Gravity - Have we got it wrong!!

[Neil Russell]

Newton saw the apple fall to the ground and deduced gravity was pulling it down, but, what if we are wrong and gravity is pushing the apple down from the tree. Nothing changes to the observer but the force acting on the apple is changed 180 degrees from a pull to a push!

So if gravity is a push we can deduce the force is coming from space, to explain this imagine space is a medium made up of space/time/gravity force in other words an "ocean" like medium.
This medium applies force to all bodies within it (just like an ocean).
Bodies/mass cause a distortion within this "ocean" (https://ancient-code.com/scientists-...on-space-time/)) such that the bodies are surrounded by a sphere of distortion. The size of the sphere would dictate the pressure (gravity force) exerted at its center, huge for a Black Hole tiny for an atom. The gravity force exerted by the "ocean" will force adjoining spheres together exactly as we observe now.

Things to like about this theory.
Recently discovered gravity waves are easily explained as ripples in the medium(ocean).
There is no need for gravitons, gravity force only works in one direction.
We have evidence for bodies distorting space.
Space being a medium goes towards explaining the speed limit of light (think speed of sound in an atmosphere!)

Worth a thought??

[Shaula]

Not worth a thought without a lot more detail.

Can you show that your push concept results in a linear system in the low field limit?
Can you show that this concept reduces to the Newtonian approximation in the low field limit?
Can you show that your concept replicates the structure of GR in the high field limit?
Can you show what predictions your concept makes that are different to current theories and as such could be considered tests of it?

All you have presented so far is a sketch of an idea. Before anyone is going to take it seriously you need to do some science.

[PetersCreek]

​Thread closed pending moderator discussion.

[Swift]

​Thread closed pending moderator discussion.

After some discussion, the thread is reopened.

[Strange]

Newton saw the apple fall to the ground and deduced gravity was pulling it down, but, what if we are wrong and gravity is pushing the apple down from the tree. Nothing changes to the observer but the force acting on the apple is changed 180 degrees from a pull to a push!

This is an old idea and discarded long ago.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sag...of_gravitation

Bodies/mass cause a distortion within this "ocean" (https://ancient-code.com/scientists-...on-space-time/))

That is a phenomenally bad article. There is barely a single correct sentence in it. Why not link to any of the thousands of good articles on General Relativity on the web?

The size of the sphere would dictate the pressure (gravity force) exerted at its center, huge for a Black Hole tiny for an atom.

This is clearly wrong. We know that gravity is not proportional to the size of an object, but to its mass.

The gravity force exerted by the "ocean" will force adjoining spheres together exactly as we observe now.

Exactly? You can show the maths to support this, I assume?

Recently discovered gravity waves are easily explained as ripples in the medium(ocean).

They are already explained by GR. Please show how your idea explains them better.

There is no need for gravitons

No current theory relies on gravitons, so this is irrelevant.

gravity force only works in one direction.

This is true in Newtonian gravity and GR. Your idea doesn't change this.

We have evidence for bodies distorting space.

As described by GR. Which makes your idea redundant. And unnecessary.

Worth a thought??

Apparently not.

[Geo Kaplan]

Newton saw the apple fall to the ground and deduced gravity was pulling it down, but, what if we are wrong and gravity is pushing the apple down from the tree. Nothing changes to the observer but the force acting on the apple is changed 180 degrees from a pull to a push!

So if gravity is a push we can deduce the force is coming from space, to explain this imagine space is a medium made up of space/time/gravity force in other words an "ocean" like medium.
This medium applies force to all bodies within it (just like an ocean).
Bodies/mass cause a distortion within this "ocean" (https://ancient-code.com/scientists-...on-space-time/)) such that the bodies are surrounded by a sphere of distortion. The size of the sphere would dictate the pressure (gravity force) exerted at its center, huge for a Black Hole tiny for an atom. The gravity force exerted by the "ocean" will force adjoining spheres together exactly as we observe now.

Things to like about this theory.
Recently discovered gravity waves are easily explained as ripples in the medium(ocean).
There is no need for gravitons, gravity force only works in one direction.
We have evidence for bodies distorting space.
Space being a medium goes towards explaining the speed limit of light (think speed of sound in an atmosphere!)

Worth a thought??

