Distances in the universe

I have been here a couple of months ago, but because of sudden illness i was pre- occupied with different things. I have not looked into past subjects anymore and don't really want to dig them up now....

What always puzzles me is that i do not understand how the current cosmoligical model could possibly work.
If you scale down our supposed globe earth into a 30cm globe in diameter then.....

The sun is 33m in diameter and 3.8 km away
Pluto due to it's eliptical orbit 110-170 km away from the sun as a tiny golfball.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star 1.000.000 km away
The Andromeda galaxy 650.000.000.000 km away

The planets found by the trappist telescope 40.000.000 km away

All numbers are calculated with an earth with a 30cm diameter as reference.

How could gravity of any force hold everything in place with great precision with such enormous vastness of empty space/ vacuum ?
It is like imagining that we can blow a balloon without exploding to the size of our Earth.
Not even mentioning the speed of spiral arm gallaxies that defies this possibility even more.

What is the current plausible explaination for this ?
Btw a lightyear = 9500.000.000.000 km
Can we really observe quadrillions of miles looking towards the boundaries of space ?
It seems so convenient, because there is absolutely no way to varify anything, not even in the scaled down cosmos, which still has absurd distances that would make you wonder about the "real" cosmos/ distances.

Who says the entire universe is held in place by gravity? Also, are you scared of big numbers?

Who says the entire universe is held in place by gravity? Also, are you scared of big numbers?

Ah great, you seem to know more than i do.
And yes i am scared of big numbers that gravity cannot account for.
So.........?

The scale of the universe is amazing...and...? So what? You mean that in your opinion you don't believe that gravity could hold the solar system together? What math, scientific evidence, or logical explanation do you have beyond your opinion? Given that astronomers, mathematicians, and engineers have delivered robots to distant planets, I think that they know what they're doing. Do you know how they found Neptune? The calculations of Uranus's orbit showed an abberation--something was off. So a couple of mathematicians started playing with the numbers and realized that there must be another planet tugging on Uranus. A little more math told them where to look. They gave their data to astronomers who found Neptune almost immediately.

You haven't done your homework on Neptune either.

From Cosmos without (attractive) Gravitation:

The greatest triumph of the theory of gravitation was the discovery of the planet Neptune, the position of which was calculated simultaneously by Adams and Leverrier from the perturbations experienced by Uranus. But in the controversy which ensued concerning the priority in announcing the existence of Neptune, it was stressed that neither of the two scholars was the real discoverer, as both of them calculated very erroneously the distance of Neptune from the orbit of Uranus. Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way. Newton was mistaken when he ascribed to magnetism a decrease that follows the cube of the distance (Principia, Book III, Proposition V, Corr. V).


PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER.

Remember, you cannot use the ripples in spacetime bedtime story.

How does a graviton emitted by the Sun attract a graviton released by the inner core of Pluto?

Gravity recedes with distance, but it is proportional to mass. And the masses we talk about here are enormeous. The milky way has a mass of approx. 10^41kg.
The objects are not "held in place" by gravity, everything moves. Our planets orbit the sun, the sun orbits the galaxy and so on. Our galaxy and andromeda are attracting each other and will collide in the future. There is nothing "held in place"

The rotational speed is indeed puzzling, the dominant theory right now is the existence of dark matter because it also explains many other observed phenomena, but the last word on that has not been spoken yet.

Electricity and magnetism act in the same way. Newton was mistaken when he ascribed to magnetism a decrease that follows the cube of the distance (Principia, Book III, Proposition V, Corr. V).

How strange! 
Maybe Newton did  Electronics 101 Magnetic field inverse cube law derivation 
and found out that the field strength of a magnetic dipole does indeed fall off as the inverse cube!

Maybe you should attend Electronics 101 too.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER.

No, you show me any reason why you might even suggest that "TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER".
Any more would also suggest that "TWO PHOTONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER".

I suspect that even if gravitons are proven that two gravitons will still not attract each other any more than two photons attract each other.

Their, a nice ambiguous answer!

Gravity is directly proportional to mass and inversely proportional to separation distance squared.

So forget your pissy little model of an Earth you can hold in your hand that weighs a few kg. In REALITY the Earth has a mass of

6 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 kilograms.

