[Laura]

<div class=””>I see gravity as a push rather than a pull. If you are standing on a planet, you feel gravity because of the push of “ether” coming from above you. You are shielded from this ether pressure below you by the mass of the planet. If you could journey to the center of the earth you would be in zero G. (You will be shielded by equal mass all around you). The big question is how can one prove it is a push and not a pull? Newton only said it’s an “apparent” pull but he did not say this was the real way it worked. I think push is more parsimonious because how do you explain something that pulls without touching and at huge distances? It’s much easier to envisage something pushing against something else to cause pressure or movement (like gas law).
</div><div>

</div>

[Kasim]

Gravity can’t be a ‘push’ but a pull because gravity is electric in nature and hence it’s an attraction. If gravity is a push, then is electric attraction also a push?

[Jerry]

Good question, Kasim.

How exactly is gravity electrical? instead of gravity being “the only one” that isn’t thoroughly unified with the unified field theory? I’ve had the same thought myself. What led you to that idea?

[Kasim]

I looked at the alleged 4 force of nature in the Standard Model (SM) and found that the EM force to be the most studied and well understood field theory of all. So, I proposed it as the field theory of everything, so to speak. This meant that I have to explain the other 3 forces in terms of the EM force.

I regard the strong force as the strength of the nuclear bonds which are electromagnetic; and its short length is due to the fact that the nucleons have to be close enough for bonding to take place. I also concluded that the strength of a bond is inversely proportional to the length of the bond i.e. the shorter the length, the stronger the bond. Because the nucleus is 100,000 times smaller than the atom, the length of a nuclear would be 100,000 times shorter than chemical bonds; hence the enormous strength of the nuclear bond.

To understand this process and explain the weak force, I’d like to give you my hypothesis of nucleon structure. I proposed that nucleons are made of a positronic centre orbited by electrons i.e. structured like atoms. When nucleons bond together, they do so by merging their orbitals to form nuclear orbitals and nuclear bonds just like atoms combine to form molecular orbitals and molecular bonds.

Electron emission decay occurs when there are too many neutrons in the nucleus; so 1 or more electrons are ejected from the nucleus by sheer electric repulsive forces. Positron emission decay occurs when there are too many protons in the nucleus; so 1 or more positrons are ejected from the nucleus by sheer electric repulsive forces. This means that the weak force is a manifestation of the EM force.

To understand this fully, consider the following: the proton has 1 less electron than the neutron; yet it’s the epitome of stability. This implies that the extra electron on the neutron destabilises it. However, in the combined state, the destabilising is roaming freely within the nuclear orbital leaving the neutron looking like a proton and just as stable.

This means that when there are too many neutrons, it’s akin to too many electrons; and 1 or more of them are expelled by the sheer repulsive forces between them. However, it’s harder to explain positron emission decays; but the presence of too many protons in the nucleus is akin to too many positrons where 1 or more of them is expelled from the nucleus by sheer repulsive forces.

This brings us to gravity. I know this sounds scrappy, but if the 3 forces are electromagnetic, there’s a good chance that gravity is electric – Nature is simplicity itself. My hypothesis in this case is that the force due to the nucleus can be felt outside the atom. Hence, the nucleus of one atom can still attract the electrons of other atoms albit very weakly. By the same token, electrons of one atom can repel those of other atoms; and the nucleus of one atom can repel those of other atoms. But because of polarisation, an attractive effect results.

I use this to explain the Casimir effect rather than he impossible quantum fluctuations of QM which borrows energy that doesn’t exist. Repulsive Casimir effect has been detected; this is catered for in my hypothesis; but it can’t be explained by QM. I also use it to explain Van der Waal’s or London forces i.e. they’re electromagnetic; which means that the Universe is truly Electric.

This brings us nicely to our friends at the Electric Universe who are investigating dipole gravity to explain it in terms of electricity. They have a patron saint in the name of Michael Faraday who thought that gravity can be exlained in terms of electricity. Ironically, Faraday is the father of EM field theory.

So, once gravity is explained in terms of electricity, we’ll have a Unified Field Theory f Everything using Mawell’s EM field theory, the most acceptable theory in physics. This means that unification was the wrong method of solution.

Incidentally, I read one of Rupert Sheldrake’s articles about morphogenetic fields that act as scaffolding during the healing process – Sheldrake is a biologist. I though that if you go down to the molecular level, you’ll find that the molecular orbitals are populated by electrons. Hence the morphogenetic field is an EM field. The Universe is truly Electric i.e. everything can be explained in terms of electricity including gravity.

[Jerry]

Hi Laura. I tried to view the images there, yet without luck! Were you responding to my previous post there in particular? Considering what you have said, isn’t the question of whether gravity pushes or pulls, without a definite conclusion of if gravity “travels” or if it’s “instantaneous”? Does the “maximum possible velocity” apply to gravity, as well as light? Does gravity travel, except slower than c? Also, is it a constant?

The thought that gravity is either a push or a pull, to me, seems possibly misleading. Maybe that’s sort of only a guess. What if gravity actually isn’t either of them. I’m also skeptical of the idea that light is a particle or a wave.

Have you heard of the Dinu effect, of the experiment with the under-water spinning cylinders? It seems to illustrate the effects of magnetism.

Also, that was quite intriguing, the idea you had that zero gravity exists within the center of the earth. I hadn’t considered that. What about the earth’s orbit around the sun though? To consider that the sun and moon appear from our earthly perspective as around the same size, there was one principle of motion that Newton had expressed for the effect of gravity, as to the size of a given object, and its distance away (or something similar to that.) 🙂

Anyway, here’s a quote I found online, “The inverse square law proposed by Newton suggests that the force of gravity acting between any two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the separation distance between the object’s centers.”

Though, that is slightly besides the point. lol

There’s much I could write about the ether. Would you possibly want to meet over in the ether group? I just thought the ether is possibly too much of an extensive topic to discuss quickly, or maybe I’m just seeming “nit-picky”. lol Whichever way is fine with me though.

Anyway, thanks for your response!

• This reply was modified 2 years, 6 months ago by  Jerry.

[Laura]

To open those images click on them, click download, click open. Or you can see one of the graphs here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/164032/infinity-problem-why-is-gravity-g-0-zero-at-the-center-of-earth-if-according

I think of ether/gravity as a fluid like substance that exists in all space. Waves can be transmitted through it – pressure waves? So waves that can push. I can’t imagine how something could exert a pull force on something else so this makes sense to me. So gravity doesn’t travel but sloshes in waves or is transmitted by “gravity/ether particles” hitting and bouncing each other like gas particles inside a balloon or water in a lake.

[Kasim]

I don’t think that anybody knows what gravity is but it does exist as we can feel its effects. I also think that it does travel thus it takes time for us to feel the gravity of a distant object. I also believe that gravity travels with the same speed as that of light so that e.g. the gravity of the sun arrives at the same time as its image. Otherwise, we would feel the gravity coming from a different place than from where we ‘see’ the sun.

Some people have put words in Newton’s mouth that he said that the speed of gravity is instantaneous. This implies that the speed of light (SOL) is also instantaneous which flies in the face of what Newton said about light i.e. that it’s a stream of corpuscles (particles). Now, particles have a finite speed; hence, they cannot be instantaneous. The fact that we feel the sun’s gravity at the same time as we see its image, implies that gravity travels at the SOL. Perhaps that’s what fooled most people into thinking that it’s instantaneous.

As to what gravity is, I follow the Electric Universe’s (EU’s) model of dipole gravity i.e. that it’s of an electric nature. I have my own theory regarding the Standard Model: there are only 2 fermions (electron and positron) which form all matter; only one force of nature (EM force); and only one boson (photon) which mediates the EM force as well as carrying momentum and energy.

Then these electrons and positrons form nucleons that interact electromagnetically with each other to form nuclei and eventually atoms and molecules. Because electrons and positrons already exist in the nucleus, there’s no need for the weak nuclear force. Because nucleons interact electromagnetically, there’s no need for the strong nuclear force. Now that the EU are explaining gravity in terms of electricity, it means that the EM force is the only fundamental force of nature. Besides, did you know that Michael Faraday said that he suspects that gravity is due to electricity? This was after he experimentally proved that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon.

[Laura]

If gravity is electrical then how is that electricity carried through space?

[Kasim]

Free space has electrical properties in the form of permittivity and permeability which are electric and magnetic susceptibility constants. Hence, there’s some kind of material in space that seems to be resisting motion, which is why I believe in the universal speed limit. Although I believe that light doesn’t need a medium to propagate in, I keep an open mind on the existence of an EM aether for the above reason. This speed limit is akin to the terminal velocity of a fluid.

So, space has EM properties which will allow electricity to travel in space – unless Maxwell is wrong. Who could believe it? Maxwell is giving credibility to the aether theory. Actually, Maxwell did base his EM field theory on the aether, anyway.

[Richard]

Hi all.

Joining this discussion late as it were.

In summary my opinion on gravity is that it’s instantaneous and attractive.

Ok what causes it you ask?

There is a concept in my head but I can’t put it into words. It has to do with an intrinsic property of matter.

It’s assumed that the antiparticle of the electron has negative gravity. Sabine Hossenfeldter actually did her PhD thesis on this but it can’t be proven because the half-life is so brief. Also the mass to velocity ratio is so small that detectors to detect it’s reaction to gravity can’t be constructed.Sabine said in the end it wasn’t logical anyway. I don’t believe gravity is electrical. The electrostatics phenomenon is just too well documented to allow a loophole for gravity.

I’m going to predict that when a true cause of gravity is discovered then a lot of nonsense in physics will disappear, namely things like the neutrino , dark matter and distance measurement over long distances.