Given that "pushing gravity" theories have been kicking around for centuries, as Strange's link shows, we assume that either you have come up with something new that overcomes the fatal flaws of such theories, in which case we await a full exposition of your new theory (with maths, please, possessing the limiting behaviours that Shaula has pointed out as requirements); or that you were unaware of the long prior history of such ideas and have not studied pushing gravity ideas beyond the "hey, neat, sounds good to me" stage, in which case you may wish to withdraw your claim and abandon this thread.

ETA: I agree with Strange's opinion of the article you selected in support. It is more than phenomenally bad; it almost reads as if it were written by a bot whose neural net had not yet been presented with training data. One hopes that it is not reflective of your judgment in general.

[Neil Russell]

Shaula, thank you for your quick reply. You seem to expect changes? to observations, my point is nothing changes in our observations, the only change is from a pull to a push force.No predictions yet!!

Strange, old science is exactly that, old science moves on.
My point distortion/warping is fact!
You clearly did not understand my point re size of sphere/warping relating to size of mass and therefore gravity force, obviously a BH will have a huge sphere/warping.
A smaller sphere contacts a larger sphere whereupon the gravity force/medium/space will push it towards the larger, as we see now.
Gravity waves are not definitely defined in GR, or their propagation, but I see one suggestion suggesting they are ripples in a space medium.
Does GR not postulate that gravity is due to warping of space??

Geo Kaplan, if only you could settle science so easily, things change! I am not surprised others have thought of a push gravity, recent discoveries I would point out support a push.

It is no use asking for maths (I do not have that skill) I would simply point out that maths never came up with an idea, that comes from our brain.

I repeat space is a medium (yet to be fully understood) this is a fact, as suggested inGR a gravity wave will propagate through this medium, at the speed of light.
Mass distorts/warps the space/medium around it, a fact.
So if we incorporate the gravity force as part of space medium and it pushes against our mass sphere then we have a more robust theory of gravity.

[cosmocrazy]

Shaula, thank you for your quick reply. You seem to expect changes? to observations, my point is nothing changes in our observations, the only change is from a pull to a push force.No predictions yet!!

Strange, old science is exactly that, old science moves on.
My point distortion/warping is fact!
You clearly did not understand my point re size of sphere/warping relating to size of mass and therefore gravity force, obviously a BH will have a huge sphere/warping.
A smaller sphere contacts a larger sphere whereupon the gravity force/medium/space will push it towards the larger, as we see now.
Gravity waves are not definitely defined in GR, or their propagation, but I see one suggestion suggesting they are ripples in a space medium.
Does GR not postulate that gravity is due to warping of space??

Geo Kaplan, if only you could settle science so easily, things change! I am not surprised others have thought of a push gravity, recent discoveries I would point out support a push.

It is no use asking for maths (I do not have that skill) I would simply point out that maths never came up with an idea, that comes from our brain.

I repeat space is a medium (yet to be fully understood) this is a fact, as suggested inGR a gravity wave will propagate through this medium, at the speed of light.
Mass distorts/warps the space/medium around it, a fact.
So if we incorporate the gravity force as part of space medium and it pushes against our mass sphere then we have a more robust theory of gravity.

Unfortunately your idea will never get off the ground then (my bold). Turning an idea into a theory requires evidential data, which includes observational & math, that can be verified to either prove or disprove the idea. A person's idea has no standing in science unless it can be tested.

[Geo Kaplan]

Geo Kaplan, if only you could settle science so easily, things change! I am not surprised others have thought of a push gravity, recent discoveries I would point out support a push.

It is no use asking for maths (I do not have that skill) I would simply point out that maths never came up with an idea, that comes from our brain.

Then all you have is an opinion and unsupported assertions. You have no theory, and thus no theory to defend. When you say "recent discoveries...support a push" you are simply making another unsupported assertion. There is no point at all to this thread if that is all you have. Assertions and opinions are not even a dime a dozen on the internet. Sorry if that is harsh, but it is nonetheless true.

[tusenfem]

<snip>
It is no use asking for maths (I do not have that skill) I would simply point out that maths never came up with an idea, that comes from our brain.

I repeat space is a medium (yet to be fully understood) this is a fact, as suggested inGR a gravity wave will propagate through this medium, at the speed of light.
Mass distorts/warps the space/medium around it, a fact.
So if we incorporate the gravity force as part of space medium and it pushes against our mass sphere then we have a more robust theory of gravity.

Neil Russell, you will need to do better that this. Just claiming something is NOT enough. We do not expect you to have a fully mathematically formed theory here, but we do expect more than the handwaving that you present here.
Please put some effort in, otherwise this thread will not live long.

