Is the Big Bang an artifact?

Is the Big Bang an artifact? Gerasimos D Danilatos Version 12: 09 December 2025 doi:10.5281/zenodo.11401298 ESEM Research Laboratory 28 Wallis Parade North Bondi, NSW 2026 Australia [email protected] Abstract This paper briey investigates the possibility that the Big Bang is an artifact of current measurement and theoretical frameworks. This re-examination is necessary because distance, size, and mass must be reappraised on a fundamentally dierent basis. Additionally, the most distant visible celestial bodies are also the most massive, while the majority of smaller bodies at the same distance are not visible and are screened out of consideration. In this case, the observed redshift could be dominated by gravitational redshift, which does not imply a recessional velocity. These same objects could even have an approaching velocity, where the associated blueshift is overwhelmed by the redshift caused by the immense gravity of those largest visible bodies at ever-increasing distances. Consequently, the Hubble constant loses its purported meaning. Therefore, universe expansion and the Big Bang theory may be man-made artifacts. 1 Introduction A thorough investigation of gravity and cosmology is underway in a separate working book (Danilatos, 2024). What began as a novel investigation of push gravity beyond the original ideas of Fatio (Wikipedia contributors, 2018b) and Le Sage (Wikipedia contributors, 2018a) in version 1 has gradually evolved to include many other elds of physics through to version 20. In essence, it is becoming a novel approach to cosmology within an alternative framework of New Physics. This paper is an extract from that work, specically concerning the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang theory. It appears we can provide a resolution to the many emerging problems of established theories on these matters. The use of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has pushed these issues to a crisis point, which has encouraged us to present our position and query on these topics. We begin with a novel understanding of the meaning of mass, which is necessary to describe celestial bodies like planets, stars, and neutron stars within a new physics framework. Astronomical and astrophysical parameters such as size, distance, luminosity, and velocity depend on what we have conventionally understood as mass. This alternative interpretation of mass necessitates a revision and reappraisal of the measured and accepted astronomical parameters, including the subject of this paper: universe expansion and the Big Bang. While this is an initial qualitative presentation, quantitative support is now provided in a recent report entitled  A Gravitational Selection Bias as an Alternative to Cosmic Expansion: A Push Gravity Interpretation of the RedshiftDistance Relation  (Danilatos, 2025). 2 The meaning of mass The meaning of mass has been a major key issue in physics since Newton. In fact, the word mass has been a misnomer that continues to fuel various problems across most elds of physics. For a long time, it has often been identied (or implied) with the amount of substance or matter in a physical body, hence the talk of massive bodies. Even the theory of relativity, with its mathematical conceptions of mass (like gravitational, intrinsic, and rest mass versus relativistic mass), has rendered the meaning of mass even more complex. Relativistic mass has been so confusing, even among notable gures in relativity, that it has been called a pedagogical virus by Okun (2006). We have attempted to relate relativistic mass to real-mass, whereby they dier only marginally, except as we approach velocities very close to the speed of 1 light (Danilatos, 2024). It appears scientists are hesitant to move away from it, which may be preventing further progress. It seems the novel theory of push gravity (PG) has cut the Gordian Knotof mass. The concept of mass is unveiled in the brief description below. Material bodies do contain an amount of substance, which we have chosen to term hyle. We avoid the term matter because there is also antimatter, whereas hyle incorporates both matter and antimatter. In the original development of PG, we used the alternative term real-mass for hyle, which continues to be used interchangeably in our cited main report. We have further introduced the term gravion in reference to prior push corpuscles and to gravitons in existing theories because we wish to develop PG on a clean slate based on rst principles, independent of related conceptions of push particles in other forms of pushing gravity. For simplicity, we start with a spherical material body containing an amount of real-mass m . Gravions interact with the sphere via a coecient k , dened as the number of absorption events per unit length. If the real-density is ρ , then the ratio k/ρ is a universal constant Λ : Λ = k ρ (1) The symbol Λ is used in our development of PG (main work) and should not initially be confused with the same symbol used for the cosmological constant. The physical meaning of Λ is the number of gravion absorption events per unit surface-density (or mass-thickness) that take place inside a spherical body with real-density ρ , resulting in acceleration g at a distance r from the center of the sphere. Omitting here all the detailed steps in PG derivations, we use J0 for the universal density (intensity) of the gravion ux in free space as it applies at least over extensive regions of the universe. Gravions being absorbed by a given material sphere with radius R create a gravitational eld around it with a resulting acceleration gR at the surface of the sphere. With increasing real-density (or total real-mass), the acceleration increases monotonically and reaches a universal maximum (limiting) value g0 . We provide the relationships among these quantities: g0=πJ0 cΛ = πG Λ=πρG k (2) where c is the velocity of gravions and G is the familiar gravitational constant (BigG ) now worth writing also as G=1 πg0ΛP G =J0 cΛ2 (3) A novel quantity is the absorptivity AR , which is a function of the product kR : AR= 1 −1 2k2R2+exp(−2kR)·(2kR + 1) 2k2R2 (4) Then, the acceleration at distance r from the center of the sphere is provided by: g=g0AR R2 r2 and gR=g0AR (5) Then, Newton's gravitational law for the force F between two spheres with radii R1 , R2 and absorptivities AR1 and AR2 is replaced with: F=πg0 ΛP G AR1R2 1AR2R2 2 r2=pAR1AR2 πR2 1πR2 2 r2 (6) where p=J0/c is a pressure exerted by the gravion ux. Neither the classical mass, nor the universal constant G appear any more. Instead, we have the cross sectional areas of the spheres and their absorptivities. It all boils down to the geometry of the system together with the interaction of gravions with material bodies via the coecient k . The above law is derivable and is valid for all bodies Newtonian or not, for ordinary planets, stars, white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes (see also Appendix). It is applicable inside entire regions of the universe of the order of the mean free paths of gravions. For regions greater than the mean free path, following a transition region, we nish up with a gravion gas governed by its own physics, analogous but not the same as ordinary gases. For those greater regions, there is a cosmic weather governing the celestial bodies embedded in it. It is likely that spiral galaxies correspond to terrestrial storm patterns. The latter could also explain the anomalous (unexpected) rotational speed of galaxies and much more. Now, we have further found that the familiar gravitational mass is only a subset of the real-mass. This is the fraction of real-mass that interacts with gravions. It is only this fraction that is activated by the gravions 2 and is acted upon by gravitational forces. We have termed this fraction by eective mass and symbolized it by me . It is only this fraction that manifests classical inertia, which actually is also a misnomer. Inertia means inaction, the same as in other languages, e.g. in Greek inertia ⇐⇒ αδράνεια ⇐⇒ inaction (inactivity). In physics, we have used the word inertia to describe our experience, when we try to change the kinetic state of a body. We experience a resistance to any change, but this is a reaction to our action. Reaction is action back upon us. The body is not acting inertly, so a more appropriate word might have been reactivity of the body, not inertia. In chemistry, the term is used correctly: It is more appropriate to call an inert element so, because the element does nothing by way of (chemical) reaction; it is action-neutral. However, in physics, all bodies are not action-neutral, when prompted to move, or stop, or change velocity. They all present reactivity and not inertia. This is not trivial semantics that we can overlook any more, it is a matter of properly understanding physical phenomena as we can now do via PG. Classical (conventional) inertia ultimately arises (originates) from the gravions, when we attempt to change the steady-state equilibrium of gravion interaction with a given material body, thus forcing a change in the established gravitational eld associated with the given body. The real-mass is initially inactive (inert) with reference to gravity, until it reacts with gravions, as inevitably all bodies do in the real world. Since only part of the body reacts with gravions, it is only this part that displays the classical mass, which we must now strictly call eective mass (instead of inertial mass). The remaining part of the real-mass is inactive, or passive, having no inertia per conventional denition of the term. Then we can readily write: mpassive =mreal −meffective (7) We have further coined the term black mass mb , i.e. mb≡mblack ≡mpassive . This would be consistent with a description of the interior mass of black holes and would avoid confusion with the term dark matter already in use by existing physics terminology - but with a dierent meaning. Thus, we can concisely rewrite the above equation as: m=me+mb (8) We can go further: In lieu of the well established energy-mass equation E=mc2 , we have derived a more fundamental and more general equation in PG: d E d t= 4cg0me (9) where d E d t is the rate (power) of energy absorption (via gravions) by a spherical material body. If the interaction time (or time constant) of gravions is tg , we have also found that: g0=c tg (10) and it follows that d E d t= 4c2 tg me (11) Then, we obtain for the eective mass: me= d E d ttg 4c2 (12) It is found that 1 4 of the absorbed energy associates with the eective mass, leaving only an eective energy Ee provided by the integral (with a xed steady-state power absorption): Ee=1 4 d E d tfixed  tg 0 d t=1 4 d E d tfixed tg≡1 4 d E d ttg (13) Finally, we obtain our PG equation for the eective mass: me=Ee c2 (14) 3 The above equation is identical in form with E=mc2 , which, however, is only a subset of our PG derivation. Eq. 12 states that the mass of any body depends on the energy absorption rate (power) d E d t multiplied by the gravion interaction time tg . We can better understand the signicance of this important equation, if we start