We understand that gravity is a purely attractive force - it can only pull, never push - and that it is generated by any object with mass.

There are two exceptions many physicists take with this statement. Firstly, there is a mechanism that does, in deed, explain how gravity can push. It is Le Sage's Ultramundane Corpuscle. Secondly, there is no proof that gravity is generated by mass. In fact, Sir Isaac Newton, when writing to his colleague Dr Bently, described the idea of gravitation being ‘innate, inherent and essential to matter’ as 'notional'.

...Albert Einstein developed The Theory Of general Relativity in which he described gravity as a deformation in space, caused by the presence of massive objects, similar to the way a heavy ball would warp a sheet of rubber. This deformation 'told' smaller things how to move through space, so they either went into orbit or fell onto the larger celestial object.

The conventional model contributes nothing to our understanding of gravity. It is built upon the back of existing observations made by Newton (i.e. gravitation varies with mass and distance). It is important to note that GR does not have a mechanism. Newton's fluxion, on the other hand, is an incipient mechanism. If a ball is taken to represent a celestial body, and sand is taken to represent fluxions, the sand can be used to make the ball move by throwing/blasting the sand at the ball. Clearly, then, ESA is wrong to say that gravity cannot push and to say that it can NEVER push is mindless. And where is ESA’s mechanism that explains how gravity can attract? Newton comments,

That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.
Newton to Bentley 1692

Newton is unequivocal; ESA’s view of gravity is absurd and it's easy to understand why. 1) You cannot have something in a vacuum, and 2) something must cause of gravity. But ESA ignores this in favour of General Relativity,

General Relativity not only explained the precession of Mercury, it made a number of surprising predictions that, over the subsequent decades, have been observed to be true. Among them was that light passing by a massive object would be deflected from its original path and that light escaping from a gravitational field would lose energy.

There are several points, here, with which to take exception. Note that in the second quote we are told GR 'describes' the deformation of space but in the above quote it 'explains' the precession of Mercury. GR’s hypothetical deformation of space is a description and, similarly, the precession of Mercury is not explained but is described. Again ESA would do better to heed Newton's more scientific perspective.

You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent to matter. Pray do not ascribe that notion to me, for the cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know and would therefore take more time to consider it.
Newton to Bently 1692

Secondly, GR is not the only gravitational theory that predicts light passing by a massive object will be deflected. This is also an inherent feature of Newtonian gravity (what theory of gravity would not do this?). This would involve using the Equation for Universal Gravitation, where M1 would be the mass of the massive object and M2, the mass of the Photonic beam/Radio signal. GR also claims that light escaping from a gravitational field would lose energy and that this loss of energy results in a reddening of the light. Again, what ever the school of gravity you ascribe to, its loss of energy can be atributed to the extra distance it has to travel due to bending. Just as when the Sun is moving away from the Earth at dawn, it is characteristically redder than when the Sun is moving towards the Earth at daybreak. However, there are several other scenarios that could also bring about red shift. One, is the dust in outer space over distances of light years, two, is the retrograde effect that occurs within, and between, star systems which may also occur between galaxies, and three, there may also be such a thing as localised, or large, bangs that create receding light sources.

(In fact, satellite-based navigation systems such as GPS have to take this second effect into account, in order to pinpoint precisely the location of their users.)

This point is a very contentious issue. Ronald R. Hatch, one of the designers for the American GP system, states in his book that it does not rely on GR. By contrast Dr Hahn of the European Galileo development team has informed Autodynamics UK that the European GPS will slightly detune the clocks on Galileo just before launch in order to address time dilation and Segnac Effect. However, this is neither proof nor evidence of time dilation as the solution for time dilation is the same as for the Segnac effect.

The only prediction of general relativity yet to be tested is that certain celestial objects will emit gravitational waves, which will ripple through the fabric of space. The joint ESA-NASA mission LISA will attempt to detect these.

Convention believes gravity is inherent to matter and, like sound from a plucked guitar string, gravity emanates from matter as a vibration. ESA-NASA postulate that when a planet eclipses another, this will somehow disturb the 'millpond' of gravity and stir up larger waves large enough to be detected. But, convention knows all is not well with its view of gravity.

Now, however, the clues are mounting that General Relativity itself is incomplete. Certain observations suggest that there is more gravity in our Universe than can be explained by General Relativity. For example, the Pioneer anomaly, in which the spaceprobes Pioneers 10 and 11, Galileo and Ulysses are being slowed down for a still unknown reason.

Actually, the very same clues that say GR is incomplete may also be used to say GR is wrong. There is, in fact, no evidence for dark matter; only the inability of GR to explain the pioneer anomaly. Dark matter is a prima facia example of how when the going gets tough, the Einsteinian starts hypothesising. Little wonder the only industry launched by GR is science fiction.

Only by testing the predictions of general relativity, to the limits possible in space, will scientists be able to gain clues about what the next breakthrough in our understanding of gravity might be.

