Gravity As A Repelling Force - Newton/Einstein

K

Kaiduorkhon

Registered Senior Member
As we shall see, the popular term 'Newtonian concept of attraction (a pulling force)', as applied to gravity, was never unconditionally endorsed by Newton. The concept of gravity as 'a pulling force of attraction' remains a speculative though understandably popular term, coined by Newton's beneficiaries. All of this is to say that the conceptualization of gravity as any sort of pulling force of attraction was not Newton's resolute conceptual or by any means exclusive definition of gravity. Allow the derivation of this last statement to be further qualified:

I wish to cite at this time what is to say the least, a most interesting alternative concept concerning the identity of (what Newton was always careful to call 'universal') gravity. An otherwise completely ignored statement which might even be correctly categorized as 'obscure', or 'inconsequential'. Were it not for the fact that this statement is made by Sir Isaac Newton. And, were it not for the fact that this statement is included in the very (3 page, non-mathematical) Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA.

From the beginning of the 1st to the end of the 2nd page of Newton's three page Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, Newton is discussing the motions of falling objects and orbiting planets. By way of his applied mathematical descriptions of the effects of the force of gravity. At this time, Newton offers the following statement about what causes the gravitationally induced motions of planets & apples, quote:

“For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain."

That quote and its extraction will henceforth be referred to here, as THE GRAVITATIONAL ALTERNATIVE. Not my gravitational alternative; Newton's Gravitational Alternative to be exact. I repeat the quote (of particles and systems-of-particles: of matter), 'are either mutually impelled towards each other and cohere in regular figures (orbits; juxtapositions), or, are mutually repelled and recede from each other .'

It implies directly and categorically, that gravity may in fact be the opposite of the universally considered impelling or 'pulling force of attraction'; that is to say, Isaac Newton and his formal definitions, directly and resolutely suggest that gravity may in fact be a repelling or pushing force.

It is difficult to over dramatize the very existence of this statement, its author, and especially its contextual implications. It categorically allows that everything Newton mathematically confirms and describes in The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA - from orbiting planets, falling apples, aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric tides - all the large and small phenomena of gravity - is caused by one of two kinds of forces: the conventionally considered impelling or pulling force of attraction, or, its exact opposite, a repelling/ pushing force. That is fact #1.

Fact #1 evokes at least one question: Allowing possible advantage in Newton's Gravitational Alternative that gravity may in fact be a repelling (pushing) force rather than an impelling (pulling) force, how might any such advantage be experienced and applied?
:bagpuss:

That question and its derivation might still be deemed obscure and inconsequential, if its direct unequivocal answer did not exist, most profoundly, at the heart-foundation of the latest and most advanced generalized theory of gravity in the history of Physical Science. That being Albert Einstein's GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY.

In the first quarter of this century, Albert Einstein, in observing the already well known inversely proportional equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values (which will be explained, shortly), described this equivalence as: 'an astonishing coincidence', and then applied the cause of his astonishment to the monumental task of formulating an unprecedented theoretical generalization concerning the identity of gravity. That, being none other than the General Principle Of Relativity; which principle is quite literally the foundation upon which rests Einstein's entire General Theory of Relativity. The most advanced statement about gravity, to date.

The General Principle is also misnomered as the 'Equivalence Hypothesis', or, more appropriately, 'The Principle Of Equivalence', which states:
'There is no way to distinguish the effects produced by the inertial force of acceleration (a pushing/repelling force) from the effects produced by gravitational force (assumed to be a 'pulling/impelling force: identity unknown')'.

Regards,
Kaiduorkhon
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
 
Inside the sphere of a planet or sun there is a force that pushes downwards. Outside the sphere is a force that pushes outwards.

To every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. At least that is what I am told.
 
I dont think I undrstood the above fully, however it is my understanding that:
A pulling force is one in which the two objects which the force is acting on experiance acceleration towards each other: They 'pull' themselves together.
A pushing force is one in wich the two objects which the force is acting on experiance acceleration away from one another: They 'push' each other away.

So lets say we have planet X, and object A
One thinks of gravity normaly as a pulling force:
X and A accelerate towards one another, X is pulling on A (action) and A is pulling on X (reaction)

If it were a pushing force, than if X and A pushed each other they would accelerate away, contrary to what we observe (our apple will be expelled into space)
Thus, A must be pushing on something else in order to accelerate towards X. But what is this mysterious 3rd object on which A pushes? And why is it always on the opposite side of A allong the line from A to X (consider an orbit.)

-Andrew
 
andbna said:
I dont think I undrstood the above fully, however it is my understanding that:
A pulling force is one in which the two objects which the force is acting on experiance acceleration towards each other: They 'pull' themselves together.
A pushing force is one in wich the two objects which the force is acting on experiance acceleration away from one another: They 'push' each other away.

