The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Nature can't pull

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 490 times Debate No: 85140
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)




Nature can't pull, it can only push. Pulling is an old redundant idea what was devised to describe a horse pulling a buggy. Thus, gravity doesn't pull either, it pushes us down. The concept that the Earth pulling the moon is so ridiculous it makes me wonder how people could be so stupid to accept such a concept for so long.


Despite the large scope of the debate here, I believe that I can debate this matter effectively, so I accept.

My aim for this debate is to prove that while 'nature' exhibits evidence of 'pushing' - it is simply a matter of perspective that leads you to believe that the concept of nature 'pulling', does not exist.

To begin with, I will provide definitions to provide my own perspective on the matter :

Nature : All forces that were not developed, or is outside, Human control. This includes Weather, Animals (Barring Humanity) and cosmic and atomic forces.

Pull/Push : Force exerted upon another source that physically moves the substance, or affects its' trajectory. This can be grouped in both physical (Visible) forces, along with unseen (Invisible) Forces, such as gravity and magnetism
Both forms use the same situational details, just invert the direction.

I will leave the next round for Pro to assert his position, to which I will begin to debate in ernest.

Good Luck to my opponent, I hope we have a great debate, and both gain insight throughout our discussion.
Debate Round No. 1


1. The first point that I wish to make is that the concept of pulling from a large or small distance is illogical. It requires magical forces which defy logic. Whereas, a pushing force is easy to understand and is mechanical in nature. A pulling force requires the use of invisible strings and ropes which connect two objects together. While living creatures may appear to be pulling objects, this is just an illusion. It is really a lack of push (and or a vacuum) that creates a so called 'pull action'.

2. The research of Australian scientist Brian Schmidt into dark energy has confirmed that space pushes on planets and that gravity doesn't pull.

3. What holds matter together? If gravity doesn't hold matter together, then what does?

The answer to this question must be that space is not empty and that it contains particles of aether which are too small to be observed using modern or old technologies. This mysterious substance can be felt constantly and its effects create all the apparent mysterious forces and effects that we may call light, gravity magnetism and electricity.


I think you are correct, to some extent here.

I completely understand your concept here, However my counter claim here is to debunk your standing as well, so from there we can build to a new, shared perspective perhaps.

With regards to the pushing and pulling notion you have raised - This is the part I agree with you. The result that we call 'pulling' is purely subjective - If you were on the opposite side of the object or mass, it would seem more of a 'pushing' motion.
The standing I am debunking now is that if that is the case, then pushing is purely subjective too.

To the object being pushed, it would most certainly feel like you are instead being 'pulled' in one direction at least - which creates the "illusion".

However this is more of a play on words than the actual outcome that we are both able to witness. Our language has signified these results as either "pushing" or "pulling", which is subjective to the viewer (The speaker being the Viewer, this make logical sense for the word to be subjective as well).
If we were to have created a word for "Forces resulting from one object or mass, causing a displacement of a second object or mass", then this discussion would not even be occurring - We would both accept that there are forces exerting upon the others, and that our language has made perfect descriptive sense.

Now if we were to look at this objectively, and to take the veil of specific language away, then it is much easier to explain the causes and effects that are constantly occurring around us.

The Earth that we currently inhabit is spinning - It is a massive mass of molten rock, minerals and a core. The high movement mixed with a combination of mass and spin cause the effect that we have named Gravity to be increased exponentially.
Gravity affects all objects that surround the 'generator' of the gravity, which is why we have perceived notion that the objects are 'pulled' towards the object.

Of course this is subjective, as while the object is being 'pulled' it is still exerting its own gravity - sort of like a tug of war; Every mass that exists possesses and controls its own gravitational field - the only problem is that for us, as humans - our gravitational fields are immediately and severely hampered by our parent gravity field - the Earth - so that causes us to forget that this occurs.

The subject you raise regarding Aether and the Dark energy link you have provided as evidence is doing quite a poor job unfortunately,
In the site provided, there are no claims that Dark matter is real, unless you were to believe that dark matter was real to begin with - Which is a Logical Fallacy. (i.e. Dark matter is everywhere, because Dark matter must be everywhere that we cannot currently see yet - as that is how dark matter works).
The site also lowers their standing in my opinion when they claim that the universe is currently accelerating in its' expansion. Our current technologies have determined that the speed of light is the fastest speed perceivable by us - Please show me how and where they have been able to determine this faster force?
The final point I will raise about the site is that even at the end, the percentages provided of dark matter, it is all what I like to call "Guess-timation" - or "I don't Really know, but it should maybe be in this ball park.... probably".
Are you able to go over your source material regarding dark matter, as the search I have done has not shown me much valid or logically acceptable answers. However I would like to know more about it, so any good site you know, please share with me.

