Neutrinos...back into the picture?

[urtalkinstupid]

Hey, guys! I have exciting news about neutrinos.

Neutrinos are fundamental particles that are neutral in charge and approximately the size of an electron. They come in three favors, and these flavors are: electron neutrion, muon neutrino, and tau neutrino. There symbols are \nu_e~,~\nu_\mu~,~and~\nu_\tau respectively. Solar neutrinos are being detected through experiments. The Super-Kamionkande is one example of a team of scientists who are researching neutrinos. The method they are using to detect neutrinos only detects one flavor of neutrinos. That flavor is the electron neutrino. The electron neutrino is the smallest of the three flavors of neutrinos. The electron neutrino flux across the earths furface is approximately 5.90315332 \cdot 10^{14}~m^2/s. That means that there are 5.90315332 \cdot 10^{14} electron neutrinos passing a square meter of the earth's surface every second. Scientists only detect one-thirds of the total neutrino count predicted to be emitted by the sun. Where is the rest?

All of the neutrino flavors have rest mass. They all differ. When neutrinos are made during fusion on the sun, scientist believe that all of the flavors are mixed together. Upon leaving the sun, they accelerate to near light speed. The electron neutrino travels the fastest out of the three flavors; tau neutrinos travel the slowest. As the neutrinos travel to earth, they separate. This is known as neutrino oscillation. The probability that a \nu_e will not oscillate is given by:
P_\nu_e (x) = 1-sin^22 \theta_\nu sin^2 (\frac{\varphi m^2x}{4E})\xrightarrow{x \rightarrow \infty}1-\frac{1}{2}sin^22 \theta_\nu
\varphi m^2=(m_1^2-m_2^2)eV^2
E =Neutrino~Energy~(MeV)

Oscillation of neutrinos is close to being confirmed. I should say, "More support for a theory." These oscillations are undetected, because the techniques used for detecting neutrinos only detect electron neutrinos (I said this perviously). I think we know where I'm getting at. Gravity is a push. Electron neutrions are small; I'll admit that. They rarely interact. Tau neutrinos, on the other hand, are theorized to flux a bit less, but their momentum makes up for it. The upper energy limit of a \nu_\tau is approximately 31MeV. Compare this to the \nu_e which has a energy limit of 3eV. This could give the \nu_\tau enough energy to emitt and be absorbed by objects to apply a force. Given a high enough flux, this could account for gravity being a push force rahter than the current theorized pull force.

Take this analogy into consideration. You set a can on a fence post. You shot a small bullet at a considerable high speed at the can. The bullet goes straight through without interrupting the can. Now, take a more massive bullet. Shoot it at the can. It travels slower, but its mass makes the momentum stronger. The bullet actuall has an affect on the can now. Same thing with electron and tau neutrinos. One is smaller and travels faster; the other is more massive and travels slower. The latter of the two is able to exert a more powerful force.

I haven't lost faith in the push theory just yet. Please, no childish antics this time. Last time, thread got closed because of them. :cry:

[beatrix kiddo]

i'm glad u actually restarted the thread. it's about time we continued our explanation of the push theory! :smile:

[ArmoSkater87]

*sigh* Alrighty gentlemen, lets continue...here we go again. :D

Ok, now what im wondering is how tau neutrinos cant be detected despite having a much greater mass, but the electron neutrinos can...that seems odd to me. After all, the 3 flavored neutrinos are the same in any way, except their mass.

"The upper energy limit of a is approximately 31MeV. Compare this to the which has a energy limit of 3eV"
31MeV??? Thats insane, even IF its a tau neutrino. (im assuming you are talking about a single tau neutrino)

Look, i agree with you that they have a rest mass, (even though i think its insanly small), BUT even if they do, not even a tau neutrino could have enough mass to have 31MeV...not to mention that almost none would interact with anything.

[beatrix kiddo]

tau neutrinos do have enough mass to have 31 Mev.. in fact i've read else where that they can have more...... oh here it is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino it's a simple encyclopedia source. but BAM! i've got a source..

[Entropy]

This isn't news. People have know about neutrino oscillations for awhile.

Scientists only detect one-thirds of the total neutrino count predicted to be emitted by the sun. Where is the rest?


Even if the other two-thirds of solar neutrinos somehow interacted with Earth, it wouldn't account enough energy to explain gravitation.

This could give the enough energy to emitt and be absorbed by objects to apply a force. Given a high enough flux, this could account for gravity being a push force rahter than the current theorized pull force.

Very unlikely. High-energy tau neutrinos are thousands of times less common that their muon neutrino and electron neutrino counterparts. They require energetic events like supernovae (few MeV) and GRBs (100s MeV). These events aren't really that evenly dispersed throughout the sky (meaning a certain side of the Earth gets bombared with billions of times more neutrinos than the other side sometimes) so there would be massive changes in Earth's gravity if neutrinos caused gravity.

Why are you starting up about the exact same topic? Tom closed the other thread for a reason. You can't just start the same thing all over again. Its not as simple as just created a new thread.

[ArmoSkater87]

Enrtopy is very right...it wont be enough to cause gravity. Look people, its ok to continue this thread, the problem before was simply that everyone that believed the theory was being very arrogant, and the whole situation was becoming personal. Which is why Tom closed the other one down, everyone was acting immaturely. Just dont have the same thing happen again.

[Hurkyl]

If the push theory is correct, how can the moon "tug" with the same force as always during a solar eclipse?

[ArmoSkater87]

Cool site btw, I liked it. Oh, and in it, it says that..."Because the neutrino only interacts weakly, when moving through ordinary matter its chance of interacting with it is very small. It would take a light year of lead to block half the neutrinos flowing through it"
That right there completely proves the theory to be impossible.

[beatrix kiddo]

i know that's what it said, but i was trying to get u a quickee source. doesn't mean i necessarily agree with all of it. armo, u seem like a pretty open-minded(?) kid... we both play video-games.. we're both into astronomy... so look at this: http://www.pioneer-net.com/~jessep/
i've sited this before, but in case u didn't see it just read it. i'm not kidding, this guy makes a lot of sense. and if u can debunk his theories he'll give u thousands of dollars! what's to lose, armo? just read it...

hello hurkyl... i've come across this arguement before. but, a "tug" is more related to einstein's model of gravity. maybe u meant a "shove" because that would be relevant to our model. ok, during a solar eclipse, the moon absorbs part of the neutrinos from the sun going to the earth, but it also produces neutrinos, so there's no noticeable difference. on the other side of the planet there is a slight difference in ur weight (hardly noticeable) but ur still pushed down on the planet via neutrinos from other bodies in the solar system.

[urtalkinstupid]

Wow, I haven't been home all day. Heheh...

Even if the other two-thirds of solar neutrinos somehow interacted with Earth, it wouldn't account enough energy to explain gravitation.
Yea, uh huh, right. If one-third of the neutrinos hitting the earth in the form of \nu_e, the rest are in the form of \nu_\mu and \nu_\tau. All of this together can add up. Tau and Muan neutrinos have a greater mass than the electron. Tau's mass is impressive for a neutrino. Plug and chug to get the combined neutrino flux and amount of energy exerted every square meter of earth every second.

Very unlikely. High-energy tau neutrinos are thousands of times less common that their muon neutrino and electron neutrino counterparts. They require energetic events like supernovae (few MeV) and GRBs (100s MeV). These events aren't really that evenly dispersed throughout the sky (meaning a certain side of the Earth gets bombared with billions of times more neutrinos than the other side sometimes) so there would be massive changes in Earth's gravity if neutrinos caused gravity.

Yawn...you are the only one bombarding things. Yes, I agree with you on the statement that tau neutrinos require high sources of energy to be produced. Our sun is incapable of producing that amount of energy, ergo only solar neutrinos are produced. These neutrinos oscillate into muon and tau neutrinos. As stated earlier, the majority of the neutrinos are much heavier than the electron neutrino. The Earth's atmosphere provides a great source of muon neutrinos! :smile: Tau are not as rare as pepole think. They set up the capture device far underground. Tau neutrinos are more massive, ergo they interact more before they can reach the capture device.

Ok, now what im wondering is how tau neutrinos cant be detected despite having a much greater mass, but the electron neutrinos can...that seems odd to me. After all, the 3 flavored neutrinos are the same in any way, except their mass.

I'm sure I already explained why tau neutrinos weren't previously detected. When neutrinos were theorized to exist, the only forms said to come from the sun were electron neutrions. After setting up experiments to measure the flux, scientists only measured one-third of the total expected flux. The devices they set up were only made to detect electron neutrinos and that is it. Kamionkande and Super-Kamionkande are two examples of projects that were set up for the soul detection of electron neutrinos. SNO, recently have set up a capture device to detect muon neutrinos, as well as tau neutrinos. The results were just as expected. Neutrinos do oscillate, and this oscillation compensates for the other two-thirds of neutrinos.

That's it for now. I'll have more later. I just wanted to get a couple of things out.

[ArmoSkater87]

This was at the earlier website..."Because the neutrino only interacts weakly, when moving through ordinary matter its chance of interacting with it is very small. It would take a light year of lead to block half the neutrinos flowing through it"

Whats ur comment on that??

[ArmoSkater87]

Beatrix, i read that site u gave me...and i can only say, LOL!!!!
This guy is more full of crap than anyone else i've ever seen!! Sorry but i couldnt help laughing my butt off from reading how full of himself he is. He is basicly saying what Stupid said, except he doesnt even say whats being blocked. In the case we have, its neutrinos, but what he says is just terrible.

Alrite, anyways, i though that guy was full of it..and now lets get back to the thread. If what you say is true, then how come a more massive object accelerates due to gravity the same way that a much lesser massive object will?? And also...if what you say is true, then if ALL the neutrinos would be blocked off, then the force exerted by ALL the neutrinos hitting you would be so great, that there would be no escape velocity great enough to overcome the force. It seems like i got that out of the blues, lol, but i didnt. I got it from the simple fact that black holes have such massive gravity that nothing escapes it. Now i understand why urtalkinstupid doesnt believe in black holes...LOL. :D I dont mean to be mean in any way, im simply giving my reasons for my belief, so please do be friends with me :).

[urtalkinstupid]

My comment is that they are mainly referring to the electron neutrino. It's mass is so small that it rarely interacts. Tau neutrinos have mass that is greater than an electron. If it doesn't interact electromagnetically, it's bound to interact by colliding and exerting forces. SNO is working on the neutrinos and determining how they interact and how many there are. I'll try to keep you people updated. Newton never had a definite way of explaining his theory. It took awhile for his theory to be explained. Einstein explained it years later.

[chroot]

"Colliding" in the macroscopic sense is actually due to electromagnetic forces, urtalkinstupid. Neutrinos (all flavors) interact only via the weak force. Even though the taus are more massive, the interaction cross-section for all three flavors is the same, ~10-38 cm2. Taus do not interact more often with matter than do the other flavors, but their interactions are more energetic.

- Warren

[ArmoSkater87]

"Colliding" in the macroscopic sense is actually due to electromagnetic forces, urtalkinstupid.

- Warren

EXACTLY!!!

[urtalkinstupid]

Oooh, may I have a source that says all of that. If something is more concentrated, it is likely to make contact more. Concentrate something by 66%, and it will more than likely interact at a larger rate. They will periodically bunch up, making their volume and force bigger? This bunching up, will make them bigger in a sense and allow them to not get through places they they could previously get through, resulting in some type of interaction? Add more mass to the same amount of volume, and you get the ability to take place in interactions more? (Throw a piece of gold in an oxygen environment. Then increase the number of oxygen molecules by 66%. Observe that the increased drag force is due to more interactions with oxygen molecules.) It encounters more resistance, because the oxygen molecules are more compact.

Why are all of these neutrinos in the Universe? Obviously, they serve some purpose. No wonder it's so hard for people to understand physics. Most of the theories do not make sense.

Note: urtalkinstupid, I pressed the wrong button by mistake and edited your post. I apologize. If I left anything out of your post, feel free to edit it.

[chroot]

Oooh, may I have a source that says all of that.
Try a textbook.
If something is more concentrated, it is likely to make contact more.
"Contact" is not well-defined in this context. Macroscopically, when two objects are "touching," they are experiences forces due to electromagnetic repulsion. In other words, the atoms in your butt and the atoms in the chair you're sitting on repel each other, thus preventing you from falling all the way down to the center of the Earth.
Concentrate something by 66%, and it will more than likely interact at a larger rate.
That's correct. More neutrinos in a given volume corresponds to more interactions in that volume. So?
They will periodically bunch up, making their volume and force bigger?
I have no idea where "bunching up" comes from, why it would happen, or why it would have anything to do with either volume or force. I'm afraid you'll have to provide a little more detail for this to make any sense at all.
This bunching up, will make them bigger in a sense and allow them to not get through places they they could previously get through, resulting in some type of interaction?
Once again, I have no clue what this means.
Add more mass to the same amount of volume, and you get the ability to take place in interactions more?
As I've already said, more interacting particles in a given volume corresponds to more interactions in that volume. I'm not sure what's hard to understand about this.
It encounters more resistance, because the oxygen molecules are more compact
It has a higher resistance because it encounters more oxygen molecules. The oxygen molecules are not smaller, they are just, on average, closer together than before.
Why are all of these neutrinos in the Universe?
To conserve lepton number, I guess.
Obviously, they serve some purpose. No wonder it's so hard for people to understand physics. Most of the theories do not make sense.
What purpose do photons serve? What purpose does an atom of beryllium serve? What purpose does the positron serve? What kind of anthropic, philosophical, hand-waving argument is neutrinos don't serve a purpose, so they don't make sense anyway? Come on, man.

- Warren

[urtalkinstupid]

Helooo Warren,

Ok, I'll explain what I was getting at. As of recently, the neutrino flux is only 1/3 of what it is supposed to be. With the new theory on neutrino oscillation, it is thought that neutrinos oscillate between the three flavors. The other 2/3 of the flux is said to be in the flavors of tau and muons. So, if all of the flux's were combined, this would result in an increase in the number of neutrinos hitting a volume of the Earth every second. This would increase the density of neutrinos right? If so, this would be just like the oxygen molecules hitting the gold. When less dense, they have little effect. When more dense, they have noticeable effects. The oxygen molecules as a system are more dense; this system is able to act upon other systems more as well. I'm thinking the same would be true about neutrinos, if their density was high enough including the muon and tau flux. As a system, they would be more dense, and would interact with outside systems more?

Photons are here to illuminate objects, so that our eyes can catch the reflecting rays. Beryllium has a cool name. :frown: Positron are theorized to be part of the proton. Well, I read that somewhere. If you think otherwise, I'll try to find the source and show you.

[Alkatran]

Alright, I already made up this nice long post for another thread. So here it is:

***
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% of their mass. Hurrah! Note: 1% changes noticeably when something (like the moon) gets between the observer and the source the way.

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...)
***

What that means:
If gravity is a push, it CAN'T be caused by a particle that is absorbed to create a force (like your neutrino idea). It doesn't matter how many of them there are (that is why I didn't use units for the forces, and said the differences between them in percentages).

And, from what I've been reading in these threads, the absorption rate of neutrinos is a lot lower than .01%.

[chroot]

So, if all of the flux's were combined, this would result in an increase in the number of neutrinos hitting a volume of the Earth every second.
If the effect of the electron neutrinos alone is insignificant, then three times that effect is still insignificant. Three is not a very large number.
As a system, they would be more dense, and would interact with outside systems more?
All three neutrino flavors present the same interaction cross-section. Gravity cannot be explained by any push theory, and the reasons are very simple. Gravity certainly cannot be explained by any push theory involving neutrinos, of all things. Claiming that the muon and tau flavors help your case is just idiocy. Sorry, but you're really barking up the wrong tree here. If you want to revolutionize physics, this ain't it.
Photons are here to illuminate objects, so that our eyes can catch the reflecting rays. Beryllium has a cool name. :frown: Positron are theorized to be part of the proton. Well, I read that somewhere. If you think otherwise, I'll try to find the source and show you.
Positrons are the electrons' antiparticle.

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

chroot, i thought u said u hated theory development. but it's ok, i enjoy ur company, i like it when u talk down to us and when u accuse me of plagiarism. i mean, i NEVER cite my sources anyways, right? sweet.

alkatran, why do u think that neutrinos coming in on the other side of the planet is going to null the push affect? i really want u to do the step by step math showing that the affect will be nulled if their are sources on all sides of the planet. speaking of which, where did u come up with that equation? did u just make it up, or is it from a real physics equation? i haven't seen it. i know ur a math wiz, but please give us ur sources for that equation (i don't care, even if it's from a math book..) also, why do u think the moon doesn't come crashing down on the earth? because the earth is also pushing on the moon. in fact, the moon is moving away from the earth. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124
this guy gives an explanation that'll fit gravity being a pull, but i think it's safe to say that the moon moving away from earth is caused by the earth pushing on the moon.

[Entropy]

Yea, uh huh, right. If one-third of the neutrinos hitting the earth in the form of , the rest are in the form of and . All of this together can add up. Tau and Muan neutrinos have a greater mass than the electron. Tau's mass is impressive for a neutrino. Plug and chug to get the combined neutrino flux and amount of energy exerted every square meter of earth every second.

No, two-thirds of the neutrinos that are predicted have not been detected. These are the predicted neutrinos coming from the sun. The amount of neutrinos should be equal to about 5% of the sun's EM energy output, this is where we get are prediction for the amount of neutrinos that should be hitting Earth. You see the amount of energy on Earth in the form of neutrinos (from the sun)isn't going to be more that 5% of the sun's EM energy. So you see light from the sun is applying 19 times more force on the Earth than neutrinos ever could.

Beatrix, i read that site u gave me...and i can only say, LOL!!!!
This guy is more full of crap than anyone else i've ever seen!! Sorry but i couldnt help laughing my butt off from reading how full of himself he is. He is basicly saying what Stupid said, except he doesnt even say whats being blocked. In the case we have, its neutrinos, but what he says is just terrible.

Come on, say what you need to say in a more respectful manner.

[russ_watters]

i really want u to do the step by step math showing that the affect will be nulled if their are sources on all sides of the planet. Sorry, kiddo, that's your homework, not ours. also, why do u think the moon doesn't come crashing down on the earth? because the earth is also pushing on the moon. in fact, the moon is moving away from the earth. Ok, so setting aside the fact that there is no evidence that Earth emits neutrinos, what precisely would you predict the earth's push on humans is? With the push necessarily decreasing with altitude, wouldn't that make escape velocity increase with altitude?

The things you guys are saying just plain don't fit what is observed. You guys are so spectacularly wrong its tough to accept that you are serious about it.

[urtalkinstupid]

So, Entropy are you telling me that tau and muon neutrinos haven't been detected yet?

Arg, a theory that was proposed by Newton still exist. Newton even said he was unsure how to explain his findings. Does that not tell you people anything? It's all made up. In reality, there is no such thign as a pull. Even Newton said that. He explained force as an attractive force, not pull. People just associated it as a pull. It took a man years later to explain what Newton couldn't, though Newton was the person who first proposed gravity. Einstein even had a blurry concept of how gravity worked. His concept can't explain black holes, or if the universe is expanding, crucnhing, or static. All of which can be explained through push theory. Isn't the underlying concept of quantum physics emission and absorption? Think of neutrinos as the emitter, and other objects as the absorber. If physics were to actually apply quantum physics to the big scale, they see that it doesn't work. It doesn't work, anything big is associated with attraction based on their weight and distance. If everything were based on density and the rate at which objects emitt and absorb, there would be a unity between QFT and GR. String theory is pretty believable. It involves emission and absorption as the existence of everything. Once they study the strings enough, they will discover that gravity is not a pull force. Nothing can pull. Pulling has no opposite.

[terrabyte]

where do you get your "pulling has no opposite"?

when you push something what happens? it pushes back on you with equal force

when you pull something what happens? it pulls back with equal force

the only difference between pull and push is the location of the object applying the force.

[beatrix kiddo]

no russ.. it's not MY homework. alkatran is the one who presented me with that equation and i can't find it anywhere, so since he is the one who used it, he needs to explain it, thanks...
what? there is evidence the earth emits neutrinos http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/43/8/12 or http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0406001 there's plenty more. look them up if u want. search for geoneutrinos or terrestrial neutrinos. there is even evidence people emit them (stupid had this site that explained it) i can't find the source though...

With the push necessarily decreasing with altitude, wouldn't that make escape velocity increase with altitude?

i don't understand ur logic.. do u mean the push from the earth or the atmosphere? if there's a decrease in push, the escape velocity decreases too, elaborate so i can better answer ur question :smile:

[beatrix kiddo]

nonononononono terrabyte, we've been through this before. a pull doesn't exist. how many times do i have to spell it? oh and the copyright for that book u asked about is 2003..

[ArmoSkater87]

Why are all of these neutrinos in the Universe? Obviously, they serve some purpose. No wonder it's so hard for people to understand physics. Most of the theories do not make sense.

Neutrinos are there because of conservation of momentum in certain decay reactions.

Ok, I'll explain what I was getting at. As of recently, the neutrino flux is only 1/3 of what it is supposed to be. With the new theory on neutrino oscillation, it is thought that neutrinos oscillate between the three flavors. The other 2/3 of the flux is said to be in the flavors of tau and muons. So, if all of the flux's were combined, this would result in an increase in the number of neutrinos hitting a volume of the Earth every second. This would increase the density of neutrinos right? If so, this would be just like the oxygen molecules hitting the gold. When less dense, they have little effect. When more dense, they have noticeable effects. The oxygen molecules as a system are more dense; this system is able to act upon other systems more as well. I'm thinking the same would be true about neutrinos, if their density was high enough including the muon and tau flux. As a system, they would be more dense, and would interact with outside systems more?

Wrong, oxygen and gold have electromagnetic interactions. The muon and tau neutrinos do have a greater mass, and they do account for the 2/3 of all the neutrinos that hit the earth. But since they dont interact with anything, except the weak forces... even if u account for all the flavors of neutrinos, it still wont be enough to cause gravity.

Photons are here to illuminate objects, so that our eyes can catch the reflecting rays. Beryllium has a cool name. Positron are theorized to be part of the proton. Well, I read that somewhere. If you think otherwise, I'll try to find the source and show you.

:D Lol, ur funny. But just wanted to say that in beta decay reactions, a proton decays into a neutron, a positron, and a neutrino. In other decay reactions (this all depends on the ratio of protons:neutrons in an atom), a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an anti-neutrino.