So lets say we have planet X, and object A
One thinks of gravity normaly as a pulling force:
X and A accelerate towards one another, X is pulling on A (action) and A is pulling on X (reaction)

If it were a pushing force, than if X and A pushed each other they would accelerate away, contrary to what we observe (our apple will be expelled into space)
Thus, A must be pushing on something else in order to accelerate towards X. But what is this mysterious 3rd object on which A pushes? And why is it always on the opposite side of A allong the line from A to X (consider an orbit.)

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Good point.

That does bring up quite a problem. But the again that could be fixed by the deep vacuum in space pushing back against gravity and finally the two powers equal out and an orbit begins?

Im not really sure though.
 
Last edited:
Kaiduorkhon

I dont think that citing Newton is much of an argument. Newton described an unkwon force which was always attractive. From a symmetry point of view, there might be a repulsive force of the same nature. But there is not. There is no observation or any experiments which show anything else that the force of gravity is attractive.

Secondly, your link is basically a bunch of quotes Faraday, Eddington and more. Again quoting physicist which are long dead is not a scientific argument.

Now I quote you:

The much applauded and controversial 'Big Bang Theory' is not a theory. It is an hypothesis.
The much applauded and controversial 'Super String Theory' is not a theory. It is an hypothesis.
(Please refer, Webster's dictionary, or, any dictionary of scientific terms.)

These importantly expansive misunderstandings negatively influence and handicap the entire world of contemplation at the foundations of objective thinking. These endlessly repeated misnomers sustain themselves. Calling hypotheses 'theories' is unscientific and misleading, digressive and harmful. End Quote

Thats wrong. They are theories (big bang at least) because they explain what we observe, it explains why we see the distribution of elements we see in the universe, it explains why the universe expands, the standard model explains the four forces of nature, which have been tested in experiments and confirmed. So the big bang theory is a lot more than just a hypothesis. Your aguing is semantics, not science.



/Brian
 
Last edited:
Dear Bsemak:
You say that "Newton described an unknown force which was always attractive": not true.
Note Introuctory Principia quote:


“For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain."

Regards,
-KO
 
Gravity is neither a repelling nor an attracting force. There is no such thing as gravitational attraction. A maybe oversimplified view of the principles that have been known for over a century tells us. Gravity is a change in the direction that an object travels. When it bends space it changes the direction that "forward" is. The curvature of the fourth dimension places the future this much forward in time and this much forward in space.
 
Kaiduorkhon said:
As we shall see, the popular term 'Newtonian concept of attraction (a pulling force)', as applied to gravity, was never unconditionally endorsed by Newton. The concept of gravity as 'a pulling force of attraction' remains a speculative though understandably popular term, coined by Newton's beneficiaries. All of this is to say that the conceptualization of gravity as any sort of pulling force of attraction was not Newton's resolute conceptual or by any means exclusive definition of gravity. Allow the derivation of this last statement to be further qualified:
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:

How to be a Crackpot: a 12-Step System
 
Newton's Gravitational Alternative: reprise

“For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain." - Isaac Newton, Preface to the Principia Mathematica, excerpt.

Regards,
-KO
 
...another accordance of the General Theory; which states that a thrown baseball or a fired bullet does not actually describe a curved or parabolic path to the earth, when projected horizontally above its surface. Instead, they actually move in straight lines which only appear to be curves and parabolas.

The reason for this says Einstein, is that, 'What is 4-Dimensionally straight gives the illusion of being curved or parabolic when projected on the 3 recognized Dimensions Of Space'.

These quasi 3-D parabolas and curves which are not really parabolas and curves, but instead are 4-D straight lines, are called 'geodesics'.
Einstein's geodesic account of gravity is that, 'Matter causes the 4-D Space-Time continuum to curve in the area surrounding it'. This fact is formally referred to as, 'Einstein's postulate of the 4-D Space-Time metric'.

If we find this Einsteinian description of gravitation vague, it is simply because it is indeed a vague description, yielding small conceptual compromise when compared with the familiar if mysterious 'tug' of Classical Newtonian gravity.

One may question, What does Relativity mean when it accounts for gravity by referencing the 4-D Space-Time metric and the curving of the 4-D Space-Time Continuum? And how does this 4-D Space-Time Continuum cause bodies to descend, or geodesically appear to descend?
The 'answer' is that physicists do not understand the identity of Einstein's 4th Dimension; since space-time is one of the many effects of the 4th Dimension, it is not understood or recognized what the geodesic gravitational curvature of space-time is either.

“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance. These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE

The false enigma is resolved in the recognition that the entire physical frame of reference is - 4-Dimensionally - ever enlarging, pinning the fans to their bleachers, all the cars to the asphalt in the parking lot, the city accomodating the ball park and the omnidirectionally expanding planet the city rests upon: rising up to create the illusion that the apparently curving baseball trajectory, which is actually a moving in a straight line ('geodesic'), appears to be moving in a parabolic arc. When a test object is projected straight up in the air, it does not 'slow down, turn around and return to the catcher. No indeed. The catcher - or the ground - rises up to overtake and impact the test object. (Now you know. <Know you now?>)
Here's what false authority says of Einstein's 4-D geodesic:

"We cannot visualize such a curved space. Because humanity is not four dimensional." - The LIFE Science Library's UNIVERSE, p. 179

“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. "As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance." These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE
 
Kaiduorkhon said:
...another accordance of the General Theory; which states that a thrown baseball or a fired bullet does not actually describe a curved or parabolic path to the earth, when projected horizontally above its surface. Instead, they actually move in straight lines which only appear to be curves and parabolas.
Click to expand...

GR states no such thing! It deals with MASSIVE bodies that curves space-time, not such trivial objects as baseballs and bullets. The common principles of ballistics have been clearly understood for a very long time.
 
Ok, everyone, let's say that true enough, The gravity is a pushing/repelling force. Let's add to that;
1. It doesn't have a magnetic field.
Given that, how strong must it be to push matter?
Let's compare with something else that doesn't have a magnetic field: a neutrino. And we see how rarely they hit.
2. Given that neutrinoes parry neutrons quite well, let's guess that the gravitons however does not possess this ability, the avoidence hence, squarerooted, as compared to the neutrino "hit chance".
3. Let's also make the conclusion that independent of the thickness of the earth, the entire earth is equally affected of the graviton flow, hence confirming not only statement 2, but also,
4. that gravity is extremely strong and
5. that it's strong enough to, if you could tame it, create a supernova in your backyard.

So if the neutrinoes push us in the force of x, and it's hit chance is y, then the graviton hit chance is sqrt(y) and it's force only seen through interaction with 2 bodies atleast, with the masses in this example M for which the hit chance sqrt(y) applies. on the distance of one meter the entire vector force variation only as compared to the graviton even up is
M^2sqrt(y)*F(graviton)/4pi = F
So at one meter distance, the entire vector graviton variation force is F/sqrt(y)
That is alot for merely a variation in graviton flow.

The energy density would seemingly be infinite.
 
Last edited:
Whoops!
I moved the above post from Physics and Maths, but I meant to eidt it first so it made sense in this context.
Sorry, Smellsniffsniff! You might like to edit or delete the post yourself. :eek:

Anyway, Here's a 2005 Physics and Maths thread that Smellsniffsniff found:
[thread=49772]Possible proof that Gravity is a pull and not a push….[/thread]

Rather than resurrecting that thread (necromancy!), you might like to consider it's content in this thread.

Pete
 
Okay, I took your post in consideration. So what property in mass and light makes light bend when entering a medium? gravitons don't have that, do they?

What if we gave that to them?
 
This reminds me of a fellow who quit working at a giant conglomerate to continue his research into anti-gravity.

His theory was something to do with supercooling and controlled rotation of millions of molecules. Since gravity supposedly has to do with mass and rotation, he theorized gravity could be created by spinning millions of molecules in the same direction at very high speeds.

Does anyone remember that study or know what happened with it?
 
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
...another accordance of the General Theory; which states that a thrown baseball or a fired bullet does not actually describe a curved or parabolic path to the earth, when projected horizontally above its surface. Instead, they actually move in straight lines which only appear to be curves and parabolas.
”
-----------------------------------------------------
Read-Only said:
GR states no such thing! It deals with MASSIVE bodies that curves space-time, not such trivial objects as baseballs and bullets. The common principles of ballistics have been clearly understood for a very long time.
Click to expand...
---------------------------------------------------------

Although this issue was resolved in a previous post (#12), Read-Only's (#14) contention invites a resolute review:

Reprise:

Obviously the earth is not moving rotationally on its own axis; generating the illusion imparted on all of its inhabitants that the universal celestial vault is rotating around the earth; rather than conversely. The archaic, pre Copernican era resides with us ever since, as a place to start realizing that sometimes we misunderstand things as being the other way around, from the way things really are.

"According to the General Theory of Relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is represented by a field." - Albert Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348

Gravity on or near a major gravitational mass, acting as a repelling force, rather than an impelling force. An alternative directional vector. Newton allows for it. Einstein requires it. But Carl Sagen and his friends don't allow for or require it. On the contrary, they reject it altogether.

