Quotes

[shintashi]

"A Half Formed theory based upon truth is better than a Fully formed theory based upon lies, but the Fully formed theory is Accepted four times as often..."

[urtalkinstupid]

I agree. A theory that is based on logic beats any theory based on mathematics anyday. Yet, people choose to only accept theories that observations can be proved through experimentation. Sad, sad world.

[Entropy]

Math is an invention of logic and is therefore logical to use it.

Logic is relative to what you know (what you observe). So to look (observe) and learn is to increase what you can conclude logically.

[chroot]

Theories are not based on mathematics. It's funny to me that you dislike the use of experimentation in developing physical models. What good is a theory that has nothing to do with reality? Do you disagree that experiments demonstrate reality?

- Warren

[chroot]

Math is an invention of logic and is therefore logical to use it.

Logic is relative to what you know (what you observe). So to look (observe) and learn is to increase what you can conclude logically.
Excellent counter-argument!

- Warren

[urtalkinstupid]

Yes, I agree math is logic. What if this logic wasn't too logical in the first place? You can manipulate math all you want. Einstein did so in order to get the results he wanted thus arriving at E=mc^2. The manipulating of math throws off its logic approach. Einstein also had to manipulate math and throw in a cosmological constant in order to give an explanation for the universe expansion. This again gave fault to the logic approach. What you observe is not always what is happening. Logic says that light speed would depend on the velocity of the observer or source of light. Observations and experiments through manipulated math show otherwise.

[chroot]

Observations and experiment don't involve any mathematical manipulation at all; it's silly of you to argue that they do. Observing that all masses fall at the same speed in a vacuum does not involve any mathematical manipulation; nor does observing that the speed of light emitted by pions moving at 0.99c is still c. There's no math involved. There's a machine that produces high-speed pions. There's another machine that measures the speed of light. Hook them together, and viola.

What you seem to be saying is just that you don't like the results of those experiments. That's fine; you're welcome to dislike anything you like. :wink: The rest of us who actually care to understand reality, however, will probably not take you very seriously when your only argument is that you don't like reality.

- Warren

[urtalkinstupid]

Yea, I understand you chroot. Observing objects falling at the same time in a vaccum does involve math when you are to determine if they will fall at exactly the same time. Through math that can be "proven."

Yea, I work differently. I question things with logic. Wouldn't logic tell you that if gravity were a pull, it would be impossible to say the universe is expanding? We observe that, but can not prove it experimentally. Illogical conclusion: Gravity is a pull; Universe is expanding. Gravity does not pull galaxies together rather it keeps them moving away.

[chroot]

Where is the math involved in looking at two objects and seeing that they smack the ground at the same time? I certainly don't see any math involed. I think you're grasping at straws.

As far as the expansion of the universe is concerned, you seem to be confusing bound and unbound states. A satellite in orbit around the earth is bound to the earth. The Voyager space probe, on the other hand, was given enough energy to be unbound. You apparently aren't aware that it's easy to determine that the expansion of the universe will not affect bound systems.

You also seem to be quite confused in your concept of the scientific method. There is no such thing as proving something experimentally. Experiments don't prove anything; they provide corroborating evidence. No scientific theory is ever proven.

- Warren

[Chronos]

Yes, I agree math is logic.
Better than logic. It quantifies assumptions and makes testable predictions.

What if this logic wasn't too logical in the first place? If mathematical theory is fundamentally flawed [illogical], then observational evidence should routinely defy predictions.

You can manipulate math all you want. Einstein did so in order to get the results he wanted thus arriving at E=mc^2. Show how Einstein manipulated the math to pull off this hoax and you will be famous.

The manipulating of math throws off its logic approach. Einstein also had to manipulate math and throw in a cosmological constant in order to give an explanation for the universe expansion.
Incorrect. There was no evidence the universe was expanding until Hubble. Einstein added the cosmological constant because his field equations suggested the universe would be unstable without it.

This again gave fault to the logic approach. What you observe is not always what is happening.
Agreed. See post by Warren.

Logic says that light speed would depend on the velocity of the observer or source of light. Observations and experiments through manipulated math show otherwise.
Agreed. Bad logic, like bad math will result in bad conclusions. It will also result in bad predictions. Our 'manipulated' math seems to predict and correspond to observation to an amazing extent. Apparently, scientists are equally adept at manipulating observations to agree with their manipulated math.

[beatrix kiddo]

chroot, do u believe that gravity is an affect of ripples and dents in space-time? what if gravity was caused by bodies emitting and absorbing energy in the universe? maybe instead of looking at gravity as a "pull", we should view it as a push. a push of gravity makes more sense than a pull...

[chroot]

A push-based gravity does not make sense. There are literally dozens are easy thought experiments against any such ideas. Do a search here on pf for "push gravity" and read all you'd like.

- Warren

[urtalkinstupid]

The idea of a pull is repugnant. There is no such thing as a pull. You pull on a string. What the opposite reaction? It grabs you and pulls back. Logic says that strings can not pull you. You can push a string though. Allow a force to propogate through the string to where the string is tied down.

Chronos, I'm glad we agree on two things. :biggrin: Cosmological constant, the manipulation of math to make something stable. An attempt to make something right, therefore making the math illogical by manipulation. I've only heard that Einstein manipulated his equations. Maybe from jealously. :rofl: Observations can't show flaws, because the experimentations through mathematics is not logical. Something that is illogical will appear illogical, thus making them connect to seem logical.

chroot, I thought there was an equation that you could find distance based on acceleration and time. d=1/2at^2 From that equation you should be able to tell how long each object will take to fall from the same distance. I don't know; I'm probably confused. :biggrin: Arg, I know nothing can be proven. I didn't mean that. Guess I corrected so many people who say prove that I started saying it. :frown: Warren you are a cool guy also. You are actually nice about this stuff unlike a few people. :smile:

[Alkatran]

The idea of a pull is repugnant. There is no such thing as a pull. You pull on a string. What the opposite reaction? It grabs you and pulls back. Logic says that strings can not pull you. You can push a string though. Allow a force to propogate through the string to where the string is tied down.

Chronos, I'm glad we agree on two things. :biggrin: Cosmological constant, the manipulation of math to make something stable. An attempt to make something right, therefore making the math illogical by manipulation. I've only heard that Einstein manipulated his equations. Maybe from jealously. :rofl: Observations can't show flaws, because the experimentations through mathematics is not logical. Something that is illogical will appear illogical, thus making them connect to seem logical.

chroot, I thought there was an equation that you could find distance based on acceleration and time. d=1/2at^2 From that equation you should be able to tell how long each object will take to fall from the same distance. I don't know; I'm probably confused. :biggrin: Arg, I know nothing can be proven. I didn't mean that. Guess I corrected so many people who say prove that I started saying it. :frown: Warren you are a cool guy also. You are actually nice about this stuff unlike a few people. :smile:

Please don't turn this into another thread about your obviously flawed theory about "push" gravity. And the theory to find distance from time and acceleration usually involves speed:

D = initialspeed*t + initialaccel*t^2/2

I say initial accel because if the acceleration is changing you need to add more to the equation.

[urtalkinstupid]

Push theory isn't flawed. There are barely any sources out there that I can look upon for support. Quantum physics allows a push over a pull anyday.

So [itex]D=v_{initial} \cdot t~+~a_{initial} \cdott t^{2/2}[/tex]? I can't really tell because you have it all jumbled up with no separators.

[Alkatran]

Push theory isn't flawed. There are barely any sources out there that I can look upon for support. Quantum physics allows a push over a pull anyday.

So [itex]D=v_{initial} \cdot t~+~a_{initial} \cdott t^{2/2}[/tex]? I can't really tell because you have it all jumbled up with no separators.

If you would learn PEDMAS:
d = (v/t) + (a*(t^2))/2

[chroot]

urtalkinstupid:

Please don't take offense, but you've made it quite obvious that you have a great deal to learn before you'll be capable to make any accurate judgements about physical theories. You're still in high school -- go easy. You don't know everything yet. If you continue your education and attend college, you're going to find out very soon just how little you know about the world. Mark my words.

- Warren

[shintashi]

cheer up people..

flow with the tides of gravity...

and know that the Silver Surfer is the real Hero for the 21st century (at least to science :)

[urtalkinstupid]

chroot, I know that I'm making these theories. No offense taken. I know my ideas are crazy. No need to reiterate wha everyone is saying. I don't like going with what everyone is saying. I like to play the devils advocate in most cases. Yea, I've only had one year of actually academic physics. I didn't like the way it was taught. That's why I think the way I do about physics. Heheh, I was one of the few people who had an A in my physics class. Teacher went hard on us. I will continue to make these out of line theories until I'm made a believer. So far, I've yet to run into any information that is good enough to sway my mind.

Optical illusions are something that make observations seem what they are not. That's how I how I think of most physics theories right now. :biggrin: chroot, I do thank you for actually being nice about it though. Glad you can tolerate my rambling. :biggrin:

[Alkatran]

chroot, I know that I'm making these theories. No offense taken. I know my ideas are crazy. No need to reiterate wha everyone is saying. I don't like going with what everyone is saying. I like to play the devils advocate in most cases. Yea, I've only had one year of actually academic physics. I didn't like the way it was taught. That's why I think the way I do about physics. Heheh, I was one of the few people who had an A in my physics class. Teacher went hard on us. I will continue to make these out of line theories until I'm made a believer. So far, I've yet to run into any information that is good enough to sway my mind.

Optical illusions are something that make observations seem what they are not. That's how I how I think of most physics theories right now. :biggrin: chroot, I do thank you for actually being nice about it though. Glad you can tolerate my rambling. :biggrin:

We've caught on to the "optical illusions" in physics. I forget the exact term, but it has to do with the observer becoming part of the system by observing. This skewes the results. That's why we have probability clouds for electrons instead of defined orbits (right?).

[russ_watters]

So far, I've yet to run into any information that is good enough to sway my mind. You're going to have to go looking for it - it won't come to you. Education is a choice. That said, if you do enroll in a physics course or major, please go into it with the mindest that you don't know much and make an honest attempt to learn what is being taught. Don't just reject what you are being taught because you don't "like" it. After 8 years of advanced physics you may find you agree with the current accepted undersanding.

