He must have been the first Sage 
I donāt see him in the group, though
https://forums.sketchup.com/groups/SketchUp_Sage
Thank you for pointing that theory out! If my memory is correct, Iāve never heard of that theory before. But perhaps I heard of it and it stuck in my subconscious memory without me realizing itā¦ I donāt know. Iām going to have to read all about Le Sageās theory of gravitation. 
Without being a physicist or even having read most of this thread, I propose the ātheoryā that the particles responsible for gravity travels backwards in time, resulting in their push to become a pull from our perspective.
Hmmā¦one of the greatest objections to the theory was that under the conditions necessary for the rest of it to work out, the radiant particles would convey energy to ordinary matter at such a rate it would vaporize almost instantaneously. So, perhaps if the particles were traveling backward in time, they could absorb heat and lead to everything going to absolute zero?
I enjoy these little chats. So how come we donāt all float around while inside our houses, where none of the spectrum visible or invisible hits us? And, if penetrating particles like gamma rays are the cause of this, then how can they go through our roof but not through us?
There is no gravity - the Earth sucks.
Actually, the Universe blows.
The initial speed of an object in free fall is very slow. Could this be because gravity is a weak radiant pressure? What if the cosmoās constant weak radiant pressure on mass causes it to accelerate to visible speeds over time? Light can catch up to any object moving slower than the speed of light and increase the objectās speed over time (in the 0G vacuum of outer space).
Doesnāt insulation reduce heat transfer (infrared pressure), rather than block it 100%? Doesnāt that mean radiant pressure still penetrates our insulation & affects us indoors? Once heat (infrared pressure) is reduced to near zero, gravity ceases to affect superfluid helium. Iāll quote from 1:15, āIt appears to defy gravity. A thin film can climb walls and escape its container.ā
So how do you describe why gravity is directly proportional to the mass of the object and not its position in the cosmos? Wouldnāt an asteroid be experiencing the same amount of radiant energy upon a person standing on it as Earth? Wouldnāt a person not in contact with Earth (an aircraft perhaps) be getting pressure on all sides equally, like air pressure on Earth and simply be buoyant? The theory is a load of ā ā ā ā . Try againā¦
Not really relevant to radiant pressure theories of gravitation (as discussed in the Wikipedia articles linked previously). Theorists found that for this idea to work out, the āparticlesā of gravity had to have super-luminal velocity, not the objects they impact to cause gravity.
The Earth shields the surface from radiant pressure coming from the other side of the Earth, so the radiant pressure is only coming from one direction which creates a downwards force.
The consensus seems to be that radiant pressure is too weak to create gravity, but I havenāt seen any calculations yet.
@slbaumgartner Thatās interesting! I think itās a possibility, but we donāt even know if tachyons & stuff exist yet. But if light was the cause of gravity, then nothing would move faster than light because nothing can move faster than whatās pushing it.
I donāt know why Iām doing this butā¦
Youāre ignoring the fact that you are saying this radiant pressure is coming from all directions, your little sphere above is being pressed on in pretty much the way they devised to make a chain reaction in a nuclear weapon. All your arrows are pointing at the centre of the earth as if they are specific beams of pressure hitting just the right spot in the right direction and not interfering with the beam next to it. Much like a spherical array of garden hoses adjust just right. Whereas what you are proposing is a flood of water from giant hoses larger than the earths circumference.
Take just one of your arrows, the top centre one, and array it as a block of pressure (this is coming from only one very specific point in the universe, in fact the arrows should probably be splaying out but Iām not going into that) and you get the gif below. Now throw that same set of arrows arrayed at all possible points around the sphere and see what you get. But also donāt forget, on one side of that you have arrows of vastly greater pressure coming from the sun, as well as all the other parts of the universe pushing that way too.
@Box I appreciate your comments. I read that, āSince light itself does not have electric charge, one photon cannot directly interact with another photon.ā
Source: Can one bit of light bounce off another bit of light? | Science Questions with Surprising Answers
So I feel like the Sunās radiant pressure flow shouldnāt destroy the radiant pressure flow the Earth receives from the cosmos.
I found a picture of the Sun splaying Earthās magnetic field like you were talking about. Pause at 6:53.
I think itās possible even with the splayed pressure arrows. There might be more pressure on one side, but the centrifugal force of the spinning Earth might make it into a sphere.
Edit: What if the gravitation isnāt caused by electromagnetic radiation? But instead by particles small enough to travel through planets?
My problem with the gravity wave theory is Iām unaware of the existence of attractive forces. In nature, I only see evidence of matter moving from high pressure to low pressure, while little is known about the attractive forces.
āThe pull of Earth holds them down.ā But why does Earthās atmosphere move from low pressure (space vacuum) to high pressure (hot Earth)? One of the laws of physics is gas always moves from high pressure to low pressure, right? If Earthās atmosphere is actually moving from high pressure (space vacuum full of undiscovered pressure) to low pressure (Earth), then gravity would be a push rather than a pull.
Whatās causing gravitation? Or is it still unknown?
I know Iām probably wrong, but I just felt like talking about whatās on my mind.
A gas is made up of vibrating particles. The more there are in a container, the more they jostle about. If you open a door to an empty container (a vacuum), they will expand to fill the empty container. Still jostling around but with more elbow room. This jostling of the particles is what we refer to as temperature. The greater the motion, the hotter the gas. Less motion, lower temperature, until they all quit moving entirely when they reach zero degrees Kelvin (absolute zero). Itās worth noting that the temperature of a gas is the average kinetic energy of the particles. Some may be nearly motionless while others are moving very quickly. My heat pump finds all of the 72 degree (or hotter) particles that exist outside at 42 degrees (F) and moves their heat indoors.
These particles have masses that are attracted to the Earthās mass. They are generally molecules, but can be free-floating electrons and protons (which have both mass and electrical charge). Due to their mass, they are attracted to the Earth and, near the surface, are very close together ā¦ kind of piled on top of one another with the heavier ones at the bottom. This creates a greater pressure near the surface of the Earth than sixty miles up, where the particles still exist, but they are very far apart.
Some of the molecules have more mass than the others. For example, a CO2 molecule has one carbon atom (m = 12.01) and two oxygen atoms (m = 16.00) or a total mass of 12.01 + 2 x 16.00 = 44.01. On the other hand, a hydrogen molecule is made up of two atoms (m = 1.01) with a total mass of 2.02. Since all of them are pulled down to the earth, they crowd each other and the heavier ones sink to the bottom and the lighter ones are forced up. This is why a balloon filled with helium or hydrogen rises into the air. Itās not that itās opposing gravity as much as being forced to a less dense area.
No one has yet disproved the equation: 
Why this equation seems to hold true is still unknown. However, I think it can be safely assumed that there is no outside force pressing āinwardsā.
Personally, I like the discussion. I, too, have many cockamamie ideas about Life, the Universe, and Everything. Most of these Iāve put together in books that are labeled Science Fiction, but I like to think that some of the underlying theories I expound upon are not necessarily impossible, but are likely to be wildly improbable.
For example, my Chaos series supposes a Universe made up of a single āsingularityā that we perceive as nodal manifestations of its interaction with space-time. Like a foam that is spread throughout the Universe, each manifestation is equidistant from all of the others (the Planck length) and changes state moment by moment (the Planck time). These can be easily manipulated because they are all the same singularity and allows for teleportal networks and jump drives whereby you simply exchange states with other manifestations somewhere else. If youāre interested, hereās a link to a relevant excerpt:
https://sites.google.com/site/spirixcode/code/excerpt.pdf
My most recent book (a novella), involves an intelligent entity that preceded the Big Bang. From its perspective, the Big Bang is just getting started.
Itās all relative, you know 
This is all conjecture. Gravity is a theory and never has been proven. The earth is flat and underwater. Read genesis 1v9-15 and 1 peter 3v5. the blue above us is water. donāt be ignorant
Gravity is proof the Earth sucks. 
Re Perpetual motion, Iāll just throw this in here for fun:
And related to why gravity affects ābig thingsā and not āsmall thingsā , this: