It is quite possible to show martu, using simple school-level physics that he can understand, that his model doesn't work. It's not necessary to invoke quantum physics or general relativity (though both are relevant). I'll just answer a couple of points first (else I'll never get round to posting a reply).
I have admitted I had this round the wrong way in a post above– the particles get less dense as you get closer to a mass caused by the particles being pushed out of the way by the mass. Therefore as you get closer to a mass there are fewer particles to obstruct you hence movement is easier and the closer you get to the object the further apart the particles are making travel easier.
In a single stroke you have defeated the purpose of your model – a simple physical picture of the basis of gravity. It's just about possible to conceive of the array of gravitational particles becoming more dense in the region of a mass because its presence has displaced some of them, but how could it possibly cause the array to become
less dense? Or are you suggesting that the mass's effects are greater at a distance?!
Next, exactly how do the gravitational particles affect the motion of objects? Initially you spoke of it as an obstructive effect – your physical picture was that the object has to push the particles aside. As I pointed out, this would mean that gravity, however weak, and
regardless of direction, is always obstructive – everything, everywhere and always, would decelerate, never accelerate.
You then seemed to change the story by implying that objects are accelerated from regions of high particle density to low density (why should they be?). So particle density is inversely correlated with gravitational attraction (how?). Immediately the physical 'explanation' is lost – your gravity is a Newtonian
field, and the particles are an unnecessary addition. Your model is now more complicated than either Newtonian gravity or general relativity (admittedly they don't provide a physical 'mechanism', but neither does your model now).
The gravity particles spring back because, when they move, they are pushed towards other gravity particles which repel them pushing them back. Think of just two particles with a spring between them – it will contract if we move one towards the other but eventually it will be pushed back by the spring. Now make this 3D….
The spring analogy doesn't work for a repulsive force, because (obviously)
springs resist being stretched as well as being compressed. (You might want to ponder this, as it destroys your model at a stroke – at least as a simple picture.) If the force between the gravitational particles is truly repulsive then what would prevent them from continuing to move apart after being 'pushed' by an object? What do you think would cause the further ones (at the edge of the universe?) to bunch up? Is the universe confined in a container? (you are, in effect, introducing this as an arbitrary assumption). Pursuing this thought, how could an array of particles (in an unconfined universe), that experience only a repulsive force between them, remain stable, regardless of the presence of matter?
By the way, if you could rework your model into a 'spring' analogy then you would introduce another serious problem – the particle array would oscillate, which one would expect to cause observable effects on the motion of objects through it.
Coming up – the
really fatal objection to the model:
In order to explain any interaction between particles of matter and the 'gravitational particles' you need to postulate a gravitational force –
the very thing you are trying to explain!
Back to the drawing board!
