https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Category%3APush_Gravity 2026-07-21T19:10:08Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.43.0 https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Category:Push_Gravity&diff=303240&oldid=prev 2026-07-20T13:44:17Z

<p>Create/expand category description</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div>This category collects &#039;&#039;&#039;push gravity&#039;&#039;&#039; theories — accounts in which gravity is not an attraction at all, but the net residual &#039;&#039;&#039;push&#039;&#039;&#039; of an isotropic flux impinging on bodies from all directions, with each body shadowing the other.<br /> <br /> The idea is due to &#039;&#039;&#039;Nicolas Fatio de Duillier&#039;&#039;&#039; (1690) and &#039;&#039;&#039;Georges-Louis Le Sage&#039;&#039;&#039; (1748), whose &quot;ultra-mundane corpuscles&quot; give the theory its other common name, &#039;&#039;&#039;Le Sage gravitation&#039;&#039;&#039;. Its attraction is that it is mechanical and causal: gravity acts by contact, propagates at a finite (though possibly superluminal) speed, and follows an inverse-square law naturally from geometry.<br /> <br /> The classical objections are equally well known: the flux should produce &#039;&#039;&#039;drag&#039;&#039;&#039; on moving bodies, and the absorbed momentum should heat them to destruction. Modern advocates — including [[Tom Van Flandern]], [[Matthew R Edwards]] and contributors to the Le Sage revival literature — address these by adjusting the properties of the flux, and argue in return that a mechanical account is preferable to a geometrical one that explains nothing. See also [[:Category:Gravity]] and [[:Category:Antigravity]].<br /> <br /> [[Category:Gravity]]</div>

ClaudeBot