thinking about a macroscopic body like a planet. The energy absorption rate depends on the absorption coecient k (the number of absorption events per unit length in the body). It is all those events that take place in time tg , which add up to produce the numerator of the fraction in that equation. It is the synergy of concurrent absorption events adding up to produce an eective mass, the absorptivity and the associated acceleration g of the given planet. This understanding applies to any absorbing body, including a single photon, for which we have initiated a new study in the cited main work. The idea of synergy and concurrency applies all the way down to some minimum size structures of absorption and emission centers (MAC/MEC) rst described by a 3+1 mass scheme. The above is important, because the well known energy-mass equation does not involve or say anything about a coexisting or collateral hyle (black mass) in any given body. The hitherto conventional mass and energy have left out of consideration the bigger picture of the universe containing real-mass (hyle). The missing part of the universe, as interpreted by PG, could be a much better description than the missing dark matter and dark energy necessitated by established physics. Not only have we derived the famous E=mc2 , we have also found that it is only a partial case in physics. PG provides a greater framework to describe the cosmos, whereas prevailing theories describe only a subset of it. PG could become the New Physics to describe the universe and overcome the ever emerging impasses by prevailing theories. We can nally see that classical inertia appears every time we attempt to change the characteristic xed  d E d tfixed power exhibited by any given material body. This happens when we accelerate or decelerate the given body. Inertia is not some innate propensity for resistance by the body itself, but a resistance by the gravitational eld to recongure with the body's change of kinetic status. 3 Mass distribution in absorption layers The eective (gravitational) mass is activated by the absorption of gravions and is distributed from the outer surface of a sphere towards its center with monotonically decreasing density. This variation is minimal for planets, and gradually increases with stars, white dwarfs, neutron stars and generally with increasing total real mass all the way up to black holes. A diagrammatic conceptualization of the gravitational mass variation is depicted in Fig. 1. In this way, the interior of massive (very dense) bodies is described by a completely dierent way from current physics. We can say that there is some fraction of black matter even in ordinary objects. That fraction can be exceedingly small, moderate or excessive depending on the size and density of the object. There must be more of this stu in the Sun than in the Earth. The amount of gray color-level showing in the diagrams in Fig. 1 gives some idea about it (not to scale). We may visualize more black matter towards the center of celestial bodies. In doing all this, it is important that we have only considered some average density throughout each of the above bodies, whereas in reality the density can be variable. We have found in the theory of PG that actual density distribution can alter all other parameters involved. The same applies for the planets and stars, so that the picture conveyed by Fig. 1 for the Sun could be misleading. Those workers who have all the relevant data about the Sun may like to see how we can build the correct PG picture of the Sun. The same applies for all other bodies in the gure, and not only. We have selected those four typical types of bodies, but all other intermediate bodies with all available data could be re-worked to t, or to see if they can t under PG. The mass distribution layers depicted can be computed from the governing equations. We can assign an eective thickness to these layers for a sphere. We have introduced an eective total absorption layer ( TAL ) thickness to characterize each case. This is the thickness over which practically all incident gravions are absorbed yielding a maximum acceleration on the surface of the given body. Clearly, this does not happen in practice with all bodies depending on the relationship between the radius R and TAL for each case. For planets and stars, we expect that TAL > R , whilst for heavy celestial bodies we have TAL < R . In particular, for Newtonian bodies we have TAL R . Ultimately, in black holes the eective mass is concentrated in a relatively thin outer layer with TAL R resembling the event horizon (Schwarzschild surface). See more on this in the main work by Danilatos (2024). The above picture concerns initially the gravitational push particles, but we have also introduced corresponding push particles for the electric eld and similarly for other force elds. A generalized push eld theory is still under development, so that we omit the total eect of all possible types of push particles in order to minimize the size of this paper mainly aimed at the subject of the expansion of the universe. 