that they stem from

masses are also just words and just guesses.

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Jun 11, 2021, 3:13:11â€¯AM6/11/21

to

It was proven (by Feynman?) that push gravity cannot work if whatever

flux does the pushing is reflected from a mass. That is because the

shadow of any body is exactly balanced by reflections from that body

from the other side. Therefore push *cannot* work by reflection.

The other possibility is push by absorption of the flux. This shows much

more promise because:

1. Such absorption would need to happen at the level of atomic particles

and would therefore cause increase in mass of particles as described in

Narlikar's variable mass hypothesis (VMH).

2. Such a change in particle masses over time would lead to a blue shift

of atomic spectra over time. This looks exactly like a red shift of

spectral lines with distance because distance is a measure of how far

back in time we look. So VMH automatically offers an explanation for the

cosmological redshift.

3. The rate of absorption must exactly explain the cosmological

redshift, and that rate will give exactly the correct strength of

gravity relative to e/m forces as 10^40 weaker.

4. It helps if it is understood that particles are some special form of

standing waves of e/m as described my Milo Wollfe who proved that all of

the properties of the electron were excactly matched by the Wave

Structure of Matter (WSM) model. The exact e/m wave structure of

nucleons has not been determined as far as I know.

5. When the particle standing wave is understood as an incoming and

outgoing (after it passes through the centre) wave as Feynman and

Wheeler almost came to understand for an electron then we can observe

the true meaning of the Large Numbers Hypothesis (LNH) as favoured by

Dirac and Eddington. When a wave has traveled 10^40 (Compton)

wavelengths of a nucleon then it spreads over a sphere of area of 10^80

times a nucleon by which point it becomes the incoming wave of all other

nucleons in the Universe. It is fully absorbed and re radiated at the

Hubble scale.

flux does the pushing is reflected from a mass. That is because the

shadow of any body is exactly balanced by reflections from that body

from the other side. Therefore push *cannot* work by reflection.

The other possibility is push by absorption of the flux. This shows much

more promise because:

1. Such absorption would need to happen at the level of atomic particles

and would therefore cause increase in mass of particles as described in

Narlikar's variable mass hypothesis (VMH).

2. Such a change in particle masses over time would lead to a blue shift

of atomic spectra over time. This looks exactly like a red shift of

spectral lines with distance because distance is a measure of how far

back in time we look. So VMH automatically offers an explanation for the

cosmological redshift.

3. The rate of absorption must exactly explain the cosmological

redshift, and that rate will give exactly the correct strength of

gravity relative to e/m forces as 10^40 weaker.

4. It helps if it is understood that particles are some special form of

standing waves of e/m as described my Milo Wollfe who proved that all of

the properties of the electron were excactly matched by the Wave

Structure of Matter (WSM) model. The exact e/m wave structure of

nucleons has not been determined as far as I know.

5. When the particle standing wave is understood as an incoming and

outgoing (after it passes through the centre) wave as Feynman and

Wheeler almost came to understand for an electron then we can observe

the true meaning of the Large Numbers Hypothesis (LNH) as favoured by

Dirac and Eddington. When a wave has traveled 10^40 (Compton)

wavelengths of a nucleon then it spreads over a sphere of area of 10^80

times a nucleon by which point it becomes the incoming wave of all other

nucleons in the Universe. It is fully absorbed and re radiated at the

Hubble scale.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu