Two Million Southern Galaxies

glenc (Glen) · #1 07-10-2007, 02:34 PM

Here is an image of 2,000,000 southern galaxies.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...s2_apm_big.gif
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/%7Eppzsjm/apm/apm.html
Today's APOD says:
Our universe is filled with galaxies. Galaxies -- huge conglomerations of stars, gas, dust -- and mysterious dark matter are the basic building blocks of the large-scale universe. Although distant galaxies move away from each other as the universe expands, gravity attracts neighboring galaxies to each other, forming galaxy groups, clusters of galaxies, and even larger expansive filaments. Some of these structures are visible on one of the most comprehensive maps of the sky ever made in galaxies: the APM galaxy survey map completed in the early 1990s. Over 2 million galaxies are depicted above in a region 100 degrees across centered toward our Milky Way Galaxy's south pole. Bright regions indicate more galaxies, while bluer colors denote larger average galaxies. Dark ellipses have been cut away where bright local stars dominate the sky. Many scientific discoveries resulted from analyses of the map data, including that the universe was surprisingly complex on large scales.

Alchemy (Clive) · #2 07-10-2007, 06:22 PM

i had been trawling through archives and some of your lists recently (kept some for future reference) i thought surely not a list 2,000,000 long.... curiosity got the better of me... had a look at links lots info there

Thanks AL

xelasnave · #3 07-10-2007, 06:56 PM

With so many galaxies one wonders why they still hunt for dark matter...the numbers say there should be heaps of the stuff yet we have precious little evidence that it exists and even those looking for it must wonder why it is so illusive...well you can not find stuff that only exists in the imagination of those with a never to be realised wish list...
alex

KenGee (Kenith Gee) · #4 14-10-2007, 06:20 PM

As for the search for dark matter, they continue to look for it because they have found most of it but not all.
The existence of dark matter was a triumph of observational Astronomy, with theory following, and more observation filling in some of the blanks.

xelasnave · #5 14-10-2007, 07:02 PM

Can you throw some light on the observations?
alex

xelasnave · #6 14-10-2007, 11:03 PM

It is my belief that dark energy is in fact "light energy"

... the light in the Universe, or rather the composite of electromagnetic radiation doth exert a pushing force ...it is this pushing force that they term dark energy...I say it would be best described as "light energy"

.

I also have formed the belief that this energy is in fact our gravity such that what we term gravity is an imbalance in this "universal pressure" the pressure of all the radiation ouit there. I am aware that current sums do not allow radiation pressure to be of the magnitude required for this idea but I am prepared to wait until the math comes up to speed....which will be well before they get a bucket full of dark matter

.

An imbalance in pressure comes about by one object shielding another.
This pressure is the force that in effect bends the space time grid toward mass.

On this approach there is no need for "dark matter" so let it be gone

..
Dark matter is easy to infer if one believes in a force of attraction

.

But when one looks at how galaxies hold together attraction can not do the job

..the math tells us attraction can not work this way

....by the time a message of attraction travelled from on side of a galaxy to the other the other part would be long gone.

It is recognised that galaxies are held in place by "dark energy" which is as they see it a "mysterious pushing force" responsible for pushing the Universe apart...

The hunt for dark matter gets less encouraging as time goes on..Machoes have been eliminated as being a hopeful candidate... my view is if you want to have matter as being responsible for "dark energy" then WIMPS are the only hope... in so far as they will be found to pass their message by push and not attraction.

All the claims I have seen as to dark matter evidence has been a long tug of the bow..infered with artists impressions guided by those who seek this none exsistent stuff.... its proposal to me is dubious...particularly when substituting a pushing force tidys the affair nicely.

It is recognised that Galaxies rotate faster than attraction can ever suggest so they look for "hidden" matter..dark matter... if you can envisage an environment where push rules it is easy to see why galaxies behave in a manner not in keeping with our preconcieved ideas of attraction being the way gravity works..

It is easy to explain why they rotate so much faster than the attraction of the visable and determinable matter will allow...Things do not in my view work by attraction but by push... I believe there is dark energy but feel the term is most unfortunate as that term needs dark matter... and we dont have any.

So if this mysterious energy which is capable of holding a body as enormous as a galaxy in place why would such energy stop someplace "out there" ..it is reasonable to expect that such a strong force would reach everywhere and as such one can form the view gravity works by push...which I have

.