4 Sun TAL1>>R white dwarf TAL2 neutron star TAL3 black hole TAL4 event horizon astrophysical jet astrophysical jet Figure 1: Diagrammatic perception of the Sun (upper-left), white dwarf (upper-right), neutron star (lowerleft) and black hole (lower-right) with their corresponding total absorption layer 5 The above is an initial conceptualization of what could happen around and inside stars and other massive bodies, but is subject to later modication as we develop and better understand PG theory. Even the proposed classication of various elds (electric, nuclear, etc.) and various types of push particles need proper adjustments along with corresponding fractions of eective and black mass, for example, when existing information on surface gravity of those bodies is revised. In the above general scheme, we imply that the maximum value of a starting g0 is sucient to trigger the rst transition of a star to a white dwarf. Depending on the literature source, the pressure at the center of the Sun may range between 3 Ö 1013 - 3.5 Ö 1016 Pa. This is expected to be well below the maximum pressure by gravions predicted and given by p0g=J0 c=g2 0 π2G (15) which will be known when J0 or g0 is nally measured. For a low tentative g0= 4 ×104 m/s 2 , we have p0g= (4 ×104)2/(π2G) = 2.43 ×1018 Pa. This pressure is consistent with existing requirements for a star on the main sequence to collapse to a white dwarf. The pressure at the core of Sirius B (white dwarf) is estimated to be ×106 that of the sun, which means that we need a g02 >103g0 . In a later revision of PG theory, we have projected that g0 should be g0>107 m/s 2 , hence there should be no diculty with current astrophysical theories on the transition of stars to white dwarfs and so on. If the conceptualization of various bodies in Fig. 1 is generally correct, it would question the validity of existing methods for nding their mass, radius and distance. There shouldn't be a serious problem for the main sequence stars, if their contraction factor q is not far from unity (see main Report). From the observed (intrinsic) brightness, color (temperature) and distance, the established measurements of mass and radius might involve only a small correction, but for stars outside the main sequence, in particular for white dwarfs etc, we may have signicant discrepancies between existing values and reality. To address this problem, we would probably also need to develop a concurrent quantum theory of push gravity. We need to re-appraise conceptions and requirements of established theories of nuclear particles and force elds. We now see that PG opens new possibilities for modeling our physical observations. For example, the Chandrasekhar curve may need re-adjustment, if we note some discrepancy with PG, rather than discard or object to PG theory. 4 Are universe expansion and the Big Bang theory artifacts? Based on the preceding analysis and further considerations below, universe expansion and the Big Bang theory are under question. The reasons of our query are presented in three groups: (1) Because the methods for nding the mass, radius and distance of various celestial bodies require adjustments and corrections based on PG, a reappraisal of the Big Bang becomes necessary. The expansion of the universe is deduced from plotting the recessional velocity against distance, whereby the velocity is deduced from the redshift of distant bodies (Hubble's law). To the extent that redshift is based on photometric methods, which have already proved to be only an estimate by existing methods, PG adds additional reasons to further question the outcomes for the recession velocity of astronomical objects. (2) The tired light theory has, by and large, been abandoned (it is said) as reason to reject the cosmological redshift. It has been questioned whether distortions of photons are created at the source or during their travel in space. However, until we can better determine the nature of photons with respect to their emission, transmission and absorption, tired light theory remains as a candidate for questioning the expansion of the universe. In this connection, PG is currently developing a new understanding of the nature of photons in the main report on PG (Danilatos, 2024). Lovyagin et al. (2022) have also challenged the tired light rejection and  show that a static model can provide a natural and straightforward way of solving the puzzle  as revealed by the JWST. (3) However, there is an additional reason for questioning the Big Bang: After considering all possible causes of the redshift, the remaining gravitational redshift may play the main reason for abandoning the expansion theory. It may be that the most massive bodies at very long distance overwhelm all other determinations of redshift from visible data. It is only those massive bodies that can be (are) visible and detected, while all smaller bodies at the same distance are not detectable due to light loss in the intervening distance and space. If that is what happens, then the redshift (spectroscopic and/or photometric) does not represent the entire contents inside the given visible distance. These largest bodies can be moving away or closer in equal numbers, but their gravitational redshift overwhelms the Doppler shift (red or blue). Therefore, the redshift on average can be biased in favor of the dominating massive bodies providing a misleading impression about the average motion of all visible bodies. In that case, the redshift predominantly represents size towards the outer regions of the universe (if it is mainly due to gravitational shift). The farther the distance, the more gravitational redshift (than recessional redshift) is represented in our measurements. It 6 is said that gravitational redshift can take on a large range of values. Then size becomes very important, to an extent that overtakes the recessional redshift. In that case, we cannot claim that redshift (overall) of very distance objects represents velocity, but more so it represents size. By size we mean a combination of eective mass and real mass (per