About Shadow Theories of Gravity

[khuramonline]

Someone asked me "What is Shadow Theory of Gravity?"

Below I am sharing my answer:

Shadow Theory of Gravity is more commonly known as “Le Sage's theory of gravitation - Wikipedia but it was first postulated by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier - Wikipedia

Nicolas Fatio was sort of Colleague of Newton and he also worked in collaboration with Huygens.

Following is interesting information in the first wikipedia article given above:

Nicolas Fatio presented the first formulation of his thoughts on gravitation in a letter to Christiaan Huygens in the spring of 1690. Two days later Fatio read the content of the letter before the Royal Society in London. In the following years Fatio composed several draft manuscripts of his major work De la Cause de la Pesanteur, but none of this material was published in his lifetime. In 1731 Fatio also sent his theory as a Latin poem, in the style of Lucretius, to the Paris Academy of Science, but it was dismissed. Some fragments of these manuscripts and copies of the poem were later acquired by Le Sage who failed to find a publisher for Fatio's papers. So it lasted until 1929, when the only complete copy of Fatio's manuscript was published by Karl Bopp, and in 1949 Gagnebin used the collected fragments in possession of Le Sage to reconstruct the paper. The Gagnebin edition includes revisions made by Fatio as late as 1743, forty years after he composed the draft on which the Bopp edition was based. However, the second half of the Bopp edition contains the mathematically most advanced parts of Fatio's theory, and were not included by Gagnebin in his edition. For a detailed analysis of Fatio's work, and a comparison between the Bopp and the Gagnebin editions, see Zehe. The following description is mainly based on the Bopp edition.

Actually this theory could not have observational support in that time. Theory was that energetic particles are coming from everywhere. As analogy of today … just like CMB is coming from everywhere.

Now at this point in time, we actually know that lot of radiation as well as less or more energetic particles are coming from everywhere. Like cosmic rays, like neutrinos, like light, like every kind of radiation including those things which we yet do not know.

So lot of energetic stuff is coming from everywhere.

Now suppose this energetic stuff is coming from only one side. This energetic stuff is coming towards Earth and Earth is the only Object in the way of that energetic stuff.

As this energetic stuff strikes the earth, it will strike with each and every sub-atomic level particle of Earth.

Each individual (sub-atomic) particle will be dragged and accelerate towards the direction of the movement of that energetic stuff like free fall.

Since each and every sub-atomic particle of Earth is accelerating at same rate of acceleration like free fall, it will be seemed to an observer that whole Earth, as a single object, is accelerating towards a specific direction by way of free fall.

Now get the scenario that the energetic stuff is coming from everywhere and there is a single object like Earth in place. That energetic stuff is like a flux that is striking the Earth from all the directions. Since equal force is striking on all the directions so force from all the directions is cancelled out and there is net zero force on Earth. Therefore, Earth will remain static

Now again get the scenario that the energetic stuff is coming from everywhere and the test objects in place are Sun and Earth.

Now leave aside the Earth.

That flux is striking on Sun from every where. Sun remains static. But what happens is that, though the Sun remains unaffected by the flux in terms of motion or acceleration, but some of the flux has been absorbed by the Sun. And the amount of absorption is directly proportional to the quantity of mass of Sun.

Following diagram (From Wikipedia) explains this thing:

Now this central object is Sun. Solid incoming arrows represent the incoming more energetic flux.

Dotted outgoing arrows represent less energetic outgoing flux. Because lot of incoming energy was absorbed by the Sun. Only residual is going away.

The dotted outgoing arrows also represent SHADOW AREA.

This shadow area is going to be fade away by square of distance from Sun.

Now the Earth is located within the shadow area as created by the Sun.

Now Earth is subject to two different intensities of incoming flux. From all other sides, full intensity of flux is striking each and every sub-atomic particle of Earth.

But the incoming flux coming from the side of Sun is lower in intensity.

Therefore, forces acting on Earth are not balanced.

Army of radiation and all other energetic particles as coming from all other sides (A) is stronger than same army that is coming from the side of Sun (B).

(A) will overcome (B) and will start dragging the Earth towards the Sun by way of free fall.

Due to its own inertial motion, Earth will not directly fall towards the Sun But will be orbiting the Sun.

Now from which sources that energetic stuff is coming?

Well, that stuff is coming from all the galaxies and clusters and all what is there in voids. By official figure, there are trillions of galaxies whose energy reach to us at every moment.

And by non-official way, sky is actually 100% filled with galaxies and clusters.

With this much available stuff, it is not actually possible to ignore that lot of energetic stuff is actually coming from everywhere.