The Sun weighs that much, times a third of a million. You can write out the number.

The distance they are apart is 150 million km. That's still a massive number, but it's only six zeroes. Nine if you use meters.

I don't care if you can't understand or don't believe in gravity. But if you think it can't exist because the numbers are too insignificant for there to be any force involved, there's something wrong with you.

rabinoz, leave physics to those to really know it.

You really haven't studied HOW the inverse cube law was derived, have you?

IT IT ONLY VALID IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BASED ON THE DIPOLE MODEL.

But, using the correct model, the MAGNETIC MONOPOLE model, we only have an inverse square law.

Magnetic fields obey an inverse square law.

Only dipoles could produce an inverse cube law.

You obtained your answer from the quora website, and hurried back here, thinking you hit the jackpot, not knowing a thing about the intricacies of the debate between the applicability of the inverse square law vs. the inverse cube law when it comes to monopoles and dipoles.


I like to tell this story. Once, in the twilight hour, a visitor came to my study, a distinguished-looking gentleman.

He brought me a manuscript dealing with celestial mechanics. After a glance at some of the pages, I had the feeling that this was the work of a mathematical genius.

I entered into conversation with my visitor and mentioned the name of James Clerk Maxwell. My guest asked: "Who is he?" Embarrassed, I answered: "You know, the scientist who gave a theoretical explanation of the experiments of Faraday."

"And who is Faraday?" inquired the stranger. In growing embarrassment 1 said: "Of course, the man who did the pioneer work in electromagnetism." "And what is electromagnetism?" asked the gentleman.

"What is your name?" I inquired. He answered: "Isaac Newton."

I awoke. On my knees was an open volume: Newton's Principia.

This story is told to illustrate what I have said before. Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

(from Earth in Upheaval)

An extraordinary work which takes an in-depth look at how MAGNETISM was left out of the gravitational theories which were put forward as basic hypotheses in the 17th and 18th centuries.

No one can explain, even within the forged/faked history of these centuries, why the force of magnetism was not immediately put in a central place as the main force of universal gravitation.

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/ricker9.pdf


Gravitons are not electrically neutral: stop making the foolish analogy between gravitons and photons.

If gravitons do not attract each other, you are at a complete loss as to how to explain attractive gravity.

They must attract each other, that is the whole basis of the modern theory of gravitation.

Or are you suggesting that gravitons DO NOT ATTRACT EACH OTHER?

Because then the Earth is flat.

HUYGENS LETTER TO LEIBNIZ, 1690:

”Concerning the cause of the flux given by M. Newton, I am by no means satisfied [by it], nor by all the other theories that he builds upon his principle of attraction, which to me seems absurd, as I have already mentioned in the addition to the Discourse on Gravity. And I have often wondered how he could have given himself all the trouble of making such a number of investigations and difficult calculations that have no other foundation than this very principle."



Newton’s experimental basis for his principal of universal gravitation is magnetism.
Where Gilbert saw magnetism as the universal force of nature, Newton substituted gravity. He sees magnetic attraction as a force analogous to gravity. His procedure is inductive. He performs experiments, and then inductively derives laws of mechanical action. But, he does not reveal this in the final presentation of the Principia. The inductive procedure is suppressed, leaving only the mathematical laws and the deductions derived from them. This leads to the Cartesian criticism that his system has no physics.

Newton’s use of magnetism as a template for gravitational attraction presented him with a dilemma. Both concepts were occult forces, but magnetism was explained within the Cartesian system using vortices of circulating magnetic particles. In the case of gravity, Newton was able to prove mathematically that vortices of a subtle gravitational aether did not yield the known laws of planetary motion discovered by Kepler. His appeal to magnetism therefore needed to be muted and suppressed. We saw previously how this led to a paradox regarding Newton’s views on magnetism. The Courtesans had successfully banished the idea of attraction from magnetism, and Newton was faced with the problem of reviving it for gravity. This he did, but only as a law of universal attraction that was presented mathematically using geometry.

Magnetism featured prominently in the Newtonian system although Newton’s style tended to downplay its significance. Newton dynamics was based upon three laws of motion. The third law was a source of considerable controversy, and this forced Newton to point to his explanation in which he states that the third law is proved experimentally by experiments using a magnet and an iron body floating on wood in a tub of water. Newton says that the magnet and iron come to rest in the water after coming together, proves the correctness of his third law.


