Push not pull

[Des Chamberlain]

Push! Not pull.
Des Chamberlain
The Idea that I want to set out here is so beautifully simple, it just feels right it fits with how we see our physical universe, read on and you’ll see what I mean.
A mass (lump of rock) is floating in the vacuum of space far far away from any other masses. Sub-atomic particles that are moving through space pass through our mass as they are so teeny weenie that they can pass through atoms with no problem at all. But, some particles do collide with atoms occasionally and there are a lot of sub-atomic particles whizzing about so it all adds up.
Our mass is unaffected as the colliding sub-atomic particles are quite uniform at least in this part of creation. Let us give our mass a trajectory and velocity and call it an asteroid for example. As our asteroid moves through space it eventually approaches another mass, say The Earth. The earth is bigger and so our asteroid is attracted to this much larger mass......
Hmmm. Let’s stop here for a moment and take a 180 degree conceptual shift and try again!
As our asteroid moves closer to the Earth it is shielded from the effects of sub-atomic particles that were destined to hit it but were absorbed by the mass of Earth. Our asteroid is also shielding the Earth in the same fashion but to a lesser degree as it’s not a particularly large asteroid and the earth is much bigger. There exists a dearth of sub-atomic particles in the space that separates our asteroid from the Earth. The asteroid wants to move closer to the earth to regain equilibrium, balance. Like a balloon being pushed through the air by a breeze.
As the distance between the asteroid and the earth decreases the Earth grows larger on the horizon of the approaching asteroid. Its also Shields it from even more particles, the sub-atomic pressure decreases on the shielded side but remains constant on the side open to unimpeded space. They try harder to balance the forces of sub-atomic pressure acting on them. They are pushed towards each other or even sucked if you like; they both feel good to me!
The asteroids initial trajectory and velocity is such that its course is changed just the right amount to move into an orbit around the earth where the centrifugal force equals the dearth of sub-atomic pressure that exists between them. Phew that was close;
I thought it was ‘Independence Day’ for a minute!
Now as you read this imagine that the earth beneath you is shielding you from the same amount of sub-atomic pressure as your weight! Yes! We are simply pressed to the Earth and not pulled by this stuff that we call gravity which doesn’t exists and is just an ego based concept of big attracting small.
Don’t worry it won’t change a thing apart from making more sense.
Oh by the way, Gold is a heavier than you because it has a structure that can block more sub-atomic particles and is therefore a more affective shield.
We are acted upon in the same way as in the observed physical world it’s just that the forces are too small for our bulky atom based instruments to measure. They say you weigh less at night is that the effect of the moon blocking particles?
It’s not rocket science, it’s quantum physics.
Push! Not pull.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
Push! Not pull. "Pushing gravity" is an erroneous concept that can easily and thoroughly be debunked by an umbrella.

[enigma]

I am recalling a full refutation of pushing gravity a few months back, but for the life of me I can't find it in the search feature and I don't remember the steps used to refute it...

(without using math that is... it's cake if you take numbers to it)

[enigma]

Hows about this:

If gravity pushes, and we're sticking to the Earth because the Earth gets in the way of the push coming from 'down', then why don't we float when we're in a building?

[Michael D. Sewell]

So Newton couldn't possibly have gotten hit in the head by a helium balloon after all?

[Des Chamberlain]

Hi Buddy
The reason we don't float in a building is because the particals blocked by the matter in the building is very small compared with the particals absorbed by earth. It would be an interesting experiment to see if something wieghed less if it were placed under a large partical shild such as the fort knoxs gold reserve! experiments are being carried out in deep mines in the north of England away from interferance on the planets surface which might help support this idea

[Des Chamberlain]

Michael
The Hielium balloon would have a relatively low mass and thus be less effected by any shields in it's vicinity

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
It would be an interesting experiment to see if something wieghed less if it were placed under a large partical shild such as the fort knoxs gold reserve! experiments are being carried out in deep mines in the north of England away from interferance on the planets surface which might help support this idea That's only one of the many flaws in "pushing gravity." The main thing is it requires many assumptions that the prevailing model does not, such as a vast sea of particles we can't detect.

[pallidin]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
Michael
The Hielium balloon would have a relatively low mass and thus be less effected by any shields in it's vicinity

OK, Des, allow me to disprove your theory:

In the following example, the dimesions, materials or mass might not be correct, but, you should get the point...

Take a stiff, non-conducting rod, say, 2-feet long and weighing 2 pounds, and suspend it in the middle(of the rod) to a secure location on your ceiling with a kevlar string sufficient to support, say 100 pounds. OK, easy enough.
Now, attach to each end of this rod 2 non-conductive spheres weighing 25 lbs. each. Great. Now we have a horizontal rod with weights attached hanging from the ceiling with a kevlar string attached to the middle of this horizontal rod.
Close all doors and windows.
Move a 500 lb. mass on a cart, carefully and slowly, such to where the 500 lb. mass is at equal average level to the suspended weights, and towards the "rotational" side of one of the 25 lb. spheres.
Guess what happens? The 25 lb. sphere closest to the 500 lb. mass starts to move towards it.
The 500 lb. mass attracts the 25 lb. sphere(actually, both attract, of course) on a horizontal plane.
This, Des, is gravitational attraction, and the same effect will occur whether you do it on Earth or in deep space.
In addition, place any static object of any compostion between the 2 masses and note the effect: The attraction will always increase, never decrease.

[Michael D. Sewell]

What seems to be the problem with our current model of gravity?

[Des Chamberlain]

pallidin

Thankyou for you post "disproveing my theory"

I think I have understood you correctly.
A free moving non-conductive dumbell ballanced and suspended by a kevlar string in a sealed enviroment.
When a mass is brought close to one end of the dumbell they attract each other.OK
What is occuring here is that the mass of the 500 lb is sheilding the dumbell from sub-atomic particals moveing on that same horizontal plane as is the dumbell shielding the 500 lb weight. This simply highlights that these particals move in all aspexts.