The reason the Suns corona is hotter than the surface could be explained that the radiation of the Sun meeting this incoming push energy ...lets face it the current attempts to explain that the higher heat is due to magnetism carring packets of hot gas up to the corona only offers an input of one 10,000 of the energy needed... hardly a viable explanation when so much is left unexplained by this approach.

So I say rather than call dark energy such it would be better (although loosley ) described as "light energy" and dark matter should be called crap.

alex

glenc (Glen) · #7 15-10-2007, 06:04 AM

"I thought surely not a list 2,000,000 long.."

AL there is a list of 983,000 galaxies here.

http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/V...source=VII/237

xelasnave · #8 15-10-2007, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glenc

"I thought surely not a list 2,000,000 long.."

AL there is a list of 983,000 galaxies here.

http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/V...source=VII/237

I think the list may never be complete... is anyone giving them names???

If not I see a site..have a galaxy named after you...mmmm sortta been done so it is an idea that will work.

alex

KenGee (Kenith Gee) · #9 16-10-2007, 07:28 PM

A quick look in a good physics book will show you the error of your ways. As for your theory on gravity , I think you need to re think that your linking unrelated facts as evidence for your ideas. Let's look at this simply, lets look at the inverse square law on your light pressure idea. If the imbalance of light was causing "Gravity then why doesn't gravity decrease when you go into a darkened room?

xelasnave · #10 17-10-2007, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenGee

A quick look in a good physics book will show you the error of your ways. As for your theory on gravity , I think you need to re think that your linking unrelated facts as evidence for your ideas. Let's look at this simply, lets look at the inverse square law on your light pressure idea. If the imbalance of light was causing "Gravity then why doesn't gravity decrease when you go into a darkened room?

To which unrelated facts do you refer???

That was a quick introduction.
The inverse square law is not offended by what I say... no is the space time approach...I say it is this flow I envisage that "bends"the space time grid in effect.

As to the darkened room thing gravity does change but because the light is out you can't read the meter to observe the change

Just kidding

.

I suggest that the pressure is made up by a flow of particles and these particles for the most part pass thru matter with relatively little interruption.
So in my push Universe say in respect of the Earths gravity..there is a flow from above (and sides for that matter) and a flow from beneath..the flow from beneath is not as forceful as the flow from above (because it has loss energy having travelled thru the planet) so there is a greater pressure from above than there is from below...I say this is how gravity works..a push system which does not need any mythical force of attraction.

Dont take the reference to light as relating to light but the electromagnetic spectrum.... I simply say that within it I suspect there is something that is relevant....

Still one thing at a time ... if you are prepared to take the time please point out how I have seized on facts that are unrelated.

Thank you for at least considering my proposition and taking a position.
it does not worry me that you think I may be wrong and frankly if you can give me something to get me from thinking I am right I would welcome it for I have been thinking this way for so long ..unopposed.. if something can convince me I am off the mark that means I can leave it alone and move on...

If you can tell me how gravity works I would love to hear about it.... but to me nothing I have come across attempts to explain it... we have measurements ..inverse square law is great for measurements but it explains nothing as to the machinery..same with space time..it in fact says it is the mere relationship of mass and does not even recognise there is a force that causes mass to act upon space as space time indicates.

I do not believe attraction can do the job and if this system is invoked then one runs into the problem that messages of gravity has to go from a mass ..out to the other mass and back again...this means that gravity would work at half the speed of light..on the presumption that nothing can go faster than C..a message of gravity would if attraction is invoked have to do a round trip... which means it must travell faster than C..twice as fast in fact... and we are told than nothing can beat C.

Thanks for you comments

alex

KenGee (Kenith Gee) · #11 20-10-2007, 12:06 PM

To which unrelated facts do you refer???
Well you seem to be trying to infer a horizon problem on gravity. While this may be an issue on large scale structures within the early universe when it was expanding at a good fraction of the speed of light. It isn’t a problem on the scale and velocities we are talking about.
That was a quick introduction.
The inverse square law is not offended by what I say... no is the space time approach...I say it is this flow I envisage that "bends"the space time grid in effect.
Well the space time approach is effected by the inverse square law, what I don’t understand is why you think your is isn’t. Newtons laws are still applicable here (relativity is more accurate I know but this purpose it’s fine) and they clearly show the inverse square feature of gravity just and the electromagnetic spectrum behaves in the same manner..

As to the darkened room thing gravity does change but because the light is out you can't read the meter to observe the change
Just kidding.

I suggest that the pressure is made up by a flow of particles and these particles for the most part pass thru matter with relatively little interruption. What particles? if you mean Photons I’m sorry to say photons don’t fit the bill. Their energy levels mean the readily interact with just about anything you put in it’s path. If your trying to resurrect Le Sages theory of “Corpuscles” you really are on shaky ground. Have a look here for the problems with that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage...of_gravitation
So in my push Universe say in respect of the Earths gravity..there is a flow from above (and sides for that matter) and a flow from beneath..the flow from beneath is not as forceful as the flow from above (because it has loss energy having travelled thru the planet) so there is a greater pressure from above than there is from below...I say this is how gravity works..a push system which does not need any mythical force of attraction. Mythical force, you’re introducing one of your own!

Dont take the reference to light as relating to light but the electromagnetic spectrum.... I simply say that within it I suspect there is something that is relevant....

Still one thing at a time ... if you are prepared to take the time please point out how I have seized on facts that are unrelated. There are lots of sources that would explain it clearer then me, go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity and look at the Historical Alternatives..

Thank you for at least considering my proposition and taking a position.
it does not worry me that you think I may be wrong and frankly if you can give me something to get me from thinking I am right I would welcome it for I have been thinking this way for so long ..unopposed.. if something can convince me I am off the mark that means I can leave it alone and move on...

If you can tell me how gravity works I would love to hear about it.... but to me nothing I have come across attempts to explain it... we have measurements ..inverse square law is great for measurements but it explains nothing as to the machinery..same with space time..it in fact says it is the mere relationship of mass and does not even recognise there is a force that causes mass to act upon space as space time indicates. That last sentence is a bit confusing but I’ll deal with it below.

I do not believe attraction can do the job and if this system is invoked then one runs into the problem that messages of gravity has to go from a mass ..out to the other mass and back again...this means that gravity would work at half the speed of light..on the presumption that nothing can go faster than C..a message of gravity would if attraction is invoked have to do a round trip... which means it must travell faster than C..twice as fast in fact... and we are told than nothing can beat C.

Thanks for you comments
You are right in that the mechanics of gravity are still up in the air a bit. Spacetime needs to find gravity waves which they haven’t yet. The best working solution is Relativity and it is a hard concept to get your head around my people believe they do understand it and really don’t.
Field effect which describes how space-time is curve by matter is particularly difficult. I simply haven’t got the time to go into the however try this link http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q...hysics+Lecture
You must remember that any theory must at the very least fit the observations and relativity does that very well. So how does your theory account for the deflection of light around massive objects?
In the effort to bring gravity under a ToE the messenger particle for gravity has been purposed. While gravitons do have some issues though your idea that a messenger particle needs to go back and forth is incorrect. Photons are messenger particles and you are not proposing that in order to see a star the photons have to travel from the star to my eye and back again. Yes the is a two way flow of information however it’s not a call and answer arrangement.

xelasnave · #12 20-10-2007, 03:16 PM

Dear Kenny ...
You have made my day..
Thank you for discussing my favorite subject and thanks for the links.
I can not read them now but I wanted to post a reply to thank you.
I really appreciate the time you have taken.

Please note I learned very early in the game not to call my idea a theory... I am aware that the word theory has specific requirements relating to observation and prediction.

Give me some time to go thu all of your wonderful post... I am busy now with other things but say this I can not wait to get into offerring a meaningfull repy.

But as I say all I propose relating to gravity is in the nature of ideas... I try to be rational and I try to understand everything I come acoss on this subject and sincerely thank you for giving me something to chew upon.

I am so happy you made such a detailed reply and gave my ideas such a hearing.
alex

alex

xelasnave · #13 20-10-2007, 03:17 PM

I wrote that post hours ago and came back to find it had not been sent..
sorry alex

xelasnave · #14 20-10-2007, 03:19 PM

Anyways I had I look at some links and still working my way thru but thezse are my initial thoughts.

Well there are no new ideas it seems.

From the wiki link….

Le Sage's theory of gravitation is the most common name for the kinetic theory of gravity originally proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690 and later by Georges-Louis Le Sage in 1748. The theory offered a mechanical explanation for Newton's gravitational force equation in terms of streams of tiny unseen particles (which Le Sage called ultra-mundane corpuscles) impacting on all material objects from all directions.

Well I must say I had not realised that Mr Le Sage had had this idea and must say that is very much my idea….er which is really his…. Thanks for pointing out his ideas to me.

Streams of particles coming from every where is the way I see it.
What these particles are I have no idea however I felt they may well be found within ..loosley…the electro magnetc spectrum or carried along within it.

