Are we push or attracted to a planet?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fcycles
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Planet Push
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of gravitational forces, specifically whether gravity acts as a push or an attraction towards a planet. Participants explore theoretical models, historical perspectives, and the implications of different interpretations of gravity, including references to historical figures like Georges-Louis Le Sage and Nicolas Fatio. The conversation encompasses both conceptual and technical aspects of gravity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that gravity could be viewed as a push rather than an attraction, arguing that mathematically reversing the force vector does not change the equations.
  • Others assert that a push gravity model is difficult to reconcile with observational evidence.
  • It is noted that in a non-inertial frame, gravity appears as a fictitious force, while in an inertial frame, the Earth’s surface could be seen as accelerating outward.
  • One participant questions the existence of a downward gravitational force in a truly inertial frame, proposing that gravity must still exist even in such a scenario.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of gravity being the weakest force and how this might affect the understanding of gravitational interactions.
  • Participants reference the historical context of gravity theories, including Le Sage's proposal of particles exerting pressure and the subsequent rejection of this idea by later scientists.
  • Some argue that the observed increase in gravitational force as one approaches a massive body does not necessarily prove that the force originates from that body.
  • There is a discussion about the relative nature of motion and forces, suggesting that the perception of gravity may depend on one’s position within a gravitational field.
  • One participant expresses a preference for the simpler "attracted to" model of gravity, while acknowledging the complexity of the question of what gravity "really is."
  • Another participant challenges the assertion that a push theory is inconsistent with observation, suggesting that it could explain various phenomena.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether gravity is a push or an attraction. Multiple competing views remain, with some favoring the traditional pull model and others advocating for alternative interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference historical theories and figures, indicating that the discussion is informed by past scientific thought. There are unresolved questions regarding the assumptions behind different models of gravity and their compatibility with observations.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring theoretical physics, gravitational theories, and the historical context of scientific ideas related to gravity.

  • #31
Barwick said:
I don't know that pull gravity has shown any more evidence than push theories. They'd behave mostly the same.
What about the drag force mentioned on WP?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
brainstorm said:
So you're conceptualizing this push-gravity as a type of radiation that is blocked by mass where more mass = more blockage?

Essentially. I'd lean towards the most elementary particles being the ones that absorb it to some degree, or are affected by it. Whether it's the radiation actually running into matter, or possibly just interacting with it by passing close enough by, I don't know. Just thinking out loud.
 
  • #33
Sorry. Just making sure I'm not having a nightmare.

PF is entertaining discussions on push gravity?

What's next? Calls for submissions of PMMs?
 
  • #34
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...
True, but that's not what PF does. We don't generate new science, we teach existing science. Thread locked.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Please Explain Elementary Physics Elevator Question
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
High School ΜStatic = μDynamic: Easier to push a moving object?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
High School Friction Force: Why do we walk?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Graduate Is Fatio–Le Sage's theory of gravitation an entropic gravity?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Undergrad Is dark energy pushing or is it a mirror concept of gravity?
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Undergrad Evidence for existence of a 9th Planet in the solar system
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
High School Is Time a Fundamental Force in Physics?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Undergrad Solving Wheel Coming to a Stop: FBD, Friction & Hysteresis
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
Undergrad Why do bullets precess in the opposite way from gyroscope diagrams?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
High School I Need Help on Understanding Some Basic Astrophysics / Sand Clock Universe
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K