# [SOLVED] Why is push gravity concept considered not viable by mainstream science?

by Blaze Labs
Tags: concept, considered, gravity, mainstream, push, science, solved, viable
 P: n/a Hello guys, I would like to know the main reasons why the push gravity concept is not considered as a viable concept by mainstream science. I know it gave rise to numerous published works, amongst which we have those of Lorentz, H.Poincare, F.Brush, Secchi, Leray, V.Thomson, Schramm, Tait, Isenkrahe, Preston, Jarolimek, Waachy, Rynsanek, Darwin, Majorana... so it cannot be all wrong. Please note, I am NOT asking about Le Sage ultramundane particles theory (which also falls under the push gravity category), which I can easiely discredit myself. I'm mostly interested in the concept of electromagnetic radiation pressure of high frequency radiation acting as the gravitational mechanism, and its shadowing creating the inverse square law, low pressure areas. Thanks, S.Borg.
P: n/a

## [SOLVED] Why is push gravity concept considered not viable by mainstream science?

Blaze Labs <saviour@blazelabs.com> wrote:
> Hello guys,

> I would like to know the main reasons why the push gravity concept is
> not considered as a viable concept by mainstream science.

There are a few generic objections, along with particular problems with
particular models. The main generic objections I know of are

1. Drag: As Feynman pointed out in the Feynman Lectures, anything
that's capable of "pushing" will also create drag on a moving object.
There are very strong observational limits on such drag, in the
Solar System and in binary pulsar systems.

2. Aberration: Suppose "pushing" particles move at a speed v, and
look at the effect on the Solar System. For a planet at distance d
from the Sun, the "push" will not be toward the instantaneous
position of the Sun, but towards its position at a time d/v in the
past. This is a drastic effect -- if v is the speed of light, the
Solar System would be drastically unstable over a thousand-year
time scale.

(The effect of aberration is to increase the velocity of a planet,
and you might hope that drag would cancel it. But it's easy to
check that such cancellation can occur at, at most, one radial
distance from the Sun.)

3. Principle of equivalence: It is observed that gravity acts not
only on mass, but on all forms of energy. A "push gravity" theory
would have to come with an explanation of how the particles that do
the pushing manage to push against, for example, electrostatic binding
energy and the kinetic energy of electrons in an atom, and why that
"push" exactly matches the "push" against ordinary matter.

In particular, we observe that gravitational binding energy itself
gravitates. This seems to require self-interaction among the
pushing particles. On the other hand, the accuracy of the inverse
square law over long distances requires that the self-interaction
be very small -- you certainly need a mean free path larger than
the size of the Solar System if you don't want to mess up Pluto's
orbit.

4. Gravitational screening: There are very strong limits on the kind
of "gravitational screening" one would expect from a "push gravity"
model -- see, for example, Unnikrishnan et al., Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001)
062002.

[...]
> theory (which also falls under the push gravity category), which I can
> easiely discredit myself. I'm mostly interested in the concept of
> as the gravitational mechanism, and its shadowing creating the inverse
> square law, low pressure areas.

You immediately run into trouble with the principle of equivalence,
for one thing. Electromagnetic waves don't interact with other
electromagnetic waves (except by truly tiny quantum effects); but
gravity bends light. Nor do electromagnetic waves interact with
internal energy, not with neutrinos; but these *are* affected by
gravity. You also run into grave problems with aberration (see above),
and very probably with drag. You would *further* have to explain why
this high frequency radiation is not absorbed by the Earth enough to
lead to gravitational screening of the type ruled out by experiment.

There are experimental measurements of very high energy gamma rays, and
a fair amount is known about their spectrum. I suspect you would have
a very hard time reconciling your model with these observations.

