Talk:Mechanical explanations of gravitation

Mechanical explanations

This article is about all mechanical explanations, not only Le Sage's theory of gravitation. So I reverted most edits of 84.158.225.226 at the beginning of the article. I also deleted the sentence of mass increase, because it is already discussed in the Le Sage article. --D.H 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Newton

I've reverted some edits by User:Systemizer, because he mixed up Newton's stream/flow theory (1675) and his theory based on a hydrostatic pressure (1717). Those are two different theories.... Also the unreferenced remarks, that the (first) theory is compatible with general relativity, was removed. Please provide reputable sources. --D.H (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Harold Puthoff

I would like to propose that this article be amended with mention of H. E. Puthoff's ideas on Sakharov's theory of "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force" (Physical Review A, Vol 39, No. 5, Mar. 1989) using an approach categorized under stochastic electrodynamics and fluid dynamics to explain gravity as a mechanical product of the background quantum vacuum energy. To my rather uneducated understanding, it tends to resolve the issues of drag and other problems commonly associated with the aether-based gravitational causes, perhaps due to the peculiar properties of the Casimir force as opposed to the more consistent, linear types of energy that would be supposed to make up the aether. --Dark Goob (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything is inside out and spinning

Some time ago i came up with this theory where everything was inside out (from each thing or group of things perspective the whole Universe was inside them and they were the outer "shell") and everything was spinning in some multidimensional way so that the centrifugal force would pull the "contents" "outwards" in all directions (instead of just towards the "equators"); but i was told i wasn't the first to come up with that idea, some famous scientist in history already thought of that and others had analyzed and found flaws in it. Who was that and what flaws were found? --TiagoTiago (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Spinning Archimedes Screw Particle For The Graviton

I proposed this idea in a FQXi physics competition which was well received. It's the only possible way that a particle explanation could work. It also allows for two types of gravity; right-handed clockwise spinning helical particles and left-hand anti-clockwise spinning particles. Dark energy can be explained by these gravitons travelling around a 4D hypersphere or wraparound universe. Spiral galaxy curves can be explained by an additional force of attraction on a plane of rotation. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/868. 2.123.44.32 (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey.

A theory or a hypothesis?

All of these so-called "theories", specifically the one proposed by Le Sage, Christiaan Huygens, Isaac Newton (his second one), and James Challis... Were they actually considered theories (i.e., in accordance with the scientific definition) back in their respective time periods? Or were they just hypotheses?

(For those who don't know, there is a clear difference in science between the two terms.)

Thanks. I'm just wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahTehCat (talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification on related RfC in Talk:Le Sage's theory of gravitation

Following deletion of this source from this article, there is a related discussion and RfC in the related article Talk:Le Sage's theory of gravitation|, if editors here may like to participate. The same question applies if that source may or may not be restored in this article too. Esem0 (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent addition

Dear Mr or Ms Tercer: I added recently a short paragraph at the end of the page Mechanical explanations of gravitation, about a mechanism that has been proposed by several authors but I could not find described in the page. You undid the whole entry for reason of 'unreliable sources'. So I took note and I removed what I think could be reasonably considered 'unreliable sources' according to your standards: http://www.aether-theory.co.uk and https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14334918, because, as far as I know, they have never been subject to peer review. However, my second attempt was undone by a colleague of yours, @XOR'easter, who unfortunately does not seem to be currently in a position to answer any request for explanations, which is why I address this request to you. So, could you please explain what was wrong with my second entry? Thanks in advance. Notsort (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for XOR'easter, but I can tell you the problems I see with your second edit:

1. There's still an unreliable source, the preprint by Masanori Sato.

2. Wikipedia shouldn't cover everything that was ever published about the subject, only the most relevant sources. You have included some papers that were hardly ever cited, which is a violation of the due weight policy. See WP:DUE. Furthermore, Wikipedia should prefer secondary sources (books, reviews), whereas you only included primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY.