And if there is reality in shadow theories of gravity, then it has lot of practical consequences as well.

First consequence is that gravity is not the magical result of any individual clump of mass. No.

Gravity is the result of whole universe.

Gravity exists because whole universe already exists. If the universe consists of only one object like only one planet, then there is no gravity on that planet. That planet as spherical object should not exist in the first place. But suppose such planet exists and that planet is the only object in the universe then there is no incoming stronger flux and also there is no outgoing weaker flux. Any smaller object near that planet will not be subject to any gravity.

That also means that gravity alone could not sort out how could the universe start or originate. If there was nothing or even if there was only one object like "singularity" then there was no gravity and thus GR was not applicable.

There are lot of other consequences which real scientists must sort out.

At least I am convinced that there is reality in shadow theories of gravity.

[khuramonline]

[khuramonline]

My interpretation of above is that Newton preferred to mention the basic concept of shadow gravity in Principia but in very obscure and shadowy manner.

In one of his letters, Newton had written following to someone:

"You speak of Gravity. I pray do not ascribe that notion to me, for the Cause of Gravity is what I do not pretend to know.”

According to the policy of “not pretending to know” … Newton discussed shadow gravity principle in very obscure manner. By his time there was no known similar thing (having such penetrating ability).

[HanDeBruijn]

@khuramonline : IMHO Newton doesn't say what you are suggesting. The screenshot from the Principia is interesting, though.

[Francois-Zinserling]

@marmetl is it possible that we can have a sub-group "Push-Gravity" within this github context? Or call it "Le Sage" or probably "Fatio" to be entirely fair to the man.
If we can get more people on board in this group, it would be nice to start some discussions and exchange of ideas and maybe write some papers together.

@khuramonline you have found me as a supporter in your search.

Some comments on your discussion above:
"Well, that stuff is coming from all the galaxies and clusters and all what is there in voids"
If it is, then it cannot be coming from stars, because we (earth) would then be pushed away from our own sun.

I also do not think it is from radiation, because it (the flux) must have a very small cross section (very very high energy) to be able to penetrate ALL matter and still have almost everything left coming out the other side, I have not entirely convinced myself of this, but radiation comes mostly from stars, that's the main reason for discounting it as 'the flux'. (Also discarding left-over radiation from BB for various reasons)
Where does it come from? I do not know(yet). But that shold not stop us from exploring it further.

I have studied all (ok, most) other proposed explanations for gravity, and push-gravity is still top of my list of practical and plausible.
There is certainly not one solution available that can work with a 'pull' gravity. Not even GR.

A lot of people don't understand shadow gravity, icluding some of the great scientists like La Place and Feynman and others. La Place said it could only work if v>>c for flux particles. I can see in his mind he was trying to set up a shadow between 2 masses. Not needed.
Feynman (and others before him) energy calculation showed that he saw shadow gravity it as a secondary effect, that gravity is as a result from 'differences in absorption' between masses. His calculation results in (almost) the total strength of the entire flux, which of course would blow up the earth if it were all absorbed.

Your post above is good and explains gravity as a result of primary absorption.

[RedshiftDrift]

@Francois-Zinserling @khuramonline @ExpEarth
I added a new discussion category called "🍎 Gravitation Models" and a navigation category "Gravity Models" on the website, both for discussions of astronomical phenomena that can be explained with alternative models of gravity.

Take note that these categories are for discussions relevant to cosmology that can be understood with alternative gravity models, not for gravity models that may explain astronomical observations. The distinction is subtle but important.

[Francois-Zinserling]

@marmetl
Thank you kindly Sir.
Agreed, the discussions above have been a bit lose and fast, but the hope is to stimulate conversation.
Your site, your rules, and of course we will abide by this.

A post to the repository is in progress, but still 'xx' weeks away.

[ftessier]

Love the 🍎

[RedshiftDrift]

Your site, your rules, and of course we will abide by this.

These guidelines are in place to prevent this public platform from degenerating into a forum for off-topic ideas. Many sites (including an earlier version of ACG on Yahoo! Groups) have degenerated into chaos and collapsed after being taken over by people who are not interested in science but only use the platform to publicly promote their own ego.

[ftessier]

Open is ideal, but if moderation becomes too heavy, we can make this repo private (with explicit membership).

[khuramonline]

@Francois-Zinserling
Actual flux size may be far greater than all the previous calculations. As I stated, unofficial stance (my stance for which official side is just playing blind so far) is even that the JWST has shown 100% bright sky. Sky is 100% filled with infrared galaxies and clusters. Thus total number of galaxies and clusters whose energy does reach to any known astronomical object is far greater than all the previous estimates.

Source of particles -- must be real physical objects. They have to be stars, galaxies and clusters and every other thing that exists in voids.

Secondly, particles are not supposed to propel the massive astronomical objects. Particles will propel only the individual sub-atomic particles. Only it will be seemed to an observer that whole massive object as a single unit is being propelled or moves.

Solar wind etc. acts on larger objects and they apply mechanical push. But particle level push is not like usual or daily life observations type of mechanical push.

Solar neutrinos have such type of energy that it simply passes through the Earth with only negligible absorption. If really the Neutrinos are responsible for gravity then they are those Neutrinos whose energy level has acquired a certain energy range that is achieved due to aging or even previous passing through of other objects.

Whatever is the particle or wave, it can be a proper case of penetrating from one side with high energy and going out from other side with lower energy.

Or it can also be the case of: Absorption = gravitational acceleration + re-emission

My personal stance is that re-emission of light / waves is more common than what could be the stance of official science. Official stance is that we see common objects because those common objects reflect light of the original source of light.

My stance is that light is NOT reflected. Light is actually re-emitted by every common object.

Anyways, whatever it is, particle or wave, it must reach to every particle within the interiors of any astronomical object. Simply going out with lesser energy or re-emission is rest of the thing.

Perhaps only Neutrinos are known to penetrate to this level. And there can be unknown wavelengths of radiation that also could penetrate.

Such minute details are extremely difficult to sort out.

Another thing is also apparent. That those particles or waves are not capable to be detected. Because their effect is the gravity itself.

[Francois-Zinserling]

@khuramonline you make some good arguments. Some with which I agree, and some I don't. However, that is the whole point of this discussion, to exchange ideas and enrich our thinking.

KH: "Source of particles -- must be real physical objects. They have to be stars, galaxies and clusters and every other thing that exists in voids."
FZ: Real particles, yes. Stars, galaxies, no. The concentration of particles from our own sun would be so high that the planets are pushed away. (and same for all other solar systems). Also, it would mean gravity works different on a sun than a planet, because there is more going out than coming in. How does it keep itself together and not just push itself apart? In my opinion the particles are inherent to space, and the only thing that can emit them and not break the pushgravity idea, is a black hole vertical jet. <- highly speculative so don''t work this one too much.

KH: "My stance is that light is NOT reflected. Light is actually re-emitted by every common object."
also KH: "There is a sort of proof that all common objects do not actually reflect light (or radiation). They actually re-emit the light (or radiation)"
FZ: Agreed. Reflection is re-emission. A good reflection e.g. mirror just has very low refraction or scattering. Light does not 'bounce' of anything. Light encounters electrons and are either absorbed or re-emitted with also possible a bit of both so lower energy emitted.
Light Reflection though adds double the momentum and does not work in pushgravity.

KH: Solar neutrinos have such type of energy that it simply passes through the Earth with only negligible absorption
FZ: Agreed, but neutrinos just give an idea how it would work. Neutrino rarely interacts. Gravity Flux particles must always interact with every particle in its path. (with every particle that has mass)

[RedshiftDrift]

This reply (the scorpion) contravenes the ACG guidelines set out in Web Content and Discussion Guidelines.

No first degree relationship is shown between a sort of proof and cosmology. Give proper references.

You may wish to keep a copy, the reply will be removed tomorrow.

[Francois-Zinserling]

@Francois-Zinserling @khuramonline Le Sage gravity seeks to give a mechanical explanation for Newtonian gravity. Therefore it won't change the Newtonian dynamics already described by classical gravitation theory.

@marmetl see my conclusions at the end of this post and tell me if you still think so?

How will "Push-Gravity" help replacing the Big Bang model?

I cannot give you that answer in one sitting, but let me tell you my experience and we see if it goes anywhere.
I have been researching push-gravity since ~2012, and as an engineer it is the only concept that makes sense to me. I have written and published a paper, but so have many others. Mine doesn't shoot the lights out and needs improvement. (this is why I am here) Pushgravity is still avoided because it conflicts with GR but I will bet some part of my anatomy that it holds the future of not only gravity, but also physics.

I have come to the conclusion from pushgravity that the greatest discovery will not be just 'the mechanics of gravity', but it will be the knowledge that Fatio's Flux exists. Here I have done a little bit in my paper but the bulk is still in progress. (Happy to discuss in the meantime) To summarise (early) conclusions:

• Fatio's Flux is real. So then must be the aether or whatever you want to call it. It is dynamic, flowing in 3D, not a static gel.
• De Broglie and Bohms's wave is not only assosciated with the particle - the wave is already there. Meaning they were correct.
• Apply same to the double-slit
• Dark Matter is not required in my mathematical model. In a pushgravity galaxy, there is more push (inward) at the edges, and less in the centre, due to absorption making the flux weaker as it goes inward. (oversimplified - sorry, not sorry)
• The tiny fraction of 'absorption' of energy that generates the effect of gravity, takes away from the aether and leaves behind the effect we see as the Hubble Constant <- still somewhat speculative but there must be a connection
• By extension the electric (attraction or repulsion) force is a push-force, and yes, also by the same flux. This is possible with a spin=2 photon as proposed for the graviton, although pushgravity was not the intent for the graviton.
• Pushgravity can also be the 'Strong Force', because the the flux particles must be that small that it makes an electron look like a football stadium.

These are a mix of logical conclusions and for some I have done the maths.
This may not directly assist you with 'how to defeat the Big Bang' but there is progress waiting to happen in there, and that is what we all want.

[RedshiftDrift]

• Dark Matter is not required in my mathematical model. In a pushgravity galaxy, there is more push (inward) at the edges, and less in the centre, due to absorption making the flux weaker as it goes inward. (oversimplified - sorry, not sorry)
• The tiny fraction of 'absorption' of energy that generates the effect of gravity, takes away from the aether and leaves behind the effect we see as the Hubble Constant <- still somewhat speculative but there must be a connection

These two points are the only ones related to cosmology, but the second one is still speculative based on a speculative model (2nd order speculations).

So very little in this is actually more useful than the multiply speculative Big Bang model, which is why it doesn't help to discuss this here.

So this can be discussed without multiple layers of speculation, I suggest you write:

• an essay on Dark matter and pushgravity and post it to the repo in essays, or
• a quantitative paper on Dark matter and pushgravity and post it to the repo in models.

[khuramonline]

[HanDeBruijn]

@khuramonline : Bold fonts, capital letters and lots of proze will not help you to be convincing, at least not for me.
And another thing: the meaning of what a "particle" is has changed a lot since Newton used the concept properly.

[RedshiftDrift]

@khuramonline I suggest you write an essay and post it on the repo's essays, indicating the relationship with cosmology. Being a model you like doesn't make any useful for the cosmology researchers of this group.

This comment contravenes the ACG guidelines set out in Web Content and Discussion Guidelines.

Specifically, no first degree relationship is shown between the various models discussed above and cosmology

You may wish to keep a copy, it will be removed tomorrow.

[khuramonline]

[Francois-Zinserling]

@khuramonline have a look at my video here (30min) and please give your opinion.
https://youtu.be/2dHRsCKG1wc

If you are into maths, then also please comment on this. (I am currently reworking to v3 which I hope to post into a repository here for review)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357403979_Title_A_new_perspective_on_Fatio's_Flux_v2_It's_Newton_Jim_but_not_as_we_know_it

[HanDeBruijn]

@Francois-Zinserling : Both references have broken links, as far as my experience goes.
I'm especially interested in the mathematics of the second one and prepared to comment on it.

Meanwhile I've succeeded in getting your links working:

1. The Mechanics of Gravity and an introduction to the Omni-directional Photon Flux (video)
2. A new perspective on Fatio’s Flux. It’s Newton, Jim, but not as we know it (article)

[khuramonline]

I have directly copied the links in browser. Now checking them.

[Francois-Zinserling]

^^ Thank you Han. I was editing the URL incorrectly. Figured it out now :)

[RedshiftDrift]

This comment and replies contravenes the ACG guidelines set out in Web Content and Discussion Guidelines.

Specifically, no first degree relationship is shown between the speculative Absorption = Gravitational Acceleration + Re-emission with negative conclusion and cosmology.

You may wish to keep a copy, it will be removed tomorrow.

[ExpEarth]

[RedshiftDrift]

Einstein wanted to link the two and so should we all.

This is the fallacy Argument from authority, it has no convincing power.

If you use the "remote CMB", you obtain this from the speculative origin of the CMB as a remnant of the speculative of the Big Bang. Therefore,

when you use the remote CMB it does work

but conditinal to using three levels of speculations!

This comment contravenes the ACG guidelines set out in Web Content and Discussion Guidelines.

Specifically, it cites an articles that does not work (by your admission) and no first degree relationship is shown between CMB generated Le Sage gravity and cosmology.