Please review this alternative perspective (We are not alluding to 'trivial objects' such as 'baseballs' and 'bullets', we are dealing with the MASSIVE coordinate sytem - in this case - earth:

The false enigma (of an apparently curved line actually being straight - what Einstein called a 'geodesic', and 'the result of the curvature of the 4-D space time continuum') is resolved in the recognition that the entire physical frame of reference is - 4-Dimensionally - ever enlarging (ever faster - accelerating), pinning the fans to their bleachers, all the cars to the asphalt in the parking lot, the city accomodating the ball park and the omnidirectionally expanding planet the city rests upon: rising up to create the illusion that the apparently curving baseball trajectory, which is actually a moving in a straight line ('geodesic'), appears to be moving in a parabolic arc. When a test object is projected straight up in the air, it does not 'slow down, turn around and return to the catcher. No indeed. The catcher - or the ground - rises up to overtake and impact the test object.

"Since the General Theory of Relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density is particularly high." - Albert Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348

Having One's Tea While Spilling It Also, continued:
'Obviously the universe is not made up of a bunch of disturbed areas. Because, if it was, by now it would have *spread indefinitely.' - J.W.N Sullivan (THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE) and G.P. Thompson
(A *tensor equation - *4th coordinate; of time and motion - applicable where only three coordinates were previously perceived.) Note: the ‘obvious’ is not put into words here. The obvious, being that the physical - as well as spatial - universe is found to be *expanding. Whereas, that inevitably *descriptive word - expanding - is displaced with 'spread indefinitely'.

Note also, J.W.N. Sullivan's (LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE) and George Gamow's (GRAVITY) reference to expanding charges of electricity (particles): they are not called that. Instead, they are obliquely referred to as 'unstable', and 'disturbed areas' (On medical hold?) New Age Verbal Judoists.

*Conversely: becoming exactly as three dimensionally small, as the universe becomes four dimensionally larger around a given 3-D entity (Refer Schwartzchild radius). Squared. (Refer: Black holes: Where Mr. Flatlander & Co. do bullish business and bearish residence without the 4th dimension.) The so called 'indefinite spread' is in fact very well defined. Refer, Sir Isaac Newton's gravitational alternative, and Albert Einstein's four dimensional, acceleration, and so forth, squared. Proving a steady state universe; discovering the 5th & 6th dimensions, allowing a causal explanation for black hole singularities, etceteras.

Having to do, for example, with anytime anyone drops - or in any way projects, or hurls - anything at all at any time, anywhere on/near this planet. "Physics is what physicists do". - Dr. Peter Bergmann, GRAVITATION. Every time the impatient mathematician at the blackboard drops his chalk, the reputed, immeasurable and incomprehensible answer continues to elude his precipitating powers of observation. Outfinding Dr. Livingston, patrolling vigilantly on the popularly presumptuous river of denial.

Another Statically Overlooked, Expanding Ultimatum:
Thereby and thence, it was Maxwell from whom we learned that the presumed static field, already known to originate-with and project-from Matter, is actually expanding, Thereby generating a perfect Natural expression of the geometric LAW OF THE INVERSE SQUARE. Projecting and distributing the same amount of energy, omnidirectionally from matter sources; over an increasingly greater area, at the speed of light.

An outwardly unfolding field in time, inversely squared in space, per light wave and/or system of light waves, without end... Finite (at any given moment in space) but unbounded (in Past microcosmic and Future Macrocosmic time).

"An electromagnetic wave is a double wave: electric and magnetic field strengths travel together at right angles each to the other and are intimately interwoven (*inseperable). Thus light is electromagnetic field : traveling through space from out of electromagnetic charges (*called 'particles') which have produced (*generated) them... these two sets of force lines are respectively analogous in familiar gravitational terms, to the lines down which falling objects drop perpendicular to a surface (as of the earth) and contrariwise to the path lines of moons or satellites orbiting parallel to the same surface." - Guy Murchie, MUSIC OF THE SPHERES

Best regards,
KO

Post Script:
Although 'Read-Only' (for example) has not emerged at all in the category of unqualified pot shots; name-calling 'crack-pots' - such quack-speak static has occured in this and other threads; this note is a reminder that such bankrupt confetti smugly celebrates its own inability to make a tenable case against whatever may be argued; while soliciting the reader to take their impotence seriously.
 
Last edited:
Kaiduorkhon said:
Post Script:
Although 'Read-Only' (for example) has not emerged at all in the category of unqualified pot shots; name-calling 'crack-pots' - such quack-speak static has occured in this and other threads; this note is a reminder that such bankrupt confetti celebrates its own inability to make a tenable case against whatever may be argued.
Click to expand...

Poppycock. I see no reason at all to make any effort to debunk such garbage when it so clearly IS garbage in the first place. :shrug:

Note to Mods: Would someone please move this pile of junk to the Cesspool where it so rightfully belongs? Thanks in advance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top