Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Push not pull

  1. Mar 13, 2004 #1
    Push! Not pull.
    Des Chamberlain
    The Idea that I want to set out here is so beautifully simple, it just feels right it fits with how we see our physical universe, read on and you’ll see what I mean.
    A mass (lump of rock) is floating in the vacuum of space far far away from any other masses. Sub-atomic particles that are moving through space pass through our mass as they are so teeny weenie that they can pass through atoms with no problem at all. But, some particles do collide with atoms occasionally and there are a lot of sub-atomic particles whizzing about so it all adds up.
    Our mass is unaffected as the colliding sub-atomic particles are quite uniform at least in this part of creation. Let us give our mass a trajectory and velocity and call it an asteroid for example. As our asteroid moves through space it eventually approaches another mass, say The Earth. The earth is bigger and so our asteroid is attracted to this much larger mass......
    Hmmm. Let’s stop here for a moment and take a 180 degree conceptual shift and try again!
    As our asteroid moves closer to the Earth it is shielded from the effects of sub-atomic particles that were destined to hit it but were absorbed by the mass of Earth. Our asteroid is also shielding the Earth in the same fashion but to a lesser degree as it’s not a particularly large asteroid and the earth is much bigger. There exists a dearth of sub-atomic particles in the space that separates our asteroid from the Earth. The asteroid wants to move closer to the earth to regain equilibrium, balance. Like a balloon being pushed through the air by a breeze.
    As the distance between the asteroid and the earth decreases the Earth grows larger on the horizon of the approaching asteroid. Its also Shields it from even more particles, the sub-atomic pressure decreases on the shielded side but remains constant on the side open to unimpeded space. They try harder to balance the forces of sub-atomic pressure acting on them. They are pushed towards each other or even sucked if you like; they both feel good to me!
    The asteroids initial trajectory and velocity is such that its course is changed just the right amount to move into an orbit around the earth where the centrifugal force equals the dearth of sub-atomic pressure that exists between them. Phew that was close;
    I thought it was ‘Independence Day’ for a minute!
    Now as you read this imagine that the earth beneath you is shielding you from the same amount of sub-atomic pressure as your weight! Yes! We are simply pressed to the Earth and not pulled by this stuff that we call gravity which doesn’t exists and is just an ego based concept of big attracting small.
    Don’t worry it won’t change a thing apart from making more sense.
    Oh by the way, Gold is a heavier than you because it has a structure that can block more sub-atomic particles and is therefore a more affective shield.
    We are acted upon in the same way as in the observed physical world it’s just that the forces are too small for our bulky atom based instruments to measure. They say you weigh less at night is that the effect of the moon blocking particles?
    It’s not rocket science, it’s quantum physics.
    Push! Not pull.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 14, 2004 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    "Pushing gravity" is an erroneous concept that can easily and thoroughly be debunked by an umbrella.
     
  4. Mar 15, 2004 #3

    enigma

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I am recalling a full refutation of pushing gravity a few months back, but for the life of me I can't find it in the search feature and I don't remember the steps used to refute it...

    (without using math that is... it's cake if you take numbers to it)
     
  5. Mar 15, 2004 #4

    enigma

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hows about this:

    If gravity pushes, and we're sticking to the Earth because the Earth gets in the way of the push coming from 'down', then why don't we float when we're in a building?
     
  6. Mar 15, 2004 #5
    So Newton couldn't possibly have gotten hit in the head by a helium balloon after all?
     
  7. Mar 15, 2004 #6
    Hi Buddy
    The reason we don't float in a building is because the particals blocked by the matter in the building is very small compared with the particals absorbed by earth. It would be an interesting experiment to see if something wieghed less if it were placed under a large partical shild such as the fort knoxs gold reserve! experiments are being carried out in deep mines in the north of England away from interferance on the planets surface which might help support this idea
     
  8. Mar 15, 2004 #7
    Michael
    The Hielium balloon would have a relatively low mass and thus be less effected by any shields in it's vicinity
     
  9. Mar 15, 2004 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That's only one of the many flaws in "pushing gravity." The main thing is it requires many assumptions that the prevailing model does not, such as a vast sea of particles we can't detect.
     