[chroot]

So, Entropy are you telling me that tau and muon neutrinos haven't been detected yet?
They certainly have been. Several detectors already in place are sensitive to muon neutrinos.
Arg, a theory that was proposed by Newton still exist.
It has been superceded by relativity.
Newton even said he was unsure how to explain his findings. Does that not tell you people anything? It's all made up.
All science is made up. Your version of gravity is similarly made up. The difference is that Newton's theory produces useful results which seem to match reality, while yours does not.
In reality, there is no such thign as a pull. Even Newton said that. He explained force as an attractive force, not pull.
"Pull" is not a well-defined word, and should not be used in any scientific context. Neither, for that matter, should the word "push" be used.
Einstein even had a blurry concept of how gravity worked.
His theory is much, much more concrete than yours. If you don't realize this, it's because you don't know relativity.
His concept can't explain black holes
What do you mean by "explain?" His theory is what predicted black holes in the first place!
or if the universe is expanding, crucnhing, or static.
A model can't predict that -- that has to be gathered from empirical evidence. That's like saying a theory is useless if it can't tell you what kind of cereal you ate this morning.
All of which can be explained through push theory.
You've been repeatedly ignoring all our counter-examples. Push theory cannot work. There really is just no room for debate on the issue.
Isn't the underlying concept of quantum physics emission and absorption?
No.
Think of neutrinos as the emitter, and other objects as the absorber. If physics were to actually apply quantum physics to the big scale, they see that it doesn't work.
Of course it works -- it's just very difficult to do in practice. Would you like to build a computer capable of doing QM calculations on 10^20 particles? How many billions of years do you have to wait for that computer to do its work? Furthermore, the Bohmian principle is that quantum mechanical effects get swamped out in the statistics when you deal with macroscopic things. In other words, in the limit of large ensembles, quantum mechanical predictions converge with classical predictions, and you can't tell the difference.
It doesn't work, anything big is associated with attraction based on their weight and distance. If everything were based on density and the rate at which objects emitt and absorb, there would be a unity between QFT and GR.
Apparently you have no idea what QFT is either...... :zzz:
String theory is pretty believable. It involves emission and absorption as the existence of everything.
No it doesn't.
Once they study the strings enough, they will discover that gravity is not a pull force. Nothing can pull. Pulling has no opposite.
Uh huh.

- Warren

[chroot]

nonononononono terrabyte, we've been through this before. a pull doesn't exist. how many times do i have to spell it? oh and the copyright for that book u asked about is 2003..
You can spell it until you're blue in the face. No one in the real world cares about your opinion, for good reason.

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

No one in the real world cares about your opinion

ouch, chroot. i mean my feelings and crap.. i might even cry if u get too condescending :rofl:

for good reason

for good reason? what the heck is that supposed to mean?! let me go through this once again, for the admin. as i've said before, a pull doesn't exist. there is no such thing. when u pull open a door, when u pull a book, paper, string, etc. towards u it is not actually "pulling". u are actually pushing these objects (chroot i asked u to look at my old posts, i've explained this concept in them) do u still require further explanation?? if so, i really don't mind and i'll even give the sources i used before so u'll know it's legit...

[chroot]

You can say it till you're blue in the face. I still don't care. It's a semantic argument -- physicists don't use words like "push" or "pull." They draw a diagram and show the forces explicitly. It does not matter what you call it.

- Warren

[Alkatran]

chroot, i thought u said u hated theory development. but it's ok, i enjoy ur company, i like it when u talk down to us and when u accuse me of plagiarism. i mean, i NEVER cite my sources anyways, right? sweet.

alkatran, why do u think that neutrinos coming in on the other side of the planet is going to null the push affect? i really want u to do the step by step math showing that the affect will be nulled if their are sources on all sides of the planet. speaking of which, where did u come up with that equation? did u just make it up, or is it from a real physics equation? i haven't seen it. i know ur a math wiz, but please give us ur sources for that equation (i don't care, even if it's from a math book..) also, why do u think the moon doesn't come crashing down on the earth? because the earth is also pushing on the moon. in fact, the moon is moving away from the earth. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124
this guy gives an explanation that'll fit gravity being a pull, but i think it's safe to say that the moon moving away from earth is caused by the earth pushing on the moon.

The equations are a derivation of my own logic. I assumed that:

-The more matter a neutrino passes through, the greater the change it will interact. (assuming this grew in a linear fashion with mass)
-A certain percent of neutrinos would be absorbed, and not a fixed quantity. It just makes more sense than a fixed or exponential amount.

Can anyone confirm both of these?

If the earth is pushing the moon away, what's holding it there? (According to you) Incoming neutrinos, right? Well that means that moon is getting more neutrinos from outside than inside (since it's going around us) and that they all happen to point directly towards earth. That means that when the neutrinos pass through other celestial bodies, they are pointed towards earth, and everything orbits earth. Fantastic.

You guys keep arguing on the amount of neutrinos, and the energy in those neutrinos, but our counter-arguments are based differently. We're saying that the universe would be much more centralized that it is now if it were push gravity (everything orbiting earth, as an example). Instead, we have a universe with trillions of "centers", be it on a small (the earth holding us) or grandios (the galaxy holding the solar system) scale.

[ArmoSkater87]

Why are u people arguing with an admin?? Jesus...this whole conversation is pathetic, its geting to the point where i just dont want to be part of it. Beatrix please stop being arrogant and lets handle things maturely. I am not going to say that gravity is not a "push" force, because "pull" doesnt really excist, but when so many people tell you that neutrinos cant be doing the "pushing", just let it go. If you think you are so right, then why dont you show us mathematically that neutrinos can exert enough force to cause gravity.

[Math Is Hard]

I liked Beatrix better when I thought she was a 4rth grader. The misconceptions were kinda cute then :biggrin:

[beatrix kiddo]

Beatrix please stop being arrogant and lets handle things maturely

I'M being immature armo? how mature was this:

Beatrix, i read that site u gave me...and i can only say, LOL!!!!
This guy is more full of crap than anyone else i've ever seen!! Sorry but i couldnt help laughing my butt off from reading how full of himself he is. He is basicly saying what Stupid said, except he doesnt even say whats being blocked. In the case we have, its neutrinos, but what he says is just terrible.

what the hell do u call this:

No one in the real world cares about your opinion, for good reason.

and if anyone should take the cake for immaturity on this site, it's the guy who said this:

I liked Beatrix better when I thought she was a 4rth grader. The misconceptions were kinda cute then

:mad:
ahh! u only point me out because i go against what u believe. if that's not immature, something cliche here...

The equations are a derivation of my own logic. I assumed that:

-The more matter a neutrino passes through, the greater the change it will interact. (assuming this grew in a linear fashion with mass)
-A certain percent of neutrinos would be absorbed, and not a fixed quantity. It just makes more sense than a fixed or exponential amount.

Can anyone confirm both of these?

i'm not really sure what would be an adequate equation, i'm trying though. so til everyone is sure... let's not just come up with some equations that we're not even sure are correct..

If you think you are so right, then why dont you show us mathematically that neutrinos can exert enough force to cause gravity.

u just wait, armo. i may not have an equation, now.. but i will. (i just started studying the push theory, i don't have ALL the answers...)

and just because chroot is an admin, doesn't mean he's always right, or just.

[ArmoSkater87]

Dude, i didnt say you are being imature, all i was saying is that we should try to handle the situation in a way that doesnt get everyone mad at everyone else, its just geting to be like the other thread...its becoming very personal. I know that what i said then was a little imature, but i couldnt help it...the guy at that web site was just so full of himself. Besides, i didnt say anything imature agaisnt you or anyone else. Others may be saying imature things too, but its only because all the reasons you use to back your theory is nonsense. I dont mean that in a bad way, im simply saying that you need to look at the other side of the story, and dont be so arrogant. At least try to see how the theory is flawed from what others tell you, instead of defending it with reasons that themselves have flaws. Instead of critisizing, explain in terms of physics why we are wrong if you are so sure that you're right.

[Entropy]

So, Entropy are you telling me that tau and muon neutrinos haven't been detected yet?

I know muon neutrinos have been detected but not tau neutrinos have not.

Arg, a theory that was proposed by Newton still exist. Newton even said he was unsure how to explain his findings. Does that not tell you people anything? It's all made up. In reality, there is no such thign as a pull. Even Newton said that. He explained force as an attractive force, not pull. People just associated it as a pull. It took a man years later to explain what Newton couldn't, though Newton was the person who first proposed gravity. Einstein even had a blurry concept of how gravity worked. His concept can't explain black holes, or if the universe is expanding, crucnhing, or static. All of which can be explained through push theory. Isn't the underlying concept of quantum physics emission and absorption? Think of neutrinos as the emitter, and other objects as the absorber. If physics were to actually apply quantum physics to the big scale, they see that it doesn't work. It doesn't work, anything big is associated with attraction based on their weight and distance. If everything were based on density and the rate at which objects emitt and absorb, there would be a unity between QFT and GR. String theory is pretty believable. It involves emission and absorption as the existence of everything. Once they study the strings enough, they will discover that gravity is not a pull force. Nothing can pull. Pulling has no opposite.

For the hundred millionth time! Gravity isn't a pull its an effect of space-time curvature. It isn't even a real force. We aren't saying its a pull. I though you understood that but apparently its not getting through your thick skull.

Einstein even had a blurry concept of how gravity worked. His concept can't explain black holes, or if the universe is expanding, crucnhing, or static. All of which can be explained through push theory.

It takes more than understanding gravity to determain the fate of the universe. You do know there are other forces at work other than gravity don't you?

[Alkatran]

i'm not really sure what would be an adequate equation, i'm trying though. so til everyone is sure... let's not just come up with some equations that we're not even sure are correct..

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the equation is almost definitely almost right. (The same way newtonian physics is "almost" right at low speeds)

But it stand to reason that the more stuff a neutrino goes through, the greater the chance that it gets absorbed.

[Chronos]

A thread with a bang. It is amusing. Why should push be more valid than pull? Does a current in a river 'push' or 'pull'? If I swim downstream faster than the downstream current speed, why do i feel resistance to further acceleration? I need a very complicated 'push' theory to explain that. My 'pull' theory, however, yields a very uncomplicated explanation.

A link which should amuse you, Chroot

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/debating.html

You are pretty stubborn. I like that.

Footnote to urstalkinstupid and bea. Give some credit to LeSage, who proposed your 'push' theory over 200 years ago. Nobody paid much attention to it then, either.

http://mgi.my100megs.com/LeSage.html

[Chronos]

I liked Beatrix better when I thought she was a 4rth grader. The misconceptions were kinda cute then :biggrin:

To BLO: Your subtlety did not go unnoticed.

[ArmoSkater87]

Okay, i think this thread is done...when the supporters of this theory come up with actual proof, instead of nonsense, please make another thread that says NEUTRINO PROBLEM SOLVED, then i'll be glad to see what you have to offer.

[Chronos]

Okay, i think this thread is done...when the supporters of this theory come up with actual proof, instead of nonsense, please make another thread that says NEUTRINO PROBLEM SOLVED, then i'll be glad to see what you have to offer.

Use your sense of humor. I know I was laughing all the way through this thread.

[Math Is Hard]

Fascinating article on LeSage, Chronos! I had never heard of this person.
(And I love Phil Plait and the Bad Astronomy site. I really enjoyed his commentary back during the Planet X hysteria.) :smile:

[Chronos]

I suspect Phil posts here every now and then [a signature thing]. He is a riot, and a fairly smart dude.

[ArmoSkater87]

Use your sense of humor. I know I was laughing all the way through this thread.

LOL...if you think this thread was funny, you should read the past thread that was closed down...which was like 23 pages long, im really surprised it lasted that long. This thread is a continuing of that other thread. If its still there, its called Gravity, push, pull, or doesnt exist?.

[Chronos]

Afterthought: Be nice Armo. I try to be nice. I don't always succeed. [especially after a deluxe pizza]. My mission is to redirect bright young minds away from quackery and towards the real issues of science. I love these guys who ask dumb questions and propose even dumber theories. More power to them.

I enjoy blowing their silly theories out of the water. But, what I enjoy even more, is seeing them persist and keep asking questions. I challenge them to think and use the tools and observational evidence we have given them. All I can say to them is: keep thinking and keep working on your ideas. But, first learn and understand what we have learned on the backs of our ancestors. Respect those who helped you get to the point where you are able to ask hard questions. Go to school, do the math, and show us what you have learned. We did not create the pedestal of knowledge for us to stand upon, it was for you. Knowledge is our gift to you. It is flawed, incomplete, and we know that.

[ArmoSkater87]

Sorry if i was being mean, but what you say is right, they must know what they are talking about. So i think they should learn about it, then tell us with backed up reasons.

[beatrix kiddo]

there.. credit where credit is due!!

chronos ur bad astronomy site was not amusing or funny or whatever. u may not think i get it, but i get it and whenever i post links on this thread it's atleast relevant to the topic and not a way for me to express my opinion about people.

Your subtlety did not go unnoticed

ur's didn't either, chronos..

Use your sense of humor. I know I was laughing all the way through this thread.

ahh.. when u say bs like this, i suppose u aren't trying to be subtle...

LOL...if you think this thread was funny, you should read the past thread that was closed down...which was like 23 pages long, im really surprised it lasted that long. This thread is a continuing of that other thread. If its still there, its called Gravity, push, pull, or doesnt exist?.

the funniest thing about that thread was how badly u got owned in it... THAT was funny...

Be nice Armo. I try to be nice.

awwww. chronos. u're an angel! oh wait...

My mission is to redirect bright young minds away from quackery and towards the real issues of science. I love these guys who ask dumb questions and propose even dumber theories.

well i'm glad lord einstein has set u on the path of righteousness where u can preach his message unto the heathens of the science world! i mean statements that start with "MY MISSION" on a physics forum should be put into question as to what idiot said that...

Sorry if i was being mean, but what you say is right, they must know what they are talking about. So i think they should learn about it, then tell us with backed up reasons.

stupid has done that before, and the last time we got horrible answers.. so what's the use? now, if u don't mind, let us return to OUR theory (this is theory DEVELOPMENT, right?) and how we are going to further develop it. :biggrin:

[Nereid]

I'm curious, what would it take for stupid and kiddo to state that their idea has failed?

I mean, how do you two plan to test its validity? And how do you build into those tests the possibility of a clear Yes/No result?

[beatrix kiddo]

nereid, it's gonna take a lot more than what u think u are capable of presenting on this thread. and "HAS failED"? u make it sound as if our theory has actually been proven false. all u guys can do is present me with things einstein said and the experiments preformed and the list goes on. u think u have officially proven this theory wrong, but so far u haven't given any exact evidence that directly states where i'm wrong.
nereid, the first test is logic. the second test is where i buy all this equipment, come to ur house, set up a neutrino detector in ur bathroom, and prefrom all these experiments and u can stand and watch, ok? we can even test that whole neutrino mag. flux idea u introduced in the old thread, just to see if ur right!
it's OBVIOUS i can't exactly test this thing, nereid. i am 15 and my resources are sadly limited. the only part of the neutrino detector i can supply is the water.. and it's not even heavy so that's gonna make it even harder to detect them. geez. but if i did have all the resources, equipment, etc. me and my team of japanese super geniuses would be able to prove my theory. but until then i will keep searching for the undoubtedly accumulating evidence that backs this theory up.

[Math Is Hard]

...me and my team of japanese super geniuses ..

What IS the going rate for a team of Japanese super geniuses? That can't be cheap!!!

[beatrix kiddo]

i know.. that's why i'm about to get a job at mcdonalds... ok?!

[chroot]

u think u have officially proven this theory wrong, but so far u haven't given any exact evidence that directly states where i'm wrong.
There are many, many, many easy experiments that prove that a push theory of gravity is wrong. Many of them require nothing more than a bathroom scale, or the solar system. (You can a simple calculation of the way the solar system WOULD look, compared to how it DOES look.) Neither of these sorts of experiments require any serious money. You presumably already have a bathroom scale, and the solar system is pretty much a free lunch. Several experiments have already been proposed in this thread -- why haven't you done them? What are you waiting for? Don't snivel and whine about how expensive equipment is -- the equipment you need to prove your theory wrong is even simpler than the equipment Newton had.

- Warren

[ArmoSkater87]

the funniest thing about that thread was how badly u got owned in it... THAT was funny...

lol!! I GOT OWNED???? I dont recall a single time that i was disproven in any way for why i think your theory is wrong. While you have been disproven in more ways and by more people that i just dont know how to compredend how you still persist with your belief despite even admins and mentors telling you that your theory isnt possible...im not even going to say how much more physics they know compared to you. In other words, you and your friend urtalkinstupid are the ones who got owned by pretty much everyone that goes agaist your theory.

[beatrix kiddo]

chroot my bathroom scale isn't sensitive enough for that. but i can go to the local vets office and ask to use their really sensitive dog scale. so there's a start! and i could measure if i jump higher at night! oh now it's really getting good!! chroot, ur a genius! all i have to do is some amateur experiments and that should put all of ur minds at ease about my theory!!!!
u know that's not going to be enough. but i'll do it anyways, since i've been "whining" about it. so right now i weigh 113 (lbs). all i have to do is see if i weigh a little less than that at night...
but even if it does show i weigh less, that won't necessarily mean i'm right. i really want to get some results from neutrino detectors and such.
and i read that if gravity was a pull all galaxies would look like doughnuts. and that makes sense... http://www.pioneer-net.com/~jessep/why.html can u refute this?? and hey u can win money too! i know armo thinks this dude is crazy, but if u can silence him, there's a serious reward...

[beatrix kiddo]

armo, who was it that kept saying, "i really THINK that's too high to be the energy for a neutrino" hahahaha. so i had to give u 2 sources to show u i didn't make that up. and if i was getting owned so bad, would i have even bothered to come back and write in this thread? armo i guess u think because CHROOT says something, i should automatically give up what i know is right. just because he's an admin.. who's admining the admins?? i get in trouble for something i didn't do and now i'm half way to getting banned for 21 days. (look at my crappy warning level!) i don't know if my warning level has anything to do with this but i'm constantly having to sign in, every few minutes which really sux. and u also can't expect me to take chroot seriously if he comes here to TD and starts talking down to me. should admins do this? i mean, chroot is supposed to be understanding and trying to "help" me. instead he tells me i don't know my "*** from a tensor" and then slaps me with a 7 point warning level!! what happened to not getting personal. this is so backwards...

[Math Is Hard]

so right now i weigh 113 (lbs). all i have to do is see if i weigh a little less than that at night...


It would be more scientific if you would weigh something that wasn't subject to fluctuations in weight. If you eat dinner or go to the bathroom between now and your next weight recording you will almost certainly throw off your calculations.

[beatrix kiddo]

i know.. but chroot says that i should test the experiments proposed on the thread, and that was one of them so....

[Brad_Ad23]

I'm also curious as to how a push theory can explain how light bends around massive objects. I mean in your push model would not the neutrinos knock the light passing near a star away from the star and not towards it. Not only that but how exactly would neutrinos affect the path of photons?

[ArmoSkater87]

armo, who was it that kept saying, "i really THINK that's too high to be the energy for a neutrino" hahahaha. so i had to give u 2 sources to show u i didn't make that up. and if i was getting owned so bad, would i have even bothered to come back and write in this thread? armo i guess u think because CHROOT says something, i should automatically give up what i know is right. just because he's an admin.. who's admining the admins?? i get in trouble for something i didn't do and now i'm half way to getting banned for 21 days. (look at my crappy warning level!) i don't know if my warning level has anything to do with this but i'm constantly having to sign in, every few minutes which really sux. and u also can't expect me to take chroot seriously if he comes here to TD and starts talking down to me. should admins do this? i mean, chroot is supposed to be understanding and trying to "help" me. instead he tells me i don't know my "*** from a tensor" and then slaps me with a 7 point warning level!! what happened to not getting personal. this is so backwards...

Beatrix, the fact that I said "THINK" means i wasnt sure, so there was no proving me right or wrong in that case. Besides, i said several times (and so did many others) that neutrinos dont interact almost at all, meaning it doesnt matter if they have how much energy you say they have. The point is that they dont interact enough to cause a gravitational force, that has been my arguement all along and you havnt been able to defend your theory against that in any way. Even in sources that you or Stupid gave me said how little they interact.

[Nereid]

nereid, it's gonna take a lot more than what u think u are capable of presenting on this thread. and "HAS failED"? u make it sound as if our theory has actually been proven false. all u guys can do is present me with things einstein said and the experiments preformed and the list goes on. u think u have officially proven this theory wrong, but so far u haven't given any exact evidence that directly states where i'm wrong.
nereid, the first test is logic. the second test is where i buy all this equipment, come to ur house, set up a neutrino detector in ur bathroom, and prefrom all these experiments and u can stand and watch, ok? we can even test that whole neutrino mag. flux idea u introduced in the old thread, just to see if ur right!
it's OBVIOUS i can't exactly test this thing, nereid. i am 15 and my resources are sadly limited. the only part of the neutrino detector i can supply is the water.. and it's not even heavy so that's gonna make it even harder to detect them. geez. but if i did have all the resources, equipment, etc. me and my team of japanese super geniuses would be able to prove my theory. but until then i will keep searching for the undoubtedly accumulating evidence that backs this theory up.As you know your idea quite well, I can suggest a zero cost start - do a thought experiment, and make it quantitative.

For example, 'according to the s/k neutrino/gravity pull idea [or whatever name you chose to give it], an object which weighs 100kg on my bathroom scales at noon on 21 December, 2004 at (location), will weigh [insert the results of your calculation here] at midnight later that same day' For good measure, you could add date/times and locations which show the effect of the Moon, the distance from a nuclear reactor, latitude (e.g. the effects of the non-spherical shape of the Earth), and so on.

My guess is it'd take you less time to come up with these predictions that it would to post to this thread over the next two days.

[beatrix kiddo]

brad.. of course neutrinos play a part in the gravitational bending of light... http://gravity.ontheinter.net/ click the link that says neutrinos bend light or something... i don't feel like describing it to u right now..
armo-ahhh!!! i have given u book sources that say neutinos are so numerous that they can in fact affect gravity in the solar system. (the book agrees with einsteins model of gravity, but it still says neutrios play a part in gravity) i'm taking it further and saying they are the only cause of "gravity"... i have many sources to defend my theory and i have used them against u and u couldn't refute them. i'll re-cite if u want me to...

[beatrix kiddo]

My guess is it'd take you less time to come up with these predictions that it would to post to this thread over the next two days.

huh?! :uhh:

but thanx for the info on how i can do this little experiment... god. from now on i'm gonna have to tell u ppl when i'm being sarcastic so no one gets confused.
and i've decided to call the push theory "the theory that pwns everyone else's". i think it's catchy! :wink:

[Math Is Hard]

"the theory that pwns everyone else's". i think it's catchy! :wink:

what does pwns mean?

[beatrix kiddo]

pawns and owns... or was ur question merely sarcasm? if so nvm...

[Math Is Hard]

pawns and owns... or was ur question merely sarcasm? if so nvm...

No, not at all. I'm just not very familiar with modern slang. I thought perhaps it was an acronym.

[ArmoSkater87]

what does pawn mean? The only definitions i know is...that a pawn is the weakest piece in chess, and also that (verb) to pawn is to trade something in for money.

[russ_watters]

Nereid's challenge is a reasonable one: give us a specific, quantatative prediction of your theory.

[beatrix kiddo]

hmmm armo.. i dunno. the chess pawn of course! because that makes the most sense... omg
this gets difficult russ, because i would need to find the force exerted by the neutrino flux during the day, then the force at night and then i'd need the difference. also, i need to know the direct relationship between the neutrino absorption rate and an object's density because this is what determines an object's weight. so, when i figure all of these things out, u'll be the first to know my specific quanta- oh, quantitative prediction. just so u know, i'm not about to make some random prediction. that's not what a real physicist would do...

[ArmoSkater87]

Jesus Beatrix, i was only asking, u dont have to mean about it.

[beatrix kiddo]

dude, armo i'm sorry. i have a real bad migraine so i don't mean to be *****y...

[beatrix kiddo]

Cool Automatic Censorship!!!

[Chronos]

this gets difficult russ, because i would need to find the force exerted by the neutrino flux during the day, then the force at night and then i'd need the difference. also, i need to know the direct relationship between the neutrino absorption rate and an object's density because this is what determines an object's weight. so, when i figure all of these things out, u'll be the first to know my specific quanta- oh, quantitative prediction. just so u know, i'm not about to make some random prediction. that's not what a real physicist would do...

Agreed. No real physicist would propose a theory, much less a prediction based on that theory, without offering their peers evidence the assumptions used are valid.

Footnote. 'pwns' is a slang term meaning 'I am so in control of you, I could sell you at a pawn shop.'

[ArmoSkater87]

beatrix, if u an account for AIM or MSN, then can i have them?

[beatrix kiddo]

hahaha.. whatever chronos

armo its medijuju07 at aim

[Entropy]

This is degrating into personal attacks like the last thread... Lets ends this and agree to disagree because we're just going in circles. Where is Tom when you need him?

[beatrix kiddo]

entropy, don't say that! the LAST thing anyone wants is tom to come here and stop what is becoming my social life.... :wink:

[Alkatran]

I'd just like to point out that you will weigh slightly less at night because you are slightly farther from the sun. I doubt this difference is much at all, but it is there.
*edit woops, got it backwards, see post 2 down*


And I really think that you need to stop and think before you blindly accept that guy's theory that everything is donut shaped.

His argument for it is a 1 dimensional model where the center object is given an initial speed. Of course there's going to be seperation into two clusters! And, at the least, why would the final shape be a donut and not a SHELL?? By his own arguments you can't have it centralized (the ring is centralized).

[russ_watters]

this gets difficult russ, because i would need to find the force exerted by the neutrino flux during the day, then the force at night and then i'd need the difference. also, i need to know the direct relationship between the neutrino absorption rate and an object's density because this is what determines an object's weight. so, when i figure all of these things out, u'll be the first to know my specific quanta- oh, quantitative prediction. just so u know, i'm not about to make some random prediction. that's not what a real physicist would do... Oh, ok - so you have an idea, not even an hypothesis yet. Lotta work to do before you can claim any sort of validity. In our opinion, your idea is flawed (and not just a little bit flawed). If you want to convince us otherwise, you need to develop it into a real hypothesis at the very least. I'd just like to point out that you will weigh slightly less at night because you are slightly farther from the sun. I doubt this difference is much at all, but it is there. No, at night you'd be walking on your ceiling because the sun is below you, pushing up.

[Alkatran]

No, at night you'd be walking on your ceiling because the sun is below you, pushing up.

Woops! I sortof got off track for a moment.

In the day time the sun pulls you from the earth, and at the night the sun pulls you into the earth. So you'll actually weigh a bit MORE at night.

[russ_watters]

Woops! I sortof got off track for a moment.

In the day time the sun pulls you from the earth, and at the night the sun pulls you into the earth. So you'll actually weigh a bit MORE at night. Oh, you meant with the current accepted theory. I was talking about what "push" gravity might predict if anyone ever got around to making a real prediction.

[Alkatran]

Oh, you meant with the current accepted theory. I was talking about what "push" gravity might predict if anyone ever got around to making a real prediction.

Yes, I was worried that he would get a super-sensitive scale, confirm there was a weight difference, and come back to us talking about how this proved the theory right.

[beatrix kiddo]

Yes, I was worried that he would get a super-sensitive scale, confirm there was a weight difference, and come back to us talking about how this proved the theory right.

no.. sorry guys.. i haven't obtained a super-sensitive scale yet, but when i do the experiment commences! also, tran i kinda already said that if there was a weight difference in the object, that wouldn't necessarily mean i'm right...

u know that's not going to be enough. but i'll do it anyways, since i've been "whining" about it. so right now i weigh 113 (lbs). all i have to do is see if i weigh a little less than that at night...
but even if it does show i weigh less, that won't necessarily mean i'm right. i really want to get some results from neutrino detectors and such.

i was being sarcastic about weighing myself, because that changes with daily actvities, but i can do it with a book or my ps2 or something...

[Alkatran]

no.. sorry guys.. i haven't obtained a super-sensitive scale yet, but when i do the experiment commences! also, tran i kinda already said that if there was a weight difference in the object, that wouldn't necessarily mean i'm right...

i was being sarcastic about weighing myself, because that changes with daily actvities, but i can do it with a book or my ps2 or something...

By the current theory, you should weigh slightly more. By your theory you should weight slightly less. We'll see who's right.

[chroot]

It doesn't need to be super-sensitive. Any mechanism that's able to generate 170 lbs. of force pushing me into the floor is going to demonstrate variations large enough to be detected with a bathroom scale.

After all, as others have said: if neutrinos from the Sun push me into the Earth during the day, why don't they push me off the Earth at night?

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

because there are also neutrinos pushing u down on the earth at night

[chroot]

From where?

- Warren

[chroot]

And indeed, if there were neutrinos pushing you from every direction at once, there'd be no gravity at all -- the net force would be zero.

- Warren

[Alkatran]

because there are also neutrinos pushing u down on the earth at night

Where are they coming from? How far into the earth do they penetrate? Do they pass all the way through the earth? If so why don't they cancel out the effect of the sun? If they don't make it all the way through, why don't we weigh (a lot) less underground? Why are the other planets keeping orbit if all these neutrinos happen to be perfectly lined up to keep gravity uniform on earth? Why doesn't this incoming gravity change as we rotate around the sun? If it's focused on the sun why are we being pushed down when on the sides of the earth?

Want me to keep going?

[beatrix kiddo]

the neutrinos come from cosmic rays, other planets, other stars.. they travel at nearly light speed, so we get a constant flow of these neutrino waves... and since objects absorb them, it's not like they're directly pushing everything down with the same force, so the net force isn't zero...

[beatrix kiddo]

i just read ur questions and i'll answer them but u can keep going if u wish

[Alkatran]

Oh, here's the best argument:
If the force on the earth is uniform on all sides, why is it curving around the sun? Why does the force from FAR OFF places change radicly when we go on the other side of the sun, even though we have moved very little relative to them?

[chroot]

the neutrinos come from cosmic rays, other planets, other stars.. they travel at nearly light speed, so we get a constant flow of these neutrino waves... and since objects absorb them, it's not like they're directly pushing everything down with the same force, so the net force isn't zero...
Planets and stars are grouped into the galaxy in a non-uniform way. As you can see when you walk outside at night and look at the milky way, the stars and planets in our galaxy are organized more or less in the form of a disc.

If the neutrinos from these planets and galaxies are pushing on us and create gravity, then we'd have some serious problems:

1) We are near the edge of the galaxy. We are, at any rate, nowhere near its center. Thus the number of neutrinos hitting us from outside the galaxy would be much much smaller than the number hitting us from inside the galaxy. We'd be under a terrible imbalance and we would be rapidly pushed out of the galaxy.

2) Even if we were at the center of the galaxy, the force would be symmetric around galactic longitude. You would be weightless in every direction.

- Warren

[chroot]

What we can't figure out, beatrix, is how all the other planets and stars know to push us one direction into the earth at noon (away from the sun), and then to instead push us the other way at midnight (toward the sun). Six months later, the situation is reversed, though, and all the other planets and stars would have to somehow switch gears and send their neutrinos the other way.

How do you respond?

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

Where are they coming from?
answered
How far into the earth do they penetrate?
some pass straight through
Do they pass all the way through the earth?
answered
If so why don't they cancel out the effect of the sun?
they weren't absorbed
If they don't make it all the way through, why don't we weigh (a lot) less underground?
they do make it, objects in the earth absorb them so u don't weigh a lot less
Why are the other planets keeping orbit if all these neutrinos happen to be perfectly lined up to keep gravity uniform on earth?
other planets maintain their orbit because the neutrinos are lined up for them too.
Why doesn't this incoming gravity change as we rotate around the sun?
distance isn't an issue with the push theory...
If it's focused on the sun why are we being pushed down when on the sides of the earth?
answered: the sun isn't the only supplier of neutrinos

[Alkatran]

answered

1: some pass straight through

2: answered

3: they weren't absorbed

4: they do make it, objects in the earth absorb them so u don't weigh a lot less

5: other planets maintain their orbit because the neutrinos are lined up for them too.

6: distance isn't an issue with the push theory...

7: answered: the sun isn't the only supplier of neutrinos

1: Alright, so you're saying the absorption rate is low? That means that people on the other side of the planet are being affect by almost the same amount of neutrinos as we are, are being push away by these neutrinos, and are almost weightless. Also, the moon isn't orbiting the earth because it has almost the same net force everywhere.
2: See 1
3: They have just as much chance of being absorbed by us as they do by the people in China. If most pass right through, they get almost the same force.
4: See 1 again.
5: Ok, so we have a sphere with infinite amount of centers... oh wait, that's IMPOSSIBLE. If the neutrinos are lined up for jupiter, it won't orbit the sun. If it's line up for the sun jupiter's moons orbit the sun and not jupiter!

6: Distance IS a factor. The father you are from the sun the more spread out the neutrinos coming from the sun are.

7: And these other suppliers change radicly summer to winter?

[beatrix kiddo]

note: the galaxies spin rapidly, so the objects along the edge aren't necessarily pushed out
it's not direct pushing though.. just like in einstein's model, pull is a term of convenience and so is push... the neutrinos are absorbed...
bodies generate neutrinos on all sides, warren. they don't "know" to push us one way or another. the earth, and everything else, is constantly being pelted with neutrinos. these neutrios get absorbed and that's what we percieve as gravity..

[chroot]

beatrix,

I love how you simply say 'answered' as if that's enough to convince us you're right. You certainly haven't answered to our satisfaction, and it really does seem to us as though you're just waving your hands and sticking your fingers in your ears while trying to dodge the obvious, glaring problems with your theory by inventing yet another amazing coindence.

- Warren

[Alkatran]

note: the galaxies spin rapidly, so the objects along the edge aren't necessarily pushed out
it's not direct pushing though.. just like in einstein's model, pull is a term of convenience and so is push... the neutrinos are absorbed...
bodies generate neutrinos on all sides, warren. they don't "know" to push us one way or another. the earth, and everything else, is constantly being pelted with neutrinos. these neutrios get absorbed and that's what we percieve as gravity..

So let me get this straight. Because the galaxy is spinning, creating a centrifuge (sp?) force OUTWARDS, we aren't flying off?

[beatrix kiddo]

distance isn't a factor because we are in a pool of them at all times. neutrinos that have travelled all over the universe, neutrinos left over from the big bang, etc.. gravity isn't a force it is purely emmission and absorption.. yeah that whole spinning galaxies thing was lame.. i'll come up with a better answer in a sec...

[Alkatran]

distance isn't a factor because we are in a pool of them at all times. neutrinos that have travelled all over the universe, neutrinos left over from the big bang, etc.. gravity isn't a force it is purely emmission and absorption.. yeah that whole spinning galaxies thing was lame.. i'll come up with a better answer in a sec...

The sun is millions of times closer than all those other galaxies, so the neutrinos coming from it are trillions of times more concentrated than the ones coming from elsewhere. Getting twice as close to the sun multiples the concentration of neutrinos from it by 4 times, but multiplies the concentration of neutrinos coming from lightyears away by 1 +- .0000000 [...] 1

Clearly this will make a large difference in the net force.

[beatrix kiddo]

ok.. yes i've got the answer. YAY READING!!! the neutrinos keep the galaxies together because they surround them like giant halos. that also compensates for the majority of missing matter in the galaxies..
"Since there is no evidence of any other forces at work besides gravity in creating the structure of the universe, the only reasonable possibility is that there is dark unseen matter around the galaxy, surrounding it like a huge invisible halo... And all the mathematics point to it making up a staggering 90 percent of all the matter in the universe." stephen hawking's universe pg. 163

[beatrix kiddo]

this also means that perhaps even solar systems are kept together by a circle of neutrinos!!! and if neutrinos are indeed the most massive part of the galaxy, and they surround it, then according to einstein's model, wouldn't all the stars and junk sink into that ring of neutrinos??

[Alkatran]

ok.. yes i've got the answer. YAY READING!!! the neutrinos keep the galaxies together because they surround them like giant halos. that also compensates for the majority of missing matter in the galaxies..
"Since there is no evidence of any other forces at work besides gravity in creating the strcuture of the universe, the only reasonable possibility is that there is dark unseen matter around the galaxy, surrounding it like a huge invisible halo... And all the mathematics point to it making up a staggering 90 percent of all the matter in the universe." stephen hawking's universe pg. 163

You took that way out of context. If the neutrinos are around the galaxy, that means they aren't colliding with the objects within the galaxy and aren't giving any force to them. Right?

That quote was obviously in the context of dark matter, not neutrinos.

[Alkatran]

this also means that perhaps even solar systems are kept together by a circle of neutrinos!!! and if neutrinos are indeed the most massive part of the galaxy, and they surround it, then according to einstein's model, wouldn't all the stars and junk sink into that ring of neutrinos??

SPHERE, not CIRCLE. but anyways:

You've been saying all along that neutrinos move at near c. Otherwise they have virtually no energy. If they're just sitting in a giant shell around us, how are they interacting? Why doesn't this shell dissipate (entropy) as they move around?

[beatrix kiddo]

the book says that a halo could be made up of neutrinos or machos or wimps...

[beatrix kiddo]

but i think it's only neutrinos..the neutrinos obviously rotate around the galaxies... in huge circles, at the speed of light..

[Alkatran]

the book says that a halo could be made up of neutrinos or machos or wimps...

Well my mistake then, all I had was what you quoted. Unless you mean that dark matter is made of neutrinos.

But answer the second argument. How are they interacting? If they're moving into us then the shell wouldn't stay there, would it?

And you still haven't answered the all arguments about the force being inconsistent. A big shell of inward force doesn't solve it.

[Alkatran]

but i think it's only neutrinos..the neutrinos obviously rotate around the galaxies... in huge circles, at the speed of light..

Ah, of course. They're rotating around the galaxy.

Then what, pray tell, is making them change direction? Why don't they just go in straight lines?

[beatrix kiddo]

*nearly at the speed of light* and the only reason these neutrinos aren't being absorbed is because they are apart of our solar system's energy field and they keep everything in order.. everything has an energy field, right??

[beatrix kiddo]

gravity is a lot more complex than what anyone previously thought...

[beatrix kiddo]

think about tran... these neutrinos are surrounding galaxies... making up most of the mass, why aren't the galaxies falling around this ring since they are creating such large dents in space-time?

[beatrix kiddo]

Unless you mean that dark matter is made of neutrinos

wait.. u didn't know neutrinos make up dark matter?! they're "hot" dark matter to be more exact... i'll cite if u want me to...

[Math Is Hard]

but i think it's only neutrinos..the neutrinos obviously rotate around the galaxies... in huge circles, at the speed of light..

Actually, I think you probably mean "revolve around the galaxies".
No disrespect intended - it's just that astronomers can be really picky about misuse of terms like that.

[beatrix kiddo]

thanks.. no disrespect taken..

[beatrix kiddo]

everyone: i meant revolve... not rotate.. hehehe

[Alkatran]

wait.. u didn't know neutrinos make up dark matter?! they're "hot" dark matter to be more exact... i'll cite if u want me to...

No I didn't know neutrinos made up dark matter. But that doesn't matter because, according to you, gravity doesn't exist. So how are these neutrinos pushing us? And, as I said before, this point doesn't matter because it depends on the argument that the force changes drasticly from one place to another.

Oh, I've been using the word rotate a lot as well, but I mean "orbit".

[beatrix kiddo]

it has to deal with energy fields... the neutrinos create an energy field around us... this keeps us in order. gravity is emission and absorption. force won't change if the neutrinos around the solar system stabilize us. but this whole neutrino mass bit should matter to u, because u think gravity has to deal with space-time and the neutrinos are way more massive than the galaxy. shouldn't the galaxy sink into this large dent in space-time??

[Alkatran]

it has to deal with energy fields... the neutrinos create an energy field around us... this keeps us in order. gravity is emission and absorption. force won't change if the neutrinos around the solar system stabilize us. but this whole neutrino mass bit should matter to u, because u think gravity has to deal with space-time and the neutrinos are way more massive than the galaxy. shouldn't the galaxy sink into this large dent in space-time??

As I understand it, Dark Matter has the opposite effect of gravity. IE it curves space time in the opposite direction, making matter move away from it instead of towards it.

[Chronos]

It doesn't need to be super-sensitive. Any mechanism that's able to generate 170 lbs. of force pushing me into the floor is going to demonstrate variations large enough to be detected with a bathroom scale.

After all, as others have said: if neutrinos from the Sun push me into the Earth during the day, why don't they push me off the Earth at night?

- Warren

After doing some quick calculations, it appears an object will weigh about .001% [.01 gram per kg] more at midnight than at noon due to the sun and moon's combined gravitational 'pull' [have to do this during a new moon] So, it wouldn't take a very sophisticated scale to detect that much difference

[beatrix kiddo]

hmmm.. but it does make up the majority of mass in the universe... if it is massive, then it should affect space-time just like any other single object

[Alkatran]

hmmm.. but it does make up the majority of mass in the universe... if it is massive, then it should affect space-time just like any other single object

I'd like to point out that it's a lot farther than the sun. And that a large distance tends to 'outweigh' a large mass.

[beatrix kiddo]

have u tested this? and what do ur calculations say about weight if gravity is a "push"?

[beatrix kiddo]

do u mean the neutrinos are a lot farther out than the sun? or what?

[Alkatran]

They say that almost all forces over distance are proportional to the inverse of distance squared because they have to expand on the surface of a sphere.

[Alkatran]

do u mean the neutrinos are a lot farther out than the sun? or what?

Yes. If they're surrounding the galaxy they are a lot farther away than the sun and would need to be much much much more massive. (How far is the edge of the galaxy?)

[beatrix kiddo]

oh. so then it wouldn't affect the galaxies like that.. but the neutrinos do surround the galaxies and that does give a reason for why the matter in the galaxies aren't flying out of them...

[beatrix kiddo]

and, good news for us.. they are much, much more massive... i'm not sure what the edge of a galaxy is... i'm sure a simple google search would be sufficient.. i'll check..

[beatrix kiddo]

ok.. i dunno.. i suck at searching...

[Alkatran]

I think you need to finish your theory a bit more before you keep arguing. You're starting to jump around wildly, bringing up new points instead of arguing old ones.

[beatrix kiddo]

what new points??? u asked me why isn't matter in the galaxies being expelled, and i told u because neutrinos surround it. then i asked would the massiveness of the neutinos make galaxies sink into it.. it was totally on topic, but i don't mind re-capping for u, alkatran..

[beatrix kiddo]

So let me get this straight. Because the galaxy is spinning, creating a centrifuge (sp?) force OUTWARDS, we aren't flying off?

i'll come up with a better answer in a sec...

and, since u couldn't remember.. that's when i introduced the neutrinos...

[chroot]

What's making these neutrinos revolve around the galaxy at nearly the speed of light, if gravity doesn't exist for them? It would take an absolutely enormous force to make a neutrino moving at nearly the speed of light move in a circle as small as the galaxy.

- Warren

[chroot]

And, as has been said, these neutrinos revolving around the halo of the galaxy don't ever hit the earth, so they can't have anything to do with gravity on it.

- Warren

[chroot]

And, beatrix, inventing some mystical "energy field" in response to a legitimate argument is intellectual dishonesty. It seems you've been cornered for quite some time now, but rather than just sucking it up and admitting defeat, you've now had to bring neutrino halos, dark matter, and "energy fields" into the picture. When is this nonsense going to end? You're apparently smart enough to use a computer, so there's no way you're really stupid enough to believe your own arguments.

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

there are neutrinos revolving around galaxies because the neutrinos are making this energy field.. i'm trying to explain it as best as i can... i'm saying since there are neutrinos keeping galaxies together, then maybe neutrinos are keeping the solar system together also... if there is a halo of neutrinos around something as large as a galaxy, what's to say that there aren't neutrinos surrounding the solar system, keeping the planets from being expelled? these neutrinos circle galaxies and solar systems at near light speeds because that's how they clumped together when the galaxies and solar systems were first created... they are keeping everything in order.

[beatrix kiddo]

ever since the start of the other thread i have been agreeing with stupid about the energy field idea:
http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/
i didn't just come up with this, if that's what u're thinking..

[beatrix kiddo]

also, jesse babcock thinks everything has an energy field and this plays a part in gravity...
http://www.pioneer-net.com/~jessep/Gravity.html

[beatrix kiddo]

warren.. i'm really not as dishonest as u think...

[chroot]

there are neutrinos revolving around galaxies because the neutrinos are making this energy field..
Riiiiiiiight. This is clearly science fiction. What's next? Aliens in spandex and tractor beams?
i'm trying to explain it as best as i can...
Seeing as you're making it all up on the spot, I guess I can't blame you for your incoherency. No wonder you don't see physicists doing shows at the Improv.
i'm saying since there are neutrinos keeping galaxies together, then maybe neutrinos are keeping the solar system together also...
You've never given any evidence of the premise, so how can you draw any conclusions? Perhaps you don't understand your sources. It is possible that some kind of exotic matter -- neutrinos or other weakly-interacting species -- comprise a lot of the mass of a galaxy. No one is quite sure yet why, but it seems galaxies have more mass than their light implies. The scientists who are considering neutrinos as a reasonably large fraction of a galaxies mass are not supporting the idea that neutrinos are in any way related to the mechanism of gravitation. They are simply considering that their aggregate mass might be substantial.
these neutrinos circle galaxies and solar systems at near light speeds because that's how they clumped together when the galaxies and solar systems were first created... they are keeping everything in order.
As I've said, it would take an enormous force to keep an neutrino orbiting a galaxy at nearly light speed. Why don't you try your hand at basic mechanics and calculate what force would be required? What do you suppose provides this force, since gravity no longer exists in your theory?