[Des Chamberlain]

russ_watters
Hi Russ

I like your description of a vast sea of particals. that's a fitting description of what i'm talking about.
Let's have a look at the current theory of Gravity.
Somethiong is coming from each and every mass that somehow holds on to other masses and draws them to it with a strength dependent on its size and proximity.
Nothing else behaves like this!
why is this unproven idea holding water?
It goes against all common sense!
The Victorians called it the Either!
Now we talk of dark matter!
What ever you want to call it we are along way from measuring it unless we change our point of view as our instruments are made of atoms and therefore to bulky.
We can only observe.
A substances ability to absorbe these particals can be measured by its wieght.

A sq metre of Gold and a sq metre of helium have differant wieghts.
Gold is more able to absorbe sub-atomic particals than Helium; it is more affected by sub-atomic particals, ergo it is pressed to the earth more strongly as it's catching more kinetic energy form sub-atomic particals coming from space.

We cling to a "law" as that's what we are brought up to believe!
Partical shielding makes more sense as it fits in with how the rest of physics works.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
Let's have a look at the current theory of Gravity.
Somethiong is coming from each and every mass that somehow holds on to other masses and draws them to it with a strength dependent on its size and proximity.
Nothing else behaves like this!
why is this unproven idea holding water?
It goes against all common sense! "Common sense" is not a concept that physics deals with in the way you think it does. You cannot start with a preconcieved notion of what 'makes sense' and exclude all that doesn't fit. That simply isn't the way science works, whether you accept it or not. The current model fits observations, makes accurate and testable predictions, and requires less assumptions than yours and thus it will remain the accepted one.

You'd do better if you worked within the framework of the scientific method.A substances ability to absorbe these particals can be measured by its wieght. How are weight and mass related in your model?Partical shielding makes more sense as it fits in with how the rest of physics works. Well in that case, tell me this: how is it mathematically different from Einstein's model and in what cases does it fit observations better?

Also, what is the maximum strength of a gravitational field? (unless you are saying there is an infinite density of these unobserved particles, gravity must have a finite upper limit)

[Lord Flasheart]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
It would be an interesting experiment to see if something wieghed less if it were placed under a large partical shild such as the fort knoxs gold reserve!

*Laughs out loud*
Whoo, you crack me up. That gold reserve has moved to a different location. Fort Knox has no more gold in it. Remember, "Goldfinger" wasn't the most reliable movie for scientific reference, especially since it's over thirty-some years old.

Gold is more able to absorbe sub-atomic particals than Helium; it is more affected by sub-atomic particals, ergo it is pressed to the earth more strongly as it's catching more kinetic energy form sub-atomic particals coming from space.

Gold stays on the ground because it's denser than this nitrogen-oxygen "ocean" of air. Helium is less dense, so it floats to the top of said atmosphere. It's that simple; No special kinetic interactions are in effect.

[Sariaht]

Gravity is a push force. Stopp enoying me.

[cookiemonster]

Originally posted by Sariaht
Gravity is a push force. Stopp enoying me.

Haha! I like the pun on e-noying! We get the little e-catchphrase for the e-web!

Sorry, lack of sleep...

cookiemonster

[Michael D. Sewell]

Des Chamberlain,
I'm not seeing how your theory makes any more sense than the current model. I don't mean to be argumentive, I have an open mind. I am just missing that part that "makes more sense". -Mike

[Des Chamberlain]

The current model of gravity hasn't been proven, because of insuficient data presumably, which means it is still open to speculation.
When we look at the physical nature of things, everything is where it is due to the forces acting upon it, at least in the observable universe. The theory of 'gravity' suggests that some power is attracting matter to matter by a force that reaches out and pulls back, or makes being closer a more desirable state, a bit like magnatisum which is entirly differant.
I'm suggesting that there are forces acting on us that we cannot measure with our current tech because they are so all pervasive that we cannot see them ( we tend to measure differances) and far smaller than the component atoms of our instuments.
so this is really a change in our concept.
We do know that there is some form of energy in the universe that is holding it all togeather. This idea is supported by all the experimentation that has gone on since we became aware of exsistance. everything has preasure acting on it. if you stuck a straw in the beach and through sand at it a few grains might hit it and it would tremble with the impact. If you stood an empty plastic bottle on the sand and through sand at it in the same way it would fall over as it absorbs more kinetic energy. The bigger the mass and indeed the denser it is the more sand it stops.
This isn't the best analogy but i'll think of something better when i'm more awake.
these particals that are passing through us and sometimes colliding with us hold us in place, we have to use energy to move! It's really that simple, like air preasure but as most of it passes through us and only a percentage hits.
If we change our perspective and then look at the acumilated data we have we will be able to measure this force easily. I wiegh 12 stone because that much force isn't reaching my from the south side.
Black holes are so dense that they absorb light which is also a partical form that we have evolved to observe; I'm suggesting that there are many more types of particals ie Nutrinos that are also acting in thier own perculiar way and pressing us to the earth.

[enigma]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
The current model of gravity hasn't been proven, because of insuficient data presumably, which means it is still open to speculation.


Just because you haven't seen it (or can't understand it) doesn't mean it hasn't been done. The current theory has been proven. The current theory has been tested, both by Experiment (http://store.pasco.com/pascostore/showdetl.cfm?&DID=9&Product_ID=53969&Detail=1) and by Software simulation (http://www.stk.com/).

Unless you can produce a software simulation or experiment to prove another option which works just as well or better, it is not open to legitimate speculation.

And there are other forces besides gravity which pull... ever had a sock stuck to a sweater when you pulled it out of the dryer? Static electricity "pulls" as well.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

One last time? look at the pressure gradient of the interior of the Earth, it rises as you approach the center, greater pressure at the center, then immediately above, decreases all the way out from the center, how does your Push force do that? (It cannot, Gravity remains as it was always understood as behaving, "attraction to a common center")

Any push force from space will exert a mechanical pressurization of the planet and pressure will either, drop off, going in deeper, or be totally Isotropic, which, it is NOT!...(by measurement BTW)

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
I'm suggesting that there are forces acting on us that we cannot measure with our current tech because they are so all pervasive that we cannot see them ( we tend to measure differances) and far smaller than the component atoms of our instuments. That's a pretty massive assumption. Science does not allow such things.

I asked before if your hypothesis is mathematically identical to the current one: assuming it is, your hypothesis is rejected for requiring more assumptions than the accepted one. If its not, its rejected for not matching observations.