[Hornblower]

Neil, before you can argue for interpreting gravitation as a push you need to give us a definition for "pull" concerning what happens in GR, the mainstream theory at this point. I am not sure if it even has a conceptual meaning in this sense. We know very well what we mean by pushing and pulling in our everyday experiences involving physical contact between objects. Please elaborate.

[Strange]

You clearly did not understand my point re size of sphere/warping relating to size of mass and therefore gravity force, obviously a BH will have a huge sphere/warping.

Not obvious at all. Black holes are much smaller than a normal object of the same mass. So a black hole with the same mass of the Sun would have a diameter of about 6km (that is smaller than the Sun).

A smaller sphere contacts a larger sphere whereupon the gravity force/medium/space will push it towards the larger, as we see now.

That doesn't make much sense.

Gravity waves are not definitely defined in GR, or their propagation, but I see one suggestion suggesting they are ripples in a space medium.

They are very well defined. They can be precisely modelled mathematically. That is how LIGO was able to detect them and determine what the source was. Your vague idea cannot match that.

Does GR not postulate that gravity is due to warping of space??

Obviously, yes. And it makes predictions that can be tested. And have been tested. The theory works. So why should anyone consider replacing it with some vague untestable idea?

recent discoveries I would point out support a push.

We can counter this argument using the same level of evidence that you have: no evidence supports push gravity.

It is no use asking for maths (I do not have that skill) I would simply point out that maths never came up with an idea, that comes from our brain.

But the maths is essential to test an idea. Ideas are easy, anyone can come up with one. The challenge is finding an idea that works.

So if we incorporate the gravity force as part of space medium and it pushes against our mass sphere then we have a more robust theory of gravity.

We already have a theory of gravity that works. It is up to you to show that your idea is better.

[Shaula]

Shaula, thank you for your quick reply. You seem to expect changes? to observations, my point is nothing changes in our observations, the only change is from a pull to a push force.No predictions yet!!

So your idea has no value then. If all it does is exactly replicate current theories, without doing anything more or different, then it isn't worth considering. To give an example, I could replace gravity with tiny invisible elastic bands linking everything in the universe together. I could claim that the fact that they are made of unobtainium makes them behave in a way to exactly replicate GR. Is this a useful new theory? No.

Until you can provide a model or something usefully new this is just a concept. As others have said, these kinds of ideas are easy. If you want anyone to actually consider this or take it seriously you need to present it as a scientific theory, complete with predictions and tests or at least enough detail to build these.

[Neil Russell]

Thank you for your replies. Most of you are bagging me for my perceived shortcomings, but missing the point of what I am actually suggesting which is if gravity is indeed a force pushing in from space/medium, then we have a new force required, mass warping/distorting force to warp the space around a body (my so called spheres). So here is your verifiable force how/why does mass exert this force/effect?We already have proof that space/medium is indeed warped/distorted around a body/mass. I have suggested how this interacts with gravity force to give our observable universe now.

I struggle to find anywhere an answer to how gravity works in our present belief system, a particle that atracts? is suggested but not explained? whereas in a medium/space system gravity is everywhere exerting force continuously, like "water' in an ocean.In this theory the galaxy is held together by the continuous pressure from space/medium whereas under present theory gravity attraction at the speed of light is supposed to hold together a galaxy hundreds of light years in size.

[Shaula]

I struggle to find anywhere an answer to how gravity works in our present belief system, a particle that atracts? is suggested but not explained? whereas in a medium/space system gravity is everywhere exerting force continuously, like "water' in an ocean.In this theory the galaxy is held together by the continuous pressure from space/medium whereas under present theory gravity attraction at the speed of light is supposed to hold together a galaxy hundreds of light years in size.

Try looking up General Relativity. It describes how we model gravity as working in a lot of detail. What I suspect you mean is that you are rejecting GR because you don't find it satisfying. However satisfying you find your pet idea a complete lack of predictions or tests make it inferior to GR by a huge margin.

Secondly it is changes in the gravitational field that propagate at c, not gravity itself. Your objection is based on a misrepresentation of the theory.

[Swift]

<snip>
So if gravity is a push we can deduce the force is coming from space, to explain this imagine space is a medium made up of space/time/gravity force in other words an "ocean" like medium.
This medium applies force to all bodies within it (just like an ocean).

This sounds a lot like an aether.

[Geo Kaplan]

Thank you for your replies. Most of you are bagging me for my perceived shortcomings

You're "being bagged" for the demonstrated shortcoming of having no theory.