Be they particles or energy I am not sure..
I like to think in particles as my mind managaes them better than “raw”energy. I can visualise a particle whereas I have no idea how to visualise energy.

If we go with this for a moment I can explain why gravity would act in a push fashion.

If one were to accept that there is a flow of particles from everywhere gravity could work (mechanically) by one body of mass shielding another body of mass from this flow. They would in effect be pushed to each other moving into the region where there be less flow of particles.

Two masses would in this environment have a region between them where, because each shields the other in a limited respect cause a region where some of this flow is less… on the assumption that each mass would cause loss of energy to those particles flowing through it… so this is where I formed the notion that between them there would be less pressure and that each would be pushed to occupy this region where the pressure…for the want of a better word… is less.

In this context I formed the view that gravity is a force resulting from the push action of the particles that had not loss energy acting against those that had loss energy due to their encounter with the mass they passed through.

A chap in the USA who subscibes to a similar idea as mine and I guess the idea of Mr Le Sage uses a blower and two foam balls to show this effect… one foam ball is blown in the direction of another because the other cuts the draft and offers a region where the foam ball is pushed.

Such a explaination to me on that level (mechanical) seems reasonable and that was where my thinking started.

When one looks at a galaxy I feel it could be only an external pushing force that could do the job of holding them together as I feel if we limit the notion that gravity works by attraction and add to that a top speed of C a message from one side of the galaxy to the other will simply take too long. Whereas an external pushing force will act all over even though the speed of the particles that makes it up are limited to C.

I was also taken by Dr. A’s “biggest blunder”… his cosmological constant which I interpreted as him seeing a need for an overall pushing force. I felt he may well have been on the right track at this stage but had to give up the idea when Mr Hubble made his historic observations that the Universe demonstrated to him it was expanding.

I felt that Dr A may have pulled his horns in upon hearing this news and did not follow up the implications ..in his view, that there needed to be a pushing force.

At this stage..and probably it is already apparent to you, I say that my understanding is limited..but then again such is the case with all humans…and that my explanations here are not intended to prove me right but rather to explain how and why I arrived at the position that I believe gravity must act as a pushing force… and the various pieces of information I have accumulated in a morosophic fashion to form my ideas.

To me they seem reasonable yet I know full well what I try to comment upon has the best brains stummped.

I looked to find all I could to explain how (mechanically) gravity could work.
As you know physics does not offer us much in this regard..or at least if it does I have yet to find it.

I raised my idea on a forum and was told that space time held the answer and that to understand space time was beyond “any man”..yet reading about space time it seems to me that it is a geometry that adds time into the mix of what is really simple geometry.

Time needs to be added to Newtons ideas because gravity is presumed to have a top speed of C…Newton assumed it was instant.

We don’t think of the implications of such a requirement and it seems to me that by leaving out this aspect Newton missed only one point in his work….locally it seems to work fine.

I had figured that there must be a reason why comets missed the Sun yet they had something in the order of 2 to 3 light years to “line up”the Sun..

Why did it miss I asked and my answer was well the message of gravity can not therefore be instant… the reason why the coment misses is it is always aiming at an object that has moved past where it was when it sent its message of gravity… the comet aims for a spot where the Sun was… it can not by virtue of the speed of the gravity message do otherwise..and so the result is a miss (in most cases I guess).

So I wondered how could a message of gravity work… could the message make a round trip..my answer was no..on the basis that I accepted C was the top speed known in the Universe.. if gravity worked by attraction a message would have to go out and back and this would mean that the gravity message woul need to be twice C.. I felt that this did not fit the notion that C was the speed limit for the Universe…and from what I read it was clear that all accepted gravity acted at C.. a round trip could not work so attraction seemed to be ruled out by the notion needing a trip out to and back from objects.

I considered what is space really what is there…and considered a remote part of space..empty was all the impression I had but I though what of the light (electromagnetic spectrum really) ..in any part of space thru it races some evidence of pretty much all that is…we see stars as points of light but that point will be seen everywhere.

So in empty space I could see there must be billions of “particles” racing by in every direction..almost limitless.

Could all these particles exert a force. I formed the belief that they must and that this would translate into the force we call gravity acting via push.

If one placed two masses in this empty region of space what would happen?..