If you choose not to become a physicist (I'm not), I'd recommend you cede to the experts (as I do) and choose to learn from them. It doesn't take much pride-swallowing to accept that a pHd physicist may know more than you about physics.

[urtalkinstupid]

Well, all I can say is that my half theory of black holes is now consistent what is known. Hawking's radiation was a theory that has withstood 30 years. It was said that once something enters a black hole, it will never come back out, rather it will be dispersed to a parallel universe. I've always said nothing is lost in black holes, because they don't exists. I think along the lines of what physicists don't. Now, I can actually concur with a little what Hawking's said. My half theory has beaten a full theory so far. I've only had one freaking year of physics so that also accounts for my wild belief in physics.

[chroot]

You think along lines that physicists have long since abandoned because they are not useful. Since you so openly admit that you've only had one year of high-school physics, why on earth do you think you're competent to produce your own theories? Do you not realize how much you have left to learn? Do you realize that physics does not proceed by hand-waving and statements of opinion?

- Warren

[shintashi]

chroot.. first let me say that such a statement as

"Since you so openly admit that you've only had one year of high-school physics, why on earth do you think you're competent to produce your own theories? "

is one of the most ignorant, biased statements I have ever seen. It is elitist, nonconstructive, and completely politically incorrect.

A person's mind is like a sponge. If they fill their heads with nonsense, they have little room for new ideas. there is a saying " you can't teach an old dog new tricks". Some of the greatest minds of our time were miserable failures in school. Examples include founders of major philosophies and religions, the CEO of Kinkos, Einstein, and George W. Bush... oh wait.. he DID have an Ivy league education ... didn't he...

Meanwhile, not to be one sided...
- a person really should do a lot of studying before they go about rewriting the laws of physics. Newton was spending a lot of time at the college in Europe, most good inventors and theorists spent thousands of hours in direct conversation with the brightest minds in the world. Who was it who said " Thy mind, oh man ?"
While the reality of 95% of the first 5 years of physics in college is nothing more than regurgitation and math homework - something anyone with an excessive amount of spare time and motivation could do, there comes a point in time when you have to approach the masters/ph.d level of material, which is where you generally want to be, when composing theories.

This level requires something called "research" and research is not cheap, it is not easy. In research a person wants to stay up on current events, but they will also want to explore their whacky ideas. Take the keely dynasphere for instance. It apparently hasn't worked since Keely was alive. But hey, the people who believe in it, still build their prototypes. They still travel the country and attend the conventions. They still know how to spell (I hope), and do math.

What I'm getting at, is if you're going to rewrite the laws of physics, make sure you find out what you are rewriting. A good peice of advice, is studying the origin of any existing theory, before finding out what their conclusions were. This has been a big help to me. Several times, I've found that the holes in a theory begin with its foundation, and more than once, their is someone who worked on the original theory who not only disagreed with the final result, but would probably agree with (insert your theories here).

We as theorists, have a duty to keep an open mind, not an empty mind. Do not trust everything you read that is published in science magazines and on the news. It changes like the wind. Search it out. Find out for yourself, and never trust anything your teacher tells you, until you have worked it out for yourself.

- Shin

[chroot]

is one of the most ignorant, biased statements I have ever seen. It is elitist, nonconstructive, and completely politically incorrect.
What I'm getting at, is if you're going to rewrite the laws of physics, make sure you find out what you are rewriting.
...which is virtually exactly what I said. Looks like you're just as elitist, nonconstructive, and completely politically incorrect as I.

- Warren

[russ_watters]

chroot.. first let me say that such a statement as

"Since you so openly admit that you've only had one year of high-school physics, why on earth do you think you're competent to produce your own theories? "

is one of the most ignorant, biased statements I have ever seen. It is elitist, nonconstructive, and completely politically incorrect.

A person's mind is like a sponge. If they fill their heads with nonsense, they have little room for new ideas. there is a saying " you can't teach an old dog new tricks". Some of the greatest minds of our time were miserable failures in school. Examples include founders of major philosophies and religions, the CEO of Kinkos, Einstein.... Speaking of ignorance, Einstein was a relatively successful physicist before he was a patent clerk.

Yes, the mind is like a sponge. For some reason, some people in their teens choose to fill that sponge with crap and thats how crackpots are born. urtalkinstupid and beatrix kiddo may just be getting their rocks off here, but they're doing a good job making it look like they are on their way.

[shintashi]

actually russ, I've only been keeping tabs of the last couple of phrases. I recall something vaguely like an argument, so I posted then, then I saw someone taking social pop shots.

My point is, whatever it was you people were talking about (LOL) a person should not be judged based upon their circumstances or official background, but upon the merits of their efforts, and the quality of their discourse - which is not always within the system.

[chroot]

shintasi,

Make it a habit to read the thread before responding.

- Warren

[Chronos]

Cold and blunt, chroot. I understand frustration. I come here to get my daily dose. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. That is the essence of science. There is nothing wrong with asking dumb questions. That is the essence of education. But, it gets tiresome answering the same misguided questions time, after time, after time when the 'students' refuse to do any homework. If you want to buck the 'system', show the math. Logic is not the language of science, math is. It works really well, too, if you give it a chance.