Before we go any further, I want you to answer this question: why are you inventing any of this neutrino-orbiting halo crap anyway? These neutrinos never hit the earth, so they can't affect gravity there. Why are you even discussing them?

And please don't provide links to other crackpots who say other similarly stupid things. How does this help your credibility? One day you'll be just like them, if you aren't already, and you'll have your very own link on crank.net.

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

so u're saying that neutrinos DON'T orbit galaxies? uhhhh that's stupid. everyone knows that's where all the missing mass is. and it has to deal with energy warren, not really force.
These neutrinos never hit the earth, so they can't affect gravity there

god... i have explained this before... ENERGY FIELDS, warren! ... maybe stupid can go more indepth on this one...

Seeing as you're making it all up on the spot, I guess I can't blame you for your incoherency. No wonder you don't see physicists doing shows at the Improv.

i should have been more clear. i'm trying to explain this to the point where ur space-time mind can understand...

Aliens in spandex and tractor beams?

keep ur sci fi fantasy outta this, warren. i'm trying to be serious..

[Alkatran]

so u're saying that neutrinos DON'T orbit galaxies? uhhhh that's stupid. everyone knows that's where all the missing mass is. and it has to deal with energy warren, not really force.


god... i have explained this before... ENERGY FIELDS, warren! ... maybe stupid can go more indepth on this one...



i should have been more clear. i'm trying to explain this to the point where ur space-time mind can understand...



keep ur sci fi fantasy outta this, warren. i'm trying to be serious..

I have to admit, I laughed at "ENERGY FIELDS, warren!"

Please explain how these energy fields work? Somewhat similar to the way electric fields work? Except with mass/neutrinos instead?

[chroot]

so u're saying that neutrinos DON'T orbit galaxies? uhhhh that's stupid. everyone knows that's where all the missing mass is. and it has to deal with energy warren, not really force.
If they do orbit galaxies, they can't orbit at nearly the speed of light. And if they orbit at any speed, they do so because of gravity. Since you claim that neutrinos themselves create gravity by hitting objects, then how are these neutrinos themselves in orbit? What neutrinos are hitting them?
god... i have explained this before... ENERGY FIELDS, warren! ... maybe stupid can go more indepth on this one...
The phrase 'ENERGY FIELDS,' even when set in capital letters, is not an explanation. It's a phrase devoid of meaning. What is an energy field? Where do energy fields occur? How can I make my own energy field in a laboratory? What do energy fields do to matter? What do energy fields do to each other?
keep ur sci fi fantasy outta this, warren. i'm trying to be serious..
Like it or not, your crap-fountain of a thread here is science fiction.

And stop trying to dodge my question:
Before we go any further, I want you to answer this question: why are you inventing any of this neutrino-orbiting halo crap anyway? These neutrinos never hit the earth, so they can't affect gravity there. Why are you even discussing them?

- Warren

[urtalkinstupid]

Wow, busy week. I haven't been able to get on as much as I wanted. So, I'm trying to catch up.

Alkatran, in your scenario with the tree and stuff, could you possibly include dnesity as a rate of emission and absorption of neutrinos to make it more realistic to the theory? That would help out a lot.

Pulling has no opposite force. You grab a doorknob and pull on it. It grabs you and pulls on you back? You push the doorknob. That propogates a force through the doorknob that pushes you back.

If neutrinos don't interact with the the electromagnetic forces, explain how they detect them? They interact by collision. This collision with an electron promotes decay. Through this decay a blue light cone is emitted. This is how neutrinos are detected, through interaction with electrons.

ArmoSkater87, positrons are what are theorized to make up part of the proton. When a collision occurs, this positron breaks off the proton and becomes the anti-particle to the electron.

Entropy, we all know that you think space-time curvature is gravity. So, you just think gravity is a geometric effect? Wouldn't space-time curvature throw out gravity as one of the fundamental forces? As you said previously, "space-time curvature isn't a force." So, there are only three fundamental forces?

Brad Ad23, "gravitational" lensing can be explained int he push theory. Take a beam of light, it is approaching a dense object. This dense object absorbs neutrinos, allowing less to pass through. The beam of light is over the dense object. It is being hit by more neutrinos on the top than bottom. This cause the light beam to bend at an angle.

And indeed, if there were neutrinos pushing you from every direction at once, there'd be no gravity at all -- the net force would be zero.

- Warren

Wrong.

Neutrinos are all over. Since they travel at relativistic speeds, they interact with us constantly. If they pass through the earth, they do not cancel the affect of the sun. The neutrinos that pass through are outnumbered by the ones from the sun. The sun merely overpowers the nuetrinos that pass through. Net force is positive. Weigh is simply a term associated with the pull theory of gravity. The push theory does not regard weight. Neutrino direction is uniform until they go through emission and absorption. This alters the direction of the neutrino flow.

What we can't figure out, beatrix, is how all the other planets and stars know to push us one direction into the earth at noon (away from the sun), and then to instead push us the other way at midnight (toward the sun). Six months later, the situation is reversed, though, and all the other planets and stars would have to somehow switch gears and send their neutrinos the other way.

How do you respond?

- Warren

They don't "know" when to push in one direction. The push in all directions. Emission and absorption is what makes a difference in the forces of neutrinos interacting. So, density is an ultimate factor determining emission and absorption. I've recently found a site that explains orbit through neutrinos interaction. Although, it is limited to the earth moon system of orbiting. I'll be happy to give you the site, if you want it.

Dark matter is simply a pushing force. Neutrinos are what make up hot dark matter as beatrix kiddo said.

They say that almost all forces over distance are proportional to the inverse of distance squared because they have to expand on the surface of a sphere.

Let's put emphais on ALMOST. Not ALL forces over a distance are proportional to the inverse of distance squared. Neutrinos do not have to expand on the surface of a sphere. Light does, neutrinos don't.


errrr...galaxies being held together (http://whyfiles.org/092x_ray/4.html)

Neutrinos are said to interact through weak forces. What says that they can't interact with each other? Are they able to absorb each other energy, increasing their size? Oscillate as a consequence of this absorption?

As for the response on how neutrinos would account for opposite space-time curvature. Think of a hyperbola. This would account for opposite space-time curvature. Everything is pushed towards the center still. Pull allows everything to fall towards the center. It's the same thing except opposite.

I'm tired of saying stuff...I'll try to get on later and explain more.

[Alkatran]

Wow, busy week. I haven't been able to get on as much as I wanted. So, I'm trying to catch up.

Alkatran, in your scenario with the tree and stuff, could you possibly include dnesity as a rate of emission and absorption of neutrinos to make it more realistic to the theory? That would help out a lot.


The more matter it passes through, the more is absorbed. Instead of saying that the density was 5kg/m^3 and that there was one cubic meter I just said they had to pass through a Kg of mass.

Pulling has no opposite force. You grab a doorknob and pull on it. It grabs you and pulls on you back? You push the doorknob. That propogates a force through the doorknob that pushes you back.

Push and Pull are terms of convenience. There is only force and direction in this context.

Entropy, we all know that you think space-time curvature is gravity. So, you just think gravity is a geometric effect? Wouldn't space-time curvature throw out gravity as one of the fundamental forces? As you said previously, "space-time curvature isn't a force." So, there are only three fundamental forces?

GR doesn't combine with quantum physics for good reasons.

Brad Ad23, "gravitational" lensing can be explained int he push theory. Take a beam of light, it is approaching a dense object. This dense object absorbs neutrinos, allowing less to pass through. The beam of light is over the dense object. It is being hit by more neutrinos on the top than bottom. This cause the light beam to bend at an angle.

I thought the sun emitted neutrinos, which is why we weren't falling into it and being pushed upwards? Wouldn't this cancel out your inward push?


Neutrinos are all over. Since they travel at relativistic speeds, they interact with us constantly. If they pass through the earth, they do not cancel the affect of the sun. The neutrinos that pass through are outnumbered by the ones from the sun. The sun merely overpowers the nuetrinos that pass through. Net force is positive. Weigh is simply a term associated with the pull theory of gravity. The push theory does not regard weight. Neutrino direction is uniform until they go through emission and absorption. This alters the direction of the neutrino flow.


That's great. But it doesn't explain why there's a balance of forces for all the orbiting planets OR why the moon is orbiting earth.


They don't "know" when to push in one direction. The push in all directions. Emission and absorption is what makes a difference in the forces of neutrinos interacting. So, density is an ultimate factor determining emission and absorption. I've recently found a site that explains orbit through neutrinos interaction. Although, it is limited to the earth moon system of orbiting. I'll be happy to give you the site, if you want it.


The reason it's limited the the earth-moon system is that if you start putting other planets in the whole thing breaks down.


Dark matter is simply a pushing force. Neutrinos are what make up hot dark matter as beatrix kiddo said.


Pushing how? The same way gravity pulls?


Let's put emphais on ALMOST. Not ALL forces over a distance are proportional to the inverse of distance squared. Neutrinos do not have to expand on the surface of a sphere. Light does, neutrinos don't.


What are you talking about?? The further you are from the sun the less neutrinos you're going to get. If the sun emits 5 trillion neutrinos from it's center in random directions (so it's evenly spaced out) these 5 trillion neutrinos can't cover 500 square kilometers as densely as they can cover 100 square kilometers. They spread out! If there's the same force at 5 meters as there is at 2 meters, that means the neutrinos are multiplying as they go.

[beatrix kiddo]

i did answer ur question chroot. i never made up the neutrino-halo thing. it says it right there in that source i gave u. i'm not avoiding anything u have to say. neutrinos never hit the earth? what the.. oh i guess u mean the neutrinos around the ss. they DO affect the earth by keeping it in the ss. weird. if they are keeping the galaxy together, they're keeping the ss together.. a child could grasp this concept..

Like it or not, your crap-fountain of a thread here is science fiction

hahahahahahahaha.... like it or not, WARREN, this is theory development. what i think has to be taken seriously because this theory is making ur theories look like crap...

[beatrix kiddo]

alkatran, what are u talking about?? they multiply as they go out? but then u say the farther from the sun u are, the less neutrinos there are.. please clean this up..

[Alkatran]

i did answer ur question chroot. i never made up the neutrino-halo thing. it says it right there in that source i gave u. i'm not avoiding anything u have to say. neutrinos never hit the earth? what the.. oh i guess u mean the neutrinos around the ss. they DO affect the earth by keeping it in the ss. weird. if they are keeping the galaxy together, they're keeping the ss together.. a child could grasp this concept..



hahahahahahahaha.... like it or not, WARREN, this is theory development. what i think has to be taken seriously because this theory is making ur theories look like crap...

But to do that they need to come in contact with us. If they're around the solar system and we're inside... well how are they coming in contact? Flying in, flying back out, maybe doing a few loop-de-loops in between?

[Alkatran]

alkatran, what are u talking about?? they multiply as they go out? but then u say the farther from the sun u are, the less neutrinos there are.. please clean this up..

My point was that IF the force is the same at any distance from the sun, the only solution is that the number of neutrinos magicly increased.

I was pointing out someone else's error.

[beatrix kiddo]

yes.. the loop-de-loops i like. geez
ok, i say they are exerting a push around the ss, keeping everything nice and safe, just like around a galaxy. why is this so hard to understand??

[Alkatran]

yes.. the loop-de-loops i like. geez
ok, i say they are exerting a push around the ss, keeping everything nice and safe, just like around a galaxy. why is this so hard to understand??

Are you going to stop avoiding the question and just tell us how they affect us without coming in contact? Your own theory says they can't push from all the way over there.

[urtalkinstupid]

The more matter it passes through, the more is absorbed.

Wrong. If it passes through something that is small in density, it is likely not to absorb at all. Take the air for instance. Oxygen does not absorb neutrinos, though oxygen is abundant on the earth. Water doesn't absorb neutrinos at a great amount. It's density is one; it's not a tight enough space for absorption. If neutrinos interact with each other, then it would be plausible to say that water can absorb neutrinos.

Yes, I know push and pull are terms of convience. Vector forces are the draw out forces used to determine affects.

Yes, GR and QFT have a lot of problems.

No, forces are NOT canceled out for the last time. The net force is positive. The neutrinos that pass through are simply less in number allowing the incoming neutrinos to out number and over power the passing through neutrinos.

It is only limited to the earth-moon system, because this guy read that scientists preferred a push model when dealing with this system. He did not attempt to add the other planets and their affect.

Pushing through emission and absorption. Not the same way gravity pulls. Gravity doesn't pull it actually accelerates (there thrown out the term of convience). How does it accelrate? Let's make a relation between pull gravity and emission and absorption. A meteror is nearing earth. Earth pulls the meteror towards earth. How? The earth is absorbing the energy that the meteror emits. the energy that the meteror emits ont he side that is not beign absorbs allow the meteror to apply a vector force that accelerates it towards earth. Does that sound good as an eliminance of terms of convience?

How long does it take for light to lose intensity from galaxies that are billions of miles away?

[chroot]

If neutrinos don't interact with the the electromagnetic forces, explain how they detect them? They interact by collision. This collision with an electron promotes decay. Through this decay a blue light cone is emitted. This is how neutrinos are detected, through interaction with electrons.
Neutrinos interact only via the weak force. They are not electrically charged, and thus cannot participate in electromagnetic interactions. They are detected in heavy-water experiments by their interaction with neutrons. Taken from the SNO experiment's web site at http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/sno2.html:
As the neutrino approaches the deuterium nucleus a heavy charged particle of the weak force (called the W boson) is exchanged. This changes the neutron in deuterium to a proton, and the neutrino to an electron. The electron, according to mechanics, will get most of the neutrino energy since it has the smaller mass (just as when a gun is fired, the bullet, being lighter, gets most of the energy). Due to the large energy of the incident neutrinos, the electron will be so energetic that it will be ejected at light speed, which is actually faster than the speed of light in water. This causes the optical equivalent of a "sonic boom", where a "shock wave of light" is emitted as the electron slows down. This light flash, called Cherenkov radiation, is detected by the photomultiplier tubes (PMTs); the amount of light is proportional to the incident neutrino energy.
I will again note that collisions, in the microscopic sense, involve force interactions. If a particle, like the neutrino, only couples to the weak force, then the only collisions it can participate in involve the weak force.
There is no such thing as "touching," or "contact" in the microscopic realm.
ArmoSkater87, positrons are what are theorized to make up part of the proton. When a collision occurs, this positron breaks off the proton and becomes the anti-particle to the electron.
Once again, this is false. How many times do we need to correct you? Positrons are absolutely not involved inside protons in any way at all.
Entropy, we all know that you think space-time curvature is gravity. So, you just think gravity is a geometric effect? Wouldn't space-time curvature throw out gravity as one of the fundamental forces? As you said previously, "space-time curvature isn't a force." So, there are only three fundamental forces?
Indeed, that is the state of things at the moment. There is the standard model, which is an excellent model of electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces. Gravity is the odd-ball. It does not behave as a gauge theory (at least not in an obvious way) as do the other three. Physicists are working on different ways of unifying gravity with the other three forces, but no one knows is that will ever happen. It is possible that gravity will always be regarded as fundamentally different than the other three forces.
Brad Ad23, "gravitational" lensing can be explained int he push theory. Take a beam of light, it is approaching a dense object. This dense object absorbs neutrinos, allowing less to pass through. The beam of light is over the dense object. It is being hit by more neutrinos on the top than bottom. This cause the light beam to bend at an angle.
Neutrinos do not interact with photons, because neutrinos are not electrically charged. Your theory of neutrinos cannot explain the gravitational deflection of light, period.
Neutrinos are all over. Since they travel at relativistic speeds, they interact with us constantly. If they pass through the earth, they do not cancel the affect of the sun. The neutrinos that pass through are outnumbered by the ones from the sun. The sun merely overpowers the nuetrinos that pass through. Net force is positive. Weigh is simply a term associated with the pull theory of gravity. The push theory does not regard weight. Neutrino direction is uniform until they go through emission and absorption. This alters the direction of the neutrino flow.
Since the neutrinos from the sun outnumber the neutrinos from every other source, the necessary conclusion is that the Sun's neutrinos would push you into the earth during the daytime, and push you off it at night. Since this doesn't match observations, it must be wrong.
They don't "know" when to push in one direction. The push in all directions.
You just said they did not. You said the vast majority of them come from the Sun, which indicates that the vast majority of the force is in the direction of the Sun. Since my bathroom scale indicates I weigh the same both at night and during the daytime, it would indicate that somehow the entire universe is conspiring to fire its neutrinos at me at just the right times.

You're also missing a huge part of this problem: if the vast majority of the neutrinos are from the Sun, then the force on both my body and the Earth as a whole is equal. Rather than my body being pushed into the Earth, both my body and the Earth would be equally pushed away from the Sun. As a result, we would all be weightless.
Emission and absorption is what makes a difference in the forces of neutrinos interacting. So, density is an ultimate factor determining emission and absorption. I've recently found a site that explains orbit through neutrinos interaction. Although, it is limited to the earth moon system of orbiting. I'll be happy to give you the site, if you want it.
The density of Mercury is close to the density of iron. The density of Saturn, however, is lower than that of water. They both orbit the same star in essentially perfectly concentric orbits. How do you explain this?
Dark matter is simply a pushing force. Neutrinos are what make up hot dark matter as beatrix kiddo said.
We'll probably not take your word for it.
Let's put emphais on ALMOST. Not ALL forces over a distance are proportional to the inverse of distance squared. Neutrinos do not have to expand on the surface of a sphere. Light does, neutrinos don't.
Neutrinos are particles, yes? So if the Sun makes, say, 1010 of them per second, and they spread out in every direction uniformly from the Sun, there are 1010 of them in contained in every 300,000 km thick concentric shell around the Sun, yes? The volume of these shells increases as the square of its radius. Thus, there must be fewer neutrinos per unit volume as you move away from the Sun. Are you proposing some novel new mechanism that would allow neutrinos to avoid this obvious problem?
Neutrinos are said to interact through weak forces. What says that they can't interact with each other? Are they able to absorb each other energy, increasing their size? Oscillate as a consequence of this absorption?
They can interact with each other, but the cross-section for such an interaction is so low that it's neglible. They cannot absorb energy, because they are not composite particles and have no internal modes in which to store that energy. The only energy they can have is kinetic energy. They do not increase in size, and they do not "oscillate."
As for the response on how neutrinos would account for opposite space-time curvature. Think of a hyperbola. This would account for opposite space-time curvature. Everything is pushed towards the center still. Pull allows everything to fall towards the center. It's the same thing except opposite.
A... hyperbola? I'm still looking forward to the aliens in spandex and the tractor beams. I bet the captain will have sex with one of the aliens again!

- Warren

[Alkatran]

Wrong. If it passes through something that is small in density, it is likely not to absorb at all. Take the air for instance. Oxygen does not absorb neutrinos, though oxygen is abundant on the earth. Water doesn't absorb neutrinos at a great amount. It's density is one; it's not a tight enough space for absorption. If neutrinos interact with each other, then it would be plausible to say that water can absorb neutrinos.


So what's keeping the air from flying off the planet? But fine, we'll say the object in the experiment have the mass and density required for the numbers I used. ;)


No, forces are NOT canceled out for the last time. The net force is positive. The neutrinos that pass through are simply less in number allowing the incoming neutrinos to out number and over power the passing through neutrinos.

Then why aren't people falling off the underside of the planet? The net force on them is positive towards the sun.


Pushing through emission and absorption. Not the same way gravity pulls. Gravity doesn't pull it actually accelerates (there thrown out the term of convience). How does it accelrate? Let's make a relation between pull gravity and emission and absorption. A meteror is nearing earth. Earth pulls the meteror towards earth. How? The earth is absorbing the energy that the meteror emits. the energy that the meteror emits ont he side that is not beign absorbs allow the meteror to apply a vector force that accelerates it towards earth. Does that sound good as an eliminance of terms of convience?

Earth pulls the meteor towards earth by gravity. That's how.


How long does it take for light to lose intensity from galaxies that are billions of miles away?

Tell you what. Go stand half as far from the sun and tell me how bright it is.
Oh, and the light doesn't lose intensity, there's just less of it hitting us. The further you are, the more of it passes on the sides. (Experiment: Place a flashlight on your eye. Now turn it on. Now put it across the room and have someone turn it on facing you. Which was brighter?)

[chroot]

i did answer ur question chroot. i never made up the neutrino-halo thing. it says it right there in that source i gave u.
Your source does not say that neutrinos are holding the galaxy together.
if they are keeping the galaxy together, they're keeping the ss together.. a child could grasp this concept..
If you can't show the premise is true, you can't derive a conclusion from it. And perhaps a child CAN grasp this concept, but apparently some children can't understand real science.
like it or not, WARREN, this is theory development. what i think has to be taken seriously because this theory is making ur theories look like crap...
How would you know? You don't even understand the real scientific theories.

- Warren

[urtalkinstupid]

So what's keeping the air from flying off the planet? But fine, we'll say the object in the experiment have the mass and density required for the numbers I used. ;)

Can you redo it so that it shows density affecting the rate at which the neutrinos are being absorbed? I'm sure the objects in that experiment have different densities.

Earth pulls the meteor towards earth by gravity. That's how.

Pull is a term of convience. Let's try to eliminate it.

Neutrinos interact only via the weak force. They are not electrically charged, and thus cannot participate in electromagnetic interactions. They are detected in heavy-water experiments by their interaction with neutrons.

I've found this to be false. Here check this out (http://physicsweb.org/article/news/2/6/2):

It can detect both electron neutrinos and muon neutrinos - but not tau neutrinos - from the faint flashes of light given off when they interact with electrons in the water molecules.

I will again note that collisions, in the microscopic sense, involve force interactions. If a particle, like the neutrino, only couples to the weak force, then the only collisions it can participate in involve the weak force.
There is no such thing as "touching," or "contact" in the microscopic realm.

Neutrinos interact with other neutrinos. This interaction is via weak forces. They absorb each others energy. One neutrino encounters another, densities are different therfore one will absorb while the other emits.

Maybe we should choose between Newton or Einstein. Either gravity is geometric or an attractive force. The two models proposed today are confusing. One was derived from the other, and made a totally different concept.

I find it self evident that you are confused when I explain to you about the net force of neturinos. I'm tired of explaining it and you people twisting my words.

