Part - 7: The Illusion of Pull: Why Attraction Was Never a Force

This document serves as a critical preface to the deeper exposition contained in Part 7 of the Graviton Pressure Theory (GPT) framework. It is intended for scientifically curious readers, educators, researchers, and critical thinkers who have long relied on conventional models that invoke "attraction" to explain force-based interactions. This summary outlines why that familiar framing is not only incomplete but fundamentally false, and why the full document must be read by any serious seeker of causal integrity in physics.

​

From the falling apple to the orbiting moon, the idea that gravity "pulls" is one of the most entrenched and intuitive beliefs in all of physics. It echoes across science classrooms, textbooks, and even theoretical models of chemistry, magnetism, and human emotion. But what if this intuitive idea is wrong? Not slightly inaccurate, but causally bankrupt?

​

Part 7: The Illusion of Pull delivers a rigorous and devastating critique of the language and assumptions surrounding the concept of "pulling." It exposes attraction not as a physical force, but as a linguistic artifact: a term of convenience used to obscure the absence of a mechanistic explanation.

​

Graviton Pressure Theory (GPT), developed by Shareef Ali Rashada, challenges this linguistic laziness and philosophical drift by restoring physical causality to the center of the discussion. GPT argues that every force must trace its origin, every motion must account for its energy, and every interaction must name its mediator. The idea that one object can reach across space and pull another toward it is rejected—not out of preference, but because it fails every standard of physical causality.

 

Core Insights from the Full Document:

• Pulling never names the pusher. Attraction describes convergence, not causality. To say "mass attracts mass" is to utter a phrase with no mediating force, energy budget, or field structure.

• Suction is a lie—it's always pressure. Suction feels like pulling, but in reality, it is external pressure moving into a vacuum. This simple analogy reveals how often motion is misinterpreted as pull.

• Every classical "pull" fails the causal audit. Newtonian gravity, Coulomb's law, chemical bonding, and magnetic interaction all rely on implicit pulling mechanisms that do not stand up to physical scrutiny.

• No more metaphors. The term "pull" has been protected by its metaphorical resonance, not its scientific validity. It survives through repetition, not rigor.

• Gravitational movement is always a push. GPT introduces the concept of pressure asymmetry in the graviton field. There is no inward force. Motion arises from external pressure gradients shaped by coherent mass.

• Permission, not compulsion. Objects move not because they are summoned, but because the field allows motion through regions of reduced impedance. Force is not dictation, it is structured allowance.

• The attractor is not an agent. In GPT, the so-called attractor is merely a participant in the field. It shapes graviton flow but does not command motion.

• All force is surface-integrated pressure. GPT formalizes this view through equations that define net force as the directional integration of graviton density and velocity across an object's surface.

• This is not a new metaphor. GPT does not replace one vague idea with another. It replaces metaphor with mechanism. Flow with structure. Mysticism with math.

​

Why You Must Read the Full Paper

This summary is not enough. It merely signals the conceptual revolution at hand. The full document walks the reader step-by-step through:

• The historical development and persistent misuse of the term "attraction"

• The causal requirements that any true pulling force must meet (and fails to)

• The reinterpretation of major scientific domains (gravity, electromagnetism, chemistry, magnetism) through the lens of pressure

• The precise role of coherence and permission in graviton field dynamics

• The rigorous standards of the causal audit, restoring science's responsibility to name its mechanisms

• The final laying down of the word "pull" as obsolete

​

This is not a semantic upgrade. It is a physical correction—a return to causality, accountability, and structural coherence. If you have ever felt that current models give descriptions without cause, math without meaning, or fields without force, Part 7: The Illusion of Pull is your invitation to clarity.

​