You may wish to keep a copy, the coment will be removed tomorrow.

[budrap00]

@Francois-Zinserling,

"Gravity must work for the smallest particles with mass."

That is a theoretical conjecture, not an empirical fact. It is entirely possible that gravity is a scale dependent phenomenon. As it currently stands we know our gravitational models (Newton and Einstein) do not scale to galaxies and beyond. Projecting those models down to quantum scales is at best a dubious proposition. So the search for quantum gravity may just be a quest to solve a non-existent, theoretically induced problem just like the search for dark matter.

@khuramonline,

Your quote from a 1917 paper of Einstein's does not represent his final view on whether GR reduces gravity to the behavior of a causally interacting spacetime. While he entertained that possibility in the early years following the publication of GR in 1915, he ultimately and consistently rejected that formulation over the course of his career. See here.

[Francois-Zinserling]

@budrap00 I may disagree. If something has mass, it must be subjected to gravity (by the equivalance principle)
If and Until this principle is refuted, all objects with mass are deemed subjected to gravity.
I did read a paper where they tested positrons to see if they have anti-gravity and result was negative. Still gravity.
By my reasoning the very ather that causes gravity, also bestows mass. I've seen Ray would also agree with this.

[budrap00]

@Francois-Zinserling, The equivalence principle is based on observations made on classical scales - the fact that an object's rest mass is related to both its inertia and its gravitational effect. That consideration was a basis for Einstein's reasoning his way to General Relativity which unifies those inertial and gravitational effects.

That the same equivalence principle applies without modification on quantum scales where the behavior of particles with rest mass, and charged particles at that, is wildly different different from the behavior behavior of classical masses, is simply an unjustified assumption. The equivalence principle doesn't have to be refuted on a scale where it cannot be demonstrated to be valid - in that case it is irrelevant. If you want to claim that it is valid, you have to demonstrate that it is, not simply assert it..

At the heart of the problem with modern theoretical physics is a methodological error. Theoretical physics has become a math driven enterprise in which empirical reality is an afterthought. Both standard models are filled with objects and events that have no correlate in physical reality - their only purpose is to reconcile the models with actual observations. Neither standard model depicts a physical reality that resembles the physical reality we directly observe, detect, and measure.

The methodological error then is to treat some preferred mathematical model as determinate of physical reality and repeatedly fit the model to new observations by adding "new physics" to the model, which means asserting the existence of empirically undetectable entities or events that are causally interactive within the model in just such a way as to produce the desired calculational result.

That methodological approach has been a complete and utter scientific disaster. Repeating it by merely invoking new undetectable elements to replace the old ones is unlikely to lead anywhere that is scientifically meaningful. Math is not physics and physical reality consists of the things that can be directly detected, not undetectable things that are merely inferred in the context of some arbitrary mathematical model based on outdated assumptions that also contain physically undetectable elements. Empirical reality has to delineate the limits of theoretical models. Mathematical models cannot be allowed to expand physics into the realm of metaphysics.

[Francois-Zinserling]

@budrap00 you offer a worthy response!

When I use the equivalence principle as an example, it does not mean I agree with the entirety of GR and its overcomplex mathematics.

Let me first agree with you and state that 'quark theory' is probably my biggest pet hate. The history of quarks is littered with all of the contraventions you mention above.

At our abilities of observation, yes, the classic, the equivalence principle holds. No, I am not attempting to prove that the equivalence principle works at quantum level. 'Mass' in the quantum realm is a blurry minefield, if you will excuse the puns. Even virtual particles now have 'mass'. With e.g. bosons required for the weak interaction, having mass 1000's time higher than the particle they are supposedly interacting there can surely be no equivalence in the quantum realm.
However, even in fusion (or chemistry) where mass is supposeldy 'lost', the equivalence still holds for the final product.
What I am referring to is what we can observe in e.g. chemistry. Classic world then, if you prefer. Two or more elements combine to form a new atom or molecule, somehow a fraction of mass is lost, yet we are still able to 'weigh' these new atoms or molecules to determine their new mass, and accelerating it requires exactly the force we predict.

When I say all particles with mass must interact with gravity with the same mass, I strongly reject from this the quantum particles termed to have 'mass'. Electrons, positrons, protons, neutrons, yes. Bosons, gluons, quarks ... NO NO NO.

We have become acustomed to seeing mass as a 'measure of quantity', where in reality mass is a measure of the quantity's interaction with the aether. It's a measure of resistance to acceleration, in a simplified term. Like V=RI, but F=ma. (for non-relativistic)

For example; There is no method of determining the mass of a complex object without accelerating or weighing it. "But we could measure its momentum", you might say. And how will we do that without accelerating or decelerating it?
We may also try to predict its mass if we know its constitution, but that's why I said 'complex', so we can only guess.