  10. Mar 15, 2004 #9
    OK, Des, allow me to disprove your theory:

    In the following example, the dimesions, materials or mass might not be correct, but, you should get the point...

    Take a stiff, non-conducting rod, say, 2-feet long and weighing 2 pounds, and suspend it in the middle(of the rod) to a secure location on your ceiling with a kevlar string sufficient to support, say 100 pounds. OK, easy enough.
    Now, attach to each end of this rod 2 non-conductive spheres weighing 25 lbs. each. Great. Now we have a horizontal rod with weights attached hanging from the ceiling with a kevlar string attached to the middle of this horizontal rod.
    Close all doors and windows.
    Move a 500 lb. mass on a cart, carefully and slowly, such to where the 500 lb. mass is at equal average level to the suspended weights, and towards the "rotational" side of one of the 25 lb. spheres.
    Guess what happens? The 25 lb. sphere closest to the 500 lb. mass starts to move towards it.
    The 500 lb. mass attracts the 25 lb. sphere(actually, both attract, of course) on a horizontal plane.
    This, Des, is gravitational attraction, and the same effect will occur whether you do it on Earth or in deep space.
    In addition, place any static object of any compostion between the 2 masses and note the effect: The attraction will always increase, never decrease.
     
  11. Mar 15, 2004 #10
    What seems to be the problem with our current model of gravity?
     
  12. Mar 15, 2004 #11
    pallidin

    Thankyou for you post "disproveing my theory"

    I think I have understood you correctly.
    A free moving non-conductive dumbell ballanced and suspended by a kevlar string in a sealed enviroment.
    When a mass is brought close to one end of the dumbell they attract each other.OK
    What is occuring here is that the mass of the 500 lb is sheilding the dumbell from sub-atomic particals moveing on that same horizontal plane as is the dumbell shielding the 500 lb weight. This simply highlights that these particals move in all aspexts.
     
  13. Mar 15, 2004 #12
    russ_watters
    Hi Russ

    I like your description of a vast sea of particals. that's a fitting description of what i'm talking about.
    Let's have a look at the current theory of Gravity.
    Somethiong is coming from each and every mass that somehow holds on to other masses and draws them to it with a strength dependent on its size and proximity.
    Nothing else behaves like this!
    why is this unproven idea holding water?
    It goes against all common sense!
    The Victorians called it the Either!
    Now we talk of dark matter!
    What ever you want to call it we are along way from measuring it unless we change our point of view as our instruments are made of atoms and therefore to bulky.
    We can only observe.
    A substances ability to absorbe these particals can be measured by its wieght.

    A sq metre of Gold and a sq metre of helium have differant wieghts.
    Gold is more able to absorbe sub-atomic particals than Helium; it is more affected by sub-atomic particals, ergo it is pressed to the earth more strongly as it's catching more kinetic energy form sub-atomic particals coming from space.

    We cling to a "law" as that's what we are brought up to believe!
    Partical shielding makes more sense as it fits in with how the rest of physics works.
     
  14. Mar 15, 2004 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    "Common sense" is not a concept that physics deals with in the way you think it does. You cannot start with a preconcieved notion of what 'makes sense' and exclude all that doesn't fit. That simply isn't the way science works, whether you accept it or not. The current model fits observations, makes accurate and testable predictions, and requires less assumptions than yours and thus it will remain the accepted one.

    You'd do better if you worked within the framework of the scientific method.
    How are weight and mass related in your model?
    Well in that case, tell me this: how is it mathematically different from Einstein's model and in what cases does it fit observations better?