I first wondered how they could communicate working via an attraction approach.. I could not come up with a mechanical view as how attraction could work but if one saw these particles pushed there was no need for a two way message and that the shielding against this flow of particles (on the assumption they carried some force of some degree) the masses would move to each other because there would be a region between them ëmptier than the surrounding space …

I presented this idea on a forum and was told that light would not do this as it did not have the energy…I suggested a particle and was told a particle can not travel at C. I later heard about neutrinos that were a particle which travelled at or very near C and later still that they indeed had mass. So I continued.

So I thought there may well be a particle contained in or carried along with the electro magnetic spectrum that offers the flow of which I speak and I guess the neutrino very much fit the notion originally as I now find presented by Mr LeSage. There may be other particles similar that will do this job.

When I say the idea does not offend what is there at the moment I say this meaning that I offer only an idea as to how the mechanics may work assuming that all that we know now does not deal with the mechanics but merely records in effect the numbers …. Newton does not say why the apple falls nor does space time suggest why mass in effect bends space…in fact I was told ..we don’t need to know why it is… we simply know the relationships..my quest has always been to come up with what forces are at play.. a mechanical expalnation which fits the numbers already avaiable.

And in my simple approach (having been told to use the razor on any idea) the notion of push seemed the most simple and would not offend the numbers and the formulea in place.

It is true I offer a force for consideration but that only came about because as far as I could see from my reading about gravity no one had come up with any mechanical explaination so as to say this force is “such and such”” and it works by this partcle interacting with that particle”.

The space time grid distorts toward a mass… not as the ball on the blanket example suggests which says the opposite to what the space time concept says.

I say it is the flow of these mystical and un discovered and unquantified particles that push space toward a mass… because it cuts off the flow in effect.

I have indeed introduced a force but only because as I said neither Newton or Dr A did so.

As to gravity waves.
I have great difficulty in the general concept of the wave notion.

I feel it is a method of recording what is in effect a disturbance in the flow I talk about…

If we throw a rock into a pond we see waves but it is really the movement of particles that are already there.. when the wave passes the particles remain and in this regard I see man’s use of the wave notion much the same way..a wave is our explaination of the movement of particles… however I feel all we now see is the theory describing the movement of the particles.

The gravity waves they seek are from major events which cause a disruption in the particle flow ..a greater pressure due the an event like a super nova such that gravity changes..I agree the space time grid will distort but it really reflects,in my view, a higher activity in the particles.

As to gravity generally been seen as a wave I think that as this flow is universal and there would be no general disruption that could be measured in the same sence that we can measure radio waves for example.

Light passing a mass must follow the distortions of space I agree I only say the space is in effect pushed by this flow… I, for the most part, agree with gravitational lensing as set out…however artists and I guess scientists who talk about gravitational lensing have in mind the ball on the rubber sheet example and show the path of light which fits this incorrect example…look at any artist impression ..they show light bends around mass they do not show it is bent in towards mass as space time tells us.

Sorry to be so long winded and I confess this is off the top of my head as I have still to really take in all you have written.

I will add more later in direct response to the propositions you ask me to consider.

But thank you again I will look to see what errors I may have made from the links you provide.

Best wishes
alex

xelasnave · #15 20-10-2007, 10:21 PM

I will be a long time on the videos and can not thank you enough...

I think I can say at this early stage that Mr Le Sage's general approach is where I am coming from.

I am working through all the reasons I can find against his approach and that is going to take some time...

But being positive at this early stage I don't see a conflict...don't pull your hair out and give up on me... I simply think of things this way...

Space time and General Relativity ( to group the current ideas that may apparently oppose the Le Sage approach ) do not seem to offer a mechanical explanation... and I simply believe that there must be a mechanical explanation...

I can not except that one body of mass has a relationship with another body of mass simply because the physics says so and nothing more need be explained... I can not except the approach that "ït just is" and believe there must be more taking place than "sums".

I think there must be a physical machinery where one body relates to another... it has always been this part of the "how"that intrigues me... all my reading has been to find what science says on this aspect.

The more I read the more I became convinced that there is no explanation on the mechanical operation ... and in that environment not being able to find a mechanical explanation I guess I invent my own... crude and unscientific but as I say try as I have I have found nothing to satisfy me as to how it works...

So in the course of my pursuit I have formed various views which leave anyone listening to those views thinking I am a crackpot..as well I am really... I don't mind that at all.. what else could they think..so I do not take being labeled so as a personal affront.

But on the serious side I must find the answer to the question I ask myself and am driven by that...

I feel that without a mechanical understanding as to how gravity works all the knowledge that relates to everything we think we know is suspect.
As the current thinking sees gravity in effect as a force of attraction I believe it leads us in the wrong direction.