Again this belief is predicated on the assumption that GR is based on physics, when in fact, it is based on a mathematical model. It is a belief predicated on the assumption that GR the only hypothesis available. There are other alternatives and ESA cannot justify pouring vast amounts of tax payers money only into projects predicated on GR.

While GR fails to calculate the Pioneer Anomaly, Autodynamics does not. AD follows in the lineage of Newton’s Fluxion, and Le Sages’s Ultramundane Corpuscle. That is, it accepts the graviton as the cause of gravity. It uses classical logic to calculate mass increase due to graviton absorption over time. This provides the mechanism by which space probes moving away from the Sun show an on-going deceleration. As gravitons pass through the Sun some are absorbed. This means that graviton heading towards the Sun create a greater radiation pressure than though having passed through the Sun. Thus, as the satellite tries to move away from the Sun it has to over come this net difference - the Sun's gravitational field. But because the Sun's mass is increasing it also absorbs more gravitons and so its gravitational field increases. Thus Pioneer 10 on going decelleration is due to the Sun's on going mass increase, that is its growing gravitational field. Thus Autodynamics provides a working quantum model for universal gravitation.

Currently, there is no such thing as a Theory of Gravity. Only when a gravitational hypothesis opens a door on an otherwise inaccessible industrial processes can we begin to allow ourselves to be convinced that we have a veritable theory. For more than 80 years, GR has failed this test. In the words of Ian McCausland of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, of the University of Toronto:

It is suggested that the announcement of the eclipse observations in 1919 [offered in support of GR] was not a triumph of science as it is often portrayed, but rather an obstacle to objective consideration of alternatives.

Despite the title, What Is Gravity? we are never told what gravity is. We are told that gravity can never push, yet there has always been a perfectly good and popular mechanism for this. It then claims to provide a mechanism that explains how gravity might attract and how GR's predictions go beyond classical mechanics. In fact, what it offers is mere analogy in place of machinery and it predicts nothing beyond that which is achieved through classical logic. The Universal Gravitation of Autodynamics offers a mechanism, one which provides a force that pushes in a classical universe. If the Einsteinian view (time travelling and space warping) is wrong, then science and humanity are undergoing untold damage. The compelling evidence is that it is wrong, but more alarming, it's exponents appear incapable of listening to anything other than themselves, prefering to describe GR as incomplete.

Franco Carrieri

What is gravity?
(Original text in full)

This is an age-old question that mankind has been trying to answer for millennia. We understand that gravity is a purely attractive force - it can only pull, never push - and that it is generated by any object with mass.

Galileo was one of the first scientists to investigate the way gravity causes objects to move but it was not until Isaac Newton that mankind began to understand this facet of the Universe.

In 1687, Newton published his Universal Law of Gravitation. It provided mathematical expressions that would precisely describe the way objects moved in a gravitational field. Not only did the expressions work for objects falling to the ground on Earth, they also explained why the planets moved through the night sky. Unsurprisingly, this is heralded as one of the greatest works of science. There was only one observation his work could not explain. Mercury's elliptical orbit was gradually moving around the Sun, a phenomenon known as precession.


Much later, in the early twentieth century, Albert Einstein developed the Theory of General Relativity in which he described gravity as a deformation in space, caused by the presence of massive objects, similar to the way a heavy ball would warp a sheet of rubber. This deformation 'told' smaller things how to move through space, so they either went into orbit or fell onto the larger celestial object.

This was a very different way to visualise space. In the past, it had been thought space was filled with a fluid known as ether. When no one could prove the existence of the ether, people began to think of space as simply an empty nothingness. So, Einstein's idea that space was like a fabric stretched across the Universe was revolutionary. He called it the space-time continuum.

General Relativity not only explained the precession of Mercury, it made a number of surprising predictions that, over the subsequent decades, have been observed to be true. Among them was that light passing by a massive object would be deflected from its original path and that light escaping from a gravitational field would lose energy. (In fact, satellite-based navigation systems such as GPS have to take this second effect into account, in order to pinpoint precisely the location of their users.) The only prediction of general relativity yet to be tested is that certain celestial objects will emit gravitational waves, which will ripple through the fabric of space. The joint ESA-NASA mission LISA will attempt to detect these.

Now, however, the clues are mounting that General Relativity itself is incomplete. Certain observations suggest that there is more gravity in our Universe than can be explained by General Relativity. For example, the Pioneer anomaly, in which the spaceprobes Pioneers 10 and 11, Galileo and Ulysses are being slowed down for a still unknown reason. Certain galaxies (collections of hundreds of billions of stars) spin as if they were generating more gravity than appears possible. One explanation may be that vast quantities of exotic `dark matter' exist in the Universe or it may be that General Relativity is not the final theory of gravity.

Only by testing the predictions of general relativity, to the limits possible in space, will scientists be able to gain clues about what the next breakthrough in our understanding of gravity might be.


Last update: 25 July 2003
http://www.esa.int