Good afternoon Steve,
Thank you for taking the time to provide such a thoughtful reply.
All I talk about is not a theory but a mere idea. My idea has none of the requirements of a theory in the scientific sense.
I may give the impression I am prepared to tear the world down to push an idea but must say that is not the case but more a reflection of my “style” of argument management and moreover a reflection of the frustration of finding the more I learn the less I know and every question I ask raises many more.
say I do not believe gravity is a force of attraction but is in effect a pushing force which I think is generated by the radiation (somehow) of all the stars ( matter generally) in the Universe.
You need to be more specific. Gravity isn't so much a force of attraction as it is a distortion of space time. General relativity explains gravity very very well, down to something like 0.001%, as recent gravity probe B shows. See http://einstein.stanford.edu/. Perhaps you are right, but you have a mountain of existing observations to explain. Anywho, radiation pressure is insignificant, unless its a form we do not know of.
I except gravity is not a force of attraction according to General Relativity however somewhere humans interpret it so. That is part of what I am on about I guess.
My understanding of the current position is that General Relativity says gravity in not a force at all (either pushing or pulling) it simply states the relationship between mass and how mass “bends” the geometric grid we as humans use to visualize “space”.
I see “space time” as “geometry” and I gained that impression originally from seeing it explained as being related to the concept of a Pythagoras theory with the addition of a negative time line.
General Relativity (in fact nothing I can find) describes the forces responsible for the distortion in space time. Nothing seems to say how gravity works...general relativity certainly handles the book keeping but says nothing of the machine that makes it happen. I mean using General Relativity I see gravity is “recorded”… and what it may do is calculated using General Relativity but the way I see it offers no explanation of why two bodies (two masses) should interact…. They just do from the approach of General Relativity.
With that in mind I don’t see the prospect of a “gravity rain” explanation as contradicting or seeking to replace General Relativity... The results should be the same… Gravity Rain is merely the machinery that causes the geometry to say what it says... I see no conflict.
The General Relativity does not require any attraction (or pushing) from what I can make out. Where humans bring in the force of attraction I can not see... I don’t see that General Relativity gives any authority for any force at all… it just is.
I guess I seek to propose the manner by which space time is bent… and suggest that there is indeed a pressure created by something within the electromagnetic spectrum we do not yet know about…
Taking neutrinos for example... first thought to be mass less and traveling at C are now seen as having mass… without seeking more candidates (as no doubt there may be) they could provide the environment I suggest for gravity rain..they may well be it… they are going everywhere at C from everywhere, they don’t die off when in space … so notwithstanding their apparent insignificance I say they come very close to the particle I feel could be making a gravity rain environment.
I believe there is no force of attraction which makes it very hard to fit my views into the current thinking... but they are my views and I will hold them and others can say what they like about them and me... the pushing approach makes sense to me as it is the only way I can envisage there can be
any communication through out the Universe.
I am interested to know why not, and why this pushing is required for communication. For the record, there is a fundamental barrier to communication. Due to the fact expansion of space-time increases as a function of distance, theory predicts there will be such a point where space time expands faster than light can travel. Outside this limit, no information can reach us.
Put simply and keeping it local so as not to engage the aspect of expansion I feel a machinery to run an attraction system beyond a reasonable explanation.
I can not accept that one body when relating to another basically says… I am here! And the other body also says “well I am here” ..it offers only a two way communication system that means a message must be sent and a reply received.
Sorry that is so crude an explanation and hope at least what I see here you can understand… irrespective of whether you accept my proposition
On the assumption that gravity communication will be at the speed of light (and I think that is the suggestion that is acceptable to current thinking) I see that this would mean that interaction of gravity will then be at half the speed of light..given that messages must go out and come back as it were. Of course if messages can travel faster than C that is a new ball game but sticking to C as being the limit is my effort to stay within the current boundaries.
However in a pushing environment there is no need to return the call. The push does not need to go back to its source for a decision of interaction is made.
I can not accept that a grain of sand makes it presence known by sending a message to the whole Universe that it is "there"... whereas pressure of radiation (particles whatever) requires no such message to be sent.
Gravity propagates at the speed of light. There is not contradiction I can see.
I go along with the current speed limit and as I tried to explain above it is the fact C is what it is that I see a different way needed than attraction..this again is not really included by General Relativity..but say for an attraction system to work I feel that we would need messages to be communicated at twice the speed of light ( presumably unreasonable) for the message to go out and come back.
You obviously understand that galaxies are not held together by an internal force (that's what I read into what you have said so forgive me if I have misinterpreted your meaning) such as attraction but by something "outside" that pushes.
I see gravity as a pressure that acts on everything rather than a force from an object that individually relates to everything else in the Universe.
As I said, if you can explain current observations with your theory, and also make some predictions about strctures on the level of galaxies, you might have something. Though, not to put you down, I doubt you can with a pushing force.
Steve never worry about offending me, insulting me or maybe worrying that something sounds like a put down. But I sure appreciate your concern and the respect you extend to me.. I have no ego, I am me and there will be greater and lesser persons I meet as they say, so if I am outrageous or unreasonable it can be only myself I can fault. My style is verbose, my manner seemingly disrespectful and unfortunately when I try and make a point it does sound as if I am saying that I am right others are wrong. This is not the case but certainly would be a reasonable impression for a normal person to form.
Needless to say a mug like me involving himself in such matter will draw reasonable attacks and not unreasonably generate unreasonable attacks because of my apparent impertinences. .
Well lets take a galaxy .. it can not be held together by attraction (even if one accepts its existence which I do not) but must be held together because of an external yet universal pushing force. My understanding in my view is reflecting the current thought in so far as I think “they” see something more is needed for galaxies to behave as they do.
I use the example of a long bendy rod. Hold a long rod in the middle and wiggle it up and down.. the force travels along the rod but slowly in so far as when you are pushing up the ends of the rod are still in the down position… it does this because the force is internal.. a galaxy being help together by attraction would act similar as any message of change will take a long time to be felt all over. To illustrate an external pushing force I take the rod under water. When we attempt to wiggle the rod up and down the internal force (our pushing it up and down) is resisted by an overall external pushing force.. the water. The pressure or presence of the water becomes the dominate controlling force making the rod respond slowly to and take into account the force of the water. Now the rod obeys the water when responding to the internal push…it is the water that hold it..we now see when we push up the ends follow more slowly meeting the resistance of the water.
I see galaxies as a rod under water.. held somewhat rigid because of an external force that smoothes out any internal movement. And from what I gather the problem at the moment is to reconcile why galaxies hold together when gravitational communication is limited to C. In the case of our galaxy at say 150,000 light years across it is easy to see how long a message of internal gravity via attraction will take to register from one place to another. Dark energy is cited as I understand to explain the holding together much like in the example I offer of the water making internal movement subject to the external pressure.
Where I differ is the dark energy approach requires dark matter, because of the pre conception that dark energy must have come from the existence of dark matter, but such an approach does not take the problem past recognition of an internal force. I feel dark matter is not there and the dark energy is in fact the gravity rain I suspect to be present. If we need attraction we must have dark matter if we see pushing only we do not need dark matter.