Then if real mass only 'exists' during acceleration, the equivalnce principle must hold for all particles with mass. When it is standing still or at constant velocity you may want to say it still has mass, but you are only stating an expectation of its response to acceleration or gravity.

[budrap00]

@Francois-Zinserling,

I'm afraid I don't understand your treatment of mass.

"...in reality mass is a measure of the quantity's interaction with the aether. It's a measure of resistance to acceleration..."

The first part is at best a hypothesis since the aether is not an observed phenomenon. I also don't understand what you mean to imply by separating "mass" from its "quantity". The second statement is more or less the definition of inertia. So this is just a hypothetical explanation for inertia. correct?

"There is no method of determining the mass of a complex object without accelerating or weighing it."

That is a tautology; it is equivalent to saying we can't determine an object's mass without measuring it. I don't understand your point. The act of measurement doesn't alter the fact that all material bodies have a property we call mass. A material body has that property whether we measure it or not, and whether it is at rest or not - which is essentially what the equivalence principle states. So again, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Regards,

Bud

[RedshiftDrift]

@Francois-Zinserling , the discussion above shows how speculative this topic is. This, this is moving away from a first-degree relationship with cosmology.

It is of no use to continue the exchange in this context.

A proper essay posted on the a-cosmology-group/acg repo would be more appropriate.

[khuramonline]

@Francois-Zinserling (in his paper) is basically talking about photon like particle.
@ExpEarth (in his paper) is also basically talking about photons of CMB.

While yes, photons do can impart momentum. But they can impart momentum only by way of pressure. It is not how gravity functions.

Ideal gravity mechanism is that when those photons (or whatever particles) will cause every single unit of mass (of object under gravity) to propel.

I accept it an ideal situation. I also accept that actual gravity may not be ideal.

It is entirely possible that gravity is 90% ideal where 90% (+/-) sub-atomic particles of the object under gravity are being directly propelled by those photons (or particles). Rest of 10% (plus/minus) may actually be just dragged through sort of pressure.

Mechanism should cover 90% of the individual stuff within the object to be moved under gravity.

Photons do not penetrate well within interiors of the astronomical objects. They will be fully absorbed. Fatio mechanism will not be achieved. There will be complete 100% shadow.

With right Fatio type model, only black holes should create complete 100% shadow.

There has to be outflux which photons do form ... which is just the reflected light. Or Re-emission, more technically.

@budrap00

Yes Einstein tried to clean the mess at the end but by then it was too late. Wrong momentum was already set.

[Francois-Zinserling]

KH: "While yes, photons do can impart momentum. But they can impart momentum only by way of pressure. It is not how gravity functions."
FZ: I think that is how it is supposed to work. Not pressure from outside, but pressure on each particle so it all adds up.

KH "those photons (or whatever particles)"
FZ: Which is why I expect these to be extreme high energy photons. Beyond gamma and x-rays. But the idea is only that they need to be 'photon-like' in bahaviour. Or else it will be a very specific particle that only does gravity. Then we are like QM where there is a field for everything you can imagine and I think that is BS.

KH: "It is entirely possible that gravity is 90% ideal"
FZ: "I think it has to be 100%, and again the reason I say the particles must be very small is that 99.999% must come out the other side unchanged, or else we would see complete shadows like you mention.

@khuramonline one more thing about the particle origin; if it originates from stars and galaxies, how did those stars and galaxies first form?

[RedshiftDrift]

@khuramonline the discussion above shows how speculative this topic is. This, this is moving away from a first-degree relationship with cosmology.

It is of no use to continue the exchange in this context.

A proper essay posted on the a-cosmology-group/acg repo would be more appropriate.

[ExpEarth]

What you say here is true: photons can't penetrate objects far enough to cause Le Sage gravity directly. I should have mentioned my model is a bit different. I argue that photons cause gravity indirectly. The initial absorption of energy is not in the particles themselves, but in the envelopes of spacetime to which they are connected. The momentum transferred to the envelopes is then transferred to the particles themselves.

[khuramonline]

The initial absorption of energy is not in the particles themselves, but in the envelopes of spacetime to which they are connected.

So you are making spacetime into a real mechanism. And relativists would say that spacetime is already a proper mechanism.

Secondly, if spacetime is causing gravity in the end then there is no Fatio type mechanism at any stage.

