# Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

1. Jul 12, 2004

### urtalkinstupid

I'm a $$_n^e_w^b_i^e$$ (that looks cool ) in physics, and have many doubts about the current model of gravity.

I'm having a hard time viewing gravity as a pulling force. To me, it makes no sense. There is a new proposal, although very little have accepted it, on how gravity works. It is already known that everything in the universe gives off energy. What if this energy that is given off is enough to interact with everyday objects? What I am saying is if you were to take a ball throw it up in the air, could there be a force of something "pushing" it down rather than the current belief of it being "pulled" down? The push theory of gravity attempts to prove that the energy given off from objects causes everything from apples falling from a tree to black holes. This still seems a bit sketchy if you look at it. If something were to give off energy, wouldn't the earth's core give off energy and cause us to float off of it's surface?

This is where I'm assuming that this concept of gravity does not exist. I think everything is governed by a sub-atomic pressure. This is all very HYPOTHETICAL, but donen't everything start out hypothetical? So assuming everything is governed by sub-atomic pressure, what creates this pressure? Simple, sut-atomic particles. Sub-atomic particles are going through our body every second in large quantities. One of the main sources of sub-atomic particles is from the sun in the form of neutrinos. Neutrinos rarely come in contact with masses, but if in a group that consists of enough, it can interact and actually exert a pressure on that mass. So...umm...guess on to an example of my theory.

So, one day, you are playing with a tennis ball. You are just throwing it up and down in the air. You begin to wonder, "What is really happening when I throw this ball in the air?" When the ball is in your hand, the sub-atomic particles hit it on all sides except where you palm grips it providing support on the bottom. When you throw the tennis ball in the air, you exert a pressure upwards on it, making it leave your hand. The neutrinos from the sun are unable to interact with the ball on the bottom side, so extra pressure is not applied, because the earth acts as a shield for the bottom of the ball. Now, the tennis ball can go up, but it can only go up for a short while. Why is this? Gravity pulls it back down...no. The pressure that your hand exerted on the ball decreases as the sub-atomic pressure on the other sides of the ball overcomes the pressure exerted on the ball. With the pressure being less on one side, the other sides are being pushed in that direction (towards earth). The pressure on the other sides have pushed the ball back to earth, where it is now sub-atomic pressure equillibriate.

Like I said previously, this is a very hypothetical proposal. So, I'm open for criticism and/or questions on this theory. Before you say that I have no observations or mathematical explanations, I would like to say, "DUH!!!!" If no one can accept this idea then of course there is not going to be any experimental proof. Only through acceptance will this theory get a chance at beign proven right or wrong. So, if you have any ideas for experimentation, I'd really like them :tongue2: .

I'm sure it is not explained well, and I do apologize about that. I'm just a high schooler, and more into math and physics than english, so my explanation skills through writing are poor . I'll try my best to make you happy with this theory.

2. Jul 12, 2004

### sol2

Geometric considerations of Reinmann

There are certain assumptions we make about matter and it's evidence in the cosmo.

What I learnt was to understand the issue of GR by understanding the geometrical tendency such a route travelled woul reveal of itself. This meant leaving the euclidean definition of straight lines of absolute space, of SR to undertand curvature would have to been present in the defintion of gravitation considerations.

This would not seem inconsistant to me to speak from this basis, as the evdence to me suggestions that the whole framework of science spoken two here, is one of metric considerations. At the non communtive areas of planck length we have run into some troubles and issue in regards to TEV measures that have currently made themself known.

I would be open to correction here as well as someone speaking to the basis of "pull" as a manifestaion viewed held prominent through this area of research with regards to geometrical considerations. I pointed out matter considerations?

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
3. Jul 12, 2004

### urtalkinstupid

gravity

Would you be open for acceptance of this sub-atomic pressure theory?

What i'm failing ot understand is what is the "stuff" that makes masses attract to each other? Gravitational waves...?