, but missing the point of what I am actually suggesting which is if gravity is indeed a force pushing in from space/medium, then we have a new force required, mass warping/distorting force to warp the space around a body (my so called spheres).

No, we're not missing any point: It is abundantly clear that you simply like your idea, so much so that you are willing to ignore its fatal flaws. At the same time, you don't understand the overwhelming support for GR (and perhaps you don't understand GR at all), and that ignorance intensifies your preference for the simpler, though unworkable, pushing gravity idea. You're making the classic mistake of thinking that, because you personally don't understand something, it doesn't work. Have you paused to consider that the fault lies not in the stars, but in yourself?

I struggle to find anywhere an answer to how gravity works in our present belief system, a particle that atracts? is suggested but not explained? whereas in a medium/space system gravity is everywhere exerting force continuously, like "water' in an ocean.In this theory the galaxy is held together by the continuous pressure from space/medium whereas under present theory gravity attraction at the speed of light is supposed to hold together a galaxy hundreds of light years in size.

As Shaula has pointed out, you have not struggled nearly enough, nor in the right place, for we have had general relativity for almost exactly a century now. It explains all those things to a degree in exquisite quantitative agreement with every test thrown at it. It is a remarkably successful scientific theory. That you prefer a notion (it's not even a theory) that has been shown to possess fatal flaws, over a tested and successful theory (it's not "a belief system"; nice try, though, at deprecating GR to the level of mere belief, presumably to allow any belief to be treated as on par with GR) says more about your non-scientific approach to science than about existing theories.

[Reality Check]

Shaula, thank you for your quick reply. You seem to expect changes? to observations, my point is nothing changes in our observations, the only change is from a pull to a push force.No predictions yet!!

Without predictions you hardly have an ATM idea. Just changing gravity to a repulsive force is an obviously invalid idea.
Newton's law of gravitation: F = GMm/r^2.
An attractive force means that an apple released from a tree falls because the Earth is much closer than any other body. If the gravity of the Earth pushed on a apple released from a tree then the apple would rise upward because there is nothing appropriate closer to push it down.

Can gravity be proportional to the size of an object?
Basically no. There is the equivalence principle with its many passed tests. The acceleration of a body in a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body, including its size.
This is something you can almost test for yourself. Get a bowling ball. Find a weight that is smaller and the same mass. Go to a cliff and drop them over. An observer at the bottom will see them hit the ground at roughly the same time. Wind resistance will affect the falls so the impacts will not be exactly the same time.

The strength of gravity will usually be proportional to the size of a body because a bigger body generally has a higher mass.

[Reality Check]

I struggle to find anywhere an answer to how gravity works in our present belief system, a particle that atracts? is suggested but not explained?

A struggle easily resolved by reading the Wikipedia article on gravity and the linked articles. Also see graviton.

GR and Newton's law of gravitation are scientific theories that make testable, falsifiable predictions that are then tested against observations. The main "belief" is that when theories match the data then they can be considered to be a correct description of the data and of the universe that presents that data. There is the reasonable belief that a theory that better matches data than another theory is the better theory.

[Strange]

Most of you are bagging me for my perceived shortcomings, but missing the point of what I am actually suggesting which is if gravity is indeed a force pushing in from space/medium, then we have a new force required, mass warping/distorting force to warp the space around a body (my so called spheres).

But there is absolutely no reason to think that gravity is a push. And you have not provided one (other than the fact the idea appeals to you.)

And no reason to think that this model works (i.e. produces the effects of gravity that we see). In fact, there are good reasons to think it doesn't work.

You are missing the point that science works by developing useful mathematical models that can predict/explain what we see around us. We have two theories of gravity (Newtonian and GR) that do that with different levels of accuracy. If your idea cannot do the same then it is no use to science.

I struggle to find anywhere an answer to how gravity works in our present belief system, a particle that atracts?

There is no "particle that attracts". Gravity is, as others have pointed out, one of the effects of the curvature of space-time.

This is an excellent tutorial on what GR means and how it produces the effects we see, such as gravity: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/

There is some mathematics in there, but you can actually get quite a lot out of it just by reading the text around the equations.

p.s. If you don't understand how gravity works, why not try asking some questions in Q&A rather than making stuff up. You will get a much less critical response!

