Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

[urtalkinstupid]

I'm a _n^e_w^b_i^e (that looks cool :redface: ) in physics, and have many doubts about the current model of gravity.

I'm having a hard time viewing gravity as a pulling force. To me, it makes no sense. There is a new proposal, although very little have accepted it, on how gravity works. It is already known that everything in the universe gives off energy. What if this energy that is given off is enough to interact with everyday objects? What I am saying is if you were to take a ball throw it up in the air, could there be a force of something "pushing" it down rather than the current belief of it being "pulled" down? The push theory of gravity attempts to prove that the energy given off from objects causes everything from apples falling from a tree to black holes. This still seems a bit sketchy if you look at it. If something were to give off energy, wouldn't the earth's core give off energy and cause us to float off of it's surface?

This is where I'm assuming that this concept of gravity does not exist. I think everything is governed by a sub-atomic pressure. This is all very HYPOTHETICAL, but donen't everything start out hypothetical? So assuming everything is governed by sub-atomic pressure, what creates this pressure? Simple, sut-atomic particles. Sub-atomic particles are going through our body every second in large quantities. One of the main sources of sub-atomic particles is from the sun in the form of neutrinos. Neutrinos rarely come in contact with masses, but if in a group that consists of enough, it can interact and actually exert a pressure on that mass. So...umm...guess on to an example of my theory.

So, one day, you are playing with a tennis ball. You are just throwing it up and down in the air. You begin to wonder, "What is really happening when I throw this ball in the air?" When the ball is in your hand, the sub-atomic particles hit it on all sides except where you palm grips it providing support on the bottom. When you throw the tennis ball in the air, you exert a pressure upwards on it, making it leave your hand. The neutrinos from the sun are unable to interact with the ball on the bottom side, so extra pressure is not applied, because the earth acts as a shield for the bottom of the ball. Now, the tennis ball can go up, but it can only go up for a short while. Why is this? Gravity pulls it back down...no. The pressure that your hand exerted on the ball decreases as the sub-atomic pressure on the other sides of the ball overcomes the pressure exerted on the ball. With the pressure being less on one side, the other sides are being pushed in that direction (towards earth). The pressure on the other sides have pushed the ball back to earth, where it is now sub-atomic pressure equillibriate.

Like I said previously, this is a very hypothetical proposal. So, I'm open for criticism and/or questions on this theory. Before you say that I have no observations or mathematical explanations, I would like to say, "DUH!!!!" If no one can accept this idea then of course there is not going to be any experimental proof. Only through acceptance will this theory get a chance at beign proven right or wrong. So, if you have any ideas for experimentation, I'd really like them :tongue2: .

I'm sure it is not explained well, and I do apologize about that. I'm just a high schooler, and more into math and physics than english, so my explanation skills through writing are poor :redface: . I'll try my best to make you happy with this theory.

[sol2]

There are certain assumptions we make about matter and it's evidence in the cosmo.

What I learnt was to understand the issue of GR by understanding the geometrical tendency such a route travelled woul reveal of itself. This meant leaving the euclidean definition of straight lines of absolute space, of SR to undertand curvature would have to been present in the defintion of gravitation considerations.

This would not seem inconsistant to me to speak from this basis, as the evdence to me suggestions that the whole framework of science spoken two here, is one of metric considerations. At the non communtive areas of planck length we have run into some troubles and issue in regards to TEV measures that have currently made themself known.

I would be open to correction here as well as someone speaking to the basis of "pull" as a manifestaion viewed held prominent through this area of research with regards to geometrical considerations. I pointed out matter considerations?


Why a sphere? If it is understood what Reinmann geometry meant to Einstein (http://cerval.murdoch.edu.au/kissane/e162lect06/sld001.htm) it becomes understandable that the move to the Fifth posutlate of Euclid, was not a summation of the previous four, but was a move to the non-euclidean geometries, that Einstein now implored.

Pulsars Produce Gravitational Waves (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@252.A05mczMqkJy.0@.1dde6f44)

[urtalkinstupid]

Would you be open for acceptance of this sub-atomic pressure theory?

What i'm failing ot understand is what is the "stuff" that makes masses attract to each other? Gravitational waves...?

[Alkatran]

I'm a _n^e_w^b_i^e (that looks cool :redface: ) in physics, and have many doubts about the current model of gravity.

I'm having a hard time viewing gravity as a pulling force. To me, it makes no sense. There is a new proposal, although very little have accepted it, on how gravity works. It is already known that everything in the universe gives off energy. What if this energy that is given off is enough to interact with everyday objects? What I am saying is if you were to take a ball throw it up in the air, could there be a force of something "pushing" it down rather than the current belief of it being "pulled" down? The push theory of gravity attempts to prove that the energy given off from objects causes everything from apples falling from a tree to black holes. This still seems a bit sketchy if you look at it. If something were to give off energy, wouldn't the earth's core give off energy and cause us to float off of it's surface?

This is where I'm assuming that this concept of gravity does not exist. I think everything is governed by a sub-atomic pressure. This is all very HYPOTHETICAL, but donen't everything start out hypothetical? So assuming everything is governed by sub-atomic pressure, what creates this pressure? Simple, sut-atomic particles. Sub-atomic particles are going through our body every second in large quantities. One of the main sources of sub-atomic particles is from the sun in the form of neutrinos. Neutrinos rarely come in contact with masses, but if in a group that consists of enough, it can interact and actually exert a pressure on that mass. So...umm...guess on to an example of my theory.

So, one day, you are playing with a tennis ball. You are just throwing it up and down in the air. You begin to wonder, "What is really happening when I throw this ball in the air?" When the ball is in your hand, the sub-atomic particles hit it on all sides except where you palm grips it providing support on the bottom. When you throw the tennis ball in the air, you exert a pressure upwards on it, making it leave your hand. The neutrinos from the sun are unable to interact with the ball on the bottom side, so extra pressure is not applied, because the earth acts as a shield for the bottom of the ball. Now, the tennis ball can go up, but it can only go up for a short while. Why is this? Gravity pulls it back down...no. The pressure that your hand exerted on the ball decreases as the sub-atomic pressure on the other sides of the ball overcomes the pressure exerted on the ball. With the pressure being less on one side, the other sides are being pushed in that direction (towards earth). The pressure on the other sides have pushed the ball back to earth, where it is now sub-atomic pressure equillibriate.

Like I said previously, this is a very hypothetical proposal. So, I'm open for criticism and/or questions on this theory. Before you say that I have no observations or mathematical explanations, I would like to say, "DUH!!!!" If no one can accept this idea then of course there is not going to be any experimental proof. Only through acceptance will this theory get a chance at beign proven right or wrong. So, if you have any ideas for experimentation, I'd really like them :tongue2: .

I'm sure it is not explained well, and I do apologize about that. I'm just a high schooler, and more into math and physics than english, so my explanation skills through writing are poor :redface: . I'll try my best to make you happy with this theory.

The first though that comes to my mind is:
So when it's night the sun is pushing you away from the earth and the force is lower? Why is it the same all the time even though the earth is rotating (on itself, around the sun, around the galaxy)?

[urtalkinstupid]

the sun only affects the side of earth that is facing it. yes, there is less force applied to us at night. Why...i'll explain. ok, at night, our source of neutrinos come from cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere and from stars (neutrinos are produced through fusion). These neutrinos are shielded from hitting the earth by the moon. So, we also weigh less at night time because not as many neutrinos are exerting pressure on our bodies. i'm really not 100% clear on what you are asking. if this does not explain what you are asking, perhaps, you could rephrase the question? or if i didnt answer all of what you have asked tell me what i am lacking

[Eyesaw]

I'm a _n^e_w^b_i^e (that looks cool :redface: ) in physics, and have many doubts about the current model of gravity.

I'm having a hard time viewing gravity as a pulling force. To me, it makes no sense. There is a new proposal, although very little have accepted it, on how gravity works. It is already known that everything in the universe gives off energy. What if this energy that is given off is enough to interact with everyday objects? What I am saying is if you were to take a ball throw it up in the air, could there be a force of something "pushing" it down rather than the current belief of it being "pulled" down? The push theory of gravity attempts to prove that the energy given off from objects causes everything from apples falling from a tree to black holes. This still seems a bit sketchy if you look at it. If something were to give off energy, wouldn't the earth's core give off energy and cause us to float off of it's surface?

This is where I'm assuming that this concept of gravity does not exist. I think everything is governed by a sub-atomic pressure. This is all very HYPOTHETICAL, but donen't everything start out hypothetical? So assuming everything is governed by sub-atomic pressure, what creates this pressure? Simple, sut-atomic particles. Sub-atomic particles are going through our body every second in large quantities. One of the main sources of sub-atomic particles is from the sun in the form of neutrinos. Neutrinos rarely come in contact with masses, but if in a group that consists of enough, it can interact and actually exert a pressure on that mass. So...umm...guess on to an example of my theory.

So, one day, you are playing with a tennis ball. You are just throwing it up and down in the air. You begin to wonder, "What is really happening when I throw this ball in the air?" When the ball is in your hand, the sub-atomic particles hit it on all sides except where you palm grips it providing support on the bottom. When you throw the tennis ball in the air, you exert a pressure upwards on it, making it leave your hand. The neutrinos from the sun are unable to interact with the ball on the bottom side, so extra pressure is not applied, because the earth acts as a shield for the bottom of the ball. Now, the tennis ball can go up, but it can only go up for a short while. Why is this? Gravity pulls it back down...no. The pressure that your hand exerted on the ball decreases as the sub-atomic pressure on the other sides of the ball overcomes the pressure exerted on the ball. With the pressure being less on one side, the other sides are being pushed in that direction (towards earth). The pressure on the other sides have pushed the ball back to earth, where it is now sub-atomic pressure equillibriate.

Like I said previously, this is a very hypothetical proposal. So, I'm open for criticism and/or questions on this theory. Before you say that I have no observations or mathematical explanations, I would like to say, "DUH!!!!" If no one can accept this idea then of course there is not going to be any experimental proof. Only through acceptance will this theory get a chance at beign proven right or wrong. So, if you have any ideas for experimentation, I'd really like them :tongue2: .

I'm sure it is not explained well, and I do apologize about that. I'm just a high schooler, and more into math and physics than english, so my explanation skills through writing are poor :redface: . I'll try my best to make you happy with this theory.


If those neutrinos are coming from the sun and does the job of gravity as you propose wouldn't it push the earth and all other masses away from it, nevermind pushing down a tennisball or apple to the ground? BTW this "pushing gravity" has been hypothesized before and they are called Le Sage theories or something like that. There's even a book called Pushing Gravity out.

[urtalkinstupid]

yes im aware of the book out and the lesage theory. and as for the earth and its orbit. the neutrinos that the earth abosrbs allow it to orbit the sun. the neutrinos hit earth at an angle making it move approx. 1 degree a day (hence the number of days in a year). it is able to do this because the pressure the neutrinos exert on the earth allow it to move and the angle the pressure is exerted allow the earth to gain velocity. how does the earth keep from flotaing off? neutrinos dont just come from the sun. they come from stars as well. and as you know there are billion of stars that stay bright through fusion. fusion produces neutrinos and these neutrinos keep a balance in pressure as far as keeping the earth a certain radius away from the sun...not exceeding it.

[Eyesaw]

yes im aware of the book out and the lesage theory. and as for the earth and its orbit. the neutrinos that the earth abosrbs allow it to orbit the sun. the neutrinos hit earth at an angle making it move approx. 1 degree a day (hence the number of days in a year). it is able to do this because the pressure the neutrinos exert on the earth allow it to move and the angle the pressure is exerted allow the earth to gain velocity. how does the earth keep from flotaing off? neutrinos dont just come from the sun. they come from stars as well. and as you know there are billion of stars that stay bright through fusion. fusion produces neutrinos and these neutrinos keep a balance in pressure as far as keeping the earth a certain radius away from the sun...not exceeding it.

I think "pushing gravity" is easier to imagine than pulling. It also makes more sense philosophically if not physically that the sun is trying to keep the Earth and other planets away from it than that they are sucking each other in. It never made much sense that if gravity was an attractive force, bodies can stay in orbital equilibrium. On the other hand we can imagine the gravity of the stars balancing the attractions in the same way as if they exerted a pushing force. They seem to be opposite sides of the same coin. I still prefer pushing though since we are too close to the sun for comfort.

[Alkatran]

I have a really hard time believing this because gravity is predicted so well by the current theory (pulling).

Think about it this way: If gravity was a push, and the earth acts as a shield, why is the force so much less in space?

Also, we'd definitely be pushed off the earth faster than the sun etc could keep us down, because we're so much closer. (You need to divide by the square of the distance right?, since we have three spatial dimensions)

[urtalkinstupid]

blah blah blah...all you people do is refer to how gravity is soo well defined. the force is less in space because as you go farther out more and more of the neutrinos are blocked...sure the stars provide neutrinos but the sun provide a whole lot more. hmm...you say we would be off this earth? i say we wont. the amount of neutrinos going through our body every second is a very high number (not sure read it somewhere and it was big) so what do these neutrinos do when they go through our body? some say they pass through every atom because they are that small. others say that if they travel in a big enough group they go through an inelastic collision with atoms exerting pressure (one reason people dont believe because of the inelastic collision). but we all have our beliefs. tell me this...what EXACTLY accounts for the attraction of two masses depending on their radial distance?

[Entropy]

the force is less in space because as you go farther out more and more of the neutrinos are blocked

What if your in space, orbiting the Earth and right in the sun's light? You'll be experencing more neutrinos on you than if you were on the ground. So why don't you fall down to Earth?

And why do things fall into black holes if black holes don't emit any neutrinos? A body can have NO neutrinos passing through them and that object will still fall into the black hole due to the black hole's gravity.

Look gravity is simply an effect created by the curvature of space-time. The reason this effect is less at a distance is because the amount of curvature decreases as you travel away from a mass.

[urtalkinstupid]

niiice argument...im going to give it to you for your effort :smile:

ok just because you are closer doesnt mean you have more neutrinos...if you are in space with the earths orbit you are experiencing approximately the same amount of force from neutrinos as you would on earth. the only reason earth has more is because of the neutrinos that are formed from cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere. the amount of pressure does not rely on distance as does the current model of gravity but it relies on density of the object and density of the neutrinos in the vicinity of the object. there is nothing blocking neutrinos from venus to earth there fore the amount of neutrinos are the same throughout that area...just as dense as it is on earth as it is off of earth if you are facing sun

as for black holes, i dont think they exist. to exist then the theory of a singularity would have to be true, and i think singularities are a fluke aslo. einstein himself noted that although his mathematics gave proof of the black holes existence, he did not think they existed. If they were to truly exist though, they would be very dense, therefore, they would block many of the neutrinos that are in sapces and as those neutrinos near the black hole they will "PUSH" everything around the black hole into it...not the black hole will pull everything and make the objects including light fall into it

and yes im highly aware of what gravity is preceived as. now if you will answer my question...what is the exact property of gravity that seeks out two objects depending on their distance and attracts them? or is that unexplainable?

[Alkatran]

niiice argument...im going to give it to you for your effort :smile:

ok just because you are closer doesnt mean you have more neutrinos...if you are in space with the earths orbit you are experiencing approximately the same amount of force from neutrinos as you would on earth. the only reason earth has more is because of the neutrinos that are formed from cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere. the amount of pressure does not rely on distance as does the current model of gravity but it relies on density of the object and density of the neutrinos in the vicinity of the object. there is nothing blocking neutrinos from venus to earth there fore the amount of neutrinos are the same throughout that area...just as dense as it is on earth as it is off of earth if you are facing sun

as for black holes, i dont think they exist. to exist then the theory of a singularity would have to be true, and i think singularities are a fluke aslo. einstein himself noted that although his mathematics gave proof of the black holes existence, he did not think they existed. If they were to truly exist though, they would be very dense, therefore, they would block many of the neutrinos that are in sapces and as those neutrinos near the black hole they will "PUSH" everything around the black hole into it...not the black hole will pull everything and make the objects including light fall into it

and yes im highly aware of what gravity is preceived as. now if you will answer my question...what is the exact property of gravity that seeks out two objects depending on their distance and attracts them? or is that unexplainable?


I'm having trouble following you here. Also, if neutrinos are formed by cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere, why is the earth rotating around the sun so well? In fact, why is all the stuff in the solar system rotating so perfectly as if the sun were the center?

[Entropy]

there is nothing blocking neutrinos from venus to earth there fore the amount of neutrinos are the same throughout that area...

Yes, but there are more neutrinos passing through Venus than Earth because Venus is closer to the sun and neutrinos radiate outward from the Sun.

as for black holes, i dont think they exist. to exist then the theory of a singularity would have to be true, and i think singularities are a fluke aslo. einstein himself noted that although his mathematics gave proof of the black holes existence, he did not think they existed. If they were to truly exist though, they would be very dense, therefore, they would block many of the neutrinos that are in sapces and as those neutrinos near the black hole they will "PUSH" everything around the black hole into it...not the black hole will pull everything and make the objects including light fall into it

You don't need singularities to have black holes. Many people have given up on the idea of a singularity at the center of black holes. All the matter in a black hole is compressed down to a small point, but no infinitely small. If I'm not mistaken I believe its on the range of the size of strings.

and yes im highly aware of what gravity is preceived as. now if you will answer my question...what is the exact property of gravity that seeks out two objects depending on their distance and attracts them? or is that unexplainable?

That shows that you are not "highly aware" of how gravity is preceived. Unless you believe in gravitons, gravity is an "effect" of space-time so it isn't nessissarily a force. When you preceive an object rotating around an object and then falling into it, that object is really simply just following a straight path into the object. You just don't see it as a straight line due to your 4 dimensional view of the universe.

[urtalkinstupid]

when referring to a string are you referring to plank's length?

and if everything were to fall into an object that were to cause space-time curvature what counter acts us falling into the sun? ripples caused by this disturbance in space time? our free-fall velocity as we orbit the sun?

it would be much easier to view things as being pushed together in trying ot reach equillibrium in sub-atomic pressure rather than things falling into one another depending on how much of a disturbance they cause in space-time

[urtalkinstupid]

I'm having trouble following you here. Also, if neutrinos are formed by cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere, why is the earth rotating around the sun so well? In fact, why is all the stuff in the solar system rotating so perfectly as if the sun were the center?

well alkatran these neutrinos that are produced by cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere just allow an extra push on the objects on earth...nothing to to with the suns orbit.

the suns orbit is governed by neutrinos exerting a pressure at an angle...giving it velocity in the direction that the angle is applied. the neutrinos hitting from the other side allow the earth to stay in one place and move inwards in otrder to travel aroudn the sun and not in an undefinite path. and yes everything seems to orbit in a perfect manner...but remember also perfect does not exist. but although the source of neutrinos from the sun is limited as you move farther away, the next source are stars. there are stars in betweent he planets that are able to keep them in their place also. all of this orbiting is just an equillibrium of sub-atomic pressure that is applied at an angle

[Janus]

the sun only affects the side of earth that is facing it. yes, there is less force applied to us at night. Why...i'll explain. ok, at night, our source of neutrinos come from cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere and from stars (neutrinos are produced through fusion). These neutrinos are shielded from hitting the earth by the moon.

Doesn't wash. The intensity of neutrinos we get from all those other stars don't even add up to a fraction of a percent of those we get from the the Sun. We would be weighing gram not kilograms at night.
Also, you do realise that the moon isn't always in the night sky don't you? In fact, sometimes it comes exactly between the sun and the Earth (solar Eclipses). Which according to you would mean that it would block the Sun's neutrinos causing a large drop off in gravity at those times (which we do not experience)



and as for the earth and its orbit. the neutrinos that the earth abosrbs allow it to orbit the sun. the neutrinos hit earth at an angle making it move approx. 1 degree a day (hence the number of days in a year). it is able to do this because the pressure the neutrinos exert on the earth allow it to move and the angle the pressure is exerted allow the earth to gain velocity.

How do you figure this? You can't just make something up. There is no tendancy for the Sun's neutrinos to hit the Earth such as to push it along its orbit. If anything, you would have the opposite effect. As the Earth travels in its orbit, it would indeed encounter neutrinos at an angle, but from an angle from the direction of movement. (this is like how when driving in car, rain falling straight down appears to be coming from in front of you). The pressure of these neutrinos would slow the Earth to a stop. Such a situation would lead to the Earth maintaining a stationary position, not an orbiting one.


how does the earth keep from flotaing off? neutrinos dont just come from the sun. they come from stars as well. and as you know there are billion of stars that stay bright through fusion. fusion produces neutrinos and these neutrinos keep a balance in pressure as far as keeping the earth a certain radius away from the sun...not exceeding it.

Again, the neutrinos we receive from such source are a mere fraction of those we receive from the sun. And even then, we receive these neutrinos equally from all parts of the sky, not just the night sky facing away from the sun. Meaning that the daylight sky would receive the neutrinos from all of the stars on that side of the Earth plus those generated by the Sun.( except for those stars that would be blocked by the Sun, but since the Sun produces vastly more neutrinos from that same area than would any stars it blocks, it doesn't really matter), Therefore, the daylight side would receive more neutrinos pushing the Earth away then the night side receives pushing it in, and you would get a net effect of the Earth being pushed away from the Sun.

Also, if even only for the sake of argument, you ignore the neutrinos coming from any other side other than the nightside, and even if you suppose that they are in equal porportion to those the Earth receives from the Sun, forming some equal balance, this would only work for the Earth. The other planets are different distances away from the Sun, and like light intensity, the neutrino intensity they receive from the Sun varies with distance from the Sun. But the neutrino intensity they receive from the other stars would not vary. Thus planets closer in towards the Sun would be out of balance with too much pressure from the Sun pusihing them outwards, and planets further out would have too little pressure from the Sun and they would fall inward. IOW, the only stable orbital distance would that of the Earth's.

In addition, as I pointed out, at times the moon passes between the Sun and Earth, blocking the Sun's Neutrinos. This means that at this time the Earth would only have inward pressure and would fall towards the Sun. Again, we do not note this happening during eclipses.


You asked for experiments to test your idea, but we don't need to go that far. All we have to do is note that it is not consistant with what we already observe as happening.

[Janus]

there are stars in betweent he planets that are able to keep them in their place also. all of this orbiting is just an equillibrium of sub-atomic pressure that is applied at an angle

There are no stars between the planets. The nearest star is over 37,843,200,000,000 km from the Sun. Pluto, the furthest planet is only 5,913,520,000 km from the Sun, only 1/6400 that distance.

[urtalkinstupid]

Janus, nice argument. As i stated at the beginning this is only a theory just as the theory of gravity. You have given me many doubts about my theory that I plan to research more on and overcome them. As of now, the pull theory of gravity is confusing many people. The black hole is confusing only because the pull theory of gravity makes it. If it were referred as a push, then much less confusion would spawn up. Why can things only enter and not escape? Maybe because they are being pushed in? Hawkings raidation: the colliding of particles that are emitted by the stars at high speeds creating particle and anti-particle pairs? Also, you have to take into account that this universe is made up of MUCH more than what we are able to observe. I'm sure there are other forces that can be involved in my theory of no gravity, but the main one that I have found is neutrinos. Other sub-atomic particles exist. I'm sure you know that, so I need not reiterate what they are. Approximately 4% of this universe can be observed; the rest is said to be composed of dark energy and dark matter (could be exerting pressure...as well as negative pressure to drive expansion). I still have faith in my theory. Pull theory is just something that is not well enough understood to become a theory that drives this universe. :yuck:

hey antichet :smile: *cough*

[Entropy]

As of now, the pull theory of gravity is confusing many people. The black hole is confusing only because the pull theory of gravity makes it. If it were referred as a push, then much less confusion would spawn up. Why can things only enter and not escape? Maybe because they are being pushed in?

You're the only person who somehow can't comprehend a pull or a push. And like I said unless you believe in the graviton (which I don't) gravity isn't really a "force," and a force is a push or pull. The geometric effect of space-time doesn't pull or push an object toward another. The object really continues along its normal straight course, only from your prespective does it appear to circle and then fall into another object.

Hawkings raidation: the colliding of particles that are emitted by the stars at high speeds creating particle and anti-particle pairs?

Thats not what Hawking radiation is. Hawking radiation is caused when vacuum fluctuations occur near a black hole's event horizon. Normally the particle-antiparticle parts annihilate each other quickly, but sometimes one of the particles falls into the black hole and the other escapes and the it results in the black hole emitting a particle.

[terrabyte]

I think what Entropy is talking about can be described as the "density" of space. All mass causes a dent to form in the normal "fabric" of space such that everything is closer than normal. Think of a piece of graph paper. all the lines go up and down left and right all of them parallel. now drop a mass in the center, and all the lines close to the mass get pulled inwards.

now anything propagating through space travels a straight path as Entropy says. the problem is, around a mass such as above, space is "denser". just like above on the graph paper an object still travels on a straight line, just that space is not "straight" from its point of view.

[Alkatran]

Congrats, Janus, on saying what I wanted to say. (Unfortunately, I had neither the skill nor the time to make the argument nearly as well as you did)

The reason "Push" doesn't work is because all of the orbits we perceive are so centralized. If we were being pushed around all the orbits would look VERY different.

[urtalkinstupid]

Question:

Is the universe governed around emission and absorption?

When I was referring to Hawkings Radiation, I was simply stating an alternative to the current theory.

[Alkatran]

Question:

Is the universe governed around emission and absorption?

When I was referring to Hawkings Radiation, I was simply stating an alternative to the current theory.

How exactly is that an alternative? It's part of the current theory.

[russ_watters]

the sun only affects the side of earth that is facing it. yes, there is less force applied to us at night.....

So, we also weigh less at night time.... Can't you see that this is a clear and obvious flaw in your idea (no, it is not a theory)? Weigh yourself this afternoon and tonight and see what the difference is.

[Muddler]

Can't you see that this is a clear and obvious flaw in your idea (no, it is not a theory)? Weigh yourself this afternoon and tonight and see what the difference is.

First, I am not sure if gravity is pushing or pulling (but I don't think it really matters - what counts is the predictability. If both are identical - so what?).

Theoretically, just by following the "current" concept of gravity, you actually should be more "pulled" by the sun's gravity when on the sunfacing side of earth compared to staying on the nightside (the diameter of earth is something, at least !).

If we don't measure a difference, this could only mean the difference is too slight to notice (which would fit for both theories), or it would mean there is no difference (which would then mean, both theories are not adequate).

Or am I wrong here?

If so -> tell me!

[urtalkinstupid]

How exactly is that an alternative? It's part of the current theory.

No, it is not like the current theory of Hawkings Radiation. Mine involves a pushing NOT THE PULLING of these pairs to this event horizon and then one falls in while the other gets away. I theorize that the particles emitted from a binary star system collide so fast that they produce the partice/anti-particle pair.

russ_watters err the weight is only in a slight difference, but it is there. You need a tool that measures with more accuracy.

Muddler, I agree with you. The difference is so slight that it is not noticed when measure with a regular scale.

[Entropy]

I theorize that the particles emitted from a binary star system collide so fast that they produce the partice/anti-particle pair.

Can you support this claim? I've never heard of hitting particles together really fast and creating particle antiparticle pairs. I've heard of particles breaking into smaller particles when you collide them together or turning into EM waves. You know if your just pulling this out of thin air then its not a theory. Its a conjecture, there is a difference.

[urtalkinstupid]

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/antiquarks.html

look at the seciont titled "Pair Production and Annhilation" it should help out.

