From: g.scholten@gmx.de   
      
   Y Porat wrote:   
      
   >>> now   
   >>> did you ever  hear about the   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> ALL **PUSH THEORY ??   
   >>> iow   
   >>> at the 'end of the day ' it is always   
   >>> push not pull !!   
   >>> --   
   >>> it took me just BTW   80 YEARS !!...thaT IS  my age ..   
   >>> to understand for instance   
   >>> how is our breathing is done ??!!:   
   >>>   
   >>> ONLY PUSH !! NOT never PULL !!!!!!..   
   >>   
   >> What's the difference? According to Newtonian equation of motion   
   >>   
   >> F = m a   
   >>   
   >> a force F makes a body undergo an acceleration a. One could say the   
   >> force F "pulls" the body as well as the force "pushes" the body - there   
   > ===========================   
   > sorry Sir   
   > pullis one thing   
   > and push  is completely  different thing !!   
      
   As I already pointed out, it is no such completely different thing.   
      
      
   >> isn't any difference except in wording.   
   >   
   > =========   
   > not only words at all  !!   
   >   
   > if i pull you -you come closer to me   
   > if i push you   
   > you getting further from me !   
      
   More in detail: when saying that you "pull" me, it means that   
      
   - I come closer to you (due to a force, due to curvature of spacetime or   
   due something else)   
      
   AND   
      
   - whatever makes me come closer to you is *caused by you*   
      
   In turn, when saying that you "push" me, it means that   
      
   - I get further from you (due to a force, due to curvature of spacetime   
   or due something else)   
      
   AND   
      
   - whatever makes me go further from you is *caused by you*   
      
   So, if we transfer this to gravity, we can either imagine that two   
   bodies that come closer due to a gravitational effect do so because the   
   gravitational effect is caused by the two bodies itself - then we can   
   say that the two bodies "pull" each other - or by something different   
   that is around the two bodies, then we can say that something "pushes"   
   the bodies to come closer.   
      
   So, obviously, what you imagine is that the gravitational action that   
   makes two bodies come closer is not caused by the bodies itself (what   
   you would denote as "the bodies pull each other"), but by something   
   around the bodies. E.g. by empty space or by other (maybe insivisible?)   
   bodies.   
      
   So, the next question is: what is the advantage of such an understanding   
   of gravity? Why should we prefer this understanding of gravity against   
   the conventional understanding that the gravitational action that makes   
   bodies come closer is caused by the bodies itself?   
      
      
   >>   cetime, so it is neither pulled nor   
   >> pushed.   
   >>   
   >> When we say that gravity is attractive or that gravity pulls a body, we   
   >> just describe the effect that two bodies that interact gravitationally   
   >> tend to approach each other. In Newtonian theory, this means that the   
   >> direction of the gravitational force on the one body points to the   
   >> position of the other body, in GR, it means that the bodies influence   
   >> the curvature of spacetime in that way that the geodesic lines which the   
   >> bodies follow are bend towards each other.   
   >   
   > ================   
   > geodetic lines are lines   are ** just lines** on our actual   
   > **globus model**   
   > in empty space it is not proven obligatory   
   > empty space   
   > is not our earth !!!!!   
      
   Historically, geodesics were first considered as lines on the Earth's   
   surface, i.e. in a two-dimensional space. However, geodesics can easiely   
   be generalized to spaces with more dimensions, including   
   three-dimensional space and four-dimensional spacetime.   
      
      
   > iow   
   > geodetic'' in  Einstein theory   
   > are just words   
   > just guesses   
      
   Any concepts in physical theories are always just words and just   
   guesses. This is the way the scientific method works: we first make   
   observations, then we guess how the observations can be described (i.e.   
   we formulate theories that use words), and then we compare the   
   consequences of our guess to nature.   
      
   This applies for GR as well as for any other theory.   
      
      
   > if you will say   
   > it is** stemming from our mass**   
   > it will be much  more reasonable   
      
   No, surely not. If you formulate a theory with particles that stem from   
   masses, i.e. you guess that such particles make a proper description of   
   nature, then these particles and their property that they stem from   
   masses are also just words and just guesses.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)