Pusher Particles (was 'you guys should be locked up')

Sorry Cryo, ignore my point about instant-effect gravity.  The source I got that information from is - unreliable to say the least, and I noticed it was contradicting what I already knew about gravity.  So I double-checked and it's a bogus point.  Gravity's influence seems to move at the speed of light.  My bad!

Having trouble finding advocates of "Pusher Particle Theory" here...

As of yet a google search has returned:

"pusher particle theory" - 0 results

"pusher particles" - 1 result (does not relate to any element of this discussion)

"ppt" - 11,000,000 results (the vast majority pertaining to MS Powerpoint.  Cryo, perhaps you are confused with the Pittsburgh Public Theatre when you mention PPT?)

Perhaps you would make some headway if you quoted a reputable source, any source, which could then be independantly verified.  Even providing any information that does not come from your own 'calculations'. Your 'ppt equation'; did you calculate that yourself? Well done. It has a very scientific look to it.  You must have been very pleased when you came up with that.

WTF has already decimated your frankly hilarious flat earth argument, all you have to do is accept that PPT exists purely in your imagination (and Pittsburgh).

Remember we are not here to prove the existence of gravity to you; there are numerous opportunities on the web for that. It is your responsibility as a participant in this discussion to prove "pusher particles" exist.

WTF to date has not posted anything about this mysterious "gravity" that you blindly believe in that cannot be explained equally well by pusher particles.

Well, I counter with: Cryoruggie to date has not posted anything about these mysterious "pusher particles" that you blindly believe in that cannot be explained equally well by gravity.  The difference being that gravity has been recorded in countless independant studies in countless situations by countless observers.

Makes sense, no?

You also said:

So I have a problem resloving the obvious truth of pusher particles with the equally obvious subjective evidence that the earth is flat.

You have already conceded the Earth is spherical.  By your own admission, pusher particles are an 'equally obvious truth'. So where does this leave your argument?

WTF, you must have the patience of a saint.

---

And by the way I have noticed a lot of abusive, not to mention illiterate posts on this board against the 'Flat-Earthers'. They can fuck off. These people do not represent my point of view and I do not wish to be associated with such hateful people. As for believing 'Flat-Earthers' shouldn't be allowed to promote their views and should be "locked up" or "shot", I can only assume those abusing them find the idea of a flat Earth a lot more threatening than it clearly is.  As Voltaire said "I do not like what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it."

Perhaps you would make some headway if you quoted a reputable source, any source, which could then be independantly verified. Even providing any information that does not come from your own 'calculations'. Your 'ppt equation'; did you calculate that yourself? Well done. It has a very scientific look to it. You must have been very pleased when you came up with that.

WTF has already decimated your frankly hilarious flat earth argument, all you have to do is accept that PPT exists purely in your imagination (and Pittsburgh).

Remember we are not here to prove the existence of gravity to you; there are numerous opportunities on the web for that. It is your responsibility as a participant in this discussion to prove "pusher particles" exist.

Quote:
WTF to date has not posted anything about this mysterious "gravity" that you blindly believe in that cannot be explained equally well by pusher particles.


Well, I counter with: Cryoruggie to date has not posted anything about these mysterious "pusher particles" that you blindly believe in that cannot be explained equally well by gravity. The difference being that gravity has been recorded in countless independant studies in countless situations by countless observers.

Makes sense, no?

Several points you missed....

When I developed the equation for pusher particles, I noticed strange similarities to other equations previously made in an attemt to justify the mythical gravity you seem so enamored of...    Betcha' didn't notice that in your flights of self-satisfied cynicism?

All these myriad things on the web  that you claim proves that gravity exists merely show that bodies tend to move towards each other or that things are manipulated by an unknown force.  All the "proof" you claim to have found on the web (great and unique factual source of all knowledge) merely states the behavior between objects or energy.  It does not - repeat not - tell you why they move towards each other.  

It does not prove the "why" of a mysterious (though measurable) attractive force, gravitons, pusher particles, etc.  Show me something that can only be explained by this mysterious gravity that attracts, rather than a logical and obvious pusher force or pusher particles that push objects together. Remember that the countless observers you quote have only measured and reported an effect, but have only vague theories about why.  Maybe if I called them "pushitrons" you'd feel better?.

I am not in the least challenging the fact that objects move towards each other according to strict rules that can be verified over and over.  I am challenging your statement that they can only be explained by this mythical "gravity" you seem to believe in.

WTF almost has me there with the massless photons.  But your argument has gravity exists because it's on the web is unconvincing to say the least.  But your post was very cool and smug.

But your argument has gravity exists because it's on the web is unconvincing to say the least.

Cryo I'm sorry that you don't find modern physics convincing, but just because you are ignorant to the wealth of data on the subject doesn't mean it isn't there.  Take your pick of whichever theory of gravity you like.  GR is a good one.  String theory, Quantum theories of gravity, even Newton's gravity  - any of those are far, far, far superior models to your "PPT" which is roughly equivalent to theories 12 year olds make when they are staying up all night at a sleepover.   Go look up, say, GR and get back to me about why it's an unacceptable theory of gravity - and why your theory is better.

I'll be totally honest - I really don't understand string theory and quantim theory or even general relativity well enough to make a sound judgement of their validity in explaining "gravity".  I had the usual college courses that deal with quantum concepts on an introductory level, but that really doesn't cut it in explaining gravity.  And I think we hadn't even heard of strings in the 60's.

And I'd be just as comfortable accepting that two bodies will be pulled together as a function of their mass as I am in accepting that they are pushed together as a function of their mass.

So - despite the possibility that PPT is the fevered imagination of a cub scout on his first overnighter - what hard evidence do you have that bodies are attracted by some unknown though easily measured force, and not being pushed together by some unknonw - though easily measured force?

I'll be totally honest - I really don't understand string theory and quantim theory or even general relativity well enough to make a sound judgement of their validity in explaining "gravity".  I had the usual college courses that deal with quantum concepts on an introductory level, but that really doesn't cut it in explaining gravity.  And I think we hadn't even heard of strings in the 60's.

No problem there, I'm no expert either  If you are interested though I'd really check out some basic superstring theory, it is some truly fascinating stuff.  I thought QM was interesting when I first started reading a bit about it (and it still is), but superstring theory is really, really interesting stuff - and very convincing, to a layman like myself at least.

So - despite the possibility that PPT is the fevered imagination of a cub scout on his first overnighter - what hard evidence do you have that bodies are attracted by some unknown though easily measured force, and not being pushed together by some unknonw - though easily measured force?

The simple answer is that the track record is just far too good for conventional science, including theories of gravity.  Read my post in the other thread, no sense in talking about it in 2 different ones.

Yet Pusher Particles still exist....

I'm sorry, but I couldnt find the "ppt" theory that everyone is talking about through the 11 pages of posts, but I think I got the gist of it.

Let's look at this seriously now, if you have trouble believing in a force that can pull and not push, you aren't totally in the wrong.  However, you still are...  Let's look at a N and S magnet, you cannot deny that they attract.  That is a pulling force.  However, it is also shown that this can be viewed as the exchange of photons, the force particle associated with the electromagnetic force.  They exchange particles and are actually being pushed by the emission of these photons.  It is more complicated than I can write here, but look it up in quantum mechanics, its everywhere on the web or in books.  There is a similar theory for gravitons.

So the point is, even if you can't bring yourself to believe in a force that attracts and doesnt repel, for some close-minded naive reason, it doesnt dispell gravity, or prove ppt theory.