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

Cryoruggie wrote:

I would assume that the earth disk wobbles slowly, some parts being closer to the warm sun, and some being further away for a period of time.


The distance the earth is from the sun in its orbit has very little effect on the temperature of the earth compared with the tilt of the earth. Your POSITION on the earth in terms of how close you are to the sun is even less significant - more like insignificant. The fact that you would suggest it really, really discredits your theory.

Excuse me - Wobble? Tilt?

Lemme see - Venus - hot... Mars - Cold....  Pluto downright chilly.  Distance is insignificant,  but tilt is critical?

I don't mean to spoil your fun but I really am not interested in particle pushers. There are severe problems with it and you are simply dismissing them like it doesn't mean anything. Low surface area/high gravity objects for example. Their existance contradicts your theory, you cannot explain them, therefore the theory has to be modified in a fundamental way or scrapped altogther. I vote for scrapping.

Oh come on. You honestly think with the distance the sun is from the planets, that the "shielding effect" would be enough to keep them in orbit?
I think it's highly inconsistent to say there would be any appreciable lessening of the earth's shielding as you leave the earth's atmosphere, but then claim that the sun produces enough of a shielding effect to keep an entire system of planets in orbit. What's more, if a pushing particle is really the force behind gravity, it does not explain highly dense objects and the gravitational fields they produce. Neutron stars, for example. Or black holes, unless you deny their existance. Which you have to, btw, with a push theory of gravity

200 miles up there is no appreciable atmosphere.  That's less than three percent of the diamter of the earthdisc - not really vey far away yet.

"highly dense objects " --> highly shielding or absorbing pusher particles.  So assume your neutron star absorbs or shields 99.999999999987% (or whatever) of all pusher particles.  The ones coming at you from the side opposite the neutron start, no longer being balanced out, would push you at the star with 99.999999999987% force.  And black holes would be 100% absorption, therefore 100% push.

This is in direct contradiction with the measured strength of gravity. The further you get away, the weaker gravity gets in exactly an inverse square relationship with the mass of the object.
The *mass* of the object. If pusher particles were responsible, how can you explain that regardless of the size/surface area of an object, this exact relationship is observed? You would need some type of force to attract these pusher particles to a mass in order to get it to "shield" the proper amount of them. In which case, why are you invoking pusher particles at ALL? This is in direct contradiction with the measured strength of gravity. The further you get away, the weaker gravity gets in exactly an inverse square relationship with the mass of the object.

You are assuming that all objects are a point mass to try to explain your so called "gravity" that is independent of size, surface area, etc.  Heck - I bet that even if the earth were the sphere you claim, there would be variations in this supposed "gravity" at different locations.  
Supposing - for giggles - that the object were a fat flat cylinder.  Are you saying that your "gravity" would be exactly the same at the end of the cylinder as somwhere along the middle?   Supposing then you replaced a slice out of the middle ( we're talking mind games here so grant me an infinitely strong and light material) with this super material that held the remaining two parts of the cylinder appart.  You'd still feel the same "gravity" at the middle then?

Pusher particles expain the behavior very nicely.

I'm sorry - I don't understand.  "...if you look at the moon upside down it may look inverted..." and "...it's inverted depending if you look at it in the Northern or Southern Hemispheres."  So in one case it's wrong to lie down and look at it inverted, in the other case it is OK to lie down and be inverted?  Or does your proof depend on the position of the body?

Quit confusing the issue.  My point is made without anyone lying down.  Stand up and look, and you'd observe the phenomenon I said.

Excuse me - Wobble? Tilt?
Lemme see - Venus - hot... Mars - Cold.... Pluto downright chilly. Distance is insignificant, but tilt is critical?

You are changing the issue again.  We WERE talking about your position ON THE EARTH.  NOW you are changing it to the location different PLANETS are from the sun.  My point remains that your position ON THE EARTH is insignificant to temperature.  A couple thousand miles difference from a body that is 93 million miles away isn't enough to account for seasons, lol.

"highly dense objects " --> highly shielding or absorbing pusher particles. So assume your neutron star absorbs or shields 99.999999999987% (or whatever) of all pusher particles. The ones coming at you from the side opposite the neutron start, no longer being balanced out, would push you at the star with 99.999999999987% force. And black holes would be 100% absorption, therefore 100% push.