WHY DID NEWTON LEAVE OUT MAGNETISM AS THE SOURCE OF HIS IDEAS ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF GRAVITATIONAL FORCES?

Clearly, one possible answer was to appeal to magnetism as a well established example of an occult force that was a real force of nature which obeyed mechanical laws of nature. This is what Newton intended, but the use of magnetism in this way was a trap, and Newton understood this fact. The prevailing interpretation of magnetism was Descartes theory of magnetic particles flowing in a vortices through and around the magnet. Thus magnetism had a mechanical explanation in the Cartesian system. Newton could not very well use it as an example of a force similar to gravity, because he deigned that gravity was caused by Cartesian vortices of subtle matter. This created problems particularly since, Newton had no really good alternative to the Cartesian theory to put forward in its place. Hence, Newton was reticent about pointing to magnetism as a centrally acting force without a visible explanation of force resulting from direct contact.

The Nature of Gravitational Attraction

Leibnitz certainly understood, probably better than any other critics of Newton’s theory, that the Newtonian gravity was a form of magnetic attraction described in terms of a mathematical law. His own theory of gravity clearly shows the role of magnetism in the conception of gravity. Leibnitz did not hide the connection, he made it explicit.

Only dipoles could produce an inverse cube law.

That reference I gave was not Quora.com, but an Electronics 101 course to show that Newton was correct.
I am sure he had no monopoles because you hadn't turned up to dream them into existence.

But I knew little electrically things like that decades before the internet existed thank you, Mr  SmartyPants!

And yes, I know that the field strength of magnetic monopoles would fall off as the inverse square of distances,
So do you know anywhere I can buy some magnetic monopoles so I can check it out?

Maybe you could send some over here, should I pay you by PayPal?

If gravitons do not attract each other, you are at a complete loss as to how to explain attractive gravity.

They must attract each other, that is the whole basis of the modern theory of gravitation.

Or are you suggesting that gravitons DO NOT ATTRACT EACH OTHER?

Because then the Earth is flat.

You claim
"If gravitons do not attract each other, you are at a complete loss as to how to explain attractive gravity.
They must attract each other, that is the whole basis of the modern theory of gravitation."
Where did you dredge that from? Please show your reference for that claim.

Yes, I am "suggesting that gravitons" even if proven would "NOT ATTRACT EACH OTHER".

So would it be true to say of you
essentially the same thing!

Actually, photons do "attract each other", but so slightly that it is not worth considering.

This goes against that great Sandokhanian Theory of Everything but what I am suggesting is
that just as real photons are not the mediators of electrostatic attraction
then gravitons would not (if proven) be the mediators of gravitational attraction.

Photons are a measure of the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation and
gravitons would a measure of the smallest unit of gravitational radiation, or "gravity waves".

But neither of these explain static electrostatic, magnetic or gravitational attraction.

Then you claim "Because then the Earth is flat"! Funny that you have not map that has the correct distances!

No need to tell me I am wrong and an idiot. I know that and the opinion is reciprocated.

PS You might guess that I am not a great believer in the Sandokhanian Theory of Everything.
      But then, apart from a few FEers who haven't a clue, nobody except you believes it anyway.
      so I have plenty of company!

Because gravity works equally on all mass while magnetism works more on some substances, less on others, and not at all on others. No fancy "graviton science" required!

We don't have to be able to explain it to know that it exists. Either gravity exists, or some other force that behaves exactly like gravity exists (which we'll just call "gravity" for now). "Gravity" is "the force that causes that unique collection of observations of attraction between masses that is proportional to mass (per the constant G) and inversely proportional to the square of the distance."

Also, please stop inserting massive quotes from your (stoner) textbooks without quotation marks. It is sometimes difficult to separate your ranting from their raving. And please also not that we are not susceptible to the "I read it somewhere, so it's true" fallacy. Just because you can find some stoner from the University of Upper Trans Congolia who wrote that the Crystal Pyramids of Atlantis beamed him a message in a dream that there is no such thing as gravity does not mean that we're going to chuck 2500 years of accumulated math and science.

Both of you have failed to explain how attractive gravity works.