[Chronos]

[QUOTE=shintashi]chroot.. first let me say that such a statement as

"Since you so openly admit that you've only had one year of high-school physics, why on earth do you think you're competent to produce your own theories? "

is one of the most ignorant, biased statements I have ever seen. It is elitist, nonconstructive, and completely politically incorrect.[QUOTE]

Congratulations, Chroot. No good deed goes unpunished. You try to rescue a few bright minds from the pit of ignorance [political or otherwise] and you get what you deserve.


[QUOTE=shintashi]A person's mind is like a sponge. If they fill their heads with nonsense, they have little room for new ideas. there is a saying " you can't teach an old dog new tricks". Some of the greatest minds of our time were miserable failures in school. Examples include founders of major philosophies and religions, the CEO of Kinkos, Einstein, and George W. Bush... oh wait.. he DID have an Ivy league education ... didn't he...[QUOTE]

Education is like a vaccination. It does not cure ignorance, it only helps prevent it.

[QUOTE=shintashi]Meanwhile, not to be one sided...
- a person really should do a lot of studying before they go about rewriting the laws of physics. Newton was spending a lot of time at the college in Europe, most good inventors and theorists spent thousands of hours in direct conversation with the brightest minds in the world. Who was it who said " Thy mind, oh man ?"[QUOTE]

Can't argue with that. I like that 'study before theorizing' concept.

[QUOTE=shintashi]While the reality of 95% of the first 5 years of physics in college is nothing more than regurgitation and math homework - something anyone with an excessive amount of spare time and motivation could do, there comes a point in time when you have to approach the masters/ph.d level of material, which is where you generally want to be, when composing theories.[QUOTE]

You can't learn from the mistakes of others before you have walked a mile in their mocassins. Interestingly enough, however, I remember more of the math and science I 'reguritated' than the pizza and beer in between.

[QUOTE=shintashi]This level requires something called "research" and research is not cheap, it is not easy. In research a person wants to stay up on current events, but they will also want to explore their whacky ideas. Take the keely dynasphere for instance. It apparently hasn't worked since Keely was alive. But hey, the people who believe in it, still build their prototypes. They still travel the country and attend the conventions. They still know how to spell (I hope), and do math. [QUOTE]

And we have them to thank for the underpinnings of modern physics.

[QUOTE]What I'm getting at, is if you're going to rewrite the laws of physics, make sure you find out what you are rewriting. A good peice of advice, is studying the origin of any existing theory, before finding out what their conclusions were. This has been a big help to me. Several times, I've found that the holes in a theory begin with its foundation, and more than once, their is someone who worked on the original theory who not only disagreed with the final result, but would probably agree with (insert your theories here).[QUOTE]

Bookies make a living off of people who buck the odds.

[QUOTE=shintashi]We as theorists, have a duty to keep an open mind, not an empty mind. Do not trust everything you read that is published in science magazines and on the news. It changes like the wind. Search it out. Find out for yourself, and never trust anything your teacher tells you, until you have worked it out for yourself.[QUOTE]

Conspiracy theory is alive and well. Teachers are the root of all evil... mindless servants of the overlords of mainstream science.

Believe it or not, some of us would just like to know the truth and share that knowledge with those who care and are willing to put enough effort into it to understand the truth.

[beatrix kiddo]

hey russ! it's good to talk to u again!
For some reason, some people in their teens choose to fill that sponge with crap and thats how crackpots are born. urtalkinstupid and beatrix kiddo may just be getting their rocks off here, but they're doing a good job making it look like they are on their way.

aww.. that's not nice. i am here for a good reason. and it's not to get my "rocks" off the forums. instead it's to introduce a new theory of gravity. what's so bad about that?? :tongue2:

But, it gets tiresome answering the same misguided questions time, after time, after time when the 'students' refuse to do any homework. If you want to buck the 'system', show the math. Logic is not the language of science, math is. It works really well, too, if you give it a chance.

chronos, i've done the "homework". i've been studying SR and GR relativity for 2 years now. i've also been researching physics as a whole for 4 years now. (that includes the current model of gravity) so if u're going to assume that i'm just some dumb kid trying to overthrow the system, u're sadly mistaken. and math can be manipulated into whatever it is u want. einstein did. einstein came up with his theories and manipulated the math, even if it was wrong (OMG THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT!!! :eek: ) even he admitted that he was wrong afterwards. but, he used the math from the CC to prove his false assumptions (the universe was static) correct. don't base ur hopes upon math, chronos...