[Neil Russell]

Yes Swift it does sound like an aether,, but "space' is not empty. Gravity Probe B is warping something, be it called a type of aether or a medium.
Geo Kaplan, no theory? so what are we talking about? a theory!! Fatal flaws you say but dont give an example. I repeat Gr does not address how gravity force is applied, yes space curvature is suggested, which I agree with my "spheres" are space curvature by another name. You assert that GR covers everything, it does not!!Gravitons are described as hypothetical, there is no definite proven description of gravity propagation within science, yet!
Reality Check changing gravity to a push "is obviously an invalid idea" sorry that is your opinion. The rest of your comments are not very relevant to the discussion, see my comment above re gravitons.
Strange,go back to my original post and read my supporting observations. I await your reasons why it shouldnt work? isnt that what is supposed to happen? Finally I dont understand how gravity work, fair enough, but what is with the graviton being a hypothetical particle, does that not mean it someones theory (where is the maths??) and unproven!!! Surely I can suggest a theory (without maths) that other people can at least find fault with, without the need to denigrate the messenger.

Nobody so far has produced a "killer" counter,, lots of GR but this is not an argument against that.Come on guys read my post!

[Strange]

Gravity Probe B is warping something, be it called a type of aether or a medium.

Gravity Probe B measured the warping of the geometry of space-time. As do all the other tests of GR (gravitational lensing, Pound-Rebka, etc). That is what we perceive as the force of gravity.

Geo Kaplan, no theory? so what are we talking about? a theory!!

You don't have a theory. You don't even have a hypothesis. You have a vague idea that cannot be tested and therefore isn't science.

I repeat Gr does not address how gravity force is applied

It does. But it seems you unwilling to understand how it works.

Gravitons are described as hypothetical

Indeed. So what? They are not part of any theory of gravity (because they are purely hypothetical.)

there is no definite proven description of gravity propagation within science, yet!

There is. It is called General Relativity. You can keep denying this, but it doesn't help your case.

Strange,go back to my original post and read my supporting observations.

Your "support" seems to be based purely on a lack of understanding.

I await your reasons why it shouldnt work? isnt that what is supposed to happen?

You need to show, in suitable mathematical detail, that your idea reproduces the effects we observe. Until you can do that, there is no reason to consider it.

Finally I dont understand how gravity work, fair enough, but what is with the graviton being a hypothetical particle, does that not mean it someones theory (where is the maths??) and unproven!!!

We don't have a theory of gravity based on gravitons, so this is irrelevant.

But the (hypothetical) properties of the graviton are based on a mathematical understanding of the properties it would have if it existed.

Surely I can suggest a theory (without maths) that other people can at least find fault with, without the need to denigrate the messenger.

Has anyone criticised the messenger? If you think they have you can report them to the mods.

Nobody so far has produced a "killer" counter,, lots of GR but this is not an argument against that.Come on guys read my post!

I have read it. You provide no evidence that your idea will match what we observe. That is a pretty big killer. After all, we can use exactly the same amount of evidence to say: "you are wrong."

As your idea is so vague (what is it that is pushing?) and unquantified it is hard to provide arguments against it (because you are not presenting a scientific hypothesis). But here are a few comments. Some may be based on older ideas of push gravity because you haven't explained how your idea works.

Whatever this "thing" is that provides the push needs to have physically implausible properties. It is pushing things towards the centre of the Earth but also needs to go through the Earth without being affected (because gravity is not blocked by the Earth, or anything else). How can it push while at the same time passing through unchanged?

If this thing is pushing against objects, then it must provide a drag as objects move through space. We don't see this. (For example, planets would slow down and fall into the Sun.)

In order to provide a push, it would need to give up some energy to the object being pushed so we should be able to detect a difference in temperature between the "pushed" side and the other side.

If gravity is caused by a push, then it must propagate at finite speed in which case there would be evidence of aberration. There isn't.

How does push gravity explain gravitational time dilation?

How does push gravity explain gravitational lensing?

Even if you could reproduce Newton's inverse square law by invoking a push force (and the mathematics shows this is not the case) it seems completely implausible that you could reproduce the complex non-linear effects of GR.

Finally, you seem to base the mechanism for your push gravity on the curvature of space-time described by GR. But that is already a mechanism for gravity so there is no need for your "push". Occam's Razor.

There are many more problems with push gravity (some are detailed in the Wikipedia article)

[Geo Kaplan]

Nobody so far has produced a "killer" counter,, lots of GR but this is not an argument against that.Come on guys read my post!

I repeat: You have no theory. It is your job to defend your idea. Here. Stop attempting to shift the burden onto us.