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/nuctek/particleanti.html

im sure there are more

[Alkatran]

You say that the reason a tennis ball falls down is because the earth acts as a shield. Thats means that if there's anything in the way, the force of gravity (push) is lower? So you're argument that the distances between night side and day side are similar is countered by this. By all means we should weigh much less at night since we are being pushed up by the earth, but not down by the sun. (In fact, just the fact that the sun pushes is the OPPOSITE direction says something).

Unless, somehow, the amount of gravity created by the night side is almost exactly equal to the amount we get from the sun, which would be quite the coincidence since the other planets also maintain orbit!

[urtalkinstupid]

You say that the reason a tennis ball falls down is because the earth acts as a shield. Thats means that if there's anything in the way, the force of gravity (push) is lower? So you're argument that the distances between night side and day side are similar is countered by this. By all means we should weigh much less at night since we are being pushed up by the earth, but not down by the sun. (In fact, just the fact that the sun pushes is the OPPOSITE direction says something).

Unless, somehow, the amount of gravity created by the night side is almost exactly equal to the amount we get from the sun, which would be quite the coincidence since the other planets also maintain orbit!

Yes, the earth does act as a shield. Yes, if anything is in the way, the pressure exerted on an object is less in the direction in which the shield is in place. Nowhere in my theory did i say that the "we are being pushed down by the earth." The earth does not emitt sub-atomic particles from it's core. The atmosphere does provide a slight push. AGAIN, let me say that the sun is not the only source. You have to take into consideration that we can only observe approx 4% of the universe, because the rest is not visible. Janus pointed out that the nearest star was 6400 times the distance of Plut, and that this star could have have any effect on the earth or any other planet at that. Now, I would like to say sorry for even trying to introduce that stars effect how we are pushed down on earth and how the planets stay in orbit. Have you ever heard of "dark matter" or "dark energy" from anyone or any reference? I'm sure they have SOME affect on this universe and how things are layed out. Would you agree with me on that? Dark matter probably has an effect like neutrinos. They inelastically collide with objects being absorbed. This absorption causes a pressure in the directino of application. So, what about night time on earth??? THE EARTH DOES NOT PUSH AT ALL...so, do not try to say I'm saying that. At night, the sun is facing the opposite side. It emitts neutrinos which provide a force. Along with these neutrinos I'm sure there are other sub-atomic particles that apply a pressure on objects. On the night side, sub-atomic particles from space keep us on the ground. I'm sure they are even smaller than neutrinos...I could be wrong, but I do know that they are theorized but not yet discovered. These sub-atomic particles do the same as neutrinos, and I'm hypothesizing that they are in larger quantities than neutrinos also. These particles go through emission and absorption with objects exerting pressure in the process as well.

Please, I want more specific questions on this stuff.

Before I get off of here for awhile, I would like to ask all of you gravity is a pull dedicated people. The sun is a huge fusion reactor. As all of you know, fusion releases energy. The sun is losing mass every second, and as it's mass decreases. Wouldn't this decrease in mass cause less space-time curvature shortening the distance at which things can fall into it's gravatational field? Wouldn't our orbit change, because the earth is not pulled as much?


Oh, are we clear on the particle/anti-particle thing?

[Alkatran]

The orbit wouldn't necessarily change so quickly that we could observe it.

Also, you still haven't answered why all the planets can be in unique orbits if there's an exterior force cancelling out the interior one.

Like Janus said: If you were closer to the outside, you would be pushed inward, and if you were closer to the inside you would be pushed outward.

We would all end up oscilatting above and below (assuming the sun is "down") a shell that held a net force of 0 along itself. :confused:

[Entropy]

Oh, are we clear on the particle/anti-particle thing?

Alright I see what you mean now. But I still fail to see what it had to do with Hawking radiation.

[urtalkinstupid]

Yes, you are right. The orbit wouldn't be noticeable, but the days would be altered. I'm sure if you look at the sunrise and sunset history...you could notice a difference. As for the orbits for the planets...MUST I say again that the sun isnt the ONLY SOURCE nor are the stars. There are more out there than the known sub-atomic particles. I'm there those are the ones that keep the orbits in such order. This is the best explanation I have SO FAR for the orbits, but I'll do more reasearch and see what kind of logical explanation I can come up with. I'm sure if the sun is losing mass, you could tell a difference in the orbit of pluto?

Entropy:

It has a lot to do with Hawkings Radiation. I'm trying to look at this theory from a different angle (from gravity not existing and everything going through emission and absorption). What people think is happening, is not. At this so called "event horizon" of this "black hole" the binary star system is losing energy during the fusion process. This energy emitted in elementary particles as well as light set up a scenario. As these stars lose mass, they also get closer in their orbits. This energy that is being shot off by each stars collides in the center, resulting in particles and anti-particles flying around as well as the radiation that people thing is being radiated from the black hole.

[Muddler]

:zzz:

Hey guys! What's up? Didn't you notice I have been criticizing both parties of this discussion (-> Thread #28) ???
Does nobody want to argue? :cry:
Please, go ahead and give it to me ! :biggrin:

[urtalkinstupid]

first take a definite side and then depending on that the other side will "give it to you"

[Entropy]

It has a lot to do with Hawkings Radiation. I'm trying to look at this theory from a different angle (from gravity not existing and everything going through emission and absorption). What people think is happening, is not.

You know Hawking radiation is only theoratical don't you? Its never been observed.

At this so called "event horizon" of this "black hole" the binary star system is losing energy during the fusion process. This energy emitted in elementary particles as well as light set up a scenario. As these stars lose mass, they also get closer in their orbits.

Binary star systems at a black hole's event horizon? What are you talking about? Please elaborate or explain.

So binary stars lose mass and eventually collide? What does this have to do with anything? Are you trying to say particles from different stars hit and form neutrinos? The people here and I know that, were not debating it.

Look I'm just saying I don't know what you're talking about I'm not trying to bash you. I just don't know if you're just poor at writing or if English is your second language or if you just plain don't know what you're talking about.

resulting in particles and anti-particles flying around as well as the radiation that people thing is being radiated from the black hole.

Black holes do not give off any radiation except Hawking radiation which is not detectable from Earth.

[urtalkinstupid]

Hawking's Radiation has been "observed" at the event horizon of a suspected black hole. Some black holes that have been "observed" have had binary stars orbiting it. I'm coming to the conclusion that black holes do not exist. Maybe you should study the topic of black holes more. The binary star system emit energy which collide in the center producing radiation along with sub-atomic particles and anti-particles. Observers of "black holes" say that they hypothesize a black hole when an immense amount of radiation is given off close to a binary star system...hmmm...radiation and binary star system. When these stars collide, it creates a big explosion giving off "jets" of material (black holes are hypothesized to shoot off jet like material). When a neutron star explodes, it does not form a black hole depending on the left over mass. Ask me more specific questions so i can answer...cuz im sure this is not what you are looking for.

Black holes do not give off any radiation except Hawking radiation which is not detectable from Earth.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/heavy_blazar_040628.html

[Entropy]

That article doesn't even mention Hawking radiation.

Invisible to the naked eye, black holes can only be detected by the radiation they spew and their gravitational influence on their stellar neighbors.

I assume this is what you think Hawking radiation is. It is not! That is just objects being effected by the black hole's gravitational field or its photons being emitted by gas being accelerated to such high velocities as its being sucked in. As it circles into the black hole and "rubs" against other atoms it gets very hot and therefore glows (emits photons just before it passes the event horizon). Note that the gas falling into the black hole is what gives off radiation. Not the black hole itself.

And no Hawking radiation has not been observed. Anyone can tell you that.

[urtalkinstupid]

I was simply providing you with that article to inform you that Hawking's radiation is not the only thing that is being detected from these "black holes." Hawking's Radiation is the particle/anti-particle pairing at the event horizon where the particle falls in and the anti-particle is given off. That is not the only thing detected, but you also detect gamma radiation. Also, I provided you with the article to tell you that they are able to detect these suspected black holes close to our Earth.

[Entropy]

I was simply providing you with that article to inform you that Hawking's radiation is not the only thing that is being detected from these "black holes."

Hawking radiation has NOT been detected, its theoratical. Some please back me up on this because he is having a hard time believing it.

Hawking's Radiation is the particle/anti-particle pairing at the event horizon where the particle falls in and the anti-particle is given off.

Its not always the anti-particle given off some times its the regular particle. And plus I already defined Hawking radiation so this is redundant.

Also, I provided you with the article to tell you that they are able to detect these suspected black holes close to our Earth.

Re-read my previous post. I said black holes give off no radiation except Hawking radiation. The object you see is the gas falling into the black hole which hasn't yet passed the event horizon and therefore is still able to emit light and thats how we detect black holes. You seem to think that the black holes themselves glow like normal stars or something.

[urtalkinstupid]

I know Hawking's radiation has not been detected, and not only is the Hawking's radiation theoretical but so is the black hole. One thing that we are certain is happening at the "event horizon" (or as I call it the area in between the binary star system) can be detected through photons emitted. This is what can be detected from Earth. This can also be explained without the theory of a black hole. As I stated above when the binary stars give off material, the material collides to form a particle/anti-particle pair. This is theorized as Hawking's radiation, which contribute to the black hole deteriating (spell check). Now as for the the "glowing" OUTSIDE of the "event horizon" that is theorized. That can simply be explained by the collision of molecules that are giving off particles/anti-particles. Observe the sun for instance. It glows because of fusion, which gives off particles, sub-atomic particles, and anti-particles. This collision heats up and gives off UV radiation. In binary star systems, the collisions are more powerful, which result in the gamma radiation that are being detected around the vicinity of the "black hole." Black holes are theorized, and this theory should be laid to rest.

[Entropy]

I know Hawking's radiation has not been detected

Then why did you say it has?

And besides these things aren't binary stars they are disks. You can tell just by looking at them that they aren't two stars orbiting each other. And we know that binary stars don't look like disks because we've seen thousands of binary star systems and they just appear as two stars orbiting each other.

[beatrix kiddo]

first of all, i totally agree with urtalkinstupid and the push theory of gravity. i understand why he says that a pull makes no sense in that there is no such thing as a pull. we can't even pull a door open (it's called pushing on the back of the handle) so a large heavenly body, like the sun, "pulling" on a smaller body, say the earth, is also a hard thing to grasp. if gravity was indeed a pull, what would be its equal and opposite reaction? why haven't we detected it yet? gravity is caused by subatomic particles pelting the earth on all sides. these particles come from the sun and other bodies surrounding our totally awesome planet (he he). you say that we should weigh a gram at night because we're not facing the sun, eh? like urtalkinstupid said neutrinos are coming at us from other sources and even though they are pretty far away, we are getting a constant stream of these subatomic particles, just like when we are facing the sun. if the moon crosses in front of the sun, the side of the earth facing that occurence will not feel gravity's push anymore than the other side because the moon partially blocks the neutrinos from the sun to the earth. however, these blocked particles are made up because the neutrinos are able to pass through the moon. thus, there isn't a really difference. now that im up to speed allow me to say that black holes don't exist. urtalkinstupid i applaud you for accurately describing what we percieve as the event horizon of a black hole. those subatomic particle collisions can be quite the scientific tricksters. anything associated with the pull theory of gravity should most certainly be LAID TO REST!

[Eyesaw]

Speaking of hawking radiation :
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996151

[urtalkinstupid]

If you dont feel like reading this, just skip it any answer my questions at the bottom.

Finally, someone who is with me 100% about how gravity can not be a pull. You have also explained the solar eclipse dilemma than I did. Now, with a better explanation I would like to ellaborate on your idea beatrix kiddo. The next question you people are going to ask is "How can neutrinos go throught he moon?" Well, I think that is what you may ask. Just in case, I'll answer that for you. Neutrinos are approximately the size of an electron, except they a neutral charge. They arent affect by any type of electrical charge. With that being said, it can also be inferred that they can travel an atom with ease due to their neutral charge and size. Now, how do they maintain the same momentum as they started out with? This is totally hypothetical, but I've read in articles that when talking about neutrinos, the conservation of momentum plays no role. The neutrinos are able to collide inellastically (I'm sure I've mentioned this earlier) and not lose any energy in the process. Therefore, they are able to go through the moon during a solar eclipse, and they are able to be reemitted and on their path to earth. Simple as that.

Now, for another flaw that i have noted in the pull theory of gravity. ORBITS!! Isn't that an exciting topic that you people are trying to get me with?? Well, the tables are turned. Mercury's orbit is weird. I know there is an explanation, but I have yet to even hear about it. So, will someone please tell me about that? Also, I asked earlier about Pluto's orbit. The Sun is losing mass every second due to its fusion processes that occur. Although, this mass loss seems to have little affect on the "pull" of gravity it causes or the amount of space-time curvature when dealing with close objects, but what about Pluto? Would a change in Pluto's orbit be noticed, if gravity were a pull? Even with Earth this phenomenon would be observed through the way day and night are altered. The time at which sun rise and sun set could be an observation that could tell whether or not this is happening or not. If gravity were a pull, Pluto's orbit would change first and be quite noticeable, and if not already, you could tell a difference in sun set and sun rise patterns from when the were first recorded.


Eyesaw, I see that Stephen has changed his mind about "information" falling into the black hole. The way i described the black hole ensures that every particle can be detected. If black holes were merely binary star systems that accelerate particles toward the center allowing them to collide, nothing is "lost". Everything is either in energy or mass form, all is there and none is lost. Feels good to know that my idea is actually consistent with another persons idea, but explained in a more logical manor. Why is everything visible aroudn a "black hole?" Maybe because light is not bent? Yes, I'm saying that light reaches this so called "black hole" and does not fall in.

Just in case you do not want to read that and just answer my questions, here they are:

1. Mercury's orbit?
2. Pluto's orbit in regards to the sun losing mass and causing less space-time curvature?
3. What is your definition of a singularity?
4. Do black holes really exist?


uhh...what

[urtalkinstupid]

Oh, Entropy! I see that you have doubts about my binary star system idea. Are you saying that black holes are not orbited by binary stars?

[Entropy]

Now, for another flaw that i have noted in the pull theory of gravity.

But gravity isn't a pull or a push like I said in my very first post. Its a simple effect of space-time.

Are you saying that black holes are not orbited by binary stars?

Oh there are some black holes that are orbited by other stars. But not all! Many black holes just have disks of gas spinning around them, so how do you explain that?

Why is everything visible aroudn a "black hole?" Maybe because light is not bent? Yes, I'm saying that light reaches this so called "black hole" and does not fall in.

Light is bent. It has been proven that the gravitational field of galaxies have bent light rays around them and it has been observed. Its also been proven that light is red-shifted by gravity. How do you explain that?

first of all, i totally agree with urtalkinstupid and the push theory of gravity. i understand why he says that a pull makes no sense in that there is no such thing as a pull. we can't even pull a door open (it's called pushing on the back of the handle) so a large heavenly body, like the sun, "pulling" on a smaller body, say the earth, is also a hard thing to grasp. if gravity was indeed a pull, what would be its equal and opposite reaction? why haven't we detected it yet? gravity is caused by subatomic particles pelting the earth on all sides. these particles come from the sun and other bodies surrounding our totally awesome planet (he he). you say that we should weigh a gram at night because we're not facing the sun, eh? like urtalkinstupid said neutrinos are coming at us from other sources and even though they are pretty far away, we are getting a constant stream of these subatomic particles, just like when we are facing the sun. if the moon crosses in front of the sun, the side of the earth facing that occurence will not feel gravity's push anymore than the other side because the moon partially blocks the neutrinos from the sun to the earth. however, these blocked particles are made up because the neutrinos are able to pass through the moon. thus, there isn't a really difference. now that im up to speed allow me to say that black holes don't exist. urtalkinstupid i applaud you for accurately describing what we percieve as the event horizon of a black hole. those subatomic particle collisions can be quite the scientific tricksters. anything associated with the pull theory of gravity should most certainly be LAID TO REST!

Hmm... Some actually agreing with you and its there very first post. Look we know its you, you're not fooling anyone.

[urtalkinstupid]

But gravity isn't a pull or a push like I said in my very first post. Its a simple effect of space-time.

Yes, this is what allows objects to fall. If i recall correctly, falling is like being pulled. You throw an apple up, and when it falls, it is being pulled down. So, yes, you are still saying gravity is a pull.

Light is bent. It has been proven that the gravitational field of galaxies have bent light rays around them and it has been observed...Its also been proven that light is red-shifted by gravity.

Nothing is proven in science. The obsevered part, yes. It has not been proven that light is bent, or that light is red-shifted by gravity. Seeing you believe that, I'm assuming that you believe that photons have mass? I think they do, but by some, they are believed to have no mass.

Many black holes just have disks of gas spinning around them, so how do you explain that?

Quite simple actually. I think a more accurate description would be an ellipse. This elliptical spinning of gas aroudn the "black hole" can simply be described as emission and absorption. Black holes are noted to be found at the center of galaxies, in the middle of star clusters, and in binary star systems (like the super-massive black hole in our galaxy). So, I would like to say that all stars emitt more than they absorb, but this does not mean that they dont absorb at all. The stars exchange their gases within each other. NOTE: as I said earlier black holes are sometimes found in the middle of star clusters orbiting around no central body. Everything is said to have an eliptical orbit, and this elliptical orbit explains that elliptical shape of gases. I'm sure that you will find this hard to believe.

Before we jump to conclusions, I am not beatrix kiddo. I do know who that is though. It's a friend of mine, and we both believe in the same things, because they are more logical than the proposed theories today.

I'm guessing that you cant answer any of my questions entropy?

[Entropy]

So, yes, you are still saying gravity is a pull.

No its not. Its not a force. It only appears to be "pulled" from your 4 dimensional perspective of the universe.

And if you do believe in the graviton then gravity isn't a pull. Just like when two charged particles are attracted to each other they emit photons in opposite directions to push themselves together. Gravitons would act in the same way. That would solve your aborbsion and emission problem.

Nothing is proven in science.

Oh don't even go there. Thats pathetic defense when you know you're wrong.

Seeing you believe that, I'm assuming that you believe that photons have mass? I think they do, but by some, they are believed to have no mass.


Just about everyone agrees photons have mass. They just have no mass when at rest, just like neutrinos.

and this elliptical orbit explains that elliptical shape of gases.

They appear elliptical in most pictures because you're looking at them from an angle. Just like when you tilt a plate and it "appears" narrower like an ellipse.

I do know who that is though. It's a friend of mine, and we both believe in the same things, because they are more logical than the proposed theories today.


You don't know him but he is a friend? Its really hard to believe what you say when you condradict yourself so much.

I'm guessing that you cant answer any of my questions entropy?

But that in it's self is the only question you asked in your entire post? So I guess I can answer "all" of you're questions.

[russ_watters]

...there is no such thing as a pull. we can't even pull a door open (it's called pushing on the back of the handle) When you pull on a piece of string, what do you call the force in the wire?

[russ_watters]

First, I am not sure if gravity is pushing or pulling (but I don't think it really matters - what counts is the predictability. If both are identical - so what?).

Theoretically, just by following the "current" concept of gravity, you actually should be more "pulled" by the sun's gravity when on the sunfacing side of earth compared to staying on the nightside (the diameter of earth is something, at least !).

If we don't measure a difference, this could only mean the difference is too slight to notice (which would fit for both theories), or it would mean there is no difference (which would then mean, both theories are not adequate).

Or am I wrong here?

If so -> tell me!Since the distance you are from the sun isn't much different on one side of the earth from the other, the total force isn't much different. This isn't the issue though.

If a push from the sun was any significant influence on our gravity (and that is what has been suggested), then you'd notice a significant difference in your weight depending on the orientation of the sun.

[russ_watters]

russ_watters err the weight is only in a slight difference, but it is there. You need a tool that measures with more accuracy. Weight is measured all the time with highly precise instruments. If there was a difference, it'd be measurable.

Also, you are saying both that the sun is a significant influence on our gravity and an insignificant influence on our gravity. You can't have it both ways. Either it is or it isn't a significant influence. I weigh 150 lb. If 149 pounds of that was due to solar pressure, then I'd weigh 1 pound at night. If 1 pound was due to solar pressure, then the other 149 pounds is due to something else. The first is clearly wrong. If the second is what you are implying, then tell us where the bulk of the gravitational force comes from. If your answer is the other stars, Janus already handled that, and it should be self evident - other stars are so far away, they couldn't have the effect you predict.

[urtalkinstupid]

russ_waters why don't you measure your mass with a very precise instrument during the day and with the same precise instrument that same night. Take note in the difference. The sun is significant influence on gravity, but it is not the only thing that affects gravity. I'm not belittling the sun's significance with that statement. I'm simply saying that other sources account for gravity on the earth. REMEMBER what I'm saying is NOT based on weight. Weight is the attractive force between two forces due to gravity. I do not support gravity as an attractive force. Maybe if you had a better understanding of neutrinos and how emission and absorption works, maybe you could have a feasible arguement.

Can someone answer MY questions now, please?

[beatrix kiddo]

ok russ when u pull on the string u are actually pushing down on the sides of it and moving ur arm back.. i've thought of that too. the force in the wire is hmmm PUSH maybe??

[beatrix kiddo]

hey russ now answer me this: what is the equal and opposite reaction to gravity?

[beatrix kiddo]

http://amoureternal.com/oti/gravity/page1.htm

there u go stupid... it has really awesome info about neutrinos and the push theory of gravity

[beatrix kiddo]

wow.. lame. u think urtalkinstupid and i are one in the same? u can't prove ur failing point so u jump to that conclusion? maybe u should answer our questions about ur ideas of gravity instead of taking cheap shots at us.

[urtalkinstupid]

hahaha Entropy i just saw what you posted. Yes, i agree about the elliptical modification of cirlces when viewed at an angle. So, we are on the same level about gravity not being a pull?

Graviton's havent even been detected, so why believe in them? Neutrinos, on the other hand, have been detected. Space-time hasn't even been proven to exist. Oh, light is bent, so that means space-time curvature is true. When light travels around a massive body it encounters the space-time curvature that the body emits and falls towards it, but the speed of light is able to escape, because the rate at which space is curved is significantly lower than the velocity of light only causing a bend.

Me, contradictive about who I know and who I do not know? Maybe if your reading comprehension skills were as good as your arguements (not saying much), then maybe you would see what I really said.

Before we jump to conclusions, I am not beatrix kiddo. I do know who that is though. It's a friend of mine, and we both believe in the same things, because they are more logical than the proposed theories today.

Anywhere in there did I say I did not know beatrix kiddo? Stop being ignorant. I have questions, and you are unable to answer them; I'm assuming. Just in case you did not get my questions before hand, here they are again plus more:

1. The perihelion of Mercury?
2. Pluto's orbit as an effect of space-time curvature.
3. Definition of a singularity.
4. Difference between mass and weight? (since some of you are obviously confused)
5. Whether or not space-time curvature depends on mass, weight, or density? I've heard it is caused by all three, and all three are different concepts.

[Alkatran]

russ_waters why don't you measure your mass with a very precise instrument during the day and with the same precise instrument that same night. Take note in the difference. The sun is significant influence on gravity, but it is not the only thing that affects gravity. I'm not belittling the sun's significance with that statement. I'm simply saying that other sources account for gravity on the earth. REMEMBER what I'm saying is NOT based on weight. Weight is the attractive force between two forces due to gravity. I do not support gravity as an attractive force. Maybe if you had a better understanding of neutrinos and how emission and absorption works, maybe you could have a feasible arguement.


The reaction to gravity is your pull on the opposite object. The earth is pulling on the sun just as hard as the sun is pulling on the earth.

Also, A curve in space time is NOT pull OR push. It's just a straight line that appears curved to us. (See the bowling ball on a sheet analogy to a 2d person)

[urtalkinstupid]

They both together have a force. It's not that one has a force, then the other has a force. The sun "pulls" on the earth and the earth "pulls" on the objects that are on the earth. When you throw a ball in the air, the ball pulls on the earth while the earth pulls on the ball?


What is the equal and opposite reaction to the curve of space and time?

[Alkatran]

They both together have a force. It's not that one has a force, then the other has a force. The sun "pulls" on the earth and the earth "pulls" on the objects that are on the earth. When you throw a ball in the air, the ball pulls on the earth while the earth pulls on the ball?


What is the equal and opposite reaction to the curve of space and time?

Force of earth on ball = Ball's mass * earth's mass* constant/ distance ^2
Force of ball one earth = Ball's mass * earth's mass* constant/ distance ^2
The only difference between them is they are exactly opposite in direction, thus the reaction.

The curve of space time isn't a force, so there doesn't need to be a reaction. But if you want you can see the ball's curving of space time as the reaction to the earth's... not that that makes any sense whatsoever.

[urtalkinstupid]

The ball does not "pull" on the earth. It does not have enough mass to generate an attractive force if you are going by the pool model. Two objects pull as one if you want to throw in that equation. There is no opposite force. The pull that the earth does on the ball, is the only pull in the system. WHAT is the opposite reacion of this pull. The ball doesnt pull on the earth because its mass is, as I said before, is too small to generate a pull. Gravity is said to be one of the weakest of the four forces. So, if your object's mass is little, then it has little force, which means that since gravity is such a weak force, this force that the ball draws in is very little.

[Entropy]

1. The perihelion of Mercury?
2. Pluto's orbit as an effect of space-time curvature.
3. Definition of a singularity.
4. Difference between mass and weight? (since some of you are obviously confused)
5. Whether or not space-time curvature depends on mass, weight, or density? I've heard it is caused by all three, and all three are different concepts.

Oh these are the questions. Alright I can answer most of them.

1. What about mercury? Why is it the closest to the sun? Be more specific please.

2. Well you see actually all orbits are a little eliptical. This is because the sun isn't the only source of gravity. Other objects create gravity that can change the speed of a planet during its orbit there by changing the shape of its orbit. Other planets, moons, asteriods, impacts can all change an object's orbit from a circular one. Even some man made satalites have been put intensionally in eliptical orbits using good old equations that are in harmony with the space-time curvature theory of gravity.

3. A singularity is a point-like structure that is infinitely small and dimensionless. It was once though that black holes where singularities but is now mostly excepted that they are not. They are thought to be on the scale of strings.

4. Mass is a property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion. Weight is the measure of how heavy something is.

5. It depends on mass because weight and volume are in themselves functions of mass. Here are the equations I'm sure you are familiar with them:

D = kg / {m^3}
W = kg*{m/{s^2}}

I hope that satifies you.


The ball does not "pull" on the earth. It does not have enough mass to generate an attractive force if you are going by the pool model.


Yes it does. Every thing with mass effects everything else with mass with some degree, its just that the ball effects the Earth very little. There is a difference between a little and not at all.

[urtalkinstupid]

1. The perihelion of Mercury?
2. Let me ellaborate on what answer I was seeking for out of this question. If the sun is losing mass, it's reach of space-time curvature should be reduced. Althouh this change is unoticed at Earth's distance. I'm sure a change in Pluto's orbit. I'm sure Pluto should show some kind of "drift" away from it's average elliptical orbit.
3. I heard that a singularity has infinite density. How is this so? Ellaborate on ths string. How does it have such a strong gravitational pull?
4. I agree with you on the mass definition, but I'd have to disagree on your definition of weight. I thought that you would know what weight was since you are a believer in the pull of gravity.
5. If not dependent on density, why is it said the black hole is so dense, that it creates a strong space-time curvature?

Satisfied...NO.


Everything attracts in a system. The pull that both of the objects have is the action...what is the reaction?

[terrabyte]

the reaction is they're constantly falling towards each other <duh>

[Entropy]

1. The perihelion of Mercury? What do you mean? Perihelion means closest to the sun or any other celestial object. Do you want to know why it is the closest to the sun? I'm afraid I might be unfamiliar with the term you are talking about, if you mean something else.

