Information about Le Sage's Theory Of Gravitation
Le Sage's theory of gravitation is the most common name for the kinetic theory of gravity originally proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690 and later by Georges-Louis Le Sage in 1748. The theory offered a mechanical explanation for Newton's gravitational force equation in terms of streams of tiny unseen particles (which Le Sage called ultra-mundane corpuscles) impacting on all material objects from all directions. Because Fatio's work was not widely known and remained unpublished for a long time, it was Le Sage's exposition of the theory which became the subject of renewed interest in the late nineteenth century when it was studied in the context of the then newly discovered kinetic theory of gases. This mechanical explanation for gravity never gained widespread acceptance, and by the early twentieth century it was generally considered discredited, most notably due to issues raised by James Clerk Maxwell and Henri Poincaré. Therefore the theory is not regarded as scientifically viable, although it still has proponents outside the mainstream scientific community.
The theory posits that the force of gravity is the result of tiny particles (corpuscles) or waves moving at high speed in all directions, throughout the universe. The intensity of the flux of particles is assumed to be the same in all directions, so an isolated object A is struck equally from all sides, resulting in only an inward-directed pressure but no net directional force (P1).
With a second object B present, however, a fraction of the particles that would otherwise have struck A from the direction of B is intercepted, so B works as a shield, i.e. from the direction of B, A will be struck by fewer particles than from the opposite direction. Likewise B will be struck by fewer particles from the direction of A than from the opposite direction. One can say that A and B are "shadowing" each other, and the two bodies are pushed toward each other by the resulting imbalance of forces (P2). Thus the apparent attraction between bodies is, according to this theory, actually a diminished push from the direction of other bodies, so the theory is sometimes called push gravity or shadow gravity, although it is more widely referred to as Lesage gravity.
If the collisions of body A and the gravific particles are fully elastic, the intensity of the reflected particles would be as strong as of the incoming ones, so no net directional force would arise. The same is true if a second body B is introduced, where B acts as a shield against gravific particles in the direction of A. The gravific particle C which ordinarily would strike on A is blocked by B, but another particle D which ordinarily would not have struck A, is re-directed by the reflection on B, and therefore replaces C. Thus if the collisions are fully elastic, the reflected particles between A and B would fully compensate any shadowing effect. In order to account for a net gravitational force, it must be assumed that the collisions are not fully elastic, or at least that the reflected particles are slowed, so that their momentum is reduced after the impact. This would result in streams with diminished momentum departing from A, and streams with undiminished momentum arriving at A, so a net directional momentum toward the center of A would arise (P3). Under this assumption, the reflected particles in the two-body case will not fully compensate the shadowing effect, because the reflected flux is weaker than the incident flux.
Since it is assumed that some or all of the gravific particles converging on an object are either absorbed or slowed by the object, it follows that the intensity of the flux of gravific particles emanating from the direction of a massive object is less than the flux converging on the object. We can imagine this imbalance of momentum flow - and therefore of the force exerted on any other body in the vicinity - distributed over a spherical surface centered on the object (P4). The imbalance of momentum flow over an entire spherical surface enclosing the object is independent of the size of the enclosing sphere, whereas the surface area of the sphere increases in proportion to the square of the radius. Therefore, the momentum imbalance per unit area decreases inversely as the square of the distance.
Nicolas Fatio presented the first formulation of his thoughts on gravitation in a letter to Christiaan Huygens in spring 1690.[1] Two days later he read the content of the letter before the Royal Society in London. In the following years Fatio composed several draft manuscripts of his main work "De la Cause de la Pesanteur", but none of this manuscripts were published in his lifetime. In 1731 Fatio also sent his theory as a Latin poem in the style of Lucretius to the Paris Academy of Science, but it was dismissed. Some fragments of these manuscripts and copies of the poem were later acquired by Le Sage who failed to find a publisher for Fatio's papers.[2] So it lasted until 1929,[3] when the only complete copy of Fatio's manuscript was published by Bopp, and in 1949[4] Gagnebin used the collected fragments in possession of Le Sage to reconstruct the paper. The Gagnebin edition includes revisions made by Fatio as late as 1743, forty years after he composed the draft on which the Bopp edition was based. However, the second half of the Bopp edition contains the mathematically most advanced parts of Fatio's theory, and were not included by Gagnebin in his edition. For a detailed analysis of Fatio's work, and a comparison between the Bopp and the Gagnebin editions, see Zehe[5] The following description is mainly based on the Bopp edition.
Fatio assumed that the universe is filled by minute particles, which are moving indiscriminately with very high speed and rectilinearly in all directions. To illustrate his thoughts he used the following example: Suppose an object C, on which an infinite small plane zz and a sphere centered about zz is drawn. Into this sphere Fatio placed the pyramid PzzQ, in which some particles are streaming in the direction of zz and also some particles, which were already reflected by C and therefore depart from zz. Fatio proposed that the mean velocity of the reflected particles is lower and therefore their momentum is weaker than that of the incident particles. The result is one stream, which pushes all bodies in the direction of zz. So on one hand the speed of the stream remains constant, but on the other hand at larger proximity to zz the density of the stream increases and therefore its intensity is proportional to 1/r². And because one can draw an infinite number of such pyramids around C, the proportionality applies to the entire range around C.
In order to ensure mass proportionality, Fatio assumed that gross matter is extremely permeable for the gravific fluid. He sketched 3 models to justify this assumption:
Isaac Newton: There was a strong personal relationship between Newton and Fatio in the years 1690 to 1693. Newton's statements on Fatio's theory differed widely. For example, after describing the necessary conditions for a mechanical explanation of gravity, he wrote in an (unpublished) note in his own printed copy of the "Principia" in 1692:
On the other hand, Fatio himself stated that although Newton had commented privately that Fatio's theory was the best possible mechanical explanation of gravity, he also acknowledged that Newton tended to believe that the true explanation of gravitation was not mechanical. Also, Gregory noted in his "Memoranda": "Mr. Newton and Mr. Halley laugh at Mr. Fatio’s manner of explaining gravity."(p. 172)[5] This was allegedly noted by him in December 28, 1691. However, the real date is unknown, because both ink and feather which were used, differ from the rest of the page. After 1694, the relationship between the two men cooled down.
Christiaan Huygens was the first person informed by Fatio of his theory, but never accepted it. Fatio believed he had convinced Huygens of the consistency of his theory, but Huygens denied this in a letter to Leibniz. There was also a short correspondence between Fatio and Gottfried Leibniz on the theory. Leibniz criticized Fatio's theory for demanding empty space between the particles, which was rejected by him (Leibniz) on philosophical grounds. Jakob Bernoulli expressed an interest in Fatio's Theory, and urged Fatio to write his thoughts on gravitation in a complete manuscript, which was actually done by Fatio. Bernoulli then copied the manuscript, which now resides in the university library of Basel, and was the base of the Bopp edition.
Nevertheless, Fatio's theory remained largely unknown with a few exceptions like Cramer and Le Sage, because a) he never was able to formally publish his works and b) he fell under the influence of a group of religious fanatics called the "French prophets" (which belonged to the camisards) and therefore his public reputation was ruined.
The first exposition of his theory, Essai sur l'origine des forces mortes, was sent by Le Sage to the Academy of Sciences at Paris in 1748, but it was never published.(pp. 154-158)[7] According to Le Sage, after creating and sending his essay he was informed on the theories of Fatio, Cramer and Redeker. In 1756 for the first time one of his expositions of the theory was published,[8] and in 1758 he sent a more detailed exposition, Essai de Chymie Méchanique, to a competition to the Academy of Sciences in Rouen.[9] In this paper he tried to explain both the nature of gravitation and chemical affinities. The exposition of the theory which became accessible to a broader public, Lucrèce Newtonien, in which the correspondence with Lucretius’ concepts was fully developed.[10] Another exposition of the theory was published from Le Sage's notes posthumously by Pierre Prévost in 1818.[11]
Le Sage said that he was the first one, who drew all consequences from the theory and also Prévost said that Le Sage's theory was more developed than Fatio's theory.(p. 68)[7] However, by comparing the two theories and after a detailed analyses of Fatio's papers (which also were in possession of Le Sage) Zehe judged that Le Sage contributed nothing essentially new and he often didn't reach Fatio's level.[5] For more details on "Fatio and Le Sage" see the article on Georges-Louis Le Sage.