You're also missing a huge part of this problem: if the vast majority of the neutrinos are from the Sun, then the force on both my body and the Earth as a whole is equal.

Wrong, again you have misinterpreted what im trying to say.

The density of Mercury is close to the density of iron. The density of Saturn, however, is lower than that of water. They both orbit the same star in essentially perfectly concentric orbits. How do you explain this?

Think of it this way: Mercury is able to absorb more, ergo it can keep a tight orbit. Saturn is unable to absorb as rapidly as mercury. It's orbit is much larger than mercury also, because it is harder to be pushed towards a center.

Quote:
Dark matter is simply a pushing force. Neutrinos are what make up hot dark matter as beatrix kiddo said.

We'll probably not take your word for it.

Well, will this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dark_matter) sway you a little more?

Next point of clarity, neutrinos do not scatter.

Space-time curvature is outward curvature of space-time. Hyperbola is an inward curvature. Make sense?

[Alkatran]

Can you redo it so that it shows density affecting the rate at which the neutrinos are being absorbed? I'm sure the objects in that experiment have different densities.

And the air flying off the planet? You ignored my question!


Think of it this way: Mercury is able to absorb more, ergo it can keep a tight orbit. Saturn is unable to absorb as rapidly as mercury. It's orbit is much larger than mercury also, because it is harder to be pushed towards a center.

But mercury is closer to the sun. It should get pushed out.

Next point of clarity, neutrinos do not scatter.
That is NOT true. They do spread out. There is NO WAY that they don't.
Here, here's an experiment:

-Take 10 rocks from outside (use 100 if you like)
-Place them on a circle with a radius of 5 meters
-Calculate the amount of rocks per meter on the perimeter of that circle
-Now place them on a cricle with a radious of 10 meters
-Calculate the amount of rocks per meter on the perimeter of the new circle

If the numbers match. Well, I'm wrong. But, you see, the circles got larger, and the number of rocks stayed the same. So the rocks/m HAD to go down.

The same goes for neutrinos on the surface of a sphere. Except the effect is even more pronounced because it's a sphere and not a circle.

THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN GIVE OFF THE SAME FORCE AT ALL DISTANCES IS OFF THEY DON'T COME FROM THE CENTER OF OBJECTS AND RADIATE OUTWARDS (IE: the sun).

[beatrix kiddo]

Your source does not say that neutrinos are holding the galaxy together.

i know. i'm saying that since the neutrinos surround the galaxy, they push on it and keep it together.

Are you going to stop avoiding the question and just tell us how they affect us without coming in contact?

i haven't been avoiding the question. are the neutrinos not making contact with the solar system? are the neutrinos not making contact with the galaxy? OMG they are! they are having an affect on both the galaxy and the ss as a whole.

If you can't show the premise is true, you can't derive a conclusion from it.

the basis of this theory is that neutrinos exert a push force on objects in the universe. since scientists know that neutrinos surround galaxies, etc. then my theory says that these neutrinos are gonna push on them too. conclusion derived...

How would you know? You don't even understand the real scientific theories

i guess u're right warren, i mean- OMG what is this?!!

I bet the captain will have sex with one of the aliens again!

:uhh:

[chroot]

I've found this to be false. Here check this out (http://physicsweb.org/article/news/2/6/2):

I concede; there are several neutrino interactions are relevant in heavy water reactions: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/sno.html#c1

Thanks for the correction.
Neutrinos interact with other neutrinos. This interaction is via weak forces. They absorb each others energy. One neutrino encounters another, densities are different therfore one will absorb while the other emits.
The neutrinos scatter off each other. They don't absorb each others' energy, whatever that means. They do indeed scatter by the exchange of a Z boson.
Maybe we should choose between Newton or Einstein. Either gravity is geometric or an attractive force. The two models proposed today are confusing. One was derived from the other, and made a totally different concept.
No, relativity was "invented," and gives Newtonian gravitation as a limit of low speeds and low curavtures. It was not derived from Newtonian gravity.
I find it self evident that you are confused when I explain to you about the net force of neturinos. I'm tired of explaining it and you people twisting my words.
We get rather tired of explaining things to you and having you dodge our questions.
Think of it this way: Mercury is able to absorb more, ergo it can keep a tight orbit. Saturn is unable to absorb as rapidly as mercury. It's orbit is much larger than mercury also, because it is harder to be pushed towards a center.
Then why don't Saturn's moons (which are more dense than Saturn itself) act differently than Saturn? Futhermore, the Sun as seen from one of Saturn's moons is regularly eclipsed by the planet. Obviously it's neutrino flux is similarly eclipsed. Why does the moon not move any differently during this eclipse?
Well, will this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dark_matter) sway you a little more?
As I've said, no one know what dark matter is yet. It might be neutrinos, but it might not be. Your assertion that it definitely is does not sway me, no.
Next point of clarity, neutrinos do not scatter.
Of course they do. They can scatter via any weak interaction.
Space-time curvature is outward curvature of space-time. Hyperbola is an inward curvature. Make sense?
What you're attempting to say is that normal mass causes positive spacetime curvature (i.e. the Ricci scalar is positive), while, in your model, spacetime is curved negatively.

But wait... I thought you were arguing that neutrinos causes gravity, and that space was not curved at all?

What a hodge-podge soup of a theory this has become...

- Warren

[Alkatran]

i know. i'm saying that since the neutrinos surround the galaxy, they push on it and keep it together.

i haven't been avoiding the question. are the neutrinos not making contact with the solar system? are the neutrinos not making contact with the galaxy? OMG they are! they are having an affect on both the galaxy and the ss as a whole.


For the last time. If they're AROUND the solar system they aren't making contact with it.



You know what? Nevermind all this, here's the main point:

The sun emits neutrinos. There are neutrinos coming into the solar system (from WHEREVER). These neutrinos balance out so that the earth revolves around the sun.

That means that the force on Jupiter from the sun is less than the force on earth from the sun. So Jupiter begins to accelerate inwards. When Jupiter passes Earth, the force from the sun becomes greater and it begins to accelerate out.
Conclusions: Jupiter, and all the other celestial bodes, go for a wild ride.

[chroot]

i know. i'm saying that since the neutrinos surround the galaxy, they push on it and keep it together.
According to your theory, the neutrinos must actually interact with matter to push on it. This means the neutrinos must be present at the same spot in space, and at the same time, as the matter affected. These neutrinos of yours that orbit the galaxy do not enter the galaxy -- they exist and orbit outside it, as you've said. If they do not enter the galaxy, they cannot exist at the same spot in space as the Earth, and therefore they cannot push on the earth.

None of us understand how neutrinos on the outside of the galaxy affect anything inside the galaxy -- your theory says they wouldn't.
i haven't been avoiding the question. are the neutrinos not making contact with the solar system? are the neutrinos not making contact with the galaxy? OMG they are! they are having an affect on both the galaxy and the ss as a whole.
A neutrino orbiting the galaxy is not in contact with the galaxy anymore than Saturn is in contact with the Sun.
the basis of this theory is that neutrinos exert a push force on objects in the universe. since scientists know that neutrinos surround galaxies, etc. then my theory says that these neutrinos are gonna push on them too. conclusion derived...
Scientists don't know this.
i guess u're right warren, i mean- OMG what is this?!!
You've already demonstrated your lack of understanding in a wide variety of physical topics. Everything from general relativity to particle physics to large-scale astrophysics.

- Warren

[chroot]

That means that the force on Jupiter from the sun is less than the force on earth from the sun. So Jupiter begins to accelerate inwards. When Jupiter passes Earth, the force from the sun becomes greater and it begins to accelerate out.
Conclusions: Jupiter, and all the other celestial bodes, go for a wild ride.
Even more telling, consider the situation when Mars and Earth are at superior conjunction. A person is standing on the Earth at noon. An astronaut is standing on Mars at midnight. Somehow, all the neutrinos coming from the Sun and coming from the rest of the universe known enough to push the astronaut one way and the earthling the other, at the same time.

- Warren

[urtalkinstupid]

It seems that neutrinos DO interact with electrons. Hmm...but not often.

Neutrinos do not scatter. Everything emitts and absorbs energy. Light scatters, that is why it takes so long for light to reach the surface from the sun's interior. Neutrinos do not scatter, ergo they are able to reach the surface much quicker than light. Neutrino-Neutrino interaction would not result in scatter.

Space-time curvature was derived from Newton. Space-time curvature is applied to a larger scale. Everything causes space-time curvature. Everything has a gravitational attraction. Which theory should be used?

As for the Saturn predicament. I'll explain after researching this stuff on Saturn. I have a vague understanding of other planets. I rarely research them. Saturn is my next stop for research.

What you're attempting to say is that normal mass causes positive spacetime curvature (i.e. the Ricci scalar is positive), while, in your model, spacetime is curved negatively.

But wait... I thought you were arguing that neutrinos causes gravity, and that space was not curved at all?

I'm simply trying to make a relationship just like your current theory does. Is that hard to comprehend?

To answer the air question, are the air molecules in the atomosphere higher in pressure?

[chroot]

Neutrinos do not scatter. Everything emitts and absorbs energy. Light scatters, that is why it takes so long for light to reach the surface from the sun's interior. Neutrinos do not scatter, ergo they are able to reach the surface much quicker than light. Neutrino-Neutrino interaction would not result in scatter.
Neutrinos absolutely do scatter. Two neutrinos both feel the weak force, and thus WILL scatter. The reason you're confused is because the neutrino-neutrino cross-section is just incredibly, incredibly small. It almost never happens, but, in principle, it can.
Space-time curvature was derived from Newton. Space-time curvature is applied to a larger scale. Everything causes space-time curvature. Everything has a gravitational attraction. Which theory should be used?
Newton lived before the mathematics to describe curved spaces even existed.

Newtonian gravity can be easily shown to be wrong. General relativity seems to be right, but experiments are still being conducted. It is possible GR is wrong, also.
As for the Saturn predicament. I'll explain after researching this stuff on Saturn. I have a vague understanding of other planets. I rarely research them. Saturn is my next stop for research.
It has nothing to do with Saturn itself. It's just that your push theory fails to explain many, many things, and planetary moons are just one example.
I'm simply trying to make a relationship just like your current theory does. Is that hard to comprehend?
Why don't you drop this obviously flawed line of reasoning and begin inventing a theory that isn't wrong? Wouldn't that be a better use of your time? This is how science progresses -- we make lots of models, and eliminate the ones that fail to describe reality. Yours has failed to describe reality. Don't despair, just move on to to something more promising. I personally feel we scientists understand quite little about the universe so far, and there are many places you could contribute. Stop wasting your time with a theory that can be disproved with a bathroom scale.
To answer the air question, are the air molecules in the atomosphere higher in pressure?
No, the air at higher altitudes is lower in both pressure and density.

- Warren

[urtalkinstupid]

So, how exactly do these neutrons "feel" the weak forces?

If the atomosphere is lower in pressure, how come it is able to generate enough friction to cause things to deteriate upon entering it?

Well, I'm fixing to leave so anymore comments will be answered after I get back from watching my friend's band play at Vino's. Well, I'll be gone around 7 P.M. CST, so I may be able to respond.

[Entropy]

Neutrinos do not scatter. Everything emitts and absorbs energy. Light scatters, that is why it takes so long for light to reach the surface from the sun's interior. Neutrinos do not scatter, ergo they are able to reach the surface much quicker than light. Neutrino-Neutrino interaction would not result in scatter.

Yes neutrinos do scatter. It takes neutrinos quite a while to reach the surface of the sun coming from the sun's core, just like photons. Although neutrinos still get to the surface faster because they interact less than photons.

Space-time curvature was derived from Newton. Space-time curvature is applied to a larger scale. Everything causes space-time curvature. Everything has a gravitational attraction. Which theory should be used?

Not really. I'm reading a book right now that talks a lot about Einstein and how he developed relativity, Newton hasn't even been mentioned once.

[Entropy]

If the atomosphere is lower in pressure, how come it is able to generate enough friction to cause things to deteriate upon entering it?

Lower pressure can still generate friction. Plus things continue to fall and experence increasing pressure as they fall, ergo more friction as they fall.

[beatrix kiddo]

For the last time. If they're AROUND the solar system they aren't making contact with it.

imagine the ss as a bubble. now we scatter- i dunno- sprinkles all around the bubble. the sprinkles can be the neutrinos! the neutrinos are both around and touching the ss.. i'll get into this more, but lemme quote the admin...

According to your theory, the neutrinos must actually interact with matter to push on it. This means the neutrinos must be present at the same spot in space, and at the same time, as the matter affected. These neutrinos of yours that orbit the galaxy do not enter the galaxy -- they exist and orbit outside it, as you've said. If they do not enter the galaxy, they cannot exist at the same spot in space as the Earth, and therefore they cannot push on the earth.

did i not say they'll affect the solar system or the galaxy as a WHOLE. here's why: these neutrinos are touching the solar system. the ss is not only full of planets, asteriods, and the sun, but it's also full of dust, solar neutrinos, etc. etc. these particles are coming in contact with the outer neutrinos and are creating a gravitational push all around the galaxy or ss. dust and likewise are so numerous they are going to create a constant push effect around the entire ss. this, in turn, has an overall affect on the ss (galaxy) and is gonna keep this from happening:

Jupiter, and all the other celestial bodes, go for a wild ride.

[chroot]

So, how exactly do these neutrons "feel" the weak forces?
Essentially, all particles in gauge theories (EM, strong, and weak forces) interact by exchanging particles called vector bosons. Electrically charged particles exchange photons. Weakly charged particles exchange the W and Z bosons. Neutrinos can scatter off each other by exchanging a Z boson.
If the atomosphere is lower in pressure, how come it is able to generate enough friction to cause things to deteriate upon entering it?
It's lower in pressure at high altitude than at sea level, but it's still high enough to cause considerable drag to an object moving at high speed. The density and pressure of the atmosphere are basically logarithmic -- the density increases faster at lower altitudes. This is a condition known as hydrostatic equilibrium.

- Warren

[chroot]

did i not say they'll affect the solar system or the galaxy as a WHOLE. here's why: these neutrinos are touching the solar system. the ss is not only full of planets, asteriods, and the sun, but it's also full of dust, solar neutrinos, etc. etc. these particles are coming in contact with the outer neutrinos and are creating a gravitational push all around the galaxy or ss. dust and likewise are so numerous they are going to create a constant push effect around the entire ss. this, in turn, has an overall affect on the ss (galaxy) and is gonna keep this from happening:
Keep trying.

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

hey, warren. this is a little off topic, but how much longer til i get to be mentor?? :smile:

[urtalkinstupid]

Einstein did use Newton's theories as a foundation for general relativity. Einstein started out with the equivalence principal.

\vec{F}=mg and \vec{F}=ma

From this he noted that everything gives off energy. This energy was able to curve space. This curving of space allows objects to fall into other objects. Acceleration is what contributes to this fall like acceleration contributes to gravity pulling. Light curves around this energy that is given off (gravitational lensing). Black holes cause so much space-time curvature that light is bent so much and blah, blah, blah. Note: gravity is affected by density. :biggrin:

chroot, you are basically explaining what I'm explaining: emission and absorption. This does not cause scatter. Well, not all exchange lead to scatter. I should say it like that rather than declaring that neutrinos never scatter due to interaction.

[chroot]

hey, warren. this is a little off topic, but how much longer til i get to be mentor??
I certainly hope you're kidding.

- Warren

[chroot]

Einstein did use Newton's theories as a foundation for general relativity. Einstein started out with the equivalence principal.

\vec{F}=mg and \vec{F}=mg
This is not the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle is that the physics is the same in an freely-falling frame of reference in a gravitational field as in a frame in the absence of any gravitational field.
From this he noted that everything gives off energy.
He never noted this, because it doesn't even make sense. What does it even mean?
This energy was able to curve space. This curving of space allows objects to fall into other objects. Acceleration is what contributes to this fall like acceleration contributes to gravity pulling. Light curves around this energy that is given off (gravitational lensing). Black holes cause so much space-time curvature that light is bent so much and blah, blah, blah. Note: gravity is affected by density. :biggrin:
Are you trying to explain GR to me? :rofl:
chroot, you are basically explaining what I'm explaining: emission and absorption. This does not cause scatter. Well, not all exchange lead to scatter. I should say it like that rather than declaring that neutrinos never scatter due to interaction.
There are many kinds of neutrino interactions. Only one is called neutrino-neutrino scattering.

- Warren

[Entropy]

Einstein did use Newton's theories as a foundation for general relativity. Einstein started out with the equivalence principal.


Wrong. In Einstein's theories gravity isn't a force, its a... you know. Show me some type of source that says Einstein started with so and so equations.

[urtalkinstupid]

I corrected my equation. I didnt mean to put both g's. My equation explains exactly what you said. Force due to gravity is the same as force due to the absence of gravity (acceleration). Everything gives off energy (accelerated forces). Like the sun, it gives of EM in the form of accelerated energy. This energy balances out the affect of forces caused by gravity.

Einstein's model of gravity is the result of energy and matter bending space. There is a force applied to this bending. The affects caused by this force applied to space-time is not a force, I agree with that.

I'm gone to Vino's, so don't think I'm trying to avoid anything. I need to be there in 30 mins!! Later everyone have fun!!

beatrix kiddo, I may try to call you later if I'm not too messed up. :rofl:

[Math Is Hard]

I keep hearing the word "energy" thrown around. I would like to know how this is defined in the context of push theory. I have a (maybe too simple) definition of energy which works for my purposes, but it doesn't seem to apply here.

[chroot]

I corrected my equation. I didnt mean to put both g's. My equation explains exactly what you said.
No. F=mg is a special case of F=ma in which the acceleration is given a special symbol because it is a standard, 9.81 m/s^2. Neither equation has anything to do with the equivalence principle. There is no equation for the equivalence principle. It is a postulate.
Everything gives off energy (accelerated forces). Like the sun, it gives of EM in the form of accelerated energy. This energy balances out the affect of forces caused by gravity.
This entire section is nonsense. And I thought beatrix kiddo was bad... :uhh:
Einstein's model of gravity is the result of energy and matter bending space. There is a force applied to this bending. The affects caused by this force applied to space-time is not a force, I agree with that.
How can you apply a force to space?

- Warren

[chroot]

I keep hearing the word "energy" thrown around. I would like to know how this is defined in the context of push theory. I have a (maybe too simple) definition of energy which works for my purposes, but it doesn't seem to apply here.
Very few accepted scientific definitions seem to apply here. :wink:

- Warren

[Nereid]

Very few accepted scientific definitions seem to apply here. :wink: Not much recognition - by u & b - that ideas need to be consistent with observations and experiments either! :wink:

[Alkatran]

did i not say they'll affect the solar system or the galaxy as a WHOLE. here's why: these neutrinos are touching the solar system. the ss is not only full of planets, asteriods, and the sun, but it's also full of dust, solar neutrinos, etc. etc. these particles are coming in contact with the outer neutrinos and are creating a gravitational push all around the galaxy or ss. dust and likewise are so numerous they are going to create a constant push effect around the entire ss. this, in turn, has an overall affect on the ss (galaxy) and is gonna keep this from happening:

Oh really? Spread around like dust? So is it moving or not? If it's not moving then it has so little energy that it's meaningless, and if it is moving, then it wouldn't stay dusty for very long!

Face it, your theory makes NO SENSE.

[urtalkinstupid]

UHHHHH...hhahaha didregtard this im messed upa nt a friends house....but all of your theories on relativity and gravity are mean?????? wtf ahaha disregard this mi not sober :biggrin:

[Math Is Hard]

UHHHHH...hhahaha didregtard this im messed upa nt a friends house....but all of your theories on relativity and gravity are mean?????? wtf ahaha disregard this mi not sober :biggrin:

You're not helping your case.

[Alkatran]

UHHHHH...hhahaha didregtard this im messed upa nt a friends house....but all of your theories on relativity and gravity are mean?????? wtf ahaha disregard this mi not sober :biggrin:

Wow, that's great. Maybe you're theory will make sense to you now.

We don't care if you go out and get drunk, it is completely off subject and really doesn't make you look any more intelligent. (Don't take that the wrong way, I was at a party tonight too, but my girlfriend wasn't drinking so...)

[beatrix kiddo]

well i just got back from seeing kill bill vol.2 AGAIN!! i was going to defend us, travis.. but seeing as u did exactly what i told u not to (getting drunk, then posting on the forum) i've gotta say this is embarressing and i have $20 so come by my house....

[beatrix kiddo]

oh man..
Oh really? Spread around like dust? So is it moving or not? If it's not moving then it has so little energy that it's meaningless, and if it is moving, then it wouldn't stay dusty for very long!

spread around like dust? when did i say anything was spread around like dust?! i said there is dust and solar neutrinos. etc. what's moving? the neutrinos or the dust? the neutrinos are revolving rapidly and the dust is moving towards it so both are moving. dust is abundant!! and the solar neutrinos are no question as long as the sun is still burning...

Face it, your theory makes NO SENSE.

hahahaha.. ur counter-arguement makes no sense...

[Entropy]

I can help but feel you guys are going off topic on purpose... I have a feeling that they realize their theory is wrong.

[beatrix kiddo]

energy is Internal or inherent power; capacity of acting, operating, or producing an effect, whether exerted or not..
courtesy of dictionary.com!!!

maybe that's the right one?

I can help but feel you guys are going off topic on purpose... I have a feeling that they realize their theory is wrong.

ur feelings are poopie... we got off topic for a second.. but now we're back on TRACK!!! :biggrin:

[chroot]

I'm getting close to just closing this thread. I think everything that can be said has already been said.

- Warren

[Chronos]

Chroot, I have no idea why you are wasting your time beating this dead horse. I do, however, know why I am. It is so easy to blow this baloney neutrino concept out of the water, even I can do it. Stupid and bea are so far out there even gravity cannot pull them back into orbit. We are not as dumb as you think.

[urtalkinstupid]

Haha, stupid post earlier. I'm ok now. So, now back on topic.

I have a really good source that supports my theory. This guy used multivariable calculus to derive equations regarding neutrinos and how they are absorbed and cause a force on objects. It's a very nice paper. It's 44 pages long though. So, if you are up to it just tell me, and I'll send you link through PM.

So, it is can be said that neutrinos do interact through strong nuclear forces. Just not in the way that charges do. They collide with electrons. One of the methods that are used to observe neutrinos. At least I'm right about one thing.

Both of those equations do have to do with the equivalence principal. You can not tell the difference betweena fore caused by gravity or acceleration in a vaccum. A star collapses because the forces due to acceleration can no longer counter the forces of gravity.