There are less particle pushers hitting the neutron star in the first place.  So you are saying that many, many more particle pushers will be absorbed by the denser object, enough to overcome and far surpass the fact that many, many LESS particle pushers are even hitting it in the first place.  That's quite an assumption that of course has absolutely no support, beyond in your own mind.  Let's take a little look at that.
Neutron Stars (I won't even get into black holes) display a force of gravity about 200 BILLION times that of earth.  Please get that number into your head - 200 BILLION.  All this from an object with a radius of about 10 KILOMETERS. (ie, very, very small)
If there are THAT MANY particle pushers whizzing through space where gravitation fields can display that much variety - especially from an object so SMALL -  then the earth can't be absorbing more than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of them all.  In which case, it should have an almost nonexistent shielding effect on ANYTHING.  There's no way enough gravity could be produced to keep us held down, or to hold down an ATMOSPHERE against the pressure difference of empty space.  It's just one more major fault with this "theory"

Cryoruggie wrote:

Excuse me - Wobble? Tilt?
Lemme see - Venus - hot... Mars - Cold.... Pluto downright chilly. Distance is insignificant, but tilt is critical?


You are changing the issue again. We WERE talking about your position ON THE EARTH. NOW you are changing it to the location different PLANETS are from the sun. My point remains that your position ON THE EARTH is insignificant to temperature. A couple thousand miles difference from a body that is 93 million miles away isn't enough to account for seasons, lol.

No I wasn't - I suggested that the earthdisk wobbles to cause the change in seasons.  You immediately ignored that, and rambled on about tilts on mythical spheres.  The effects of a wobble of a earhdisk would bring the sun higher or lower, just like a tilt would for a (nonexistent) sphere...   So I threw in the distance ....

1) You ignored my counters about the inverted moon/constellations - that is still unexplained on a flat earth.
2) You ignored my point about neutron stars, and gravity.  It would seem that particle pushers is impossible without an explanation

3)  

No I wasn't - I suggested that the earthdisk wobbles to cause the change in seasons.  You immediately ignored that, and rambled on about tilts on mythical spheres.  The effects of a wobble of a earhdisk would bring the sun higher or lower, just like a tilt would for a (nonexistent) sphere...   So I threw in the distance ....

You used the word "wobble" but that is hardly an explanation.  How exactly is a wobble going to produce seasons?  Maybe if all seasons occured on the earth at the same time, that would be believable.  But remember - they are opposite in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.  Or in your flat-earth model - they are opposite in the interior of the disc, versus the exterior.  LOL, explain how that is possible.  The word "wobble" just doesn't quite cut it.

There are less particle pushers hitting the neutron star in the first place. So you are saying that many, many more particle pushers will be absorbed by the denser object, enough to overcome and far surpass the fact that many, many LESS particle pushers are even hitting it in the first place. That's quite an assumption that of course has absolutely no support, beyond in your own mind. Let's take a little look at that.
Neutron Stars (I won't even get into black holes) display a force of gravity about 200 BILLION times that of earth. Please get that number into your head - 200 BILLION. All this from an object with a radius of about 10 KILOMETERS. (ie, very, very small)
If there are THAT MANY particle pushers whizzing through space where gravitation fields can display that much variety - especially from an object so SMALL - then the earth can't be absorbing more than a fraction of a fraction of a percent of them all. In which case, it should have an almost nonexistent shielding effect on ANYTHING. There's no way enough gravity could be produced to keep us held down, or to hold down an ATMOSPHERE against the pressure difference of empty space. It's just one more major fault with this "theory"

Remember, that the denser the object, the less pusher particles get though it.  You are making an issue of the number of pusher particles available to be going though a particular sized cross section. rather than the amount of pusher particles that don't get through.
Assume the neutron star only lets though 200 billion (or whatever) of the 400 billion particles that hit it from any specific direction.  So that's a net 200 billion pusher particles pushing any object towards the neutron star from any direction.  
And I suppose a black hole would let though no particles at all because it aborbs them all.  So you'd have 400 billion particles pushing you towards the black hole when you are real close...
Mind you - your confusion might be due to the fact that we are calling them pusher particles - maybe the are a waveform some or all the time.  I dunno - there is still a lot of unknown in PPT.

