PUSH/PULL theory: A Question of Balance

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
Post Reply
Posts: 6956
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

PUSH/PULL theory: A Question of Balance

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:27 pm


(ADMIN NOTICE - simon: I am not the OP of this thread: I have opened it on request from our member Sharpstuff - see his below "note to admin")

Sharpstuff wrote:Note to admin:

I've got myself a bit lost here what with all that has been happening to me recently.
I wanted to start a new post entitled:

PUSH/PULL theory: A Question of Balance

but am unable to remember how to do it! I wonder if it is possible for you to create this for me in a relevant forum?


PUSH/PULL theory: A Question of Balance (by Sharpstuff)


Note: this is a work in progress.

'Magnetic fields'

Consider two 'regular' magnets. Let us say that they are two disc-type magnets.
According to theory they have a 'North pole' and a 'South pole'. According also to the theory the North pole attracts a South pole (and vice versa). If the North pole of one is put in proximity to another North pole, they push each other away (repel). The opposite is a truth (South-south repel).

Fascinating stuff, one might agree.

My questions would be:
1. At exactly what point, do these two magnets attract or repel?
2. Which comes first, attract or repel (pull or push)?
3. Where does the 'push' or 'pull' come from?

So far as I am able to discover, magnets we regularly see (as opposed to lodestone) come in many forms viz. Bar, circular, bar, and horse-shoe. I have yet to discover a ball magnet.

The experiment of placing a magnet under a sheet of paper and pouring iron-filings over the magnet produces patterns of what is commonly called the 'magnetic field' (whatever that is and whatever that means in tangible terms).

It seems that a ball magnet (sphere) and which apparently the planet Earth is (for example) has two opposing 'poles' (i.e. North and South). My question is: what is the 'magnetic field' of the Earth?

Many years ago, I posed this question to the University of Western Australia Physics Department (where I was living at the time (W.A. not the University)) and they were unable to give me an answer. It has always intrigued me as to why they could not (or would not) answer this question.

I am unable to find spherical magnets anywhere (if they exist at all and I must ask why not?) so I am unable to conduct any experiments as to their 'magnetic field/s' should they exist.

The enigma of spherical 'magnetic fields' , for me, remains.

However, it is sure that something is happening to iron filings (or some-such) but what is it? What does it actually mean in terms we might understand without trying to read reams of non-sensical mathematical symbols that mean nothing to the uninitiated? And why cannot we be initiated into symbols (words or pictures) that we might comprehend?

My own belief (in embryo) is that whether some sort of 'magnetism' or some-such is involved (æther, plasma or the behaviours of such) we must be pulled from a past to a possible future (that which we readily understand as yesterday, today and tomorrow. What impels us from one until the other?

Philosophy should not be denigrated to unusable mathematical symbols.

Whether our personal 'universe' is push/pull or pull/push may be open to question, however, since whatever universe we inhabit must have been before us (since we arise from 'something'), then it is likely that the push/pull notion is more apt.
How that is accomplished can be forever questioned.

However, we appear to be mired in a notion that the Universe-As-We-Perceive-It comprises from 'digital' creations. That is to say that the universe is constructed from some sort of 'particles'.

We might consider what 'particles' are, however. As human creatures, and given our particular propensities, we define these 'particles' as some sort of 'solid' substances (however large or small) as entities in themselves. We are unable (to certain personal extent) to imagine that any 'particle' may be any given 'size' that we can resolve into something we can react to, in an actuality.

For example, a grain of sand may be seen as a small particle but breaking it into smaller pieces does not help us understand the grain of sand that we perceive before us as a grain of sand. The pieces are merely smaller pieces of sand. This does not help us in understanding the whole grain of sand we perceived before its destruction into smaller pieces. Is it not Euclid who apparently noted that the 'whole' is more than the sum of the parts?

We seem to be locked into the notion that all the 'matter' of the universe is some sort of 'solid' object (however small) and its destruction into smaller 'solid' objects must lead us to construct the 'universe'. Thus the notion of 'particles'. That these smaller 'solid' objects may comprise of 'fields', 'forces' or any other amorphous substance belies in itself the nature of the 'particles' thus formed.