Daniel Bernoulli was pleased by the similarity of Le Sage's model and his own thoughts on the nature of gases. However, Bernoulli himself was the opinion that his own kinetic theory of gases was only a speculation, and likewise he regarded Le Sage's theory as highly speculative.(p.30)[13]
Roger Joseph Boscovich pointed out, that Le Sage's theory is the first one, which actually can explain gravity by mechanical means. However, he rejected the model because of the enormous and unused quantity of ultramundane matter. John Playfair described Boscovich's arguments by saying:
A very similar argument was later given by Maxwell (see the sections below). Additionally, Boscovich denied the existence of all contact and immediate impulse at all, but proposed repulsive and attractive actions at a distance.
He often referred to Le Sage's theory in his lectures on physics at the University of Göttingen. However, around 1796 Lichtenberg changed his views after being persuaded by the arguments of Immanuel Kant, who criticized any kind of theory that attempted to replace attraction with impulsion.[17] Kant pointed out that the very existence of spatially extended configurations of matter, such as particles of non-zero radius, implies the existence of some sort of binding force to hold the extended parts of the particle together. Now, that force cannot be explained by the push from the gravitational particles, because those particles too must hold together in the same way. To avoid this circular reasoning, Kant asserted that there must exist a fundamental attractive force. This was precisely the same objection that had always been raised against the impulse doctrine of Descartes in the previous century, and had led even the followers of Descartes to abandon that aspect of his philosophy.
Another German philosopher, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, rejected Le Sage's model because its mechanistic materialism was incompatible with Schelling's very idealistic and anti-materialistic philosophy.[18]
Le Sage's own theory became a subject of re-newed interest in the latter part of the 19th century following a paper published by Kelvin in 1873[21]. Unlike Leray, who treated the heat problem not very exactly, Kelvin stated that the absorbed energy represents a huge amount of heating, sufficient to vaporize any object in a fraction of a second. So Kelvin re-iterated an idea that Fatio had originally proposed in the 1690s for attempting to deal with the thermodynamic problem inherent in Le Sage's theory. He proposed that the excess heat might be absorbed by internal energy modes of the particles themselves - in analogy to his proposal of the vortex-nature of matter. In other words, the original translational kinetic energy of the particles is transferred to internal energy modes, chiefly vibrational or rotational, of the particles. Kelvin went on to suggest, based on his understanding of the applicability of Clausius's principle, that these energized but slower moving particles would subsequently be restored to their original condition due to collisions (on the cosmological scale) with other particles, such that equilibrium of the various modes was retained. Kelvin also asserted that it would be possible to extract limitless amounts of free energy from the ultramundane flux, and described a perpetual motion machine to accomplish this. Other researcher's, however, have asserted that Clausius's principle, correctly applied, cannot lead to any production of infinite free energy.
Subsequently, Peter Guthrie Tait called the Le Sage theory the only plausible explanation of gravitation which has been propounded at that time. He went on by saying:
Kelvin himself, however, was not optimistic that Le Sage's theory could ultimately give a satisfactory account of phenomena. After his brief paper in 1873 noted above, he never returned to the subject, except to make the following comment:
A review of the Kelvin-Le Sage theory was published by James Clerk Maxwell in the Ninth Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica under the title Atom in 1875.[26] After describing the basic concept of the theory he wrote (with sarcasm according to Aronson):[27]
Maxwell commented on Kelvin’s suggestion of different energy modes of the particles that this implies the gravitational particles are not simple primitive entities, but rather systems, with their own internal energy modes, which must be held together by (unexplained) forces of attraction. He argues that the temperature of bodies must tend to approach that at which the average kinetic energy of a molecule of the body would be equal to the average kinetic energy of an ultra-mundane particle and he states that the latter quantity must be much greater than the former and concludes that ordinary matter should be incinerated within seconds under the Le Sage bombardment. He wrote:
Maxwell also argued that the theory requires "an enormous expenditure of external power" and therefore violating the conservation of energy as the fundamental principle of nature. Preston responded to Maxwell's criticism by arguing that the kinetic energy of each individual simple particle could be made arbitrarily low by positing a sufficiently low mass (and higher number density) for the particles. But this issue later was discussed in a more detailed way by Poincaré, who showed that the thermodynamic problem within Le Sage models remained unresolved.
After these attempts other authors substituted electromagnetic radiation for Le Sage’s particles early 1900s. This was in connection with the Lorentz ether theory and the electron theory of that time, in which the electrical constitution of matter was assumed.
In 1900 Hendrik Lorentz[34] wrote, that Le Sage's particle model is not consistent with the electron theory of his time. But the detection that trains of electromagnetic waves could produce some pressure in combination with the penetrating power of Röntgen rays (now called x-rays), led him to the conclusion, that nothing is speaking against the possible existence of an even more penetrating radiation then x-rays, which could replace Le Sage's particles. Lorentz showed that an attractive force between charged particles (which might be taken to model the elementary subunits of matter) would indeed arise, but only if the incident energy were entirely absorbed. This was the same fundamental problem which had afflicted the particle models. So Lorentz wrote:
In 1922[35] Lorentz first examined Martin Knudsen's investigation on rarefied gases and in connection with that he discussed Le Sage's particle model, followed by a summary of his own electromagnetic Le Sage model - but he repeated his conclusion from 1900: Without absorption no gravitational effect.
Partially based on the calculations of Darwin, an important criticism was given by Henri Poincaré in 1908.[42] He concluded that the attraction is proportional to 
, where S is earth's molecular surface area, v is the velocity of the particles, and ρ is the density of the medium. Following Laplace he argued that to maintain mass-proportionality the upper limit for S is at the most the ten-millionth of earth surface. Now, Drag (i.e. the resistance of the medium) is proportional to Sρv and therefore the ratio of drag to attraction is inverse proportional to Sv. To reduce drag Poincaré calculated a lower limit for v = 24 · 1017 times the speed of light. So there are lower limits for Sv and v, and a upper limit for S and with those values one can calculate the produced heat, which is proportional to Sρv3. The calculation shows that earth temperature would raise by 1026 degrees per second. Poincaré noticed, "that the earth could not long stand such a regime." Poincaré also analyzed some wave models (Tommasina and Lorentz), remarking that they suffered the same problems as the particle models. To reduce drag, superluminal wave velocities were necessary, and they would still be subject to the heating problem. After describing a similar re-radiation model like Thomson he concluded: "Such are the complicated hypotheses to which we are led when we seek to make Le Sage's theory tenable".
He also stated that if in Lorentz' model the absorbed energy is fully converted into heat, this would raise earth temperature by 1013 degrees per second. Poincaré then went on to consider Le Sage's theory in the context of the "new dynamics" that had been developed at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, specifically recognizing the relativity principle. For a particle theory he remarked that "it is difficult to imagine a law of collision compatible with the principle of relativity", and the problems of drag and heating remain.
After completing his discussion of Le Sage's theory, Feynman went on to say that the reader might think they could invent a more successful theory of gravity, based on some mechanistic model and/or not involving sophisticated mathematics, and he said "maybe you can", but he went on to explain why this seemed (to him) very unlikely:
Although matter is postulated to be very sparse in Fatio-Le Sage theory, it cannot be perfectly transparent, because in that case no gravitational force would exist. However, the lack of perfect transparency leads to problems: With sufficient mass the amount of shading produced by two pieces of matter becomes less than the sum of the shading that each of them would produce separately, due to the overlap of their shadows.(P10, above) This hypothetical effect, called gravitational shielding, implies that addition of matter does not result in a direct proportional increase in the gravitational mass. Therefore, in order to be viable, Fatio and Lesage postulated that the shielding effect is so small as to be undetectable, which requires that the interaction cross-section of matter must be extremely small.(P10, below) This places an extremely high lower bound on the intensity of the flux required to produce the observed force of gravity. According to standard physics any form of gravitational shielding is a violation of the equivalence principle and therefore is inconsistent with general relativity.[46] For more historical information on the connection between gravitational shielding and Le Sage gravity, see Martins,[47][48] and Borzeszkowski et al.[49]
Regarding Isenkrahe's proposal on the connection between density, temperature and weight: Since his reasoning was based purely on the anticipated effects of changes in material density, and since temperature at a given density can be increased or decreased, Isenkrahe's comments do not imply any fundamental relation between temperature and gravitation. (There actually is a relation between temperature and gravitation, as well as between binding energy and gravitation, but these actual effects have nothing to do with Isenkrahe's proposal. See the section below on "Coupling to Energy".) Regarding the prediction of a relation between gravitation and density, all experimental evidence indicates that there is no such relation.