Remember, that the denser the object, the less pusher particles get though it.  You are making an issue of the number of pusher particles available to be going though a particular sized cross section. rather than the amount of pusher particles that don't get through.
Assume the neutron star only lets though 200 billion (or whatever) of the 400 billion particles that hit it from any specific direction.  So that's a net 200 billion pusher particles pushing any object towards the neutron star from any direction.  

You are really missing my point here.  If the neutron star is stopping 200 billion particles, then the earth is stopping *one* particle, and letting 399,999,999,999 through.  It is not having any shielding effect whatsoever.  Any way you slice it, according to this theory, the earth has almost no shielding effect, and no gravity.  

And I suppose a black hole would let though no particles at all because it aborbs them all.  So you'd have 400 billion particles pushing you towards the black hole when you are real close...

Here is another problem with your theory.  400 billion particles (or whatever) imposes a maximum force of gravity.  You can't even *have* black holes according to pusher particle theory. It's not possible to have 100% gravitational collapse from a finite number of particles, each of which has finite strength.  You have to throw out black holes according to your theory.

Mind you - your confusion might be due to the fact that we are calling them pusher particles - maybe the are a waveform some or all the time.  I dunno - there is still a lot of unknown in PPT.

I'm not confused about anything.   Your theory simply doesn't work.  Of course there's a lot of unknown, because it's a completely baseless theory.  Are you going to answer the other points, or just skip on when you realize there's no answers?

Here's something else.  You are saying that gravity is caused by this super strong "push" coming from every direction.  The push has to be super strong, or else you couldn't account for the gravitational fields of black holes, neutron stars, or even regular stars or regular planets.
So according to you, these very strong gravitational fields are because the neutron star (or whatever) blocks out the push from one side, leaving a very strong push from the other.
So here's my question.  Say you don't have that object blocking it from one side, like here on earth where the gravity is an insiginificant fraction of the total force of the particle pushers.  Here, we are being bombarded on all sides by this force, with a minimal shielding effect from the earth.

Why aren't we crushed to death by this immense force hitting us from all sides?  Because according to you - it's everywhere, at full strength all the time.

Cryo, grow the hell up and accept the damned truth. A disk world is totally impossible. For a start, part of the world being in night and part of it being in day at the same time would be completely impossible. This "Pusher Particle" thing is complete CRAP. Gravity has been proved. End of. And you not seeing an iota of proof or whatever, I'd only have to assume you're blind. It's as clear as day. Note all the other planets in the solar system, all the other stars, everything. They are ALL spherical, every single damn one. Why on Earth would the Earth be any different?

WTF has truly countered every single damn arguement you have, and you ignore what he has to say, or quote things out of context and cling on to your fantasy of pusher particles. YOU'RE WRONG. Stop being stubborn and accept defeat already.

And one last thing, you say all this spherical Earth stuff is a cover up by the government or something. Why would the Government waste tons of money on covering up something completely disprovable? What do they have to gain from it? And where the hell is this Icewall? Seriously, I have issues with visioning where the hell this Icewall is supposed to be.

I think the problem here is, for anyone to even believe any of these crappy "theories", you already have to be extremely skilled at being very, very ignorant.  It doesn't really matter how convincing our points may be, or how badly we, even as laymen/amateurs, trash their theories because the real evidence that's out there for all to see is even more convincing.  Yet they choose to ignore it all.  You can't argue the stupidity out of someone unfortunately, but for some reason that doesn't stop me from trying.

WTF

 

Here's something else. You are saying that gravity is caused by this super strong "push" coming from every direction. The push has to be super strong, or else you couldn't account for the gravitational fields of black holes, neutron stars, or even regular stars or regular planets.
So according to you, these very strong gravitational fields are because the neutron star (or whatever) blocks out the push from one side, leaving a very strong push from the other.
So here's my question. Say you don't have that object blocking it from one side, like here on earth where the gravity is an insiginificant fraction of the total force of the particle pushers. Here, we are being bombarded on all sides by this force, with a minimal shielding effect from the earth.

Why aren't we crushed to death by this immense force hitting us from all sides? Because according to you - it's everywhere, at full strength all the time.

You are completely inoring the fact that - even though the shielding effect of the earth is puny in comparaison the something massive like a neutron star or a black hole - some particles are shielded, and you have more pushing you from the top than are pushing you through the earth.  Therefore you are pressed against the surface of the earth.  But the relatively small amount of shielding is why you can stand on the earth, but would probably be squashed to goo on a neutron star by the pusher particles from above.
And I'm not sure how you infer that there's only one particle coming through a 8000 mile disk ...  I never said what the rate of pusher particles per square inch or square angstrom (or whatever) was.  Assume numbers like 400 million are for the sake of discussion....

What does this "gravity" you speak of have to do with anything?

I think the problem here is, for anyone to even believe any of these crappy "theories", you already have to be extremely skilled at being very, very ignorant.  It doesn't really matter how convincing our points may be, or how badly we, even as laymen/amateurs, trash their theories because the real evidence that's out there for all to see is even more convincing.  Yet they choose to ignore it all.  You can't argue the stupidity out of someone unfortunately, but for some reason that doesn't stop me from trying.

But so far none of your evidence of this mythical "gravity" that you keep defending, cannot be explained equally well by the effect of Pusher Particles.  Can you really proove that you are being pulled by a mysterious force emanating from the mass that you are standing on, rather than being pushed down onto it by equally mysterious pusher particles?

Cryo, grow the hell up and accept the damned truth. A disk world is totally impossible. For a start, part of the world being in night and part of it being in day at the same time would be completely impossible. This "Pusher Particle" thing is complete CRAP. Gravity has been proved. End of. And you not seeing an iota of proof or whatever, I'd only have to assume you're blind. It's as clear as day. Note all the other planets in the solar system, all the other stars, everything. They are ALL spherical, every single damn one. Why on Earth would the Earth be any different?

WTF has truly countered every single damn arguement you have, and you ignore what he has to say, or quote things out of context and cling on to your fantasy of pusher particles. YOU'RE WRONG. Stop being stubborn and accept defeat already.

And one last thing, you say all this spherical Earth stuff is a cover up by the government or something. Why would the Government waste tons of money on covering up something completely disprovable? What do they have to gain from it? And where the hell is this Icewall? Seriously, I have issues with visioning where the hell this Icewall is supposed to be.

Try reading before you blast, you diletante.  
I conceded to WTF that some of the points that he posted could not be explained with a flat earth, and conceded (grudgingly) that the earth was round.   I even went so far to state that I was relieved, because Pusher Particle Theory (PPT) predicted that the natural state of objects was spherical.

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.

I'd assume you based your post on:

WTF - Gravity --> I know the word, heard it in science class somwhere --> it is GOOD!
Cryoruggie --> Pusher Particles - my teacher never talked about those --> not a word I know ---> BAD!

And I don't know why the government hides things from you.  Maybe a conspiracy?

Here's something else.  You are saying that gravity is caused by this super strong "push" coming from every direction.  The push has to be super strong, or else you couldn't account for the gravitational fields of black holes, neutron stars, or even regular stars or regular planets.
So according to you, these very strong gravitational fields are because the neutron star (or whatever) blocks out the push from one side, leaving a very strong push from the other.
So here's my question.  Say you don't have that object blocking it from one side, like here on earth where the gravity is an insiginificant fraction of the total force of the particle pushers.  Here, we are being bombarded on all sides by this force, with a minimal shielding effect from the earth.

Why aren't we crushed to death by this immense force hitting us from all sides?  Because according to you - it's everywhere, at full strength all the time.

Beacuse the particles from below push you up with a sligtly lesser force than the particles from the top.  Since the earth is not very dense, not many pusher particles are shielded.  So you have a net force pushing you against the object that is shielding the PP's from you.  The PP's from the sides cancel out.

You are completely inoring the fact that - even though the shielding effect of the earth is puny in comparaison the something massive like a neutron star or a black hole - some particles are shielded, and you have more pushing you from the top than are pushing you through the earth.  Therefore you are pressed against the surface of the earth.  But the relatively small amount of shielding is why you can stand on the earth, but would probably be squashed to goo on a neutron star by the pusher particles from above.
And I'm not sure how you infer that there's only one particle coming through a 8000 mile disk ...  I never said what the rate of pusher particles per square inch or square angstrom (or whatever) was.  Assume numbers like 400 million are for the sake of discussion....

What does this "gravity" you speak of have to do with anything?