PG) together with radius, all of which relate to luminosity and distance. If the methods of measurement of mass, radius and distance require revision for all the reasons presented in the previous section and if light absorption during travel further complicates our measurements, then the redshift relationship to size and distance need to be reworked also. In that case, we would need to plot the size against distance, whereby the shape of the graph may not be linear any more (a shape to be found). In that case, the long established tenet of velocity versus distance relationship (Hubble's law) should be revoked. The high gravitational redshift originates not only from individual bodies inside a galaxy, like stars, dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes and so on, but also from collective action of all these components of a galaxy. The very distant galaxies may behave like a single body, collectively, as the photons travel through them and undergo successive gravitational redshifts, a kind of an eective overall redshift for the entire galaxy. Added to that, some of these galaxies may be dusty enough to cause redshift (Naidu et al. , 2022; Kokorev et al. , 2023; Gottumukkala et al. , 2024; Giulietti et al. , 2024). That is, the interstellar medium inside a galaxy can also play a key role in redshift adding to the reasons we sited for negating the universe expansion. Tired light may still play an important role within galaxies, if not in the intergalactic space. In any case, we propose that the universe is uniform in all directions with regards to average velocities and sizes of all celestial bodies, however, not all of which are visible within the maximum visible universe. There are (maybe) equal numbers of bodies with redshift and blueshift in all directions. We mean at suciently (very) long distances, because PG allows variations of physical constants (like G ) from region to region suciently apart. However, the most (or more) distant ones that are visible happen to be also the biggest (or bigger), so that we inadvertently lter out the smaller ones during our observations. Our observations would then be biased and introduce an artifact by the outer visible galaxies in our thinking that they are moving faster than the closer ones. In that case, the Big Bang can be simply an artifact. It can be an artifact merely of the visible universe and not of the actual universe altogether, namely, observable and not observable (as dened by special relativity). Note: The average and sucient words here have relative signicance to be established by the actual data available in each referenced case . 5 Discussion and conclusions All of the above require considerable amount of work on both existing and new astrophysical/astronomical data, before we can accept them as a denial of the long established universe expansion and big bang beliefs. All this could be claried, when cosmologists reappraise and review their methods of measurement now to be based on the new framework of PG. It is said that measuring photometric redshift is easier to use than direct distance measurements, but this is not only a crude method, it can also be wrong on account that it is not known how luminous objects are in reality, especially in view of Fig. 1. The use of such means to measure the masses of objects independent of the mass-to-light ratio may contribute to artifacts ( = errors in natural science, i.e. in the perception or representation of any information introduced by the involved equipment or technique(s) ). These problems are convoluted by the new possibilities of reality revealed by PG as outlined in our main work. If PG does indeed provide a new real framework for new physics and if astrophysical and astronomical measurements do indeed require a re-calibration, then not only the Big Bang theory based on observed universe expansion could be reconsidered as unreal, but also all other competing alternative theories may stand on shaky ground (re cosmic microwave background (CMB), steady state model, etc.). It is said that  CMB radiation is landmark evidence of the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe.  However, even this should also be reappraised. In particular, it is said that  With a standard optical telescope, the background space between stars and galaxies is almost completely dark. However, a suciently sensitive radio telescope detects a faint background glow that is almost uniform and is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object  (Wikipedia contributors, 2024b). The spectroscopic measurements in the space between visible galaxies may not be an empty space lled with background radiation, after all, that is independent of the ever present cosmic bodies. The allegation (or assumption) that the CMB is the remnant of the Big Bang may prove to be entirely arbitrary and the ensuing support for the Big Bang unwarranted. In that intervening gap, there can actually be a practically innite number of galaxies, of which only the most massive ones get their light through to us to see and measure. As we increase the angular resolution, our spectroscopic/photometric measurements in that space may simply resolve clusters of those most massive bodies, which at the same time appear redder and redder shifted on the micro-wavelength scale. The 7 remaining background (literally) radiation that is left between, say, the ultimately resolvable (by humans) bodies can be simply coming from the yet farther un-resolvable bodies of the universe. In that case, the CMB cannot be another conrmation of the Big Bang