Quantized redshift anomaly

I don't understand WHY gravity as attraction is being disputed? Are there anomalous events which attraction cannot explain? And what is it about pushing gravity that makes it so attractive to some scientists? Is Cahill's "space flowing inward" the same thing as gravitons flowing from all directions? Are gravitational gravitons the same as particle physics gravitons? And isn't the flow of gravitons in space
inferring that space is empty? If space is empty, what is driving these gravitons to move?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />[thebobgy] "Then it should hold that the falling apple will “fall” angular to the tree trunk because the trunk must also absorb horizontal gravitons, ... "<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
YES - another good one. Of course the tree trunk is much less massive than Earth, so the attractive force between trunk and apple has proportionately less effect. LB<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Yes, but the ratio of proportionality would be the number of trees to any one side of the tree releasing the apple so the angular fall would be greater in relation to the locality of the releasing tree to the center of the orchard. Another consideration would be other obstructions near the orchard such as a hill or a mountain. Again, thank you for your time.
thebobgy

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />I don't understand WHY gravity as attraction is being disputed?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Math and philosophy have no need for understanding the mechanism of gravity. But physics is all about detailed understanding of origins and nature of all kinds of forces and entities. So mechanisms are important to understand.

Newton had no mechanism, and made his famous statement "I make no hypothesis" when asked about a mechanism.

In GR, the mechanism is supposed to the space-time curvature. However, curvature alone cannot initiate 3-space motion, so that also fails to provide a plausible physical mechanism.

Le Sage gravity gives all the same results as Newtonian gravity and first-order GR with a simple, intuitive mechanism. So it is the first model to satisfy physicists as well as mathematicians and philosophers.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Are there anomalous events which attraction cannot explain?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Pushing gravity predicts five new properties that the other models do not, and is therefore testable. So far, the test results are looking very favorable to PG: metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/possi...pertiesofgravity.asp

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And what is it about pushing gravity that makes it so attractive to some scientists?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Equations never answer "why" questions. Having a mechanism gives us true understanding, and immediately tells us how and why gravity works the special ways it does. Moreover, this understanding immediately eliminates many paradoxes, such as non-locality (which is no longer special in PG because gravitons propagate billions of times faster than light in forward time).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is Cahill's "space flowing inward" the same thing as gravitons flowing from all directions?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is a similar idea that has not caught on because it attributes physical properties to "space" (which should remain a dimension, not a material entity), and because it does not explain what happens to the absorbed space in a source mass.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Are gravitational gravitons the same as particle physics gravitons?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No. Quantum gravitons are similar to elysons in current lingo, except that quantum gravitons are supposed to be "spin-2", whereas elysons are "spin-1". (Elysons are the constituents of elysium, the light-carrying medium.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And isn't the flow of gravitons in space inferring that space is empty?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">On the contrary, space is filled with elysium, among other things.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If space is empty, what is driving these gravitons to move?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This sounds like "absolute space" again. Space is just a dimension for measuring things. Only entities that occupy space are material and tangible and can act on matter.

The source and motion of gravitons is different in different cosmologies. In MM, the entire elysium sea and the entire graviton atmosphere are components of some "nega-planet" existing on a scale so large that we can see only an insignificant portion of it. But because scale is infinite in MM and no scale is special, this is in no way unusual in the MM universe. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by thebobgy</i>
<br />... trees ... Another consideration would be other obstructions near the orchard such as a hill or a mountain.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All those things DO exert a gravitational force on the apple, but it is negligible compared to the Earth's gravitational force. Substituting pushing gravitons with the trees or mountains blocking a few of them gives <i>exactly</i> the same negligible force on the apple as the traditional pulling gravity picture. -|Tom|-

[thebobgy] "Yes, but the ratio of proportionality would be the number of trees to any one side of the tree releasing the apple so the angular fall would be greater in relation to the locality of the releasing tree to the center of the orchard. Another consideration would be other obstructions near the orchard such as a hill or a mountain."

You are correct, but the effects are so much smaller than the effect of Earth that it is not noticeable.

[see also my post at the top of this page]

For the case of a nearby mountain we actually can detect the slight deviation from "straight down" if we use some very sensitive equipment.

LB

[and see also my post near the bottom of the previous page that talks about how these tiny effects do become observable out in space.]