[Michael D. Sewell]

Russ is right.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Yikes! take a 'circle', pressurize the 'circle' explain to me how you can, using only exterior push force generate a higher pressure at the center of the circle, then you have halfway between the outer edge, and the center....(cannot be done!)

EDIT PS only two "force activities" in the universe, expansion and contraction....no push, no pull....

[Des Chamberlain]

Mr. Robin Parsons
Thank you for you input

A partial manages to penetrate the earth’s atmosphere which is not so difficult for the intrepid partial but it happens to hit an H atom in the Atlantic Ocean and imparts its energy which pushes the whole H2O molecule south. Many more partials are colliding with H2O all around it so he’s not alone. This combined pressure builds as the water is constantly absorbing partials that collide with its component parts. As we go down
10 metres the pressure doubles as all the mass above is absorbing particle energy. By the time we get to the centre of the earth the combined pressure has increased massively as all that massive mass is pressed towards the centre. Also there will be % less partials passing through the centre as obviously a % have given up their energy in compressing the mass towards the earths centre. Easy peasy
Next

Thanks Russ for you well intentioned argument!

That's a pretty massive assumption. Science does not allow such things.

I asked before if your hypothesis is mathematically identical to the current one: assuming it is, your hypothesis is rejected for requiring more assumptions than the accepted one. If its not, it’s rejected for not matching observations.

I don’t really think it’s up to ‘science to allow such things’ as science is continually proving itself to be erroneous. Science is a view of reality based on observation and recorded data and at this quantum level some pretty out landish assumptions. Enough said on that.

What I’m suggesting is not so ‘far out’ considering Hawkins admits that there isn’t a solid proof that gravity exists. The top scientists talk a lot about some bonkers happenings at a quantum level to try and fit them into their mathematical models which are largely based on some dodgy assumptions about this force called gravity.
E.g. Space is curved. Yea sure. And can I have another $20 million to prove it to you!
I don’t believe space is curved, the partials themselves interact and want there own space, don’t we all, and so when they pass near a large mass like a star there will be less particle activity as the mass will be absorbing a % of the particles. The particles themselves will move over to maintain balance of the forces acting on them; there trajectory is altered and so from our perspective space seems curved.
Next

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
(SNIP) Mr. Robin Parsons
Thank you for you input
A partial manages to penetrate the earth’s atmosphere which is not so difficult for the intrepid partial but it happens to hit an H atom in the Atlantic Ocean and imparts its energy which pushes the whole H2O molecule south. Many more partials are colliding with H2O all around it so he’s not alone. This combined pressure builds as the water is constantly absorbing partials that collide with its component parts. As we go down
10 metres the pressure doubles as all the mass above is absorbing particle energy. By the time we get to the centre of the earth the combined pressure has increased massively as all that massive mass is pressed towards the centre. Also there will be % less partials passing through the centre as obviously a % have given up their energy in compressing the mass towards the earths centre. Easy peasy
(SNoP) Apparently you need to learn about mechanical compressions/pressurizations, "All the pressure above" arises only from Gravities activities.

So it must compress (according to you) differentially and increasing as it centers, as the pressure does increase (Proven/established/(or)/ accepted 'current' knowledge)...realize that in what I have emboldened, it is gravities activity that is causing what you are describing, but only when viewed as contraction, (attraction to a common center) not achievable by compression...not even by your explaination...try again pleasy

(exterior compressions/pressurizations/pressures generate uniform interior/isotropic pressures)

[Des Chamberlain]

Hi robin

Your reply is based on the assumption that there is a force called gravity!
This is what is being contested.
Q. Can gravity be proven to exist beyond doubt?
Q. Were subatomic particles know about when gravity was made LAW!?
Q. Does any other force attract apart from magnets and static electricity!?

We know about a few types of particle; light, xrays, gamma rays, nuetrinos, etc. is it possible that there are some more that we cannot detect? Did xrays exist before we could detect them?
All the arguments I hear are based on the concept of gravity.
Hmmmm!

[Des Chamberlain]

Yikes! take a 'circle', pressurize the 'circle' explain to me how you can, using only exterior push force generate a higher pressure at the center of the circle, then you have halfway between the outer edge, and the center....(cannot be done!)

Robin

The reason that preasure can be applied at any point is that nutrinos for instance can pass though the earth without hitting anything but they can also collide with any atom on that journey as well. Ergo preasure is not only applied on the suface but throughout the mass.

Exit night, enter light!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Hummm OK...so in responce to your questions Yes, Yes, and Yes again


...so long as it is "an attraction to a common center" all the rest...works for me! [a)]

As for the "Push, not pull" camp(s), the origin of the thread, "Push force from spaaaace" is a good intro to a movie, but not concurrent with what is currently measurable, in reality...so far...

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
Robin Allthough that is my name you don't know me well enough to adress me that way, so please, either stop, or use MRP as everyone else does...thanks
The reason that preasure can be applied at any point is that nutrinos for instance can pass though the earth without hitting anything but they can also collide with any atom on that journey as well. Ergo preasure is not only applied on the suface but throughout the mass.
Exit night, enter light! Uhmmm, Yup, OK, How does it make the center Higher in pressurization, compared to the outer surface?

[russ_watters]

MRP, it may be possible to create a "pushing gravity" theory mathematically equal to GR, but I wouldn't bother trying to find out since even if it is mathematically equivalent, it still fails for reason #1: too many assumptions.

However, since Des Chaimberlain declined to answer whether it was mathematically equivalent, I am left to conclude either he doesn't know (in which case its not developed enough of an idea to bother with) or it is not (in which case it fails for reason #2: doesn't match observations). Neither would surprise me.

Or if you prefer, Des, give me a scientifically valid reason pushing gravity is superior to GR. And no, 'it makes more sense' is not a scientifically valid reason.

[Sariaht]

The force caused by gravity on a non massive object points to the middle. That's why the pressaure is at the highest in the middle.

Ofcourse, the theory that gravity is partly caused by neutrino flows could easily be controlled.

