andrewvecsey@hotmail.com (andrewvecsey) wrote in message

danielemilio@earthlink.net (Daniel G. Emilio) wrote in message

"tadchem" <tadchemNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message

"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:d8097fcc.0401120217.20647fb0@posting.google.com...

There are many serious problems with the concept of "push gravity":

snip

However, there is a far more compelling reason that a "push" theory
doesn't work. If an object is at rest in space, then the "push"
theory says that the push is equally distributed on all sides of the
object and the object will remain motionless. However, if the object
is placed in motion, the leading side of the object must receive more
"graviton" strikes than the trailing side. This must cause the object
to slow to an eventual stop. If this was true then planetary orbits
must eventually decay and orbits would collapse. But this doesn't
happen and therefore the "push" theory cannot be true.

Please see my document at
http://www.geocities.com/andrewvecsey/universe.html
for an explanation and description (with pictures) to refute this
"objection" to push gravity.
andrew

I understand this completely and it's a theory that has been proposed
and refuted for quite a while. Let me try this one more time.

You state "Mass without any other mass near by receives the same
amount of gravity interaction from all directions, and the mass does
not move." This would be because the force applied to the mass is
equal on all sides under the push theory. But if the same mass was
now placed in a straightline, linear motion, more force would be
applied to the front side - i.e., the side the mass is moving toward.
It's like if you are in a car with a sunroof and you stick your head
up and out. If the car is stationary you would feel no wind and your
head remains stationary - i.e., there are an equal number of air
molecules striking your head from all directions. But if the car is
now moving 80 miles an hour, it feels like there is an 80 mile per
hour wind in your face and your head is pushed back trying to slow
down - because there are more air molecules striking your face than
are striking the back of your head - i.e., more force is applied to
your face. The same would happen with your mass in motion. If the
push theory is correct, then when the mass is placed in motion the
"push wind" will be striking the forward side of the mass more than
the back side, and this creates an imbalance in the force applied to
the mass.

The mass must slow down - eventually to a stop.

But we
know that a mass moving in a linear direction in space does not slow
down -

any space debris just outside our solar system, for example,
will continue to move at the same constant velocity forever - unless,
of course, it runs into some other star system.

This is completely
contrary and totally incompatible with the "push" theory, and
therefore the theory must be incorrect.

If you are trying to remain objective and not dogmatically holding on
to some point of view beyond reasonable objection, then you must be
willing and able to discard views when they become untenable, or else
you place yourself into the position described in the following
article. http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html (This
website may be down temporarily because of maintenance reasons).

I personally do not believe in General Relativity, but if the NASA
Gravity Probe B experiment demonstrates "frame dragging" then I have
promised myself that I will discard my view and will accept GR. If
you are rational at all, this must be your approach,

or else your
views and argument become meaningless. The difficult part for you is
that you've obviously spent some time on the idea - creating the web
page and all - and giving up an idea after investing so much time
seems inconceivable. I think the same will happen to Relativists if
Gravity Probe B refutes their theory.

This is irrational because you
must get over your failures - which we all have - and move on to some
other passion.

"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message news:<1012scu1tcsd209@corp.supernews.com>...

Daniel G. Emilio <

All right - then forget the orbit discussion. If we are dealing with
a "push" gravity system, then the "push" must come from "free"
gravitons, or whatever it is that is causing the push. But in any
event, it isn't coming from some other body - i.e., it isn't
propagating from an object. We are talking about free "aether" or
"gravitons" or something else that causes pressure on all objects from
all directions. If this is the case, then any object or particle in
motion must slow down over time - including neutrinos, etc. - for the
reason that I've stated above. There is no slow down in any of the
elementary particles, or in any linear freely moving object in space,
and therefore there cannot be an "aether" or "graviton" push against
these particles or objects or they would slow down. I grant you that
discussions of orbits create new complexities, but the fundamental
idea that there is a "push" on all objects in space simply doesn't
match with observation.

"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message

Daniel G. Emilio <danielemilio@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fdd71043.0401222312.70b53499@posting.google.com...

{snip higher levels}

I don't think your reasoning here is valid because if the "push" comes
from extremely small, highly dense, "graviton" space, only an extremly
small percentage of the "gravitons" would actually do the "pushing"
with no perceptable loss of total gravitons that pass through matter.
However, there is a far more compelling reason that a "push" theory
doesn't work. If an object is at rest in space, then the "push"
theory says that the push is equally distributed on all sides of the
object and the object will remain motionless. However, if the object
is placed in motion, the leading side of the object must receive more
"graviton" strikes than the trailing side. This must cause the object
to slow to an eventual stop. If this was true then planetary orbits
must eventually decay and orbits would collapse. But this doesn't
happen and therefore the "push" theory cannot be true.

A decent paraphrase of Feynman's argument from his lectures. The
identification of a dynamic drag component is flawless -- for a particle
moving linearly (as in Pioneer).

However, you have both failed to consider the other dynamic aspects of
an orbit that arise in an orbital system. Aberration will occur due to

delay arising from finite gravitational propagation speed that
unavoidably arises in a push gravity system (roughly at the speed of the
particles that caused the Feynman drag). The aberration is not only in
opposition to the Feynman drag, but -- according to Steve Carlip --
it is greater in strength.

Even Feynman wasn't perfect.

All right - then forget the orbit discussion.

If we are dealing with
a "push" gravity system, then the "push" must come from "free"
gravitons, or whatever it is that is causing the push.

But in any
event, it isn't coming from some other body - i.e., it isn't
propagating from an object.

We are talking about free "aether" or
"gravitons" or something else that causes pressure on all objects from
all directions. If this is the case, then any object or particle in
motion must slow down over time

- including neutrinos, etc. -

for the
reason that I've stated above. There is no slow down in any of the
elementary particles,

or in any linear freely moving object in space,

and therefore there cannot be an "aether" or "graviton" push against
these particles or objects or they would slow down. I grant you that
discussions of orbits create new complexities, but the fundamental
idea that there is a "push" on all objects in space simply doesn't
match with observation.

<carlip@no-dirac-spam.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:bui0m4$5th$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...

How does a theory of ``push gravity'' explain why two protons
and two neutrons weight a different amount in a pair of
deuterons than in a helium nucleus?

Quite simply. Because they have a different mass.