Gravity: A Force of Pull or Push?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter connect
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Gravity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of gravity, specifically whether it should be considered a pulling force, a pushing force, or possibly a combination of both. Participants explore various theories and interpretations of gravitational interaction, including historical perspectives and modern physics concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether gravity is inherently a pulling force, suggesting it could also be viewed as a pushing force or a combination of both.
  • One participant notes that the elliptical orbits of planets could challenge the notion of gravity as merely a pull.
  • Another participant asserts that gravitational attraction is responsible for the existence of planets, citing evidence for this view.
  • Some argue that the terms "push" and "pull" are not strictly defined in physics and may not accurately describe gravitational interactions.
  • A participant references historical theories of magnetism and gravity, suggesting that attraction might not involve a force in the traditional sense.
  • Concerns are raised about the credibility of a referenced website discussing alternative theories of gravity, with some participants expressing skepticism about its validity.
  • There is a call for better sources or journal references on alternative explanations of gravity, indicating a desire for more rigorous discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of gravity, with no consensus reached on whether it is a pull, push, or something else entirely. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Some statements reflect personal interpretations of gravity that may not align with established scientific consensus. The discussion includes references to historical theories and modern physics, but lacks definitive conclusions.

connect
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
Is fact or belief that gravity is a pull force? (in that we are pulled to the planets surface)

I mean Newton saw an apple drop to the floor and thought pull?

It could easily be a push force couldn't it, possibly a bit of both?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How then would you explain the elliptical orbit of planets around other, large, ones?
 
Planets exist because of the gravitational attraction between massive particles.
 
Gravity is attractive. There is a mountain of evidence favoring that conclusion and virtually no credible evidence to the contrary - at least on scales comparable in size to our solar system.
 
connect said:
Is fact or belief that gravity is a pull force? (in that we are pulled to the planets surface)

I mean Newton saw an apple drop to the floor and thought pull?

It could easily be a push force couldn't it, possibly a bit of both?
"Pull" and "push" are words we use to imply a relative position of our body when we exert a force. There is no physics in it.
 
krab said:
"Pull" and "push" are words we use to imply a relative position of our body when we exert a force. There is no physics in it.
"Push" and "Pull" are formal concepts in physics, not informal, and refer to the direction of the force. Charges of the same sign push, those of different signs pull each other. So in the context of two masses interacting with each other the "push" direction is opposite to the vector from the center of mass of the body to the center of mass of the second body. The opposite is true for "pull".
 
ramollari said:
"Push" and "Pull" are formal concepts in physics, not informal, and refer to the direction of the force. Charges of the same sign push, those of different signs pull each other. So in the context of two masses interacting with each other the "push" direction is opposite to the vector from the center of mass of the body to the center of mass of the second body. The opposite is true for "pull".
That means pull and push are just other words for positive force and negative force.

In reference to the original post, though, you see this is not the intended use. What is meant in regards to the falling apple is Is the apple pushed down from above or pulled down from below. I claim the distinction is meaningless.
 
:smile:
Attraction need not involve any 'force' perhaps.

In William Gilberts original theory for magnetism at least attraction was a body's automatic response to signals from another body. No forces, just bodies responding to signals as robots respond !

On gravity Newton was undecided between force and attraction. Einstein's theory of course built gravity into his spacetime continuum (as neither force or attraction ?).

I know of only one new unverified website discussing this - http://www.new-science-theory.com
:smile:
 
GrimDad said:
I know of only one new unverified website discussing this - http://www.new-science-theory.com
:smile:

I am beginning to think that you own this site, which is why you are advertizing and citing it religiously as your primary source of info.

Zz.
 
  • #10
GrimDad said:
I know of only one new unverified website discussing this - http://www.new-science-theory.com
:smile:
I agree with Zz. That site has all the markings of crankdom. Why do you insist on referencing it? Please stop.
 
  • #11
DocA1 and ZapperZ,

if either of you know a better website discussing alternative explanations of gravity (or other action at a distance) as 'attraction' or as 'force' or etcetera, then can YOU please give us that better website (or even journal reference). I would certainly much like to see it, though I can't find one.

I have had my say on this and finished.
 
  • #12
GrimDad said:
DocA1 and ZapperZ,

if either of you know a better website discussing alternative explanations of gravity (or other action at a distance) as 'attraction' or as 'force' or etcetera, then can YOU please give us that better website (or even journal reference). I would certainly much like to see it, though I can't find one.

I have had my say on this and finished.

And as well you should already.

You have got to be kidding when you're asking for "journal reference" for stuff on "gravitation". Either you are completely ignorant of the existence of physics journals, or you just don't care about them. Physical Review Letters, for example, has a WHOLE SECTION on nothing by Gravitation and Astrophysics. And PRL comes out once a week! How about reading up one of these every now and then? Or what about Physical Review D, in which the WHOLE JOURNAL is dedicated to Particle, Fields, GRAVITATION, and Cosmology? Never heard of that one either, eh?

.. and there's MORE from where that came from.

Zz.
 
  • #13
GrimDad said:
I have had my say on this and finished.

Your say was nothing but the link. :smile:
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Why normal force is not equal to gravity?
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
High School Newton's 3rd Law interactions with 2nd and 1st Law Partners
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School Box being pulled up a slope with friction
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Please Explain Elementary Physics Elevator Question
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
High School What forces act on a bar when you do pull-ups?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Force required to stretch training resistance bands
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
High School Why Is an Object's Weight Equal to the Force of Gravity It Experiences?
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
High School How to characterize a rubber ball moving horizontally and bouncing off of a vertical wall?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School Equivalence of Frictional and Applied Force
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School How is 1N enough to move a 0.1kg apple 1 meter high?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K