[RedshiftDrift]

@ExpEarth the discussion above shows how speculative this topic is. This, this is moving away from a first-degree relationship with cosmology.

It is of no use to continue the exchange in this context.

A proper essay posted on the a-cosmology-group/acg repo would be more appropriate.

[ExpEarth]

Yes, spacetime is a real physical entity, but it has other names, like the vacuum. I have a specific model of it, as filaments of gravitons connecting all particles. But the gravitons are themselves photon-like, as in the model of Arto Annila.

So what is happening is that photon energy is transferred to spacetime filaments. These filaments can penetrate all matter and so the photonic energy in them can indeed induce gravity in a Le Sage-type manner

[khuramonline]

Einstein (1917) has defined spacetime in following words:

According to the general theory of relativity the metrical character (curvature) of the four-dimensional space-time con- tinuum is defined at every point by the matter at that point and the state of that matter. Therefore, on account of the lack of uniformity in the distribution of matter, the metrical structure of this continuum must necessarily be extremely complicated. But if we are concerned with the structure only on a large scale, we may represent matter to ourselves as being uniformly distributed over enormous spaces, so that its density of distribution is a variable function which varies extremely slowly.

So spacetime is not vaccume nor any real thing other than matter and state of that matter itself. Neither it is "environment". It is a dynamical configuration of matter and state of that matter at every (dynamical) point

This condition is satisfied in the system of Mr. Peter Roberts. Within a fatio type Shadow gravity model, he describes matter and state of matter at every dynamical point and calls those points a field. In his system this "field" duly represents the spacetime as defined by Einstein.

So please explain your model in the light of this definition of spacetime.

[RedshiftDrift]

@ExpEarth the discussion above shows how speculative this topic is. This, this is moving away from a first-degree relationship with cosmology.

It is of no use to continue the exchange in this context.

A proper essay posted on the a-cosmology-group/acg repo would be more appropriate.

[ExpEarth]

Since you are quoting Einstein, you should probably also include his ideas that an ether quite possibly and even likely does exist. It is not just the mass points themselves. You can see this is in his famous Leiden lecture:
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Leiden-1920.htm

I can't see enough of Roberts' idea from the pages available in Google to have a good idea on what he is saying. If he's saying gravitational waves are the driving agent, that could work, but then he also needs to explain where the energy for them came from and where it goes afterwards. Unless he favours universal expansion. I don't know if this is really true, but I have long supposed that most proponents of Le Sage gravity favour static models of cosmology, not expansion.

We don't need to discuss my model further. I just mentioned it, since I thought this was a general thread about Le Sage gravity.

[Francois-Zinserling]

@khuramonline I answered this one earlier too, but the 'photons' should not be absorbed on the surface like solar radiation. It needs to penetrate, and in fact 99.999% should probably go right through without interacting.
I use 'photons' because their properties are closest to what these particles do. However we do not know of a photon that can do this so it would likely be a different particle.

Currently I am working on expanding my work on a spin=2 particle (again, very photon-like) but with spin=2 it is of course not a photon.
Note: With spin = 2 I am also able to show that the electrostatic force is a push-force. <- watch this space.

[khuramonline]

Ok. @ExpEarth had the opinion that gravitational waves can work for this task for an expanding universe. What you will say on this?

Following were his words:

If he's saying gravitational waves are the driving agent, that could work, but then he also needs to explain where the energy for them came from and where it goes afterwards. Unless he favours universal expansion.

[ExpEarth]

That's not what I meant actually. I meant that unless Roberts can explain where his gravitational waves come from, then he is just inventing them. That's too much like what happens in the Big Bang theory, where energy can appear or disappear as needed, with the wave of a hand.

[khuramonline]

Thanks for clarifying this point. Yes he like invented it out of proportions. But it is possibility that there may be a clue for a better position. Just guess.

[RedshiftDrift]

he is just inventing them...

The discussion above shows how speculative this topic is. This, this is moving away from a first-degree relationship with cosmology.

It is of no use to continue the exchange in this context.

A proper essay posted on the a-cosmology-group/acg repo would be more appropriate.

[khuramonline]

One basic question is:

Suppose there are such particles and these particles give the result of usual and measurable gravity.

When the effect is gravity itself then in principle, is it possible to detect such particles using any instrument or technique?

[Francois-Zinserling]

We are already detecting it in the form of gravitational waves. Gravitational waves are modulated on the flux of particles, which we do detect.