AS you would have gathered if gravity pushes and does not work by attraction the need for dark matter I believe disappears... I do not buy the dark matter premise and at this point really believe those who think it is there are wrong.

If nothing else this can only see me wearing the crown of king crack pot but I sincerely believe I am right... I do not like to think that given the importance current thinking attaches to dark matter that is simply a mystery and we must be content with understanding it is there but forever rely on its proof by inference... I do not accept this can be so.

I will not accept it is so and therefore look for a more reasonable explanation ..one that does not require such an unsupportable leap of faith
...and so I am a minority of one.

Thanks again Ken I will work hard on everything you have pointed me to.

best wishes
alex

xelasnave · #16 21-10-2007, 01:34 AM

I can find nothing in Maxwells papers or in the thoughts of Poincare that cancel the notion of Le Sage. Moreover it appears that rather than settle any argument with Le Sage his ideas were passed over rather than discredited. From what I can determine it seems more a change in fashion rather than any theory put forward by Maxwell or Poincaire that saw Le Sage's approach put down.

So now I hunt for the reason's why Le Sage's idea seemed to lose favour or not be continued with.

I can not find Maxwell addressed the matter in any manner that could be said to place Le Sage's idea in disrepute.

The only manner I can find that throws any discredit upon Le Sage is that finally Poincair was perhaps the first to lay the foundations for Lorenz who seemed to have laid the foundations for Dr A ... however so far to me it appears it was more a case of some went down the path of pure theory without considering the mechanical approach of Le Sage.

And if one takes the time to read Prof Maxwell's views on the way he viewed the matters upon which he drew his formulas one may get a different view of his grasp of the fundamentals... but notwithstanding his view of the fundamentals his formulas prove correct.

Still I find nothing in anything that I have read that one could point to and say Maxwell raised an issue that destroyed the notion of Le Sage and I can not point to any matter the Poincair offered other than he laid the ground work for what was to become the General Theory of Relativity... but from what I have read they simply did not deal with the matters raised from Le Sages approach.

If anyone can point me to the specific point where Le Sages idea ( and hence mine) was dealt a death blow I would love to read that text specifically.. but I can not find it so far.

Without knowing what Maxwell or Poincair said in specific rebuttal to Le Sage I can not consider the merit of what may sink my idea.

But jeeze this is interesting stuff... One should read Maxwell rather than just except his formulas..very interesting if not unusual approach as to his basis premise. So difficult to read in one sitting I really wonder who did read it.
alex

xelasnave · #17 21-10-2007, 01:56 AM

and I lifted this from wiki which is a short version of push gravity...

The theory posits that the force of gravity is the result of tiny particles (corpuscles) or waves moving at high speed in all directions, throughout the universe. The intensity of the flux of particles is assumed to be the same in all directions, so an isolated object A is struck equally from all sides, resulting in only an inward-directed pressure but no net directional force (P1).

P2: Two bodies "attract" each otherWith a second object B present, however, a fraction of the particles that would otherwise have struck A from the direction of B is intercepted, so B works as a shield, i.e. from the direction of B, A will be struck by fewer particles than from the opposite direction. Likewise B will be struck by fewer particles from the direction of A than from the opposite direction. One can say that A and B are "shadowing" each other, and the two bodies are pushed toward each other by the resulting imbalance of forces (P2). Thus the apparent attraction between bodies is, according to this theory, actually a diminished push from the direction of other bodies, so the theory is sometimes called push gravity or shadow gravity, although it is more widely referred to as Lesage gravity

Could not have said it better myself.
If one sees the grid of space time "bent" by this method I say there is little disagreement between it and what currently passes for the explaination of gravity...my view of course.

alex

xelasnave · #18 21-10-2007, 01:58 AM

So much for my "original" though...how funny I could form such centuries after it was first though of and take this long to find out same.
alex

KenGee (Kenith Gee) · #19 23-10-2007, 06:18 PM

But I will answer this, I try and show what the problems are with push theory. Then I try to help you understand the wonders of curved spacetime.

xelasnave · #20 23-10-2007, 10:43 PM

Thanks Kenny. I find it funny that what I though was my idea... original etc had been though of first way back ... reminds me of a "push" paddle I invented and built...and then saw it on a Chinese wood print 1000s old years old....also I "invented" a "trumpet" mirror but it was alraedy in the xray scope in Chile.... but the comfort I take is my crackpot ideas are not alone...makes me feels better than the frustration of an idea that you wonder if it will work... I have so many that I invented again...

alex