cesiumfrog
- 2,010
- 5
What about the drag force mentioned on WP?Barwick said:I don't know that pull gravity has shown any more evidence than push theories. They'd behave mostly the same.
This discussion centers on the nature of gravity, debating whether it is a force that attracts objects to Earth or if it can be conceptualized as a push from particles. Participants reference John W. Moffat's "Reinventing Gravity" and Georges-Louis Le Sage's 1758 theory, which proposed that particles exert pressure on bodies. The consensus leans towards gravity being a pull force, supported by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which describes gravity as a fictitious force arising from non-inertial frames of reference. The conversation highlights the complexities of gravitational models and the challenges in reconciling alternative theories with observational evidence.
PREREQUISITESPhysicists, students of gravitational theory, and anyone interested in the fundamental forces of nature and their implications for our understanding of the universe.
What about the drag force mentioned on WP?Barwick said:I don't know that pull gravity has shown any more evidence than push theories. They'd behave mostly the same.
brainstorm said:So you're conceptualizing this push-gravity as a type of radiation that is blocked by mass where more mass = more blockage?
True, but that's not what PF does. We don't generate new science, we teach existing science. Thread locked.Barwick said:I know, this is all speculation, but that's what science does, it thinks, looks at evidence, makes predictions, tests those, thinks again, etc...