[Physics] Pushing gravity & Equivalence Principle

[carmam at tiscali.co.uk]

During an email exchange with Arend, the topic of pushing gravity arose. I have a lot of sympathy with this notion, and in fact have explored the possibility, but discarded it . Pushing gravity (PG), to my way of thinking, could only work in a closed system, and the universe is an open system (or is it?). My thought process went something like this:- The push has to originate somewhere and from something, so as a starting point imagine a very large hollow sphere which generates PG (it does not matter for the purpose of this discussion how this PG is generated). There is matter inside this hollow sphere in the form of small hot or cold solid spheres. These spheres, under the influence of the PG, would collide with each other, until eventually there would be just one mass in the centre of the room. If the PG was strong enough, the room big enough, and there was enough matter, that central mass would become a black hole. This description also fits for normal pull gravity, so it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to tell which was which. If the containing hollow sphere was to disappear, however, there would no longer be any push gravity. This situation is analogous to the universe. There is no hollow sphere, and nothing around it from where the PG could originate if the universe is finite. If the universe is infinite, where is the PG originating from? One other problem. There is a distinct difference between PG and pull gravity. As both types of gravity reduce (or increase) with the square of distance, it would be very easy to detect the centre of the universe. With PG, the gravity in the centre would be very strong, and the gravity would decrease by the square law as one journeyed out, becoming zero at the wall of the sphere (or the edge of the universe). In addition, all one has to do is to measure the strength of the PG at various points in the universe to determine the centre point, and possibly the size of the universe. There is something inherently wrong with this notion, however, and it is that no known force increases in strength with distance from its source, and it is also difficult to imagine one being able to do so.Here is a link to a web site by Bernard Burchell which has an alternative theory to describe gravity :- http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm
Moving on to the Equivalence Principle. I first put this on my web page a few years ago, and have since refined it. It can be found at  :-http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/carmam/Hollings.html#gravity . This takes the reader through a logical process which culminates in the disproof of the EP, and along the way, proves that heavy objects orbit faster than light ones, which means of course that a massive planet in orbit around its sun would have a faster orbital speed than a less massive one at the same orbital radius, and the two would eventually collide.  This in turn leads to the conclusion that a trinary star system cannot exist except in very young star systems. A trinary system is defined as three bodies in orbit around their common centre of gravity; or a central body with two smaller bodies orbiting it which are at the same orbital radius. The fact that no trinary systems have ever been observed is observational proof that the EP is wrong.Also in the section #gravity, there is a link to a Fortran program which I wrote along with a link to the source code for your inspection, which allows the user to input masses and orbital radii of their choice, or use given and actual masses and radii,  and it computes the orbital speeds and collision times of satellites in the same orbit.
Tom Hollings.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161021/47634626/attachment.html>