I was hoping to get back to this before I went on my road trip but I've to busy. So I'll leave to think about this until I get back.
The Photons or corpuscles that account for this pushing force interact with other matter all be it rarely they do none the less. We have already conceded (if I may) that the "Pushing force of gravity observes the inverse square law as well. i.e. it must fit observation. We then must also say that the corpuscles must interact with other corpuscles, other wise they again wouldn’t fit observation. One of the best “proofs” of Alberts theory is that light is bent around massive objects. This deflection has been measured to a very high degree.
So if we take these two known properties of the corpuscles then we can make a prediction. That the “pushing” force of gravity must diminish with distance at a faster rate then the inverse square law, once the mean free distance has been surpassed.
Have a think on that when I get back I outline what Maxwell took issue with.
Thank heaps Kenny have a safe trip.
I think the world of Dr A but still dont entirely understand his stuff. Not for the want of trying mind you.
Thank again
alex
I can see where you are coming from...perhaps I should make my view clearer...
I suggest the pushing force is universal and constant...and left alone it does not obey the inverse square law...its power does not diminish over the Universe ( without getting sidetracked on local variations due to major events such as a super nova etc).
Where I say it obeys the inverse square rule perhaps that is misinterpreted so I will set out what I mean when I say that it does.
It is the observation of the end result I suppose I say does not offend the law of inverse square.
The force or power of this flow I suggest will be the same I expect through out the Universe ... the operation of the inverse square law will however be observed where two bodies "shadow"or "shield" each other mutually from the overall flow ... it is the "shielding"or "shadowing" that in effect provides a region of less pressure such that the bodies are inclined or pushed to this region.
The inverse square law simply will tell us as bodies are further apart the shielding will be reduced and obey the inverse square law.
So I say the flow of these unidentified particles do not obey the law of inverse square law as such but the principle of the shadowing does.
I expect you wont see this for some time maybe I should do a drawing...
AND please I dont wish for you to see me as argumentative or trying to prove a point but merely to explain what may be a misunderstanding of the way I see the inverse square law fitting in the manner I see.
Kenny if reason prevails I will open a new thread here so there is a place we can cover each point as it is raised as opposed to me "pushing" the discussion we are having on the idea into Glen's thread.
AS I have said before in various places I dont see any conflict between DrA ,Newton and Push gravity loosely speaking...
I do look forward to how you interpret Dr A's explanation as to how light is bent within the frame work of space time... again I agree that it does and say push gravity (the way I see it) supports DrA's reasonably well established view on this.
By the time you read this there may well be a new thread.
Others in the push gravity world seem to be determined to prove DrA wrong seeking him out as the top gun and therefore destroy his ideas as if theirs were better ...Dr A is one of my hero's and I dont see what he says as wrong.. there are things I dont understand true..but I dont see my ideas in conflict with his at all as space time suggest no machinery that effects the curvature of space... I think I said earlier I think it is the flow of these "corpuscles" that in effect bend the grid of space time ..a mere explanation of the machinery of the relationship space time provides for the relationship of masses.
I hope by the time you read this you have returned with your observatory and very happy with that result.
best wishes.
alex
I lifted this from the site below... which makes me feels like a bigger idiot than I have admitted to already... read all the link says so much about gravity and where we are today.
Soon after the appearance of Isaac Newton’s Principia, describing the law of universal gravitation, Newton’s young friend Nicolas Fatio (1664-1753) conceived the idea that the apparent force of gravitational attraction between material objects might be due to an imbalance of repulsive forces arising from the impacts of tiny rapidly moving corpuscles from the nether regions of space. Objects would tend to shield each other from this shower of gravific corpuscles, so they would be driven together, and it’s easy to see that the strength of this effect would be inversely proportional (at least approximately) to the square of the distance between the objects, in accord with Newton’s law.
I am now working on a square wheel and holes in the bottom of boats to let water out.
I was wondering how I was going to try and convince you that your "gravity" had to follow the inverse square law. I been very busy and all my spare time is being used to setup my new Siriur Observatory. I will get back to this, and I'll have a look at the link you put in. I'm also trying to do a write up of my fun in setting up the Dome.
Well Kenny I am happy to hear you are working on the dome.
I have been working on similar stuff in so far as I have been tweaking gear in the hope that one day a sky will appear. There is so much to do is there no end to it all???
I have yet to really look into this but I have a funny feeling that Newton may well have had push gravity in mind when he came up with the inverse square rule...if you draw two masses each shielding each other you will see what I mean... I have more to do on it ... but what I find so interesting now is Newton's assignment of the force of gravity to God and that Dr A really did not say that he was wrong on that particular part of his work.
I find it strange that neither saw the need to bite into the mechanical explanation... after all space time provides no force at all ..gravity is simply a result of the property of mass in space..we are not told how this property in effect works...
Anyways concentrate on the dome so good to hear you are back safely ...having a permanent set up makes it all so much more enjoyable...good luck with the work etc
.
