# Thread: Gravity is a Pushing Force

1. ## Gravity is a Pushing Force

What if:

Gravity is a pushing force, not a pulling force.

Matter is actually lower pressure space, while a vacuum is higher pressure space.

This idea actually makes a lot more sense than gravity somehow reaching out from a mass and pulling another object in.

So imagine two objects in space... same size and shape as the earth and the moon, and spaced the average distance apart that the earth and moon are normally spaced. Now forget about any velocities and imagine that they are both starting still at the beginning of this experiment. Now according to known physics, the earth-sized object would creep very slowly towards the moon as the moon's inferior gravitational pull would still exert a small effect on the more massive object. Also, the moon-like object would move significantly faster towards the earth-like object because the bigger object would have a greater pull on the smaller one. Now this scenario makes sense, expect for one thing- nobody understands the mechanism which causes these two objects to reach out and grab the other one towards it. Nobody knows what gravity really is. So, imagine this instead... think of the earth and moon as relatively hollow objects, and the surrounding space as a more dense material. The moon object would be pushed towards the earth due to the lower pressure area on the side of the moon facing the earth, and the earth object would be pushed towards the moon slightly because the moon creates a (smaller)low-pressure area as well. In this scenario, the objects would still behave exactly the same as they would in classic gravity models except that the force of gravity is no longer a mystery force. What we perceive as a pulling gravity is really just lower-pressure areas trying to be filled in.

I imagine this idea could be demonstrated in a zero-gravity environment. A tank could be filled up with water representing empty space, and tiny air bubbles of various sizes could be introduced into the water one at a time. I imagine that bubbles far enough apart would have not move, but two bubbles introduced close enough to each-other(within their "gravitational fields" so to speak) would start to "gravitate" towards each-other. This is because two air bubbles close enough to each-other would each experience a greater inward pressure on the side away from the other bubble.

2. Originally Posted by matthew809
In this scenario, the objects would still behave exactly the same as they would in classic gravity models except that the force of gravity is no longer a mystery force.
Really?
So what is "less mysterious" about an unexplained/ unexplainable push than there is about about a pull?
How does your "model" account for larger masses having more gravity, as opposed to larger sizes (which presumably would "block" more of the push)?

3. Hi Matt,
Bright idea! Unfortunately, like so many bright ideas, it's been thought of before:
Le Sage's theory of gravitation

4. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
How does your "model" account for larger masses having more gravity, as opposed to larger sizes (which presumably would "block" more of the push)?
In my model, objects which seem more dense in our faulty perception are actually less dense in the eyes of the universe. A larger planet would not "block" more of the push than a smaller planet with more (perceived) density.
My model has the same effect as the standard gravity model.

5. Originally Posted by matthew809
In my model, objects which seem more dense in our faulty perception are actually less dense in the eyes of the universe. A larger planet would not "block" more of the push than a smaller planet with more (perceived) density.
My model has the same effect as the standard gravity model.
Which means you need yet another explanation. This is getting more difficult to sustain isn't it?

6. Originally Posted by matthew809
In my model, objects which seem more dense in our faulty perception are actually less dense in the eyes of the universe. A larger planet would not "block" more of the push than a smaller planet with more (perceived) density.
My model has the same effect as the standard gravity model.
So you've not added anything. You're looking at an inverse of the same model, and claiming to have some up with something different, whereas all you seem to have done, is unnecessarily complicate matters.

7. Originally Posted by matthew809
In my model
You don't have a model, you have a supposition or hypothesis. A model is required to model something.

Originally Posted by matthew809
My model has the same effect as the standard gravity model.
Prove it. A wordy explanation isn't enough. Two different models can have very similar qualitative descriptions for something. Gravity is actually a good example, Newtonian gravity and GR say the orbit of Mercury should precess so it might seem both are viable but that isn't the case. When you crunch the numbers you find Newtonian gravity can only account for something like 98% of the observed result, while GR can account for it all. Hence until you can actually provide a quantitative model you can't make the claim you just did with any justification. It's a common misconception, particularly with cranks (for once I'm not referring to you.... yet) who think that if they provide a wordy summary of a phenomenon then they have 'explained' it. Just look at threads by Farsight here in pseudo, he claims loads of things about his 'model' (he refers to it as such) and yet he can't actually model anything.

8. Originally Posted by matthew809
In my model, objects which seem more dense in our faulty perception are actually less dense in the eyes of the universe. A larger planet would not "block" more of the push than a smaller planet with more (perceived) density.
I'll buy this. It is true that some vacuum fluctuations are less probable or even impossible in solid matter.

Originally Posted by matthew809
My model has the same effect as the standard gravity model.
Can it account for gravity when you have an object out of line of sight? For instance you have the sun between jupiter and the earth, how could jupiter exert gravity on the earth? The way I understand it is if there was no line of sight the pressure difference would only affect the sun.

9. Originally Posted by DRZion
Can it account for gravity when you have an object out of line of sight? For instance you have the sun between jupiter and the earth, how could jupiter exert gravity on the earth? The way I understand it is if there was no line of sight the pressure difference would only affect the sun.
I've been refining my idea... and it's different than the push-gravity ideas I've been reading on the internet. Line of sight would not matter. In my idea, every planet in our solar system would be connected by a chain of pressure attempting to equalize itself into a state(shape) of least resistance. Planets don't actually "block" pressure to other planets, although it's an easier way to visualize the process at first.

