What are the biggest problems of push / kinetic gravity theory?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges facing push or kinetic gravity theory, which has largely been dismissed in modern physics. Participants highlight that numerous predictions of push gravity have been disproven by empirical observations, making the theory highly unlikely. The conversation emphasizes that while theories can be proven wrong, proving a theory right is significantly more complex. The original poster seeks clarity on the specific problems that render push gravity impossible, such as drag, heat, isotropy, and particle interactions. Overall, the consensus is that push gravity lacks credible support in contemporary scientific discourse.
looka
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
What are the biggest problems of "push" / kinetic gravity theory?

Please, don't crucify me! I saw a couple of threads here closed for bringing this up, which I don't really understand why. Shouldn't we always doubt? I understand that it is old and common and amateurish idea in physics, but that fact alone might have it's own weight (no pun intended, lol).

So I did my best, from Wikipedia, Feynmans lectures (make sure to see them all on Tuva, they're very inspirational - thanks Gates), searched this forum and looked up some books (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kinetic_Theories_of_Gravitation). This being really old and around idea, it has many documented reasoning, but I cannot really find any relatively new papers on the subject, presumable because it's was killed centuries ago and it is suppose to stay dead. I am not sure If I should get recent Push Gravity from Amazon, or is it just some publicist novel.

A lot of things were discovered in particle physics last century, and I just want to find out if someone took the effort of making sure that it is still all impossible theory. I had two related threads here, one about all the "stuff" that can be found in empty space, and another related to "stuff" that is absorbed by matter (e.g. Sun), both of which ended very informative for me.

So can anybody tell me, in order of importance, in laymen’s reasoning, what are the biggest problems that are making "push gravity" impossible? Drag? Heat? Isotropy? Particles?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


looka said:
So can anybody tell me, in order of importance, in laymen’s reasoning, what are the biggest problems that are making "push gravity" impossible? Drag? Heat? Isotropy? Particles?

How do you rank these? There are many areas where push gravity predictions don't match observations. It only takes one to rule out the theory.
 


Which would take the most imagination to explain, avoid and resolve and make theory work, I guess. We can't really prove any theroy impossible, just extremely unlikely and unbelievable, right? Or just don't order them then. :) I will surely look into all of them anyway. Thanks for your time.
 


looka said:
We can't really prove any theroy impossible, just extremely unlikely and unbelievable, right?
No, we can easily prove a theory wrong. What we can't do is really "prove" a theory right. All push gravity theories to date have been proven wrong.
 


DaleSpam said:
No, we can easily prove a theory wrong. What we can't do is really "prove" a theory right. All push gravity theories to date have been proven wrong.
Perhaps what the OP is asking for is a few examples of some of the different "push" theories, and the observations that disproved them.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

Pressure should decrease in zero gravity?
Replies
7
Views
2K
A Is Fatio–Le Sage's theory of gravitation an entropic gravity?
Replies
33
Views
2K
I Quantum Gravity
Replies
5
Views
2K
Kinetic Theory of Gases Derivation
Replies
1
Views
2K
Studying Comparing Candidate Theories of Quantum Gravity
Replies
7
Views
2K
I Is dark energy pushing or is it a mirror concept of gravity?
Replies
31
Views
4K
I Is Gravity a Force or Curvature?
Replies
20
Views
4K
Theory of Relativity & Gravity: Is Space Pushing Us to Earth?
Replies
3
Views
1K
I Two recent tests of loop quantum gravity theory
Replies
15
Views
5K
Conservation of Momentum Problem - Mechanical and Kinetic Energies
Replies
2
Views
899

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top