Likewise Isenkrahe's violation of the energy conservation law is unacceptable, and Kelvin's application of Clausius' theorem leads (as noted by Kelvin himself) to some sort of perpetual motion mechanism. The suggestion of a secondary re-radiation mechanism for wave models attracted the interest of JJ Thomson, but was not taken very seriously by either Maxwell or Poincaré, because it entails a gross violation of the second law of thermodynamics (huge amounts of energy spontaneously being converted from a colder to a hotter form), which is one of the most solidly established of all physical laws.
The energy problem has also been considered in relation to the idea of mass accretion in connection with the expanding earth theory. Among the early theorists to link mass increase in some sort of push gravity model to Earth expansion were Yarkovsky and Hilgenberg.[51] The idea of mass accretion and the expanding earth theory are not currently considered to be viable by mainstream scientists. This is because, among other reasons, according to the principle of mass-energy equivalence, if the Earth was absorbing the energy of the ultramundane flux at the rate necessary to produce the observed force of gravity (i.e. by using the values calculated by Poincaré), its mass would be doubling in each fraction of a second.
Although it is not regarded as a viable theory within the mainstream scientific community, there are occasional attempts to re-habilitate the theory outside the mainstream, including those of Radzievskii and Kagalnikova (1960),[59] Shneiderov (1961),[60] Buonomano and Engels (1976),[61] Adamut (1982),[62] Jaakkola (1996),[63] Tom Van Flandern (1999),[64] and Edwards (2007).[65] A variety of Le Sage models and related topics are discussed in Edwards, et al.[66]
The basic Theory
)
P1: Single Body
No net directional force
No net directional force
)
P2: Two bodies "attract" each other
- Nature of Collisions
){kind=small}
P3: Opposite streams
- The inverse square Law
)
P4: Inverse square relation
- Mass Proportionality
Fatio
)
Nicolas Fatio
Some Features of Fatio's Theory
- Fatio's pyramid (Problem I)
)
P6: Fatio's pyramid
- Reduced speed
- Either ordinary matter, or the gravific particles, or both are inelastic, or
- the impacts are fully elastic, but the particles are not absolutely hard, and therefore are in a state of vibration after the impact, and/or
- due to friction the particles begin to rotate after their impacts.
- Condensation
- Porosity of gross matter
)
P7: Crystal lattice (icosahedron)
- He assumed that matter is an accumulation of small "balls" whereby their diameter compared with their distance among themselves is "infinitely" small. But he rejected this proposal, because under this condition the bodies would approach each other and therefore wouldn't remain stable.
- Then he assumed that the balls could be connected through bars or lines and would form some kind of crystal lattice. However, he rejected this model too - if several atoms are together, the gravific fluid isn't able to penetrate this structure equally in all direction, and therefore mass proportionality is impossible.
- At the end Fatio also removed the balls and only left the lines or the net. By making them "infinitely" smaller than their distance among themselves, thereby a maximum penetration capacity could be achieved.
- Pressure force of the particles (Problem II)
- Infinity (Problem III)
- Resistance of the medium (Problem IV)
Reception of Fatio's Theory
Fatio was in communication with some of the most famous scientists of his time - some of them signed his manuscript.)
P8: Signatures of Halley, Huygens and Newton on Fatio's paper
Isaac Newton: There was a strong personal relationship between Newton and Fatio in the years 1690 to 1693. Newton's statements on Fatio's theory differed widely. For example, after describing the necessary conditions for a mechanical explanation of gravity, he wrote in an (unpublished) note in his own printed copy of the "Principia" in 1692:
The unique hypothesis by which gravity can be explained is however of this kind, and was first devised by the most ingenious geometer Mr. N. Fatio.(pp. 169-170)[5]
On the other hand, Fatio himself stated that although Newton had commented privately that Fatio's theory was the best possible mechanical explanation of gravity, he also acknowledged that Newton tended to believe that the true explanation of gravitation was not mechanical. Also, Gregory noted in his "Memoranda": "Mr. Newton and Mr. Halley laugh at Mr. Fatio’s manner of explaining gravity."(p. 172)[5] This was allegedly noted by him in December 28, 1691. However, the real date is unknown, because both ink and feather which were used, differ from the rest of the page. After 1694, the relationship between the two men cooled down.
Christiaan Huygens was the first person informed by Fatio of his theory, but never accepted it. Fatio believed he had convinced Huygens of the consistency of his theory, but Huygens denied this in a letter to Leibniz. There was also a short correspondence between Fatio and Gottfried Leibniz on the theory. Leibniz criticized Fatio's theory for demanding empty space between the particles, which was rejected by him (Leibniz) on philosophical grounds. Jakob Bernoulli expressed an interest in Fatio's Theory, and urged Fatio to write his thoughts on gravitation in a complete manuscript, which was actually done by Fatio. Bernoulli then copied the manuscript, which now resides in the university library of Basel, and was the base of the Bopp edition.
Nevertheless, Fatio's theory remained largely unknown with a few exceptions like Cramer and Le Sage, because a) he never was able to formally publish his works and b) he fell under the influence of a group of religious fanatics called the "French prophets" (which belonged to the camisards) and therefore his public reputation was ruined.
Cramer, Redeker
In 1731 the Swiss mathematician Gabriel Cramer published a dissertation,[6] at the end of which appeared a sketch of a theory perfectly similar to Fatio's (including net structure of matter, analogy to light, shading...), but without mentioning Fatio's name. It was known to Fatio that Cramer had access to a copy to his main paper, so he accused Cramer of only repeating his theory without understanding it. It was also Cramer who informed Le Sage about Fatio's theory in 1749. In 1736 the German physician Franz Albert Redeker also published a similar theory.[7] Any connection between Redeker and Fatio is unknown.Le Sage
)
Georges-Louis Le Sage
Le Sage's basic Concept
Le Sage discussed the theory in great detail and he proposed quantitative estimates for some of the theory's parameters.- He called the gravitational particles "ultramundane corpuscles", because he supposed them to originate beyond our known universe. The distribution of the ultramundane flux is very isotropic and the laws of its propagation are very similar to that of light.
- Le Sage argued, that in case the matter-particle-collisions are perfectly elastic, no gravitational force would arise. So he proposed that the particles and the basic constituents of matter are "absolutely hard" and asserted that this implies a complicated form of interaction, completely inelastic in the direction normal to the surface of the ordinary matter, and perfectly elastic in the direction tangential to the surface. He then commented that this implies the mean speed of scattered particles is 2/3 of their incident speed. To avoid inelastic collisions between the particles, he supposed that their diameter is very small relative to their mutual distance.
- That resistance of the flux is proportional to uv (where v is the velocity of the particles and u that of gross matter) and gravity is proportional to v², so the ratio resistance/gravity can be made arbitrarily small by increasing v. Therefore he suggested that the ultramundane corpuscles might move at the speed of light, but after further consideration he corrected this value to 105 times the speed of light.
- To maintain mass proportionality, ordinary matter consists of cage-like structures, in which their diameter is only the 107th part of their mutual distance. Also the "bars", which constitute the cages, were small (around 1020 times as long as thick) relative to the dimensions of the cages, so the particles can travel through them nearly unhindered.
- Le Sage also attempted to use the shadowing mechanism to account for the forces of cohesion, and for forces of different strengths, by positing the existence of multiple species of ultramundane corpuscles of different sizes, as illustrated in Figure 9.
)
P9: Le Sage's own illustration of his ultramundane corpuscles
Reception of Le Sage's Theory
Le Sage’s ideas were not well-received during his day, except for some of his friends and associates like Pierre Prévost, Charles Bonnet, Jean-André Deluc and Simon Lhuilier. They mentioned and described Le Sage's theory in their books and papers, which were used by their contemporaries as a secondary source for Le Sage's theory (because of the lack of published papers by Le Sage himself) .- Euler, Bernoulli, Boscovich
You must excuse me Sir, if I have a great repugnance for your ultramundane corpuscles, and I shall always prefer to confess my ignorance of the cause of gravity than to have recourse to such strange hypotheses.