[Des Chamberlain]

How does it make the centre Higher in pressurization, compared to the outer surface? MRP


This is an interesting question MRP

If planets are formed from lose matter one could predict that elements with a heaver build would absorbed more cosmic radiation than lighter ones, making them more effective as shields and therefore more attractive having a dearth of radiation in their vicinity. Heavier elements would tend to group together more readily that lighter ones and in time form the core of the planet.

This gives a model of the Earth having the heaviest elements forming the core with progressively lighter elements forming around it like the layers in an onion. Moving out from the core Each layer will be formed of progressively less absorbant elements trapping less energy until you reach cooler temperatures near the surface where the lighter elements are absorbing much less energy, eventually reaching the earths crust where there isn’t enough energy being absorbed to cause liquid states till we are on the surface where the gaseous elements act as an air cooling system.

Cosmic radiation hits the planet and passes through progressively more effective particle absorbing material on its path to the core with each layer taking it toll of energy as the particles collide with its elementary molecules. The energy absorbed takes the form movement, vibration. This vibration produces heat. The heat is trapped by the insulating layers of matter above and so increases until it reaches extreamly high temperatures like a preasure cooker, it boils. In this state the elemental molecules find movement easy and group together to form distinct layers.

This heat produces pressure which is ever increasing and released by volcanic activity. We are living on an old boiler.

This phenomenon is dubbed the “FIRESTAR EFFECT”

[Sariaht]

If you compared the earth with an iron cylinder, you would easily find that gravity is at the highest in the cylinders middpoint.

The etherparticles exists in between the "normal" particles, that takes up practically no space at all.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Des Chamberlain, I would respectfully suggest you go out and study the earth's interior structures, they are "known" and your expostulation sorta fails cause of it....How will a push force, from space, pressurize the interior? Higher at the center, then at the outsides...

[Des Chamberlain]

Albert Francis Birch:
Unwary readers should take warning that ordinary language undergoes modification to a high-pressure form when applied to the interior of the Earth. A few examples of equivalents follow:
High Pressure Form/Ordinary Meaning
Certain/Dubious
Undoubtedly/Perhaps
Positive proof/Vague suggestion
Unanswerable argument/Trivial objection
Pure iron/Uncertain mixture of all the elements

MRP
Birchs’ findings depend on the herein contested presumption that there is a force of gravity!

[Des Chamberlain]

MRP....How will a push force, from space, pressurize the interior? Higher at the center, then at the outsides...
please refer to my post placed 03-19-2004 02:12 PM

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

If your talking about the second one down on this page, well, that is why I recomended that you get some information of the earth's interior as clearly you have some misconceptions from what is currently studied, and understood as "known"...Fe core etc.

Apparently this Originally posted by Des Chamberlain(SNIP)"The force caused by gravity on a non massive object points to the middle. That's why the pressaure is at the highest in the middle." (SNoP) is your answer....Humm attraction to a (common) center is exactly what has been stated, so all vectors would point to the center, that proves Nothing repsective of a pushing force getting to the center and pressurizing it to such a degree, greater, that all of the surrounding matter above it....

It is a non-answer answer

[Des Chamberlain]

MRM
It's the expantion cause by trapped heat that in turn is born of elementry mollecules being bombarded by cosmic radiation that is causing the preasure.
When was the last time you journeyed to the centre of the earth with a preasure gauge?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
MRM
It's the expantion cause by trapped heat that in turn is born of elementry mollecules being bombarded by cosmic radiation that is causing the preasure.
When was the last time you journeyed to the centre of the earth with a preasure gauge? Please It is MRP not MRM..."to the center of the Earth with a pressure gauge" NEVER, but I do understand how seismic works, seismic studies, and (all of the?) evidence that affords all of us...
aside from that, how does a "Push force from space" cause attraction between bodies?

PS have you ever been to the center of the Earth with a pressure Gauge cuase usually when people start with comments like that their arguments, well, they show that they are kinda lost.....

[Gara]

wow i cant believe you are unable to follow his simple post.

im not saying i agree or disagree with it, im just saying stop going around and around, he's already asnwered your questions.

[Des Chamberlain]

MRP.
how does a "Push force from space" cause attraction between bodies?
I'm Sorry to annoy you, I'm detecting some tension.

If you go to the first post there I have laid out the basic premise of the 'FIRESTAR EFFECT'.
To save you the bother it's all about mass acting as particle shields rarther than having some mythological power of gravity keeping things together.

It's a simple yet seemingly offensive concept.
Still, at least the earths not flat any more.

The psychology here is interesting though.
It seems that historically concepts have been built around ego based assumptions.
Earth is the centre of the universe!
Big is more attractive!

For heavens sake don't break the LAW!

Oh no! If someone susses it we'll all be out of a job!

I've not lost my way, it's just that you keep on trying to impress me with your education which I challenge as flawed;
I'm not saying you are flawed in anyway and respect the points you raise as it helps me to evisage ever more clearly how the universe is operating.
Sometimes to much education can be a blind alley if you can't take a step back and view this with your opened mind.
The points you raise are based on the gravity myth.

Exit night, enter light!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

well, see, I've read of the push from space theories and they cannot accomodate both of those needs, the need for the pressurizaion of the center higher, then the outer shell, and retain the ability to be attractive...especially since the present concepts of gravity give a metric that seems to be working just fine

So you had said it became heat, as it went in, right?...isn't heat expansive? not contractive, or something that would hold matter together, tends to make it want to fly apart...expand, right?

that would appear incongruent...

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Gara
wow i cant believe you are unable to follow his simple post.

im not saying i agree or disagree with it, im just saying stop going around and around, he's already asnwered your questions. if that is in reference to me...answered my questions??...not even close

Wait, it will show....please, Des Chamberlain, Keep going, but it would be nice if you could refrain from 'pulping' gravity, as a theory, as it has served humanity, very well, so far...so lets just stick to the facts please...and pulping it is just a waste of space...

[Sariaht]

Pull is weird, push is better. Older to, I think.