The appliance of force to space was the wrong way of explaining it. Sorry for that.

chroot, why close the thread? You are unable to make beatrix and me a believer? You are unable to provide us with things that sway our minds. Hey, I have a challenge for you. Provide me with enough evidence that supports the current proposed theories and I will be more than happy to concur with yoru decision in closing the thread. Sources that people have provided me contradicts with what they are aruging. In the previous thread that was closed, people provided me with a source on black holes that they claimed supported gravity not being affected by denisty, and on that site it claimed that density was a factor. So, please provide me with evidence strong enough to sway my easy going mind. Since, I seem so easy going to believe everything I see. That's obviously not the truth if you can't make me a believer.


Entropy, I wasn't getting off topic. Let's make that clear.

Alkatran I see what you mean by the inverse of distance squared thing. See, I'm up for corrections. :biggrin:

[chroot]

I have a really good source that supports my theory. This guy used multivariable calculus to derive equations regarding neutrinos and how they are absorbed and cause a force on objects. It's a very nice paper. It's 44 pages long though. So, if you are up to it just tell me, and I'll send you link through PM.
And surely he's a crackpot, too. You should be very careful which sources you believe. You, for example, are not a reputable source.
So, it is can be said that neutrinos do interact through strong nuclear forces.
Neutrinos interact only via the weak force. There is no room for argument on this one.
They collide with electrons. One of the methods that are used to observe neutrinos. At least I'm right about one thing.
Stop using the word 'collide' -- it is loaded. Neutrinos can interact weakly with electrons. The word 'collision' is meaningless in this context.
Both of those equations do have to do with the equivalence principal. You can not tell the difference betweena fore caused by gravity or acceleration in a vaccum. A star collapses because the forces due to acceleration can no longer counter the forces of gravity.
F=ma and F=mg are the same equation. And I have no idea what a "force of acceleration" is.
chroot, why close the thread? You are unable to make beatrix and me a believer? You are unable to provide us with things that sway our minds.
When a wise man argues at length with a fool, it becomes difficult to tell them apart.
Hey, I have a challenge for you. Provide me with enough evidence that supports the current proposed theories and I will be more than happy to concur with yoru decision in closing the thread.
Every experiment performed in hundreds of years of scientific inquiry by tens of thousands of people all confirm our current models. There is no experiment known whose results cannot be explained by either the standard model or general relativity. If you know of one, please share it with us.
Sources that people have provided me contradicts with what they are aruging.
Your sources are dubious. Both you and beatrix have already presented us with several supporting sites that were nothing but rubbish.
So, please provide me with evidence strong enough to sway my easy going mind. Since, I seem so easy going to believe everything I see. That's obviously not the truth if you can't make me a believer.
You can choose ignorance if you prefer it, and I'm not going to stop you. The evidence is all around you. If you're too blind to see it, I'm not going to lose any sleep. Your ignorance is your burden, not mine.

- Warren

[Alkatran]

hahahaha.. ur counter-arguement makes no sense...

You said that neutrinos were spread out like dust, and that was why jupiter wasn't going haywire. Tell you what, here's a challenge which should be easy since your theory MUST be right:

Make a model of a solar system, it should contain:
1 sun at the center, which the planets revolve around
2 planets, the inner one with 1 moon and the outer one with 2 moons
3 moons (already explained where they are)

Now, since your theory is so much better than the current model, please go ahead and setup something that would allow this. You can even do it in 2d if you like!

Look, I'll do it for the current theory!

m=moon
p=planet
s=sun
mp S mpm

[urtalkinstupid]

chroot, you are heartless. That was a comment. :biggrin: This source is actually a valid source that I'm talking about. I'm at work now, but I get off at 2. I'll send you the link when I get home, because I assume you want it? Well, I'll send it anyways.

The force applied by an acceleration is the force mass experiences when it is accelerated. Force applied by gravity is the force mass experiences due to the gravitational pull (space-time curvatre or what have you). I'm sure you knew that?

Sorry, neutrinos "interact" with electrons. I thought that couldn't happen though? *GASP* :surprise:

[russ_watters]

I can help but feel you guys are going off topic on purpose... I have a feeling that they realize their theory is wrong. I'm getting that feeling too. This idea of theirs is so wrong its funny, and I have a hard time accepting that they aren't smart enough to see that.

[urtalkinstupid]

OMG, how are we going off topic? When you people are the one asking us questions that do not refer to the topic.

Here's the link I was referring to:

Induced Gravity Model Based on External Impinging Neutrinos: Calculation of G in Terms of Collision Phenomena and Inferences to Inertial Mass and Atomic Quantization (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0102109)

Have fun scrutinizing him.

[Entropy]

Induced Gravity Model Based on External Impinging Neutrinos: Calculation of G in Terms of Collision Phenomena and Inferences to Inertial Mass and Atomic Quantization

From what I read he believes scientists think gravity is simply an attractive force field created by matter he calls "Newtonian field view". Then says that others believe in the "graviton view". This is simply untrue. Most scientists like I have said a million billion times believe that gravity is a geometry property of space-time, not a "true force". That alone makes me want to discredit this guy right away. After that I can't really comment, I do not yet have the math skills to examine his work.

[urtalkinstupid]

Yes, I agree with you. He only goes by trying to disprove Newton's model of gravity of being an attractive force. He does not go into space-time curvature. I would really like for him to do that, but he provided sufficient enough stuff for the push. Well, at least that's what I thought.

In explaining neutrinos in a way of space-time curvature. I already made that relation. Someone noted that they cause a "repulsive" force to gravity. This would make their curvature on space-time negative. So, think of their pushing as a hyperbola. They create a curve towards the inside pushing what's between them. Geometric view of gravity caused by neutrinos.

[Math Is Hard]

energy is Internal or inherent power; capacity of acting, operating, or producing an effect, whether exerted or not..
courtesy of dictionary.com!!!

maybe that's the right one?


I am satisfied with this definition, Beatrix. Thank you. It is close enough to my own. However, I see a conflict between your definition (above) and urtalkinstupid's definition of energy as "accelerated forces". There are a few other nits I could pick with urtalkinstupid's use of this term, but I am going to stop now to avoid getting off topic.

[urtalkinstupid]

My definition is just forces. These forces can evolve into energy. When something has mass and is accelerating, it generates a force. This acceleration leads to velocity which can give the object that is being accelerated kinetic energy.

[Brad_Ad23]

brad.. of course neutrinos play a part in the gravitational bending of light... http://gravity.ontheinter.net/ click the link that says neutrinos bend light or something... i don't feel like describing it to u right now..
armo-ahhh!!! i have given u book sources that say neutinos are so numerous that they can in fact affect gravity in the solar system. (the book agrees with einsteins model of gravity, but it still says neutrios play a part in gravity) i'm taking it further and saying they are the only cause of "gravity"... i have many sources to defend my theory and i have used them against u and u couldn't refute them. i'll re-cite if u want me to...

That site implies that there would be one side of the earth that is going to be such that people will not have gravity as strong as the other. Again, I am still waiting for a good answer as to how neutrinos, which interact via the weak force, can in any way do something with a photon. Not only that, how could neutrinos in any way account for various orbital phenomena such as good ol' Mercury?

I will also like to point out that when neutrinos do interact with matter, they will often create a flurry of other particles or a corresponding lepton.

To add more criticism:
If neutrinos are a push force for gravity, how pray tell do stars stay together? If all these neutrinos generated from within are moving out sphereically from the sun, it will create a force that should push the sun apart. But so does the very heat/pressure of the sun as well (it is after all, a big big big big big big hydrogen bomb). So we have no net force keeping it together. Oops.
Also neutrinos can be produced from cosmic ray showers. This would mean that people would weigh more under such a shower.
Or what of nuclear reactors? Should people not feel a force that acts to repel them ever so slightly from said reactors?

Sorry, there are just too many flaws for neutrinos to be a candidate.


edit:
Oh and how exactly would neutrinos account for objects falling at the same rate regardless of density?

[beatrix kiddo]

You said that neutrinos were spread out like dust

noooooooo.... i said there is dust and neutrinos.. i never said the neutrinos are spread like dust. i also said they are like sprinkles on a bubble!!! but i never said they were spread like dust..

I'm getting that feeling too. This idea of theirs is so wrong its funny, and I have a hard time accepting that they aren't smart enough to see that.

well we were on topic until russ got us back off topic by saying we were off topic and now i'm going off topic for pointing this out...

Make a model of a solar system, it should contain:
1 sun at the center, which the planets revolve around
2 planets, the inner one with 1 moon and the outer one with 2 moons
3 moons (already explained where they are)

Now, since your theory is so much better than the current model, please go ahead and setup something that would allow this. You can even do it in 2d if you like!

Look, I'll do it for the current theory!

m=moon
p=planet
s=sun

i'm really not sure what u did with that code thingy.. but if u want a model of my solar system, there are plenty online. (it looks just like a sun with all these planets around it)

Chroot, I have no idea why you are wasting your time beating this dead horse. I do, however, know why I am. It is so easy to blow this baloney neutrino concept out of the water, even I can do it.

I enjoy blowing their silly theories out of the water.

WHEN?! did this occur before u gave us that opinionated link by phillip or after u said u were laughing all the way through this thread? i have yet to see chronos blow on anything...

look entropy, the point is that stupid found a source that agrees with our theory and the guy even has all this complex math to support himself... and as soon as i understand the math, i will definately work with it.

[urtalkinstupid]

. Again, I am still waiting for a good answer as to how neutrinos, which interact via the weak force, can in any way do something with a photon.

It has already been clarified that neutrons do act via weak forces, but they are also able to interact with electrons. This interaction with electrons allows one method of detecting neutrinos.

I'll explain Mercury's orbit when I get home. Right now, I'm at work, and I'm fixing to get off. So, if you can wait about 20 mins, I will explain.

We know neutrinos interact with matter, we all agree on that. It's the rate at which neutrinos react with matter that we can not reach an accordance on.

It is well known that all stars go through fusion reactions. Noting the sun as a huge hydrogen bomb, is not necessarily the right terms. All stars go through fusion processes which yields neutrinos and EM. What holds this star together? The stars also absorbs, but emission takes over absorption. Although it emitts many neutrinos, it also takes in some. This absorption of neutrinos is what counts for the stars holding together, just as the current model of gravity is used to hold the star together by counter-acting the emitted radiation.

Reactors do not have the power of the sun to produce neutrinos. The force is very subtle and unoticeable. I'm probably wronghere, but I'll look into it. That's just what I think.

[Entropy]

look entropy, the point is that stupid found a source that agrees with our theory and the guy even has all this complex math to support himself... and as soon as i understand the math, i will definately work with it.

There is a big difference between a mathematian and a physist.

It has already been clarified that neutrons do act via weak forces, but they are also able to interact with electrons. This interaction with electrons allows one method of detecting neutrinos.

They react via the weak force period. They react with an electron and everything else though the weak force.

[chroot]

It has already been clarified that neutrons do act via weak forces, but they are also able to interact with electrons. This interaction with electrons allows one method of detecting neutrinos.
This interaction with electrons is itself a weak force interaction. Electrons also feel the weak force.
We know neutrinos interact with matter, we all agree on that. It's the rate at which neutrinos react with matter that we can not reach an accordance on.
The interaction cross-section for neutrinos is well-known.
Although it emitts many neutrinos, it also takes in some. This absorption of neutrinos is what counts for the stars holding together, just as the current model of gravity is used to hold the star together by counter-acting the emitted radiation.
Okay, so there's an enormous outward force (the neutrinos pushing their way out) and a much smaller inward force (external neutrinos coming in). This is not an equilibrium. The Sun will still explode.
Reactors do not have the power of the sun to produce neutrinos.
Of course they do.

- Warren

[urtalkinstupid]

Gladd we reached an agreement that they DO interact. Don't know why you people tried to tell me they DIDN'T at first.

Most of the power associated with nuclear reactors are that of free neutrons. These neutrons are radioactive and can pierce through stuff. Neutrinos are not as abundant. Especially in an H-Bomb, because that bomb uses both fusion and fission to power it. Well, I take that back. I thought fission only produced neutrons from heavy elements? I don't know. Can someone run clarity on that?

Yea, Newton started out as a mathematician and became a physicists. Where are you going with this?

[beatrix kiddo]

yeah, entropy.. newton would be pissed!
reactors DO NOT have the power to produce neutrinos as much as the sun. are u kidding?

Okay, so there's an enormous outward force (the neutrinos pushing their way out) and a much smaller inward force (external neutrinos coming in). This is not an equilibrium. The Sun will still explode.

it kinda is.. it is under a constant state of fusion!! thanks to emission over taking absorption.

[beatrix kiddo]

Again, I am still waiting for a good answer as to how neutrinos, which interact via the weak force, can in any way do something with a photon.

u can't follow directions.. i said click the link that describes gravity bending light... but it's ok.. ur new on our thread so i'll take it easy on u and i'll explain to u myself, why neutrinos bend light.
ok. let's say we have the earth and a quasar. inbetween the earth and the quasar is a star. the star bends light coming from behind it outwards because the neutrinos are exerting a slight pressure on the photons coming from the quasar... also, there are neutrinos coming in towards the star (though not as abundantly) to keep the photons from the quasar from going out of whack! it's so simple it must be TRUE! :tongue2:

[Entropy]

Yea, Newton started out as a mathematician and became a physicists. Where are you going with this?

I'm saying that just because you know a lot of math doesn't mean you know how to use it.

it kinda is.. it is under a constant state of fusion!! thanks to emission over taking absorption.

Sorry but that doesn't work. In the process of fusion where two protons are brought together and one proton is converted into a neutron and a position and a neutrino are released the net force on the newly created deutrium atom is 0. So basicly when that proton shoots out a neutrino it also shoots out a position in the opposite direction with equal momentum.

So you see in the emission of a neutrino by proton the net force on the proton (which becomes a neutron) is 0, and visa versa, where a neutron absorbs a neutrino, becoming a proton and emiting an electron, the net force is zero on the nucleon.

Funny but thats how the neutrino was discovered. Beta decay didn't seem to obey the conservation of momentum so the neutrino was theorized to make the net force on a decaying atom 0.

[Brad_Ad23]

It has already been clarified that neutrons do act via weak forces, but they are also able to interact with electrons. This interaction with electrons allows one method of detecting neutrinos.

I'll explain Mercury's orbit when I get home. Right now, I'm at work, and I'm fixing to get off. So, if you can wait about 20 mins, I will explain.

We know neutrinos interact with matter, we all agree on that. It's the rate at which neutrinos react with matter that we can not reach an accordance on.

It is well known that all stars go through fusion reactions. Noting the sun as a huge hydrogen bomb, is not necessarily the right terms. All stars go through fusion processes which yields neutrinos and EM. What holds this star together? The stars also absorbs, but emission takes over absorption. Although it emitts many neutrinos, it also takes in some. This absorption of neutrinos is what counts for the stars holding together, just as the current model of gravity is used to hold the star together by counter-acting the emitted radiation.

Reactors do not have the power of the sun to produce neutrinos. The force is very subtle and unoticeable. I'm probably wronghere, but I'll look into it. That's just what I think.
Yes, that is a method for detecting neutrinos. Bravo. I'll touch on the reactor bit in the next quote.

And you are still wrong about absorption/emission. If the sun were to absorp neutrinos such that it wouldn't explode, then that means all neutrinos frome very direction will push with enough force to keep the sun together. That means we would be crushed. Plus, what happens to all these neutrinos that are converging to the center of mass of the sun? They can't go through one another. Indeed, if you say neutrinos are pushing on any sphereical object from all directions, then it stands to reason every point in spacetime is the center of a neutrino vortex. Another good question for you is: How fast does gravity travel in this idea?


Gladd we reached an agreement that they DO interact. Don't know why you people tried to tell me they DIDN'T at first.

Most of the power associated with nuclear reactors are that of free neutrons. These neutrons are radioactive and can pierce through stuff. Neutrinos are not as abundant. Especially in an H-Bomb, because that bomb uses both fusion and fission to power it. Well, I take that back. I thought fission only produced neutrons from heavy elements? I don't know. Can someone run clarity on that?

Yea, Newton started out as a mathematician and became a physicists. Where are you going with this?

What does the use of neutrons have to do with anything? Neutrinos are a byproduct of nuclear reactions. Of course a standard fission reactor won't produce the same amount of neutrinos as the sun (sun huge, reactor small), but nonetheless, a force repelling people from reactors via neutrinos should be easily measured if neutrinos are to be the source of gravity.

As for Newton, that was way back in the day before physics was really a well defined subject in its own right. The main point of the statement is though, what works in math is NOT always mirrored in reality. I can write equations governing the area of a 50 dimensional sphere. That doesn't mean 50 dimensional spheres are lurking about.


u can't follow directions.. i said click the link that describes gravity bending light... but it's ok.. ur new on our thread so i'll take it easy on u and i'll explain to u myself, why neutrinos bend light.
ok. let's say we have the earth and a quasar. inbetween the earth and the quasar is a star. the star bends light coming from behind it outwards because the neutrinos are exerting a slight pressure on the photons coming from the quasar... also, there are neutrinos coming in towards the star (though not as abundantly) to keep the photons from the quasar from going out of whack! it's so simple it must be TRUE!
I did follow the link. It was utter bull****. Why? Neutrinos and photons do not interact that way. Neutrinos interact SOLELY via the weak force and gravity (though with such a very very small mass, their gravity on an individual basis is very small, and by gravity I'm referring to the actual theory of gravity). They do not see the electromagnetic nor strong force. This means photons cannot influence neutrinos and vice versa. Sure when a neutrino interacts with a particle via the weak force a photon may be emitted somewhere down the line, but that is from the various processes that go on in the interaction. As for this idea being so simple, it is simple. And like most simple concepts that aren't thought through, full of holes (see my vortex statement above).


As for entropy, he's right on. You should listen to him.

[beatrix kiddo]

hahaha drad i say tha neutrinod imetract with evrythind!!!entropyhas no clue..

[beatrix kiddo]

sorry i felle a litle weird... :rofl:

[Entropy]

Who is drad?

[urtalkinstupid]

Brad_Ad23, I'll admit; I'm unsure of the sun and how it is kept together by the push idea. I am very limitied in sources, because this idea is small, but it's out there. There are about a couple of new sites on the push idea a month. They are hard to find also. I'll do more research more on the sun and it's nuclear core, and provide you with a suffice answer. Sorry for the inconvience in my being able to give you an answer.

How fast does gravity travel in this idea?

That has already been established. It travels near the speed of light. Seeing that neutrinos do have mass, their speed can not reach the speed of light, but they come very close.

As for the free neutrons, in fission reactions most of the power is in free neutrons, which are radioactive. These free neutrons can not go through beta decay, because they are not part of an unstable atom. That is what I got from a site that was explaining the three type of decays. So, when you are referring to nuclear reactor, please be more specific. Are you referring to fusion or fission reactors? If you are referring to fission, are you referring to a pure fission reactor or one that is activated by a fusion reactor?

Physics defined or not, point is: Newton began as a mathematician. From there, he became a physicists. He derived his equations while he was a mathematician. Who is to say that the site I provided with this guy is not able to apply his equation to physics as Newton did?

Entropy, I'm saying just because Newton's equations were in accordance with observations, doesn't mean that is what's happening. Just because Einstein is renowned for his theories on relativity, doesn't mean he depicted what is really happening.

[Entropy]

Just because Einstein is renowned for his theories on relativity, doesn't mean he depicted what is really happening.

I think Einstein is right because his theories make absolute sense. There are a lot of widely accepted theories I don't agree with. I recently read Stephen Hawking's book "The Universe In a Nutshell" and I disagreed with lots of stuff he said.

As for the free neutrons, in fission reactions most of the power is in free neutrons, which are radioactive. These free neutrons can not go through beta decay, because they are not part of an unstable atom. That is what I got from a site that was explaining the three type of decays. So, when you are referring to nuclear reactor, please be more specific. Are you referring to fusion or fission reactors? If you are referring to fission, are you referring to a pure fission reactor or one that is activated by a fusion reactor?

Fission reactors of course seeing how they are no working fusion reactors. Fusion can only be held for a few seconds and they get a negative energy output.

[chroot]

Brad_Ad23, I'll admit; I'm unsure of the sun and how it is kept together by the push idea. I am very limitied in sources, because this idea is small, but it's out there. There are about a couple of new sites on the push idea a month. They are hard to find also. I'll do more research more on the sun and it's nuclear core, and provide you with a suffice answer. Sorry for the inconvience in my being able to give you an answer.
Opinions are like *******s, right? Everyone has one, and most of them stink. Why do you think these people are publishing their ideas on the internet in the first place? If they had two legs to stand on, why wouldn't their ideas be published in newspapers, magazine, journals, or books? These people are publishing their ideas on the internet because the internet is the only medium in which there is absolutely no verification. And it's very easy to find sites on push gravity: http://www.crank.net.
These free neutrons can not go through beta decay, because they are not part of an unstable atom.[/b]
Free neutrons undergo beta decay with a half-life of about 15 minutes.
[quote]Entropy, I'm saying just because Newton's equations were in accordance with observations, doesn't mean that is what's happening. Just because Einstein is renowned for his theories on relativity, doesn't mean he depicted what is really happening.
For any given theory, there may be an infinite number of different representations. There may be an infinite number of different mathematical tools, or different choices of variables, etc. However, if any two theories predict the exact same results in all possible experiments, they effectively the same theory. You can mathematically show that any one such theory is identical to any other.

Bottom line: any theory that predicts the same results as general relativity is the exact same theory just represented in a different way.

Besides, how is the curvature of space-time not a mechanism that describes how gravity "really happens?" What makes your neutrino-push model more of a description of something "really happening" than the curved space-time model? Who decides whether a theory describes what "really happens" or not?

- Warren

[Chronos]

More amazing stupidity. What happened to the neutrino push theory replacing the gravity pull theory as the 'force' that explains everything? The obvious expanation is... the push theory is wrong. Real scientists mostly agree they cannot prove anything is 'true'. They can, however, prove some things false. Congratulations, you make the short list of things proven wrong.

[Nereid]

OMG, how are we going off topic? When you people are the one asking us questions that do not refer to the topic.

Here's the link I was referring to:

Induced Gravity Model Based on External Impinging Neutrinos: Calculation of G in Terms of Collision Phenomena and Inferences to Inertial Mass and Atomic Quantization (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0102109)

Have fun scrutinizing him.That was a fun paper.

Did you read it urtalkinstupid? Did you understand how the 'push' idea works, in these authors' conception? Why did they devote a section to 'Implications of the Neutrino Distribution to Atomic States'? What is the source of the neutrinos, for these authors? Can you think of reasons why their last section (section 8) is so short?

How does the Stanley and Vezzoli idea relate to your own?