You missed my point I think.  Because of the extreme difference in gravitation in these objects like neutron stars, the earth is only stopping an insignificant fraction of particle pushers.  You yourself seem to have conceded this point.  The gravity on earth is not insignificant - it holds people, oceans, and atmosphere on.
You also missed my point about being squashed.  Why would we be squashed on a neutron star, but not on the surface of the earth?  Presumably you think that the particle pushers from above would squash us against the neutron star.  But here on earth, the particle pushers from above would squash us against the particle pushers from below.
If you stand against an immovable wall and have a force push you against it hard enough, you get squished.  If you take away the wall and have 2 forces push you from opposite sides, you still get squished.  You are missing this fact.  Particle pushers would squish us no matter on the neutron star, or here on earth.  THEY WOULD NOT "cancel out"!  The brick walls closing in on you don't cancel out, and particle pushers wouldn't either.

Quote from: "Cryoruggie"

What does this "gravity" you speak of have to do with anything?

You missed my point I think.  Because of the extreme difference in gravitation in these objects like neutron stars, the earth is only stopping an insignificant fraction of particle pushers.  You yourself seem to have conceded this point.  The gravity on earth is not insignificant - it holds people, oceans, and atmosphere on.
You also missed my point about being squashed.  Why would we be squashed on a neutron star, but not on the surface of the earth?  Presumably you think that the particle pushers from above would squash us against the neutron star.  But here on earth, the particle pushers from above would squash us against the particle pushers from below.
If you stand against an immovable wall and have a force push you against it hard enough, you get squished.  If you take away the wall and have 2 forces push you from opposite sides, you still get squished.  You are missing this fact.  Particle pushers would squish us no matter on the neutron star, or here on earth.  THEY WOULD NOT "cancel out"!  The brick walls closing in on you don't cancel out, and particle pushers wouldn't either.

Compared to a neutron star the shielding of the earth is insignificant.  Just because it is enough to hold against it a thin liquid scum, and a tenoous atmosphere, does not make it anywhere near that of a really strong shield.

Your comments make would be very valid if pusher particles were like billiard balls that pound you like rocks from all sides.  Obviously, PPT (Pusher Particle Theory) is not yet clear as to the exact characteristics of the particles, but from the effects of the particles it is clear that they act on each molecule/atom that make up object.  It is pretty clear from the behaviour of the particles, since they seem to be able to go through most objects with little absorption, so they must have some effect on the structure of the object they are going through - not just the surface.
Thus you (the object) have pusher particles pushing your whole structure - from all sides - thus balancing out.  If there is a pusher particle shield - like a dense - or large - body on one side of you, not as many particles will affect you from that side.  The unbalanced particles will naturally push you against the body that is doing the shielding.  Each atom in your body is being "pushed" by pusher particles from all directions, and will cancel each other out, since there is no net force.  If there is shielding, the forces arfe obviously unbalanced.
I hate to get into the physics part of this, but some have said that the particles behave more like a field.  Take two magnets - the poles push each other appart, even though there are (to our knowledge) no little monomagnetsthingies flying between the two poles.  Opposi
For me it is simpler to call them particles...  I suppose we could call it the PF (Pusher Field)

So at this point, how can you prove the difference bewteen being pulled against an object by this mythical "gravity" or pushed against the object by unbalanced pusher particles (or a PF)?

Apologies if this has already been covered, but if we are to believe the Pusher Particle theory, shouldn't different places be experiencing different levels of force from PP based on the position of the moon?  I mean, the moon should be absorbing a great deal of particles while it's directly overhead.  Shouldn't we be getting lighter during eclipses?

This is so stupid.  If there were a super strong field (or particles, or whatever the hell you want to call it) pushing on you from every direction at once, you'd be crushed.  Like you do on a neutron star, or at a black hole. Can you really not understand this?

This is so stupid.  If there were a super strong field (or particles, or whatever the hell you want to call it) pushing on you from every direction at once, you'd be crushed.  Like you do on a neutron star, or at a black hole. Can you really not understand this?

I dunno - consider making an analogy to scuba diving - you're at 200 ft down, you have around 7 atmospheres of pressure on you  - but it comes from all sides, so you don't really feel it.  And I suppose if you breathed a helium mixture you can go deeper still.  
I've read somewhere that whales dive sucessfully up to a mile - that's like 150 atmospheres pressure on them.
And if the pusher particles act on all the molecules in your body, then at worst the molecules'd be affected, and they are not very crushable.

Apologies if this has already been covered, but if we are to believe the Pusher Particle theory, shouldn't different places be experiencing different levels of force from PP based on the position of the moon?  I mean, the moon should be absorbing a great deal of particles while it's directly overhead.  Shouldn't we be getting lighter during eclipses?