2. Simply because it is at a greater distance does not mean the change in effects are multipled. It is possible that it is drifting away by some amount and isn't measureable with current technology.

3. Look singularity is just a word. Yes a singularity would have infinite density, but its not thought by most that they exist anymore, atleast in black holes. I am not an expert on strings. I'm sure there are others on this forum that are more qualified to answer this. But I'll give you a rough definition. Strings are extremely small objects that are theorized to make up all particles. There are "open" and "closed" and all strings have properties in the way they act that intern determains the properties of the particles they make up. Perhaps you should look up on "M-theory", "String Theory", or look on the Strings forum.

4. I provided my definition. And I do not believe that gravity is a push or pull. Again its a product of space-time. If you don't understand it I don't know what to tell you. I guess all I can say is try and read up more on it and maybe you'll grasp what we're saying.

5. Simply because black holes are dense does not mean density causes space-time curvature. Let me try to explain. The gravitional effects are stronger as you approach the center of an object. This is why fusion only occures at the center of the sun. Gravity isn't strong enough at the center of the sun to induce fusion but it is strong enough near the center to produce it. You see as a black hole strinks (changes density) the effects on its boundry becomes stronger but the overall amount of space-time that is warped remains the same. Note this equation that gives the effects of gravity at a point given the mass:

G = {GM}/{r^2} <---- That first G should be a little "g" having trouble with this
G = 6.67 x {10^{-11}} {Nm^2} / {kg^2}

But in a way the shape of space-time curvature is effected by the distubution of mass over a volume. But mass what I mean is mass is what causes space-time curvature.

[urtalkinstupid]

1. The irregular orbit of Mercury.
2. I'm trying to conlude that there is not a difference at all.
3. Ok, does a string that is supposedly composing this black have finite mass or finite volume? That's what I want to know.
4. Weight is the measure of how much gravity pull on a mass.
5. If you dont believe in push or pull but in space-time curvature, how are we anchored on this earth? I'll ellaborate on this onc ei get the answer to question #3.

[terrabyte]

Even if you compress a soccer ball down to the size of a needlepoint, it still has the mass of a soccer ball <which decidedly does not warp space very much>

compress a nebula or galaxy down to that size and we're talking some SERIOUS mass and VERY evident gravitational effects on space.

[terrabyte]

5. it's NOT a pull OR a push, he's said it like 4 times. we're "anchored" on this earth because it causes a curvature in space such that we're always at an "incline". moving UP the incline WOULD require force.

[terrabyte]

"pull" is just a term of convenience for a evident source of force being in the same direction as its exertion.

since this is not really a force, just a natural "law of the universe", it's not really a "pull"

[urtalkinstupid]

the reaction is they're constantly falling towards each other <duh>

That is still apart of the action

Yes, I agree with you that pull is just a term of convience. There is no such thing as a pull, yet many people associate gravity with it. Einstein used this pull model to describe space-time curvature, so space-time curvature is this convience term "pull" expressed in a different way.

[Entropy]

1. The irregular orbit can be explained just like eliptical orbits can be explained. Other gravitational sources and celestial impacts change the speed of the planet changing its orbit from what should be a circle in idle conditions into an irregular orbit.

2. Okay, but there isn't any observational evidence to say that Pluto is drifting away, coming closers or staying exactly the same. So until we can measure any change we won't know whos right. And that probably won't happen for a long long time.

3. Yes they have finite mass and finite density.

4. I think "weight is how much gravity affects something" would be a more accurate definition. Atleast according to the space-time theory of gravity.

5. With this you are dealing with a realm above are normal 4 dimensional world in which we see space. So it can be hard to imagine if you're not use to it. Anchored is just a term.

[urtalkinstupid]

It's obvious that you have never heard of Mercury's orbit. Yes, I agree no observational evidence Pluto is drifting. It should be drifting ever so slightly if space-time curvature were keeping it in place, but it isn't because its orbit is sustained by sub-atomic forces. I have come to the conlcusion that space-time does not rely on mass, but it relies on density. The definition that I gave you of mass and your new one are similar. May I ask you what is the evidence of space-time curvature? Is it the bending of light?

[Alkatran]

It's obvious that you have never heard of Mercury's orbit. Yes, I agree no observational evidence Pluto is drifting. It should be drifting ever so slightly if space-time curvature were keeping it in place, but it isn't because its orbit is sustained by sub-atomic forces. I have come to the conlcusion that space-time does not rely on mass, but it relies on density. The definition that I gave you of mass and your new one are similar. May I ask you what is the evidence of space-time curvature? Is it the bending of light?

Space time doesn't rely on density it relies on mass! You can't come up with conclusions like the one you just made out of the blue! Although, I will admit that very dense objects will have their space-time curvature focused more towards their center.

And yes, space-time does bend light, this has been proven by observing the positions of stars in a solar eclipse. (The stars are a at a "different" position because the sun bends the light which would normally miss us)

There are other proofs for space-time too, like... oh... I don't know.. Relativity???

[urtalkinstupid]

WOW, nothing can be proven in science; it's all THEORETICAL. No, it would seem more logical that space-time be the result of dense objects rather than massive objects. Relativity does not prove ANYTHING. General Relativity was based off of Newton's theories. Newton proposed gravity, but he did not know how it worked. Einstein, through Newton, explained this form of gravity. He did a poor job of doing so. Mathematics doesn't mean anything. You can manipulate a mathematical equation how you wanted to make it work. Do they have an equation for gravitational lensing? Oh, light is not constant.

Mathematics is a human invention and is not the ultimate logic of the Universe.

[Alkatran]

Sorry, I should have used the word "support" instead of theory. My point is that relativity supports space-time curvature.

[Entropy]

WOW, nothing can be proven in science; it's all THEORETICAL.
Relativity does not prove ANYTHING.

You don't have to point that out. Why don't you just save us the time and just come out and say realitivity is wrong.

No, it would seem more logical that space-time be the result of dense objects rather than massive objects.

How is it more logical? Please explain.

He did a poor job of doing so.

How did he do a poor job? Explain?

Mathematics doesn't mean anything. You can manipulate a mathematical equation how you wanted to make it work.

Of course math is useless! I mean its not like are modern world is based off of math! Surely math doesn't really mean anything. Its not like electricity, cars, planes, spacecrafts, computers, phones, electronics, buildings, bridges, roads, medicine, boats, agriculture, weather forcasting, economics, construction and especially astrophysics have anything to do with math. People don't really use math, they just go with there instincts and what they feel is right when launching a probe to Mars or calculating the proper dose for a new drug. Just like how you feel your theory is right without any support.

Do they have an equation for gravitational lensing? Oh, light is not constant.


As a matter of fact the do: http://www.astro.soton.ac.uk/~crk/PH227/node43.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Mooney
Mathematics is a human invention and is not the ultimate logic of the Universe.


Who is Stephen Mooney? Is he suppost to be some brillant genius that everyone looks up to?


By the way urtalkingstupid, what type of math courses have you taken? I'm just wondering what type of eduction you've had.

[urtalkinstupid]

When I said "He did a poor job of doing so," that's exactly what I meant.

He based his experiments in General Relativity on Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton did not have a thorough understanding of how gravity worked. Hence, how gravity is so poorly preceived as. How is someone able to ellaborate on something that is not even understood? You say that you dont believe that gravity is a pull or push, but gravity is really the effect of space-time curvature? Well, let me squash your little precious belief. Space-time curvature was just another way of explaining the pull affect of gravity; they are the same. By saying that you do not believe in gravity being a push or a pull, you also say that there isn't a force governing our attraction to the earth. What kind of force is associated with space-time curvature. By force I mean vector force like up, down, left, right? You are also going against gravity being one of the four natural forces. So, it seems that you go against Einstein in a lot of things also.

Now, on to how Einstein did not describe the behavior of light very well. Light is not constant; IT IS RELATIVE. Everything is relative. Nothing is constant. Einstein says that light keeps its constant velocity due to length contraction and time dilation. How can something physically get smaller as it goes faster? Does it lose length just out of nowhere? The Lorentz Transformation is another mathematical fallacy. The shortening of the objects is just something our mind sees, because it can not calculate something that is moving fast with accuracy. The speed of light DOES depend on the velocity of the source or the object. If you were moving towards light at a high speed wouldn't that light be moving towards you faster? You would say, "No." Why? The object goes through length contraction making it shrink, therfore the light has to travel farther to make up for that speed. WEIRD!!

Density seems more logical. You question me on that statement. Now, I'll ellaborate. Take a huge star. It runs out of fuel and is left with a core that gravity acts upon. Before gravity takes effect, the sapce-time curvature that the star produces is not intense enough to bend light, but once that star condenses and becomes more dense, the space-time curvature is more intense, though that object has the same mass. Something less dense cause less space-time curvature, while something more dense cause more space-time curvature.

That is a well defined equation based on a theory that should be thrown out. I think it should be density NOT mass that affects anything.

Stephen Mooney is a man who recently made a paradigm of the universe. It explains a lot of things that Newton or Einstein tried to explain, but as I stated earlier, they failed to give a good description of what was happening. Stephen Mooney (http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/)

Actually, I'm fixing to be as junior in high school. I just finished pre-cal this past school year. This upcoming school year I'm skipping Calculus AB AP, and I'm going straight to Calculus BC AP. I've only had one year of academic physics also, and I took physics in 9th grade. This coming school year I'm taking Physics B AP. So, I'm sure you have more knowledge of math than I. I'm sure you are also much older than I.

Now, may I ask you a question that will reveal your intelligence? What is the highest level of grammar that you have completed?

I mean its not like are modern world is based off of math! Surely math doesn't really mean anything.

I think what you meant was "our." heh :rofl:

Here's another link. The only thing I do not support on this site is that they believe in black holes, but I can't be too picky.
http://gravity.ontheinter.net/

[beatrix kiddo]

hey entropy, alkatran, and terrabyte!!! are u aware that newton's third law has to deal with force??? if you don't believe gravity is a force, then why give me the equal and opposite reaction to it? that right there shows me you are wavering in ur inferior beliefs. HAHAHA!! i will come out and say that i think einstein was wrong, his beliefs about gravity were wrong, and u are all wrong. u should bow to the superiority of my beliefs on gravity...

[terrabyte]

"Density" has nothing to do with the amount of bending of space-time other than reducing the distances one can achieve in relation to another object. Say you have a 1kg metal weight and you also have a 1kg balloon of air. they are both exerting the same "pull" (space curvature "footprint") but you can put another object MUCH closer to the center of mass on the metal weight, so the "pull" is much more evident.

it's all about mass.

we all know that u are probably in ur late 40's arguing with a couple of teenagers about gravity and stuff

he's not arguing, he's "educating" you. And from last i read, he's not much older than you...

[urtalkinstupid]

Let's say that you condense that 1kg of "air" (not that specific are we?) to make it more dense. The amount of space-time curvature is increased. Same mass, less volume, more space-time curvature.

[Entropy]

wow entropy... i just read how u called out urtalkinstupid's math level and i've gotta say real mature.. we all know that u are probably in ur late 40's arguing with a couple of teenagers about gravity and stuff. i hope i will one day be as successful as u when i turn 49.. living with mom, etc.

I was mearly curious. I just wanted to know if understood what he was saying about math because I find it hard for anyone to think math is meaningless and really know a lot about it.

Whats so immature about it? Lots of people ask what other people's math level is so they can better explain things to them on their level. I'm sorry that you're so offended by it.

Just so you know I'm 17 and about to be a senior in high school. I'm taking AP Physics C next year along with AP Calculus (even though I already thought myself Calculus). It was to bad I couldn't graduate this year by going into duel in rollment, but since I was in IB (International Baccalaureate) I had to complete some other non-academic courses (i.e. life management and PE). I am also in the physics club and JETS (although it was canceled for some reason last year). And there are people over 40 on these forums (including mods and mentors) that may find what you said offensive. Real professional physicists spend there time here and seriously exchange knowledge and develop theories here.

Actually, I'm fixing to be as junior in high school. I just finished pre-cal this past school year. This upcoming school year I'm skipping Calculus AB AP, and I'm going straight to Calculus BC AP. I've only had one year of academic physics also, and I took physics in 9th grade. This coming school year I'm taking Physics B AP. So, I'm sure you have more knowledge of math than I. I'm sure you are also much older than I.

Wow, you think I'm a lot older? I'm humbled. :)

I think what you meant was "our." heh

Your one to talk. Lets look at all your mistakes.

Yes, i agree about the elliptical modification of cirlces when viewed at an angle.

Circlces? What?!

WHAT is the opposite reacion of this pull.

Reacion? Do you mean reaction?

Althouh this change is unoticed at Earth's distance.

Its spelled "although" and "unnoticed".

I'll ellaborate on this onc ei get the answer to question #3.

Is it really that hard to spell "one". And since when was there an "e" in "I".

I think I made my point. Are we here to talk about insignificate grammar errors or physics?

He based his experiments in General Relativity on Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton did not have a thorough understanding of how gravity worked. Hence, how gravity is so poorly preceived as.

Are you saying Newton's equations don't work? Because if they don't then why aren't satellites falling from space and why are we able to launch probes with such accuracy? It seems that although Newton didn't exactly know what gravity was he was sure able to describe its effects well.

Now, on to how Einstein did not describe the behavior of light very well. Light is not constant; IT IS RELATIVE. Everything is relative. Nothing is constant. Einstein says that light keeps its constant velocity due to length contraction and time dilation. How can something physically get smaller as it goes faster?

In length contraction it doesn't get physically smaller. It appears smaller for an observer. And light doesn't keep it's velocity due to length contraction or time dilation.

So you're just assuming everything is relative?

The Lorentz Transformation is another mathematical fallacy. The shortening of the objects is just something our mind sees, because it can not calculate something that is moving fast with accuracy. The speed of light DOES depend on the velocity of the source or the object. If you were moving towards light at a high speed wouldn't that light be moving towards you faster? You would say, "No." Why? The object goes through length contraction making it shrink, therfore the light has to travel farther to make up for that speed. WEIRD!!

The speed of light does not change. If you are speeding toward an observer and you shoot a beam of light the light's wavefront still only moves at c but when the observer "sees" it, the peaks in the EM wave move pass him faster, or in other words the light wave's frequency is blue-shifted.

This is how the police can see how fast you're going on the highway by knowing at what frequecy the infared beam they shoot at you is, and then see how much the frequency is shifted when the atoms in you're car absorb and then emit it back to the ray gun.

You should learn more about this in AP physics B along with relativity.

Light doesn't not behave like marcoscopic objects at slow everyday speeds you are use to in everyday life. It hard for me to put into words all the quantum mechanical process that go along with emitting light at high speeds. Maybe someone else can describe it better than I can.

Same mass, less volume, more space-time curvature.

No its the same amount of curvature just compressed into a smalled space.

[terrabyte]

Case in point, take a soccer ball, stand 1 ft away from it.

now don't move at all but "densify" the soccer ball as much as you want but don't move it from its center of mass. it will not change the amount it "pulls" on me one bit.

you can compress that mass down to a singularity and still i would not feel the slightest bit more "pull" from that ball

[urtalkinstupid]

Wow, you dug deep into past posts! Nice work, Entropy.
I'm taking AP Physics C next year along with AP Calculus (even though I already thought myself Calculus)..

How did you accomplish this?

No, I'm not saying Newton's equations do not work; I'm saying that his equations are not an explanation of what is really happening. Even you say that is not what is happening. "Gravity is not a push or pull; it is space-time curvature that counts for all of actions and reactions."

The speed of light is NOT constant. Why can't cops get accurate readings if they are moving at a constant velocity? www.aliceinphysics.com

If it is the same, why is it when a star condenses to a one dimensional string it has the same mas sof the star but more space-time curvature resulting in a more powerful gravitational pull?

[Entropy]

How did you accomplish this?

I opened a Calculus book and learned it. I read just about every book on math or science I can get my hands on.

The speed of light is NOT constant. Why can't cops get accurate readings if they are moving at a constant velocity?

Okay lets say someone is speeding at 80 mph and a cop is going 50 mph. If the cop trys to make a reading then it will read 30 mph because from the cop's inertial frame of reference the speeding car is going 30 mph. Thats the whole principle of relativity.

but more space-time curvature resulting in a more powerful gravitational pull?

It doesn't have a stronger gravitational "pull". Its just that a smaller area of space is being warped by the same magnitude of mass.

[urtalkinstupid]

All-in-all, light is not constant. Get it through your heads. Einstein is not one of the best physicists. His ideas shouldn't be grasped so close to your dear little chest. Alice Law (http://www.aliceinphysics.com) Try going there, absorb some information, and tell me what you think. Try keeping an open mind when viewing that source.

Take Stephen Hawkings for instance. He was the cause for this theory of Hawking's Radiation. He proposed this theory as a way to explain the deteriation of black holes. Also stating that once information goes in, it can not come back out. Now, he is saying that this is not true. A theory that was viewed to be taking place, was crushed by the man who proposed it. Does that mean anything to you? In my proposal of gravity not being a pull, I noted that black holes do not exist. This being said, there is no reason for "information" to even become lost.

Well, can you give me a thorough explanation on why black holes have a further reach of space-time curvature than the neutron star it was "born" from? I mean so thorough that my HEAD EXPLODES.

Have you looked at any of the links that I have provided you?

Gravity is not a pull or a manifestation of curves in space-time.

[Entropy]

All-in-all, light is not constant. Get it through your heads. Einstein is not one of the best physicists. His ideas shouldn't be grasped so close to your dear little chest. Alice Law Try going there, absorb some information, and tell me what you think. Try keeping an open mind when viewing that source.


Yes I've looked at it and I'm haven't changed my opinions because those are thought experiments that are incorrect. Why are they incorrect? Because thats not what happens in real life. Similar experiments have been done and they support Einstein's theories.

There is a thread where is this being discussed, there are people there that are much more knowledgeable than me, perhaps they have put in a way that you can more easily understand. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=32600

Take Stephen Hawkings for instance. He was the cause for this theory of Hawking's Radiation. He proposed this theory as a way to explain the deteriation of black holes.

No he didn't. Until then it was thought that black holes didn't radiated anything.

Also stating that once information goes in, it can not come back out. Now, he is saying that this is not true. A theory that was viewed to be taking place, was crushed by the man who proposed it.

It wasn't really a theory as much as it was a wager. Hawking simply made a bet with Kip Thorne that information would be lost inside of black holes. He lost the bet. What's your point here? That people can be wrong? Does that some how make Einstein wrong as well? Its not like information loss was some fundamental theory thats shattering modern physics.

This being said, there is no reason for "information" to even become lost.

So? Simply because we met bumps along the way trying to explain the universe means we should simply throw all we know away and start over?

Well, can you give me a thorough explanation on why black holes have a further reach of space-time curvature than the neutron star it was "born" from?

For the millionth time! They don't! The warp is more intense but its over a smaller area!

Have you looked at any of the links that I have provided you?


Yep, everyone.

[beatrix kiddo]

uhhhh we all know that hawking was the first to propose that black holes radiate. urtalkinstupid is saying that this concept of hawking's radiation lead to the realization that black holes eventually "evaporate". i doubt that hawking's bet loss was meant to sway ur opinion about einstein... but it does show that maybe there are other things in astronomy that people need to reconsider.. like oh GR and SR.

[terrabyte]

you're not knowledgable enough about the subject, or other subjects in this field to make such bold and sweeping statements and expect people to take you seriously.

if i'm working on my car and the kid next door comes by and says "hey if you put TWO batteries in your car it will run faster!" i'd tell him to piss off and go play Pokemon with his friends

but if the kid next door has a father who's an auto mechanic who works for Nascar and he comes over and says "hey your fuel seems to be running a little rich, it's having trouble turning over, you might want to adjust your choke and carbuerator" i might listen to what he's saying

[beatrix kiddo]

entropy why is it that u still haven't answered urtalkinstupid's first question? u know... it's the one about mercury's orbit? do you even know what it looks like or why it is truly unique? if so please give me a more indepth explanation... and yes i saw ur measly excuse for an answer and i could've gotten that out of an encyclopedia.

oh here u go stupid(urtalkin): http://www.hermograph.com/science/mercuryd.htm

[terrabyte]

you don't have to know more than ME, you have to know more than AUTHORITIES on the SUBJECT.

putting that beside the point, i'm going to give you a tip. read and UNDERSTAND the current accepted theories from people with degrees and years more education than you before you embark on your trek to debunk them and rewrite the universe to suit your views.

you don't even understand space curvature and it's VERY basic, boilerplate stuff.

i think they even teach it to third graders are the natural science museum

[urtalkinstupid]

Ok, let's go back to the subject of gravity not being a pull. Well, as entropy and terrabyte put it "space-time curvature causing an inclination." Gravity is the result of emission and absorption. This emission and absorption relies on density. I'm sure this concept is available to pre-schoolers through picture books. Everything gives off energy and absorbs energy. How does pull gravity or space-time curvature express this concept?

terrabyte, when the world was viewed as flat, it was something that no one could argue against. Even through observations the world seemed flat, but that thought doesn't run through our mind today, because we know that the world is sphere like. When Newton said that gravity was a force that resulted in two masses acting on each other depending on their distances, Einstein knew thought that wasn't the only thing happened, and he chose to ellaborate on that idea proposed by Newton. Theories are revised all the time. I think that the whole concept of gravity and light should be revised as well. Gravity can not possibly be an attractive force. It seems more logical with reality to be a repulsive force, and anyone who knows rational from irrational should know that. Missing mass in the universe? The universe expanding by a mysterious "repulsive" force? Galaxies moving away from each other?

[beatrix kiddo]

terrabyte u can think of urtalkinstupid and me as present day columbuses... hehehe

[Janus]

.

Well, can you give me a thorough explanation on why black holes have a further reach of space-time curvature than the neutron star it was "born" from? I mean so thorough that my HEAD EXPLODES.

They don't. And no one familiar with the subject says that they do.

[jcsd]

terrabyte u can think of urtalkinstupid and me as present day columbuses... hehehe
Or perhaps a pair of gibbering fools, no?

[Alkatran]

Ok, let's go back to the subject of gravity not being a pull. Well, as entropy and terrabyte put it "space-time curvature causing an inclination." Gravity is the result of emission and absorption. This emission and absorption relies on density. I'm sure this concept is available to pre-schoolers through picture books. Everything gives off energy and absorbs energy. How does pull gravity or space-time curvature express this concept?

terrabyte, when the world was viewed as flat, it was something that no one could argue against. Even through observations the world seemed flat, but that thought doesn't run through our mind today, because we know that the world is sphere like. When Newton said that gravity was a force that resulted in two masses acting on each other depending on their distances, Einstein knew thought that wasn't the only thing happened, and he chose to ellaborate on that idea proposed by Newton. Theories are revised all the time. I think that the whole concept of gravity and light should be revised as well. Gravity can not possibly be an attractive force. It seems more logical with reality to be a repulsive force, and anyone who knows rational from irrational should know that. Missing mass in the universe? The universe expanding by a mysterious "repulsive" force? Galaxies moving away from each other?

Alright, first of all, observations were being made that suggested the earth wasn't flat. I believe that these were made very early on. Observations such as why ships disappeared over the horizon, etc.

Now, explain to me why gravity, when seen as a space-time curve, is a push or a pull? Looks to me like there's NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever.

[Janus]

terrabyte u can think of urtalkinstupid and me as present day columbuses... hehehe

As in being wrong, and clinging to wrong beliefs (despite evidence to the contrary) until your death bed?

(note: Columbus did not set out to prove the world round, he set out to prove that it was smaller than it is(and was generally thought to be in his time). He hit an unknown(to him) continent, thought he had reached India, and believed that he had reached India to his dying day.)

[Entropy]

entropy why is it that u still haven't answered urtalkinstupid's first question? u know... it's the one about mercury's orbit? do you even know what it looks like or why it is truly unique? if so please give me a more indepth explanation... and yes i saw ur measly excuse for an answer and i could've gotten that out of an encyclopedia.

I admitted that I didn't not know about the irregularity of Mercury's orbit. I've tried to search for some references to it without success. But thank you for that link I'm reading it right now and my answer is the same.

The author claims that the problem is that Mercury has an elliptical orbit without a a gravitional source at one of it's foci. The thing is that you don't need to have an actual object there, simply a gravitation field, like from a distant object like another planet.

Another problem the author says:

But Mercury has a very eccentric orbit and it is millions of miles closer at perihelion than it is at aphelion, its farthest distance from the Sun. So it really has to move FAST there to stay in orbit. When Mercury is that close, the sun's gravity is even stronger. In Einstein's words, the curvature of space-time is greater here so Mercury "feels" like there is an extra mass here. That extra mass feels like it is trying to pull the planet inward. By giving Mercury this pull every three months, the orbit is kicked a bit, making it rotate very slowly in space. Remember our marble in the well? Suppose we give it a slight pull inwards every time it gets a little deeper in the well but not enough to pull it all the way in. The marble comes back out but not quite on the path it would have taken if we hadn't interfered. That's what the sun's gravity is doing. Newton's gravity is much simpler than Einstein's gravity but Einstein's cleared up the mystery of the orbit turning the wrong amount!

This is where he makes a mistake. As Mercury comes closer to the sun (i.e. gravity is stronger on it) it is falling into the sun a little so to speak but something else occurs with this. It speeds up as it falls therefore being "sling shotted" around the sun. The momentum it gained as it sped up allows it to continue on its predicted orbital path. This has been observed with just about all celestial bodies. Most commonly comets because they have very eccentric orbits.

terrabyte, when the world was viewed as flat, it was something that no one could argue against. Even through observations the world seemed flat, but that thought doesn't run through our mind today, because we know that the world is sphere like.

Acutally most cultures through out time didn't believe the world was flat at all. Very few ancient peoples believed in a flat Earth.

Missing mass in the universe? The universe expanding by a mysterious "repulsive" force? Galaxies moving away from each other?

What missing mass? Not all physicists believe that there needs to be dark matter in order to make up for missing mass. Many thought there needed to be missing mass because stars at the ends of galaxies moved just as fast as ones in the center. But many now theorize that stars at the ends of galaxies only appear to be moving faster at the moment because of certain types of waves moving though the galaxies.

The universe expanding by a mysterious "repulsive" force?

You mean momentum from the Big Bang? And it has been brought into question whether the universe is actually explanding (see below).

Galaxies moving away from each other?

Actually that too has been brought into question because gravity can red-shift light and make objects appear as if they are moving away at high speeds. Along with other sources of red-shift it is very possible that red-shift my not be a good tool for measuring objects' speeds.

[urtalkinstupid]

Now, explain to me why gravity, when seen as a space-time curve, is a push or a pull?

Alkatran, I threw in space-time curvature as an alternative to the push or pull theories. I was not saying that space-time curvature had forces involved with it.

Janus, yes, I understand what you are saying. New question: How do things fall into black holes faster than they fall into massive stars given the fact that black holes are just a denser version of the neutron star they previously were? I don't know how to expalain exactly to get the answer im seeking.