4. Jul 12, 2004

### Alkatran

The first though that comes to my mind is:
So when it's night the sun is pushing you away from the earth and the force is lower? Why is it the same all the time even though the earth is rotating (on itself, around the sun, around the galaxy)?

5. Jul 12, 2004

### urtalkinstupid

gravity

the sun only affects the side of earth that is facing it. yes, there is less force applied to us at night. Why...i'll explain. ok, at night, our source of neutrinos come from cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere and from stars (neutrinos are produced through fusion). These neutrinos are shielded from hitting the earth by the moon. So, we also weigh less at night time because not as many neutrinos are exerting pressure on our bodies. i'm really not 100% clear on what you are asking. if this does not explain what you are asking, perhaps, you could rephrase the question? or if i didnt answer all of what you have asked tell me what i am lacking

6. Jul 12, 2004

### Eyesaw

If those neutrinos are coming from the sun and does the job of gravity as you propose wouldn't it push the earth and all other masses away from it, nevermind pushing down a tennisball or apple to the ground? BTW this "pushing gravity" has been hypothesized before and they are called Le Sage theories or something like that. There's even a book called Pushing Gravity out.

7. Jul 12, 2004

### urtalkinstupid

gravity

yes im aware of the book out and the lesage theory. and as for the earth and its orbit. the neutrinos that the earth abosrbs allow it to orbit the sun. the neutrinos hit earth at an angle making it move approx. 1 degree a day (hence the number of days in a year). it is able to do this because the pressure the neutrinos exert on the earth allow it to move and the angle the pressure is exerted allow the earth to gain velocity. how does the earth keep from flotaing off? neutrinos dont just come from the sun. they come from stars as well. and as you know there are billion of stars that stay bright through fusion. fusion produces neutrinos and these neutrinos keep a balance in pressure as far as keeping the earth a certain radius away from the sun...not exceeding it.

8. Jul 12, 2004

### Eyesaw

I think "pushing gravity" is easier to imagine than pulling. It also makes more sense philosophically if not physically that the sun is trying to keep the Earth and other planets away from it than that they are sucking each other in. It never made much sense that if gravity was an attractive force, bodies can stay in orbital equilibrium. On the other hand we can imagine the gravity of the stars balancing the attractions in the same way as if they exerted a pushing force. They seem to be opposite sides of the same coin. I still prefer pushing though since we are too close to the sun for comfort.

Last edited: Jul 12, 2004
9. Jul 12, 2004

### Alkatran

I have a really hard time believing this because gravity is predicted so well by the current theory (pulling).

Think about it this way: If gravity was a push, and the earth acts as a shield, why is the force so much less in space?

Also, we'd definitely be pushed off the earth faster than the sun etc could keep us down, because we're so much closer. (You need to divide by the square of the distance right?, since we have three spatial dimensions)

10. Jul 13, 2004

### urtalkinstupid

blah blah blah...all you people do is refer to how gravity is soo well defined. the force is less in space because as you go farther out more and more of the neutrinos are blocked...sure the stars provide neutrinos but the sun provide a whole lot more. hmm...you say we would be off this earth? i say we wont. the amount of neutrinos going through our body every second is a very high number (not sure read it somewhere and it was big) so what do these neutrinos do when they go through our body? some say they pass through every atom because they are that small. others say that if they travel in a big enough group they go through an inelastic collision with atoms exerting pressure (one reason people dont believe because of the inelastic collision). but we all have our beliefs. tell me this...what EXACTLY accounts for the attraction of two masses depending on their radial distance?

11. Jul 13, 2004

### Entropy

What if your in space, orbiting the Earth and right in the sun's light? You'll be experencing more neutrinos on you than if you were on the ground. So why don't you fall down to Earth?

And why do things fall into black holes if black holes don't emit any neutrinos? A body can have NO neutrinos passing through them and that object will still fall into the black hole due to the black hole's gravity.

Look gravity is simply an effect created by the curvature of space-time. The reason this effect is less at a distance is because the amount of curvature decreases as you travel away from a mass.