[Des Chamberlain]

MRP.
well, see, I've read of the push from space theories and they cannot accommodate both of those needs, the need for the pressurisation of the centre higher, then the outer shell, and retain the ability to be attractive...especially since the present concepts of gravity give a metric that seems to be working just fine

MRP
I apologise for not being able to state this point with the required clarity.
I’ll try once more to elucidate the 'FIRESTAR EFFECT'

As there are very high temps and liquid states at the planets core level the elements are able to have some free movement.
The more effective particle absorbers (bearing in mind that the core is uniformly bombarded being shielded to the same degree in all aspects) will congregate at the centre with progressively less efficient particle absorbers forming distinct layers around the core.
The onion analogy.
The elements at the core are reacting more with the cosmic energy that is passing through the planet and is therefore at a higher pressure or is pressed harder.
At first you could imagine that the earth would just keep attaining higher and higher pressures but if we bear in mind that cosmic energy will be passing through the core and interacting with elements as it exits the planets mass their will be an off setting of the push force, as the push force is now pushing out but not after giving up some of it's energy on its path to the core the net effect is that there is more push in than out.

If a state arises where the core matter of a body becomes so pressurised and dense that cosmic energy cannot pass through it, then it will lose the counter outward push force and the body will collapse into a black hole.

We need a model that works at all levels unless you believe that there are different sets of rules at quantum levels which I strongly refute.
The Gravity concept is misleading and erroneous.
Gravity is dead long live the ‘FIRESTAR EFFECT’

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
MRP
I apologise for not being able to state this point with the required clarity.
I’ll try once more to elucidate the 'FIRESTAR EFFECT'

As there are very high temps and liquid states at the planets core level the elements are able to have some free movement.
The more effective particle absorbers (bearing in mind that the core is uniformly bombarded being shielded to the same degree in all aspects) will congregate at the centre with progressively less efficient particle absorbers forming distinct layers around the core.
The onion analogy.
The elements at the core are reacting more with the cosmic energy that is passing through the planet and is therefore at a higher pressure or is pressed harder.
At first you could imagine that the earth would just keep attaining higher and higher pressures but if we bear in mind that cosmic energy will be passing through the core and interacting with elements as it exits the planets mass their will be an off setting of the push force, as the push force is now pushing out but not after giving up some of it's energy on its path to the core the net effect is that there is more push in than out.

If a state arises where the core matter of a body becomes so pressurised and dense that cosmic energy cannot pass through it, then it will lose the counter outward push force and the body will collapse into a black hole.

We need a model that works at all levels unless you believe that there are different sets of rules at quantum levels which I strongly refute.
The Gravity concept is misleading and erroneous.
Gravity is dead long live the ‘FIRESTAR EFFECT’ So, the blue is your Non answer, as all it says it is is pressurized by 'passing cosmic energy', (actually explains about, well, nothing) the rest of the post is back to the 'pulping' gravity, without justification......

Please explain how the center is pressurized HIHGER then the surrounding areas....or stop posting, in responce to me....

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain

We need a model that works at all levels unless you believe that there are different sets of rules at quantum levels which I strongly refute.
The Gravity concept is misleading and erroneous.
Gravity is dead long live the ‘FIRESTAR EFFECT’
I have offered such a model:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15712

[Des Chamberlain]

MRP
You are teasing me!
read it again.
My reasons are clear.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
MRP
You are teasing me!
read it again.
My reasons are clear. Not a chance bud, do you know what a cloud chamber is, if there was that much "particulate" activity it would have been found, by now, aside from that, you haven't explained how it occurs differentially, meaning increasing as it descends, you simply state "it pressurizes" without telling us how it pressurizes, even greater, further down...no M.O.

How do the particles pressurize half way down, and yet enough seem to get by that, to go even further down, and pressurize further down, even more, right to the Center where there needs be LOTs and LOTS of your particles, acting to pressurize the core to it's, reasonably measured, Near 4 Mbars?? (Really high Flux required...really high, ergo detectable!)

Wouldn't be Neutrinos, either, as there are several detectors looking at neutrino flux densities, and it simply isn't high enough...one here in Canada, in Sudbury, SNO....keep talking....

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Cheese buddy....from your first page

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
Push! Not pull.
Des Chamberlain
The Idea that I want to set out here is so beautifully simple, it just feels right it fits with how we see our physical universe, read on and you’ll see what I mean.
A mass (lump of rock) is floating in the vacuum of space far far away from any other masses. Sub-atomic particles that are moving through space pass through our mass as they are so teeny weenie that they can pass through atoms with no problem at all. But, some particles do collide with atoms occasionally and there are a lot of sub-atomic particles whizzing about so it all adds up.
Our mass is unaffected as the colliding sub-atomic particles are quite uniform at least in this part of creation. Let us give our mass a trajectory and velocity and call it an asteroid for example. As our asteroid moves through space it eventually approaches another mass, say The Earth. The earth is bigger and so our asteroid is attracted to this much larger mass......
Hmmm. Let’s stop here for a moment and take a 180 degree conceptual shift and try again!
As our asteroid moves closer to the Earth it is shielded from the effects of sub-atomic particles that were destined to hit it but were absorbed by the mass of Earth. Our asteroid is also shielding the Earth in the same fashion but to a lesser degree as it’s not a particularly large asteroid and the earth is much bigger. There exists a dearth of sub-atomic particles in the space that separates our asteroid from the Earth. The asteroid wants to move closer to the earth to regain equilibrium, balance. Like a balloon being pushed through the air by a breeze.
As the distance between the asteroid and the earth decreases the Earth grows larger on the horizon of the approaching asteroid. Its also Shields it from even more particles, the sub-atomic pressure decreases on the shielded side but remains constant on the side open to unimpeded space. They try harder to balance the forces of sub-atomic pressure acting on them. They are pushed towards each other or even sucked if you like; they both feel good to me!
The asteroids initial trajectory and velocity is such that its course is changed just the right amount to move into an orbit around the earth where the centrifugal force equals the dearth of sub-atomic pressure that exists between them. Phew that was close;
I thought it was ‘Independence Day’ for a minute!
Now as you read this imagine that the earth beneath you is shielding you from the same amount of sub-atomic pressure as your weight! Yes! We are simply pressed to the Earth and not pulled by this stuff that we call gravity which doesn’t exists and is just an ego based concept of big attracting small.
Don’t worry it won’t change a thing apart from making more sense.
Oh by the way, Gold is a heavier than you because it has a structure that can block more sub-atomic particles and is therefore a more affective shield.
We are acted upon in the same way as in the observed physical world it’s just that the forces are too small for our bulky atom based instruments to measure. They say you weigh less at night is that the effect of the moon blocking particles?
It’s not rocket science, it’s quantum physics.
Push! Not pull. You have contradicted yourself, does that feel good to you too?