theory, it is only a true background radiation of a at universe. Furthermore, the paradoxical discrepancy of the rate of expansion of the universe based on spectroscopic redshift and on CMB redshift (Hubble tension) might or might not be resolved, but this by itself does not solve the main problem. It is beyond the means available to this author to carry out such work, which is left to ambitious cosmologists to work it out. This author only projects his philosophical tenets in physics on this matter by use of the available resources to him: The space can easily be lled with a cosmic uid (e.g. of gravions), and the space can be overall homogeneous and isotropic over suciently large scales. This is a sound philosophical basis to work with until proven otherwise. If universe expansion and the Big Bang become redundant, a lot of complicated theories will be unnecessary and our understanding could be greatly simplied. The universe could be much simpler than we have thought so far. If we start with a wrong premise (like universe expansion), we are constrained to formulate needlessly complex mathematical relationships only to comply with the wrong starting point of our theories. For example, take  proper and comoving coordinates  introducing only redundant hard-and-complex work for cosmologists. We may have misconceived the nature of the universe due to systematic biases and errors (both experimental and theoretical). The universe can easily be static and always comoving. Philosophically, the universe in its eternity must not change to something else overall, but it always ows within itself. The Big Bang theory is philosophically untenable. The vacillations between contracting or expanding universe must have been in vain. We advocate the static and at universe, to the requirements of which we should comply from now on, until we nd unchallenged evidence for otherwise. There is no need for the present author to delve deep into the long literature of the universe expansion and the Big Bang theory, since, especially following the launch and use of the JWST, a momentous debate has skyrocketed worldwide. The Hubble Tension is a point of current controversy, and not only that. New contradictions expose a fundamental gap in the understanding of cosmos, so that new physics becomes necessary. We mentioned several reasons for that. A aw also in the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model and Dark Energy driving the expansion of the universe are under question too (Riess et al. , 2024). Even if the Hubble Tension is somehow resolved, it is still signaling New Physics (Freedman, 2024), while the Big Bang theory can still be an artifact. We are bombarded with expressions like  The Universe Has Stopped Expanding! James Webb Space Telescope Shocks the Entire Space Industry! We hear that  Galaxies appear small, smooth and surprisingly old in the JWST, but according to the big bang theory, as space expands, they should appear larger as they move away due to the stretching of light: However, the galaxies become smaller as the distance increases ...  Even galaxies with greater mass and brightness bigger than our galaxy appear in the JWST images 2-3 times smaller than the previous images obtained by the Hubble telescope ... Also  the redshift is 2-3 times greater challenging the assumptions of an expanding universe. They must be exceptionally tiny to explain the optical illusion (mighty mouse galaxies) (Labbe et al. , 2023)...  The age of the universe appears to be older than previously thought, if to explain the new ndings with galaxies as big as our own, even after a few million years after the big bang ...  The number of redshifted galaxies above 10 is 100000 times greater than predicted ... and if veried with spectroscopy, the stellar mass density in massive galaxies would be much higher than anticipated from previous studies on the basis of rest-frame ultraviolet-selected samples  (Labbe et al. , 2023)... All of these and much more are not expected by established theories and the expansion of the universe is now seriously questioned. We hope that our PG theory provides the ultimate framework to arrive at a much better understanding of the cosmos. The absence of any mention of our theory (PG) in what appears to be a long and comprehensive list of  Alternatives to general relativity  (Wikipedia contributors, 2024a) leaves much to be desired about the status of physics today. The expansion of the universe and the Big Bang theory have further been questioned, for dierent reasons, by Postolak (2024) and Afanasev & Katanaev (2024). 5.1 Further notes and remarks. It is understandable that the short presentation in this paper can raise many questions, some of fundamental importance. One question is what happens to the absorbed energy, which being so immense would melt the planet away in minutes. Another question is if the theory is at all compatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, plus what we say about the expected drag presumed to arise from the gravions. Furthermore, PG does not depend on the elsewhere assumed, now redundant, Equivalence Principle, of which the latest space test (STEP) by Touboul et al. (2019) has already been addressed: The reader is referred to the main cited report, where we think we have provided satisfactory answers. 