Since you so openly admit that you've only had one year of high-school physics, why on earth do you think you're competent to produce your own theories?

what?!!!! he may have only had 1 yr of academic physics, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't researched and studied the current theories well enough to make his own decisions. i agree with shin. that was a biased thing to say, chroot. i've only had a year of academic physics, but i've done my own studying, independent of school. are u saying that my research doesn't count just because a teacher didn't tell me what to do? i'm not saying that teachers aren't useful and that don't help or encourage well education, but it's not just about that. i think the best research is done when u are interested and curious enough about a subject. teacher's can threaten u and tell u what they want u to study, but if u go beyond that (as urtalkinstupid and i have) u'll learn so much more and maybe even develop ground-breaking theories about the way we view functions in the universe, i.e., GRAVITY!!!

so.. now that i'm up to speed, allow me to, once again :biggrin: , introduce the push theory of gravity. gravity is caused by neutrinos from the sun, and other sources in the universe, exerting a pressure on our bodies, pushing us down on the planet. i am now awaiting ur comments, questions, and scientific "facts" to "prove" me wrong because i have already encountered, and responded, to just about anything u've got to say, and i don't mind doing it again.. (russ knows :rofl: )

[Math Is Hard]

so.. now that i'm up to speed, allow me to, once again :biggrin: , introduce the push theory of gravity. gravity is caused by neutrinos from the sun, and other sources in the universe, exerting a pressure on our bodies, pushing us down on the planet. i am now awaiting ur comments, questions, and scientific "facts" to "prove" me wrong because i have already encountered, and responded, to just about anything u've got to say, and i don't mind doing it again..

Hi Beatrix, I have a question:
If the above is true, wouldn't an object on Mercury weigh more than the same object on Earth. The "push" should be more intense near the Sun, correct?

[russ_watters]

i am here for a good reason. and it's not to get my "rocks" off the forums. instead it's to introduce a new theory of gravity. what's so bad about that?? What's so bad is that you don't even understand the existing theory, so how can you possibly be able to propose something new with any credibility? (hint: you can't) chronos, i've done the "homework". i've been studying SR and GR relativity for 2 years now. Gee, is that all it takes? And to think even Einsein wasted 8 years of his life on a pHd!...are u saying that my research doesn't count just because a teacher didn't tell me what to do? No, the point is that you haven't done any research. Research isn't reading "A Brief History of Time," research is performing experiments in a lab. but if u go beyond that (as urtalkinstupid and i have) u'll learn so much more and maybe even develop ground-breaking theories about the way we view functions in the universe The two of you have demonstrated quite clearly that you haven't gone beyond basic physics knowledge because you don't have any basic physics knowledge.

[beatrix kiddo]

no math, it wouldn't. neutrinos are emitted by the sun (and other sources) and absorbed by bodies in the universe. just because mercury is closer to the sun, it doesn't mean that it absorbs more neutrinos than the earth.

russ, i really don't have to do any experiments, because slowly science is proving me right. neutrinos are now known to oscillate meaning that they have some gravitational affects in the universe. (i'll site if u want me to) it's only a matter of time before what u know is totally debunked. however, if u are looking for immediate results, u and i can get together, build a neutrino detector, and conduct experiments as necessary to prove my theory!

[chroot]

The Sun is a strong source of neutrinos, beatrix. Since Mercury is closer to the Sun than the Earth, it will intercept more of those neutrinos. (Just like a flashlight seems much brighter when you hold it right at your eye than it does when it's a mile away.)

As a result, objects on Mercury would be pushed harder into Mercury than they would be on Earth.

Futhermore, it would mean that you'd weigh more during the daytime (when the Sun's neutrinos push on you directly) than at night (when some of the neutrinos get absorbed in going through the Earth). In fact, if your model of gravity depends on neutrinos pushing you, then you'd actually be pushed off the ground at night.

Do you think the evidence available to you supports or refutes this model, beatrix?

- Warren

[chroot]

chronos, i've done the "homework". i've been studying SR and GR relativity for 2 years now. i've also been researching physics as a whole for 4 years now.
Show us your reading list. We can determine exactly what you know (and don't know) by examining your bibliography.
and math can be manipulated into whatever it is u want.
Mathematics is a closed system. You cannot make math say "whatever you want."
he used the math from the CC to prove his false assumptions (the universe was static) correct.
No, he didn't prove anything. You don't prove anything with mathematics, and indeed you don't prove anything in science at all. (It sounds to me like you have a poor grasp of the scientific method.) He tried to make his model fit the empirical evidence available to him at the time, which indicated that the universe was static. Every scientist does this. Sometimes it works out (relativity, for example), and sometimes it doesn't (your neutrino-push model of gravitation). You're doing exactly what you fault Einstein for doing -- trying to make his model fit the empirical evidence available to him.
what?!!!! he may have only had 1 yr of academic physics, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't researched and studied the current theories well enough to make his own decisions.
Ohhhhhhh yes indeed it does. Part of growing up is realizing how little you really know about the world. Part of education is realizing the limits of that education. You really seem to have no idea what a real graduate degree in physics entails. You really seem to have never seen an actual graduate level physics textbook. You are basing your conclusions about physics education from what you've seen in high school and what you've read on the internet and in popular books.

Frankly, both you and urtalkinstupid remind me of an obstinate little fourth grade boy I tutored for a year when I myself was in high school. This little boy told me over and over how stupid school was and how he didn't need it. He was convinced that he already knew all there was to know about math, since he had recently learned his multiplication tables. "What more is there?" he said knowingly.
i agree with shin. that was a biased thing to say, chroot. i've only had a year of academic physics, but i've done my own studying, independent of school.
I applaud your enthusiasm and motivation to read outside of school. Really, you're making a wonderful effort and I want you to realize how impressed I am that you've taken the initiative. Such self-discipline will take you far in life.

On the other hand, you must recognize how little you know. Go to your local college bookstore and browse through some textbooks on general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or conformal field theory, or anything else you'd like. Realize that your education has only just begun.
are u saying that my research doesn't count just because a teacher didn't tell me what to do?
As russ said, you're misusing the term 'research.' You have been reading, not researching.
i'm not saying that teachers aren't useful and that don't help or encourage well education, but it's not just about that. i think the best research is done when u are interested and curious enough about a subject. teacher's can threaten u and tell u what they want u to study, but if u go beyond that (as urtalkinstupid and i have) u'll learn so much more and maybe even develop ground-breaking theories about the way we view functions in the universe, i.e., GRAVITY!!!
You have not gone beyond it. Going beyond something would involve first getting to that something, and you're not there yet. Here's a pop quiz, let's see how you do:

Can you explain to me what the Einstein equation is in your own words?

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

hmmm... did i actually say that i knew all there is to know about physics?? i am sorry if u got that impression. i said i know enough to make my own decisions about what i want to believe. i will continue studying the current model, but i will also keep believing my own theory.

Frankly, both you and urtalkinstupid remind me of an obstinate little fourth grade boy I tutored for a year when I myself was in high school.

i AM a 4th grade boy.. :rofl:

I applaud your enthusiasm and motivation to read outside of school. Really, you're making a wonderful effort and I want you to realize how impressed I am that you've taken the initiative. Such self-discipline will take you far in life.

thanks :smile:

On the other hand, you must recognize how little you know. Go to your local college bookstore and browse through some textbooks on general relativity, or quantum mechanics, or conformal field theory, or anything else you'd like. Realize that your education has only just begun.

i know, i know. i probably know less physics than u, that i'll admit, but i do have enough understanding of the way things work in the current theory. but, like i said, i'll continue studying it...


Here's a pop quiz, let's see how you do:

Can you explain to me what the Einstein equation is in your own words?

i love quizzes!
ok. i assume u mean e=mc2, cause that's what put einstein on the map. :rolleyes: it shows us how much energy mass equals if the mass itself was energy.

i am really trying not to repeat what einstein said, what with energy being mass and vice-versa, so i put it "in my own words"... :biggrin:

[beatrix kiddo]

The Sun is a strong source of neutrinos, beatrix. Since Mercury is closer to the Sun than the Earth, it will intercept more of those neutrinos. (Just like a flashlight seems much brighter when you hold it right at your eye than it does when it's a mile away.)

As a result, objects on Mercury would be pushed harder into Mercury than they would be on Earth.

Futhermore, it would mean that you'd weigh more during the daytime (when the Sun's neutrinos push on you directly) than at night (when some of the neutrinos get absorbed in going through the Earth). In fact, if your model of gravity depends on neutrinos pushing you, then you'd actually be pushed off the ground at night.

Do you think the evidence available to you supports or refutes this model, beatrix?

- Warren

mercury doesn't block out all the neutrinos to the other planets. and not all the neutrinos hitting mercury get absorbed. some of them are just going straight through. (evidence proves the latter portion, it will eventually prove the first part). and the sun isn't the only source of neutrinos. all bodies in the solar system produce them. all bodies in the solar system are pushing against each other. the earth is, if u can imagine, almost evenly "coated" with neutrinos every second. even at night. i will do a very sensitive test to see whether a person weighs less at night or not. i am imagining so, by a very small amount, but i will do it. (this is the part of my theory where i don't need a neutrino detector)

now it's my turn for a question!!! :smile:

do u think einstein adequately explained mercury's off-centered orbit? if so, tell us in ur own words what u think about it..

[Math Is Hard]

i AM a 4th grade boy


How old does that make you, around nine or ten?


chronos, i've done the "homework". i've been studying SR and GR relativity for 2 years now. i've also been researching physics as a whole for 4 years now. (that includes the current model of gravity)


You've been "researching" since you were about five or six years old then?

[beatrix kiddo]

come on dude.. i was kidding.. i'm 15 going into the 11th grade...

[chroot]

hmmm... did i actually say that i knew all there is to know about physics?? i am sorry if u got that impression. i said i know enough to make my own decisions about what i want to believe. i will continue studying the current model, but i will also keep believing my own theory.
One day you'll realize that you honestly do not know enough to make those decisions. Hopefully you'll continue studying.

Are you really in 4th grade? I got the impression you had taken a year of physics in high school.
i know, i know. i probably know less physics than u, that i'll admit, but i do have enough understanding of the way things work in the current theory. but, like i said, i'll continue studying it...
You do? Demonstrate your knowledge by giving me some examples of invariant quantities in relativity.
i love quizzes!
ok. i assume u mean e=mc2, cause that's what put einstein on the map. :rolleyes: it shows us how much energy mass equals if the mass itself was energy.
Wrong. The Einstein equation is a four-dimensional tensor equation that relates mass and energy (...) to the curvature of space.

R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} R g_{\mu\nu} = 8\pi G T_{\mu\nu}

Where R_{\mu\nu} is the Ricci tensor, g_{\mu\nu} is the metric, R is the scalar curvature, and T_{\mu\nu} is the stress-energy tensor. This equation is the central edifice in the general theory of relativity.