You remain ignorant of the strong refutations of pushing gravity. Strange took the trouble of linking a wikipedia article that fairly represents the mainstream arguments against it. Read it instead of falsely claiming that we have not pointed you to pushing gravity's fatal flaws.

We have read your post. Do not fantasise for a moment that our objections are due to a failure to read. Our objections remain that you have no theory. It is easy to see that this claim is true: Despite having been challenged to do so (and despite your obligation to answer), you have not provided any maths at all. You have not shown a single prediction that is testable. You have not shown that you can reproduce all -- not just some -- of the successes of current theories (GR is a scientific, tested theory, so stop claiming otherwise), while at the same time going beyond them in a testable manner.

Part of the fundamental problem you suffer from is an apparent ignorance of what constitutes a theory. You ought to look that up.

Again, you have no theory. Just opinions and assertions. Remember, in the ATM forum the burden of proof lies with the claimant. It is not a place for someone merely to voice an opinion. So far, all you've done is make unsupported claims.

When may we expect a response to the challenges that have been put to you? Can you show that your idea (it's not a theory) reproduces Newtonian gravity (don't just claim it -- SHOW it)? Can you show that your idea reproduces GR everywhere the latter has been experimentally shown to work? Etc.

You keep claiming that GR doesn't "explain" this or that. That tack is a total waste of time. Even if you were to show that GR fails, that would in no way prove that your idea was correct. So quit wasting time and get to it, man. Focus! Defend your idea using science, not mere repetition of unsupported assertions. We already know you're convinced, but that is completely irrelevant. Your job is to convince us. Got it?

[Shaula]

Nobody so far has produced a "killer" counter,, lots of GR but this is not an argument against that.Come on guys read my post!

I've read your post. It is pretty much impossible to produce a killer counter to a nebulous, poorly defined idea which bas no scientific theory associated with it. Especially when you have claimed, with no justification, that it will produce identical predictions to current theories. Just like my elastic band theory or the popular invisible pink unicorns theory it is not testable.

As for the rest of your justifications for needing a new theory there are multiple issue with your claims about GR. Gravitons are nothing to do with GR. There is a proven theory (as much as anything is proven in scientific terms) for how gravity propagates, otherwise LIGO couldn't have done what it did. Spacetime curvature is not suggested, it is absolutely intrinsic to the theory and described in detail. Quantum gravity theories make several mathematical predictions about gravitons (hint, how do we know they must be spin 2?).

But none of this is relevant. Even if you could show fatal flaws in GR it wouldn't have your idea any less poorly defined or any more testable. The fact that you seem to say that any theory derived from your idea will replicate whatever predictions are required for it to be right is the fatal flaw with it. That makes it a belief, not science.

[Swift]

Neil Russell, you will need to do better that this. Just claiming something is NOT enough. We do not expect you to have a fully mathematically formed theory here, but we do expect more than the handwaving that you present here.
Please put some effort in, otherwise this thread will not live long.

Yes Swift it does sound like an aether,, but "space' is not empty. Gravity Probe B is warping something, be it called a type of aether or a medium.
Geo Kaplan, no theory? so what are we talking about? a theory!! Fatal flaws you say but dont give an example. I repeat Gr does not address how gravity force is applied, yes space curvature is suggested, which I agree with my "spheres" are space curvature by another name. You assert that GR covers everything, it does not!!Gravitons are described as hypothetical, there is no definite proven description of gravity propagation within science, yet!
Reality Check changing gravity to a push "is obviously an invalid idea" sorry that is your opinion. The rest of your comments are not very relevant to the discussion, see my comment above re gravitons.
Strange,go back to my original post and read my supporting observations. I await your reasons why it shouldnt work? isnt that what is supposed to happen? Finally I dont understand how gravity work, fair enough, but what is with the graviton being a hypothetical particle, does that not mean it someones theory (where is the maths??) and unproven!!! Surely I can suggest a theory (without maths) that other people can at least find fault with, without the need to denigrate the messenger.

Nobody so far has produced a "killer" counter,, lots of GR but this is not an argument against that.Come on guys read my post!

Neil Russell

Repeating your claims with no evidence to support them, shifting the burden to others to disprove your idea, and falsely accusing others of not reading your posts and other bad behavior is not even close to addressing tusenfem's concerns. You had your chance to present your idea, but if all you are going to do is repeat the same thing over and over, we're done. This thread is closed. Do not bring up this topic again.

If you want to try to convince us to reopen this thread, Report this post and present your reasons for reopening it.