In Summary, I have shown that both sides of the debate have in fact been led on a merry goose chase due to language barriers, and that either a pushing or a pulling motion, is in fact subjective - We have no word for the result that exerted force creates on another object.

I have shown that the source provided by my opponent appears to be unworthy of consideration, due to the lack of factual information - It appears more to be a blog upon personal beliefs than a site which proves anything.

I await the response of my opponent on this one, to see where this debate leads too - However I am greatly enjoying this learning experience - It has already opened my perspective on the matter.

Thank you Pro for creating this opportunity :)
Debate Round No. 2


In order to understand that nature can't pull, one must first understand what the fundamental actions of the universe are. These actions could be described as either push or spin. The push action has its opposite which is a vacuum. Spin has 3 states - These states are left spin, right spin and no spin. No spin could be regarded as a perfect vacuum which all matter rotates around. Matter is falling into the no spin vacuum. (Note - Some people may interpret this as gravity.)
It would be advisable to visit Robert Distinti's website to get a complete understanding of these principles. Robert Distini's ideas may differ from mine, but his concepts are similar to mine in many ways. Once you have understood Robert Distini's ideas, then you may understand that my ideas are a natural progression of his concepts.

The biggest illusion is modern physics, which has created many illogical concepts like pulling gravity, photons, curved space, Big Bang, gravitons, invisible fields, quarks, action at a distance and relativity. The universe isn't that complicated. The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle which has 3 states. Left spin, right spin and no spin.

Nature isn't wasteful. If the universe can operate without pull, it will find a way of doing it.

This is not a game of semantics. When I say that nature can't pull, that means that it really can't pull. Thus, there is no back door methodology or intellectual trickery involved here. In a tug of war, the aether is pushing in from all directions. The side that wins is the side that found the biggest vacuum or lack of push. If the aether stopped pushing, then the universe would explode. That means, that all the matter would convert back into aether. This is what happens at the centre of all galaxies. Thus, you get aether jets which project out at 90 degrees the the galaxies rotation. Note - Magnetism and electricity have the same 90 degree angle relationship. Thus, a galaxy is an atom in a different fractal dimension.


Hmm I can see the logical reasoning behind the spin part you mention - I can see that working.
I too feel that simply because we believe ourselves to be complex, most assume the universe is complex as well - and had already considered the concept that the universe is working on basic, but flawlessly executed functions.

So with regards to Atoms and subatomic particles, I can concede that potentially this is the case. (I have yet to see proven or unproven sources to confirm this as more than a theory)

However this does not definitively prove that nature canot exhibit the signs that we originally perceived as pulling.

In nature, one can experience this almost anywhere - A tiger can pull a carcass up a tree, Puppies playing tug of war (Although this could be construde as a lack of push :P but bracketed part is made in jest)

I understand I have changed Tangent here, however I can see your point regarding atoms and the spin function of these microscopic particles (Without actual proof to make fact) and do not wish to dedicate rounds onto something we both agree could be possible.
I do not concede to your notion of Aether, as you have yet to prove they actually exist, and as such - I cannot argue against that which I do not know - I have tried reading up on all I can - however it will take me more than 3 days to effectively debate this topic.
I will potentially re-address these subjects in the following round, if I am confident with my personal knowledge on the matter - otherwise I am willing to concede by ommision, due to lack of knowledge to prove otherwise (Though my hope is to learn more so all sides can be addressed)

What is your stance on Nature - as described by myself in the first round, As in anything not man made - or controled by Man (effectively in a "Natural state" - ie. Nature). Do you still maintain that The Animal kingdom, or any other 'natural' ecosystem, *cannot* exhibit 'pulling' motions?

I maintain that it can.
Debate Round No. 3


It is up to science to unveil the deceptions of the mind. Primitive people made up all kinds of crazy ideas to explain nature and natural events. These ancient ideas have been moulded and welded into our belief systems and religions. It is considered sacrilegious to question people in religious and scientific authority. Modern science can't easily shake off the past and start fresh. There are thousands of years of misconceptions and primitive thinking which has to be eradicated first. It is a never ending job to fight against ignorance and stupidity. Old concepts must eventually die a slow and painful death over thousands of years. One post on a website isn't going to have much effect on people who have been brainwashed by the system from birth. Human pride will prevent them from accepting new ideas because new ideas are considered a personal attack on that person's integrity. Thus, they will defend these old ideas to death, because the death of an idea can be seen as the equivalent death of the individual. Thus, from a psychoanalytical point of view, the primitive brain (pineal gland), is always trying to defend itself from exposure of its own primitive thought processes.