Steve Carlip

 P: n/a carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote: snip > > Electromagnetic waves don't interact with other > electromagnetic waves (except by truly tiny quantum effects); snip > Steve Carlip > Steve Could you please provide a reference to: "truly tiny quantum effects" of "interacting Electromagnetic waves" Richard
 P: n/a Timo A. Nieminen wrote: > ... Perhaps it's just the observation that, > apart from rather speculative push-gravity effects, we don't seem to be > immersed in a bath of lots and lots of ultra-gamma rays? OTOH, de Broglie showed that treating a particle as a standing wave would predict many effects which were subsequently found to be just so. If a particle is a standing wave, then (as Wheeler and Feynman got close to saying) it is a combination of both an in and out wave at the Compton frequency of the particle. This is indeed ultra-gamma rays, but it is not something that "happens to the particle" but rather "what the particle is". I highly recommend the web site of Gabriel LaFreniere at <> which has many animated GIFs showing how standing waves look and produce all the effects of de Broglie, including waves relating to particles in motion and much more. > My impression is that while push gravity, at least in certain limits, give > plausible results, doesn't offer any improvement over other theories of > gravitation, while introducing severe difficulties related to the exchange > of energy between the gravitational particle flux and conventional matter. If the particle as a standing wave idea is adopted, then LeSage gravity does follow still. carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote: > 1. Drag: As Feynman pointed out in the Feynman Lectures, anything > that's capable of "pushing" will also create drag on a moving object. > There are very strong observational limits on such drag, in the > Solar System and in binary pulsar systems. > 2. Aberration: Suppose "pushing" particles move at a speed v, and > look at the effect on the Solar System. For a planet at distance d > from the Sun, the "push" will not be toward the instantaneous > position of the Sun, but towards its position at a time d/v in the > past. This is a drastic effect -- if v is the speed of light, the > Solar System would be drastically unstable over a thousand-year > time scale. When the in and out waves are considered, it seems to me that both the drag and aberration problems are solved. That is because there is an almost exactly equal and opposite effect from each of the two parts of the wave. I say almost equal and opposite because there does have to be a difference of 1 part in 10^40 between the two fluxes in order to explain why gravity is that must weaker than other forces. That difference also leads to a correct prediction of the cosmological redshift as being a side effect of the imbalance. These relationships are deeply satisfying. > 3. Principle of equivalence: It is observed that gravity acts not > only on mass, but on all forms of energy. A "push gravity" theory > would have to come with an explanation of how the particles that do > the pushing manage to push against, for example, electrostatic binding > energy and the kinetic energy of electrons in an atom, and why that > "push" exactly matches the "push" against ordinary matter. If particles are a type of e/m standing wave then this would of course be so. > 4. Gravitational screening: There are very strong limits on the kind > of "gravitational screening" one would expect from a "push gravity" > model -- see, for example, Unnikrishnan et al., Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) > 062002. There are of course observations of effects of shadows from eclipses on pendulums (Maurice Allais) and on gravitational acceleration (Wang and Wang(?)) which do show that there is screening, although it might better be described as a mixture of screening and scattering. Ray Tomes http://ray.tomes.biz/ http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/
 P: n/a wrote in message news:e54rdf$qcb$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu... > Blaze Labs wrote: >> Hello guys, > >> I would like to know the main reasons why the push gravity concept is >> not considered as a viable concept by mainstream science. > > There are a few generic objections, along with particular problems with > particular models. The main generic objections I know of are > > 1. Drag: As Feynman pointed out in the Feynman Lectures, anything > that's capable of "pushing" will also create drag on a moving object. > There are very strong observational limits on such drag, in the > Solar System and in binary pulsar systems. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you are referring to the paragraph in Vol. I, pages 7-9 to 7-10, in which Feynman commented on the theory of a mechanism of gravitation. I was thinking that if these "push-particles" are traveling at the speed of light, c, something like the following might hold. Let F be the flux of these particles thoughout space (i.e., the number of particles passing through unit area in unit time.) Also, assume the flux is isotropic in direction. Consider a thin sheet of matter traveling at speed u in the +X direction (traveling broadside so you see the full area when looking along X.) To simplify, consider only those particles going either in the +X or -X direction. (Nothing is lost, in principle, by doing this, as you could integrate over velocity components for other directions.) When the object is at rest, it sees the same particle flux, F,coming from both the front side and the hind side. But in motion, the flux it meets is increased to F(c+u)/c and the flux from behind is decreased to F(c-u)/c. If Feynman's anology with running in the rain applies, the thing would certainly absorb more particles from the front than from the back per unit time, and would feel a resistance to the motion. (With raindrops, if they hit, they are absorbed.) However, the sheet of matter is composed of individual absorber particles, say "atoms". Looking at a single atom, the number of encounters per second it has with a push-particle is proportional to the particle flux in the vicinity of the atom. The number absorbed per second by that atom is equal to the number of encounters per second times the probability, p, of absorption per encounter.So, for push-particles coming from the front, an atom in the sheet of material would absorb N(1) = ApF(c+u)/c particles per second (1) where A is the proportionality constant mentioned above for encounters, and p is the probability of absorption per encounter. This same atom would absorb from behind, N(2) = ApF(c-u)/c particles per second. (2) If the probability were the same in each case, the atom would certainly absorb more per second from the front than from behind. However, the atom (or whatever absorbing "particle") may be assumed to have an effective absorbing diameter,d. A particle can be absorbed by it only when it is traversing this distance through, or close by, the atom. It takes a time t(1) = d/(c+u) for the particles meeting the atom to traverse its sphere of influence. And for those coming from the rear, it takes a time t(2) = d/(c-u) for them to get away from its influence. The probability of absorption per encounter should also be proportional to the time lapse of the encounter. (if it stays in the vicinity of the atom longer, it should have a higher probability of absorption.) Therefore, the probability of absorption in each case would be p(1) = Bd/(c+u) for particles meeting it, and p(2) = Bd/(c-u) for particles coming from behind, where B is the proportionality constant. Replacing the probability p in equations (1) and (2) above with these probabilities as a function of the time lapse of encounter, gives: the number absorbed from the front per second by a given atom as N(1) = A[Bd/(c+u)]F[(c+u)/c] = (ABdF)/c and the number absorbed from behind per second by the same atom as: N(2) = A[Bd/(c-u)]F[(c-u)/c] = (ABdF)/c The result is the same, which shows that a moving object will absorb the same number per second of push-particles from the front as from the back. Therefore the object will feel no net force due to motion in this isotropic flux of particles. (If one worries about the energy build-up, we may assume that the particles, once absorbed, are very quickly re-scattered isotropically.) Whether I'm right or not, Have one on me! > > 2. Aberration: Suppose "pushing" particles move at a speed v, and > look at the effect on the Solar System. For a planet at distance d > from the Sun, the "push" will not be toward the instantaneous > position of the Sun, but towards its position at a time d/v in the > past. This is a drastic effect -- if v is the speed of light, the > Solar System would be drastically unstable over a thousand-year > time scale. > > (The effect of aberration is to increase the velocity of a planet, > and you might hope that drag would cancel it. But it's easy to > check that such cancellation can occur at, at most, one radial > distance from the Sun.) > > 3. Principle of equivalence: It is observed that gravity acts not > only on mass, but on all forms of energy. A "push gravity" theory > would have to come with an explanation of how the particles that do > the pushing manage to push against, for example, electrostatic binding > energy and the kinetic energy of electrons in an atom, and why that > "push" exactly matches the "push" against ordinary matter. > > In particular, we observe that gravitational binding energy itself > gravitates. This seems to require self-interaction among the > pushing particles. On the other hand, the accuracy of the inverse > square law over long distances requires that the self-interaction > be very small -- you certainly need a mean free path larger than > the size of the Solar System if you don't want to mess up Pluto's > orbit. > > 4. Gravitational screening: There are very strong limits on the kind > of "gravitational screening" one would expect from a "push gravity" > model -- see, for example, Unnikrishnan et al., Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) > 062002. > > [...] >> Please note, I am NOT asking about Le Sage ultramundane particles >> theory (which also falls under the