If you did not understand every word of that description, then you do not have any right to say you understand anything about general relativity other than perhaps the concept that mass warps spacetime. That concept alone does not provide you with a deep enough understanding to discuss the theory.

- Warren

[chroot]

mercury doesn't block out all the neutrinos to the other planets.
I never said it did. I said the total amount of neutrinos a planet intercepts is a function of its distance from the sun. A closer planet will get hit with more of them.
and not all the neutrinos hitting mercury get absorbed. some of them are just going straight through. (evidence proves the latter portion, it will eventually prove the first part).
In fact, neutrinos virtually never interact with ordinary matter. In reality, they interact so rarely that they could never account for any realistically observable force like that of gravity. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you mean "some particle" rather than the neutrino specifically. The arguments against a pushing theory of gravity are the same regardless of the particle(s) doing the pushing.
and the sun isn't the only source of neutrinos. all bodies in the solar system produce them.
How do the other bodies in the solar system produce them? If that's true, then shouldn't you weigh more during those times when, say, Mars is closer to the Earth as it was last August? Wouldn't that mean that a nearby comet would make you weigh more, too?
all bodies in the solar system are pushing against each other.
Then what's keeping them together? Why aren't they just flying apart?
i will do a very sensitive test to see whether a person weighs less at night or not. i am imagining so, by a very small amount, but i will do it. (this is the part of my theory where i don't need a neutrino detector)
I look forward to hearing your conclusions.
do u think einstein adequately explained mercury's off-centered orbit? if so, tell us in ur own words what u think about it..
It's not "off-center." It has a perhelion advance of 43" per century that is not explainable by Newtonian gravitation. You don't really have to take anyone's opinion on the matter, you can do the math yourself. Relativity predicts the correct value. That doesn't mean the theory is absolutely correct, but it certainly supports it.

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

WHAT?! i'm not wrong. mass is energy and energy is mass. so what if i didn't go all into it like u did, but it's still correct. what i said is the samething as what einstein said, just worded differently. and yes i do understand what u were describing. ricci tensor- curvature in space-time, stress-energy tensor (or energy-momentum) describes what energy and momentum are doing at a certain pt. in space-time, scalar curvature: think planes and high dimension. i have studied that equation a couple of months ago but it looked like Rik- (gikR/2)+ V(upside down)gik=(8piG/c^4)Tik
the upside down V is the cosmological constant.. but scientists use it to explain some of their observations... hmm. maybe i'm not as clueless as u thought, chroot!!! (oh yeah G is the gravitational constant.. i believe!)

[chroot]

E=mc2 is not called "the Einstein equation," and is not the same as the Einstein equation. They're two totally unrelated equations, and not just "worded differently" at all. Your assertion that it's the same just shows your incredible ignorance.

I can use google, too, beatrix kiddo: http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/e.eq.html

If you don't even know what a lambda is, \lambda, the "upside down V," and have to resort to plagiarizing sites you found on google (and didn't even understand), how can you seriously expect me (or anyone else) to believe that you know your *** from a tensor? Ring, ring, beatrix kiddo -- it's the clue phone. You don't know anything about relativity, and you know you don't. Quit pretending, it just makes you look desperate and stupid.

- Warren

[chroot]

And no, kiddo, the stress-energy tensor does not describe what "energy and momentum are doing at a certain point in spacetime." Since when is a tensor a dynamical equation? :rofl: Keep digging!

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

i have never plagiarized in my entire life! i don't know latex so i said upside down V! OMG... u gotta be kidding me. i always give my sources. LOOK AT ALL OF MY POSTS!!! i got that equation from my old notebook. stop trying to scar my rep on this site u big meanie!!! :mad:

[beatrix kiddo]

and i have found a source that goes along with my old notes, chroot. describing stress-energy as energy and momemtum. the reason why i said upside down v was because i couldn't read my writing too well.. (scratchy) i can't believe u'd get all upset and accuse me of something i didn't do! http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/s/st/stress_energy_tensor.html (stress energy)
geez... i always site my sources. look back at most of my posts...

[cookiemonster]

stress-energy tensor (or energy-momentum) describes what energy and momentum are doing at a certain pt. in space-time

What they're "doing," huh. Just what exactly does that mean anyway? I could probably find a source saying that a guy named Energy and a guy named Momentum are flipping burgers at the local McDonalds on Thursday and it'd support "what they're doing at a certain point in spacetime"!

Okay, that's my foray into the TD forum for the week. Back to chroot's one-man show.

cookiemonster

[beatrix kiddo]

whatever.. if u're going to falsely accuse me of plagiarism, (even though my history says other wise) warn me, not respond to my private message, then tell me that i know nothing about GR (even though i have been studying it for 2 years now), just forget it. u won't have to worry about me on this thread anymore and i'm shocked that an admin of the physics forums would sink so low... shutup cookiemonster, this doesn't involve u...

[cookiemonster]

Eh, you're right. I should have made a more constructive post. So here's a link to a previous push gravity thread found using the wonderful search feature.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=16216&highlight=push+gravity

As for studying for 2 years, neither you nor I are even qualified to fairly say that we can study GR. We simply haven't established the necessary mathematical foundation to give it a proper treatment.