I was at a conference in Yelm Washington once where a person sat on a force plate in a room where some 30 guests observed a graph of the output of a force plate on which the subject was sitting. The subject concentrated on getting lighter, and they did.

The weight (force between the subject and the earth) did indeed change over time. I went up afterwards to examine the equipment but I was unable to ascertain the magnitude of the variation. At the time I wrote it off as a hoax. They were members of a cult who also made lots of other unbelievable claims.

Where I am now I like to think I have an open mind about gravity.

I read an article yesterday that Einstein went to his grave denying that GR supports the geometrization of gravity. He was also a naysayer of quantum mechanics and spoke about the non existence of black holes.

I have serious objections to SR because it’s inconsistent and leads to “paradoxes” . Hello folks, a paradox means it’s not true. I wish language was not so imprecise and subject to misapplication.

Ok , my two cents. See you later.

Thanks for inviting me to the group.

[Richard]

I may have to reconsider my position on the propagation speed being instantaneous. Simultaneity has always been hard to grapple with. It involves metaphysics and possibly the occult. Yet there are strange things in the universe. These could account for instantaneous action at a distance. But unlikely.

Until it’s been shown I must reserve judgement.

Sorry for being ambiguous.

[John-Erik]

Fatio’s model is neutrino-like particles moving in all directions. They are absorbed to a small extent by matter. Therefore, fewer particles are leaving a body in relation to number of arriving particles. So, gravity is not a pushing and not a pulling force but a small difference between a pushing and a pulling force.

Newton’s model is not complete, since he derived the law by mathematics without observing that the law demands spherical symmetry on the body causing gravity. The model can be completed by splitting up a gravitating body in small volume elements, apply the model to each element and then integrate, so we no longer need spherical symmetry. The model becomes complete and can describe gravity. So, Newton’s model is only an approximation.

Newton’s completed model can be united with Fatio’s model by assuming matter to absorb ether particles and cause a small attenuation in the flow.

Newton’s mistake of not observing a mathematical demand means that he did not see that the idea Fatio sent to him could explain gravity by a radial ether wind equal to the escape velocity. Since the ether must contain mass this a natural behavior of ether in relation to other forms of matter.

With best regards from _________ John-Erik

[John-Erik]

Nature produces approximately spherical symmetry. This fact is hiding to us that there is a demand for perfect spherical symmetry,

Regards

[John-Erik]

The result of Newton’s mistake was BIG BANG

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/8934

Regards

[John-Erik]

Newton’s mistake gave us BIG BANG See below

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/8934

[Shiva]

It’s interesting because Laplace calculated that if there was a lag time for gravity, the earth would crash into the sun in just a few centuries because of aberration.

This discussion below, however, is useful for grasping the commonplace understanding of this quirk since GR posits a non-instant gravitation.

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/5869/is-the-influence-of-gravity-instantaneous

[Kasim]

Although I have qualms with GR, I actually support the fact that the influence of gravity travels at the speed of light (SOL) – that’s what gravitational waves are: changes in the gravitational field intensity and not the ludicrous ripples of spacetime. This means that the influence of the Sun’s gravity and its light will arrive everywhere at the same time. This gives the illusion that both the SOL and gravity are instantaneous.

To say that the SOL is finite and gravity is instantaneous is proposetrous because we’ll feel the Sun’s gravity from a position where the Sun will be 8 minutes later. But that’s not what we feel; hence, the SOL and that of gravity are the same. To me, nothing is instantaneous; hence, light and gravity travel at the same finite speed.

[Shiva]

It actually leaves me a little puzzled still but I haven’t cared enough to work it out because there’s such a snarl of BS surrounding relativity. From people misunderstanding the fact hat it’s a preferred frame theory (constancy is discarded) to the religious-like defense of it polluting every set-up or discussion of experiment in the past century. …I’ve left his one for later.

GR is an extension of MacCullagh’s ether, however, through Hilbert who was using Mie’s work which was based on MacCullagh, so there’s a good reason it works really well. The understanding of what the math means however, is hopelessly polluted. Those who support it NEVER separate the map from the territory so you can’t even talk to them about the meaning of the math.

Aside from all that, however, you’ll notice in the discussion that light is electromagnetism and stellar aberration is a well known effect where light is not directed at an instantaneous location, but the guy with the best answer there says:

“As an analogy, the electric field of a uniformly moving electric charge is directed toward the instantaneous position of the charge – not where the charge used to be”

…so then what does this mean for stellar aberration?

Like I said, too much of a smokescreen of BS for me to work on right now because there are tens of thousands of failure points like this that can get you lost in the weeds when it’s far better to track down the roots of everything and dig them up.

That’s what I do. I know the roots and I attack them directly by making people understand the root misunderstanding.</font>

• This reply was modified 2 years, 4 months ago by  Shiva. Reason: Site adds a bunch of HTML garbage

[John-Erik]

Gravity does not travel – and is not instantaneous either.

See article below.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361094474_Gravity_does_not_move