[Chen]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
it would be nice if you could refrain from 'pulping' gravity, as a theory, as it has served humanity, very well, so far...so lets just stick to the facts please...and pulping it is just a waste of space...
That is just ridiculous. A few centuries ago people were executed for even suggesting that Earth is not the center of the solar system. Everyone believed the sun revolves around Earth, because that is what they were led to believe and no one could prove otherwise. Once the necessary tools were available we realized we were wrong.

Every generation of physicists wants to believe that their ideas and theories are the ultimate truth. It's the nature of man. But in 500 years, when we find the tools to really investigate gravity (or any other property of our world that currently cannot be examined), who knows what we might find?

I'm sorry but it is you that needs to be careful. Narrow mindedness is advancement's worst enemy. Do you think anyone would have dared to suggest 200 years ago that our world is made of tiny vibrating strings? How can you know for certain that in 200 years scientists will not look back and say "HAH! Pulling gravity... those fools"?

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Push or pull? Is it a main question?
Result of action of any force it is a change (decrease or increase) of interval between objects.
More precisely, change of space is perceived as action of force.

[Chen]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Also, what is the maximum strength of a gravitational field? (unless you are saying there is an infinite density of these unobserved particles, gravity must have a finite upper limit)
Why must it have a finite limit? The strength of the gravitational field, according to this theory, depends on the mass of the shielding object (and the distance from that object). The larger the mass, the more "pushing particles" it absorbs. As long as there is no finite limit to mass, there is no finite limit to the amount of such particles that can be absorbed, and therefore no finite limit to the strength of the gravitational field.

(By the way, I am not trying to argue that the theory proposed by the thread author is indeed correct nor am I trying to support it. I am merely pointing out that the field still doesn't have to have a finite upper limit even by this theory.)

[Chen]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
Hi Buddy
The reason we don't float in a building is because the particals blocked by the matter in the building is very small compared with the particals absorbed by earth. It would be an interesting experiment to see if something wieghed less if it were placed under a large partical shild such as the fort knoxs gold reserve! experiments are being carried out in deep mines in the north of England away from interferance on the planets surface which might help support this idea
Actually, even if the experiments show that your weight does decrease under Fort Knox, it wouldn't mean your theory is correct. The current theory of gravity also predicts, to the best of my knowledge, the same results. If you are beneath Fort Knox, the building will also pull you (or shield you, by your theory) with the force of G\frac{Mm}{d^2}, therefore decreasing your apparent weight.

[Chen]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
A mass (lump of rock) is floating in the vacuum of space far far away from any other masses. Sub-atomic particles that are moving through space pass through our mass as they are so teeny weenie that they can pass through atoms with no problem at all. But, some particles do collide with atoms occasionally and there are a lot of sub-atomic particles whizzing about so it all adds up.
I do have a question about your proposed theory. You seem to be describing the movement of such sub-atomic particles through the mass as random - some of them go through with no problems, and [i]some of them collide with the atoms. But this cannot be true, since the force of gravity is constant and doesn't account for such random happenings (and while on average the difference would not be enormous, it would still exist), and modern experiements support this claim.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Chen the post directly above this one is back on track, (and asking the right question, in my opinion) as for my accusations of a pulping of gravity, read back somewhat and he is trying to, on the other hand I am not trying to force him to believe anything, yet he is the one 'denouncing' something fairly well established...I'd rather just rad the arguements/facts/ideas (as explained/expressed)...theories....I suppose, I have time restrictions, still, soooo....

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

There is also the simple question of interstellar and/or galactic gravity, how do those particles travel those distances, (To push Galaxies) as they clearly MUST be travelling those distances below c, as they are particles, right? What is the source of those particulate emissions...intergalactically?

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
There is also the simple question of interstellar and/or galactic gravity, how do those particles travel those distances, (To push Galaxies) as they clearly MUST be travelling those distances below c, as they are particles, right? What is the source of those particulate emissions...intergalactically?
It is impossible to provide interstellar and/or intergalactic interactions with the help of gravity propagating with c, especially below c. Gravity does not propagate at all. It operates in the all volume of the universe simultaneously and synchronously. Gravity and absolute time is one thing.
Therefore gravity cannot be provided with any particles.

[Chen]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
It is impossible to provide interstellar and/or intergalactic interactions with the help of gravity propagating with c, especially below c. Gravity does not propagate at all. It operates in the all volume of the universe simultaneously and synchronously. Gravity and absolute time is one thing.
Therefore gravity cannot be provided with any particles.
Gravity is not instantaneous. If there are two massive objects far away from each other, and suddenly one of them begins to disappear, the other object will only notice a difference in the gravitational force after some time.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Chen
Gravity is not instantaneous. If there are two massive objects far away from each other, and suddenly one of them begins to disappear, the other object will only notice a difference in the gravitational force after some time.
What do you mean under " begins to disappear"?
The massive object cannot simply disappear or suddenly appear.
What an experiment proves a delay of gravity action?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
It is impossible to provide interstellar and/or intergalactic interactions with the help of gravity propagating with c, especially below c. Gravity does not propagate at all. It operates in the all volume of the universe simultaneously and synchronously. Gravity and absolute time is one thing.
Therefore gravity cannot be provided with any particles. I think you have missed my stance on this one, I am not argueing this...try explaining it along the lines of Des Chamberlain's postulate of 'Push not pull', that is the responce I was looking for....God's Grace I knew the other part....

[Chen]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
What do you mean under " begins to disappear"?
The massive object cannot simply disappear or suddenly appear.
What an experiment proves a delay of gravity action?
I cannot explain this well enough myself, so why don't you just read this:
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Chen
I cannot explain this well enough myself, so why don't you just read this:
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
You also can find many other links on a theme “ speed of gravity” in the WEB . Most of these articles asserts the speed of gravity exceeds speed of light.

[Chen]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
You also can find many other links on a theme “ speed of gravity” in the WEB . Most of these articles asserts the speed of gravity exceeds speed of light.
Most? Have you read each and every single article and determined what most of them assert?