Entropy, so, I'm assuming that you are going against Einstein and his cosmological constant? By missing, I didn't necessarily undetectable. I was only reiterating from sources that I have encountered. I know there is no such thing as missing mass. The mass that is missing is theorized to be in the form of neutrinos and other sub-atomic particles. The universe isn't even expanding. Once again, I was only reiterating sources that go by theories proposed by Einstein. The Big Bang never happened. The red-shift that is associated with "gravity" having an affect on light. Is this caused by gravitational pull or rotating galaxies giving off gravitational fields? If I'm not mistaken, does something with space-time curvature give off gravitational fields when it is rotating?

jcsd, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Whether that opinion be right or wrong. :biggrin:

Now, as for a better explanation for Mercury's odd orbit:
It's known that Isaac Newton's theory of gravity is limited in its capacity to represent gravity. It required Relativity theory to express the situation with the advance in the perihelion of Mercury. However, the relativity is with the emission capacity of Mercury and the density of the emission of the Sun as Mercury passes the Sun at perihelion. At this point Mercury attains a state of decreased absorption of emission, which results in a slight decrease its attraction to the Sun. This is the reason for the advance in its perihelion.

I already know you people are going to disregard what this guy says.

P.S. Alkatran, there are differences between push, pull, and space-time curvature. Hope you guys can at least agree with me on this one. :frown:

[terrabyte]

Janus, yes, I understand what you are saying. New question: How do things fall into black holes faster than they fall into massive stars given the fact that black holes are just a denser version of the neutron star they previously were? I don't know how to expalain exactly to get the answer im seeking.

they DON'T as we've been saying for the last 4 pages or so.

Assume a solid mass the size of the sun exists somewhere. you're floating 1 mile off its surface. the "pull" you feel from that object is a given amount, generally felt as your "weight".

Compress that "sun" mass down to the size of a tennis ball. now you're 50,000 miles off its surface (whatever the freaking radius of the sun may be) and you STILL feel the same pull, because the mass has NOT changed only the density.

however you CAN travel farther TOWARDS that mass, creating a stronger pull than the 1 mile distance you could travel in the "before" situation.

it's like you have a huge funnel and a big ball. The ball takes up a lot of space that can't be used by other objects riding on the funnel <orbits>. you compress that ball and it fits farther down inside the funnel, increasing the available usable space of the funnel, yet it does not change the funnel itself, or the funnel's effect on other objects riding on it.

[urtalkinstupid]

So, why can't the normal star bendlight, but a black hole can bend light?

[terrabyte]

all mass bends light

only black holes have sufficient mass to bend it to where we can detect it.

[terrabyte]

to clarify, the light being "bent" is far closer to the black hole's total mass than the non compressed same mass as a star

[urtalkinstupid]

That doen't seem to sway me in believing that mass affects space-time. Massive stars bend light at an angle, when black holes are said to bend light backwards. There is no mass difference, just mass is more concentrated. You are saying that this concentration of mass allows light to get closer? With the ability of light being able to get closer, it is bent backwards?

[terrabyte]

exactly. proximity is decidedly the most CRITICAL point of the mass / gravity relationship.

just like two magnets sitting on a table 1 ft apart exert a pull on each other a measured amount, put them 1/2 that distance apart and the force exerted upon each other increases at a geometric scale. NOTHING in the magnets is changing to make the force different, only the distance between the elements in the experiment.

[urtalkinstupid]

Magnets and Gravity are two different concepts. So, density does matter. If objects are denser they have more affect on objects,they allow objects to get closer with their pull or inclination of space-time. As you described, the regular star didn't have enough mass concentrated to allow light to be bent backwards, but as it compresses into a black hole it does, because the density of the black hole allows light to come close, fall in, and never escape or something like that.

[Entropy]

The red-shift that is associated with "gravity" having an affect on light. Is this caused by gravitational pull or rotating galaxies giving off gravitational fields? If I'm not mistaken, does something with space-time curvature give off gravitational fields when it is rotating?

The gravitational red-shift is caused by anything with gravity, rotating or not. If something is rotating it will still have gravity.

Magnets and Gravity are two different concepts.

Yes, but they both follow the inverse square rule and thats the point.

[urtalkinstupid]

So, is this red-shift of light caused, because upon encountering a gravitational field the light has to slow down, but maintain its constant velocity so it shifts its frequency?

[jcsd]

That doen't seem to sway me in believing that mass affects space-time. Massive stars bend light at an angle, when black holes are said to bend light backwards. There is no mass difference, just mass is more concentrated. You are saying that this concentration of mass allows light to get closer? With the ability of light being able to get closer, it is bent backwards?
A black hole and a star of the same mass have the same vacuum solutions (all else being equal) to Einstein's field equations, it's only when you start to examine the metric inside the star that you start to see a diffrence. The denisty of the object matters inside of the object though not necessarily outside the object.

[Entropy]

So, is this red-shift of light caused, because upon encountering a gravitational field the light has to slow down, but maintain its constant velocity so it shifts its frequency?

Yes. It changes its frequency so its velocity stays the same.

[urtalkinstupid]

Ok, I have not studied gravity's affect on light, so that just came from logic. So, are you able to ellaborate on what I said to terrabyte?

[Simons]

forgive me if im wrong, but isnt red-shift the result of the doppler effect? (red=lower frequency, meaning a cosmic body is moving away from the viewer, thus increasing the wavelength of light emitted in the opposite direction of motion, likewise blue-shift means an object is moving towards the observer and is producing a perceived higher frequency of light) ??
:uhh:

[urtalkinstupid]

Correct! Although, I'm not a believer in the affects of gravity has on light, but I will revert my mind to pull gravity or inclination of space-time. You have your facts straight referring to Doppler Affect. Gravity slows down light, because it "supposedly" bends the light. So, in order to keep its constant velocity, light's frequency tends to be seen as red. Same with blue, except light is viewed as going faster and must change frequency to slow down its speed.

[terrabyte]

So, density does matter. If objects are denser they have more affect on objects,they allow objects to get closer with their pull or inclination of space-time. As you described, the regular star didn't have enough mass concentrated to allow light to be bent backwards, but as it compresses into a black hole it does, because the density of the black hole allows light to come close, fall in, and never escape or something like that.

no, density is not part of the equation, distance is :D

[urtalkinstupid]

I know that distance is part of the equation. Equations do not mean anything, but to make more sense I think this one should be revised to take into account that density has an affect on what is going on.

[HallsofIvy]

Janus is correct about Columbus. In the 15th century all educated people knew that the earth was a sphere- and, as far as geography goes, that would include sea captains. In fact, 2000 years before Columbus Aristarchus had calculated the size of the earth.

Columbus was one of a minority who, while aware that the earth was a sphere, believed it was much smaller than Aristarchus had calculated. Columbus' argument was similar to what we see here all the time. The known world at that time was much smaller than Aristarchus' size. Columbus argued that it "didn't make sense" for all land to be on one side of the earth. Apparently the possiblity of large undiscovered land masses didn't occur to him.

[urtalkinstupid]

Thanks for the history lesson. My teacher didn't explain it like that; I never did like my WHAP teacher. :rofl:

[terrabyte]

know that distance is part of the equation. Equations do not mean anything, but to make more sense I think this one should be revised to take into account that density has an affect on what is going on.

density is accounted for in the "distance"

as long as you are "exterior" to the object, no matter how "dense" it is, it does not change the gravitational "pull" on you.

you have to remember an object is not simply itself, but a comglomerate of all its particles. when we say "mass" of an object, we're talking about the combined mass of all its particles.

each particle "pulls" and it's the total average or net "pull" that we observe on a macro scale. Going back to the prior example, if you took that sun that you were 1 mile above and compressed it, the net pull on you would not change if the distances between you and the center of mass did not change. particles on the far side of that "sun" would come closer towards the center, increasing the "pull" on you, but particles that were on YOUR side would also move away from you towards the center, cancelling it all out.

[Alkatran]

About the changing of size keeping gravity the same: Are you sure about that?

Consider 3 particles making up an object. Particle A is 1 meter away, B is 2, C is 3, the gravity from each (they are the same mass) is m/1 + m/4 + m/9 = 36m/36 + 9m/36 + 4m/36 = 49m/36

Now if they are condensed to the same position with the same center: gravity = m/4+m/4+m/4 = 3m/4
49/36m-3/4m = 0.61 m
(3m/4 == 49m/36) = false

Explain, please?

[urtalkinstupid]

So, you are agreeing that gravitational pull does change? I just got back from work, so I'm not aware of what you are saying. :biggrin:

[Alkatran]

I guess I am. I'm asking if I made a mistake.

[urtalkinstupid]

Well, its self evident that you are asking the WRONG person. Don't ask me, because I obviously have no knowledge on this subject as you people say.

Now, this whole scenario would make more sense if the push theory were applied. In push theory, things that are more dense absorb more material. Although i dont believe in black holes, let's use one of those as an example. A black hole is now said to be composed of a one dimensional string containing the mass of a neutron star. This is highly densed, therefore it attracts a lot of neutrinos. As neutrinos pass through the black hole they are blocked, and they are never remitted. This can aslo describe gravitational lensing. As light passes over a massive object, it is bent by the force of neutrinos. Neutrinos pass through the massive object that light passes over every second. Each neutrino that passes through loses momentum (yea, earlier I said they didn't lose momentum, but that has to do with when they are produced during fusion). So the neutrinos with less momentum are hitting the light on the bottom side, while neutrinos withore momentum hit the light on the top causing a bend in the light. Sound logical?

[beatrix kiddo]

alkatran are u using the equation F=G (M1 x M2/ S) where S is the distance btw two objects squared??

[terrabyte]

according to the math you did, compresssion REDUCES space curvature as measured from a stationary location.

i can't see that as being right, but i can't find a flaw in the formula either, Need a Big-head user to supply their thoughts on that one. :(

[terrabyte]

Beatrix: yes that's what he's using assuming M2 <us> is 1.

[beatrix kiddo]

alkatran ur equation shows that condensing reduces the effects of gravity and that isn't correct

[beatrix kiddo]

terrabyte i just read ur post.. not trying to be redundant

[beatrix kiddo]

the math appears to make sense but theoretically, black holes have been infinitely condensed to infinite densities and they effect gravity more than any other object known in the universe.... there must be some unnoticed error

[Alkatran]

alkatran ur equation shows that condensing reduces the effects of gravity and that isn't correct

Yes, that's what it shows, and from what I've been reading that's wrong. So my question is what am I doing wrong? I have no intent of "throwing over" gravity, I just want to know my error in thinking! Maybe it's the fact that the object isn't spherical in nature...?

I'll write a quick program to calculate hundreds of points instead of 3 and see what comes up.

[Alkatran]

*edit* Oh my god, the quote tag destroyed all the indentation.. trying PHP.*
*ooo colorful*
Alright, using this program (written quickly in visual basic):


Option Explicit
Const NumPoints As Long = 10000
Const ObserverDistance As Single = 5
Const NumTests As Long = 5
Private Type Point
X As Single
Y As Single
Z As Single
End Type

Private Sub Form_Load()
Dim A As Long
Dim B As Long
Dim Total As Single
Dim TotalComp As Single
Dim Angle1 As Single
Dim Angle2 As Single

Randomize Timer
'Loop once for each test
For B = 1 To NumTests
Total = 0
TotalComp = 0
For A = 1 To NumPoints
'Random angles (in radians)
Angle1 = Rnd * 6.28318
Angle2 = Rnd * 6.28318
'uncompressed
Total = Total + CalculateForce(GeneratePoint(Angle1, Angle2, 1))
'compressed
TotalComp = TotalComp + CalculateForce(GeneratePoint(Angle1, Angle2, 0.5))
Next A
Debug.Print Format(Total, "0.000") & ", " & Format(TotalComp, "0.000")
Debug.Print "Difference: " & Format(Abs(Total - TotalComp), "0.000")
Next B
'End the program
Unload Me
End Sub
Private Function CalculateForce(ByRef It As Point) As Single
'Calculate inverse distance from observer
'g*m = 1 for simplicity
CalculateForce = 1 / Sqr((It.X - ObserverDistance) ^ 2 + It.Y ^ 2 + It.Z ^ 2)
End Function
Private Function GeneratePoint(ByVal Angle1 As Single, ByVal Angle2 As Single, ByVal Distance As Single) As Point
'Create and return a random point
GeneratePoint.X = Distance * Cos(Angle1) * Cos(Angle2)
GeneratePoint.Y = Distance * Sin(Angle1) * Cos(Angle2)
GeneratePoint.Z = Distance * Sin(Angle2)
End Function


which generates 10000 random points around 0,0,0 at a distance of 1, and 1/2, I have received the following results:


1988.912, 1996.801
Difference: 7.889
1993.517, 1999.209
Difference: 5.691
1987.858, 1996.431
Difference: 8.573
1992.025, 1998.372
Difference: 6.346
1991.595, 1998.296
Difference: 6.701


Of course I did more than one run, but I found that there was always a difference between 4 and 10. (Actually, I find it odd that it varies at all..)

[Entropy]

As neutrinos pass through the black hole they are blocked, and they are never remitted. This can aslo describe gravitational lensing. As light passes over a massive object, it is bent by the force of neutrinos.

That doesn't make sence. Because massive objects don't attract neutrinos in you push theory.

the math appears to make sense but theoretically, black holes have been infinitely condensed to infinite densities and they effect gravity more than any other object known in the universe.... there must be some unnoticed error

First off, I will say yet again, black holes do not have infinite densities. The idea of a singularity as been abondoned by most. Second, simply because infinities are involved doesn't necessarily suggest something is incorrent.

[beatrix kiddo]

please give me a source that shows "most" ppl have given up on the singularity and yes infinite density would prove it wrong because it would mean that an object of such enormous density (a black hole) would effect gravity less than the star (not as dense) it came from

[urtalkinstupid]

Nice programming Alkatran. Do you have any explanation for the variance? The pull model of gravity is so complicated and has many flaws. Push theory is superior.

density is accounted for in the "distance"

Using the equations:
F_g=G\frac{m_1m_2}{d^2} and density=\frac{m}{v}

You are saying that d=v? How can density be accounted for in the "distance" of the F_g equation?

Entropy, sorry, you've failed to understand me. It's not attractiong of neutrinos. More dense objects absorb neutrinos. If you have a fairly dense object next to a less dense object, the fairly dense object absorbs more neutrinos causing the ones to be reemitted to have less momentum. This allows the less dense object to be pushed to the dense object, because the neutrinos impacting the other side of the less dense object is higher than the side of the less dense object that is being impacted by neutrinos that are being remitted with less momentum from the fairly dense object. My theory is not "pull" either it's push. It relies on density not mass. I should have not said "massive" object but dense object. I apologize for my error. No object attracts neutrinos, because all objects attract neutrinos. The density is what determines how many of those neutrinos are absorbed and reemitted.

I'm horrible at explaining what I'm trying to express. Sorry for that. :redface:

[Alkatran]

Nice programming Alkatran. Do you have any explanation for the variance? The pull model of gravity is so complicated and has many flaws. Push theory is superior.



Using the equations:
F_g=G\frac{m_1m_2}{d^2} and density=\frac{m}{v}

You are saying that d=v?

No, he's saying that since we're really looking at the distances of each and every particle, that the sum of all the force equations gives the density.

[urtalkinstupid]

Can you explain that more? Density has nothing to do with distance. Where does volume come in? Each and every particle has volume.

[Entropy]

Entropy, sorry, you've failed to understand me. It's not attractiong of neutrinos. More dense objects absorb neutrinos. If you have a fairly dense object next to a less dense object, the fairly dense object absorbs more neutrinos causing the ones to be reemitted to have less momentum. This allows the less dense object to be pushed to the dense object, because the neutrinos impacting the other side of the less dense object is higher than the side of the less dense object that is being impacted by neutrinos that are being remitted with less momentum from the fairly dense object. My theory is not "pull" either it's push. It relies on density not mass. I should have not said "massive" object but dense object. I apologize for my error. No object attracts neutrinos, because all objects attract neutrinos. The density is what determines how many of those neutrinos are absorbed and reemitted.

Okay I see what you're saying. I also corrected that mistake to "push theory." Sorry bout that.

[urtalkinstupid]

No prolbem, man. So did that explanation help my case at all?

[terrabyte]

Can you explain that more? Density has nothing to do with distance. Where does volume come in? Each and every particle has volume

the equation for density is pretty self explanatory. The total amount of mass divided by the object's volume. Volume being measured in cubed distance measurements, so how can you say distance is not a factor?

[urtalkinstupid]

When I said not a factor, I meant that density is not a factor in the F_g equation. I say that the equation needs to be revised to include density, because it only measures one aspect of volume. A mere radial distance from the center of gravity of two objects squared does not provide volume.

Arg, I'm not good at asking what I'm seeking. Thanks for having patience and correcting me, because through your questions I'm able to explain what I am seeking more thoroughly. :frown:

[russ_watters]

forgive me if im wrong, but isnt red-shift the result of the doppler effect? (red=lower frequency, meaning a cosmic body is moving away from the viewer, thus increasing the wavelength of light emitted in the opposite direction of motion, likewise blue-shift means an object is moving towards the observer and is producing a perceived higher frequency of light) ??
:uhh: You can get redshift both through gravity and through motion (apparent motion).

[terrabyte]

When I said not a factor, I meant that density is not a factor in the equation. I say that the equation needs to be revised to include density, because it only measures one aspect of volume. A mere radial distance from the center of gravity of two objects squared does not provide volume

that's because density is not a factor in gravitational calculations. Mass is. Distance is.

[russ_watters]

that's because density is not a factor in gravitational calculations. Mass is. Distance is. Point of clarification (I want little to do with this thread due to urtalkinstupid's attitude, but I'll help you out) - Density is irrelevant, because gravity calculations are often (always?) done assuming a point mass.

[urtalkinstupid]

russ_watters, I tink everyone rsponding to this topic has an attitude, so please just don't point me out; it's not fair. :frown: I'd lighten up, but with you people getting an attitude towards me, I can't help but get one back.

that's because density is not a factor in gravitational calculations. Mass is. Distance is.

Thanks for telling this terrabyte. Yes, distance is a component of volume, but that is to some extent. I know density is not a factor in gravitational equations, but they should be a factor. Density has an affect on gravity properties. You people are ignorant of your own beliefs.

Unlike the pull theory, the push theory relies on density. It does not rely on distance or mass. How ironic!?!? It's more logical also. Why is it so hard for you people to grasp a concept as simple as the push theory. The pull theory was not even understood by Newton. It required Einstein to further explain it. How can an idea confuse the person who thought of it? Maybe because that idea is something that should not be used to represent many of the things that are happening in the world?

[terrabyte]

Density has an affect on gravity properties

again, no it doesn't...

[Entropy]

Unlike the pull theory, the push theory relies on density. It does not rely on distance or mass. How ironic!?!? It's more logical also. Why is it so hard for you people to grasp a concept as simple as the push theory. The pull theory was not even understood by Newton. It required Einstein to further explain it. How can an idea confuse the person who thought of it? Maybe because that idea is something that should not be used to represent many of the things that are happening in the world?

Then why does Jupiter have more gravity than Earth if your push theory relies on density? Earth is more dense then Jupiter and Earth as more neutrinos passing though it, yet Jupiter has more gravity. Can you explain this?

Newton only made equations that described his observations of gravity. And they worked in most cases. You don't need to know what something is when you are only observing it's effects. Then Einstein developed general relativity which described what gravity is, a curvature of space-time. And this is supported by many experiments. Coincedence? I think not. Should we also dismiss Achimedes' principals of buoyancy just because he didn't know water was made of atoms, even though it works? Where as you're "pull" theory is supported by zero experiments and has no mathimatical basis (not that you always need one, but it helps).

Look we understand perfectly what this pull theory is saying and it just doesn't work. As you said in your first post "this is very HYPOTHETICAL". You also assume that neutrinos push things back down to Earth even though they don't have a fraction of the power (supported by neutrino detectors and math) to do so and hardly interact with matter (also supported by neutrino detectors and math) at all (exerting any type of "pressure" would be interaction). And you also say that cosmic rays provide neutinos at night even though a tiny fraction of all neutrinos come from cosmic rays.

Look if you really know a lot about general and special relativity (like the people arguing against you) it makes a whole lot of sence and its predicted many things and supported by many experiments.

You should know that many of you're sources (Alice Law and http://amoureternal.com/oti/gravity/page1.htm) the authors are not physicists. The author of Alice Law says so and Michael Allen Gelman doesn't give any references to his eduction, wonder why? Gelman just sounds like some know it all computer technician. Look its not that there is anything wrong with not having an education in physics and its okay to have opinions about physics regaurdless of your eduction. But if you don't have a degree is physics and someone with a phd disagrees with you, you should atleast trust him for the time being until you've really really studied the subject at hand from creditible sources. Then you might see why his right.

russ have u not read ANY of urtalkinstupid's posts describing the push theory of gravity?? he's only explained this atleast a dozen times for u people. and i could really care less whether or not u post anything else on this thread because u aren't putting up a good arguement anyways, "mentor".

He said he wasn't going to get into this, meaning his not going to post a lot. Not that he hasn't read any of urtalkingstupid's posts. And he isn't posting because of the subject of this thread, its urtalkingstupid's attitude. Although I'd say you're attitude is far worse. You should also know that "mentor" sign wasn't put there by him. The creators of these forums gave it to him because he is extremely knowlegdeable and has helped out so many people. Just so you know the creators are professional physicists, many with phd's.

[beatrix kiddo]

first off, we can only make educated guesses about jupiter's true density. second of all, jupiter rotates nearly three times faster than the earth. that would affect the "feel" of gravity on the planet. here's another site i'll give u. if u can prove this guy wrong he will give u $1000: http://www.pioneer-net.com/~jessep/
u and terrabyte seem to think that just because someone has a phd they should own the world. degrees and phd's don't mean anything if what u study is INCORRECT. and u say i have a bad attitude? do u think i actually care??? i hope u weren't trying to make a point by quoting me and saying almost the same thing i said. russ is a mentor on this site whether or not he awarded himself with the title.

[terrabyte]

u and terrabyte seem to think that just because someone has a phd they should own the world. degrees and phd's don't mean anything if what u study is INCORRECT

it's called professional respect. we understand that a lot of people have worked very hard for many years to study and learn about the way things currently are understood to work. when it comes to their "word" as far as things go, what makes you think we're going to trust 17 year old kids with illogical notions on how they think the universe should work over professionals who make their living working in the field.

it's all well and good to explore the possibilities, which is why we've even bothered to come here in the first place. but to accept something that doesn't even hang together as plausible over something that works well and is well understood by everyone is just sad. you can't come saying "it's wrong it's wrong because i say so" and then you don't even understand how it works in the first place. kinda throws the credibility of your arguments right in the crapper

[urtalkinstupid]

First, I would like to respond to terrabyte's post. terrabyte, would a scenario help you see what I'm talking about? Let's make it reality based also! Take the sun and earth. The gravitational pull of the sun on the earth and vice-versa is a force. Ok, now, condense the sun. What happens? It's volume gets smaller, it has the same wait, and now, it is more dense. Now, the earth can get CLOSER to the sun. When it does get closer, it's harder for the earth to move back, because the sun's center of gravity is more concentrated. Newton's equations can't prove that this stronger force exists. This is only true, because his equation choose to neglect that density has an altering effect on gravity. Now, let's kick this up a notch. Take a neutrn star. Condense it down to a string of plank's length. Same mass, smaller volume. Before, light could escape the neutron star's gravitational pull, but now, that light is able to get closer, it becomes harder for light to pull away from the string, because its center of gravity is more concntrated.

Then why does Jupiter have more gravity than Earth if your push theory relies on density? Earth is more dense then Jupiter and Earth as more neutrinos passing though it, yet Jupiter has more gravity. Can you explain this?
Entropy!! Hey, boiiii!! You crazy boi!! You have asked a question and contradicting yourself when you tried to explain what is happening...? Niiiiice! :cry: More neutrinos passing through means more pressure acting on the bottom side. This leads to competition between the low momentum neutrions and high momentum neutrinos. Making earth have less gravity. Can you provide me some information, so I'm able to explain what you want? Speed of Jupiter's orbit? Rotational velocity of Jupiter? :biggrin: !!!!!!! (uhhhh...not all the way so...song? :rofl: )


Newton was aiming or a law degree in college. He was not a physicists! He read upon books and made everything up from observations. OMFG, SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A PHYSICISTS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE UP STUFF!! He also had a bad childhood. :frown: Who's to say that Newton's theories wern't hypothetical? Every idea is very HYPOTHETICAL at first.

The sun makes lots of neutrinos. About 61,000,000,000 neutrinos per second from the sun pass through each square centimeter of cross section on the surface of the Earth. If your body presents an area to the sun of 10,000 square centimeters, this means that 610 trillion neutrinos are passing right through your body in the second it takes to read this line.
Yes, neutrinos are weak, and they rarely interact. Judging by the amount that are theorized to pass through our body every second, it wouldn't hurt to make the assumption that this many in such a small area have to provide an effect on our bodies and other masses.

[beatrix kiddo]

ok travis no more *singing*... PLEASE!!!
entropy, neutrinos do effect the matter they pass through. why do u think we are able to detect them? detectors like CERN show images of neutrinos colliding with particles in the heavy water. what's to say they don't exert a force on objects? it was previously thought that neutrinos had no mass but in '98 the super-kamiokande team declared that neutrinos do in fact have mass. things math showed correct (like neutrinos having no mass) were proved to be false. so if u don't mind, provide me with the mathematics used to show that neutrinos don't exert a force.

terrabyte:
get it right.. i'm 15 not 17. and from now on please just post ur ideas about physics and not ur opinions because u make me wanna post mine. and they last time i did i got a bad post report and it had to be taken off so just STFU if u don't have anything to say about the f_____ physics.

[terrabyte]

terrabyte:
get it right.. i'm 15 not 17.

it shows...

and from now on please just post ur ideas about physics and not ur opinions because u make me wanna post mine. and they last time i did i got a bad post report and it had to be taken off so just STFU if u don't have anything to say about the f_____ physics.

i was just responding to a post. the argument was there, so i posted my thoughts on the matter. you don't like the way forums work where people are free to post their ideas, thoughts, opinions, and conjectures, then you might want to try something along the lines of solitude with a book. i'm sure it'd be worthwhile for you to invest in such an activity. we're not here to coddle you.

First, I would like to respond to terrabyte's post. terrabyte, would a scenario help you see what I'm talking about? Let's make it reality based also! Take the sun and earth. The gravitational pull of the sun on the earth and vice-versa is a force. Ok, now, condense the sun. What happens? It's volume gets smaller, it has the same wait, and now, it is more dense. Now, the earth can get CLOSER to the sun.

but it doesn't. it has no reason to.

When it does get closer, it's harder for the earth to move back, because the sun's center of gravity is more concentrated. Newton's equations can't prove that this stronger force exists. This is only true, because his equation choose to neglect that density has an altering effect on gravity.

they didn't choose to neglect it. it simply DOESN'T have an affect. you're talking about getting "closer" and that IS covered by the formula given. of course stuff doesn't make sense when you're not using the variables provided to describe what's going on.

Now, let's kick this up a notch. Take a neutrn star. Condense it down to a string of plank's length. Same mass, smaller volume. Before, light could escape the neutron star's gravitational pull, but now, that light is able to get closer, it becomes harder for light to pull away from the string, because its center of gravity is more concntrated.

but light travelling the same distance from it pre-compressed is still affected the same amount. there is no argument as per things being "closer" to the gravitational object. that's very well covered in the equation provided.

[urtalkinstupid]

You have failed to observe that density is the factor that reduces this distance between the two objects.

[terrabyte]

uhh...

how so? we measure distances from the center of objects, not the surfaces. compression would not alter the computational distances.

