Einstein did that very well.

Attributing a kind of particle to gravity still does not specify its physical mechanism.


Wether one considers gravity as an attractive force or a repulsive force is exactly the same thing observationally.

Is an apple pulled from below or pushed from above? The observation is the same: and the fact remains: an apple, or any other object, falls toward the earth.

An apple experiences no force at all during its free-fall. It is thus neither lured from below nor shoved from above. So, why on earth (pun intended) do objects plummet in a gravitational field? Implicitly, general relativity describes this phenomenon correctly: the apple follows the path of least action. It follows the geometrical shape of the curved field, falling ‘down’ the slope or gradient of the spacetime manifold.

In another way, the objects is freely falling. It feels no force, from above or below. That is the Euclidean connection...something which I see as lacking from all hypothesis known to date (including paeps) that attempt to describe the mechanism responsible for gravity.

Taking these cold hard facts at face-value—the equality of inertial and gravitational mass (see Einstein's equivalence principle), the behavior of clocks and measuring-rods on a rotating body, the deflection of light by a gravitational field (over the entire celestial sphere), the displacement of spectral lines towards the red (gravitational redshift), and the gravitational time-delay of light signals—we obtain sufficient information to construct a precise picture of the four-dimensional field associated with gravitation. There is no need for a hypothetical particle. Gravity must be perceived from all possible view-points; the Euclidean (or Galileian) reference frame, the local fields, and the global fields, if we wish to appreciate the mechanics and dynamics operational involved in the gravitational interaction.


CC