12. Jul 13, 2004

### urtalkinstupid

niiice argument...im going to give it to you for your effort

ok just because you are closer doesnt mean you have more neutrinos...if you are in space with the earths orbit you are experiencing approximately the same amount of force from neutrinos as you would on earth. the only reason earth has more is because of the neutrinos that are formed from cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere. the amount of pressure does not rely on distance as does the current model of gravity but it relies on density of the object and density of the neutrinos in the vicinity of the object. there is nothing blocking neutrinos from venus to earth there fore the amount of neutrinos are the same throughout that area...just as dense as it is on earth as it is off of earth if you are facing sun

as for black holes, i dont think they exist. to exist then the theory of a singularity would have to be true, and i think singularities are a fluke aslo. einstein himself noted that although his mathematics gave proof of the black holes existence, he did not think they existed. If they were to truly exist though, they would be very dense, therefore, they would block many of the neutrinos that are in sapces and as those neutrinos near the black hole they will "PUSH" everything around the black hole into it...not the black hole will pull everything and make the objects including light fall into it

and yes im highly aware of what gravity is preceived as. now if you will answer my question...what is the exact property of gravity that seeks out two objects depending on their distance and attracts them? or is that unexplainable?

13. Jul 13, 2004

### Alkatran

I'm having trouble following you here. Also, if neutrinos are formed by cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere, why is the earth rotating around the sun so well? In fact, why is all the stuff in the solar system rotating so perfectly as if the sun were the center?

14. Jul 13, 2004

### Entropy

Yes, but there are more neutrinos passing through Venus than Earth because Venus is closer to the sun and neutrinos radiate outward from the Sun.

You don't need singularities to have black holes. Many people have given up on the idea of a singularity at the center of black holes. All the matter in a black hole is compressed down to a small point, but no infinitely small. If I'm not mistaken I believe its on the range of the size of strings.

That shows that you are not "highly aware" of how gravity is preceived. Unless you believe in gravitons, gravity is an "effect" of space-time so it isn't nessissarily a force. When you preceive an object rotating around an object and then falling into it, that object is really simply just following a straight path into the object. You just don't see it as a straight line due to your 4 dimensional view of the universe.

15. Jul 13, 2004

### urtalkinstupid

gravity

when referring to a string are you referring to plank's length?

and if everything were to fall into an object that were to cause space-time curvature what counter acts us falling into the sun? ripples caused by this disturbance in space time? our free-fall velocity as we orbit the sun?

it would be much easier to view things as being pushed together in trying ot reach equillibrium in sub-atomic pressure rather than things falling into one another depending on how much of a disturbance they cause in space-time

16. Jul 13, 2004

### urtalkinstupid

well alkatran these neutrinos that are produced by cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere just allow an extra push on the objects on earth...nothing to to with the suns orbit.

the suns orbit is governed by neutrinos exerting a pressure at an angle...giving it velocity in the direction that the angle is applied. the neutrinos hitting from the other side allow the earth to stay in one place and move inwards in otrder to travel aroudn the sun and not in an undefinite path. and yes everything seems to orbit in a perfect manner...but remember also perfect does not exist. but although the source of neutrinos from the sun is limited as you move farther away, the next source are stars. there are stars in betweent he planets that are able to keep them in their place also. all of this orbiting is just an equillibrium of sub-atomic pressure that is applied at an angle