[terrabyte]

Point of clarification (I want little to do with this thread due to urtalkinstupid's attitude, but I'll help you out) - Density is irrelevant, because gravity calculations are often (always?) done assuming a point mass

unless you're inside an object or close enough to a LARGE object to be affected by peripherary pulls then it's pretty safe to do so. so that's what they do

[urtalkinstupid]

When light encounters a neutron star, the color of the neutron star is given off, because the light doesnt reach the center of gravity. When the neutron star condenses into a black hole, the light is able to move towards the center of gravity, because the object becoming more dense allows this to happen. The closer you are to the center of gravity, the more attractive force. Why, because the distance is shorter. Why, because the object is more dense. By point mass, do you mean a point (smaller version of singularity) with no volume?

[terrabyte]

When light encounters a neutron star, the color of the neutron star is given off, because the light doesnt reach the center of gravity. When the neutron star condenses into a black hole, the light is able to move towards the center of gravity, because the object becoming more dense allows this to happen.

going to assume you're talking about light on a collision course with the "star". i'm not sure you could even tell if light was not simply travelling "through" the star and coming out the other side...

The closer you are to the center of gravity, the more attractive force. Why, because the distance is shorter. Why, because the object is more dense. By point mass, do you mean a point (smaller version of singularity) with no volume?

yes, as purely a computational process, not an actual universal object. it's a convenience.

[urtalkinstupid]

Convience does not always lead to accurate conclusions.

Density does have an affect on the amount an object pulls. How hard is that concept to grasp? A more dense object has a smaller volume, therefore it is able to make the distance between the two center of gravities smaller thus making it divide into the masses more. Say you have two objects that are attracted to each other, and they are right next to each other. Condense one object, then the other is able to move closer to the condensed objects center of gravity, causing a more attractive force. Density determines how close an object can get to another objects center of gravity. Since distance is measured from this center of gravity, I'm sure density is a factor.

[terrabyte]

density makes NO difference if you're calculating using point masses.

you can say what you're saying until you're blue in the face but it's not going to change the fact that this is the way we calculate things.

there's very FEW instances where you would try to calculate the gravitational effects of an object INSIDE another object that would warrant a deviation from the point-mass system, and in those cases we would use a geometry-mass or particle-particle gravity computations (a lot more number crunching) but for general use and theoretical purposes we have no reason to go there.

in other words you're barking up a tree with no squirrel on the wrong continent.

mass and distance determine gravitational effects. density is NOT what you're trying to make it, "a factor"

[urtalkinstupid]

So, does being closer to another objects center of gravity make the force of attraction stronger?

[beatrix kiddo]

when u say that it shows that i'm 15, i'm assuming u mean it shows that i'm younger than u and i still know as much, if not more, about this subject as u do. i don't have a problem with u posting ur opinions (well only a little.. hehe) but let's try to keep it more physics related and i will too. and why would i choose to be alone with a book when there are people on the internet in need of re-education??

now onto the physics.. density is a factor though. classic example: take a rubber sheet (space-time) and place a bowling ball (star) on it. then put a cue ball on there to represent a planet or what have u. now condense the bowling ball to the size of a marble (it will still have the same mass) and the cue ball is pulled closer to the center of the bowling ball's gravity. since they have been pulled closer together, the force of attraction is indeed stronger.

[Entropy]

Entropy!! Hey, boiiii!! You boi!! You have asked a question and contradicting yourself when you tried to explain what is happening...? Niiiiice! More neutrinos passing through means more pressure acting on the bottom side. This leads to competition between the low momentum neutrions and high momentum neutrinos. Making earth have less gravity. Can you provide me some information, so I'm able to explain what you want? Speed of Jupiter's orbit? Rotational velocity of Jupiter? !!!!!!! (uhhhh...not all the way so...song? )

Argh! You're so childish! Now I know why russ isn't getting involved!

How did I contradict myself? I only asked a question you failed to answer.

More neutrinos passing through means more pressure acting on the bottom side. This leads to competition between the low momentum neutrions and high momentum neutrinos. Making earth have less gravity.

What? So now neutrinos compete with each other? Can you elaborate.

Making earth have less gravity. Can you provide me some information, so I'm able to explain what you want? Speed of Jupiter's orbit? Rotational velocity of Jupiter?

Why is it you say in you're push theory the more dense an object is the more "gravity" it has, although objects that are less dense than the Earth have more "gravity"?

Newton was aiming or a law degree in college. He was not a physicists! He read upon books and made everything up from observations. OMFG, SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A PHYSICISTS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE UP STUFF!! He also had a bad childhood. Who's to say that Newton's theories wern't hypothetical? Every idea is very HYPOTHETICAL at first.

Newton was a physicist! He held the freaking Lucasian Chair of Mathematics in Cambridge for crying out loud! Read your history!

Yes, neutrinos are weak, and they rarely interact. Judging by the amount that are theorized to pass through our body every second, it wouldn't hurt to make the assumption that this many in such a small area have to provide an effect on our bodies and other masses.

Yes it would! In the detectors they use 1000+ tonnes of heavy water and only about 10 neutinos interact with all that water in one day! And those are only neutrinos with relatively high momenta. Your body gets hit with less than 1 neutino per month on average!

Density does have an affect on the amount an object pulls. How hard is that concept to grasp? A more dense object has a smaller volume, therefore it is able to make the distance between the two center of gravities smaller thus making it divide into the masses more.
now onto the physics.. density is a factor though. classic example: take a rubber sheet (space-time) and place a bowling ball (star) on it. then put a cue ball on there to represent a planet or what have u. now condense the bowling ball to the size of a marble (it will still have the same mass) and the cue ball is pulled closer to the center of the bowling ball's gravity. since they have been pulled closer together, the force of attraction is indeed stronger.

True you have a greater warp at the center but now the warps where the particles use to be has decreased because the particles aren't there anymore. So you end up with the same amount of warp just in a smaller more consentrated area. Is that so hard to grasp?

[beatrix kiddo]

ur body gets hit with only 1 neutrino a month?? are u sure: http://www.princetonol.com/groups/55plus/review-listing-2003-4/meyers.html

this guy with a PHD in PHYSICS says 500 trillion pass through our bodies every second... he also explains why we can only detect a few neutrinos in the detectors. WOW!!!

and no it's not hard to grasp but since it's in a smaller area the other bodies around it are pulled further down into space-time's dent... thus gravity's effects are increased

[urtalkinstupid]

Then why does Jupiter have more gravity than Earth if your push theory relies on density? Earth is more dense then Jupiter and Earth as more neutrinos passing though it, yet Jupiter has more gravity. Can you explain this?

You contradicted yourself by trying to say that since Jupiter is less dense less neutrinos passing through. This would result in more gravity. With you saying that more neutrinos pass through the earth this would make gravity less. With more neutrinos passing through the mass, there are more neutrinos with less momentum impacting the neutrinos with more momentum providing "competition" as they cancel each other out in a sense. I think what you meant was that Jupiter is less dense, and with Jupiter being less dense not as many neutrinos are absorbed, which means that gravity is weaker. Earth is the one with more density by the push model of gravity. Can you provide me with Jupiter's orbital velocity and rotational velocity? Then, I'll be able to explain to you why Jupiter has more gravity, though it is less dense.

Newton was not a physicists until after he thought of all of his theories on gravity. Maybe you should read more.

When I say an object is more dense and has more push, I mean that when the sub-atomic particles go through the denser object, the neutrinos that interact lose momentum. The denser the object the more likelyhood that it will interact and lose momentum. When you have neutrinos with low momentum going against high momentum, the amount of push that can be expected is their difference.

[terrabyte]

when u say that it shows that i'm 15, i'm assuming u mean it shows that i'm younger than u and i still know as much, if not more, about this subject as u do.

i couldn't care less how much MORE you knew about the WRONG theories than me. why would you think that would bother me?

now onto the physics.. density is a factor though. classic example: take a rubber sheet (space-time) and place a bowling ball (star) on it. then put a cue ball on there to represent a planet or what have u. now condense the bowling ball to the size of a marble (it will still have the same mass) and the cue ball is pulled closer to the center of the bowling ball's gravity. since they have been pulled closer together, the force of attraction is indeed stronger.

where do you get that idea?

the cue ball is pulled closer to the center of the bowling ball's gravity

where's your experimental data? all current models maintain that compression doesn't create gravity

since they have been pulled closer together, the force of attraction is indeed stronger

you're compressing the mass, not the distances. and even if you DID decide to compress the distances (for whatever illogical reason) that is well covered in our existing model.

...

when i say it SHOWS that you're 15, i meant it in purely in the sense that your maturity level speaks volumes. seriously, "STFU" ? no one says that to anyone in the "adult" world.

[beatrix kiddo]

where did i get what idea?? i put several in that quote so SPECIFY. if that object is the same mass but gets smaller the other objects will sink farther in the dent. this is because the compressed object isn't taking up as much space so the other objects can fall in more. (please give me links to ur computer models so i can prove them wrong). and the space that object takes up gets compressed. LOGIC will tell u the distance btw the objects will decrease. so again.. give me links to those comp models so i can study them (not that i haven't studied the concept of space-time for several years now) because i wanna see what u've been reading. also.. have u visited
http://www.pioneer-net.com/~jessep/ and what's ur take on the whole neutrino discussion??
and when did i ever say that ppl in the "adult" world say "STFU"? i may be a little immature but since u keep bringing it up it shows that u are also immature. plus u put these really corny and cliched statements in ur posts and that's not what i'd call mature either, terrabyte. "in other words you're barking up a tree with no squirrel on the wrong continent." HAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA- i'm laughing AT u, dork

[Entropy]

You contradicted yourself by trying to say that since Jupiter is less dense less neutrinos passing through. This would result in more gravity. With you saying that more neutrinos pass through the earth this would make gravity less. With more neutrinos passing through the mass, there are more neutrinos with less momentum impacting the neutrinos with more momentum providing "competition" as they cancel each other out in a sense. I think what you meant was that Jupiter is less dense, and with Jupiter being less dense not as many neutrinos are absorbed, which means that gravity is weaker. Earth is the one with more density by the push model of gravity. Can you provide me with Jupiter's orbital velocity and rotational velocity? Then, I'll be able to explain to you why Jupiter has more gravity, though it is less dense.

Re-read what I said.

Then why does Jupiter have more gravity than Earth if your push theory relies on density? Earth is more dense then Jupiter and Earth as more neutrinos passing though it, yet Jupiter has more gravity. Can you explain this?

I said Jupiter is less dense AND has less neutrinos passing though it. Where did I say Jupiter is less dense BECAUSE it has less neutinos? Read things more carefully. Oh and Jupiter has just as many cosmic neutrinos (high momentum) as Earth and less solar neutinos (low momentum). So if these neutrinos create and equibrium on Earth, how can they on Jupiter or any other world with stronger gravity for that matter if the forcers (form neutrinos) on those worlds are less?

Newton was not a physicists until after he thought of all of his theories on gravity.

I said he was a physicists and you just agreed with me. Proving yourself wrong yet again. Besides many people start developing their theories while they're in college and not techniquely physicists yet.

the neutrinos that interact lose momentum

Even though experiments show they don't. Look when a neutrino interacts it loses all its momentum to the particle it hits and then disappears.

ur body gets hit with only 1 neutrino a month?? are u sure: http://www.princetonol.com/groups/5...3-4/meyers.html

this guy with a PHD in PHYSICS says 500 trillion pass through our bodies every second... he also explains why we can only detect a few neutrinos in the detectors. WOW!!!

Yeah they PASS RIGHT THROUGH US! They don't INTERACT! Thanks for proving my point!

and no it's not hard to grasp but since it's in a smaller area the other bodies around it are pulled further down into space-time's dent... thus gravity's effects are increased

Yeah its pulled down more at that center point! My point is that the over all space-time warp it creates every where is constant, just more consentrated at the center. Maybe if you'd read our posts more clearly you'd know that.

where did i get what idea?? i put several in that quote so SPECIFY. if that object is the same mass but gets smaller the other objects will sink farther in the dent. this is because the compressed object isn't taking up as much space so the other objects can fall in more. (please give me links to ur computer models so i can prove them wrong). and the space that object takes up gets compressed. LOGIC will tell u the distance btw the objects will decrease. so again.. give me links to those comp models so i can study them (not that i haven't studied the concept of space-time for several years now) because i wanna see what u've been reading. also.. have u visited
http://www.pioneer-net.com/~jessep/

This guy doesn't know anything because he "assumes" people think gravity is a "pull" which it isn't, its just a geometric effect of space-time. The word pull is just a term of convinence.

and when did i ever say that ppl in the "adult" world say "STFU"? i may be a little immature but since u keep bringing it up it shows that u are also immature. plus u put these really corny and cliched statements in ur posts and that's not what i'd call mature either, terrabyte. "in other words you're barking up a tree with no squirrel on the wrong continent." HAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA- i'm laughing AT u, dork

Whatever you say... :rofl:

[terrabyte]

have fun while you can, i guess.

i'm in no mood to look after someone's children. i'm not getting paid to teach you physics. i've done what i can to try and explain things to you, but you refuse to learn the basics before jumping ahead and then wondering why things don't work the way you "think" they should.

good luck in life

[beatrix kiddo]

explain to me why we can view their collisions with particles in those detectors (neutrinos do interact with us) also u were wrong about the amount of neutrinos passing through our bodies and i used that site to prove u wrong because u worship anyone with a phd in physics. the reason u won't challenge that guy's site(jessep) is because U CAN'T. he makes too much sense and u know that ur theory is failing and he makes the better argument. and terrabyte maybe u should look after ur own kids better, especially if they're taking ur advice on life.

[urtalkinstupid]

terrabye...you got served

Entropy! Hey boii! :biggrin:
Sailor Jupiter was cool!! Earth is more dense, ergo it absorbs more of the neutrinos momentum allowing the neutrinos pushing down on objects to have more force. This difference in momentum is the net amount of momentum applied. Now, Jupiter is less dense. Less neutrinos are absorbed, ergo more neutrinos pass through causing a decrease in the net momentum. THIS IS WEIRD YOU SAY. This can be explained. That is not what really is going on. So, if you would, answer my questions. My answer relies on your answer so make sure thay are suffice enough for me to use them. :biggrin: What is Jupiter's orbital velocity relative to the sun? What is Jupiter's rotational velocity relative to it's axis?

What I'm trying to conclude about Newton is that you don't have to have a degree in Physics to think of ideas. He started with math, and he thought about the planets. He was not a physicists; he originally wanted to get a degree in law. WEIRDED OUT!!! How does this tie into me? I'm not a physicists, and I have ideas about how things work also. Dot, Dot, Dot.

Pull due to an objects mass or an object's mass causing an inclination on space-time? Two different concepts, so "pull" is not a term of convience. Inclination is slope. Pull is...well is not well defined. Imaginary rope attached to two objects center of gravity? So, let's "pull the plug" to this concept of pull and trash it.

[beatrix kiddo]

here travis: http://www.surf2000.de/user/f-heeke/figure2.html info about jupiter....
my fav was sailor neptune!!!

[Entropy]

explain to me why we can view their collisions with particles in those detectors (neutrinos do interact with us)

They interact rarely with matter! They only get 10 hits a day on average like I said in my pervious post!

i used that site to prove u wrong because u worship anyone with a phd in physics. the reason u won't challenge that guy's site(jessep) is because U CAN'T. he makes too much sense and u know that ur theory is failing and he makes the better argument. and terrabyte maybe u should look after ur own kids better, especially if they're taking ur advice on life.

When did I say anyone with a phd is RIGHT. I said wait until you are knowledgeable in the subject before you seriously start to argue with them. And where on that web page does it say he has a phd?

And I can't argue with him? Well looky here:

For example: In 1964 I predicted that everything had an energy field. Twenty nine years later, I heard on TV that everything "really" did have an energy field. Why did he use the word "really" unless he was refering to my prediction?

Oh he saw it on TV! TV is alway right! I mean they wouldn't put it on the air if it wasn't true? Was it even from a credible show? Sounds like a real professional if he is taking his information from TV shows.

Look everything has always been thought to have an energy field since E=mc^2.

From NewsAlert 7-7-04:

A rare glimpse back in time into the universe's early evolution has
revealed something startling: mature, fully formed galaxies where
scientists expected to discover little more than infants.

This is what I have been trying to tell scientists for fifty plus years.


Proof? Does he have any proof thats what he said 50 year ago? No.

Some years back I said I suspected that atomic time was related to our velocity through space, and if the velocity changed, the time would change. I believe they are now finding this to be true. If Einstein is right...atomic time will not change because he says that everything moves space...so... "there would be no movement through space:" It would be moving with space. So this might turn out to be another way to prove my theory. My explanation is the only solution there can be, but it will be many years before people will have the ability to understand it. I can't read their minds so I don't know what they do not understand.

What?! Einstein said that time slows as you move faster and he was right. Now he is just re-wording it and saying he came up with it. Unbelieveable! Atomic time will not change (from are perspective) if we are moving with the clock!

My theory is the only theory that predicts dark matter, dark energy,

Really? Funny that there are dozens upon dozens of theory that also predict dark matter and energy. Even funnier that dark matter/energy isn't needed in our current model of the universe anymore! So I guess he was wrong here.

In the middle sixties I wrote a letter to a science magazine (I still have the receipt) and said there would be a problem. The problem is this: If a space ship is in outer space its velocity will seem to change depending on whether it is traveling with or against the rotation of another planet. They did have problems. If this is getting boring it is because there is so much support.

What?! People back then already knew this, give me a break! A spaceship will move with the Earth because it inherts the Earth's rotational speed because it launched off of it. And problems with what? Why doesn't he elaborate?! Because he just assumes that any minior problem was because they didn't follow what he said, regaurdless of what the problem was!

In 1953 I was listening to the news on the radio when it was announced that the ground crews working on jet engines were receiving lung damage from the high frequency sound waves from jet engines. This would not surprise me today, but at that time, I thought that sound was nothing. I was surprised because I thought: "How could sound...which was nothing...destroy lung tissue which was something?" Well, like all Christians, at that time, I thought that anything was possible; so I thought: "Maybe everything is made from nothing?" Then I closed my eyes to try and picture what space would be like without anything in it.

Oh this is rich... Sound is something! Its the vibration of air molecules for crying out loud!

I realized that "Space" has to be endless. Not so much as just being endless, but the fact that there is no other place for anything to come from. So If my theory is wrong, why does it look like all my predictions, and assumptions, are coming true?

Funny that most experiments, oberservations and theories say space is not endless. So why does he say that his theory is coming true when all data says its not? Maybe because he doesn't know what his talking about?

This was important to me because I just knew there had to be a way and I just knew that I would find it because as far as I am concerned I was certain my theory was right...and I did find it...It was in late 1953 or 54...I predicted to an older brother that there had to be a way to package energy and that I would find it. A short time later I noticed a younger brother blowing smoke-rings...I knew this had to be the answer. Then in 1957, I read in the news that hydrogen gas under certain conditions would take the shape of a doughnut. This was support for the smoke ring theory...I then predicted that all stable particles are shaped like a smoke-ring, or are made up of particles shaped like a smoke ring.

So it only "looks" like a doughnut sometimes. And what experiment said this? Why not all the time like he said? Why doesn't he give more information? And notice its the "gas" that takes that shape, not the particles!

What we think of as suction is not suction at all, it is pushing. We expand a cavity and call it suction, but all we are doing is going through the same motions. We expand a cavity against atmospheric pressure, and this is pushing. At the same time it is reducing the pressure inside the cavity. We can't relate to true suction because we don't experience it. It would be a new kind of an exerience if we could experience it.

And to end this I will say it yet again: yes there is not true suction and gravity isn't a suction, its an effect of space-time!

I could go on and on pointing out the flaws in this guy's pathetic excuse for a theory. But I've got a life and I could write a whole book on why this guy is wrong.

[Entropy]

Sailor Jupiter was cool!! Earth is more dense, ergo it absorbs more of the neutrinos momentum allowing the neutrinos pushing down on objects to have more force. This difference in momentum is the net amount of momentum applied.

Thats the thing! Even if all the neutrinos that got through the Earth gave all there momentum! It still wouldn't account for the force of gravity! Neutrinos only have about 5% the momentum of the sun's light!

[terrabyte]

that whole site is pointless propaganda in turquoise and pink. complete with all the expected sweeping generalizations, false analysis, and baseless claims.

no wonder it's capturing the imaginations of 15 yr old kids. it's speaking the on the precise frequency to indoctrine their fragile minds.

RebelliousTeen1: OMFG Grownups are teh suq, we R teh smarter tehn them, whoa! this idea is KEWLZ look at it PUSHING Planets ROX!
RebelliousTeen2: Taht maykez senz! My yung impresinistic mind can undRstnd Push Bettar! God Peepul who spend monies and life on edukayshun R Stupid this guy didNT and he is SMARTAR!

good lord...

[Entropy]

Ouch. The truth hurts, eh kiddies?

[urtalkinstupid]

Sailor Jupiter OWNS Sailor Neptune...end of arguement.

Considering the amount of neutrinos that go through the earth. Multiply that number by the momentum to get an approximate amount as to how much momentum neutrinos have. Many pass through earth and are absorbed every second. Many pass through and interact with our body, as well. As for the mystery as to why Jupiter has less of a force through my theory, I got that covered. :biggrin: As you can tell from the site that beatrix provided, Jupiter has a large equitorial velocity, as well as a high orbital velocity. The planet itself has a high momentum. Once neutrinos interact with the surface, their net momentum is already affected. As they pass through the surface and are absorbed, they have little to no momentum as they come out on the other side, allowing a greater push, therefore more "gravity." I already know you are going to argue against it, but I'll ellaborate after I hear your arguement and your questions towards my idea.

Even though experiments show they don't. Look when a neutrino interacts it loses all its momentum to the particle it hits and then disappears.
So, matter can be destroyed now? Is this what happens:
Oh, I've ran out of momentum. Guess I'll just disappear in thin air
Weird...I didn't know that people who rode with Einstein or Newton believed that energy and matter could be destroyed or created!!

[beatrix kiddo]

FIRST (i'll get to jessep later) the only reason we don't view the collisions more often is because the neutrinos change to a harder to detect flavor by the time they reach the earth. scientists are going to come up with better ways of detecting them. so i don't see ur point. i didn't say jessep has a phd i said that meyers guy has a phd and it says it right at the top of the page (since u can't read).


stupid don't even go there... sailor neptune was a mysterious OUTER SCOUT with extraordinary super-extreme to the max powers!! sailor jupiter was a lame inner senshi who mostly just cheered on sailor moon.... and that's the end of that...

[beatrix kiddo]

wow terrabyte.. u can really impersonate urtalkinstupid and me!! it must have taken u a whole day to take the words u normally spell incorrectly, string them together, and make a HUMOROUS joke about the way we talk. and entropy calling us kiddies when ur about our age? that's really funny.
entropy, jessep is not some loser who makes up stuff (tv show, writing into the magazine.. etc.). many of the quotes u took were incomplete ideas that he fills in later. also.. u totally misread a lot of the things he wrote. he said he "THOUGHT" (past tense) that sound was nothing. so that doesn't work for ur case. another thing, he was saying that no one thought energy fields effected gravity until he thought of it. so now what?? if u have that hard of a time grasping what he's trying to say, don't feel bad. many ppl can't either but u can direct ur questions towards HIM and i'm sure he'll answer u.

and yes TERRABYTE.. the pretty colors did appeal to my young and impressionable mind.. but considering what i know about the universe because of it, i wouldn't say it's a bad thing..
but the real question is, what was appealing to u when u were my age because u don't know that much about physics now, what u think u know is wrong, and u can't answer my questions about neutrinos.. probably because the first time u found out about them was from- OMG- a 15 yr old kid...

[terrabyte]

could it be because neutrinos don't affect us that's why we've never heard of them?

no! scandalous!

where is this guy's dated published papers? anyone can say PFAH! The internet? i thought of that 100 years ago! E=MC^2?! that idea was mine long before einstein was even BORN!

the guy is a fraud. he has no ideas worth pursuing. and he's going to die a sad lonely unknown individual.

i'm done here anyways. you have convinced me that you're just teenage kids trying to get your jollies off of annoying people.

you win, rejoice in your ignorance. i don't care anymore

[Entropy]

Weird...I didn't know that people who rode with Einstein or Newton believed that energy and matter could be destroyed or created!!

Yes that is what happens! Because it gives its momentum away! Momentum is energy (energy is mass) and that energy is just transfered to the particle it hits and therefore disapears! In other words it gets absorbed.

You know nothing about physics good lord! You can even comprehend the absorbsion of a particle!

Considering the amount of neutrinos that go through the earth. Multiply that number by the momentum to get an approximate amount as to how much momentum neutrinos have. Many pass through earth and are absorbed every second. Many pass through and interact with our body, as well.

Let see if you're right:

Average neutrino flux at the Earth's surface:

\nu_f = 5 \times 10^{10}

Average Energy per Neutrino:

E_\nu = 0.81{}MeV = 1.30 \time 10^{-13}{}J

{\nu_f} \cdot {E_\nu} = 0.007{}{J} / {m^2 \cdot {s}}

0.007 J/m^2 s do you know how little pressure that is? Thats assuming all neutrinos give all there momentum! In real life you only get hit by about 1 neutrino every month! How do you explain that? You can't! Can you?

Bam! Your theory is crushed! What you going to do make up some another magic reason with no explaination to prove you're not wrong? What are there really more neutrinos and its just coincidence that no experiments support you, no math supports you, and no real physicist supports you!

entropy, jessep is not some loser who makes up stuff (tv show, writing into the magazine.. etc.). many of the quotes u took were incomplete ideas that he fills in later.

Nope. If I did take them out of context, explain them then. Why didn't you just explain in the first place? Whats that? You can't?

he said he "THOUGHT" (past tense) that sound was nothing. so that doesn't work for ur case.

Really? So its okay for him to form theories without any knowledge on the subject but somehow its wrong for Newton (even though Newton did have info on the subject).

Thats the last straw. You guys are hopeless. I've tried to be patient and tactful to you guys but you just won't listen. I would normally try to help and understand people no matter how much I disagree with them, but you guys are far to childish.

Go ahead and believe you're theory and we'll see where it gets you.

Goodbye.

[beatrix kiddo]

terrabyte: neutrinos DO affect us... u've never heard of them because sadly, u haven't studied physics as much as me.. (the rebellious teen) and the only thing i get my jollies off of is listening to u try to put up a reasonable arguement with ur inferior concepts of physics. i thought u were going to be leaving when u said "good luck with life". why the heck did u even come back?? HAHAHA... and u say u don't care anymore?? i guess it WOULD be devastating to find out that everything u thought u knew about the universe is wrong...

entropy: why do u keep saying that neutrinos only come in contact with us once a month? u don't believe that site i gave u? real life is that trillions and trillions of neutrinos pass through us every second. since u helped mathematically prove they exert a pressure u just helped support my theory! wow, that was really tight!! thanx. i'm not going to speak for jessep because that would be like me taking his ideas. he's the one with all the cash rewards so why no step up to his challenge and stop being weanie and just ask him urself?? and years from now, when ppl start refusing to just accept being spoon-fed einstein's fictional ideas, they will mock ur beliefs and turn to the superiority that is the push theory. i think that will get me very far in life. enjoy being wrong about the universe, entropy. when u're ready to know the truth... u know where to find me.. hehehe

[Alkatran]

terrabyte: neutrinos DO affect us... u've never heard of them because sadly, u haven't studied physics as much as me.. (the rebellious teen) and the only thing i get my jollies off of is listening to u try to put up a reasonable arguement with ur inferior concepts of physics. i thought u were going to be leaving when u said "good luck with life". why the heck did u even come back?? HAHAHA... and u say u don't care anymore?? i guess it WOULD be devastating to find out that everything u thought u knew about the universe is wrong...

entropy: why do u keep saying that neutrinos only come in contact with us once a month? u don't believe that site i gave u? real life is that trillions and trillions of neutrinos pass through us every second. since u helped mathematically prove they exert a pressure u just helped support my theory! wow, that was really tight!! thanx. i'm not going to speak for jessep because that would be like me taking his ideas. he's the one with all the cash rewards so why no step up to his challenge and stop being weanie and just ask him urself?? and years from now, when ppl start refusing to just accept being spoon-fed einstein's fictional ideas, they will mock ur beliefs and turn to the superiority that is the push theory. i think that will get me very far in life. enjoy being wrong about the universe, entropy. when u're ready to know the truth... u know where to find me.. hehehe

-He proved that IF all the neutrinos were absorbed by the earth that they would give off .007 joules/m^2*s. That is an INCREDIBLY small amount. Along the lines of you "crushing" someone with a hair.