And, just for reference, you're not getting a very warm response because you haven't put in much workinto your idea to see if it's already been thought of, or even to try to prove it wrong yourself. You've shifted all the work from you to everybody else. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate a classmate giving you their homework to do for them, would you? Same concept.

cookiemonster

[shintashi]

funny haha equations.

I would like to know if that curvature of space equation takes into account that the universe is flat like a pancake and not spherical like a ball ?


Who says its flat ? I do. Nyaahh !!

[chroot]

When you say "flat," are suggesting the universe is two-dimensional, or are you suggesting that spacetime is not curved?

- Warren

[Alkatran]

Oh good, the thread went downhill since I last checked in. I'll post the same proof that push gravity can't work as I did in the other thread.

1: Neutrinos move away from the sun as if they were on an expanding sphere. The more area this sphere has, the less neutrinos in one area.
2: A certain percent of neutrinos will be absorbed for every Kg of matter they must pass through.

1 and 2 mean - things further away or with matter between them and the neutrino source will receive less neutrinos and, as a consequence, not weigh as much.


Alright, on to a hypothetical situation. We will assume the earth is flat and the neutrinos are approaching as a straight surface (eliminating the constants imposed by (1), this will prove 2 can't work for gravity).

All observers and objects are assumed to have the right mass, density, and size, for every neutrino to pass through 1 Kg of matter as it passes through them. The only exception to this will be the "Earth", which will be 1000 Kg thick instead of 1.

Observer 1 is standing outside.
Observer 2 is standing under a tree.
Observer 3 is on the opposite of the planet, directly "under" observer 1.
Observer 4 is on the opposite of the planet, directly "under" observer 2.

Now, here is how we calculate the force exerted by the neutrinos coming from the sun:
x(1-n)^y*n

where x is the number of neutrinos (per wave), n is the absorption rate (percent absorbed for each Kg of matter passed through), and y is the number of Kg already passed through. We will set x at 1000 and n at 10%.

Force on observer 1: 1000*(1-.10)^0*.10 = 1000*.10 = 100
Force on observer 2: 1000*(1-.10)^1*.10 = 1000*.9*.1 = 90
Force on observer 3: 1000*(1-.10)^1001*.10 = 1.57*10^-44
Force on observer 4: 1000*(1-.10)^1002*.10 = 1.42*10^-44

Alright, so if you're under a tree you weigh 10% less. Right, that makes a lot of sense. So let's just set n to a lower value, k? How about .001%, alright, sounds good to me too.

Force on observer 1: 1000*(1-.00001)^0*.10 = 1000*.10 = 100
Force on observer 2: 1000*(1-.00001)^1*.10 = 1000*.99999*.1 = 99.999
Force on observer 3: 1000*(1-.00001)^1001*.10 = 99.004
Force on observer 4: 1000*(1-.00001)^1002*.10 = 99.003

Alright, now we have values that make a bit more sense! I mean, now if you stand under a tree you don't lose 10% of your weight, you only lose .001% of it. But wait, those guys on the other side of the earth are being pushed OFF at the same speed we're being pushed down! Oh darn! Well, let's just compensate for that by putting another neutrino source on the other side! Alright, now since all the numbers are somewhere around 99.. well everyone weighs 1. Hurrah!

See the problem? If the absorbtion constant is low, the force is nullified (since it mught be coming in from all sides for equal gravity) but if it's high, you weight a lot less when you're under anything.

BAM! Crushed.

Oh, and I don't remember weighing less during solar eclipses. Funny.
Come to think of it, why didn't the moon come crashing down on us? I mean, all of a sudden the earth isn't being pushed away by as much (and it's being pushed on the other side, so it starts accelerating towards the moon, which is accelerating towards us...)

[shintashi]

neither. I'm suggesting that the universe is flat like a pancake, not two dimensional, but not a bubble. if you imagine a sombrero galaxy for instance, or the way a cyclotron toy looks, then you have the basic idea. While toying with the numbers for about a year, my assistant and I concluded that the radius of the universe seemed to correlate with our estimation of the mass, on an x^2, and not X^3 basis.

At first we thought this might be because the space was mostly empty, but now we realize that would be wrong. While space is not 2 dimensional, the vast majority of the third dimension is fractional at best, like a saucer with a central spire, and less like a big shiny ball of light.

The model we are using right now, while still eeking inbetween finer ends of equations, still mandates that we some how account for the angles of the electromagnetic field ejection from macrocosmic jets (a big ugly version of the same thing ejected from Quasars) and figuring out, geometrically, how this works together.
one possible "riptide" explanation is wave recoil, which oddly might mean, cosmically anyways, that the anti-wave of everything is recoiling, and would represent the "EM" field return of gravitational vortexes. In even more simple terms, imagine you have a pencil tip bobbing in the center of a glass of water- the wave ripples out to the rim, and then returns back to the center, and back and forth, like a dance.
Hopefully though, this isn't the model for the whole universe, and we might find that a "90 degree" angled shape could manifest itself.

- Shin

[chroot]

Jesus, no wonder I make it a policy not to bother to post in TD...

- Warren