I'm just fooling around with some general ideas here. I just think the basic premise of push rather than pull gravity makes a whole lot more sense to me.

10. According to quantum physics all electric force is pushing. QED describes "attractive" electrostatic force as virtual photons excreted from one charge body traveling over to, and round back of, another charge body and hitting it from behind, to nudge it toward the first body.

QP imaginary gravitons would behave in identical way, providing that they were participating in our common reality.

11. Originally Posted by Uno Hoo
According to quantum physics all electric force is pushing. QED describes "attractive" electrostatic force as virtual photons excreted from one charge body traveling over to, and round back of, another charge body and hitting it from behind, to nudge it toward the first body.
Citation needed.

12. Originally Posted by matthew809
I've been refining my idea... and it's different than the push-gravity ideas I've been reading on the internet. Line of sight would not matter. In my idea, every planet in our solar system would be connected by a chain of pressure attempting to equalize itself into a state(shape) of least resistance. Planets don't actually "block" pressure to other planets, although it's an easier way to visualize the process at first.
OH GOD, this sounds like vector calculus !

13. In conventional physics, a body approaching the earth will not be attracted by the earth's gravity until it's mass has entered the earth's gravitational field.
In my idea, a body approaching the earth will become attracted to it as soon as their pressure fields touch.

Therefore, if my idea is right, conventional physics unintentionally compensates by mathematically inflating the size of gravity fields in order to match up with observations. Conventional physics has an overestimated understanding of the radius of gravity fields. I think the end effect of this would be chronic miscalculations of astronomical mass and trouble accurately calculating orbits of planets in our solar system.

Also, in my idea, invisible energy bubbles would have potential to exist and gravitate together to form larger bubbles, much like matter. These energy bubbles would have pressure fields(gravity fields). This may account for the unaccounted gravity detected in our universe.

In my idea, one simple force accounts for all the motions of the universe.

Still working out the details though

14. Originally Posted by matthew809
In conventional physics, a body approaching the earth will not be attracted by the earth's gravity until it's mass has entered the earth's gravitational field.
How far away do think think an object would be when it "entered Earth's gravitational field"?

Therefore, if my idea is right, conventional physics unintentionally compensates by mathematically inflating the size of gravity fields in order to match up with observations.
Naught naughty science. How dishonest to "unintentionally compensate" for actual observation!

I think the end effect of this would be chronic miscalculations of astronomical mass and trouble accurately calculating orbits of planets in our solar system.
Yet we seem to calculate them sufficiently accurately to send spacecraft to other planets.

15. About 10 years ago it dawned on me that gravity must be a pushing force. That matter in space causes areas of low pressure in space. The more the mass the less the pressure. Obects are pushed together not pulled.

Its the only thing that makes sense.

16. Originally Posted by Captain Archer
Obects are pushed together not pulled.

Its the only thing that makes sense.
Seen from the sun's POV, it is pulling the smaller objects. Yes/no?

IMHO, gravity is an effect not a precusor force - this applies to both the pushing and pulling factors. Gravity is subsequent to hovering laws.

17. Originally Posted by matthew809
In my idea, a body approaching the earth will become attracted to it as soon as their pressure fields touch.
So it means the action is based on a hovering law, making the action an effect. This phenomenon is seen in all other areas, like a river flowing to the sea or heat attracting cold, etc. There is an alignment here.

In the final analysis, the impact of these effects point to a law concerning equalisation of levels, and that these effectations have boundaries - meaning they cease these effects at particular vantage thresholds to produce a specific, stable result. The question arises, do the particles in a body become effected by a law of gravity - or is the law of gravity using the particles to result in a specific design - specific because it is seen as stable everywhere and condusive to a same design.

Are the laws of gravity making all moons to revolve around their planets and stars - or is there a preference for all bodies to effect a generic design. IOW: which came first - the law impacting the bodies or the behaviour of the bodies subsequent to those laws. In the later case, the pushing and/or pulling become secondary.

18. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Citation needed.
State basis for demand.

19. Originally Posted by Uno Hoo
State basis for demand.
Regardless of my reason, if you were being scientific and honest etc then you should be willing to provide a few links to back up your claims.

As for my reason I know a fair amount of particle physics and nowhere have I see a textbook say that the attractive force in say electromagnetism is due to photons going 'around the back' of a charged particle and push it towards another particle. But I'm sure you know this, you're aware you're making a claim without basis on a topic you don't know anything about and the fact I asked you to justify your claim is clearly a sign that I'm dubious about your representation of results in quantum physics. I'll give you enough credit to assume you're pretending to be stupid so as to avoid having to justify your unsupported claim, rather than you actually being that stupid to not realise why I asked you to justify your claim.

So, would you care to justify your claim? Just a textbook name and page reference would do, doesn't have to be much.

20. Originally Posted by IamJoseph
Seen from the sun's POV, it is pulling the smaller objects. Yes/no?

IMHO, gravity is an effect not a precusor force - this applies to both the pushing and pulling factors. Gravity is subsequent to hovering laws.
I said pushing force but its not really a force. Just a reaction to pressure gradients evening out.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•