-If we're being pushed by the sun into the earth, why isn't the earth being pushed as well? Wouldn't this nullify the effect of us being pushed into the earth?

-I've read about people who "challenge" people to prove them wrong. They argue somewhere along your lines, they take every logical argument and throw hundreds of random, unsupported facts at it. And that's if they even play by the rules, I've read of people saying they get to censor the evidence before it is judged!




But really, Entropy, Terrabyte, why did the average force go down when I compressed the points (see program on page 9 or 10)? It seems that density would be a significant factor when the object is very large in comparison to the distance between the center and the observer. (Note to 15 year olds: The force appears to go DOWN and not UP)

[beatrix kiddo]

i should have been more clear: 500 trillion neutrinos is just an estimate. there are far more neutrinos than that.. they are just unaccounted for. trillions and trillions (more) travel through us with "a velocity nearly equal to the speed of light" -foundations of astronomy pg. 167. entropy u forgot to put that in ur equation.. hmmm

[Alkatran]

i should have been more clear: 500 trillion neutrinos is just an estimate. there are far more neutrinos than that.. they are just unaccounted for. trillions and trillions (more) travel through us with "a velocity nearly equal to the speed of light" -foundations of astronomy pg. 167. entropy u forgot to put that in ur equation.. hmmm

What are you talking about? He put the neutrino's energy, which would include it's kinetic energy, in his equation.

E = mv^2/2, basic physics.

If 500 trillion is an estimate, why would there definitely be far more? Does it really matter if there are 500 trillion or 600 trillion if the VAST majority only pass through us without affecting us in any way?

[terrabyte]

perhaps your observation is worth looking into, Alkatran. it could very well be true that compression reduces gravity, making the theory on how black holes are formed WRONG.

or perhaps the formula for gravity is indeed wrong.

or perhaps doing particle-location calculations for an object is wrong (though logically it's supposed to work)

i still say we need an expert's opinion on this one

[urtalkinstupid]

Entropy, thanx for proving me wrong...or so you think! Let me explain what you did and how it does not work. First, you used the wrong number of neutrinos. You should have used 5x10^{12} for the amount of neutrino flux on the earth.. Second, you only calculated the amount of energy a neutrino when it is at rest. You forgot to multiply that rest energy by the velocity at which the neutrino travels to get the momentum. Neutrinos travel at nearly the speed of light. So, 3x10^8m/s would be sufficient.

Here is your math revised:
\nu_f=5x10^{10}m^2/s
E_\nu=.81MeV
\vec{v}_\nu=3x10^8m/s
E_\nu=.81MeV \cdot 1.602^{-13}=1.29762^{-13} MeV
E_\nu=\nu_f*E_\nu=0.0064881 J \cdot m^2 \cdot s
Now for their momentum.
\vec{p}=E_\nu \cdot \vec{v}_\nu=1946430 J \cdot m^3 \cdot s

That's just what i got. Hey, I know that there is a possibility that I'm wrong. If that be the case, I'll...I dunno. Yes, I know about emission and absorption. The neutrino emitts its energy only to be absorbed by another particle. It does not "disappear," rather it passes on its energy.

Entropy: I see where you got 5x10^{10}m^2/s; you converted it form cm^2/s hehe

[Alkatran]

Entropy, thanx for proving me wrong...or so you think! Let me explain what you did and how it does not work. First, you used the wrong number of neutrinos. You should have used 5x10^{12} for the amount of neutrino flux on the earth.. Second, you only calculated the amount of energy a neutrino when it is at rest. You forgot to multiply that rest energy by the velocity at which the neutrino travels to get the momentum. Neutrinos travel at nearly the speed of light. So, 3x10^8m/s would be sufficient.

Here is your math revised:
\nu_f=5x10^{12}
E_\nu=.81MeV
\vec{v}_\nu=3x10^8m/s
E_\nu=.81MeV \cdot 1.602^{-13}=1.29762^{-13} MeV
\Sigma_E_\nu=\nu_f*E_\nu=.64881J
You arrived at \Sigma_E_\nu=0.007J, because you had the wrong amount of neutrinos. This was as far as you got, because this is only the rest energy that the neutrinos emitt. Now, for their momentum.
\vec{p}=\Sigma_E_\nu \cdot \vec{v}_\nu=194643000J \cdot m \cdot s

That's just what i got. Hey, I know that there is a possibility that I'm wrong. If that be the case, I'll...I dunno. Yes, I know about emission and absorption. The neutrino emitts its energy only to be absorbed by another particle. It does not "disappear," rather it passes on its energy.

That'd be like being shot in the face with a cannon 5000 times a second. Of course, that's a massive underestimation.

[Alkatran]

perhaps your observation is worth looking into, Alkatran. it could very well be true that compression reduces gravity, making the theory on how black holes are formed WRONG.

or perhaps the formula for gravity is indeed wrong.

or perhaps doing particle-location calculations for an object is wrong (though logically it's supposed to work)

i still say we need an expert's opinion on this one

I have a hard time believing no one has looked at this before... let's see if I can word this right:

Compressing an object reduces the gravity at a fixed point relative to its center because the increase in the square of the distance of the mass on the near side is greater than the decrease in the square of the distance of the mass on the far side.

I think that sentence has enough "of"s in there, haha.

Now that I think about it, it does make sense (oh no! assumption!) because, since the total curvature in one area is greater, for the total to stay the same the curvature in another area should be reduced, correct?

[terrabyte]

according to your calculations, Mass is not the sum of an objects component masses

or gravity formula is somehow wrong :O

[urtalkinstupid]

Are we talking about when he made the program condensing the distance between the particles?

[urtalkinstupid]

\textcolor{blue}{\nu_f=5x10^{10} m^2s}
\textcolor{red}{E_\nu_e=.81 MeV\approx1.29762x10^{-13} J}
\textcolor{green}{\vec{v}_\nu_e=3x10^8 \frac{m}{s}}
\textcolor{purple}{\vec{p}=}\textcolor{red}{E_\nu_ e} \cdot \textcolor{green}{\vec{v_\nu_e}}=\textcolor{red}{1 .29762x10^{-13} J} \cdot \textcolor{green}{3.0x10^8 \frac{m}{s}}=3.89286x10^{-5} \frac{J \cdot m}{s}}
\vec{p} \cdot \textcolor{blue}{\nu_e}=3.89286x10^{-5} \frac{J \cdot m}{s} \cdot \textcolor{blue}{5x10^{10}m^2s}=1946430 J \cdot m^3

Neutrinos are able to emitt upto 1946430 J per ever cubic centimeter of earth. This is different from my first attempt. At first, I tried to calculate the momentum by multiplying the flux rate by the energy...That wasn't the proper way. So, this time I calculated the momentum and then determined how much energy a neutrino could emitt over a given area. Maybe this is right, maybe it is not. One things for sure, it's different from Entropy's calculation, which is not momentum at all. Alkatran, this is not as much energy as you think, but a constant flow of this calculation should be enough. Remember, this is only for solar neutrinos. They are not the only source. Our body is a source of neutrinos as well, but of a lesser magnitude.

Goodnight!

[Alkatran]

\textcolor{blue}{\nu_f=5x10^{10} m^2s}
\textcolor{red}{E_\nu_e=.81 MeV\approx1.29762x10^{-13} J}
\textcolor{green}{\vec{v}_\nu_e=3x10^8 \frac{m}{s}}
\textcolor{purple}{\vec{p}=}\textcolor{red}{E_\nu_ e} \cdot \textcolor{green}{\vec{v_\nu_e}}=\textcolor{red}{1 .29762x10^{-13} J} \cdot \textcolor{green}{3.0x10^8 \frac{m}{s}}=3.89286x10^{-5} \frac{J \cdot m}{s}}
\vec{p} \cdot \textcolor{blue}{\nu_e}=3.89286x10^{-5} \frac{J \cdot m}{s} \cdot \textcolor{blue}{5x10^{10}m^2s}=1946430 J \cdot m^3

Neutrinos are able to emitt upto 1946430 J per ever cubic centimeter of earth. This is different from my first attempt. At first, I tried to calculate the momentum by multiplying the flux rate by the energy...That wasn't the proper way. So, this time I calculated the momentum and then determined how much energy a neutrino could emitt over a given area. Maybe this is right, maybe it is not. One things for sure, it's different from Entropy's calculation, which is not momentum at all. Alkatran, this is not as much energy as you think, but a constant flow of this calculation should be enough. Remember, this is only for solar neutrinos. They are not the only source. Our body is a source of neutrinos as well, but of a lesser magnitude.

Goodnight!

First of all, that much energy (the amount per cubic METER, not centimeter) is what it would need to launch you to a height of 40 kilometers (assuming you weighed a bit less than 50 kilos). 40 kilometers. per cubic meter. per second.

This number is so obviously impossible that it can't be right.


Terrabyte:
The program does the following:
1 - Pick 2 random angles
2 - Calculate the inverse of the distance of a point at distance 1 along a line project along those angles.
3 - Calculate the inverse of the distance of a point at distance 0.5 along a line project along those angles. (compressed object)
*The inverse of the distance is the force if G*m1*m2 = 1
4 - Repeat about 10000 times
5 - Sum all of these results (all the 2s and all the 3s)
6 - Compare
Does this look correct?

Of course a computer program is NOT reality and any findings would need to be confirmed experimentally.

[Alkatran]

P = E*v


(the red and green equation)
P -> m/s*kg
E -> J -> m^2/s^2*kg
v -> m/s

E*v -> (m^2/s^2*kg)*(m/s) -> m^3/s^3*kg

Your units on both sides of the equation don't match and therefore the equation is wrong. Momentum is mass * speed, not energy * speed. If you want to use energy in momentum you need to divide it by c^2.

1 946 430/c^2 = 1 946 430/(9*10^14) = 2.16270 * 10^-9 or about 0.000000002 Joules.

Your last equation doesn't make any sense at all either. Your multiplying momentum by speed and getting energy*m^3 and THEN saying it's PER cubic meter?? P*v = m/s*kg*m/s = m^2/s^2*kg = J NOT J*m^3.

Wait, what's Vf?

[Entropy]

Vf is really \nu_f, the greek letter nu which means neutrino and "f" for flux.


Entropy, thanx for proving me wrong...or so you think! Let me explain what you did and how it does not work. First, you used the wrong number of neutrinos. You should have used for the amount of neutrino flux on the earth.. Second, you only calculated the amount of energy a neutrino when it is at rest. You forgot to multiply that rest energy by the velocity at which the neutrino travels to get the momentum. Neutrinos travel at nearly the speed of light. So, would be sufficient.

First I did use the neutrion flux on Earth per meter squared.

Do you even know what neutrinos are?

Neutrions have zero rest mass (therefore they don't exist at rest), therefore zero rest energy! All there energy/mass is kinetic energy just like photons! Where do you get this "multiple by the speed of light" BS?

[terrabyte]

1 - Pick 2 random angles
2 - Calculate the inverse of the distance of a point at distance 1 along a line project along those angles.
3 - Calculate the inverse of the distance of a point at distance 0.5 along a line project along those angles. (compressed object)
*The inverse of the distance is the force if G*m1*m2 = 1
4 - Repeat about 10000 times
5 - Sum all of these results (all the 2s and all the 3s)
6 - Compare

looks sound to me. try plotting more than 2 points. say like 50 at once all summed together. then do comparisons on their full distance versus 1/2 their distance. and maybe twice their distance for good measure.

i loathe to even think of the possibility that they've overlooked something. this is crazy :D

[Alkatran]

looks sound to me. try plotting more than 2 points. say like 50 at once all summed together. then do comparisons on their full distance versus 1/2 their distance. and maybe twice their distance for good measure.

i loathe to even think of the possibility that they've overlooked something. this is crazy :D

See step 4. "Repeat 10000 times"

I'll put in a random distance when I get home. (with the compressed taking half of the randomly chosen distance)

[Alkatran]

Vf is really \nu_f, the greek letter nu which means neutrino and "f" for flux.




First I did use the neutrion flux on Earth per meter squared.

Do you even know what neutrinos are?

Neutrions have zero rest mass (therefore they don't exist at rest), therefore zero rest energy! All there energy/mass is kinetic energy just like photons! Where do you get this "multiple by the speed of light" BS?

Alright, thank you for the flux explanation, I assumed v was speed. But that still doesn't explain why you're result is *m^3 and not /m^3 or why there's no time involved (you need energy/time/area or energy/time/volume).

I got the "BS" from E = mc^2. But it doesn't look like you're looking for iniertia anyways, since inertia isn't in J*m/s.

[terrabyte]

well 10000 is certainly more than 50 :D

my reading comprehension has taken a severe nose-dive as of late :O

[ArmoSkater87]

This whole theory couldnt have ever been right because a neutrino is practically massless, and doesnt have a charge. Which means that it cant interact with the strong forces or the electromagnetic forces. The neutrino was created for a certain purpose, that pupose being the conservation of momentum. In certain decay reaction, it was noted that momentum was not conserved since the secondary particles that are emitted didnt go in opposite directions. This meant that there was another secondary particle involved in the decay that we could not detect. In other words neutrinos cant interact at all using any of the fundemental forces, meaning that they cant apply momentum to us and thus cannot cause gravity.

[Alkatran]

WAIT I think I know what I might have done wrong! I've been looking for it long enough too!

[Alkatran]

Here we go, I wasn't adding up the vectors. I was adding down forces to up forces instead of subtracting. The new program looks like so:


Option Explicit
Const NumPoints As Long = 100000
Const ObserverDistance As Double = 30
Const ObjectSize As Double = 20
Const CompressionFactor As Double = 0.5
Const NumTests As Long = 50
Const BaseForce as Double = 1000
Const Pi As Double = 3.14159
Private Type Point
X As Double
Y As Double
Z As Double
End Type
Private Sub Form_Load()
Dim A As Long
Dim B As Long
Dim Total As Point
Dim TotalComp As Point
Dim Angle1 As Double
Dim Angle2 As Double
Dim Distance As Double
Randomize Timer
For B = 1 To NumTests
Total.X = 0
Total.Y = 0
Total.Z = 0
TotalComp.X = 0
TotalComp.Y = 0
TotalComp.Z = 0
For A = 1 To NumPoints
Angle1 = Rnd * 2 * Pi
Angle2 = Rnd * 2 * Pi
Distance = Rnd * ObjectSize + 1
CalculateForce GeneratePoint(Angle1, Angle2, Distance), Angle1, Angle2, Total
CalculateForce GeneratePoint(Angle1, Angle2, Distance * CompressionFactor), Angle1, Angle2, TotalComp
Next A
Debug.Print Format(Sqr(Total.X ^ 2 + Total.Y ^ 2 + Total.Z ^ 2), "0000.000") & ", " & Format(Sqr(TotalComp.X ^ 2 + TotalComp.Y ^ 2 + TotalComp.Z ^ 2), "0000.000")
Next B
Unload Me
End Sub
Private Sub CalculateForce(ByRef It As Point, ByVal Angle1 As Double, ByVal Angle2 As Double, ByRef Total As Point)
Dim Force As Double
Force = BaseForce / Sqr(It.X ^ 2 + It.Y ^ 2 + (It.Z + ObserverDistance) ^ 2)
Total.X = Total.X + Force * Cos(Angle1) * Sin(Angle2)
Total.Y = Total.Y + Force * Sin(Angle1) * Sin(Angle2)
Total.Z = Total.Z + Force * Cos(Rad(FindAngle(ObserverDistance + It.Z, Sqr(It.X ^ 2 + It.Y ^ 2))))
End Sub
Private Function GeneratePoint(ByVal Angle1 As Double, ByVal Angle2 As Double, ByVal Distance As Double) As Point
GeneratePoint.X = Distance * Cos(Angle1) * Cos(Angle2)
GeneratePoint.Y = Distance * Sin(Angle1) * Cos(Angle2)
GeneratePoint.Z = Distance * Sin(Angle2)
End Function
Private Function Rad(ByVal X As Double)
Rad = X * Pi / 180
End Function
Private Function Deg(ByVal X As Double)
Deg = X * 180 / Pi
End Function
Private Function FindAngle(ByVal Adjacent As Double, ByVal Opposite As Double) As Double
If Adjacent Then
FindAngle = Deg(Atn(Opposite / Adjacent))
If Adjacent < 0 Then
FindAngle = FindAngle + 180
ElseIf Opposite < 0 Then
FindAngle = FindAngle + 360
End If
Else
If Opposite > 0 Then
FindAngle = 90
Else
FindAngle = 270
End If
End If
End Function


It now returns results that make much more sense, the first 3 digits almost always match and after that it's generally chaos, due to the accumulation of rounding errors involved in using floating point variables (double).

[Alkatran]

I don't know why, but it feels really good to see proof that I was wrong and to actually ACCEPT IT: HINT HINT HINT. bah.

[urtalkinstupid]

Well, my equation is debunked, but Entropy's is also. His equation doesn't take into account the impact force due to their velocity. I know what neutrinos are, and they have rest mass. I used the speed of light, because they are said to travel at approximately the speed of light, ergo they have rest mass. Although, this rest mass is a small number.

I haven't lost faith; I'm at my college course, and I just got done talking to a physicists. He said it is very well possible that neutrinos can provide a push force. He also said he would love to see someone prove Newton and Einstein wrong. Seeing as the sun isn't the most abundant source of neutrinos, there are others out there taht emitt many more. So, the small number that is derived from the equation is only a small fraction of the amount of the force applied by neutrinos.

Everything relies on emission and absorption. That is how the universe works. Neutrinos expresses that concept as well, making it a perfect candidate for gravity.

ArmoSkater87...emission and absorption...

[Alkatran]

Well, my equation is debunked, but Entropy's is also. His equation doesn't take into account the impact force due to their velocity. I know what neutrinos are, and they have rest mass. I used the speed of light, because they are said to travel at approximately the speed of light, ergo they have rest mass. Although, this rest mass is a small number.

I haven't lost faith; I'm at my college course, and I just got done talking to a physicists. He said it is very well possible that neutrinos can provide a push force. He also said he would love to see someone prove Newton and Einstein wrong. Seeing as the sun isn't the most abundant source of neutrinos, there are others out there taht emitt many more. So, the small number that is derived from the equation is only a small fraction of the amount of the force applied by neutrinos.

Everything relies on emission and absorption. That is how the universe works. Neutrinos expresses that concept as well, making it a perfect candidate for gravity.

ArmoSkater87...emission and absorption...

Where was hsi debunked? The "impact force" is technicly the energy (only technicly because force != energy) transferred to the planet, which is what he calculated.

[Rampantbaboon]

I have to agree with Armo. A miniscule percent of them have interaction with the earth as they travel through the entire diamater of it. Using the term interact loosely. They would have a negligible effect on the motion of things in the universe. The shower of protons, electrons, pions, muons and other cosmic ray events (my current project) would have a much greater effect on anybody.

[Entropy]

This whole theory couldnt have ever been right because a neutrino is practically massless, and doesnt have a charge. Which means that it cant interact with the strong forces or the electromagnetic forces. The neutrino was created for a certain purpose, that pupose being the conservation of momentum. In certain decay reaction, it was noted that momentum was not conserved since the secondary particles that are emitted didnt go in opposite directions. This meant that there was another secondary particle involved in the decay that we could not detect. In other words neutrinos cant interact at all using any of the fundemental forces, meaning that they cant apply momentum to us and thus cannot cause gravity.

Exactly. Thank you.

[terrabyte]

Consider 3 particles making up an object. Particle A is 1 meter away, B is 2, C is 3, the gravity from each (they are the same mass) is m/1 + m/4 + m/9 = 36m/36 + 9m/36 + 4m/36 = 49m/36

Now if they are condensed to the same position with the same center: gravity = m/4+m/4+m/4 = 3m/4
49/36m-3/4m = 0.61 m
(3m/4 == 49m/36) = false

so what was wrong with that again?

[Alkatran]

so what was wrong with that again?

Like I said a few posts afterwards, the object isn't remotely spherical, which is the shape that the formula for gravity applies to.

[terrabyte]

weird. i thought gravity formula would apply to all shapes.

[JohnTownsendUCF]

I always just assumed that gravity was really just ,mass warping time-space.

When you place a bowling ball on some stretched out rubber sheet, it warps and droops. When you place a marble on that rubber, it rolls to the largest dip (being the one the bowling ball made) in the rubber sheet.

[Rampantbaboon]

yeah, thats what einstein said

[terrabyte]

if you could make a frictionless rubber sheet it would be almost ideal for that demonstration :D

[Alkatran]

if you could make a frictionless rubber sheet it would be almost ideal for that demonstration :D

Too bad you need something making the ball want to go lower... so to prove gravity you need... gravity.

[Janus]

Too bad you need something making the ball want to go lower... so to prove gravity you need... gravity.

Or acceleration. If you accelerate the rubber sheet normal to its "flat space" surface, the masses will follow the same rules without invoking gravity.

[terrabyte]

good point, although i was merely extolling the virtues of this visualization for describing 3D spacetime using a 2D model.

i wasn't planning on actually making one :D

[DeShiznit44]

i agree with Armo, Rampant, and Entropy. I've been studying this area of physics for a long time now and when i first saw this thread i didn't immediatly dissmiss the idea. I talked to a lot of physicists who all have varying opinions, granted, the majority of them are not in favor of the theory, but then, who was in favor of the sun being the center of our solar system hundreds of years ago?
So i did my own research as well and based on many, many opinions and alot of research neutrinos cannot be the source of gravity. Urtalkinstupid, u said that u talked to a physicist and he said that the neutrino can provide the push force, how?!
Armo put it very clearly, neutrinos are not really effected by any of the fundemental forces. If u still want to beat this amazingly dead horse then fine, just explain to me how a neutrino can give a push force if an AMAZINGLY miniscule amount are ever effected when they pass through the earth? They should push the earth. Now u might say that the neutrino "feild" aroud the earth is constant. The distribution of neutrinos hitting our planet is not constant at any given time. We should be able to notice a change in the orbit of our earth if the neutrinos are capable of providing a push force.
The fact is there are alot more viable and better theories about gravity out there. Neutrinos DO NOT cause gravity. That's that.

[ArmoSkater87]

Urtalkinstupid, Alkatran, and who ever else believes this theory...i really think you should give this up... me, DeShiznit, and Rampant have been studying patricle physics and cosmic rays for a while now, especially Deshiznit and I. We have been going to the physics department at UMCP this whole week and have done a lot of research because of a project we are working on. The physics department at UMCP is one of the biggest and most advanced in the country. From the physicists we worked and talked with, none of them accepted your theory of gravity. It is simply impossible for neutrinos to affect you in any way, im not even going to say anything about the fact that gravity accelerates you at 9.81 m/s^2 on earth. I've seen you say that "the speed of light is not constant", and "the universe isnt expanding". Just from hearing you simply say those statements with absolutlly no actualy proof of it being true already tells me that you are in no position to argue about physics that you yourself clearly dont know much about. In other words everything you have said makes absolutlly no sense in terms of what physicists today accept is true or at least resonable.

[urtalkinstupid]

E^2=m^2_0c^4+p^2c^2

So...

p^2=\frac{E^2}{m^2_0c^4+c^2}-1

or...

p=\sqrt{\frac{E^2}{m^2_0c^4+c^2}-1}

Is that an ok equation for me to experiment on? Neutrinos do have rest mass...btw.

[ArmoSkater87]

I dont think they have rest mass. Even if they do, it makes no difference in whether neutrinos will interact enough to cause gravity.

[urtalkinstupid]

Actually, they do have rest mass. They don't travel AT the speed of light, but they travel very close, ergo they have rest mass. This would make a difference. 500 trillion travel through our body every second. Barely any interact. Lets just assume only 1,000,000 interact. I'll do math and post again in a minute.

[beatrix kiddo]

uhhh armoskater87 i don't care what physicists u talked to at the UMCP.. or whether or not u gave an unbiased defense for the push theory of gravity... the fact is that the neutrinos DO affect us. "neutrino oscillation is exciting for another reason. if neutrinos can oscillate, then they must have some amount of mass (determined by the kamiokande team), and they are so numerous that they could exert a gravitational influence on the universe." foundations of astronomy pg. 170. and this is coming from a book that agrees with einstein's model of gravity.. so why do u ppl keep saying neutrinos don't affect us?! and i'm sorry that u think that the push theory makes absolutlly.. excuse me.. absolutely no sense to u.. but if u read more. then maybe it wouldn't..

[beatrix kiddo]

oh and neutrino rest mass is 7x10^-6 Mev/c^2.... maybe instead of "think"ing something u should KNOW it...

[Chronos]

Neutrino mass is an interesting concept. Assigning it a value is even more interesting. Please show the math. That would be fascinating.

[urtalkinstupid]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/lepton.html

That site has info on the Lepton family. My friend (beatrix kiddo) is going to send me a site that actually shows the math. If you can hang tight, I can show you that math.

I'm not sure if I solved for momentum right. Any help will be greatly appreciated :biggrin: .

E^2=m^2_0c^4+p^2c^2 Einstein's Equation for total energy.

[beatrix kiddo]

sry, stupid. i forgot to post (tv) and then it was 6.. so i just went to sleep.. but anyways i found another site by a guy who worked the neutrino mass more indepth and came out with the same answer as the guy i emailed!!!!
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/deutsch/neutrino.html
sweet... i have to find this dude's email so i can talk to him...

[DeShiznit44]

oh and neutrino rest mass is 7x10^-6 Mev.... maybe instead of "think"ing something u should KNOW it...

Ok, first of all, u don't gotta be so rude about it. He wasn't insulting you, u don't have to insult armo. It just makes u look more childish

Second, neutrino rest mass is 0(7x10^-6 Mev) as shown on the site urtalkinstupid showed us.. btw, 7x10^-6 Mev is just 7 ev. Now, 0 times any number is zero. Thus the rest mass is zero. And lets pretend for a second neutrinos have rest mass, 7 ev is WAAAAAAY to big.

[ArmoSkater87]

Yea, true that, and btw...MeV isnt mass, MeV/c^2 is. Read more carefully beatrix.

[beatrix kiddo]

i left that out.. but i know that it is needed

[Rampantbaboon]

Einstein's equation was E=mc^2 i dont see where you get momentum from that.

and beatrix this is from your link
Therefore, 0.07 eV = 1.24786389 x 10^-34 gm.
and that is assuming their velocity is equal to the speed of light. The rest mass is still 0.

[urtalkinstupid]

E^2=m^2_0c^4+p^2c^2

If an object's momentum is 0 then...

E^2=m^2_0c^4+0 \cdot c^2

E^2=m^2_0c^4
\sqrt{E^2}=\sqrt{m^2_0c^4}
E=m_0c^2

So don't tell me I'm wrong on something if you don't even know what Einstein's Total Energy equation is.

