Posted by Scott Ellis (216.87.95.64) on March 14, 2002 at 14:16:51:
In Reply to: Push gravity - a 'theory' in crisis posted by Davis Landstrom on March 14, 2002 at 10:04:21:
Hi Davis, thanks for your post.
Indeed, I think "push" models of gravity are important in contemplating Bessler's wheel, because they provide a kinetic or dynamic mechanism for gravity. To me, a dynamic mechanism is more likely to be "tappable" than a static one.
Newtons Principia, and Einstein's General Relativity, for that matter, in no way attempt to explain the physical mechanism of gravitational attraction. Both theories simply predict the trajectories of bodies in space. The absence of a causal explanation of gravity in Newton's work eventually led to the notion of action-at-a-distance, this in spite of Newton's stated conviction that such a concept was "absurd." Much later, action-at-a-distance was replaced by Einstein's concept of "space-time curvature," but this in no way contributed to an understanding of the real physical mechanism of gravitational force.
Newton never stated that gravity is necessarily an attractive force. That notion has been erroneously applied to him by history. In fact, Newton said:
"& we derive from the celestial phenomena the forces of gravity with which bodies tend to the sun and the several planets. Then from these forces, by other propositions which are also mathematical, we deduce the motions of the planets, the comets, the moon, and the sea. I wish we could derive the rest of the phenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain; but I hope the principles here laid down will afford some light either to this or some truer method of philosophy."
On page 2 of Principia, Newton wrote that gravity can be either an impelled or attractive force as follows, "A centripetal force is that by which bodies are drawn or impelled, or in any way tend, towards a point as to a center. Of this sort is gravity."
Newton felt it was not necessary to know which direction gravity force acted as his three laws of motion and his universal gravity law applied either way. In 1692, Newton wrote his friend Bentley that it was inconceivable anyone skilled in science would ever think brute matter could attract other brute matter. Newton believed something material had to act constantly on bodies in orbit to keep them in orbit.
Newton also did not reject the possibility of an ether. He left the question completely open when he said: "I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is, that freely pervades the interstices between bodies." Einstein at first did reject the ether, but later reintroduced it in the form of the "space-time fabric." In fact, this fabric and its "curvature" became integral to his description of gravitational effects.
All of this brings us to an explanation of gravity which employs the idea of a universal medium in space. Many philosophers and scientist have come forward with such ideas, including Descartes. He developed a vortex theory of an ethereal medium, in which the earth was pictured as being at the center of a swirling whirlpool of ether particles, tiny globules of matter that tend to be thrown outward (centrifugally). Any terrestrial body, such as an apple, "falls" because of the downward pressure caused by the displacement of the ether particles.
The next major development in the kinetic theory of gravity was made by George Le Sage in 1749. His "impact" theory of gravity represents one of the most plausible and well-received theories, historically speaking. Le Sage imagined that every point in space is constantly bombarded by tiny particles coming from all directions. If a body is placed in space by itself, the net effect of all of the collisions with these particles is zero. But if two bodies are placed
gravity:
1. The gravitational constant is measured to have the same units as those predicted by this model
2. The weak solution case matches Newton's equation
3. The Newtonian equation is the weak solution limit of the model and IS also the weak solution limit to the GR mathematical model
4. RFD, gravitational red-shift and other elements predicted in GR are inherently present in the physical mechanism of the model
5. The induction heating predicted matches astronomical observations
6. The Allais effect can be explained by this model
The main detracting evidence is this: the push model seems to predict that space itself would produce a "drag" effect on bodies that has not been measured.
To me, the idea that push gravity is "photonic" in nature and eminates form the sun is very short-sighted. I tend to think of it as a more general sort of "radiation pressure," possibly left over from the big-bang.
Finally, you say that if gravity were a pushing force then we would feel it coming down on our heads. For me, it is easy to imagine that the "pushing" particles might interact with matter at the molecular, atomic, or even the quantum level. In this case, we would not feel a downward force on any particular place on our bodies. Rather, the downward force on our bodies would be completely uniform.
Best Regards,
Scott
: Attenuation or push gravity is an interesting idea, first thought of by a man by the name of Wright, however it is a 'theory' in crisis in terms of the stability of its theoretical basis.
: It is an idea that is appropriate for Besslerists like our selvs as it involves a medium, light, aether, Zero point energy, neutrinos, inverse gravitic photons e.t.c imparting energy to mass which effects 'attraction' or the forcing together of those two masses through the 'pressure' of the medium actung on the masses. I believe that Wright adhered to the idea that the Attenuation medium was photonic in nature and that all gravity therefore came from the sun. At it's most fundamental level the push gravity is an energetic phenomena, one that could elimanate the need to view gravity as a conservative force, this I suspect, Scott, is why you included the detailed and comprahensive collection of materials on the subject on besslerwheel.com.
: The idea that gravity might be a push or a pressure of some kind completely unrelated to the phenomena of mass is an interesting notion, however it has several flaws as a theory (hence the 'theory'). Conventional Newtonian pull gravity demonstrates the relationship between mass and gravitational field strength which holds true for all situations, if gravity were a product of neutrinos, photons or some kind of incomming graviton then that would not explain why astronomical objects like neutron stars posses the gravitational fields they do, after all these super massive bodies can exist independantly of any star (they were after all once a star) which could saturate the surface of the neutron star with enough radiation to attribute the gravitational forces we know are associated with them. Unless the source of the push is aether/zero point energy in which case the above argument elimanates all but one of the possable sources of the push.
: As you are well aware gravity is a force whose strength increases inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the point of force orrigin, basicaly the gravity we experiance is strongest (for us) closest to the surface of the earth, each time you double your distance from the surface of the earth in say a rocket ship, the strength of the gravity decreases by four times. How can any pushing force not opperating from a centre of mass but rather opperating from the sun or in from space create this increase in 'field' strength that seems to increase in strength by a factor of four every time you double your distance from the source of the push? Again if attenuation is the product of light photons, neutrinos or any other solar related phenomena which both obay the inverse square law how can they create t