It is my thesis that any so-called 'solid' objects are a manifestation from that which we perceive at any given moment and is a product of the æther from which they derive. The 'æther', of course, is not something that we can perceive except through our senses. I do not believe it is describable in 'words' as any object that we can perceive as anything 'solid'.

I might suggest that the 'æther' is yet another convenient term to which we can attach no real meaning or understanding in any tangible form such as 'solid' objects that we can actually perceive with our particular senses. That other flora or fauna might be able to do so, would be complete conjecture.

Thus, it is our 'resolution' of a certain state of the atmosphere (as part of the æther from which it may derive) in our atmosphere and under certain 'conditions' which might resolve itself into a 'fog' or what we call 'rain' depending on our resolution of that æther at any given moment to our continuous movement into a possible future.

The notion, in my view, is important in two major aspects, the so-called 'atomic' or 'particle' theory of the universe and the so-called 'germ' theory of 'disease'. Both are contentious issues given our 'education' into believing these to be 'facts'.

Both (in my view at least) are tantamount to the demise of the human creature in many ways, not to be explored in this essay.

Both notions are spurious because we do not perceive anything except through what senses are available to us at any given continuous progress of an instant (which is indefinable, since it is a quality of 'time'). Our personal universe is a continuous perception. of one 'event' followed by another, continuously.

One might be reminded that 'life' as we personally know it, is an iterative process that is both continuous and infinite until we are no longer able to perceive it.
Iteration is defined: the process of doing something again and again, usually to improve it, or one of the times you do it. However, it is more than that. It is the process by which everything in the universe is constructed since it is the process of one thing and repeating it forever (infinitely) into something else. Hence CHAOS Theory and what are called Strange Attractors (which I cannot explain here).

Iteration is continuous in the respect that if we awake from sleep tomorrow we continue existence until such time as it may be terminated (at any time) for any one reason or another.

Reducing our personal universe (with whatever senses we possess as individuals) to a set of digits (ON/OFF) makes no sense at all, however quickly we process those digits to produce a moving picture (our existence). There must always be a movement from off to on and vice versa in an analogue realm. Since where is the exact point when 'On' is 'Off' and vice versa?

It is the 'step' from one until the other, however small, that is the progress of movement. The 'movement' is the dynamic of the universe.

It is this concept of the persistence of movement from 'off' to 'on' that is the crux of the pull/push or push/pull theory that I wish to explore.

Our personal universe is not a projected film of individual (static) frames created into a movie as variable frames per second (or whatever) but is a continuous motion, unbounded and therefore uninterrupted.

A 'universe' (the totality of our perceptions) is a personal experience of infinite 'matter' (something, we might perceive with whatever faculties we have at any given 'time'). 'Time' itself is, I believe is a perception of movement.


What was I a second ago?
That which I am now?

What will I be
In a second from now?
Surely not that which I am now.
Peter K. Sharpen

We might talk of the 'persistence of vision' that which allows us to view frames of a motion picture (24 'frames per second', for example) into a coherent/complete movement with which we, as humans, for example, are familiar. I firmly believe that this 'persistence' can be applied to all of our senses. Why not? Maybe other animals experience differing 'persistencies', of which I am sure.

Whatever our concept of a 'universe' (the whole of any apparent structure we are able to conceive) it is a continuum (or analogue) of events to which we are able to react. Our reaction is our motion from one place to another continuously in a direction which we call 'forwards'. It might be said that we are 'pulled' from a previous event to a future event.

However, I believe that we may be 'pushed' (in some way) from past to present and future states. This we might call 'life' or a progress to something in a future (of which we can have little or no knowledge) since we are not yet 'there'. The future is never with us, we can only move towards it.

Whatever our personal construct of a 'universe' is, it must be continuous; it cannot be constructed of individual 'particles' (or 'bits' of non quantifiable anything), since there must be a continuum from one 'particle' to another (in some way). Our thoughts flow from one to another, as one might perceive.

Let us take an example of the æther in which we apparently exist. We might conceive this as the 'atmosphere' which extends in all directions but only part of which is conducive to our ability to exist within it.