[Entropy]

500 trillion travel through our body every second. Barely any interact. Lets just assume only 1,000,000 interact.

Thats not even close to the amount that react. Out of 500 trillion passing through your body evergy second it would take about a month for you to get a remotely reasonable chance of just 1 hitting you.

I'm not sure if I solved for momentum right. Any help will be greatly appreciated .

I post the average neutrino has 0.81MeV of energy. That means total energy! Thats all its energy, kinetic and in mass (even though they don't have mass). The point is thats it total energy because scientists measure the energy delivered (neutrino is absorbed) to another particle when its hit by a neutrino.

So don't tell me I'm wrong on something if you don't even know what Einstein's Total Energy equation is.

Oh so know you're believing in Einstein's equations.

Btw, that is the correct equation for total energy.

[urtalkinstupid]

No, not believing...just trying to sink to you people's level...Give you all something that you can go by.

When I bring out something that you should all go by, I'm pronounced wrong. As if! You people don't even know what you are going by.

[Alkatran]

No, not believing...just trying to sink to you people's level...Give you all something that you can go by.

I think that's funny coming from a 15 year old who refuses to believe experimental evidence.

[urtalkinstupid]

Experimental evidence don't mean anything. I run an experimetn I eat two sandwhiches and chips. Experimental results: I eat two sandwhiches and chips.

[Entropy]

Experimental evidence don't mean anything. I run an experimetn I eat two sandwhiches and chips. Experimental results: I eat two sandwhiches and chips.

WHAT?! :rofl: That doesn't even make sence.

[ArmoSkater87]

Whats ur point, are you saying you are going to calculate the energy of a neutrino with that equation?

[Alkatran]

Experimental evidence don't mean anything. I run an experimetn I eat two sandwhiches and chips. Experimental results: I eat two sandwhiches and chips.

Results: Chips and sandwhiches are edible, taste like something (good? bad? you're the on who ate them). etc etc etc

Math is just math until experiments hint that it could be physics.

[urtalkinstupid]

WHAT?! That doesn't even make sence.

sense* exactly...experiments can be performed, and they can also not make a lot of sense, because the math used to arrive at their conclusion is not well derived.

ArmoSkater87: yes.

Alkatran, math is what you make it.

[Alkatran]

sense* exactly...experiments can be performed, and they can also not make a lot of sense, because the math used to arrive at their conclusion is not well derived.

ArmoSkater87: yes.

Alkatran, math is what you make it.

Until it's confirmed by experiments. Stop twisting my words.

[urtalkinstupid]

No twisting is necessary. Math, whether it be proved by experiments or not, is what you make it. It has no definite form. You can manipulate math however you want to get the expected experimental outcomes.

[Alkatran]

No twisting is necessary. Math, whether it be proved by experiments or not, is what you make it. It has no definite form. You can manipulate math however you want to get the expected experimental outcomes.

That's the entire point of physics. The math matches the experiments. You're talking as if being right is somehow wrong.

[ArmoSkater87]

E^2=m^2_0c^4+p^2c^2

So...

p^2=\frac{E^2}{m^2_0c^4+c^2}-1

or...

p=\sqrt{\frac{E^2}{m^2_0c^4+c^2}-1}

Is that an ok equation for me to experiment on? Neutrinos do have rest mass...btw.


I'm just curious how you arrived at that...can u show how you manipulated that equation to solve for momentum. Btw...neutrinos dont have rest mass.

[Alkatran]

I'm just curious how you arrived at that...can u show how you manipulated that equation to solve for momentum. Btw...neutrinos dont have rest mass.

I was wondering that too. It looks like you just grabbed the whole thing, divided and changed the P to a -1 on the other side.

[Alkatran]

I'm just curious how you arrived at that...can u show how you manipulated that equation to solve for momentum. Btw...neutrinos dont have rest mass.

Wait I think I figured out his steps:

E^2 = m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2
E^2/(m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2) = 1
E^2/(m^2*c^4+c^2) = 1 + p^2 - Personnaly I like this step very much
E^2/(m^2*c^4+c^2)-1 = p^2

[urtalkinstupid]

BTW, neutrinos have rest mass. They travel at .999999c. THAT GIVES THEM A REST MASS. Although, this rest mass is very small. As I posted earlier, I wasn't exactly sure how to manipulate the equation. Everyone I've asked has gotten different ways of solving them. All of them were logical, but some yielded a negative answer. So, If you are able to solve for p, I'd appreciate your help.

I had that equation at first, but it didn't seem right...I'll work with it when I get home. I'm in the lab at my college course right now.

[ArmoSkater87]

How do u expect to use that equation to get a neutrino's energy?? That equation doesnt give you a particle's energy, it gives you the energy that would be released if all of the particle's mass would be converted into energy. The conversion of energy has nothing to do with your gravity theory. Not to mention that neutrons dont have rest mass....Besides Entropy was right about almost none of the neutrinos interacting with your body, or anything else. Out of all the neutrinos that go through the earth, only about 1 out of 100 billion interact with it. This means that pretty much all the neutrinos that come to earth, go right through it (in other words, if u were right, then we should be floating in the air right now). Even if the neutrinos had rest mass, and had energy or momentum....anything u want them to have, it wouldnt be enough to cause gravity. Especially when you think about how fast gravity accelerates you on earth (9.81m/s^2).

[urtalkinstupid]

Provide me with a credited source about exactly how many neutrinos interact.

[Alkatran]

BTW, neutrinos have rest mass. They travel at .999999c. THAT GIVES THEM A REST MASS. Although, this rest mass is very small. As I posted earlier, I wasn't exactly sure how to manipulate the equation. Everyone I've asked has gotten different ways of solving them. All of them were logical, but some yielded a negative answer. So, If you are able to solve for p, I'd appreciate your help.

Your equation is wrong.

Here's why:

E^2 = m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2
m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 = 0

Now, I'll start from your end equation and work backwards:
P^2 = E^2/(m^2*c^4+c^2) - 1
(m^2*c^4+c^2)(P^2+1) = E^2
m^2*c^4*P^2+c^2*P^2 + c^2 + m^2*c^2 = E^2
m^2*c^4*P^2+c^2*P^2 + c^2 + m^2*c^2 - E^2 = 0
Now they both = 0, so:
m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 = m^2*c^4*P^2+c^2*P^2 + c^2 + m^2*c^2 - E^2

eliminate everything on the left from the right

m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 = m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 + m^2*c^4*P^2 + c^2*P^2

0 = m^2*c^4*p^2+c^2*p^2
Divide by c^2*p^2

0 = m^2*c^2 + 1
m^2*c^2 = -1
(mc)^2 = -1
mc = sqr(-1)
mc = i

The speed of light times the object's mass is imaginary. That is why you're equation doesn't work.

[urtalkinstupid]

Tell your beloved Einstein that.

BTW, 9.81m/s^2 is acceleration...

[Entropy]

BTW, neutrinos have rest mass. They travel at .999999c.

Actually this is still some what of a debate. There is still not enough evidence to say whether or not they do have mass. But I and many others believe they do not have mass. Besides it doesn't matter if they have mass or not, the average neutrino passing though Earth has 0.81MeV of TOTAL energy like I stated before.

Provide me with a credited source about exactly how many neutrinos interact.

http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/first_results/

On that page they say: "The SNO detector, which is located 2000 meters below ground in INCO's Creighton nickel mine near Sudbury, Ontario, uses 1000 tonnes of heavy water to intercept about 10 neutrinos per day."

[Entropy]

Tell your beloved Einstein that.

BTW, is acceleration...

Thats in classical physics, yes, that is how gravity is described. Not relativity.

[ArmoSkater87]

Wait I think I figured out his steps:

E^2 = m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2
E^2/(m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2) = 1
E^2/(m^2*c^4+c^2) = 1 + p^2 - Personnaly I like this step very much
E^2/(m^2*c^4+c^2)-1 = p^2


lol, that step you personally like is very impossible and not true. I really dont think that equation is manipulated right.

I think this is the best and easiest way to solve for momentum...

E^2 = m_0^2c^4 + p^2c^2
\frac{E^2-m_0^2c^4}{c^2} = p^2
p=\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m_0^2c^4}}{c}

[Alkatran]

Provide me with a credited source about exactly how many neutrinos interact.

Think of it this way, let's say there are N neutrinos headed towards us per square meter. For simplification let's assume that both the wave of neutrinos headed towards us flat, and so are we. (it's so close it won't matter).

Now, let's assume that for every cubic meter, Y% of the neutrinos are absorbed. Let's also say each neutrino gives off a push of X
Let's also say the planet is only 1 meter deep.

You're in a forest, above you there are branches and leaves, making up 1 cubic meter: Push on trees: N*Y*X

Then the neutrinos hit you:
Push on you: N * Y^2 * X

Then the ground:
N * Y^3 * X

The only thing changing in this equation is the exponent on Y. Let's say Y is 50% (a very large amount is absorbed)

The trees get a force of .5NX
You get half that
The ground get's half that
You're being pushed into the ground with a force of nx.5^2-nx.5^3 = .125NX newtons. And the trees are being pushed into the ground at .375 newtons (assuming they have massively thin trunks)

That means that trees weigh three times as much as you per kilogram. Oh, and when you walk out from under the trees your weight triples.

Alright so a high number isn't going to work. We need a lower % of absorption, or else things above other things would weigh MUCH more than the things below. Ok, then, let's put Y at 1%

Force on trees: .01nx
Force on you: .0099nx
Force on earth: 0.009801

Alright, now the numbers are a lot more equal! Oh wait, oh no! We're floating! Oh shi-...

It gets worse when then planet is getting 100000 more absorption than us. and if the % absorbed is very low the neutrinos are going to affect people on the other side of the planet...

[Alkatran]

lol, that step you personally like is very impossible and not true. I really dont think that equation is manipulated right.

I think this is the best and easiest way to solve for momentum...

E^2 = m_0^2c^4 + p^2c^2
\frac{E^2-m_0^2c^4}{c^2} = p^2
p=\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m_0^2c^4}}{c}

I'm really hoping you got the joke.

[ArmoSkater87]

lol, nice explanation Alkatran. :D

[urtalkinstupid]

Armo, answer is negative. The rest of you I don't have time to read what you provided continually, so when i get home I'll read it. I probably won't be home tonight, because I'm actually going to have a life, rather than have a life in physics.

[ArmoSkater87]

Wow ok, so now you're going to say that everyone here has no life because they like physics.

[Alkatran]

Armo, answer is negative. The rest of you I don't have time to read what you provided continually, so when i get home I'll read it. I probably won't be home tonight, because I'm actually going to have a life, rather than have a life in physics.

Uh huh, that's great. I'd go out but I live a half hour from anyone and my girlfriend is camping.

[ArmoSkater87]

Alkatran, i thought u were supporting this theory. Btw, how old are u?

[Alkatran]

Alkatran, i thought u were supporting this theory. Btw, how old are u?

I wasn't supporting the theory, I was supporting my theory that density affected curvature at a point. But I proved myself wrong (a rare feat for most!).

17.

[DeShiznit44]

ok, look urtalkinstupid. We all have lives. We're not 15 yr old kids trying to prove a theory that has less weight than a neutrino. The very first message u posted stated that you wre open for critisism and questions yet you have still reacted negativly maybe because u are not mature enough to be open minded about our answers/comments or you are just horribly stubborn. Either way it doesnt matter. We thought about your theory and it leaves waaaaay to many questions unanswered. Further more it has made u contradict yourself. You infered in the first post u made that experiments would be needed to prove this theory and then u said a few posts ago that experiments don''t count for anything. Now ur gonna say we dont beleive you and are critisizing you because you are young. No, we're not. We're treating you as old as you are acting. To coment about our personal lives when you don't even know us is ridiculus. You've made more comments on this thread than any of us. If anyone doesn't have a life stupid, it's you. I'm gonna go have dinner with my girlfriend now. If you have any other parts of this theory you would like us to point out the holes in, pease feel free to let us know.

[DeShiznit44]

And Alkatran, i'm impressed, i expected you to be older lol. You have a really good understanding.

[Alkatran]

And Alkatran, i'm impressed, i expected you to be older lol. You have a really good understanding.

Thank you. I owe it all to trying to figure it out for myself, and not paying attention to my high school teachers.

Mind you, I had an awful string of math and physics teachers in high school. REALLY bad. I'm talking "Here's 5 problems to do for the next 3 classes" bad. I'm talking "You got 2/10 on that question because you didn't use the method I taught you" bad. (I had solved a geometric equation with a quick little shortcut: T(3) = 9, T(6) = 81, T(9) = ?, I said since 6-3 = 9-6 that T(6)/T(3)=T(9)/T(6) so T(9) = T(6)/T(3)*T(6). But NO. I had to SOLVE T(6)/T(3) and figure out all this obvious stuff...)

*edit* Wow. That turned from an innocent thank you to a rant. Sorry about that.
I'd say more but I really would come off as arrogant. Like I just did. Right there too. And...

[ArmoSkater87]

yea Alkatran you're pretty smart, im 17 too, Deshiznit will be 17 very soon.

[urtalkinstupid]

The current theory aslo has WAYYY too many questions unanswered. So, don't try that. :biggrin: Tell terrabyte not to comment on everyone's personal lives. Don't just point me out. Why is it so hard to unify General Relativity with Special Relativity or Quantum Physics? There are obvioulsy WAYYY too many questions unanswered, because of the hassle that arouses up from trying to combine them.

Why is it uncertain what happens beyond an event horizon? Why is the cosmological constant still unsolved? Why is it that gravity is an attractive force, but the Universe is said to be expanding? How come there are black holes forming near the "beginning" of the Universe? Why is that when something gets more densed, there appears to be a more devestating effect of gravity? (Expert's opinion, like a highly credited site would be suffice. Since you people love math and experiments, provide me with some of those from a better source than Alkatran.) If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?

Yea, Alkatran, I feel you on the bad teacher thing. As you can tell, I've quite a few bad teachers myself. :rofl:

ArmoSkater87, you still think gravity travels at the speed you mentioned? HAH, I'm sure everyone can agree with me for once on this one.

[terrabyte]

leave me out of the discussion completely before i have to go back and quote you two provoking me.

[urtalkinstupid]

Welcome back, terrabyte. You started getting into people's lives. I was simply telling them that I'm not the ONLY one. Not trying to bring you in; I'm just trying to point you out to tell these people that other people are making unecessary comments.

[Alkatran]

The current theory aslo has WAYYY too many questions unanswered. So, don't try that. :biggrin: Tell terrabyte not to comment on everyone's personal lives. Don't just point me out. Why is it so hard to unify General Relativity with Special Relativity or Quantum Physics? There are obvioulsy WAYYY too many questions unanswered, because of the hassle that arouses up from trying to combine them.

Why is it uncertain what happens beyond an event horizon? Why is the cosmological constant still unsolved? Why is it that gravity is an attractive force, but the Universe is said to be expanding? How come there are black holes forming near the "beginning" of the Universe? Why is that when something gets more densed, there appears to be a more devestating effect of gravity? (Expert's opinion, like a highly credited site would be suffice. Since you people love math and experiments, provide me with some of those from a better source than Alkatran.) If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?

Yea, Alkatran, I feel you on the bad teacher thing. As you can tell, I've quite a few bad teachers myself. :rofl:

The universe is expanding because it is moving at a very high speed. Gravity can't stop objects after a certain speed (duh, you knew that). Anything that has 0 rest mass can theoritcly move at the speed of light, because it accelerates instantly (or so I assume! Don't trust me on this).

When something gets more dense there is a more devastating effect because of the massive curvature at ONE SPOT instead of having spread out over a large area. If you go to the center of the sun, you're being pulled from all directions and don't accelerate very much, besides being cooked alive. However, if the sun was the size of a dime, you would implode because there's nothing on the outside to balance it out.

[urtalkinstupid]

I want sources that prove this stuff. So, can you provide?

[ArmoSkater87]

But you dont understand...those questions that you mention actually have answers or at least partial answers that make sense in terms of out understanding of physics at this point. GR/SR and QM have been united before. Stephen Hawking united them and proved that black holes slowly evaporate. The event horrizon of black holes might not even excist, we really dont know much about black holes since they are so far away and hard to detect. This is why you can have large debates about black holes and no one can actuallty prove much about them since out knowledge of them is so limited. About the density...its because of the equation Fg = Gm1m2/r^2, g=Gm/r^2...dividing by a smaller radius means and at the same time having the same mass, means more density...and therefore the gravity increases.

"If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?"
Not a bad point actually.

[Alkatran]

I want sources that prove this stuff. So, can you provide?

The black hole thing is simple common sense. If you go inside an object of equal density througout, you are only affected by the mass towards the center (from you) and not the outside. The outside "shell" completely nullifies itself. Since by the time you reach the inside of the matter of a blackhole you've passed the events horizon... well you're not going anywhere.

As for the very high speed thing allowing expansion: Consider this, you launch a rocket off earth going 0.9c.

What happens? For a fraction of a second the light feels more than 9m/s^2 of acceleration, then it gets further away from the earth. Soon the pull is 8, then 7, 6... in fact, the decrease in acceleration is so high that the rocket will NEVER stop due to the earth's gravity. It may get close to stopping, but it will always be moving forward.

I'm trying to figure out the maths for this in my head. I find myself going in circles, but give me a minute.

[terrabyte]

I'm just trying to point you out to tell these people that other people are making unecessary comments.

oh, mine were completely necessary...

[urtalkinstupid]

GIVE ME SOURCES!! terrabyte, insults are NEVER necessary.

[ArmoSkater87]

ArmoSkater87, you still think gravity travels at the speed you mentioned? HAH, I'm sure everyone can agree with me for once on this one.

HUH?? When did i say anything about the speed gravity travels at??

[urtalkinstupid]

I DUNNO IM SEEING THINGS! :biggrin: I want sources though, so that you people can turn me into a believer. GIMME.

[Nereid]

Yes, I agree no observational evidence Pluto is drifting. It should be drifting ever so slightly if space-time curvature were keeping it in place, By how much?but it isn't because its orbit is sustained by sub-atomic forces.and what is the equation which describes that sustenance?May I ask you what is the evidence of space-time curvature? Is it the bending of light?The evidence is the many experimental and observational results which are consistent with General Relativity (and the lack of any which are inconsistent with it). The 'bending of light' is just one effect.

[ArmoSkater87]

haha, my sources are from physicists and my physics tecaher and a whole lot of research ive done myself in the past years, fortunatlly my physics teacher is the greatest teacher i've ever had.

[urtalkinstupid]

That provides me no source.

Have you people ever had doubts about the theories that are popular today? That question has an obvious answer. You people follow everything only if it is by some credited scientists. So, Hawking's redid his theory. It seems that I've always thought no information is lost. I also thought that no information is even falls in due to the fact I think black holes do not exist. A theory that you people have cherished so well for 29 years, turned around by the same person who proposed it...my, my, my.

Please, I want highly credited sources. You wanted sources from me; I want sources from you that are thorough enough, yet easy to interpret. Hopefully they can sway me, right?

[ArmoSkater87]

what specifically do u want sources for?? The whole thing about neutrinos not interacting?

[urtalkinstupid]

In case you are unaware what I have previously posted, here it is again:

Why is it uncertain what happens beyond an event horizon? Why is the cosmological constant still unsolved? Why is it that gravity is an attractive force, but the Universe is said to be expanding? How come there are black holes forming near the "beginning" of the Universe? Why is that when something gets more densed, there appears to be a more devestating effect of gravity? (Expert's opinion, like a highly credited site would be suffice. Since you people love math and experiments, provide me with some of those from a better source than Alkatran.) If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?

[Alkatran]

In case you are unaware what I have previously posted, here it is again:

Why is it uncertain what happens beyond an event horizon? Why is the cosmological constant still unsolved? Why is it that gravity is an attractive force, but the Universe is said to be expanding? How come there are black holes forming near the "beginning" of the Universe? Why is that when something gets more densed, there appears to be a more devestating effect of gravity? (Expert's opinion, like a highly credited site would be suffice. Since you people love math and experiments, provide me with some of those from a better source than Alkatran.) If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?

Alright, fine: Read a brief history of time by stephen hawking (honestly, I don't know if I got his name right)

In that book, it says something along the lines of: Since light can't escape a black hole, and nothing moves faster than light, and mass has no effect on the acceleration of gravity, nothing can escape the event horizon of a black hole. Therefor we can get no information from within.
His theory about black holes emitting hawking radiation goes against this, yes, but the emitions are unpredictable so no information is actually revealed.

I already explained why black holes act like they do, do a google search. Look, here's some random site I found:
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html

Personnaly, I thought the cosmological constant was abandoned once it was discovered the universe wasn't static, but expanding. The only purpose the thing had was to keep the universe stable.

Photons have no rest mass, they move the speed of light. If neutrinos have no rest mass it's likely they would act like photons and just blaze along at c. And "nothing can move at the speed of light" is an incorrect statement. Because, obviously, light moves at the speed of light. All you need to do is mimic the property(ies) that allow light to do this and you reach c.

[DeShiznit44]

urtalkinstupid has a really good point, sources need to be provided but the problem is these questions are questions that top scientists of our day don't have definite answers to. Now, as to teh gravity being an attractive force and the universe still expanding. Now, i know it's not the greatest of theories but lets see what we know. It is conradictory to what we think when we see the universe is expanding but gravity should be pulling it back together. Now i think of it sorta like a "Conservation of Gravity". in order for teh universe to balance itself out since i think the total energy of the universe is 0 (not to sure on that point, correct me if i'm wrong) I think of it like gravity negating itself. An unkown force, if u will, that acts against gravity pushing the universe (or pulling, lol) apart.

[ArmoSkater87]

I dont understand why you want sources for these questions. It is irellivant to your theory, but i gave you answers to most of them...adn i dont see why you would need sources for some of there, some are just really obvious...No one has ever seen an event horizon, and no one knows if it really excists, i think that answers that. I dont know anything about what the cosmilogical constant is. Gravity is actually most likely a push force since there really is not such thing as "pull". When you pull something, you are actually dont "pull", you push in the opposite direction. The universe is accelerating for an unknown reason, right now scientists say its because of dark matter. I dont know about black holes forming in the biginning of the universe, i really dont know how much in the biginning you mean by that. If a star is massive enough its life can be cut down to only hundreds of thousands of years, which is very short compared to most stars. About the gravity of denser objects....thats pretty obvious from the gravity force equation.

[Alkatran]

I dont understand why you want sources for these questions. It is irellivant to your theory, but i gave you answers to most of them...adn i dont see why you would need sources for some of there, some are just really obvious...No one has ever seen an event horizon, and no one knows if it really excists, i think that answers that. I dont know anything about what the cosmilogical constant is. Gravity is actually most likely a push force since there really is not such thing as "pull". When you pull something, you are actually dont "pull", you push in the opposite direction. The universe is accelerating for an unknown reason, right now scientists say its because of dark matter. I dont know about black holes forming in the biginning of the universe, i really dont know how much in the biginning you mean by that. If a star is massive enough its life can be cut down to only hundreds of thousands of years, which is very short compared to most stars. About the gravity of denser objects....thats pretty obvious from the gravity force equation.

I say that there is no pushing and merely pulling in the opposite direction!

Prove me wrong. Ya, that's what I thought.

Oh wait, we're both wrong. Consider an electron between an electron and a proton. The center electron is being pushed by the other electron and pulled by the proton.

[Alkatran]

urtalkinstupid has a really good point, sources need to be provided but the problem is these questions are questions that top scientists of our day don't have definite answers to. Now, as to teh gravity being an attractive force and the universe still expanding. Now, i know it's not the greatest of theories but lets see what we know. It is conradictory to what we think when we see the universe is expanding but gravity should be pulling it back together. Now i think of it sorta like a "Conservation of Gravity". in order for teh universe to balance itself out since i think the total energy of the universe is 0 (not to sure on that point, correct me if i'm wrong) I think of it like gravity negating itself. An unkown force, if u will, that acts against gravity pushing the universe (or pulling, lol) apart.

The "conservation of gravity" is the force on the opposite object. The change in inertia of each is equal. There's no reason for there to be, or not to be, an anti-gravity. (unless you count the universe ripping away from itself!)

[urtalkinstupid]

Wow, you people take everything literally. You know what I meant by the statement nothing can travel at the speed of light. Yea, the site you provided me was one of the first sites I encountered. I want better. Neutrinos travel just below or at the speed of light. Neutrinos have a rest mass. They are also able to come close to traveling at the speed of light, but not exactly the speed of light

I want more indepth sources. Google do not provide definite sources. So, I want you to scope out the ones that you think are good and post them. I have no reason to believe in the current theories, if they aren't even logical. Mathematics is just a manifestation of logic. If the logic that lead to the math was illogical, then that math itself is illogical. Logic is the only thing that matters. The current theories do not practice logic.

[ArmoSkater87]

I say that there is no pushing and merely pulling in the opposite direction!

Prove me wrong. Ya, that's what I thought.

Oh wait, we're both wrong. Consider an electron between an electron and a proton. The center electron is being pushed by the other electron and pulled by the proton.


lol...thats a good point. The unverse is just such a weird and crazy place. Technically dont know anything.

[Arctic Fox]

My 2 cents...

I want to get to the number 4. Einstein says the only way to get there is 1+1+1+1. You can’t go faster than that.

I’m looking at my own theories that say I can get there using 2*2. :)

Same destination, different/faster equasion.

[Alkatran]

Wow, you people take everything literally. You know what I meant by the statement nothing can travel at the speed of light. Yea, the site you provided me was one of the first sites I encountered. I want better. Neutrinos travel just below or at the speed of light. Neutrinos have a rest mass. They are also able to come close to traveling at the speed of light, but not exactly the speed of light

I want more indepth sources. Google do not provide definite sources. So, I want you to scope out the ones that you think are good and post them. I have no reason to believe in the current theories, if they aren't even logical. Mathematics is just a manifestation of logic. If the logic that lead to the math was illogical, then that math itself is illogical. Logic is the only thing that matters. The current theories do not practice logic.

Anything I give you won't be enough. It will either be too complicated to understand (so you'll dismiss it) or too simple (so you'll dismiss it).

[Alkatran]

My 2 cents...

I want to get to the number 4. Einstein says the ony way to get there is either 1+1+1+1.

I’m looking at my own theories that say I can get there using 2*2. :)

Same destination, different/faster equasion.

Yes, but you need to break down 2*2. Think, what did you actually do in your head to calculate it? You memorized it. Any calculation can take almost 0 time if you memorize it. To really calculate 2*2 you need to:

* is a series of +, so 2*2 is +2 twice
2+2
+ and - are series of numbers
a number is a series of increments (+1)
+1+1 + +1+1
++=+
+1+1+1+1
there, we broke it down all the way
4

2*2 = 2+2 = +1+1+1+1

Now, why was 2*2 faster, again?

[beatrix kiddo]

artic fox said the equation is shortened. if u know that adding 1+1+1+1 is the same as 2 doubled.. then that is indeed a short cut. if u have good understanding u can cut out the middle-man and just get straight to the answer. memorized or not. alkatran, i don't care how hard or easy ur sources are. I WANNA SEE THEM!!! i give u guys my sources all the time and i don't mind if u shoot them down.. so the least thing u can do is give the ppl on this thread the same respect and just let us see ur sources...

[beatrix kiddo]

WHOA!!! look what i found!!! http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae476.cfm
wow ppl. are thinking a like.

[urtalkinstupid]

Yea, there is no push or pull. In order to provide more of a reality, I used push to emphasize my theory. What is really going on is emission and absorption.