3. Your addition doesn't integrate with the article at all. The first paragraph mostly repeats what the lead says. The second paragraph is about Le Sage's theory, it would belong in that section if at all. But it's just repeating a bunch of sources that have been cited in the main article about Le Sage's theory, so there's no point repeating them here. The third paragraph is about static pressure, which would belong in the static pressure section. Now the fourth paragraph is about a different theory, that should belong in its own section, but the sources are too weak to justify including it. Tercer (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

First of all, many thanks for your clear explanations. However, I think that some points are worth discussing or clarifying. First, I honestly do not see any relation between the theory I reported and Le Sage's theory, which is about screening. With regard to the ‘static pressure’ of the ether, I think I have missed the point when mentioning this hypothetical magnitude. With regard to gravity, the only important assumption is that, in the proximity of big masses, the speed of light diminishes according to the well-known inverse square law. Apart from that, we only need to know that there are many possible different mechanisms that can explain this effect, depending on the ‘fine structure’ that we postulate for the ether, with ‘pressure’, ‘density’, or whatever.

Now the fundamental point: we agree that what I report is a different theory, but in your view the proposed sources are too weak to include it in Wikipedia. I cannot discuss this point scientifically, it is an editorial matter, but I think that it raises an interesting question: what is the real value of peer-reviewed sources and of secondary sources? In my view, an article with, say, five authors and two reviewers counts as 3 independent opinions: that of the authors and those of each reviewer. A review including this article would include the opinions of the authors of the review and its reviewers, so in total 6 independent opinions, with the caveat that most frequently the authors and reviewers of reviews often do not scrutinize in sufficient detail the papers they cite, which I think would be humanly impossible. Now the key question: is all that really more reliable than, say, 6 independent non-(or not-?)peer-reviewed sources? It is true that in principle not-peer-reviewed sources carry a presumption of negative review, but this will not always be true in our complicated editorial world. Perhaps naively, I think that several independent not-peer-reviewed sources should be attributed some weight, not just zero. Notsort (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. The second paragraph of your edit was Le Sage's theory was studied by Radzievskii and Kagalnikova (1960), Shneiderov (1961), Buonomano and Engels (1976), Adamut (1982), and Edwards (2014).. If these references are not about Le Sage's theory we have deeper problems. Tercer (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, obviously there has been some confusion, which I cannot explain because I am (still) not very familiar with the procedure of editing Wikipedia or with the Wikipedia pages that show differences between versions. The fact is that, before my insert, the section 'Recent theorizing contained 3 paragraphs: 1: "These mechanical explanations for gravity never gained ..."; 2: "Le Sage's theory was studied by Radzievskii and Kagalnikova (1960)..."; and 3: "Gravity due to static pressure was recently studied by Arminjon [31][32]". My insertion was a fourth paragraph: "An alternative mechanism has been proposed since 1990: the proximity of big masses reduces the speed of light by compressing the ether locally ....". I certainly was a little puzzled when I saw that you mentioned a first, second and third paragraphs in my insertion, but I did not ask for further explanations because I thought that your allusion to 'static pressure' matched my mention of 'compression', which, by the way, after some reflection and as I have commented before, I consider of little relevance in terms of gravitation, because what is important in this theory is the gradient of speed of light, not the hypothetical mechanism of the ether that produces this gradient, a mechanism that we are not likely to be able to test in the foreseeable future. Notsort (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, the misunderstanding was on my side, now I see that the three other paragraphs already existed, your addition was the fourth one.

To answer your actual point: Wikipedia does place a high value on peer-review, and accepts the inclusion of non-peer-reviewed sources only under exceptional circumstances. The point is not having independent opinions, but really the seal of quality given by peer-review. You might argue that it's a weak one, that the papers are not refereed in detail, etc. But this is even more damming of sources that couldn't pass even this weak hurdle.

In any case, this is a core principle of Wikipedia that is not going to be changed by you and me arguing here. Tercer (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I would focus on notability, not peer review. There are vast oceans of peer reviewed articles, of which 99.999% are not and never will be mentioned on Wikipedia. That's five-nines. Notability is more ethereal: Is last Saturday's highschool football game notable, or not? Well, are there books written on the topic? For the recent additions, the answer is no. Now, of course, the highschool football coach is a prolific writer and speaker, as is Hal Puthoff. Is being prolific a suitable standard for notability? So, People Magazine (or is it Entertainment Monthly?) has a section called "Happenings about Town", wherein one finds photos of celebrities and rich patrons at the Christmas Charity Ball. Is this more notable, or less, than being invited to attend a scientific conference to present your results? How about being keynote speaker at that conference? All these are examples of events that fall below the Wikipedia threshold of notability. I think the additions discussed here fall well below that threshold. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)