I believe we are.  Pusher particle theory would predict that you are pressed against the earth different amounts, debending on how much the ground below you changed in density (i.e. capability to shield pusher particles), and how much shielding was above you...

I dunno - consider making an analogy to scuba diving - you're at 200 ft down, you have around 7 atmospheres of pressure on you  - but it comes from all sides, so you don't really feel it.  And I suppose if you breathed a helium mixture you can go deeper still.  
I've read somewhere that whales dive sucessfully up to a mile - that's like 150 atmospheres pressure on them.
And if the pusher particles act on all the molecules in your body, then at worst the molecules'd be affected, and they are not very crushable.

We aren't talking about a few atmosphere's worth of pressure.  We are talking about gravity strong enough to crush anything that gets too close out of exisitence.  There's a slight difference.  Don't give me this scuba diver bullshit lol.

OK so what I've gather is that these "Pusher Particles" are being emited from some where and are pushing on to the Earth.  The moon and the earth and other bodies in space "shield" us from theses particles.  Where do these Particles come from, and where do they go when they hit something?  Wouldn't the earth be moved around randomly because we are geting "pushed" a different amount every second?

We aren't talking about a few atmosphere's worth of pressure. We are talking about gravity strong enough to crush anything that gets too close out of exisitence. There's a slight difference. Don't give me this scuba diver bullshit lol.

WTF - OK, I don't know exactly what happens inside a black hole - I don't think you do either.  PPT would indicated that it is a 100% shield or the particles, and the closer you get the more the shielding affects you, so the more force you have acting on you.
A neutron star would shield somewhat less than a black hole, but would still allow a huge push, and you'd proably become squashed flat agains it, since almost (but not all) all the particles are hitting you from above, where they are not shielded.

But when you have virtually no shielding of the particles, then the net force (or "push" if you will, of the components making up you (or some other object) would balance out - unles your object were so massive or dense that it would create significant shielding, in which case the unbalanced particles would tend to push it together more and more.

OK so what I've gather is that these "Pusher Particles" are being emited from some where and are pushing on to the Earth.  The moon and the earth and other bodies in space "shield" us from theses particles.  Where do these Particles come from, and where do they go when they hit something?  Wouldn't the earth be moved around randomly because we are geting "pushed" a different amount every second?

The basic Pusher Particle Equation:

Take F= P x m1 x m2 / r x r as the basic pusher particle equation:

F = Force that pushes masses together
P = Pusher Particle Flux - a universal constant, the CPPR
M1 = Shielding effect of mass 1
M2 = Shielding effect of mass 2
R = Distance between the masses

PPT indicates that the particles - or force - radiates inward in all directions from the edge of the universe.  If you want to get metaphysical about it, you might even think that it is the reason why the boundaries of the universe are being pushed apart.

Exactly how they are formed or generated, I do not know.    One doesn't have to know the exact way that the particles are generated to see their effect; even this hypothetical - dare I say preposterous - "Gravity" that WTF is advocating as "pulling" things together is simply explained as being there because "..it's the LAW!", or "because it IS!"

And of course the various bodies around the earth will have an effect on it by shielding some of the particles from varying directions.  Heck - if you move around on the earth there will be different amounts of "push" on you because the shielding effect of the ground underneath you is not perfectly homogeneous..

The basic Pusher Particle Equation:

Take F= P x m1 x m2 / r x r as the basic pusher particle equation:

F = Force that pushes masses together
P = Pusher Particle Flux - a universal constant, the CPPR
M1 = Shielding effect of mass 1
M2 = Shielding effect of mass 2
R = Distance between the masses

OK that i can understand.  But the mathmatics of it will be way too complexe to even try to figgure out how much you are being pushed per second.  since things move in space, the shielding effect would change EVERY SECOND.so one second we get crushed, the other we are flying off into space.

PPT indicates that the particles - or force - radiates inward in all directions from the edge of the universe.  If you want to get metaphysical about it, you might even think that it is the reason why the boundaries of the universe are being pushed apart.
[/qoute]
OK now this is hypicrital.  If things are pushing in at the same amount of force with the "shielding effect" to be very limited(since the universe is so big)  that how would it move apart?  the force would all conentrate on one spot in the universe.  What happens at that point?