P=Proton E=Electron \leftarrow or \rightarrow = energy emitted or absorbed

A proton can be denoted by \rightarrow P \leftarrow it absorbs.
An electron can be denoted by \leftarrow E \rightarrow it emitts energy.

That is not how it works, but that's what we will use. Density is the determing factor on what emitts or absorbs energy. Thats in quantum physics?

So, what you have is:

P \leftarrow \rightarrow P \leftarrow \leftarrow E \rightarrow \leftarrow E

So, what happens?

P \leftarrow \rightarrow PE \rightarrow \rightarrow \leftarrow \leftarrow E

The outer E continues to push the E in the PE pair as it progresses towards the pair.

P \leftarrow \lefttarrow EP \leftarrow \leftarrowarrow \leftarrow \leftarrow E

The E in the PE pair orbits the PE and is being pushed by the other E allowing the E in the PE pair to pair up with the other P and the other E to pair up with the PEP pair. To get:

\rightarrow PEPE \rightarrow

This is just the jist. There is more going on. Point I'm trying to make is that everything is governed by emission and absorption which makes a pushing force.

I don't know if this is a good example. OH WELL! :rofl:

[beatrix kiddo]

and just so we're all clear:
urtalkinstupid isn't 15. i am. he never said anything about age. i did (after terrabyte got my age wrong) urtalkinstupid is 16.. about to be 17. i am 15 about to be 16. and what's so bad about being 15?? it's reasonable considering i'm going in the 11th grade...

[urtalkinstupid]

Your equation is wrong.

Here's why:

E^2 = m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2
m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 = 0

Now, I'll start from your end equation and work backwards:
P^2 = E^2/(m^2*c^4+c^2) - 1
(m^2*c^4+c^2)(P^2+1) = E^2
m^2*c^4*P^2+c^2*P^2 + c^2 + m^2*c^2 = E^2
m^2*c^4*P^2+c^2*P^2 + c^2 + m^2*c^2 - E^2 = 0
Now they both = 0, so:
m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 = m^2*c^4*P^2+c^2*P^2 + c^2 + m^2*c^2 - E^2

eliminate everything on the left from the right

m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 = m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 + m^2*c^4*P^2 + c^2*P^2

0 = m^2*c^4*p^2+c^2*p^2
Divide by c^2*p^2

0 = m^2*c^2 + 1
m^2*c^2 = -1
(mc)^2 = -1
mc = sqr(-1)
mc = i

The speed of light times the object's mass is imaginary. That is why you're equation doesn't work.

Since you're so good at math, can you solve for p the correct way? I told you that I already thought mine was wrong, so I was wanting help.

[beatrix kiddo]

Tell your beloved Einstein that.

BTW, 9.81m/s^2 is acceleration...

just so u know entropy, stupid was saying that alkatran could tell his beloved einstein that the equation was wrong.. he wasn't meaning the acceleration of gravity... and since, alkatran, u think this equation is wrong, what is ur opinion on SR, since that comes from it??? E=mc^2.... i guess that's wrong too...

[urtalkinstupid]

beatrix kiddo (is not a girl, but is a boy), he was saying that the method i used to solve for p is wrong not the total energy equation. hehehe :rofl:

[beatrix kiddo]

oh ok.. nvm then.. sry alkatran.. i misread ur post... I CAN BE WRONG TOO YA KNOW!!!

[beatrix kiddo]

hey when i solved for p i got this:
p^2=E^2-mo^2c^4/c^2.. it's prob not right because it makes the answer imaginary (?)

[Alkatran]

Since you're so good at math, can you solve for p the correct way? I told you that I already thought mine was wrong, so I was wanting help.

E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2
sqr((E^2 - m^2*c^4)/c^2) = p

You have to by level, move the addition, then the multiplication, then the square. Pretty basic algebra.

[Alkatran]

just so u know entropy, stupid was saying that alkatran could tell his beloved einstein that the equation was wrong.. he wasn't meaning the acceleration of gravity... and since, alkatran, u think this equation is wrong, what is ur opinion on SR, since that comes from it??? E=mc^2.... i guess that's wrong too...

If the equation is incorrect either it was found incorrectly or the base equation is also wrong.

In this case it was found incorrectly.

*edit* oh, you were told that by urtalking anyways.

[Alkatran]

hey when i solved for p i got this:
p^2=E^2-mo^2c^4/c^2.. it's prob not right because it makes the answer imaginary (?)

An equation is only equal if you can take both sides and reduce them to 0.

yours now:
p^2=E^2-m^2c^4/c^2
0=E^2-m^2c^4/c^2-p^2
0=E^2-m^2c^2-p^2


original:
E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2
E^2 - m^2*c^4 - p^2*c^2 = 0

combine:
E^2 - m^2*c^4 - p^2*c^2 = E^2-m^2c^2-p^2
eliminate
E^2 - m^2*c^4 - p^2*c^2 = E^2-m^2-p^2
-m^2*c^4 - p^2*c^2 = -m^2-p^2
Multiply by -1 to remove minuses.
m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2 = m^2+p^2

m^2(c^4-1) + p^2(c^2-1) = 0

As you can see, c has to equal one, or m and p have to have some odd values for this to work.


Also, is E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2 the actual equation, or is it E = m*c^2 + p*c? (I've never actually seen the equation before, and can't find any results on it)

[Nereid]

General caveat: Comments etc are wrt my current understanding of the status of observational/experimental results and the two most successful theories in physics - QFT and GR.Why is it uncertain what happens beyond an event horizon?Because there's no way any information can come back from inside it (qualifications: Hawking's presentation of earlier this week, the ergosphere) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole)Why is the cosmological constant still unsolved?Because the observational data aren't yet sufficient to constrain alternatives.Why is it that gravity is an attractive force,Study GR and you'll understand how. but the Universe is said to be expanding?That's what we observe, so any theory must be consistent with the observations. In cosmological models consistent with GR, an expanding universe is one of the most natural ... consistent with observations!How come there are black holes forming near the "beginning" of the Universe?Excellent question! This is a very active area within cosmology; if you're interested, you can go to the A&C library, in the General Astronomy and Cosmology section, and read some of the papers to which links are provided.Why is that when something gets more densed, there appears to be a more devestating effect of gravity? (Expert's opinion, like a highly credited site would be suffice. Since you people love math and experiments, provide me with some of those from a better source than Alkatran.)Please clarify, e.g. what does 'more densed' mean? what is 'a more devestating effect of gravity'?If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?You may have heard of neutrino oscillations; when you understand these concepts you'll also find the answer to your question. Here's a good thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=36038) in PF that addresses this fascinating phenomenon.

Turning to how this thread began:So assuming everything is governed by sub-atomic pressure, what creates this pressure? Simple, sut-atomic particles. Sub-atomic particles are going through our body every second in large quantities. One of the main sources of sub-atomic particles is from the sun in the form of neutrinos. Neutrinos rarely come in contact with masses, but if in a group that consists of enough, it can interact and actually exert a pressure on that mass. So...umm...guess on to an example of my theory.

So, one day, you are playing with a tennis ball. You are just throwing it up and down in the air. You begin to wonder, "What is really happening when I throw this ball in the air?" When the ball is in your hand, the sub-atomic particles hit it on all sides except where you palm grips it providing support on the bottom. When you throw the tennis ball in the air, you exert a pressure upwards on it, making it leave your hand. The neutrinos from the sun are unable to interact with the ball on the bottom side, so extra pressure is not applied, because the earth acts as a shield for the bottom of the ball. Now, the tennis ball can go up, but it can only go up for a short while. Why is this? Gravity pulls it back down...no. The pressure that your hand exerted on the ball decreases as the sub-atomic pressure on the other sides of the ball overcomes the pressure exerted on the ball. With the pressure being less on one side, the other sides are being pushed in that direction (towards earth). The pressure on the other sides have pushed the ball back to earth, where it is now sub-atomic pressure equillibriate.By now you'll see that your idea (it's certainly not a theory) is wildly inconsistent with observational data, so best put it to rest.

One point that no one raised: if neutrinos play a key role in this 'sub-atomic pressure', then an excellent place to test the idea would be around nuclear reactors. Close to these, the neutrino flux is many orders of magnitude greater than that from that Sun; ditto 'downstream' from particle accelerators. So, any effect like the one you propose would be much more obvious there than elsewhere on the Earth. Since no such effects are observed, you have a tough job ahead getting your idea accepted!

urtalkinstupid 0, QFT+GR 1.

[beatrix kiddo]

oh ok.. nvm then.. sry alkatran.. i misread ur post... I CAN BE WRONG TOO YA KNOW!!!

i already apologized for getting it wrong... so now what? and the equation is correct http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae476.cfm
but thanks for helping out with it...

[beatrix kiddo]

i can't find a source that says the neutrino flux mag. is greater in the particle accelerators than from the sun... could u please provide me with further information that i may reasonably defend my case??

[Entropy]

Why are we arguing about the momentum equation or whatever? The TOTAL (includes momentum and mass) energy of the average neutrino passing through Earth is 0.81MeV like I said.

[beatrix kiddo]

so that i don't make the same mistake again, alkatran i'll show u my steps and u tell me which i did wrong..
E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2
E^2-p^2c^2=m^2c^4
-p^2c^2=m^2c^4-E^2
-p^2=m^2c^4-E^2/c^2
or p^2=E^2-m^2c^4/c^2

maybe i didn't do it wrong.. if so disregard this

[beatrix kiddo]

entropy we're trying to solve for momentum.. we all know the energy but if u know how to solve for p that would be most appreciated..

[ArmoSkater87]

Why are we arguing about the momentum equation or whatever? The TOTAL (includes momentum and mass) energy of the average neutrino passing through Earth is 0.81MeV like I said.

I really think that thats wayyyyy too big for a neutrino.

[ArmoSkater87]

I think this is the best and easiest way to solve for momentum...

E^2 = m_0^2c^4 + p^2c^2
\frac{E^2-m_0^2c^4}{c^2} = p^2
p=\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m_0^2c^4}}{c}

[urtalkinstupid]

No, that always yields an imaginary number. Yes, it utilizes all of the right steps, but the answer is never within reality.

Entropy, I know the total energy of the neutrinos. I'm trying to find the momentum that is included in the total energy. Is that clear to you?

Nereid, you make me sick. One, you break up a complete question and give partial explanation. When i asked, "Why is gravity an attractive force, but the Universe is expanding?" I meant that as ONE question. I didn't mean for it to be broken down into two questions with separate definitions. Experiment and observations don't mean anything. Logic is the ultimate determining factor of how things work. You raise a good question about nuclear reactors. How would the flux be of a greater magnitude, when it has not near the fusion power of the sun? Or does it? If it does, can you please provide me with a source.


Oh, you made the comment urtalkinstupid 0, QFT+GR 1. Well, I have news for you buddy. QFT+GR does not exist as one. They can not be combined as of yet, because they do not allow unity. So, QFT+GR 0, urtalkinstupid 1+n

(n increasing by one for everyday QFT and GR remain in disunity)

[selfAdjoint]

Experiment and observations don't mean anything. Logic is the ultimate determining factor of how things work.

You're talking stupid.

[urtalkinstupid]

selfAdjoint, experiments really don't mean anything. If you pay close attention the math that they used in the experiments was derived from other things. Math is a manifestation of logic. Logic made math. The new string theory sounds way more logical than the theories out today. Logic says that QFT and GR can be unified, but as of yet they haven't. Why? The logics within the two fields are not compatible. Why? They both consist of math that is not logically possible. Things attracting other things depending on their distance and mass...Yea, right. String theory fits into my theory, because it involves emission and absorption. How did this universe start? A string. How did this strnig become? The universe was asymmetrical; it had to equal out somehow so it emitted energy so it could be absorbed and so on.

QFT+GR 0

[Nereid]

When i asked, "Why is gravity an attractive force, but the Universe is expanding?" I meant that as ONE question. I didn't mean for it to be broken down into two questions with separate definitions.Perhaps you could be more precise in your wording then? For example, "We observe that the universe is expanding. However, gravity is a long-range, attractive force. How is it that the universe can expand against gravity?"Experiment and observations don't mean anything. Logic is the ultimate determining factor of how things work.If you would like to discuss physics, or any other science, you will need to adjust your expectations; AFAIK, only in maths is 'logic the ultimate determining factor'. In the meantime, I will continue to demonstrate inconsistencies in your ideas by referencing experimental and observational results.You raise a good question about nuclear reactors. How would the flux be of a greater magnitude, when it has not near the fusion power of the sun? Or does it?Because the Sun is ~150 million km from you, and near a reactor the distance is ~150m. Assuming both the Sun and a reactor radiate neutrinos isotropically, then the Sun would need to produce neutrinos at a rate >1027 of that of a reactor for an approx equal (local) flux. Stay tuned for links.

[Nereid]

You raise a good question about nuclear reactors. How would the flux be of a greater magnitude, when it has not near the fusion power of the sun? Or does it? If it does, can you please provide me with a source.Try this (http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/history/nobel/nobel_02.asp): "... the probability of chlorine's capturing a neutrino was ten quadrillion times smaller than its capturing a neutron in a nuclear reactor." It refers to Cl, but the statement for any other target is similar.

[Alkatran]

so that i don't make the same mistake again, alkatran i'll show u my steps and u tell me which i did wrong..
E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2
E^2-p^2c^2=m^2c^4
-p^2c^2=m^2c^4-E^2
-p^2=m^2c^4-E^2/c^2
or p^2=E^2-m^2c^4/c^2

maybe i didn't do it wrong.. if so disregard this

-p^2=m^2c^4-E^2/c^2
That step is wrong, you need to divide the ENTIRE side by c^2.

The funny thing is that this is the exact same error I predicted you had made.

[urtalkinstupid]

Alkatran have you ever seen that equation before I introduced it to this thread?

[beatrix kiddo]

urtalkinstupid just pwnd nereid..

come on dude.. u can do better than that. all that told me was that neutrinos are hard to detect. BFD. "The detectors count roughly one-third of the expected number of solar neutrinos... The other two-thirds of the electron neutrinos would have become tau or muon neutrinos, which the Davis experiment could not count." foundations of astronomy pg. 169. think oscillation, nereid. i want data that shows the magnitude of the neutrino flux is greater "downwind" from a particle accelerator. also that site says only 400 bil neutrinos hit the earth when it is actually 500 tril. that link was just a bio! that guy didn't even write it. it takes u an hour to come up with that?! give me numerical data determining the magnitude of the neutrino flux from the particles accelerator.

[beatrix kiddo]

alkatran i did! i just didn't use parenthesis and i don't know how to type in that math symbol junk
-p^2=m^2c^4-E^2/c^2
That step is wrong, you need to divide the ENTIRE side by c^2.

The funny thing is that this is the exact same error I predicted you had made.

HAHAHAHAHA.. don't pretend to be psychic..

[urtalkinstupid]

Nereid, ummm, nice arguement? I'll take part of your advice!

We observe that the universe is expanding. However, gravity is a long-range, attractive force. How is it that the universe can expand against gravity? Answer, please.

So, QFT and GR...Would you like to tell me why they are unable to form a partnership? If so many of the current theories work through observation and experimentation, why is that not true when you try to combine QFT and GR? Obviously, there is something wrong with the way the two branches of science work.

Nereid, I would ike to know your view on gravity. Do you believe it is a pull or expressed through the inclination of space-time? Do YOU think neutrinos have a rest mass? Do you think they travel at the speed or light or just under the speed of light? Do you think the binary star system that is orbiting the black hole in the middle of the milky way has any significance? Do you think Hawking's new explanation about black holes is correct, or is the old theory still suffice?

[Nereid]

urtalkinstupid just pwnd nereid..

come on dude.. u can do better than that. all that told me was that neutrinos are hard to detect. BFD. "The detectors count roughly one-third of the expected number of solar neutrinos... The other two-thirds of the electron neutrinos would have become tau or muon neutrinos, which the Davis experiment could not count." foundations of astronomy pg. 169. think oscillation, nereid. i want data that shows the magnitude of the neutrino flux is greater "downwind" from a particle accelerator. also that site says only 400 bil neutrinos hit the earth when it is actually 500 tril. that link was just a bio! that guy didn't even write it. it takes u an hour to come up with that?! give me numerical data determining the magnitude of the neutrino flux from the particles accelerator.I think it's time for you to do some research of your own; you have the resources of the internet at your disposal, and (clearly) a great deal of time on your hands.

Here (http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/) is one place that you may like to start. You may also find some issues of the CERN courier of interest, for example (http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/39/3/13). If you follow the links provided in these pages (http://www-numi.fnal.gov/public/numiproject.html) you will also learn a great deal about neutrinos.

[urtalkinstupid]

Nereid, you have no response for me? I feel left out. :cry:

[Nereid]

Nereid, ummm, nice arguement? I'll take part of your advice!

We observe that the universe is expanding. However, gravity is a long-range, attractive force. How is it that the universe can expand against gravity? Answer, please.A very good place for you to find an answer to this excellent question is Ned Wright's Cosmology tutorial (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm). You could also read some of the posts by marcus, esp in the General Astronomy and Cosmology section of PF.

I'm not avoiding your question, merely pointing out that I don't think I could adequately answer it in 10,000 characters or less.So, QFT and GR...Would you like to tell me why they are unable to form a partnership?In the Physics section of PF there is a sub-section Strings, Branes & LQG. There you will find many excellent answers to your question. If you have access to a local library, you will find a book by Brian Greene, called 'the elegent universe' - I recommend that you borrow it and read Part II.

Again, your question is best answered by something much longer than a post in PF.If so many of the current theories work through observation and experimentation, why is that not true when you try to combine QFT and GR?Because the physical domains where the two theories are significantly inconsistent are ones we have no direct access to, such as the first Planck 'second' of the universe, or colliding neutron stars.Obviously, there is something wrong with the way the two branches of science work.If you mean, 'there are inconsistencies between QFT and GR', then yes; if you mean 'there are observational or experimental results which are inconsistent with QFT or GR', then no. If there were inconsistent results, we could get some hints on how to go about working out a better theory (or two).Nereid, I would ike to know your view on gravity.My view is that GR provides an exceptionally good explanation of gravity, because every test that it has been subject to, it has passed. It's also a very elegant theory.Do YOU think neutrinos have a rest mass? Do you think they travel at the speed or light or just under the speed of light?The experimental and observational data support the concept of neutrino oscillations. Did you read the material on the link on this topic that I provided in an earlier post? If so, what in that material did you not understand about neutrino oscillations?Do you think the binary star system that is orbiting the black hole in the middle of the milky way has any significance?I don't understand your question; would you please rephrase it?Do you think Hawking's new explanation about black holes is correct, or is the old theory still suffice?Not having even read it, I am in no position to have an opinion. :smile:

[Alkatran]

alkatran i did! i just didn't use parenthesis and i don't know how to type in that math symbol junk


HAHAHAHAHA.. don't pretend to be psychic..

You're kidding, right? How can you expect us to tell you if your equation is right if you won't even use parathenses!

And I'm not psychic, but not pretending either. A few pages back I posted what you probably did to reach the error and it was very similar.

[urtalkinstupid]

I'm not avoiding your question, merely pointing out that I don't think I could adequately answer it in 10,000 characters or less.

I would love for you to answer my question. I have an e-mail address. You could send your answer there.

None of your answers are what you think. They are what other people think. I want your personal opinions. Once again, you took a question and broke it down. I wanted to know your views on gravity. I provided you with two optionms that were: push or space-time curvature. People have told me that these are two different concepts but the "pull" is used as a term of convience. There is no such thing as a pull anyways.

There is a massive black hole in our galaxy. This massive black hole was noted to have a binary star system orbiting it. I think this has a great significance. I wanted to know if this binary star systems strikes a nerve in your brain at all.

The current theories are presented as flawless. We all know that they leave many questions unanswered. So, why are they so accepted?

I would really like to hear YOU answer my questions rather than giving me other sources.

[Alkatran]

The current theories are presented as flawless. We all know that they leave many questions unanswered. So, why are they so accepted?

I would really like to hear YOU answer my questions rather than giving me other sources.

If anything, the current theories are presented as flawed. We know that there's probably some tiny drift here or there that we haven't accounted for.

[urtalkinstupid]

Alkatran, I asked you earlier if you have ever seen Einstein's total energy equation before i presented it. So, have you?

[beatrix kiddo]

uh. ok nereid. i read ur sites and they provided me with information i've known about for the past 2 yrs. i never said i needed to know more about neutrino detectors, etc. i asked u to provide me with data that showed the magnitude of the neutrino flux is greater downwind from a particle accelerator. where in any of those sources does it discuss that?? u say that i need to go out and research neutrino flux mag. increase downwind from a particle accelerator and i've tried but (SUPRISINGLY!!!) i can't find any sources. this whole bit was ur idea and i wanna know how u came up with it and what sources u used to back it up.

[beatrix kiddo]

You're kidding, right? How can you expect us to tell you if your equation is right if you won't even use parathenses!

And I'm not psychic, but not pretending either. A few pages back I posted what you probably did to reach the error and it was very similar.

alkatran from now on i'll include every little parenthesis, or what have u, so u don't get confused and see it as a chance to unnecessarily correct me...
what error?! we came out with the same equation p^2=(e^2-m^2c^4)/c^2.. i hope u're as good at reading as u are with math

[urtalkinstupid]

Here is beatrix kiddo's equation in an easier to read way:

p^2=\frac{E^2-m_0^2c^4}{c^2}

I'm sure you can read that, Alkatran.

[Integral]

all mass bends light

only black holes have sufficient mass to bend it to where we can detect it.
Wrong! The first verification of GR came from the measuring the bending of light as it passed the sun. Do some research on Gravitational lensing.

[urtalkinstupid]

terrabyte got SERVED...

Thanx Integral. :biggrin:

[urtalkinstupid]

Also, terrabyte, I've never noticed how much error you have in that statement. If black holes have sufficient mass, doesn't the neutron star it was born from have sufficient enough mass also? This sounds like a density problem.

[beatrix kiddo]

Wrong! The first verification of GR came from the measuring the bending of light as it passed the sun. Do some research on Gravitational lensing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- ownage!!! now all we have to do is sit back and wait for terrabyte to get all defensive and revert to personally attacking everyone on this thread...

[Alkatran]

Alkatran, I asked you earlier if you have ever seen Einstein's total energy equation before i presented it. So, have you?

No, I never saw it before this. But I already said that, or at least hinted at it by asking about it.

Here is beatrix kiddo's equation in an easier to read way:

Unless you couldn't tell, I was writing all my equations out the way I normally do in programming. I'm used to seeing 5+ levels of parathenses. If you're going to write an equation WRONG, don't make fun of people who read it the way you WROTE it instead of the way you MEANT it.

Also, terrabyte, I've never noticed how much error you have in that statement. If black holes have sufficient mass, doesn't the neutron star it was born from have sufficient enough mass also? This sounds like a density problem.

How does this sound?:

If you are OUTSIDE something, it doesn't matter how much you shrink or expand it, the force of gravity stays the same (this is the conclusion I came from with my point-summing program).

If you are INSIDE something (see: star to blackhole) the force WILL get stronger as it shrinks. Until you are OUTSIDE it again. After that the force will stay the same.

From this comes the obvious conclusion that the radius of the event horizon of a black hole is much smaller than the radius of the star it came from.


The reason that force goes down when you're inside something is you ignore the shell around you. It is geometricly proven that if you are within the shell of a sphere or circle, the sum of the (the axes that make up vectors? Sorry, french education, don't know the term) of the inverse of the distance squared from all the points of that shell total out to 0.

[beatrix kiddo]

i thought u (of all ppl) would have understood that the division slash i used was meant to divide that entire side. i mean.. it's basic algebra, right? i'm not an idiot alkatran..
what do u mean it doesn't matter how far u shrink something?? let's say we've got a binary star system. the stars are "pulling" on each other but they are not overpowering each other to the point where one of the stars starts directly falling into the other. however, one of the stars becomes a neutron star. how come the neutron star's partner begins to fall into it and form an accretion disk if the mass hasn't changed but density has?? (neutron stars have the same mass as the stars they came from..2 to 3 solar masses)
"binary pulsars can emit strong gravitational waves because the neutron stars contain large amounts of mass in a small volume. this also means that binary pulsars can be sites of tremendous violence because of the strength of gravity at the surface of a neutron star." foundations of astronomy pg.290.. man i love this book..

[urtalkinstupid]

Wow, a diecast Einstein fan has never heard of Einstein's total energy equation...Weird...

Yea, I program also, so I know what you are used to. beatrix kiddo doesn't program, so she didnt' know.

The equation for calculating the force betweent he objects is not correct. The reason why it doesnt change force, is because you are not including density. Take a ray of light. It is passing throught he vaccum of space. A neutron star is approaching. This neutron star is more dense than the star it burned out from. This more dense star has affects of gravity that seem to be stronger, but the equation doesn't sohw this excess force. Around this object, light is bent more than it would have been if that object were less dense. Why? The object light is able to get closer to the center of gravity of the object. Why? The object is more dense, it has less volume but the same mass. Ok, the density of objects may not have an affect on huge objects, but the affect on light is visible. Now, that star condenses into a black hole. Same mass, but zero volume. Light is bent backwards. The density of objects has an gravitational affect on objects with a velocity towards the denser object? If the object is taking a path then, if the object it were traveling to were to get more dense, then the object with velocity would take a natural path towards the dense object, therefore allowing that object to get closer to the denser object's center of gravity. Which leads to more devistating gravitational effects.

Arg, I can not explain it how I want to. I'll figure out a better way to explain it. In all seriousness, you can not go by what Einstein taught if you have never heard of his total energy equation. That's pathetic. I don't think Einstein should be credited for much, but even I have heard of that equation.

[terrabyte]

Thanks Integral for inciting the young'uns :|

all mass bends light

only black holes have sufficient mass to bend it to where we can detect it.

Integral: Wrong! The first verification of GR came from the measuring the bending of light as it passed the sun. Do some research on Gravitational lensing.

in case you guys were too giddy with joy to notice, he was saying wrong to the second part, not the first.

which does nothing to validate your case at all, so you can wipe the smirks off your faces.

as far as neutron stars go see Integral's above reference to how even our own suns' mass bends light. it's NOT a density issue. go to the back of the class, "stupid"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- ownage!!! now all we have to do is sit back and wait for terrabyte to get all defensive and revert to personally attacking everyone on this thread...

poor guy, laughing at his own ineptitude...

[beatrix kiddo]

tisk. tisk. terrabyte... i knew u'd return to post ur puerile opinion sooner or later. i guess it took u a bit longer to reply because a mentor "stirred" us up and we got a bit too rowdy for ur comfort level. uh.. what makes u think we thought he said the first part was wrong? it's cute that u underestimate my comprehension by assuming i can't read.. cough.cough. and, unlike u, i've read my history and i know that gravity bending light was first noticed around the sun. and how am i laughing at MY foolishness when u're the one who came back, like i said, got personal, like i said, and poorly defended urself, like i said. HAHAHAHA... that's ineptitude for u.

also... do u have anything to say about my post and my book source describing binary star systems and density?? i know u saw it, so instead of pulling a typical terrabyte just stick to the physics.. please.

[terrabyte]

why don't you post the whole thing so we can see what it says in context instead of vicariously through your insipid excerpts?

you could also post the copyright date as well

[Tom Mattson]

This is just about the silliest thread I have ever seen. It was brought to my attention by one of the Mentors, and so I started going through it. I was editing the thread, deleting personal attacks and inane babbling, when I finally got sick of it around Page 13. This thread is done.

For future reference: Physics Forums is not a chat room for children. If that's what you are looking for, then go to MSN or Yahoo or something.