Pulling action is an illusion. That is my statement. It is logically impossible for one object to pull another object. Note - Pulling muscles are much weaker than pushing muscles. Why? In order to pull - the body must manufacture a vacuum by creating electrical energy. The body uses leverage and a pulley system to amplify the pulling action. The muscles use a sliding filament method of contracting. This process uses calcium and ATP in a circular motion of chemical exchange.

On a sub-atomic level - this could be viewed as a push which creates a stored vacuum which is used at a later date. Note - When you push anything - a vacuum is left behind the object that is pushed. Thus, there is really no pulling involved. There is only push and vacuum.

The pulling action becomes more and more absurd the greater the distance from the object being pulled. The Earth pulling the moon, for example, is a good case study of this stupidity. Pushing is a logical force which requires no magic or invisible ropes for it to work.

I maintain that it can't.


Unsure what that first paragraph is, in relations to this debate - Also I note the Irony pointed that while you made that speech on accepting other stand points, as if to prove it is difficult to show your side of the debate... *directly* after I conceded to your spinning motion theory - To me that entire paragraph is irrelevant, and to be honest - slightly insulting.

You proceed to say that the act of pulling is an illusion - following it specifically saying that muscles that pull are weaker than pushing muscles, (along with why this occurs, and an in depth reasoning as to how it occurs too).
The very fact you referenced muscles specifically designed to pull, kind of proves my point that nature can pull - I can concede that the pulling motion is most definitely weaker than pushing muscles - However the additional difficulty and lack of results from a motion in no way discards the fact it exists.

It is like saying you cannot have a Square wheel, simply because a round wheel works better.

I maintain that Nature can 'pull', however as this debate has raised, it is noticeably weaker than muscles designed to 'push'.
My opponent has actually provided the answer for my next point, WHY this is perceived as a 'pulling' motion - specifically how the body utilises a combination of vacuum and internal muscle 'pulleys'. He originally raised that the motion of 'pulling' is illogical and must be some kind of 'magic' - as if to disparage my standpoint before even addressing it - To which he then proceed to fully explain how this happens, and why it occurs. I see little point to add what he has written, as he has explained it completely.

I do enjoy the fact that this debate has opened my understanding, and has brought about me searching into this spin theory within the galaxy - However since you have actually agreed to my point without prodding - that is "Nature can Pull" - I feel little need to elaborate further.

My investigations into Aether lead me to believe that this is in no fact apart of this debate, except that Aether is simply the substance within the space of substances, in which case it is relevant to every debate ever to be created, and should be re-addressed in each debate in the past, as it affects everything.

I am happy to use this last round if my opponent wishes to divulge further upon this Aether subject, if there is anything else that could be used to support his side of the debate - however I would like to note that it will be the final round, so please provide your response as succinctly as possible.

Thank you - I have truly enjoyed this debate, and I am very impressed with the points you have raised (This is my opinion, Just wanted to let you know :) )
Debate Round No. 4


Akhenaten forfeited this round.


Unsure if the forfeiture is a concession to my points raised - Or if this was simply someone not wanting to put effort into an endeavor they will not 'win' at - So they choose not to do anything at all. I Sincerely hope this is not the case.

As there has been no new points raised in this debate, I maintain my current stance on the subject.

I would like to re-iterate my thanks to my opponent in this debate, I truly do appreciate the insight gained on this matter, The perception of Pulling and pushing had not fully entered my mind before, and this was certainly a growing experience for myself.

That is what I truly ask for in a Debate - that is "Teach each other".

I Hope you have a great week, Hope to see you in another debate in the future! :)
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Akhenaten 8 months ago
Push and pull are like the colours, white and black. There is no such colour as black. Black is merely an absence of white. Matter is constantly being pushed together by the force of the aether. Pull is merely the absence of the aetherical pushing force. If there is a pulling force, then explain using mechanical methodology, how the Earth pulls the moon? Note - A horse pushes a buggy, it doesn't pull it. Pull is just a stored vacuum.(illusion)
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
I am very sorry for formula of force of gravity, I have confused that with that of electric force.

9*10^9=k is the constant for electric force. Force of gravity in classical physics is as follows:

Fg=G*m1*m2/r^2, where G is gravitational constant.

F(electric)=k*|q1|*|q2|/r^2, where qi is electric charge of ith particle.
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago

1 - (In RFD-2): "...without specifically define their directions..." => define -> defining!

2 - (In RFD-2): "Please note that the only thing that needs to do to win this debate..." => that needs -> that Con needs!

3 - (RFD-3): "Not-pushing is surely not pulling." => not pulling -> not "pulling"!

4 - (RFD-3): "Therefore they cannot be consid" => "Therefore, they cannot be considered as evidences."