If the gravitational field did propagate faster than the speed of light, you could feel the effects of a mass at a certain point before you could see it at that point. And this contradicts general relativity according to which no information can travel faster than the speed of light. If gravity was indeed instantaneous, you could use it to transfer information over large distances with no delay whatsoever.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Chen
Most? Have you read each and every single article and determined what most of them assert?
Did you do it?
If the gravitational field did propagate faster than the speed of light, you could feel the effects of a mass at a certain point before you could see it at that point.
Certainly!
And this contradicts general relativity according to which no information can travel faster than the speed of light.
General relativity deal with information? It is new. Gravity does not propagate. So this not contradicts GR.
If gravity was indeed instantaneous, you could use it to transfer information over large distances with no delay whatsoever.
Why no? Try out.
Only think up the corresponding gravitational detector.

[Chen]

General relativity deal with information? It is new. Gravity does not propagate. So this not contradicts GR.
"Gravity" does propagate. There is this thing called a gravitational field that every mass creates. This field, like the magnetic and electric fields, propagates through space at the speed of light.

http://www.essentialresults.com/article/Speed_of_gravity
In general relativity (GR), the field is elevated to the only real concern. The gravitational field is equated with the curvature of space-time, and propagations (including gravity waves) can be shown, according to this theory, to travel at a single speed, cg.

Measurements of various sorts, notably orbiting neutron stars, have shown that cg must be very close to c, the speed of light.

I repeat. c_g must be very close to[, but not above,] c.

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

Newton's formulation of gravity is quite accurate for most practical purposes. It has a few problems with it though:

1. It assumes that changes in the gravitational force are transmitted instantaneously when positions of gravitating bodies change. However, this contradicts the fact that there exists a maximum velocity at which signals can be transmitted (speed of light in vacuum).

I repeat. [T]here exists a maximum velocity at which signals can be transmitted.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Hummm, what was that I just read in a recent (older) copy of Discover magazine...Oh Yea, Pioneer has slowed down...is slowing down, has slowed down, the other one too, Voyager was it...seems as the are exiting(?) the Sun's influence, they are slowing down...gravity could be very different on galactic scale...

And the neutrino detector planted in the polar ice, recorded 1000 events in a year, even if off by several orders of magnitude that is not enough to pressurize this planet, not that I am aware of....and they are currently looking for the WIMPS...soooo, not to worry your assertions will be (dis?)proven(?) soon enough.....

[Chen]

Sure, and Opportunity will also find little green Martians on Mars next week. [:)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Chen
Sure, and Opportunity will also find little green Martians on Mars next week. [:)] I thought that was last week... [6)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

BTW Chen it was the Oct 2003 issue of Discover Magazine, the cover story, on page 34, written by Tim Folger, in which it is mentioned about the Cold Dark Matter Search, (CDMS II) a detector in a (ballast) lead (+) lined room, in a mineshaft...looking for Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPS) and mentioned the Physicist Moti Milgrom and his Idea of MOND which is MOdified Newtonian Dynamics which postulates that gravity, outside of our solar system, (ergo galactic) might just behave in a manner that we had never thought of...heck why would we have thought that? we have never tested it...well, now we do have that lovely piece(s) of accidental happiness (that is discovery) that are the two probes sent out looooong ago that are noticed to be slowing down (for no apparent/obvious/known/thought of/tested and checked for by the systems operators/ reason(s)...OK?

But I would love to know more about why they are green, the Martians....

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

For reference purpose only Discover (http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-03/cover/) the article in question...sorta...

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Chen
"Gravity" does propagate. There is this thing called a gravitational field that every mass creates. This field, like the magnetic and electric fields, propagates through space at the speed of light.

http://www.essentialresults.com/article/Speed_of_gravity


I repeat. c_g must be very close to[, but not above,] c.

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


I repeat. [T]here exists a maximum velocity at which signals can be transmitted.
It is an easy way to repeat another's ideas. But it can lead up at a blind alley.
Try please to explain the following phenomena:

- All forces are subjected to 1/r^2 i.e.- there is a nonlinear dependence on distance between objects;

- The spiral form of galaxies and, seems, of all universe.

I wish you success.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
(SNIP) - All forces are subjected to 1/r^2 i.e.- there is a nonlinear dependence on distance between objects (SNoP) Humm that is only locally proven to hold true....it might not 'reign' as such as it acts in galactic clusters, or clusterings..."we" don't have any real proof of that just yet...sorta....

[pallidin]

Interesting. I have read these posts as well as some of the links.
At least one link say's that it is currently technologically improbable to experimentally determine the "speed" of gravity.
I find that fascinating, because if any one of us could actually design and implement an acceptable, verifiable experiment to ascertain the speed of gravity, I suppose it would bring "instant fame", and if conducted by a Phd. perhaps even a Nobel prize.
Recognition aside, it would seem that determining the "speed of gravity" is an important and worthwhile endeavor.

[Chen]

I wonder why it is so hard to measure the speed of gravity? Probably because gravity is so weak, but to measure great speeds you want great distance, and the two don't mix well together.

[Sariaht]

How strange the speed of gravity cannot change. Might this support pull theory?

GOT YOU! THERE IS A PULL! Else gravity could be bend, just like light.

[Chen]

How strange the speed of gravity cannot change. Might this support pull theory?

GOT YOU! THERE IS A PULL! Else gravity could be bend, just like light.
Why should the "pushing" particles be effected by other forces? Do you know what their properties are? How they behave in different situations?

[jdavel]

Des Chamberlain said: "The Idea that I want to set out here is so beautifully simple...."

You've got a lot to learn about what is and isn't considered "beautifully simple" in physics.

To get you started: F = Gm1m2/r^2 is, your idea isn't.

[Chen]

F = Gm1m2/r^2 may be "beautifully simple" but it is also incorrect.

[david firestar]

How strange the speed of gravity cannot change. Might this support pull theory?