In our minds gravitational waves are like someone shaking waves in a blanket, but what if the wave is already there, and we are merely disturbing it. (modulating it)
As per GR space is a fabric or substance through which waves can propagate. In this model, based on Fatio's model, space is not static, or even 'bendable'.
Seeing that radiation and gravitational waves that we can detect move thourgh space is at the speed of light, is it not sensible to think that space moves at the speed of light, and all signals are pulse modulations on top of the base wave.

Apologies - this does not answer your question, and I don't know how we can detect theses particles other than through gravity.

However, when gravity is proven to be quantised, then it cannot be a 'fabric', it must consist of discrete particles.

At this stage I do not see this aether as only responsible for gravity though. A dynamic aether has the potential to answer to every needed quanutm field, and every other electrodynamic field we have proposed. It is already clear that the energy content of the aether is enormous.
A dynamic aether does not result in paradoxes like Special Relativity, although e.g. slowing clocks and time dilation is very real in a dynamic aether.

The aether is not just moving at the speed of light, but light is moving at the speed of aether. Atom clocks are 'ticked' by the aether.

I think it will be up to us to determine an experiment to conduct.

[khuramonline]

OK if gravitational waves are real. But are they not just rare occurrences?

Do they also emerge from regular and continuous processes (like light) or only rare events cause them?

[RedshiftDrift]

The discussion above shows how speculative this topic is. This, this is moving away from a first-degree relationship with cosmology.

It is of no use to continue the exchange in this context.

A proper essay posted on the a-cosmology-group/acg repo would be more appropriate.

[HanDeBruijn]

Again: the meaning of what a "particle" is has changed a lot since Newton used the concept properly.
Everybody tries to explain things in terms of particles. It's Particle Fever all over the place.
But I don't see how particles offer a better explanation than the phenomenon itself.

Observation shows that there is no gravitational shielding. Wow, so all matter is transparent to gravitons !!
Gravitation is felt everywhere immediately. Wow, so gravitons must travel faster than the speed of light !!
Have we arrived at more explanatory power with gravitons, when compared with Newton's gravitation ??

[khuramonline]

Newton's particle is the best thing for mechanical interactions, inertial mass and gravity. But this "particle" can do nothing for chemical, biological and nuclear phenomena. So other particles also can have solid grounds. For the shadow gravity, may be at the end it is same Newton's particle.

[HanDeBruijn]

Misunderstanding maybe: Newton 's particle is always a test mass, not an intermediate thing that transfers e.g. gravity.

[Francois-Zinserling]

@HanDeBruijn
For pushgravity to work it cannot be a mechanical particle, like a mass, however small. There are just too many complications that would follow from that.
It needs to be a photon-like particle, that can be absorbed, or even partly absorbed and re-emitted.

Yes, matter is mostly transparent. Considering matter (atoms, elements) are 99.999% (<- a few more 9's?) empty space, consider that most of space/aether just flows through matter and does not interact. A tiny fraction interacts and causes pushgravity.

No, gravitons don't move faster than light. If I send a lightbeam out from earth, and someone on the moon sees it a minute later, he would not think the light arrived there instantly. Even if he wasn't looking and suddenly looks and the light is already there, he still won't think the light arrived there instantly.
Just so gravity is 'updated' at the speed of light. There is no problem here and no need for superluminal speed particles.

[khuramonline]

Since photons move though object and impart momentum to objects. So why neutrinos cannot do the same?

[RedshiftDrift]

The discussion above shows how speculative this topic is. This, this is moving away from a first-degree relationship with cosmology.

It is of no use to continue the exchange in this context.

A proper essay posted on the a-cosmology-group/acg repo would be more appropriate.

[khuramonline]

@HanDeBruijn

Misunderstanding maybe: Newton 's particle is always a test mass, not an intermediate thing that transfers e.g. gravity.

Newton's particle is like an abstract but real particle. Every body is made up of not defined numbers of particles. But two bodies having same mass are understood to be having same number of particles.

within a single object there are so many (not defined number of) particles. Each particle in its own right exerts attractive forces on all the other particles. and the net result is the total attractive force of that total body.

[RedshiftDrift]

an abstract but real particle

abstract and real are opposites, this is a contradiction.

Discussion is closed.

[khuramonline]

I insist. Newton has used the term particle as abstract and same particle as real.

It is what newton has done. I have only pointed out.

In Newton's work particles are having mass, inertia and gravitational attraction. In that they are "real".

In Newton's work, particles are not explained regarding how much inertia or how much attraction or how much mass each one of them possess. In that they are "abstract".

Only hint is that two objects having same mass must have same number of particles. Both objects have same mass because quantity of mass is same in both the objects.

since quantity is same so number of particles are same.