17. Jul 13, 2004

### Janus

Staff Emeritus
Doesn't wash. The intensity of neutrinos we get from all those other stars don't even add up to a fraction of a percent of those we get from the the Sun. We would be weighing gram not kilograms at night.
Also, you do realise that the moon isn't always in the night sky don't you? In fact, sometimes it comes exactly between the sun and the Earth (solar Eclipses). Which according to you would mean that it would block the Sun's neutrinos causing a large drop off in gravity at those times (which we do not experience)
How do you figure this? You can't just make something up. There is no tendancy for the Sun's neutrinos to hit the Earth such as to push it along its orbit. If anything, you would have the opposite effect. As the Earth travels in its orbit, it would indeed encounter neutrinos at an angle, but from an angle from the direction of movement. (this is like how when driving in car, rain falling straight down appears to be coming from in front of you). The pressure of these neutrinos would slow the Earth to a stop. Such a situation would lead to the Earth maintaining a stationary position, not an orbiting one.
Again, the neutrinos we receive from such source are a mere fraction of those we receive from the sun. And even then, we receive these neutrinos equally from all parts of the sky, not just the night sky facing away from the sun. Meaning that the daylight sky would receive the neutrinos from all of the stars on that side of the Earth plus those generated by the Sun.( except for those stars that would be blocked by the Sun, but since the Sun produces vastly more neutrinos from that same area than would any stars it blocks, it doesn't really matter), Therefore, the daylight side would receive more neutrinos pushing the Earth away then the night side receives pushing it in, and you would get a net effect of the Earth being pushed away from the Sun.

Also, if even only for the sake of argument, you ignore the neutrinos coming from any other side other than the nightside, and even if you suppose that they are in equal porportion to those the Earth receives from the Sun, forming some equal balance, this would only work for the Earth. The other planets are different distances away from the Sun, and like light intensity, the neutrino intensity they receive from the Sun varies with distance from the Sun. But the neutrino intensity they receive from the other stars would not vary. Thus planets closer in towards the Sun would be out of balance with too much pressure from the Sun pusihing them outwards, and planets further out would have too little pressure from the Sun and they would fall inward. IOW, the only stable orbital distance would that of the Earth's.

In addition, as I pointed out, at times the moon passes between the Sun and Earth, blocking the Sun's Neutrinos. This means that at this time the Earth would only have inward pressure and would fall towards the Sun. Again, we do not note this happening during eclipses.

You asked for experiments to test your idea, but we don't need to go that far. All we have to do is note that it is not consistant with what we already observe as happening.

18. Jul 13, 2004

### Janus

Staff Emeritus
There are no stars between the planets. The nearest star is over 37,843,200,000,000 km from the Sun. Pluto, the furthest planet is only 5,913,520,000 km from the Sun, only 1/6400 that distance.

19. Jul 13, 2004

### urtalkinstupid

gravity

Janus, nice argument. As i stated at the beginning this is only a theory just as the theory of gravity. You have given me many doubts about my theory that I plan to research more on and overcome them. As of now, the pull theory of gravity is confusing many people. The black hole is confusing only because the pull theory of gravity makes it. If it were referred as a push, then much less confusion would spawn up. Why can things only enter and not escape? Maybe because they are being pushed in? Hawkings raidation: the colliding of particles that are emitted by the stars at high speeds creating particle and anti-particle pairs? Also, you have to take into account that this universe is made up of MUCH more than what we are able to observe. I'm sure there are other forces that can be involved in my theory of no gravity, but the main one that I have found is neutrinos. Other sub-atomic particles exist. I'm sure you know that, so I need not reiterate what they are. Approximately 4% of this universe can be observed; the rest is said to be composed of dark energy and dark matter (could be exerting pressure...as well as negative pressure to drive expansion). I still have faith in my theory. Pull theory is just something that is not well enough understood to become a theory that drives this universe. :yuck:

hey antichet *cough*

20. Jul 13, 2004

### Entropy

You're the only person who somehow can't comprehend a pull or a push. And like I said unless you believe in the graviton (which I don't) gravity isn't really a "force," and a force is a push or pull. The geometric effect of space-time doesn't pull or push an object toward another. The object really continues along its normal straight course, only from your prespective does it appear to circle and then fall into another object.

Thats not what Hawking radiation is. Hawking radiation is caused when vacuum fluctuations occur near a black hole's event horizon. Normally the particle-antiparticle parts annihilate each other quickly, but sometimes one of the particles falls into the black hole and the other escapes and the it results in the black hole emitting a particle.