Daniel Bernoulli was pleased by the similarity of Le Sage's model and his own thoughts on the nature of gases. However, Bernoulli himself was the opinion that his own kinetic theory of gases was only a speculation, and likewise he regarded Le Sage's theory as highly speculative.(p.30)[13]
Roger Joseph Boscovich pointed out, that Le Sage's theory is the first one, which actually can explain gravity by mechanical means. However, he rejected the model because of the enormous and unused quantity of ultramundane matter. John Playfair described Boscovich's arguments by saying:
An immense multitude of atoms, thus destined to pursue their never ending journey through the infinity of space, without changing their direction, or returning to the place from which they came, is a supposition very little countenanced by the usual economy of nature. Whence is the supply of these innumerable torrents; must it not involve a perpetual exertion of creative power, infinite both in extent and in duration?[14]
A very similar argument was later given by Maxwell (see the sections below). Additionally, Boscovich denied the existence of all contact and immediate impulse at all, but proposed repulsive and attractive actions at a distance.
- Lichtenberg, Kant, Schelling
He often referred to Le Sage's theory in his lectures on physics at the University of Göttingen. However, around 1796 Lichtenberg changed his views after being persuaded by the arguments of Immanuel Kant, who criticized any kind of theory that attempted to replace attraction with impulsion.[17] Kant pointed out that the very existence of spatially extended configurations of matter, such as particles of non-zero radius, implies the existence of some sort of binding force to hold the extended parts of the particle together. Now, that force cannot be explained by the push from the gravitational particles, because those particles too must hold together in the same way. To avoid this circular reasoning, Kant asserted that there must exist a fundamental attractive force. This was precisely the same objection that had always been raised against the impulse doctrine of Descartes in the previous century, and had led even the followers of Descartes to abandon that aspect of his philosophy.
Another German philosopher, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, rejected Le Sage's model because its mechanistic materialism was incompatible with Schelling's very idealistic and anti-materialistic philosophy.[18]
- Laplace
Kinetic theory
Because the theories of Fatio, Cramer and Redeker were not widely known, Le Sage's exposition of the theory enjoyed a resurgence of interest in the latter half of the nineteenth century, coinciding with the development of the kinetic theory- Leray
- Kelvin, Tait
)
Lord Kelvin
Subsequently, Peter Guthrie Tait called the Le Sage theory the only plausible explanation of gravitation which has been propounded at that time. He went on by saying:
The most singular thing about it is that, if it be true, it will probably lead us to regard all kinds of energy as ultimately Kinetic.[22]
Kelvin himself, however, was not optimistic that Le Sage's theory could ultimately give a satisfactory account of phenomena. After his brief paper in 1873 noted above, he never returned to the subject, except to make the following comment:
This kinetic theory of matter is a dream, and can be nothing else, until it can explain chemical affinity, electricity, magnetism, gravitation, and the inertia of masses (that is, crowds) of vortices. Le Sage s theory might give an explanation of gravity and of its relation to inertia of masses, on the vortex theory, were it not for the essential aeolotropy of crystals, and the seemingly perfect isotropy of gravity. No finger post pointing towards a way that can possibly lead to a surmounting of this difficulty, or a turning of its flank, has been discovered, or imagined as discoverable.[23]
- Preston
- Maxwell
)
James Clerk Maxwell
Here, then, seems to be a path leading towards an explanation of the law of gravitation, which, if it can be shown to be in other respects consistent with facts, may turn out to be a royal road into the very arcana of science.
Maxwell commented on Kelvin’s suggestion of different energy modes of the particles that this implies the gravitational particles are not simple primitive entities, but rather systems, with their own internal energy modes, which must be held together by (unexplained) forces of attraction. He argues that the temperature of bodies must tend to approach that at which the average kinetic energy of a molecule of the body would be equal to the average kinetic energy of an ultra-mundane particle and he states that the latter quantity must be much greater than the former and concludes that ordinary matter should be incinerated within seconds under the Le Sage bombardment. He wrote:
We have devoted more space to this theory than it seems to deserve, because it is ingenious, and because it is the only theory of the cause of gravitation which has been so far developed as to be capable of being attacked and defended.
Maxwell also argued that the theory requires "an enormous expenditure of external power" and therefore violating the conservation of energy as the fundamental principle of nature. Preston responded to Maxwell's criticism by arguing that the kinetic energy of each individual simple particle could be made arbitrarily low by positing a sufficiently low mass (and higher number density) for the particles. But this issue later was discussed in a more detailed way by Poincaré, who showed that the thermodynamic problem within Le Sage models remained unresolved.
- Isenkrahe
- Rysanek
- du Bois-Reymond
Wave models
- Keller, Boisbaudran
- Lorentz
)
Hendrik Antoon Lorentz
In 1900 Hendrik Lorentz[34] wrote, that Le Sage's particle model is not consistent with the electron theory of his time. But the detection that trains of electromagnetic waves could produce some pressure in combination with the penetrating power of Röntgen rays (now called x-rays), led him to the conclusion, that nothing is speaking against the possible existence of an even more penetrating radiation then x-rays, which could replace Le Sage's particles. Lorentz showed that an attractive force between charged particles (which might be taken to model the elementary subunits of matter) would indeed arise, but only if the incident energy were entirely absorbed. This was the same fundamental problem which had afflicted the particle models. So Lorentz wrote:
The circumstance however, that this attraction could only exist, if in some way or other electromagnetic energy were continually disappearing, is so serious a difficulty, that what has been said cannot be considered as furnishing an explanation of gravitation. Nor is this the only objection that can be raised. If the mechanism of gravitation consisted in vibrations which cross the aether with the velocity of light, the attraction ought to be modified by the motion of the celestial bodies to a much larger extend than astronomical observations make it possible to admit.
In 1922[35] Lorentz first examined Martin Knudsen's investigation on rarefied gases and in connection with that he discussed Le Sage's particle model, followed by a summary of his own electromagnetic Le Sage model - but he repeated his conclusion from 1900: Without absorption no gravitational effect.
- JJ Thomson
It is a very interesting result of recent discoveries that the machinery which Le Sage introduced for the purpose of his theory has a very close analogy with things for which we have now direct experimental evidence....Röntgen rays, however, when absorbed do not, as far as we know, give rise to more penetrating Rontgen rays as they should to explain attraction, but either to less penetrating rays or to rays of the same kind.
- Tommasina, Brush
Later Assessments
- Darwin
I will not refer further to this conception, save to say that I believe that no man of science is disposed to accept it as affording the true road.[41]
- Poincaré
)
Henri Poincaré
, where S is earth's molecular surface area, v is the velocity of the particles, and ρ is the density of the medium. Following Laplace he argued that to maintain mass-proportionality the upper limit for S is at the most the ten-millionth of earth surface. Now, Drag (i.e. the resistance of the medium) is proportional to Sρv and therefore the ratio of drag to attraction is inverse proportional to Sv. To reduce drag Poincaré calculated a lower limit for v = 24 · 1017 times the speed of light. So there are lower limits for Sv and v, and a upper limit for S and with those values one can calculate the produced heat, which is proportional to Sρv3. The calculation shows that earth temperature would raise by 1026 degrees per second. Poincaré noticed, "that the earth could not long stand such a regime." Poincaré also analyzed some wave models (Tommasina and Lorentz), remarking that they suffered the same problems as the particle models. To reduce drag, superluminal wave velocities were necessary, and they would still be subject to the heating problem. After describing a similar re-radiation model like Thomson he concluded: "Such are the complicated hypotheses to which we are led when we seek to make Le Sage's theory tenable".
He also stated that if in Lorentz' model the absorbed energy is fully converted into heat, this would raise earth temperature by 1013 degrees per second. Poincaré then went on to consider Le Sage's theory in the context of the "new dynamics" that had been developed at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, specifically recognizing the relativity principle. For a particle theory he remarked that "it is difficult to imagine a law of collision compatible with the principle of relativity", and the problems of drag and heating remain.
- Hilbert
- Feynman
After completing his discussion of Le Sage's theory, Feynman went on to say that the reader might think they could invent a more successful theory of gravity, based on some mechanistic model and/or not involving sophisticated mathematics, and he said "maybe you can", but he went on to explain why this seemed (to him) very unlikely:
The burden of this lecture is just to emphasize the fact that it is impossible to explain honestly the beauties of the laws of nature in a way that people can feel, without their having some deep understanding of mathematics. I am sorry, but this seems to be the case.
Predictions and Criticism
Matter and Particles
- Porosity of Matter
- Cosmic Radiation
Gravitational Shielding
)
P10: Gravitational Shielding
Regarding Isenkrahe's proposal on the connection between density, temperature and weight: Since his reasoning was based purely on the anticipated effects of changes in material density, and since temperature at a given density can be increased or decreased, Isenkrahe's comments do not imply any fundamental relation between temperature and gravitation. (There actually is a relation between temperature and gravitation, as well as between binding energy and gravitation, but these actual effects have nothing to do with Isenkrahe's proposal. See the section below on "Coupling to Energy".) Regarding the prediction of a relation between gravitation and density, all experimental evidence indicates that there is no such relation.
Speed of gravity
- Drag
- Aberration
Range of Gravity
In many particle models, such as Kelvin's, the range of gravity is limited due to the nature of particle interactions amongst themselves. The range is effectively determined by the rate that the proposed internal modes of the particles can eliminate the momentum defects (shadows) that are created by passing through matter. Such predictions as to the effective range of gravity will vary and are dependent upon the specific aspects and assumptions as to the modes of interactions that are available during particle interactions. However, for this class of models the observed large-scale structure of the cosmos constrains such dispersion to those that will allow for the aggregation of such immense gravitational structures.Energy
- Absorption
Suppose that, contrary to Maxwell's hypothesis, the molecules of gross matter actually possess more energy than the particles. In that case the particles would, on the average, gain energy in the collision and the particles intercepted by body B would be replaced by more energetic ones rebounding from body B. Thus the effect of gravity would be reversed: there would be a mutual repulsion between all bodies of mundane matter, contrary to observation. If, on the other hand, the average kinetic energies of the particles and of the molecules are the same, then no net transfer of energy would take place, and the collisions would be equivalent to elastic ones, which, as has been demonstrated, do not yield a gravitational force.
Likewise Isenkrahe's violation of the energy conservation law is unacceptable, and Kelvin's application of Clausius' theorem leads (as noted by Kelvin himself) to some sort of perpetual motion mechanism. The suggestion of a secondary re-radiation mechanism for wave models attracted the interest of JJ Thomson, but was not taken very seriously by either Maxwell or Poincaré, because it entails a gross violation of the second law of thermodynamics (huge amounts of energy spontaneously being converted from a colder to a hotter form), which is one of the most solidly established of all physical laws.
The energy problem has also been considered in relation to the idea of mass accretion in connection with the expanding earth theory. Among the early theorists to link mass increase in some sort of push gravity model to Earth expansion were Yarkovsky and Hilgenberg.[51] The idea of mass accretion and the expanding earth theory are not currently considered to be viable by mainstream scientists. This is because, among other reasons, according to the principle of mass-energy equivalence, if the Earth was absorbing the energy of the ultramundane flux at the rate necessary to produce the observed force of gravity (i.e. by using the values calculated by Poincaré), its mass would be doubling in each fraction of a second.
- Coupling to Energy
Non-Gravitational Applications and Analogies
- Mock Gravity
- Plasma
- Vacuum energy
Recent activity
The re-examination of Le Sage's theory in the 19th century identified several closely interconnected problems with the theory. These relate to excessive heating, frictional drag, shielding, and gravitational aberration. The recognition of these problems, in conjunction with a general shift away from mechanical based theories, resulted in a progressive loss of interest in Le Sage’s theory. Ultimately in the twentieth century Le Sage’s theory was eclipsed by Einstein’s theory of general relativity.Although it is not regarded as a viable theory within the mainstream scientific community, there are occasional attempts to re-habilitate the theory outside the mainstream, including those of Radzievskii and Kagalnikova (1960),[59] Shneiderov (1961),[60] Buonomano and Engels (1976),[61] Adamut (1982),[62] Jaakkola (1996),[63] Tom Van Flandern (1999),[64] and Edwards (2007).[65] A variety of Le Sage models and related topics are discussed in Edwards, et al.[66]
Primary sources
1. ^ Fatio de Duillier, N. (1690a), "Lettre N° 2570", in Société Hollandaise des Sciences, Oeuvres complètes de Christiaan Huygens, vol. 9, The Hague, 1888-1950, pp. 381-389
2. ^ See secondary sources, Prévost (1805)
3. ^ Fatio de Duillier, N. (1701), Die wiederaufgefundene Abhandlung von Fatio de Duillier: De la cause de la Pesanteur, in Bopp, Karl, "Drei Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Mathematik", Schriften der Straßburger Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Heidelberg (Berlin & Leipzig) 10: 19-66, 1929
4. ^ Fatio de Duillier, N. (1743), De la Cause de la Pesanteur, in Gagnebin, Bernard, "De la Cause de la Pesanteur: Mémoire de Nicolas Fatio de Duillier", Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 6: 125-160, 1949
5. ^ Zehe (1980), secondary sources
6. ^ Cramer, G. (1731), Theses Physico-Mathematicae de Gravitate (Dissertation), Geneva
7. ^ Redeker, F. A. (1736), "De cause gravitatis meditatio", Lemgoviae ex officina Meyeriana
8. ^ "Letter à une académicien de Dijon...", Mercure de France: 153-171, 1756
9. ^ Le Sage, G.-L. (1761), Essai de Chymie Méchanique, Not published - private print, <[1]
10. ^ Le Sage, G.-L. (1784), "Lucrèce Newtonien", Memoires de l’Academie Royale des Sciences et Belles Lettres de Berlin: 404-432, <[2] An English translation appears in Le Sage, G.-L. (1898), , in Langley, Samuel P., "The Le Sage theory of gravitation", Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution: 139-160, June 30, 1898
11. ^ Le Sage, G.-L. (1818), "Physique Mécanique des Georges-Louis Le Sage", in Prévost, Pierre, Deux Traites de Physique Mécanique, Geneva & Paris: J.J. Paschoud, pp. 1-186
12. ^ Wolf (1852), secondary sources
13. ^ Evanes (2002), secondary sources
14. ^ Playfair (1807), secondary sources
15. ^ Lichtenberg, G. C. (2003), Zehe, H. & Hinrichs, W., ed., "Aufzeichnungen über die Theorie der Schwere von G.L. Le Sage", Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, II. mathematisch-physikalische Klasse (no. 1)
16. ^ Lichtenberg, in German: "Ist es ein Traum, so ist es der größte und erhabenste der je ist geträumt worden, und womit wir eine Lücke in unseren Büchern ausfüllen können, die nur durch einen Traum ausgefüllt werden kann".
17. ^ Kant, I. (1786), Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft, pp. Dynamik, Lehrsatz 5, <[3]
18. ^ Schelling, F.W.J. (1797), Ideen zu einer Philosophie der Natur (2. book, 3. chapter), <[4]
19. ^ Laplace, P.-S. (1805/1966), A Treatise in Celestial Mechanics, vol. 4, Book 10, Chapter 7, Chelsea - New York, 1966
20. ^ Leray, P. (1869), "Theorie nouvelle de la gravitation", Comptes Rendus 69: 615-621, <[5]
21. ^ Thomson, William (Lord Kelvin) (1873), "On the ultramundane corpuscles of Le Sage", Phil. Mag. 45: 321-332, <[6]
22. ^ Tait, P. G. (1876), Lectures on some recent advances in physical science with a special lecture on force, London: Macmillan and Co., <[7]
23. ^ Kelvin, Popular Lectures, vol. i. p. 145.
24. ^ Preston, S. T. (1877), "On some dynamical conditions applicable to LeSage’s theory of gravitation", Phil. Mag., fifth ser. 4: 206-213 (pt. 1) and 364-375 (pt. 2)
25. ^ Drude (1897), secondary sources
26. ^ Maxwell, J. C. (1875), "Atom", in none, Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 3 (9th ed.), pp. 38-47
27. ^ Aronson (1960), secondary sources
28. ^ Isenkrahe, C. (1879), Das Räthsel von der Schwerkraft: Kritik der bisherigen Lösungen des Gravitationsproblems und Versuch einer neuen auf rein mechanischer Grundlage, Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn
29. ^ Rysanek, A. (1887), Repert. Exp. Phys. 24: 90-115
30. ^ Bock, A. M. (1891), Die Theorie der Gravitation von Isenkrahe in ihrer Anwendung auf die Anziehung und Bewegung der Himmelskörper (Dissertation), Munich
31. ^ du Bois-Reymond, P. D. G. (1888), "Ueber die Unbegreiflichkeit der Fernkraft", Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau 3 (14): 169-176, <[8]
32. ^ Keller, F.A.E & Keller, Ém. (1863), "Mémoire sur la cause de la pesanteur et des effets attribués à l'attraction universelle", Comptes Rendus 56: 530-533, <[9]
33. ^ de Boisbaudran, L. (1869), "Note sur la théorie de la pesanteur", Comptes Rendus 69: 703-705, <[10]
34. ^ Lorentz, H. A. (1900), "Considerations on Gravitation", Proc. Acad. Amsterdam 2: 559-574, <[11]
35. ^ Lorentz, H. A. (1922, English translation: 1927), Lectures On Theoretical Physics, London: Macmillan And Company Limited, <[12]
36. ^ Thomson, J. J. (1904), Electricity and matter, Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co., Ltd., <[13]
37. ^ Thomson, J. J. (1911), , Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition: 891-895
38. ^ Tommasina, T. (1928), La Physique de la Gravitation, Paris: Gauthier-Villars
39. ^ Brush, C. F. (1911), "A kinetic theory of gravitation", Nature 86: 130-132
40. ^ Darwin, G. H. (1905), "The analogy between Lesage’s theory of gravitation and the repulsion of light", Proc. Royal Soc. 76: 387-410, <[14]
41. ^ Darwin, G. H. (1916), Introduction to Dynamical Astronomy
42. ^ Poincaré, H. (1908), "La dynamique de l'électron", Revue générale des sciences pures et appliquées 19: 386-402, <[15] An English translation appears in: Poincaré, H. (2003), Science and Methode, Courier Dover Publications Science, ISBN 0486432696
43. ^ Corry (1999), secondary sources
44. ^ Feynman, R. P. (1967), The Character of Physical Law, The 1964 Messenger Lectures, pp. 37-39, ISBN 0-262-56003-8
45. ^ Feynman, R. P. (1995), Feynman Lectures on Gravitation, Addison-Wesley, pp. 23-28
46. ^ Bertolami, O. & Paramos, J. & Turyshev, S. G. (2006), General Theory of Relativity: Will it survive the next decade?, in H. Dittus, C. Laemmerzahl, S. Turyshev, Lasers, Clocks, and Drag-Free: Technologies for Future Exploration in Space and Tests of Gravity: 27-67
47. ^ Martin (1999), secondary sources
48. ^ Martins (2002), secondary sources
49. ^ Borzeskkowski et al. (2004), secondary sources
50. ^ Carlip, S. (1999), "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity", Pys. Lett. A 167: 81-87, <[16]
51. ^ Scalera, G. and Jacob, K.-H., ed. (2003), Why expanding Earth? – A book in honour of O.C. Hilgenberg, Rome: INGV
52. ^ Carlip, S. (1997), "Kinetic Energy and the Equivalence Principle", Am. J. Phys. 65: 409-413, <[17]
53. ^ Spitzer, L. (1941). "The dynamics of the interstellar medium; II. Radiation pressure". The Astrophysical Journal 94: 232-244.
54. ^ Gamow, George (1949). "On relativistic cosmogony". Reviews of modern physics 21: 367-373.
55. ^ Field, G. B. (1971). "Instability and waves driven by radiation in interstellar space and in cosmological models". The Astrophysical Journal 165: 29-40.
56. ^ Hogan, C.J. (1989). "Mock gravity and cosmic structure". The Astrophysical Journal 340: 1-10.
57. ^ Wang, B. and Field, G.B. (1989). "Galaxy formation by mock gravity with dust?". The Astrophysical Journal 346: 3-11.
58. ^ Ignatov, A.M. (1996). "Lesage gravity in dusty plasma". Plasma Physics Reports 22 (7): 585-589.
59. ^ Radzievskii, V.V. and Kagalnikova, I.I. (1960), "The nature of gravitation", Vsesoyuz. Astronom.-Geodezich. Obsch. Byull. 26 (33): 3-14 A rough English translation appeared in a U.S. government technical report: FTD TT64 323; TT 64 11801 (1964), Foreign Tech. Div., Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio (reprinted in Pushing Gravity)
60. ^ Shneiderov, A. J. (1961), "On the internal temperature of the earth", Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 3: 137-159
61. ^ Buonomano, V. & Engel, E. (1976), "Some speculations on a causal unification of relativity, gravitation, and quantum mechanics", Int. J. Theor. Phys. 15: 231-246
62. ^ Adamut, I. A. (1982), "The screen effect of the earth in the TETG. Theory of a screening experiment of a sample body at the equator using the earth as a screen", Nuovo Cimento C 5: 189-208
63. ^ Jaakkola, T. (1996), "Action-at-a-distance and local action in gravitation: discussion and possible solution of the dilemma", Apeiron 3 (3-4): 61-75, <[18]
64. ^ Van Flandern, T. (1999), Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets (2 ed.), Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, pp. Chapters 2-4
65. ^ Edwards, M .R. (2007), "Photon-Graviton Recycling as Cause of Gravitation", Apeiron 14 (3): 214-233, <[19]
66. ^ Edwards, M. R., ed. (2002), Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation, Montreal: C. Roy Keys Inc.
2. ^ See secondary sources, Prévost (1805)
3. ^ Fatio de Duillier, N. (1701), Die wiederaufgefundene Abhandlung von Fatio de Duillier: De la cause de la Pesanteur, in Bopp, Karl, "Drei Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Mathematik", Schriften der Straßburger Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Heidelberg (Berlin & Leipzig) 10: 19-66, 1929
4. ^ Fatio de Duillier, N. (1743), De la Cause de la Pesanteur, in Gagnebin, Bernard, "De la Cause de la Pesanteur: Mémoire de Nicolas Fatio de Duillier", Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 6: 125-160, 1949
5. ^ Zehe (1980), secondary sources
6. ^ Cramer, G. (1731), Theses Physico-Mathematicae de Gravitate (Dissertation), Geneva
7. ^ Redeker, F. A. (1736), "De cause gravitatis meditatio", Lemgoviae ex officina Meyeriana
8. ^ "Letter à une académicien de Dijon...", Mercure de France: 153-171, 1756
9. ^ Le Sage, G.-L. (1761), Essai de Chymie Méchanique, Not published - private print, <[1]
10. ^ Le Sage, G.-L. (1784), "Lucrèce Newtonien", Memoires de l’Academie Royale des Sciences et Belles Lettres de Berlin: 404-432, <[2] An English translation appears in Le Sage, G.-L. (1898), , in Langley, Samuel P., "The Le Sage theory of gravitation", Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution: 139-160, June 30, 1898
11. ^ Le Sage, G.-L. (1818), "Physique Mécanique des Georges-Louis Le Sage", in Prévost, Pierre, Deux Traites de Physique Mécanique, Geneva & Paris: J.J. Paschoud, pp. 1-186
12. ^ Wolf (1852), secondary sources
13. ^ Evanes (2002), secondary sources
14. ^ Playfair (1807), secondary sources
15. ^ Lichtenberg, G. C. (2003), Zehe, H. & Hinrichs, W., ed., "Aufzeichnungen über die Theorie der Schwere von G.L. Le Sage", Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, II. mathematisch-physikalische Klasse (no. 1)
16. ^ Lichtenberg, in German: "Ist es ein Traum, so ist es der größte und erhabenste der je ist geträumt worden, und womit wir eine Lücke in unseren Büchern ausfüllen können, die nur durch einen Traum ausgefüllt werden kann".
17. ^ Kant, I. (1786), Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft, pp. Dynamik, Lehrsatz 5, <[3]
18. ^ Schelling, F.W.J. (1797), Ideen zu einer Philosophie der Natur (2. book, 3. chapter), <[4]
19. ^ Laplace, P.-S. (1805/1966), A Treatise in Celestial Mechanics, vol. 4, Book 10, Chapter 7, Chelsea - New York, 1966
20. ^ Leray, P. (1869), "Theorie nouvelle de la gravitation", Comptes Rendus 69: 615-621, <[5]
21. ^ Thomson, William (Lord Kelvin) (1873), "On the ultramundane corpuscles of Le Sage", Phil. Mag. 45: 321-332, <[6]
22. ^ Tait, P. G. (1876), Lectures on some recent advances in physical science with a special lecture on force, London: Macmillan and Co., <[7]
23. ^ Kelvin, Popular Lectures, vol. i. p. 145.
24. ^ Preston, S. T. (1877), "On some dynamical conditions applicable to LeSage’s theory of gravitation", Phil. Mag., fifth ser. 4: 206-213 (pt. 1) and 364-375 (pt. 2)
25. ^ Drude (1897), secondary sources
26. ^ Maxwell, J. C. (1875), "Atom", in none, Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 3 (9th ed.), pp. 38-47
27. ^ Aronson (1960), secondary sources
28. ^ Isenkrahe, C. (1879), Das Räthsel von der Schwerkraft: Kritik der bisherigen Lösungen des Gravitationsproblems und Versuch einer neuen auf rein mechanischer Grundlage, Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn
29. ^ Rysanek, A. (1887), Repert. Exp. Phys. 24: 90-115
30. ^ Bock, A. M. (1891), Die Theorie der Gravitation von Isenkrahe in ihrer Anwendung auf die Anziehung und Bewegung der Himmelskörper (Dissertation), Munich
31. ^ du Bois-Reymond, P. D. G. (1888), "Ueber die Unbegreiflichkeit der Fernkraft", Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau 3 (14): 169-176, <[8]
32. ^ Keller, F.A.E & Keller, Ém. (1863), "Mémoire sur la cause de la pesanteur et des effets attribués à l'attraction universelle", Comptes Rendus 56: 530-533, <[9]
33. ^ de Boisbaudran, L. (1869), "Note sur la théorie de la pesanteur", Comptes Rendus 69: 703-705, <[10]
34. ^ Lorentz, H. A. (1900), "Considerations on Gravitation", Proc. Acad. Amsterdam 2: 559-574, <[11]
35. ^ Lorentz, H. A. (1922, English translation: 1927), Lectures On Theoretical Physics, London: Macmillan And Company Limited, <[12]
36. ^ Thomson, J. J. (1904), Electricity and matter, Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co., Ltd., <[13]
37. ^ Thomson, J. J. (1911), , Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition: 891-895
38. ^ Tommasina, T. (1928), La Physique de la Gravitation, Paris: Gauthier-Villars
39. ^ Brush, C. F. (1911), "A kinetic theory of gravitation", Nature 86: 130-132
40. ^ Darwin, G. H. (1905), "The analogy between Lesage’s theory of gravitation and the repulsion of light", Proc. Royal Soc. 76: 387-410, <[14]
41. ^ Darwin, G. H. (1916), Introduction to Dynamical Astronomy
42. ^ Poincaré, H. (1908), "La dynamique de l'électron", Revue générale des sciences pures et appliquées 19: 386-402, <[15] An English translation appears in: Poincaré, H. (2003), Science and Methode, Courier Dover Publications Science, ISBN 0486432696
43. ^ Corry (1999), secondary sources
44. ^ Feynman, R. P. (1967), The Character of Physical Law, The 1964 Messenger Lectures, pp. 37-39, ISBN 0-262-56003-8
45. ^ Feynman, R. P. (1995), Feynman Lectures on Gravitation, Addison-Wesley, pp. 23-28
46. ^ Bertolami, O. & Paramos, J. & Turyshev, S. G. (2006), General Theory of Relativity: Will it survive the next decade?, in H. Dittus, C. Laemmerzahl, S. Turyshev, Lasers, Clocks, and Drag-Free: Technologies for Future Exploration in Space and Tests of Gravity: 27-67
47. ^ Martin (1999), secondary sources
48. ^ Martins (2002), secondary sources
49. ^ Borzeskkowski et al. (2004), secondary sources
50. ^ Carlip, S. (1999), "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity", Pys. Lett. A 167: 81-87, <[16]
51. ^ Scalera, G. and Jacob, K.-H., ed. (2003), Why expanding Earth? – A book in honour of O.C. Hilgenberg, Rome: INGV
52. ^ Carlip, S. (1997), "Kinetic Energy and the Equivalence Principle", Am. J. Phys. 65: 409-413, <[17]
53. ^ Spitzer, L. (1941). "The dynamics of the interstellar medium; II. Radiation pressure". The Astrophysical Journal 94: 232-244.
54. ^ Gamow, George (1949). "On relativistic cosmogony". Reviews of modern physics 21: 367-373.
55. ^ Field, G. B. (1971). "Instability and waves driven by radiation in interstellar space and in cosmological models". The Astrophysical Journal 165: 29-40.
56. ^ Hogan, C.J. (1989). "Mock gravity and cosmic structure". The Astrophysical Journal 340: 1-10.
57. ^ Wang, B. and Field, G.B. (1989). "Galaxy formation by mock gravity with dust?". The Astrophysical Journal 346: 3-11.
58. ^ Ignatov, A.M. (1996). "Lesage gravity in dusty plasma". Plasma Physics Reports 22 (7): 585-589.
59. ^ Radzievskii, V.V. and Kagalnikova, I.I. (1960), "The nature of gravitation", Vsesoyuz. Astronom.-Geodezich. Obsch. Byull. 26 (33): 3-14 A rough English translation appeared in a U.S. government technical report: FTD TT64 323; TT 64 11801 (1964), Foreign Tech. Div., Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio (reprinted in Pushing Gravity)
60. ^ Shneiderov, A. J. (1961), "On the internal temperature of the earth", Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 3: 137-159
61. ^ Buonomano, V. & Engel, E. (1976), "Some speculations on a causal unification of relativity, gravitation, and quantum mechanics", Int. J. Theor. Phys. 15: 231-246
62. ^ Adamut, I. A. (1982), "The screen effect of the earth in the TETG. Theory of a screening experiment of a sample body at the equator using the earth as a screen", Nuovo Cimento C 5: 189-208
63. ^ Jaakkola, T. (1996), "Action-at-a-distance and local action in gravitation: discussion and possible solution of the dilemma", Apeiron 3 (3-4): 61-75, <[18]
64. ^ Van Flandern, T. (1999), Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets (2 ed.), Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, pp. Chapters 2-4
65. ^ Edwards, M .R. (2007), "Photon-Graviton Recycling as Cause of Gravitation", Apeiron 14 (3): 214-233, <[19]
66. ^ Edwards, M. R., ed. (2002), Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation, Montreal: C. Roy Keys Inc.
Secondary sources
-
id="CITEREFAronson, S.1964">Aronson, S. (1964), "The gravitational theory of Georges-Louis Le Sage", The Natural Philosopher 3: 51-74, <[20]
-
id="CITEREFZehe, H.1980">Zehe, H. (1980), Die Gravitationstheorie des Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, ISBN 3-8067-0862-2
-
id="CITEREFBellone, E.1991">Bellone, E. (1991), "Classic and non-intentional consequences of some newtonian problems", Mem. Società Astronomica Italiana 62 (3): 477-485, <[21]
-
id="CITEREFBorzeszkowski, H.-H., Chrobok, T., Treder, H.-J.2004">Borzeszkowski, H.-H., Chrobok, T., Treder, H.-J. (2004), Screening and absorption of gravitation in pre-relativistic and relativistic theories, in G. T. Gillies, V. N. Melnikov and V. de Sabbata, Proceedings of the 18th Course of the School on Cosmology and Gravitation: 1-37
-
id="CITEREFChabot, H.2004">Chabot, H. (2004), "Nombre et approximations dans la théorie de la gravitation de Lesage", Actes des Journées de Peirescq "La pensée numérique", Sciences et Techniques en Perspective, 2ème série 8: 179-198, <[22]
-
id="CITEREFCorry, L.1999">Corry, L. (1999), "David Hilbert between Mechanical and Electromagnetic Reductionism", Archive for History of Exact Sciences 53 (6): 489-527, <[23]
-
id="CITEREFDrude, P.1897">Drude, P. (1897), "Ueber Fernewirkungen", Beilage zu den Annalen der Physik und Chemie 62: I-XLIX
-
id="CITEREFEvans, J. C.2002">Evans, J. C. (2002), "Gravity in the century of light: sources, construction and reception of Le Sage's theory of gravitation", in Edwards, M.R., Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation, Montreal: C. Roy Keys Inc., pp. 9-40
-
id="CITEREFMartins, de Andrade, R.1999">Martins, de Andrade, R. (1999), "The search for gravitational absorption in the early 20th century", in Goemmer, H., Renn, J., and Ritter, J., The Expanding Worlds of General Relativity (Einstein Studies), vol. 7, Boston: Birkhäuser, pp. 3-44
-
id="CITEREFMartins, de Andrade, R.2002">Martins, de Andrade, R. (2002), "Gravitational absorption according to the hypotheses of Le Sage and Majorana", in Edwards, M.R., Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation, Montreal: C. Roy Keys Inc., pp. 239-258, <[24]
-
id="CITEREFPlayfair, J.1807">Playfair, J. (1807), "", Edinburgh Review: 137-153, < English summary of Prévost (1805).
-
id="CITEREFPrévost, P.1805">Prévost, P., ed. (1805), Notice de la Vie et des Ecrits de George Louis Le Sage, Geneva & Paris: J.J. Paschoud, <[26]
-
id="CITEREFRowlinson, J. S.2003">Rowlinson, J. S. (2003), "Le Sage's Essai de Chymie Méchanique", Notes Rec. R. Soc. London 57: 35-45, <[27]
-
id="CITEREFTaylor, W. B.1876">Taylor, W. B. (1876), "Kinetic Theories of Gravitation", Annual report of the Smithsonian institution 31: 205-282
-
id="CITEREFWolf, R.1862">Wolf, R. (1862), "George-Louis Le Sage", Biographien zur Kulturgeschichte der Schweiz 4: 173-192, <[28]
- id="CITEREFZenneck, J.1903">Zenneck, J. (1903), "Gravitation", Encyklopädie der mathematischen Wissenschaften mit Einschluss ihrer Anwendungen (Leipzig) 5 (1): 25-67, <[29]
-
id="CITEREFWolf, R.1862">Wolf, R. (1862), "George-Louis Le Sage", Biographien zur Kulturgeschichte der Schweiz 4: 173-192, <[28]
-
id="CITEREFTaylor, W. B.1876">Taylor, W. B. (1876), "Kinetic Theories of Gravitation", Annual report of the Smithsonian institution 31: 205-282
-
id="CITEREFRowlinson, J. S.2003">Rowlinson, J. S. (2003), "Le Sage's Essai de Chymie Méchanique", Notes Rec. R. Soc. London 57: 35-45, <[27]
-
id="CITEREFPrévost, P.1805">Prévost, P., ed. (1805), Notice de la Vie et des Ecrits de George Louis Le Sage, Geneva & Paris: J.J. Paschoud, <[26]
-
id="CITEREFPlayfair, J.1807">Playfair, J. (1807), "", Edinburgh Review: 137-153, < English summary of Prévost (1805).
-
id="CITEREFMartins, de Andrade, R.2002">Martins, de Andrade, R. (2002), "Gravitational absorption according to the hypotheses of Le Sage and Majorana", in Edwards, M.R., Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation, Montreal: C. Roy Keys Inc., pp. 239-258, <[24]
-
id="CITEREFMartins, de Andrade, R.1999">Martins, de Andrade, R. (1999), "The search for gravitational absorption in the early 20th century", in Goemmer, H., Renn, J., and Ritter, J., The Expanding Worlds of General Relativity (Einstein Studies), vol. 7, Boston: Birkhäuser, pp. 3-44
-
id="CITEREFEvans, J. C.2002">Evans, J. C. (2002), "Gravity in the century of light: sources, construction and reception of Le Sage's theory of gravitation", in Edwards, M.R., Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation, Montreal: C. Roy Keys Inc., pp. 9-40
-
id="CITEREFDrude, P.1897">Drude, P. (1897), "Ueber Fernewirkungen", Beilage zu den Annalen der Physik und Chemie 62: I-XLIX
-
id="CITEREFCorry, L.1999">Corry, L. (1999), "David Hilbert between Mechanical and Electromagnetic Reductionism", Archive for History of Exact Sciences 53 (6): 489-527, <[23]
-
id="CITEREFChabot, H.2004">Chabot, H. (2004), "Nombre et approximations dans la théorie de la gravitation de Lesage", Actes des Journées de Peirescq "La pensée numérique", Sciences et Techniques en Perspective, 2ème série 8: 179-198, <[22]
-
id="CITEREFBorzeszkowski, H.-H., Chrobok, T., Treder, H.-J.2004">Borzeszkowski, H.-H., Chrobok, T., Treder, H.-J. (2004), Screening and absorption of gravitation in pre-relativistic and relativistic theories, in G. T. Gillies, V. N. Melnikov and V. de Sabbata, Proceedings of the 18th Course of the School on Cosmology and Gravitation: 1-37
-
id="CITEREFBellone, E.1991">Bellone, E. (1991), "Classic and non-intentional consequences of some newtonian problems", Mem. Società Astronomica Italiana 62 (3): 477-485, <[21]
-
id="CITEREFZehe, H.1980">Zehe, H. (1980), Die Gravitationstheorie des Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, ISBN 3-8067-0862-2
External links
- Mathpages: LeSage's Shadows, Omni-Directional Flux, Kinetic Pressure and Tetrode’s Star, Nicolas Fatio and the Cause of Gravity, Fatio, Le Sage and the camisards, Historical Assessments of the Fatio-Lesage Theory
- Non-mainstream
- Halton Arp: The Observational Impetus for Le Sage Gravity
- Auffray, J.-P.: Preston on E=mc² and Dual origin of E=mc²
- Borg Xavier : Electromagnetic radiation pressure (EMRP) gravity theory - Blaze Labs Research
- Buonomano, V.: Co-Operative Phenomena as a Physical Paradigm for Special Relativity, Gravitation and Quantum Mechanics
- Edwards, et al.: Pushing Gravity
- Mingst, B. & Stowe, P.: Derivation of Newtonian Gravitation from LeSage's Attenuation
- Popescu, I.I.: Ether and Etherons
- Tom Van Flandern: Possible new properties of gravity
See also
Theories of gravitation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kinetic theory or kinetic theory of gases attempts to explain macroscopic properties of gases, such as pressure, temperature, or volume, by considering their molecular composition and motion.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other. In everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agency that endows objects with weight.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Nicolas Fatio de Duillier (26 February 1664 - 12 May 1753) was a Swiss mathematician known for his work on the zodiacal light problem and his role in the Newton v. Leibniz calculus controversy.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Georges-Louis Le Sage (* June 13, 1724 in Geneva, † November 9 1803 in Geneva) was a physicist and is most known for his theory of gravitation, for his invention of a electric telegraph and his anticipation of the kinetic theory of gases.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Criticism
This theory was declined primarily for thermodynamic reasons because a shadow only appears in this model if the particles or waves are at least partly absorbed, which should lead to an enormous heating of the bodies.
..... Click the link for more information.
This theory was declined primarily for thermodynamic reasons because a shadow only appears in this model if the particles or waves are at least partly absorbed, which should lead to an enormous heating of the bodies.
..... Click the link for more information.
James Clerk Maxwell
James Clerk Maxwell
Born May 13 1831
Edinburgh, Scotland
Died November 5 1879 (aged 48)
..... Click the link for more information.
James Clerk Maxwell
Born May 13 1831
Edinburgh, Scotland
Died November 5 1879 (aged 48)
..... Click the link for more information.
Henri Poincaré
Henri Poincaré, photograph from the frontispiece of the 1913 edition of "Last Thoughts"
Born March 29 1854
..... Click the link for more information.
Henri Poincaré, photograph from the frontispiece of the 1913 edition of "Last Thoughts"
Born March 29 1854
..... Click the link for more information.
In physics, force is an action or agency that causes a body of mass m to accelerate. It may be experienced as a lift, a push, or a pull. The acceleration of the body is proportional to the vector sum of all forces acting on it (known as net force or resultant force).
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
wave is a mode of energy transfer from one place to another, often with little or no permanent displacement of the particles of the medium (i.e. little or no associated mass transport); instead there are oscillations around almost fixed positions.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
The Universe is defined as the summation of all particles and energy that exist and the space-time in which all events occur. Based on observations of the portion of the Universe that is observable, physicists attempt to describe the whole of space-time, including all matter and
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Pressure (symbol: p) is the force per unit area applied on a surface in a direction perpendicular to that surface.
Gauge pressure is the pressure relative to the local atmospheric or ambient pressure.
..... Click the link for more information.
Gauge pressure is the pressure relative to the local atmospheric or ambient pressure.
..... Click the link for more information.
elastic collision is a collision in which the total kinetic energy of the colliding bodies after collision is equal to their total kinetic energy before collision. Elastic collisions occur only if there is no conversion of kinetic energy into other forms.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Christiaan Huygens
Christiaan Huygens
Born March 14 1629
The Hague, Netherlands
Died July 8 1695 (aged 66)
..... Click the link for more information.
Christiaan Huygens
Born March 14 1629
The Hague, Netherlands
Died July 8 1695 (aged 66)
..... Click the link for more information.
Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge, known simply as The Royal Society, is a learned society for science that was founded in 1660 and claims to be the oldest such society still in existence.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
manuscript is any document that is written by hand, as opposed to being printed or reproduced in some other way. The term may also be used for information that is hand-recorded in other ways than writing, for example inscriptions that are chiselled upon a hard material or scratched
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Titus Lucretius Carus (ca. 99 BC- ca. 55 BC) was a Roman poet and philosopher. His only known work is the epic philosophical poem De Rerum Natura, On the Na