[Chronos]

My 'TOE' predicts the sun will collapse into a black hole before Nereid will get a sensible reply to that question [I have a Stanley tape measure, so I know what I am talking about].

[ArmoSkater87]

Hi all, sorry i havnt been part of this for a while. Im in california now and just today got internet on the computer here, and its 56K :( . Anyways, i read my way through the new posts...and was very dissapointed to see that this whole thing is going in circles. Beatrix, there are far too many flaws with this thepry, just too many inconsistencies with reality. I think you should simply let it go instead of making stuff up. If you wish to continue this, then you and Stupid should get together and come up with actual evidence that supports your theory. But like i said, theres just some things that you cant explain using that theory and that will tempt you to make stuff up in order to keep this arguement going. Anyways, back to the thread....I have some questions.
First of all why did you avoid Brad's question (which i had actually brought up myself a while ago, but it was ignored too). Brad said, how can your theory explain how objects regardless of density or mass are accelerated due to gravity at the same rate (neglecting air resistance). In other words, why does a feather accelerate at the same rate as a hammer does, if u neglect air resistance. According to your theory, the denser, or more massive object should accelerate faster since there would be more neutrino interactions. And plus...the craperama about the neutrinos revolving around galaxies isnt a way to explain why the galaxies dont fall apart. I couldnt believe that you were actually serious about that...i mean it was just complete nonsense. Oh and btw....neutrinos DONT interact with photons.

[Chronos]

I understand your pain, armo. stable dial-up connections and neutrino-photon interactions are rare.

[urtalkinstupid]

Yea, you people also said neutrinos DON'T interact with electrons, but I have sources that say otherwise.

With the feather and hammer scenario, are you referring to what they say about on the moon? Since it has no air resistance, the two will accelerate at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. I doubt it would be at EXACTLY the same time. The neutrino flux on the moon's surface is not as high as it is on th earth's surface, ergo both the hammer and feather receive approximately the same. The feather receives all it can absorb, while the hammer absorbs what's there.

Hmmm...flaws in this theory? Shall we take a look at Einstein and his efforts to cover up for his miscalculations? It's kind of obvious the current theories are not taken seriously. I mean for one, you have all of these science fiction shows that try to make science more than what it is, because what's science now can easily be manipulate into fiction. With a reality based theory there would be less fiction uprisings in the form of movies, shows, and books. Einstein predicted the black hole, tv shows see that as an idea, they use black holes for time travel.

Einstein's math about what composes the universe is a huge mistake. He predicts that there is 96% more than what we see. So, to make it seem as if he did nothing wrong, he threw in the cosmological constant to cover it all up.

Let's see...Current physics are unable to explain what happens past the event horizon. Neither is it to explain how the universe is "expanding" while gravity is a pull. Hmm...guess that's where the mysterious "dark matter" and "dark energy" come in to explain for that misconception.

There are a lot of problems with the current theory. So, mine can still be a candidate...I'm just not able to explain it as well as some people are capable of doing.

Think: If gravity were a pull, that would mean that if you have two stars (one is bigger than the other) in space, one is being pulled by the other. The more massive one is not moving at all, because it is doing the majority of the pulling and accelerating the other star towards it. What ever happened to the universal law for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?

[Math Is Hard]

Einstein's math about what composes the universe is a huge mistake. He predicts that there is 96% more than what we see. So, to make it seem as if he did nothing wrong, he threw in the cosmological constant to cover it all up.



I could be wrong on this but I don't think Einstein was thinking about the composition of the universe when he used the cosmological constant. He had an accounting problem to fix because what resulted from his calculations did not agree with the current belief that the universe was static. As far as I know, he didn't have any thoughts about dark matter (or dark energy) at the time, but if he did, I would sure be interested to know.

I think it was actually Fritz Zwicky who first came up with the dark matter concept.

[urtalkinstupid]

Yea, it wasn't Einstein who had the thoughts about dark matter or dark energy, but they came into the picture, because of his miscalculations. It was just an act to try and cover up one of his many miscalculations. He thought himself that the Universe was static, but he claims he was not seeing that. I think he was right when he said it was static. Observations that he viewed just fooled him.

[Alkatran]

Think: If gravity were a pull, that would mean that if you have two stars (one is bigger than the other) in space, one is being pulled by the other. The more massive one is not moving at all, because it is doing the majority of the pulling and accelerating the other star towards it. What ever happened to the universal law for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?

This just goes to show that you don't know basic physics. Look at the formula for gravity:

Force of gravity is G*m1*m2/r^2

So, let's say star 1 is 1000 Kg (granted, a very small star) and star 2 is 1 Kg.
The force on star 1 is: G*1000*1/r^2 = 1000G/r^2
The force on star 2 is: G*1*1000/r^2 = 1000G/r^2 (in the opposite direction)

Well, looks pretty equal and opposite to me.

By the way, the larger star does move, it just moves less. Force is a measure of the change of momentum per second, not the change of speed per second.

Oh, Einstein introduced the cosmological constant because in his model the universe was going to collapse in on itself. However, it was not known that the universe was expanding at the time.

By the way, I'm on dial-up, and I can't remember the last time I was disconnected. I get decent speed on sites because I use AdBlock with firefox... I don't see any images I don't need. (For example, the logo with einstein is hidden on this site, as well as whatever ads there are)

[urtalkinstupid]

If gravity were a pull, tell me why the Universe is expanding?

[Alkatran]

If gravity were a pull, tell me why the Universe is expanding?

Because gravity changes speed and doesn't set it? Because gravity isn't the only force? How about those reasons?

[urtalkinstupid]

Simply aren't good enough reasons. There are a lot of flaws in the current theories...So, why should mine be scrutinized and not be accepted? Yea, a lot of stuff needs to be taken into consideration when going by my idea. Same thing with the current theories.

So, why is the Universe expanding?

[Alkatran]

Simply aren't good enough reasons. There are a lot of flaws in the current theories...So, why should mine be scrutinized and not be accepted? Yea, a lot of stuff needs to be taken into consideration when going by my idea. Same thing with the current theories.

So, why is the Universe expanding?

Those aren't good enough reasons? Well, how about you try to explain how those neutrinos are revolving around the galaxy again? How about you explain how all the planets and their moons maintain their respective orbits again? Your reasons for those were all countered, and you just moved on.

Face it, the current theory makes more sense than yours. Maybe there's holes in it, but yours HAS MORE (not to mention worse) holes.

[urtalkinstupid]

The current theory does not make sense to me at all. The current theory does just what you say I'm doing. Make stuff along the way to keep it alive.

The theory I'm going by was first thought up by LeSage. There were thought to be many holes in his, but the obstacles that were keeping his theory from overriding Newton's were stupid. When the particles give off their energy they will make the object that they impact rise in heat. That object must give off heat in order to sustain equillibrium.

I mean physics currently has two models of gravity, why not throw in a third one?

What makes two objects "pull" on each other? What makes one object "accelerate" to the object? What actually makes gravity in the pull theory happen?

[Math Is Hard]

I mean physics currently has two models of gravity, why not throw in a third one?


ooh! ooh! I've got a FOURTH!

I think we have invisible velcro on our feet and that's what sticks us to the planet. :biggrin:

sorry, couldn't resist. :tongue2:

[Alkatran]

What makes two objects "pull" on each other? What makes one object "accelerate" to the object?

That would be gravity.

What actually makes gravity in the pull theory happen?

What actually makes electrons move away from each other? What exactly makes the sun burn? What makes that happen? What makes that happen? What makes that happen? What makes a particle keep the same speed? Why not the same acceleration or position?

If you didn't get my point by now: We don't know the "why" for ANY of it when you break it down enough. All we can see is the results and, from those, logicly figure out the means. I can't think of any real reason for matter to exist at all, but it does.

[urtalkinstupid]

That would be gravity.

Ellaborate.

[ArmoSkater87]

With the feather and hammer scenario, are you referring to what they say about on the moon? Since it has no air resistance, the two will accelerate at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. I doubt it would be at EXACTLY the same time. The neutrino flux on the moon's surface is not as high as it is on th earth's surface, ergo both the hammer and feather receive approximately the same. The feather receives all it can absorb, while the hammer absorbs what's there.


?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????
Okay, what you said made no sense at all....First of all, i wasnt talking about only the moon, i was talking about ANY planet. The earth will work fine, IF u neglect air resistance, which i noted in my post. So pretend you have a vacuum on the earth (100% vacuum), and you have a feather along with a hammer head. Now lets think about this...you have a feather, a few grams maybe and very low in density, and u have a hammer head (asuming its made of iron), a few kilograms and very high in density compared to the feather. According to your theory, if you have object A, and object B which is identical in size but has twise the mass, then object B will have 2 times as many neutrinos hitting it than object A. Doesnt this mean that if you put them next to each other and let them go the more massive object will hit the ground first? Ummmm...yes it does. So...back to the father and hammer head. If you let them go at exactly the same time and exactly lined up, the huge variation between they mass and density would cause the hammer head to hit the ground well before the feather...ENOUGH for u to easily see with your naked eyes, in other words there would be a significant delay between the hitting time. I repeat again, this is asuming that this is done in a 100% vacuum environment. Now please dont avoid this and try to get around it, just answer this in a way that actually makes sense.

[urtalkinstupid]

100% vaccum would make both objects just sit in space. If you drop a hammer and a feather in a 100% vaccum they would just sit there. PUSH OR PULL THEORY THEY WOULD SIT THERE. Pull theory, there is nothing to attract the objects to accelerate them towards another objects center. Push theory, there is an equillibrium of particles hitting it from all sides keeping it in the same place.

[Entropy]

If gravity were a pull, tell me why the Universe is expanding?

It has not been proven that the universe is expanding

[urtalkinstupid]

Thank you Entropy! My point exactly.

[Hurkyl]

If gravity were a pull, tell me why the Universe is expanding?

If gravity were a pull, why wouldn't the Universe be expanding?

[urtalkinstupid]

If gravity were a pull, galaxies would be moving towards each other rather than away. Thi swould account for the universe not expanding but contracting.

[ArmoSkater87]

100% vaccum would make both objects just sit in space. If you drop a hammer and a feather in a 100% vaccum they would just sit there. PUSH OR PULL THEORY THEY WOULD SIT THERE. Pull theory, there is nothing to attract the objects to accelerate them towards another objects center. Push theory, there is an equillibrium of particles hitting it from all sides keeping it in the same place.

OMG...100% vacuum doesnt mean in the vacuum of space. What i ment by that is if the earth had no air or armosphere, or if the experiment would have been done in a chamber from which all the air had been vaccumed out. It doesnt even have to be 100%...it actually cant on earth, but it can get very close...around 99.99% im guessing. I though you would understand why i said "asuming 100% vacuum"...i though you're smart enough to realise that i said that in order to tell you that it only works when only gravity is applying a force on the objects. Air causes friction force on them too, so do u see why i said 100% vacuum??? I DIDNT mean in the vacuum of space, i ment ON earth, or the moon, or mars...whatever...u choose.

[urtalkinstupid]

Air causes friction forces because it "pushes" the objects. Eliminate air and there is no friction force. Now, you have a chamber where there is no air at all. Place the hammer and feather 3m above ground. Drop them at the same time. What happens? I don't think they fall at the same rate. I think they would fall faster in respect to their original acceleration. If they objects are being pulled towards the earth center within this vaccum, they are being pulled depending on their weight. They have no air resistance, ergo they fall faster. They do not fall at the same time. Push model would make them fall slower and closer to the same rate. Less particles are in the air, allowing them to absorb less, making them fall slower.

Can anyone answer my question gravity with an ellaborate definition? Seems that you are avoiding my questions as well.

What is the distinct characteristic of matter that makes one object attract to another?

[chroot]

I don't think they fall at the same rate.
Why don't you do an experiment? It doesn't require much in the way of apparatus to show this to be false. All objects fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum. This very demonstration is shown yearly to thousands of freshmen at universities around the word... but wait, you haven't even completed high school yet.
I think they would fall faster in respect to their original acceleration. If they objects are being pulled towards the earth center within this vaccum, they are being pulled depending on their weight.
You are correct that the force exerted a body falling in a gravitational field depends on its weight. As you can see by the equation

F = G\frac{M m_g}{r^2}

the force on the object is proportional to m_g, it's "gravitational mass."

On the other hand, the acceleration of an object is also dependent on its mass, as you can see from the equation

F = m_i a

where m_i is the "inertial mass."

If m_g and m_i were different, two bodies of different masses would not fall with the same acceleration. You do experiments to determine whether or not these masses are the same, and indeed experiments have been done even up into the last decade to verify that they are in fact the same. They can be shown to be the same to a few parts per trillion IIRC, which is as close as you can get to "identical" in experiment.

Now, assuming m_g = m_i = m, you can combine the two equations:

G\frac{M m}{r^2} = m a

G\frac{M}{r^2} = a

You can see that the acceleration of a body does not depend on its mass (or therefore density, which is mass per unit volume) at all. A feather and a hammer fall with the same acceleration. This is what the "pull theory" predicts, and this is what is observed in experiment.

Your push theory, on the other hand, predicts that denser bodies fall faster, and this is not what is observed. Your theory is incorrect, and glaringly so.
What is the distinct characteristic of matter that makes one object attract to another?
Mass (and energy) curve space, and free-falling masses move along geodesics (the straightest possible paths) in such curved space.

- Warren

[urtalkinstupid]

I'll perform your experiment.

Mass (and energy) curve space, and free-falling masses move along geodesics (the straightest possible paths) in such curved space.

That's not what I was looking. What makes the masses attract? I'm referring to Newton's pull theory not Einstein's space-time curvature.

[chroot]

That's not what I was looking. What makes the masses attract? I'm referring to Newton's pull theory not Einstein's space-time curvature.
Newton's theory is demonstrably wrong. Who cares what it said?

- Warren

[Entropy]

Can anyone answer my question gravity with an ellaborate definition? Seems that you are avoiding my questions as well.

What? I'm sorry but I can't answer fragmented sentences.

[urtalkinstupid]

What property of mass and energy curve space? If Newton's equations are so wrong, why are you giving me an experiment going by his theory?

This space-time curvature is still a mutual attraction through two objects. One massive object curves space, the other near by object goes down the incline. An attraction is made through space-time curvature. There is no such thing as space-time curvature.

Einstein was so dissatisfied with our lack of understanding
about gravity even two centuries after Newton that he invented
an entirely new theory of gravity as a warping of "four-
dimensional space-time" known as General Relativity Theory.
But this theory is even more mysterious and unexplained, and
also suffers from the same problems as Newton's gravitational
force theory. What is "four-dimensional space-time" and why
would the mere presence of matter warp it? Can this explain
the weight of objects in our hands or the energy expended by
gravity as it drives the dynamics of the universe? Where is the
apparently unlimited power source for it all?

[chroot]

What property of mass and energy curve space? If Newton's equations are so wrong, why are you giving me an experiment going by his theory?
Because you presumably wouldn't understand the same explanation in the full regalia of general relativity. Newtonian gravitation is a special case of general relativity, in the limit of small masses and velocities, and thus it is acceptable for analyzing a falling hammer and feather on Earth. Newtonian gravitation is not, however, correct in general.
There is no such thing as space-time curvature.
Of course there is. It can be measured.

- Warren

[urtalkinstupid]

No, we think we are measuring it. Ooh, if Newton's equation so good why is it not applicable to large scale objects. No, wait it does. It explains how planets stay in orbit. Which is explained differently by Einstein. Objects fall into the space-time curvature of the sun, and roll aroudn the sun like a marble rolling around the center of the drain never falling in.

What property of matter or energy knows what to do when it is in space? How does it know to curve the space around it with respect to time? Give me a four dimensional model of space-time curving and I will be satisfied. Until then, don't expect me to believe you. I'm sure this theory has been in place long enough to provide a great model of it's happening.

There are so many things that make a mockery of the current proposed science theories. Why? They are so unreal, they are able to fit in to fiction based productions.

[chroot]

No, we think we are measuring it.
In principle, it can be directly measured. You can draw a large enough circle and observe that the ratio of its circumference to diameter is no longer pi. You could draw a large enough triangle and observe that the sum of its angles is no longer 180 degrees. I don't know how else you'd explain those sorts of observations.
Ooh, if Newton's equation so good why is it not applicable to large scale objects. No, wait it does.
It's applicable, but it's still not exactly correct. Newtonian gravity is an approximation of general relativity when masses and velocities are small. It's much easier to calculate things with Newtonian model than with general relativity, so we use the Newtonian model for situations in which its answers are negligibly different. For the most part, Newtonian gravity is all we need to explain the solar system. The probes that we've sent to Jupiter and Saturn, for example, required nothing more than the Newtonian model to calculate how their engine firings would move them through the solar system. The same trajectories could have been calculated with the full computational power of general relativity, but for little gain: the final positions would have differed only by centimeters or less.

There are several subtle phenomena in the solar system which cannot be explained by Newtonian gravity, however. The two most important are the perihelion advance of Mercury, and the bending of starlight near the limb of the Sun. The full power of the general theory of relativity is necessary to explain those phenomena.
What property of matter or energy knows what to do when it is in space? How does it know to curve the space around it with respect to time?
I'm afraid it's a silly endeavor to try to ascribe human properties to lumps of matter. The lumps of matter doesn't "know" anything. The universe just happens to work this way, in the same way it just happens to have two kinds of electrical charge, and so on. You can just invoke the anthropic principle if you're inclined to worry about such things.
Give me a four dimensional model of space-time curving and I will be satisfied.
G_{\mu\nu} = T_{\mu\nu}

That's the entire model. That's all you need to model every gravitational phenomenon currently known.
Until then, don't expect me to believe you. I'm sure this theory has been in place long enough to provide a great model of it's happening.
To scientists, "theory" and "model" are essentially the same thing. A theory that cannot make predictions is useless.
There are so many things that make a mockery of the current proposed science theories. Why? They are so unreal, they are able to fit in to fiction based productions.
You seem to understand very little about current scientific theories, so it's no wonder you think they're "unreal." You're just beating strawmen. It's pathetic, really.

- Warren

[chroot]

It's kind of obvious the current theories are not taken seriously. I mean for one, you have all of these science fiction shows that try to make science more than what it is, because what's science now can easily be manipulate into fiction. With a reality based theory there would be less fiction uprisings in the form of movies, shows, and books.
By the way, this is a positively atrocious argument. How can you possibly know what kind of science fiction writers would dream up if we had a different dominant scientific model? Are you psychic?

You can't judge a theory by the caricatures of it written by science fiction writers any more than you can judge a political candidate by the satirical cartoons drawn about him in the newspaper. Surely you must be joking...

- Warren

[urtalkinstupid]

How about a visual model?

[chroot]

How about a visual model?
What's a "visual model?"

Let me guess -- you're going to claim that because humans can't visualize a four-dimensional space, that such a space can't exist.

Are you also going to claim that because humans can't visualize a square root, that square roots don't exist?

- Warren

[Entropy]

This space-time curvature is still a mutual attraction through two objects. One massive object curves space, the other near by object goes down the incline. An attraction is made through space-time curvature. There is no such thing as space-time curvature.

Its not an attraction for the last time. They only appear to move from your 4 dimensional perspective of the universe. I remember someone explaining this really well I'll try to find there post.

Can this explain
the weight of objects in our hands or the energy expended by
gravity as it drives the dynamics of the universe? Where is the
apparently unlimited power source for it all?

There is no energy required! I suppose charged particles have unlimited power as well since they're always exerting forces on each other? Who ever wrote this was a moron.

No, we think we are measuring it. Ooh, if Newton's equation so good why is it not applicable to large scale objects. No, wait it does. It explains how planets stay in orbit. Which is explained differently by Einstein. Objects fall into the space-time curvature of the sun, and roll aroudn the sun like a marble rolling around the center of the drain never falling in.


Newton's equations don't work for objects at high velocities or for extremely massive objects, due to time dilation. But for basic astronomy Newton's errors aren't noticable so thats why we use them for many basic things.

What property of matter or energy knows what to do when it is in space? How does it know to curve the space around it with respect to time? Give me a four dimensional model of space-time curving and I will be satisfied. Until then, don't expect me to believe you. I'm sure this theory has been in place long enough to provide a great model of it's happening.

What property of matter makes it exist? How does time know to run forward? How do two unlike charges know they should be attracted to one another? How do strings know how to wave? Dude you're retreating into philosophy. No theory is ever going to explain all the mechanisms in the universe with every little detail, atleast not in our life time.

There are so many things that make a mockery of the current proposed science theories. Why? They are so unreal, they are able to fit in to fiction based productions.

Are you saying that because something like Star Trek or Babylon 5 uses terms like "wormhole" or "warp-drive" that the current theories actually support them? Dude they just throw in that stuff with their falasies to make it sound "sciency" for the layman.

[Nereid]

If gravity were a pull, tell me why the Universe is expanding?You asked this question on your other thread, and I answered it; did you read my answer? Are there parts of that answer you don't follow?

I must say it's really quite tiresome to spend the time and energy to answer good questions, only to find that, a week or so later, you ask exactly the same question again. :grumpy:

Note to chroot: I don't think there's been anything new - other than the 'fun' paper urtalkinstupid posted a few days ago (and my questions on which remain unanswered by urtalkinstupid) - here in this thread for some time; bring it to an end?

[russ_watters]

Why don't you do an experiment? It doesn't require much in the way of apparatus to show this to be false. All objects fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum. This very demonstration is shown yearly to thousands of freshmen at universities around the word... but wait, you haven't even completed high school yet. Are you saying your eighth grade science class didn't have a vacuum pump and plexiglass cylinder? Mine did. :wink: Precocious as they think they are, these guys missed a lot of what they were taught years ago.

[ArmoSkater87]

lol, my 9th grade science teacher did that with a penny and a feather. It was pretty neat seeing the feather fall down as fast as the penny. I actually saw it again just this past year in 11th grade when I took physics.

[urtalkinstupid]

Does the "pull" theory of gravity require energy to hold objects in place?

[chroot]

Could you be more specific, urtalkinstupid?

- Warren

[urtalkinstupid]

Do objects expend energy when pulling other objects to them through gravitational forces?

[chroot]

When two objects move closer, they lose potential energy and gain kinetic energy. Thus, it hurts when you drop a brick on your foot.

- Warren

[urtalkinstupid]

You've failed to answer my question. Does a mass use energy to pull another mass closer? Like the earth keeps the moon in orbit. Does the earth's gravitational pull on the moon require energy to keep pulling the moon towards earth in a circle?

[ArmoSkater87]

obviously not....the rotation of the moon around the earth is the affect of spacetime curvature and angular momentum. They balance each other out. The moon doesnt need energy to keep going because of Neutons first law.