push gravity category), which I can >> easiely discredit myself. I'm mostly interested in the concept of >> electromagnetic radiation pressure of high frequency radiation acting >> as the gravitational mechanism, and its shadowing creating the inverse >> square law, low pressure areas. > > You immediately run into trouble with the principle of equivalence, > for one thing. Electromagnetic waves don't interact with other > electromagnetic waves (except by truly tiny quantum effects); but > gravity bends light. Nor do electromagnetic waves interact with > internal energy, not with neutrinos; but these *are* affected by > gravity. You also run into grave problems with aberration (see above), > and very probably with drag. You would *further* have to explain why > this high frequency radiation is not absorbed by the Earth enough to > lead to gravitational screening of the type ruled out by experiment. > > Note that "high frequency [electromagnetic] radiation" is gamma radiation. > There are experimental measurements of very high energy gamma rays, and > a fair amount is known about their spectrum. I suspect you would have > a very hard time reconciling your model with these observations. > > Steve Carlip >
 P: n/a Richard Saam wrote: > snip >> Electromagnetic waves don't interact with other >> electromagnetic waves (except by truly tiny quantum effects); > snip > Could you please provide a reference to: > "truly tiny quantum effects" > of > "interacting Electromagnetic waves" One place to look is http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/opal/gammag...-tutorial.html. For observations involving real (not virtual) photons, see, for example, Burke et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 1626 and Bamber et al., Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 092004. There is even a proposal to build a photon- photon linear collider -- see, for example, www.desy.de/~telnov/ggtesla/ and diablo.phys.northwestern.edu/~mvelasco/gg-papers.html. For a description of the process in QED, you can look at most quantum field theory textbooks, under "photon-photon scattering." For example, see section 7-3-1 of Itzykson and Zuber. Steve Carlip
 P: n/a Steve Carlip pointed out that > Electromagnetic waves don't interact with other > electromagnetic waves (except by truly tiny quantum effects); Richard Saam asked for references for this. The usual phrase for this is "photon-photon scattering". A brief bout of googling this phrase found (among others) the following pages which look quite informative: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...2082.Ph.r.html http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/opal/gammag...-tutorial.html http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0512033 The last of these is an M.Sc thesis on the possible observability of this. Cheng and Wu, Phys Rev D 1, 3414 (12 June 1970), http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v1/i12/p3414_1 give a detailed calculation of photon-photon scattering cross sections. Chiao, http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/rese...Y00/chiao6.pdf gives an experimental observation, abeit in a dilute gas rather than in a vacuum (which would be a "purer" situation). ciao, -- -- "Jonathan Thornburg -- remove -animal to reply" Max-Planck-Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut), Golm, Germany, "Old Europe" http://www.aei.mpg.de/~jthorn/home.html "Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam
P: 96
 Quote by carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu Blaze Labs wrote: > Hello guys, > I would like to know the main reasons why the push gravity concept is > not considered as a viable concept by mainstream science. There are a few generic objections, along with particular problems with particular models. The main generic objections I know of are [snip] 2. Aberration: Suppose "pushing" particles move at a speed v, and look at the effect on the Solar System. For a planet at distance d from the Sun, the "push" will not be toward the instantaneous position of the Sun, but towards its position at a time d/v in the past. This is a drastic effect -- if v is the speed of light, the Solar System would be drastically unstable over a thousand-year time scale. (The effect of aberration is to increase the velocity of a planet, and you might hope that drag would cancel it. But it's easy to check that such cancellation can occur at, at most, one radial distance from the Sun.) Steve Carlip
Howdy. I was searching the web for something about the 18th century epistemological debate surrounding LeSage (push) gravity, when I stumbled upon this site and thread. A related question: If this aberration effect (noticed originally by Laplace, I think) requires the transmitter of gravity to travel (according to Laplace) at least 100 million times faster than light, does that mean that the current conception of a gravitational field considers that it propagates instantaneously throughout the universe, rather than at speed c?

Harold Kyriazi

 Related Discussions General Astronomy 39 General Physics 9 Beyond the Standard Model 0