The most crucial part of the RE scenario involves this very explanation: HOW DO TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER?

If gravitation is attractive, how does it work?


We don't have to be able to explain it to know that it exists.

Photons are a measure of the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation and
gravitons would a measure of the smallest unit of gravitational radiation, or "gravity waves".

But neither of these explain static electrostatic, magnetic or gravitational attraction.

Then, what you are basically saying, is that you have no idea whatsoever as to what causes attractive gravitation.


Let us then make the full analogy between photons and gravitons, if that is what you want: the pressure of light phenomenon.

The pressure of light paradox is real.

"The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries."

Then, if you think that gravitons ARE NOT ATTRACTING EACH OTHER, they must cause AN ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON BOTH THE SATELLITES AND ON THE PLANETS THEMSELVES.

The constant pressure of the field of gravitons would constitute an additional force of pressure on top of the pressure of light emitted by the Sun.


Moreover, now you are saying that gravitation IS NOT ATTRACTIVE AT ALL, since both of you have stated that gravitons do not attract each other.


But, at the same time, you are certain of this:

"Gravity" is "the force that causes that unique collection of observations of attraction between masses that is proportional to mass (per the constant G) and inversely proportional to the square of the distance."

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THAT ATTRACTION WORKS.

BECAUSE NO ONE UP UNTIL NOW, FOR THE PAST 350 YEARS HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE A CLEAR EXPLANATION.

HOW DO TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER?

You do want gravitation to be attractive right?

And you claim that such gravitation manifests itself in the form of gravitational waves whose quanta are gravitons.

I REPEAT: HOW DO TWO GRAVITONS, THEN, ATTRACT EACH OTHER?

The one graviton applies make up and perfume, gets her har and nails did and wears fancy clothes. The other graviton works out daily to get them sweet gains to impress gravitons he's attracted to.


I think it's fair to say that how gravity works is still very open to debate. Don't you love that science isn't even close to being done?

Basically this thread is about topics where we're still trying to figure out how it all works. If science tells you something about it, it's probably a best working theory, or essentially the best way we can currently explain things.

I urge each and every RE to write to the best universities: Princeton, Stanford, Cambridge, MIT, Max Planck Institute and ask a simple question.

HOW TO TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER?

Not only no proper response would be provided, but a bigger surprise would be at hand: no professor of physics HAS EVEN given it a thought as to how attractive gravitation might work.


The only possible model would be a vortex representation.

But two emissive vortices would not attract each other. Nor would two receptive vortices.

ONLY BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT A RECEPTIVE VORTEX AND AN EMISSIVE VORTEX TOGETHER, WOULD THEN A GRAVITON MODEL MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL.

But that would mean that there ARE TWO TYPES OF GRAVITONS AT WORK: a graviton with a receptive vortex, and a graviton with an emissive vortex.


How would such a gravitational field COEXIST with a magnetic field, which consists of magnetic monopoles which also feature emissive/receptive vortices?

How would a leaf, a pencil, a brick KNOW how to emit the RIGHT AMOUNT of both kinds of gravitons, so as to fulfill the universal law of gravitational attraction?

Are such gravitons a one time emission, which occured some five billions years ago? Then that would constitute a gross violation of the law of conservation of energy.

Are they continuously being emitted? A proton/neutron is made up basically of subquarks. How would those subquarks emit gravitons each and every fraction of a second? Again, a defiance of the law of conservation of energy.

And then we would get into the most basic graviton paradox of them all: a three body model, a star/planet/satellite, using graviton fields, could not work at all, since again the law of conservation of energy would be defied each and every time the satellite hides in the shadow of the planet itself.

You claim that there is only one possible way to explain it, but how could you possibly be certain of this?

Because that is how it works in reality.

Here are your gravitons, laevorotatory/dextrorotatory vortices:

In that same way, I urge you to ask all high profile FEers and ask them to explain how eclipses work on a flat earth

I have provided the correct explanations for the solar/lunar eclipses a long time ago.

Or perhaps you'd like to get into a debate with me on the Allais effect?

We are lucky! No sagnac gnac gnac this time!

"Graviton...vortices... blah blah" ...whatever.

None of what you are saying matters a bit.

More on that in a moment First, I want to thank you for acknowledging the existence of Neptune, Uranus, and the rest of the solar system. When you quoted someone saying that magnetism might be a better explanation than gravity for the motion of planets, you were clearly invoking a heliocentric, speherical Earth/planets model. At least we can agree on that!

Back to your point: I can learn many things about optics without knowing what happens at the photonic level. I don't even need a theory of (or even know about) electromagnetism. I can measure refraction in different materials at different angles and colors of light. I can experiment on and understand how different convex and concave shapes of polished glass produce different lending effects without knowing that light is made of photons and all the rest.

We know that there appears to be an attractive force that:
1) is predictably and reliably proportional to mass
2) affects all mass
3) is reduced precisely in proportion to the square of the distance

This is true. It works. It allows us to send probes whizzing past Jupiter and then slinging past out to Neptune (which you acknowledge as real--thank you).

Maybe there is no such thing as "gravity," but there is clearly something exactly like gravity.

I have provided the correct explanations for the solar/lunar eclipses a long time ago.

Or perhaps you'd like to get into a debate with me on the Allais effect?

Yes I want to get in a debate with you about your magical effect.

I have provided the correct explanations for the solar/lunar eclipses a long time ago.

Or perhaps you'd like to get into a debate with me on the Allais effect?

If a fairy or other fantasy being offered me three wishes I would use one on you. I would wish for you keyboard to only allow you to type things that were true......that would well shut you up.......remember the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Quote from: sandokhan on April 23, 2017, 09:37:42 AM

I have provided the correct explanations for the solar/lunar eclipses a long time ago.

Or perhaps you'd like to get into a debate with me on the Allais effect?

If a fairy or other fantasy being offered me three wishes I would use one on you. I would wish for you keyboard to only allow you to type things that were true......that would well shut you up.......remember the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

He should only be allowed to use his computer if he can completely explain computer science (especially as it relates to quantum mechanics). According to him, no one can use a science that they don't completely understand. That's why golfers are required to take a course in mechanics. I may look like they're keeping score on their little scorecard, but they're actually doing physics calculations for mass velocity acceleration gravity etc.

I have provided the correct explanations for the solar/lunar eclipses a long time ago.

Or perhaps you'd like to get into a debate with me on the Allais effect?

Debate on what ? That "effect" is faint guess at best.... or you conducted some new onservations ?

I have provided the correct explanations for the solar/lunar eclipses a long time ago.

Or perhaps you'd like to get into a debate with me on the Allais effect?

You have provided your hypotheses, nothing more.
If you really have the "Ultimate Theory of Everything" as you pretend, I fail to see why you restrict yourself to a little backwater like "The Flat Earth Society".

You simply don't have the guts to take your hypotheses out into the wider world.

If your work really is, as you pretend, this "Ultimate Theory of Everything" you owe it to humanity as a whole to make every attempt to get it accepted.

But no, you would rather pretend that you are the expert winning all these debates over the few here and at TFES.org who are not physicists and do not pretend to have the depth of understanding the you pretend to have.

So, get off your backside and make some attempt at getting you wonderful hypotheses into the wider world.
But,  you won't,  you are gutless and would rather be the big king frog in this tiny pond!

What does it gain you or science as a whole for you to win a few debates here? That changes nothing and achieves nothing at all.
Though I guess it makes you feel that you are so superior to the rest of us here.
Well get out and and try to mix it in the real world and see what happens to your marvelous hypotheses!

Bye bye, have a nice day.

Signed: Someone who couldn't care less about your fantasy world.

PS The earth spins happily along, all these spacecraft go along their assigned trajectories without your fantasy, funny that!

How could gravity of any force hold everything in place with great precision with such enormous vastness of empty space/ vacuum ?

What makes you say it is great precision?

Your statements about Pluto indicate it isn't that precise. It is in an elliptical orbit.
If you look at the Earth, it's orbit isn't even an ellipse. The moon perturbs it so it is wavy, and it gets disturbed to some extent by other planets.
Geostationary satellites are another example, where constant station keeping is required to keep it in position with all the perturbations.

It is like imagining that we can blow a balloon without exploding to the size of our Earth.