5 - (RFD-4): "In modern physics gravity is the effect of curvature in space-time created a mass (even at rest)." => space-time created a mass -> space-time created BY a mass!

Please inform me if there are other mistakes!
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
{My RFD - 1}

Pro forfeited a round.

=> Conduct goes to Con!
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
{My RFD - 2}

Con provided a definition for Pull/Push together pointing out the ONLY difference to be their opposite directions, without specifically define their directions. It would be better if they defined their directions separately and specifically. I would like to define their directions before analyzing their arguments.

Pull: to draw or haul TOWARD ONESELF or ITSELF!

Push: to press upon or against (a thing) with force in order TO MOVE IT AWAY!

In other words:

A pulls B: A exerts a force on B (in B-A direction) to move it TOWARDS ITSELF!

A pushes B: A exerts a force on B (in A-B direction) to move it AWAY FROM ITSELF!

Please note that the only thing that needs to do to win this debate (i.e., refute Pro"s claims and prove their own stance in this debate) is to show a single example of pulling in nature. The rest would only be refuting Pro"s rebuttals against that example, if Pro provided any.

We find an example Con provided in R3: "In nature, one can experience this almost anywhere - A tiger can pull a carcass up a tree""

This is exactly true; tiger exerts a force on carcass to move it towards ITSELF, which is pulling per definition. And we find no direct rebuttal to this example in Pro"s arguments. Therefore, Con wins the debate (arguments). Case closed!

=> A goes to Con!
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
{My RFD - 3}

BUT, I would like to provide more comments on arguments provided because the topic falls into my fields of interest. I hope my they provide some useful information for the readers.


Pro"s arguments against "pull" either make no sense, or asserted without evidence, or concluded by misinterpretation of some scientific data, or inconsistent with their own arguments, or are just a make-ups. Let me give some examples from Pro"s main arguments:

- "Gravity doesn't pull either, it pushes us down" -> gravity of Earth moves us TOWARDS Earth, hence PULLs us down.

- The existence of an invisible "magical" force is illogical.
But this contradicts his explanation of "what holds matter together" that a mysterious substance called aether creates all apparent "mysterious" forces and effects. It is obvious that a mysterious event is not logical, that is per definition of "mysterious".

- "The research of Australian scientist Brian Schmidt into dark energy has confirmed that space pushes on planets and that gravity doesn't pull."

Actually not, the source states: "These features will have been influenced by dark energy when it began to become dominant over the pull of gravity, about 8 billion years ago." In other words, about 8 billion years ago the PULL of gravity was greater than that of dark energy, now it is smaller (not zero)! Therefore, Pro"s claim is not true even according to their source.

- "[Pull] is really a lack of push (and or a vacuum) that creates a so called 'pull action'." Not-pushing is surely not pulling. Vacuum has nothing to do with Pro"s arguments.

- Pro talks about spin right, spin left, and no spin. They assert: "No spin could be regarded as a perfect vacuum which all matter rotates around." -> A simple definition of perfect vacuum is a space UNOCCUPIED by matter" Therefore, Pro"s argument makes no sense!

Almost all of arguments and evidences provided by Pro require separate evidences, Therefore they cannot be consid
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
{My RFD - 4}


However, although Con refuted Pro"s claim against pulling and provided sufficient arguments that pulling actually exists in nature, there are some main points made by Con to which I disagree, which don"t directly affect his arguments.

Con: "The result that we call 'pulling' is purely subjective - If you were on the opposite side of the object or mass, it would seem more of a 'pushing' motion."

Pulling and pushing are not purely subjective i.e., they don"t alternate with respect to an observer. The reference point that distinguishes pulling from pushing is the object on which the force is applied. If the direction of applied force w.r.t. this reference point is towards the source of applied force, then it is pulling. It would be pushing when the direction of the force is inverted, no matter from what perspective one is observing.

Con: "The high movement mixed with a combination of mass and spin cause the effect that we have named Gravity to be increased exponentially."

This is not the case with gravity. In classical physics, every object that have mass m1 attracts another object of mass m2 with a force of F=9*10^9*(m1*m2/r^2) where r is the distance between the center of masses of those objects (even when they are at rest). In modern physics gravity is the effect of curvature in space-time created a mass (even at rest).
Posted by ssadi 8 months ago
I will vote on arguments later.

I don't think there is much about G and S to vote for, but still I will consider them as well.
Posted by Edlvsjd 9 months ago
Good ole gravity lol
Posted by ssadi 9 months ago
I thought the same, then I considered the possibility of me misunderstanding your words..
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ssadi 8 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Given under comments (12th-15th comments)! Feel free to message me (so that I was directly notified) if you have any objection to my RFD. I can reconsider any point in my RFD.