GOT YOU! THERE IS A PULL! Else gravity could be bend, just like light.
whot is the speed of graverty?if nothing can escape a black hole then how can graverty escape and pull objects in ? it can not,just ecept the push FACTS,hip... :eek: :eek: :eek:

[david firestar]

if newton knew about newtrenos bombarding our atomic substance then he would have put 2 and 2 together ,and would have said"graverty is a side effect of kinnetic energy, caused by the constant atomic shower,the high tides are caused by the parshal shelds ie the moon and earth ,the tides are pressed more on the unshelded sides than on the shelded,thus the warters would be deeper on the shelded side"then he may have done one of his experments maybe standing on a set of scales in a shower ,noted effect would be when he turns on the warter he seems heavier than before,kinetic energy is pushing down,and it is newtrenos that are pushing the warter,depending on there atomic number,the bigger the number the heaver the atom,its so simple to understand,i have understod it for years,the firestar effect fits all observations and experments to do with graverty,think about it, graverty is a side effect not a force, its kinnetic energy that made the apple fall,its parshal shelds like the earth that cause the firestar effect, blocking some newtrenos from hitting me upwards, but because the amount hitting from above remain the same the effect is kinnetic towards the earth,the moon is a smaler mass thus a smaller parshal sheld,as for black holes or newtron stars they are full shelds, newtrenos push everthing into them,newtrenos are not effected by them,uless they randomly hit into them well im geting tired now and of to sleep,hope you can understand all thiss 25th centery info,littel birdy flying high droped his cargo from the sky,a farmer said wipeing his eye,its a good job cows cant fly.firestar.

[pallidin]

OK, well, besides the fact that you need some serious sleep, firestar... ummm... with your incredibly silly theory perhaps I should leave it with just that. Get A LOT of sleep.

[david firestar]

OK, well, besides the fact that you need some serious sleep, firestar... ummm... with your incredibly silly theory perhaps I should leave it with just that. Get A LOT of sleep.
firestar effect is not a theory,bet you cant prove it wrong, :cool:

[Nigel]

As proved (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/), the outward motion of matter in the big bang causes an opposite reaction of the fabric of the continuum of space, flowing around it to fill in the vacated volume.

By analogy is the reaction of water to a moving underwater submarine, or the air displaced around a moving person filling in the vacated volume. The continuum of space flows around particles of matter like electrons, giving the very small waves of wave-particle duality.

Space pressure towards us from all directions is slightly shielded by the planet earth and other masses. Hence, the net space pressure pushes people downwards, causing things to fall; gravity! This proof predicted that the furthest stars would not be gravitationally slowed; later observed from supernova red-shifts.

[mitchbicpu]

Des Chamberlain

You are so right. It is so simple, when you and I agree a neutrino has some mass.

A USPTO document at:

http://www.epimedia.com/gravitypush

teaches your push of gravity theory and has diagrams which may help you see the math is exactly
the same as our standard pull of gravity theory.

You can then lead yourself into the simple oppositely charged twin monopole theory of
everything as taught in USPTO document at:

http://www.epimedia.com/gravitypush/octm

How do we spread your theory faster?

mitchbicpu@aol.com

[Muddler]

Hi Des Chamberlain!

I have been wondering about the nature of gravity myself, but came to conclusions some different from yours.

( :wink: time to advertise my idea: http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=33687)

I am speculating, that the real nature of gravity might be more an effect of mass and "antimass" being "insoluble" to each other.

So I am not involved in the discussion if gravity is pushing or pulling - I think it is more or less both... :redface:

[geistkiesel]

hope you can understand all thiss 25th centery info,littel birdy flying high droped his cargo from the sky,a farmer said wipeing his eye,its a good job cows cant fly.firestar.

I'm from Arizona, so I don't mind the occasional flying cow, it's a good job though that elephants don't want to fly, even if they do know how.
geistkiesel

[Des Chamberlain]

OK, Des, allow me to disprove your theory:

In the following example, the dimesions, materials or mass might not be correct, but, you should get the point...

Take a stiff, non-conducting rod, say, 2-feet long and weighing 2 pounds, and suspend it in the middle(of the rod) to a secure location on your ceiling with a kevlar string sufficient to support, say 100 pounds. OK, easy enough.
Now, attach to each end of this rod 2 non-conductive spheres weighing 25 lbs. each. Great. Now we have a horizontal rod with weights attached hanging from the ceiling with a kevlar string attached to the middle of this horizontal rod.
Close all doors and windows.
Move a 500 lb. mass on a cart, carefully and slowly, such to where the 500 lb. mass is at equal average level to the suspended weights, and towards the "rotational" side of one of the 25 lb. spheres.
Guess what happens? The 25 lb. sphere closest to the 500 lb. mass starts to move towards it.
The 500 lb. mass attracts the 25 lb. sphere(actually, both attract, of course) on a horizontal plane.
This, Des, is gravitational attraction, and the same effect will occur whether you do it on Earth or in deep space.
In addition, place any static object of any compostion between the 2 masses and note the effect: The attraction will always increase, never decrease.

Dear Paladin

I've been away for some time but I got to reflecting further on what you said in this quote.
Everything you state up until placing the object between the sphere and the 500 lb mass is easy to explain with the push/shield theory yes, they shield each other and so try to equalise the dearth of quantum particles between them.
When you introduce another body between the sphere and the 500 lb mass you indeed bring in another body that is absorbing particle energy and so the two bodies will be affected by the further reduction in available particles acting on them and will move together. Makes sense! :rolleyes:

[Des Chamberlain]

There is also the simple question of interstellar and/or galactic gravity, how do those particles travel those distances, (To push Galaxies) as they clearly MUST be travelling those distances below c, as they are particles, right? What is the source of those particulate emissions...intergalactically?

Thank you for your in put MRP

The big bang, Lots of energy, no mass!
At the point of the 'Big Bang' something corrupted the state of oneness, all that constitutes reality, the primordial energy, causing inbalance and ignighting the 'Big Bang. Energy takes the form of duality, Positive/negative.
This is the fundamental postulate.
This or these forms of energy that were complementary become opposites, this is the fundamental truth. That energy is in an ongoing process of being absorbed by mass. Black holes are the point at which the Mass become so dense as to not allow particles to escape and have unlimited attraction as the can not repulse. All will again be absorbed by 'Black Holes' which in turn will absorb each other in the fulness of time. then all will be one again! :blushing: