celeste wrote:A little more here:

You may be familiar with early ideas on “ pushing gravity”. The idea of these LeSage type gravity models did not address this point: What caused the small scale particles themselves to be “slamming into” matter in order to push it together?

Gravitation as emission is the only complement to “Pushing gravity”. This perspective is from ‘relativity of forces’. Not ‘relativity of forces’ from today’s approach using grandiose mathematical formalisms; but ‘relative’ in terms of its actual practical understanding which means ‘to compare’, ‘in comparison to’, or ‘from the perspective of’.

Such that: depending on one’s relative point of view, and for the sake of comparison, gravity, when considered as an emanation - would then bear that relationship of being “small scale particles slamming into something” and thereby “pushing’ that something along. For example, in reference to the gravitational relationship between the Sun and Earth this approach was also analogously used by Wilhelm Reich wherein the Earth were like ‘a ball rolling on water waves more slowly than the waves’.

Gravitational energy possessing emission-absorption qualities between objects would be the impetus behind “pushing gravity”. How else can it occur? That perspective makes for interesting point of view considering other thoughts expressing the “speed of gravity” as being far in excess of that of light. This is also the point of view that I take i.e. gravity as ‘substantive’ emanation-absorption phenomena; although I do not use the “pushing” term. It is more so that all gravitating bodies constitute an intervening “resistance” to the superluminal flow of the gravitating emissions via (what might be called) their unique ‘rate of absorption’. Such as with:

We propose a modified Weber's potential for gravitation that takes into account the influence of intervening matter. Then we obtain equations of motion similar to Newton's first and second laws, and derive the proportionality between inertial and gravitational masses. We conclude that the gravitational absorption coefficient should be proportional to the square root of the density of the intervening medium, and that for solids its value is approximately 10-11 m-1 . All of this is accomplished supposing a limitless, homogeneous and stationary universe. – On the Absorption of Gravity: A.K.T Assis

Then Shift: the principle, or concept, and one finds this expression through the work of say; Reginald Cahill with “3-Space Inflow Theory of Gravity” such that… gravity is assessed as an actual three-dimensional ‘substantive’ quality that may be absorbed.

Then Shift again: the principle, or concept and one finds the same expression through those works having to do with gravity as a kind of Cosmological “Superfluid” that may be absorbed.

Therefore, one does not find “turtles all the way down” but one does find cycles, or circulating (!) gravitational emission-absorption resonant relationships such that the gravitational circulation of the electron(s) gives way to the gravitational circulations of the atom(s), which then gives way to the gravitational circulations of the molecule etc. And yet, they each remain inextricably integrated to their Cosmic Gravitational Circulations as well as to the temporary constructs of "matter" that they compose all at once. There is the individual relationship as well as the group relationships. The work of Ray Tommes comes to mind here.

It is only from the ‘relative position’ (or point of view) that is taken up when trying to compare these qualities that one says “push” or “pull”. The position is only the angle, or point of view, from which the assessment becomes prioritized. It could have been interpreted from the position of the rates of absorption of an ever-present cosmic emanation. Probably best to stop there. Nonetheless, gravitation as ‘substantive’ emission-absorption is also out there as opposed to just the geometry of disembodied forces. There can be no "push" without an emission.