Quote from: "Cryoruggie"

And of course the various bodies around the earth will have an effect on it by shielding some of the particles from varying directions.  Heck - if you move around on the earth there will be different amounts of "push" on you because the shielding effect of the ground underneath you is not perfectly homogeneous..

Wait, before you said that it comes from the edges of the universe.  well that is all around us so the "pusher patricles" would be negated from below since the earth is below us.  so the "shields would only matter from what is in the sky above and to the sides.  Also since you have a different shielding at all times, why don't we just fly off the side of the earth?

I have a question.  What happens to pusher particles once they hit an object?  Are they absorbed? Reflected?  If they interact with matter, they must affect matter in some way...what reactions occur?  Why can't we test for these collisions?  Physicists every day slam particles into other particles, why can't they test for pusher particles?  Do they have a rest mass, or is it zero?  What the hell IS a pusher particle?
And the biggest question of all, what evidence is there to give this theory any more credibility than the invisible-monkeys-create-gravity theory?  Mainstream science has a very good understanding of gravity, upon which many discoveries have been made.  The location of planets in our solar system for example was predicted before we had discovered them all, and when we looked at where we thought planets should be...we found them.  Getting satellites to the exact height and velocity is another example of how well we understand gravity.  Getting spacecraft to slingshot from planet to planet is yet another.  Gravitational lensing is another prediction that we observe to be true in the universe.
The way I see it, your theory is junk until you give some evidence to support it.
We all know gravity exists, the point you can debate is how it operates.  Einstein's general relativity is the best model we have to date.  Why is yours better?  Or why does it even deserve to be in the same conversation?

I have a question. What happens to pusher particles once they hit an object? Are they absorbed? Reflected? If they interact with matter, they must affect matter in some way...what reactions occur? Why can't we test for these collisions? Physicists every day slam particles into other particles, why can't they test for pusher particles? Do they have a rest mass, or is it zero? What the hell IS a pusher particle?

I dunno what happens to pusher particles once they hit an object.  Maybe - if they interact - their energy is converted into a force to push, and the particle disapears?  It is a good question though, worthy of investigation.

Heck - I have no idea what a polka dot boson is either - physicists are coming up with new particles every day and asking for more and more money for bigger and bigger bangmakers to see if they exist.

But the interactions are quite easy to test, and it's done all the time.  Take two masses i.e. pusher particle shields, and you will see that they tend to be pushed together.  Always.

Or take a small mass, traveleing over a big mass that shields the particles coming from below.  The moving mass, if it travels fast enough will be pushed into an orbit around the mass.

And the biggest question of all, what evidence is there to give this theory any more credibility than the invisible-monkeys-create-gravity theory? Mainstream science has a very good understanding of gravity, upon which many discoveries have been made. The location of planets in our solar system for example was predicted before we had discovered them all, and when we looked at where we thought planets should be...we found them. Getting satellites to the exact height and velocity is another example of how well we understand gravity. Getting spacecraft to slingshot from planet to planet is yet another. Gravitational lensing is another prediction that we observe to be true in the universe.
The way I see it, your theory is junk until you give some evidence to support it.
We all know gravity exists, the point you can debate is how it operates. Einstein's general relativity is the best model we have to date. Why is yours better? Or why does it even deserve to be in the same conversation?

None of the examples you give above in support of this mythical "gravity" that you seem to believe in proves that objects are attracted to each other by a mysterious force ( that may well be explained by invisible mopnkeys).  You get the exact same results if you simply agree that objects are pushed together to a greate or lesser degree by the uneven flux of pusher particles on an object due to shielding by other objects.

Predicting the orbits or existsence of plantes - simple - they are pushed one way or another by the shielding effects of other undiscoverd planets.

Satelites and orbiting space junk - all you need to do is to work out the shielding effects vs. distance of the Earth, for example, and you can work out the speeds required to not be pushed back to earth.

Lensing of light around far distant massive objects - I guess light has some mass too, and can therefore interact with pusher particles, and can be pushed away from their straight line travel.

I'd venture to say that you still have no real understanding of this "gravity" that you so passionately defend.  If it could exist, what forms it?    What happens to gravity after it's "pulled" something to itself?  Does it use energy to "pull"? Will it get used up?  Does it go all the way to the end of the universe, or does it stop suddenly at a certain distance from a body? Are physicisist slamming pieces of "gavity" together?  Can they manipulate it - make an object suddlenly "pull" less? No - they can only take measurments of two or more bodies interacting and say - cavalierly - that they are "pulled" together by this invisible force.  But they are not measuring this mythical force itself - they are measuring the effects of a force.  And - a pushing force will explain the pheonomena measured easily, without having to resort to mysterious pulling forces probably made by invisible monkeys  or multi-dimensional rubber sheets forging their lonely path through the space time....