    Also, what is the maximum strength of a gravitational field? (unless you are saying there is an infinite density of these unobserved particles, gravity must have a finite upper limit)
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2004
  15. Mar 15, 2004 #14
    *Laughs out loud*
    Whoo, you crack me up. That gold reserve has moved to a different location. Fort Knox has no more gold in it. Remember, "Goldfinger" wasn't the most reliable movie for scientific reference, especially since it's over thirty-some years old.

    Gold stays on the ground because it's denser than this nitrogen-oxygen "ocean" of air. Helium is less dense, so it floats to the top of said atmosphere. It's that simple; No special kinetic interactions are in effect.
     
  16. Mar 16, 2004 #15
    Gravity is a push force. Stopp enoying me.
     
  17. Mar 16, 2004 #16
    Haha! I like the pun on e-noying! We get the little e-catchphrase for the e-web!

    Sorry, lack of sleep...

    cookiemonster
     
  18. Mar 16, 2004 #17
    Des Chamberlain,
    I'm not seeing how your theory makes any more sense than the current model. I don't mean to be argumentive, I have an open mind. I am just missing that part that "makes more sense". -Mike
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2004
  19. Mar 16, 2004 #18
    The current model of gravity hasn't been proven, because of insuficient data presumably, which means it is still open to speculation.
    When we look at the physical nature of things, everything is where it is due to the forces acting upon it, at least in the observable universe. The theory of 'gravity' suggests that some power is attracting matter to matter by a force that reaches out and pulls back, or makes being closer a more desirable state, a bit like magnatisum which is entirly differant.
    I'm suggesting that there are forces acting on us that we cannot measure with our current tech because they are so all pervasive that we cannot see them ( we tend to measure differances) and far smaller than the component atoms of our instuments.
    so this is really a change in our concept.
    We do know that there is some form of energy in the universe that is holding it all togeather. This idea is supported by all the experimentation that has gone on since we became aware of exsistance. everything has preasure acting on it. if you stuck a straw in the beach and through sand at it a few grains might hit it and it would tremble with the impact. If you stood an empty plastic bottle on the sand and through sand at it in the same way it would fall over as it absorbs more kinetic energy. The bigger the mass and indeed the denser it is the more sand it stops.
    This isn't the best analogy but i'll think of something better when i'm more awake.
    these particals that are passing through us and sometimes colliding with us hold us in place, we have to use energy to move! It's really that simple, like air preasure but as most of it passes through us and only a percentage hits.
    If we change our perspective and then look at the acumilated data we have we will be able to measure this force easily. I wiegh 12 stone because that much force isn't reaching my from the south side.
    Black holes are so dense that they absorb light which is also a partical form that we have evolved to observe; I'm suggesting that there are many more types of particals ie Nutrinos that are also acting in thier own perculiar way and pressing us to the earth.
     
  20. Mar 16, 2004 #19

    enigma

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just because you haven't seen it (or can't understand it) doesn't mean it hasn't been done. The current theory has been proven. The current theory has been tested, both by Experiment and by Software simulation.

    Unless you can produce a software simulation or experiment to prove another option which works just as well or better, it is not open to legitimate speculation.

    And there are other forces besides gravity which pull... ever had a sock stuck to a sweater when you pulled it out of the dryer? Static electricity "pulls" as well.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2004
  21. Mar 16, 2004 #20
    One last time? look at the pressure gradient of the interior of the Earth, it rises as you approach the center, greater pressure at the center, then immediately above, decreases all the way out from the center, how does your Push force do that? (It cannot, Gravity remains as it was always understood as behaving, "attraction to a common center")

    Any push force from space will exert a mechanical pressurization of the planet and pressure will either, drop off, going in deeper, or be totally Isotropic, which, it is NOT!...(by measurement BTW)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Push not pull
  1. To push or to pull? (Replies: 6)

  2. Push or pull? (Replies: 1)

  3. Magnetic Push and Pull (Replies: 2)

  4. Push vs. Pull (Replies: 2)

  5. Push and Pull Forces (Replies: 2)

Loading...