A 'radio' is a tool created to 'tune into' a particular 'wave-length' of the æther which surrounds us in all dimensions, continuously and infinitely from and to (or indeed to and from).

To 'tune in' to a particular 'wave-length' one might move an analogue 'dial' to find a particular wave-length and receive the 'signal' to which we wish to listen. Anything outside that particular 'wave-length' will (in simple) not be 'connected'.
We may conceive that we have a 'digital' dial/radio but it remains only that the 'steps' are smaller on an analogue plane.

The creature 'Man' has the ability, (via his tool-making abilities (and amongst others), to be able to 'home-in' on particular frequencies for this purpose and is often successful. Take for example a 'radio'.

As an aside, I might mention the notion that 'love at first sight' may be an example of this. I believe we 'give out' certain 'biological' frequencies (or whatever) that others are able to locate and 'home' into. Thus do relationships exist between all flora and fauna in some way. They may, of course, work in two or more directions, either pull/push or push/pull or anything else.

The better the 'homing-in' capabilities of his tools, the more 'radio stations' (for example), he might receive via his auditory perceptions.

This notion also works in the 'homing-out' by 'sending waves' since of course, one needs to send out (push) before a receiver can 'pull'.

Human animals, having acquired (by whatever means) their ability to turn a means of communication (language/s, which include verbal, aural and gesticulations (and others which are less tangible)) have devised what we call 'nouns'. Nouns are names of 'things'.

This 'nounification' (as I call it) is useful, so long as it is understood by those who can recognise the object to which the noun refers.

It is all a question of semantics.

Nouns (names of 'things') are only useful when they are interpreted by the receiver of the perceptions by whatever means are available to them. Thus a simple 'table' will be interpreted by the sensual apparatus of the receiver of the perception of 'table' using the senses available to the receiver (at any given time, place etc.).

Thus, any event (as in an actual happening to which we may respond in our own individual way), one is limited to the senses available at any one particular time or place.

In short, naming something does not make it 'real' to the observer except depending on the senses available at a particular time or place.

If we are intent on a 'digitised universe' we have destroyed the notion that the 'universe' is continuous, that is, without 'beginning' or 'end'.

A 'digitised universe' is created from the invention of 'atoms' (constantly being particularised into smaller and smaller dimensions to engineer a view of the 'universe'). (This same notion is also related to a so-called 'germ' theory of 'dis-eases'). That is, particular 'objects' have particular 'objectives'.

If we consider that our 'particular' (i.e. personal) 'universe' is continuous, there cannot be any 'particles' (of any size) that do not have a connection with other 'particles' in some way.

Everything is connected in some way to everything else.

I state this categorically.

Whatever, our 'universe' is (personal or otherwise), it is not a moving picture of separate frames (digits) but a continuity of manifestations according to our individual proclivities of discernment and according to our sensual apparatuses at a particular time and place.


We are familiar with the notion of what we call 'gravity'. This is to all intents and purposes, a 'pulling'. Given the notion that their is a 'push', we may conjecture that there is a point at which there is some sort of 'buoyancy'; what I might call a question of balance. Since there is always 'movement' in the Universe this constant movement (oscillation?) between push and pull is what we conceive as Nature and our means of existence within it.

How do/can we know that perhaps things are 'pushed' and not 'pulled'?

Nick Java
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:18 am

Re: PUSH/PULL theory: A Question of Balance

Unread post by Nick Java » Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:42 pm

I am unable to find spherical magnets anywhere
Try searching Amazon, or any toy store, for "buckyballs".

Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:17 pm

Re: PUSH/PULL theory: A Question of Balance

Unread post by michiganj » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:36 am

Dear Sharpstuff, here is a video you might be interested in regarding magnetism.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRDKOcfrI-Y

I'm afraid it doesn't help to answer your questions-
My questions would be:
1. At exactly what point, do these two magnets attract or repel?
2. Which comes first, attract or repel (pull or push)?
3. Where does the 'push' or 'pull' come from?
but I found it interesting nonetheless.


Post Reply