No. It is nothing like that. A balloon is made of material with a certain tensile strength.
As you expand it, you stretch this material, reducing it's thickness and thus increasing the stress on the material.
Eventually the material gets too thin, with too much stress and breaks.

Sure you can say use a thicker balloon, but then it requires more force (pressure inside) to be able to expand the balloon and thus you get the same problem.

Space and gravity is nothing like that at all.
Gravity is merely distorting space time by bending it a bit, more akin to putting a weight on a trampoline or sheet.

Not even mentioning the speed of spiral arm gallaxies that defies this possibility even more.

How?

What is the current plausible explaination for this ?

Explanation for what? I see no problem so far?

Can we really observe quadrillions of miles looking towards the boundaries of space ?

Yes.
Light will continue to travel unless it falls into a black hole or is absorbed by something.
So unless something is in the way we can observe it, sometimes we need more sensitive instruments than our eyes, and/or really long exposure times.

It seems so convenient, because there is absolutely no way to verify anything, not even in the scaled down cosmos, which still has absurd distances that would make you wonder about the "real" cosmos/ distances.

No. You can verify things.
For example, you can verify various distances on Earth, and positions of things, and timings of things, and then verify that the sun rises due east and sets due west on the equinox, requiring it to be very far away.
If you allow up to a 1 degree margin of error at the equator, and then construct a right angle triangle to determine the position of the sun (with a distance of 10 000 km between the equator and the north pole for the FE model), you end up with the sun being over 500 000 km away (up to an infinite distance).
In order to match the FE model, you need an error of 45 degrees at the equator.

It gets completely impossible in the southern summer as the sun is in the wrong spot.
So yes, we can verify things, like the sun being very distant. We can then use that fact, along with the sun travelling over the equator during the equinox, to show Earth is round.

And then it is calculation after calculation using various things (and observations) to determine scales.

Yes, the universe is big, and we are tiny and insignificant. That doesn't make it false.

Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune.

Sure, it might not be gravity. Instead it could be some other force which is proportional to mass and so on, just like gravity is, i.e. it is gravity.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER.

Why would they need to?

Remember, you cannot use the ripples in spacetime bedtime story.

Why not?

IT IT ONLY VALID IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BASED ON THE DIPOLE MODEL.

But, using the correct model, the MAGNETIC MONOPOLE model, we only have an inverse square law.

And by using that model we find that Neptune should blow itself apart.

Do you know a very big very important difference between electrostatics/magnetism and gravity?

With gravity "like charges" (i.e. masses) attract, with electrostatics/magnetism (i.e positive and negative charges, north and south poles), they repel.

What this means is in order to produce a solar system using electrostatics/magnetism, you would need the sun to be one charge and every other planet the opposite.
That means instead of having an attractive force between Neptune and Uranus, you would have a repulsive force which doesn't match what was observed.

Similarly, that would mean the entire planet either has one massive monopole, with no explanation at all, or has numerous monopoles of the same "charge" which would cause the planet to explode.

So no, it is clearly not magnetism or electrostatics which is at work.

You need, as a bare minimum, a force in which like charges attract.
To make it further match reality, you need it to be proportional to the masses of the objects, but that then gives you gravity.

But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

Because if they were, they would blow the planets apart.

No one can explain, even within the forged/faked history of these centuries, why the force of magnetism was not immediately put in a central place as the main force of universal gravitation.

I can, quite easily, because it doesn't match what is observed.
You need either dipoles, which follow a different rule, or it would blow the planets apart and cause the planets to repel one another.

Gravitons are not electrically neutral: stop making the foolish analogy between gravitons and photons.

Prove it.

If gravitons do not attract each other, you are at a complete loss as to how to explain attractive gravity.

They don't need to attract one another, they need to interact with either space time itself, or other things to cause the effects of gravity.
What you are doing is akin to say in order to communicate between 2 radio stations, the photons need to interact. They don't.
The photons sent by one need to interact with the other.

They must attract each other, that is the whole basis of the modern theory of gravitation.

No it isn't. It is the basis of your pathetic straw-man of gravity.
It isn't even part of the theory. So far gravitons remain entirely hypothetical.

Or are you suggesting that gravitons DO NOT ATTRACT EACH OTHER?

Unknown.

Because then the Earth is flat.

No. That is massive logical leap without any semblance of reasoning.