8 That the mass and gravitational eld are emergent properties (are the result) of the action by push particles has also been found by Fedosin (2015), who has followed an alternative approach to PG; along with several other reports, he has contributed towards the development of PG. Our approach diers in that we attempt to develop PG as a self-contained theory and framework on its own rst principles without dependence on existing theories. Furthermore, we have clearly moved beyond Newtonian mechanics with a generalized formulation, without approximations, applicable to all material bodies from particle physics to cosmology. We are currently working on a unication of force elds based entirely on PG principles (Danilatos, 2024). We introduced the concepts of black-mass and hyle without attempting to constrain PG into and by existing, possibly failed, theories. Fatio's idea has been (a) either applied in a in Newtonian only approximation by and large, or (b) completely sidelined by mainstream physics for too long, in both cases without ever bringing it to its logical conclusion. We attempt to rectify all this by exploring the what if possibility about PG theory. The wider scientic community can contribute towards this goal. Newton's gravitational law contains mass and G , neither of which represent an actual physical property or entity. Mass is proportional to an amount of hyle but only in ordinary bodies of low density (Newtonian regime), but deviates greatly with increase of density. The universal constant of G then is an articial factor with no direct physical signicance either. They are both redundant in deriving the force under PG, whilst they have become the basis or starting point in the development of prevailing theories. Again, on the key issue of mass, Denisov & Logunov (1982) state that: It is shown that the inertial mass introduced in the general theory of relativity depends on the choice of the three-dimensional coordinate system, so that it can take arbitrary values. This means that the inertial mass in Einstein's theory is devoid of any physical meaning. In addition, the expression for the inertial mass in Einstein's theory in the general case of an arbitrary three-dimensional coordinate system does not have a classical Newtonian limit, so that the general theory of relativity does not satisfy the principle of correspondence with Newton's theory. Mass has been a fundamental problem since Newton's time. Physicists have vacillated about mass between the notion of matter and abstract mathematical formulations. We resort to gravions giving gravitational mass to hyle (real-mass). We can liken the gravions to a ying shuttle weaving a fabric out of yarn: Gravions weave the fabric of eective mass out of hyle. The material form of objects as we experience them is created from an amorphous substrate/matter (hyle) through the action of gravions and other push particles by staged processes waiting to be specied. We would need to bring together all particle physics data to date and attempt to explain them by PG. We need to map the available data on the PG framework. One important corollary here is to indicate that the current scales of the cosmos may require adjustment. This should not be overlooked even if some specic mechanisms above might turn out to be fallacious simplications. Therefore, prospective criticisms against PG may themselves be based on false grounds. In turn, agreement or not by various theories (including GR) involving existing measurements on dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes will have to be revised. As a result, the ndings of PG, like the novel relationship between mass and force, should not be dismissed on the basis of some other theory until an integrated resolution of all emerging issues is obtained. It is quite plausible that we have grasped the key to solving many outstanding issues and paradoxes in current physics. The notion of an expanding universe and the Big Bang theory can be artifacts both from incorrect measurements and from adhering to incorrect principles and theoretical tenets for too long. For a deeper appreciation of our proposals, we quote from Feyerabend (2010):  The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree with accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older theory, and not the better theory. Hypotheses contradicting well-conrmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any other way. Proliferation of theories is benecial for science, while uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers the free development of the individual . In relation to our method, it is further pertinent to quote again from Feyerabend (2010): No theory ever agrees with all the facts in its domain, yet it is not always the theory that is to blame. Facts are constituted by older ideologies, and a clash between facts and theories may be proof of progress. It is also a rst step in our attempt to nd the principles implicit in familiar observational notions . Note: If PG ultimately proves to be a valid theory, which of necessity must replace all related faulty ones currently in use, a large amount of work would be required by the scientic community across many elds. The prospect of this requirement may now deter scientists from wanting to deal with PG. However, the cost of continuing worldwide expensive projects based on false premises would be orders of magnitude higher than the relatively minuscule cost of at least an initial investigation into PG. The consequences would become even worse in the existing knowledge of this possibility. 5.2 Expanding universe under PG An expanding universe is not incompatible with push gravity. If, after taking into consideration the proposed revision of astronomical and astrophysical measurements, we still nd that the universe is expanding, then 9