None of the examples you give above in support of this mythical "gravity" that you seem to believe in proves that objects are attracted to each other by a mysterious force ( that may well be explained by invisible mopnkeys).  You get the exact same results if you simply agree that objects are pushed together to a greate or lesser degree by the uneven flux of pusher particles on an object due to shielding by other objects.

This is untrue though.  Our current understanding of gravity is currently based on General Relativity, which DOES provide a mechanism for gravity.  Unlike Newtonian gravity before it, which simply explained the effects of gravity with no mechanism.  According to general relativity gravity is caused by a curvature in space-time caused by mass.  So "push" and "pull" is a bit misleading (though pull is more accurate), as things just follow the curve of space-time.  That is your gravity.  Now Einstein doesn't just make this up willy-nilly.  It has very specific consequences and predictions, and is the BASIS of our standard model's understanding of gravity.  It is quite close to Newtonian gravity in many applications - as ANY theory of gravity must be to be taken seriously.  Einstein's model of gravity makes very specific predictions which, taken as a whole, explain the real world very accurately.  Your theory does nothing of the sort.  It is nothing more than the vaguest of conjecture.

Predicting the orbits or existsence of plantes - simple - they are pushed one way or another by the shielding effects of other undiscoverd planets.

Satelites and orbiting space junk - all you need to do is to work out the shielding effects vs. distance of the Earth, for example, and you can work out the speeds required to not be pushed back to earth.

Give me a break.  You are describing how something *might* be possible when you have NO idea if it is or not.  Because your theory has no empircal basis.   Unlike general relativity which has mountains of empirical basis, support, and success.

Lensing of light around far distant massive objects - I guess light has some mass too, and can therefore interact with pusher particles, and can be pushed away from their straight line travel.

You guess light has some mass, eh?  More vague-ass conjecture.  And even if so, it does nothing to explain the physics behind the scene.  Just ridiculously vague conjecture as always.

I'd venture to say that you still have no real understanding of this "gravity" that you so passionately defend.

I'm no expert, but I seem to have a much much better grasp than you do.

If it could exist, what forms it?

The curvature of space-time.

What happens to gravity after it's "pulled" something to itself?  Does it use energy to "pull"? Will it get used up?

No, gravity does not seem to weaken over time to my knowledge.  I'm not sure why theory would require it to, or how this presents a problem to gravity as understood by general relativity.

Does it go all the way to the end of the universe, or does it stop suddenly at a certain distance from a body?

The effects of gravity do seem to extend out indefinitely.  And further, experiments show that the information transfer is instant; NOT at the speed of light.  This conforms with what GR expects since gravity is nothing more than a geometric effect of space-time, and not propogated by a particle or a wave.  If YOUR theory were correct, gravity would have to propogate at the speed of light or slower.  Modern science shows otherwise, however.

Are physicisist slamming pieces of "gavity" together?  Can they manipulate it - make an object suddlenly "pull" less? No - they can only take measurments of two or more bodies interacting and say - cavalierly - that they are "pulled" together by this invisible force.  But they are not measuring this mythical force itself - they are measuring the effects of a force.  And - a pushing force will explain the pheonomena measured easily, without having to resort to mysterious pulling forces probably made by invisible monkeys  or multi-dimensional rubber sheets forging their lonely path through the space time....

As usual, the point you seem to miss is that a scientific model of gravity is more than some vague description, which is all YOU seem to bring.  GR is a specific mathematical model that makes many predictions and has the potential to be falsified at any number of places (speed of propogation, for example).  However, your "model" can only be called a model in the loosest of terms because it's nothing more than - as I've repeated a number of times in this post now - a vague description.

Light does NOT have mass.  How do pusher particles affect it?  Gravity does NOT propogate at the speed of light.  It's instant.  How can pusher particles account for this?  Those are 2 falsifications of your theory right there that I'm sure you will just deny.  Science is wrong, but your armchair "theory" is right?  Sure!

WHAP!   Gotta retrench and prepare my arguments...