János Rohán, Szeged, Hungary
However, the apple will likewise fall if the force does not pull it down, but pushes it down.
To satisfy this latter condition, we need the assumption that space is not empty, but is filled with gravity. This does not seem such a fantastic idea today if we remember that cosmologists recently presumed that the Universe is filled with dark energy (66%), which is around double the sum of the visible matter (4%) and the similarly presumed dark matter (30%).
It is obvious that the Universe is filled with electromagnetic radiation, and the (vacuum) space is (wrongly) assumed to be filled with Higgs bosons Bosons are particles which form symmetric composite quantum states. The spin-statistics theorem states that bosons have integer spin.
Gauge bosons are presumed elementary particles which would act as the carriers of the fundamental forces:
photons (probably NOT an elementary particle, mediates the electromagnetic force),
gluons (hypothetically mediates the strong nuclear force, but probably does not existing particles),
W-and Z bosons (hypothetically mediates the weak nuclear force)
There is a fourth kind of gauge boson, the graviton, which has been postulated as the carrier of the gravitational FORCE. too. It is also filled with neutrinos.
Numerous problems of cosmologists would be solved if gravity were not regarded as a pulling force. The idea of pushing gravity is not a recent one: it reaches back as far as Georges-Louis Le Sage (1724-1803). If gravity is a pushing force, mass will not emit, but absorb gravitational waves.
1. erroneous thought, cancelled.
2. The problem of singularity, which arises only with the pulling gravity model, will also be avoidable. Let us consider the Earth, for example. As an object moves closer to the Earth, the gravitational force becomes higher. This is true as long as the Earth is regarded as a point. However, the Earth is not a point. In theory, the object can pass below the surface, towards the centre of the Earth. The cause of the gravitational force is not a single point, but the whole mass of the Earth, which at the centre is in equilibrium, so no gravitational force is acting at the centre of the Earth.
According to the pulling gravity model, the density at the centre of a black hole would become infinite and the mathematical consequence would be singularity. It appears more logical, therefore, that the pulling force does not become infinite by large as we go toward the centre of a black hole, but, on the contrary, decreases. Moreover, with the pushing gravity model, there is no need for the singularity concept, because the pressure at the centre of a black hole depends on the nearly constant gravitational field of the Universe, so gravity does not increase infinitely. (If it is presumed that gravity is totally absorbed on passing through the mass of a black hole, the pressures at the centre of a big and a huge black hole should be the same.)
3. With the pushing gravity model, the mystery would be solved of why no matter or radiation can leave the event horizon of a black hole, but all kinds of matter can still be pulled in. How can any force come out if nothing can come out? This problem would not arise with the pushing gravity model, because gravity then streams inwards, and the force is also directed inwards.
4. It could similarly solve the mystery of why the larger planets emit considerably more heat than they receive from the Sun. The surplus energy emitted should be generated by the planets themselves, but radioactivity or heating by tidal forces do not seem to offer sufficient explanation of the excess heat radiation. It appears simpler to conceive that the planets probably gain their surplus energy by the absorption of gravitational radiation.
5. The same logic could easily explain why astronomers have not found white dwarfs cooler than 3400 K. They can not cool more because they receive a constant energy supply by absorbing gravitational radiation. The temperature of neutron stars should be higher in consequence of their greater mass.
Cosmologists state that 13 Gyears was not sufficient for the white dwarfs to cool down.
The problem is that the Universe must be at least twice as old as this: if we really see galaxies at a distance of 13 Glightyears and if the Universe was formed by a Big Bang (both statements are widely accepted), at least 13 Gyears should have passed for the galaxy to take up the position where the light was emitted. The photons then travelled for a further 13 Gyears towards the Earth, where the Hubble Space Telescope captured this ancient light. Consequently, the Universe is at least 26 Gyears old.
6. To return to heat emission, we usually do not put the question of why the Earth has not cooled down yet.
4-5 Gyears was not enough for the cooling process stated the scientists, and moreover the mass of the Earth is increasing with unexplainable speed (considering the mass and energy coming from the Sun, as well as falling cosmic materials, meteors, etc.). Nevertheless, with the emission of gravitons, the Earth should lose energy...
7. During the star formation process, cosmic gas clouds contract and heat up. But where does the energy originate from? The heat generation can be explained if, for example, the external gravitational field performs work on the nebula. It is true that, when we compress a gas, its temperature increases, but in that case we supply energy from outside, as when a bicycle pump warms up when we use it. If we do not exert pressure on it, it will never warm up.
Another perspective: in an otherwise empty vacuum, we cannot imagine what would drive atoms.
8. An impossible property of the graviton, the negative impulse, is similarly solved.
Let us imagine that the Earth emits a graviton towards the Moon. This graviton travels 400 000 km through empty space and hits the Moon.
Are we to expect that the graviton then pulls the Moon back?
This kind of collision contradicts all known physical laws, nonsense indeed. Graviton, even if it is an energy package, particle or wave, should have negative mass, negative velocity or negative energy in the pulling gravity model. As all three properties are physical impossibility, this exclude the reason for existence of pulling gravity model alone. Therefore gravity exists in the vacuum space and pushes anything down to earth, because Earth absorbs some gravitational waves coming from beneath direction.
Thus, the pushing gravity model appears suitable to explain numerous observations, whereas the pulling gravity model is not.
The basis of the experimental verification is the fact that all attempts to demonstrate gravity push have failed. The wrong conclusion is that it does not exist. In turn, Dark Energy completely suit the requirements of pushing gravity.
1. The Michelson experiments gave unsuccessful results: - today it is a schoolbook datum that interferometric experiments planned to demonstrate the "aether wind" cannot be expected to reveal any displacement of interference strips. A one-way interferometer should have used to show aether drift in the direction of constellation Crater, created by EW. Silvertooth.
2. Orbital moving of Earth should be slowing down in pushing gravity field. - This supposition is false, because the force attracting at Earth moving in homogeneous pushing gravity field may be extremely small, if the DIFFERENCE between the very strong force coming from front and the force coming from behind are small. But this difference of forces should be decelerate the Earth. The Dark Energy does not decelerate the Earth.
3. If gravity were a pushing force, then the tidal phenomena would be quite different. - This is not true. It is absolutely irrelevant whether a force vector pushes or pulls a point.
4. Experiments on gravitational absorption with the Eötvös pendulum at dawn or sunset have not yields positive results. (But naturally this is not evidence against pushing gravity, either)
5. Eötvös gravity compensator is not suitable for the observation of gravitational absorption
6. Finally, on matter could only act matter, not else. The space is not matter. The space is nothing.
Pushing Gravity. Editor Matthew R. Edwards. Apeiron (2002)