[urtalkinstupid]

What cause the moon to not fall into the space-time curvature the earth has created. Use the rubber sheet example. You place a bowling ball in the middle with slightly smaller balls around it...everything falls into the middle.

[Nereid]

'Space' is very thin gas (actually a plasma); the Earth and the Moon are massive and dense (compared to the plasma through which they move). How much friction do you think such a thin gas would create?

The Moon would 'fall' into the Earth if it had no net transverse (i.e. non-radial) motion wrt the Earth. However, it does have such motion.

If the only forces acting on the Earth-Moon system were gravitational and friction due to motion through the thin gas, how long would it take for the two to spiral in and collide? Please state your assumptions.

[russ_watters]

What cause the moon to not fall into the space-time curvature the earth has created. Use the rubber sheet example. You place a bowling ball in the middle with slightly smaller balls around it...everything falls into the middle. What if the slightly smaller balls are moving? Do they still fall toward the bowling ball?

[chroot]

You've failed to answer my question. Does a mass use energy to pull another mass closer? Like the earth keeps the moon in orbit. Does the earth's gravitational pull on the moon require energy to keep pulling the moon towards earth in a circle?
No. Gravity is a conservative force. It requires energy to launch a rocket into orbit from the surface, but no additional energy is required once it is in orbit.

How does the Earth keep the Moon in orbit? The standard pedagogy is to study bullet trajectories. If you fire a bullet at a modest speed, it makes a graceful parabola and falls back to the ground. If the bullet is travelling pretty fast, it might go several hundred miles before hitting the ground. The Earth's surface is curved, however, not flat. As the bullet flies, the surface of the Earth is effectively curving away from the bullet. If you fire the bullet fast enough (about 17,000 mph), it's moving so fast that the Earth's surface is curving away as fast as the bullet is falling. The bullet is in orbit. Here's a little Java applet that lets you simulate firing a bullet at different speeds:

http://webphysics.ph.msstate.edu/javamirror/ntnujava/projectileOrbit/projectileOrbit.html

Try firing at different speeds and see if you can recognize the boundary condition between "projectile" and "satellite."

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

doesn't it take energy to set that bullet in motion? and wouldn't it take energy to keep the planets moving around the sun so they don't fall into it??

[chroot]

doesn't it take energy to set that bullet in motion?
It takes energy to get the bullet moving; it requires no additional energy to keep it moving. This is Newton's first law of motion, the law of inertia. If you neglect the small amount of atmospheric drag, a satellite in low-Earth orbit will remain in that orbit forever with no effort.
and wouldn't it take energy to keep the planets moving around the sun so they don't fall into it??
No. You seem to have some very serious misunderstandings of the theory you claim to want to overthrow.

- Warren

[Chronos]

Do objects expend energy when pulling other objects to them through gravitational forces?

Assuming I understand the gist of this question, no, at least not in the classical sense of 'work' being performed. A similar example would be a permanent magnet. A magnet does no work when exerting attractive force on a magnetic object. If it did, it would generate heat [an easily tested proposition].

[beatrix kiddo]

well, the planets maintain the right acceleration so they don't fall into the more massive bodies they approach. if these massive bodies create a drag, wouldn't it require additional energy to maintain the right acceleration so everything doesn't fall into the most massive body in the solar system??

[urtalkinstupid]

By work, I'm assuming you are referring to the work equation?

[chroot]

well, the planets maintain the right acceleration so they don't fall into the more massive bodies they approach. if these massive bodies create a drag, wouldn't it require additional energy to maintain the right acceleration so everything doesn't fall into the most massive body in the solar system??
What drag are you talking about?

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

obviously these massive objects are going to start to slow down the less massive objects as they "pull" them closer to their center mass..

[Entropy]

well, the planets maintain the right acceleration

They don't maintain acceleration they maintain velocity.

if these massive bodies create a drag, wouldn't it require additional energy to maintain the right acceleration so everything doesn't fall into the most massive body in the solar system??

Well there is drag on just about everything to some degree or another. The planets feel very little drag but still feel it none the less. So yes, eventually they will fall into the sun (but not for a long long long time) unless some other body effects them and changes their orbit.

[beatrix kiddo]

so, basically, the planets are slowing down around the sun?? should the years be getting longer or something??

[beatrix kiddo]

does nasa keep a record of this slight time change? or does it only become noticeable every 100 years or something?

[chroot]

obviously these massive objects are going to start to slow down the less massive objects as they "pull" them closer to their center mass..
If the solar system were a perfect vacuum, there would be no drag forces and the planets would continue to orbit the Sun exactly as they do now, forever, with no energy input.

The solar system is not a perfect vacuum, however. The density of the interplanetary medium is about 5 particles per cubic centimeter, on average. Most of these particles are in orbit around the Sun in the same way the planets are, and thus are more or less stationary with respect to the planets. They produce an extremely tiny amount of drag that does act to slow the planets down. It acts so so slowly that it is entirely negligible over the lifetime of the solar system.

For the sake of planets, which are very, very massive, there is essentially no drag and they are essentially not slowing down.

- Warren

[Math Is Hard]

so, basically, the planets are slowing down around the sun?? should the years be getting longer or something??

no - actually they go faster when they are nearer to the sun (approaching perihelion - hope I said that right!!). One of Kepler's laws.

[chroot]

does nasa keep a record of this slight time change? or does it only become noticeable every 100 years or something?
It would not be measurable with today's technology even over a billion years.

- Warren

[chroot]

no - actaully the go faster when they are nearer to the sun (approaching perihelion - hope I said that right!!). One of Kepler's laws.
While this is true, let's just assume circular orbits for the sake of this discussion. Beatrix & Co. seem to have some very grave misunderstandings of Newtonian gravitation, and we need to clear up the easy bits first.

- Warren

[Chronos]

so, basically, the planets are slowing down around the sun?? should the years be getting longer or something??

Actually, the orbital period decreases as they get nearer to the sun. A Kepler's second law thing.

[Math Is Hard]

we need to clear up the easy bits first.



OK, good point. I'll be quiet now. :smile:

[beatrix kiddo]

For the sake of planets, which are very, very massive, there is essentially no drag and they are essentially not slowing down.

ESSENTIALLY?? but there still is a slight drag! and it makes sense that the planets get faster the closer they get to the sun, because the sun pushes them out and increases their velocity...

[beatrix kiddo]

Beatrix & Co. seem to have some very grave misunderstandings of Newtonian gravitation, and we need to clear up the easy bits first.

not undermining my intelligence are we, chroot??

[chroot]

ESSENTIALLY?? but there still is a slight drag! and it makes sense that the planets get faster the closer they get to the sun, because the sun pushes them out and increases their velocity...
The slight drag is simply not relevant for something as massive as a planet.

Actually, the planet's speed grows larger as it approaches the Sun. This is contrary to what your push theory would suggest. When the planet is closest to the Sun, it would be intercepting more neutrinos, and would thus have a larger force applied to it. This would mean the planet's speed would be changing the most at the instant it is nearest the Sun (called perhelion). This is not what is observed. There is actually an extremum in the speed at perhelion -- the speed increases up to perhelion, then begins decreasing.

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

Well there is drag on just about everything to some degree or another. The planets feel very little drag but still feel it none the less. So yes, eventually they will fall into the sun (but not for a long long long time) unless some other body effects them and changes their orbit.

there seems to be some disunity amongst ur arguements...

[chroot]

not undermining my intelligence are we, chroot??
No. You are certainly ignorant, but you are not unintelligent.

- Warren

[chroot]

there seems to be some disunity amongst ur arguements...
What 'disunity?'

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

entropy told me the planets are slowing down and will eventually fall into the sun, but u say that they go faster when they approach the sun.

[beatrix kiddo]

i'm ignorant? i'm suprised that u think this... i thought u and i were becoming best friends or something!

[Entropy]

entropy told me the planets are slowing down and will eventually fall into the sun, but u say that they go faster when they approach the sun.

I never said they slowed down. Read my posts. I said they experence drag.

[beatrix kiddo]

This would mean the planet's speed would be changing the most at the instant it is nearest the Sun (called perhelion). This is not what is observed. There is actually an extremum in the speed at perhelion -- the speed increases up to perhelion, then begins decreasing.

not a single planet in this solar system has a perfect circular orbit around the sun. parts of the orbits go in, some swing out; so at some points it's closer than at others all the way around, right? this means that there would be a difference all the way around, not just at the closest and furthest points.. so actually, my theory goes along with current observations.

[beatrix kiddo]

ok.. my bad entropy.. the planets experience drag and will eventually fall into the sun..
drag- something that slows or delays progress.. dictionary.com

weird...

[chroot]

entropy told me the planets are slowing down and will eventually fall into the sun, but u say that they go faster when they approach the sun.
Your confusion is the reason I was trying to keep everyone from bringing up all sorts of secondary issues like non-circular orbits and drag due to the interplanetary medium.

It is true that the planets slow down due to drag, but not detectably so.

It's true that the planets do not orbit in perfectly circular orbits. They actually move along elliptical orbits, which bring them closer to the Sun during some portions of the orbit and further from the Sun during others. When a planet is closer to the Sun, it moves faster; when it is further, it moves slower. This is a result of the conservation of energy -- the loss of potential energy is concomittant with the increase in kinetic energy. It also commonly expressed as Kepler's second law of planetary motion, but Kepler's laws are really just observations of what things do in Newtonian gravitation.

To correct the recent abuse in notation, please recognize that it's impossible to assign a single speed to an object in an elliptical orbit, as it changes speed all the time. When a planet experiences drag, its total energy decreases, but its remaining energy is still conserved as per Kepler's laws.

- Warren

[chroot]

not a single planet in this solar system has a perfect circular orbit around the sun. parts of the orbits go in, some swing out; so at some points it's closer than at others all the way around, right? this means that there would be a difference all the way around, not just at the closest and furthest points.. so actually, my theory goes along with current observations.
No, your theory is contrary to those observations for reasons I have already explained in post you quoted. Your theory leads to a very different distance vs. speed relationship than does Newtonian gravitation.

- Warren

[Chronos]

The laws of planetary motion were first formulated by Kepler, who did so without benefit of a telescope or Newton's laws of gravity [Newton wasn't born yet]. See

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/kepler.html

Newton's laws corroborated Kepler's.

[JoeWade]

planets only experience drag if they're colliding with something... in space they're colliding with what?

there's no air

:confused: :uhh: :frown: :yuck: <-- face of guy with no air

[beatrix kiddo]

chroot u have a horrible misconception about my theory in that u think any sudden change in distance is going to result in instantaneous change in speed. the reason there is speed change is because the planet is absorbing neutrinos at a different rate.. (neutrino flux isn't the same everywhere in the solar system) however, just like the change in neutrino flux, the speed change will be gradual.. not instantaneous!

This is a result of the conservation of energy -- the loss of potential energy is concomittant with the increase in kinetic energy.

so as potential energy decreases... kinetic energy increases?? would this mean that energy does have something to do with gravity in the universe?

planets only experience drag if they're colliding with something... in space they're colliding with what?

there's no air

:confused: :uhh: :frown: :yuck: <-- face of guy with no air

that's ur first post?! what a waste...

[JoeWade]

would you rather my first post have been to call you a moron?

because i can go there if you want...

you seem to think that there's significant matter (air or particles or whatever) out there to cause SIGNIFICANT drag upon the planets, yet you have no basis for your assumptions. indeed scientific factual data backs up a position quite contrary to your notion.

so. where does your arrogance stem from?

[beatrix kiddo]

would you rather my first post have been to call you a moron?

oh yessss... i love it when people are assertive enough to call me an idiot, ****-head..

because i can go there if you want...

oh u went there...

you seem to think that there's significant matter (air or particles or whatever) out there to cause SIGNIFICANT drag upon the planets, yet you have no basis for your assumptions.

fine, joe. i was wrong about it being significant.. but there's still drag. my assumptions? i assumed that the planets would fall into the sun due to drag.. entropy says they will after a long *** time, but i thought it would be a lot sooner.. i was wrong-like... the basis for those assumptions is physics... drag slows crap down.. :rolleyes:

but i don't think i'm wrong about energy playing a role in gravity.

so. where does your arrogance stem from?

i'm too cool to know what that word means :biggrin:

[JoeWade]

but i don't think i'm wrong about energy playing a role in gravity

and what role do you think it plays, pray tell?

[beatrix kiddo]

i think that there is energy involved for the planets to maintain their orbit around the sun without sinking into space-time... (note: this is me ASSUMING for the current model)

[beatrix kiddo]

have u already heard about my push-theory, joe?

[JoeWade]

sure there's energy.

assume a planet travels a stable course across a space time curvature with one major entity (ie> sun) and you can see that it's orbit consists of a quantity of potential energy. both of it's position on the curvature (orbital ring) and of it's momentum/mass in it's orbit.

both of these potentials don't become kinetic unless there exists something else (ie> collision) for them to exert upon.

now were such particles to exist to cause significant drag upon planets, two things would be apparant. the speed would be slowing down, and the mass of the earth would be increasing (accumulation of said particles)

but as was touched upon earlier, most of the particles in space also travel in an orbit similar to our own planets. so the particles wouldn't be colliding with us in that fashion. indeed if particles were simply sitting in space they'd be linearly pulled towards the sun-mass (non orbital collision course)

so you can put that crazy notion out of your head, Bea.

it doesn't work

[chroot]

chroot u have a horrible misconception about my theory in that u think any sudden change in distance is going to result in instantaneous change in speed. the reason there is speed change is because the planet is absorbing neutrinos at a different rate.. (neutrino flux isn't the same everywhere in the solar system) however, just like the change in neutrino flux, the speed change will be gradual.. not instantaneous!
I never said anything about instantaneous changes in speed. Here's what I said:

The Newtonian theory of gravitation says that as a planet approaches perihelion, the point of closest approach to the Sun, it speeds up. When it reaches perihelion, it is no longer gaining speed. At perihelion, the magnitude of the planet's acceleration is zero. After perihelion, it begins to slow down again.

Your theory says that as a planet approaches perihelion, the closest approach to the Sun, its neutrino bombardment gradually increases. Its neutrino bombardment is largest at perihelion. Since neutrino bombardment results in forces, and forces result in accelerations, the planet experiences its largest acceleration at perihelion.

Note the stark difference between the italicised text.
so as potential energy decreases... kinetic energy increases?? would this mean that energy does have something to do with gravity in the universe?
Every process in physics is related in some way to energy. I have no idea what precisely you're getting at, but yes, gravity and energy are related. If you pick a brick up over your head, you've used up chemical energy to give the brick potential energy. When you drop the brick, it trades that potential energy for kinetic energy, which it then uses to deform and injure your foot.

- Warren

[JoeWade]

foot-crush physics are the best for explaining physics to beginners.

my physics teacher did the bucket of water thing in class to demontrate the energy of inertia.

except one of the students was sleeping. so he got the gravity demonstration when she stopped spinning the bucket and up-ended it over his head.

[Math Is Hard]

except one of the students was sleeping. so he got the gravity demonstration when she stopped spinning the bucket and up-ended it over his head.

Way to make a point!! :rofl:

[ArmoSkater87]

lol...chroot is on an ownage spree these past several days in this thread. But anyways, i have a few things i want cleared up. Just picture the earth moon system. Say the moon increases in velocity around its orbit. Because of angular momentum shouldnt it go further out in its orbit. In other words shouldnt the orbit radius increase? And also...say the moon gets pushed out in its orbit, in this case the moon should decrease in speed shouldnt it?...since as it goes out, the gravitational force on the moon by the earth decreases, and so less speed is needed to keep it in an equilibrium obrit. This is like a paradox to me, i dont know maybe im just misunderstanding somehting.

[chroot]

Say the moon increases in velocity around its orbit. Because of angular momentum shouldnt it go further out in its orbit. In other words shouldnt the orbit radius increase?
The orbit will no longer be a circle -- it'll become an ellipse.

- Warren

[urtalkinstupid]

Assuming I understand the gist of this question, no, at least not in the classical sense of 'work' being performed.

You still haven't answered my question. By "work" are you referring to the amount of force applied to a distance.

W=\vex{F}dcos \theta

[beatrix kiddo]

newton says:
At perihelion, the magnitude of the planet's acceleration is zero. After perihelion, it begins to slow down again.

i say:
the planet experiences its largest acceleration at perihelion.

kepler says:
http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/keplerlaw2.htm

oh man... look at that orbit real close (not that close) and u'll see that mercury's velocity is fastest at the perihelion (or any other planet for that matter) agreeing with me...

I have no idea what precisely you're getting at, but yes, gravity and energy are related.

so we agree then.. gravity has something to do with energy.. maybe it's even dependent on some form of energy..

so you can put that crazy notion out of your head, Bea.

which notion? about the neutrinos or about the drag?

so he got the gravity demonstration when she stopped spinning the bucket and up-ended it over his head.

hmm.. reminds me of the time my teacher burnt my face with his cigarette end after he held me down and poured HCL acid in my ear...

[chroot]

You still haven't answered my question. By "work" are you referring to the amount of force applied to a distance.

W=\vex{F}dcos \theta
Yes, that's how work is defined.

In the case of picking a brick up off the ground, you do W = mgh work on the brick. In its new position, it has gained that much potential energy. When you drop it, that potential energy is turned into kinetic energy. When it strikes the ground, that energy becomes heat and sound and broken molecular bonds.

- Warren

[Entropy]

oh man... look at that orbit real close (not that close) and u'll see that mercury's velocity is fastest at the perihelion (or any other planet for that matter) agreeing with me...


Velocity and acceleration are different.

[beatrix kiddo]

ahhh entropy but it accelerates to a faster velocity.. how's that??

[chroot]

oh man... look at that orbit real close (not that close) and u'll see that mercury's velocity is fastest at the perihelion (or any other planet for that matter) agreeing with me...
Listen carefully. I said

acceleration

not

velocity.

I'll repeat myself, this time coloring the important words red:

The Newtonian theory of gravitation says that as a planet approaches perihelion, the point of closest approach to the Sun, it speeds up. When it reaches perihelion, it is no longer gaining speed. At perihelion, the magnitude of the planet's acceleration is zero. After perihelion, it begins to slow down again.

Your theory says that as a planet approaches perihelion, the closest approach to the Sun, its neutrino bombardment gradually increases. Its neutrino bombardment is largest at perihelion. Since neutrino bombardment results in forces, and forces result in accelerations, the planet experiences its largest acceleration at perihelion.

There, does that help your reading comprehension any? Of course Mercury has its largest speed at perihelion -- but if you had any idea what you're talking about, you'd realize instantly that an extremum of velocity corresponds to a zero in acceleration. That's basic calculus. Mercury accelerates up until perihelion, at which point it has its fastest speed and zero acceleration, and then begins decelerating. Obviously for Mercury to go from accelerating to decelerating, it must go through a=0.
so we agree then.. gravity has something to do with energy.. maybe it's even dependent on some form of energy..
I can't even fathom what you mean, but I fear more bull****.

- Warren

[Entropy]

ahhh entropy but it accelerates to a faster velocity..

Dude think of a pendulum, you must of gone over this in Physics I its so basic. I'm really starting the question the quality of your school's physics program.

At the maximum of a pendulum's swing it has maximum acceleration and zero velocity because it is essentially at rest at its peak but still is being accelerated by gravity in the x and y directions (x is centripetal though, it is constant and isn't the acceleration we are talking about). At its minimum it has maximum velocity because its ready to start going back up and work against gravity. But also at the minimum it has zero acceleration in the x direction.

Maybe this will help you: http://encarta.msn.com/media_701508235/Energy_of_a_Pendulum.html

[beatrix kiddo]

1. i don't know calculus
2. look how fast it accelerates when it reaches the perihelion and look how fast it decelerates out of perihelion
3. i know the difference between velocity and acceleration
4. u're right.. i have now set u up for more bull-**** from my theory

big words and red colors are not needed for me chroot... u and i both know it accelerates and decelerates the fastest in and out of perihelion.. we've got a connection

[Entropy]

1. i don't know calculus

Its not calculus. Its level 1, high school, freshmen physics. I think I learned it the third week of my freshman year.

[chroot]

1. i don't know calculus
You must be at least this tall to ride this ride.
2. look how fast it accelerates when it reaches the perihelion and look how fast it decelerates out of perihelion
You seem to be using words for acceleration when you mean velocity.
3. i know the difference between velocity and acceleration
Apparently not. Try again.
big words and red colors are not needed for me chroot... u and i both know it accelerates and decelerates the fastest in and out of perihelion.. we've got a connection
False. Mercury's speed is not changing at perihelion.

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

i know how a pendulum works, entropy thanks.. but we are not talking about something that reaches a zero velocity... we are talking about a planets, once it reaches its fastest velocity there is zero acceleration, not zero velocity...

[beatrix kiddo]

yes it is.. lemme see here.. in perihelion (the green shaded region) it goes from 58.2 km/s to 59.1 km/s to 58.1 km/s that is some speed change, warren

[chroot]

once it reaches its fastest velocity there is zero acceleration
Uh.. that's precisely what we've been saying. The planet has its fastest speed, and zero acceleration, at perihelion. Do you finally get it?

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

or change in velocity.. whatever

[Entropy]

we are talking about a planets, once it reaches its fastest velocity there is zero acceleration, not zero velocity...

I was just including it. I also said at max velocity you have zero acceleration. Also planets do have zero velocity at there maximums, just like a pendulum. Its all the same principal.

[chroot]

yes it is.. lemme see here.. in perihelion (the green shaded region) it goes from 58.2 km/s to 59.1 km/s to 58.1 km/s that is some speed change, warren
Perihelion is a point, not a region. The green region in that applet is 1/10 of the entire orbit. At perihelion, speed is not changing.

Since you've observed that its acceleration is > 0 before perihelion and < 0 after perihelion, you should understand that it must be 0 at perihelion.

- Warren

[Entropy]

You must be at least this tall to ride this ride.

Ohhh! Ouch, thats harsh man...

[beatrix kiddo]

no.. i've been getting it warren.. i'm saying that it accelerates really fast, to the point where it can't accelerate anymore, then it decelerates really fast. all of this occurs in and around the perihelion.. haven't i been saying this?

[Math Is Hard]

yes it is.. lemme see here.. in perihelion (the green shaded region) it goes from 58.2 km/s to 59.1 km/s to 58.1 km/s that is some speed change, warren

here's where the calc comes in handy!

[chroot]

Repeat after me:

Before perihelion, the acceleration is positive. The planet is speeding up. At perihelion, the acceleration is zero. The planet reaches its largest speed at this point. After perihelion, the acceleration is negative. The planet is slowing down again.

- Warren

[Entropy]

i'm saying that it accelerates really fast, to the point where it can't accelerate anymore, then it decelerates really fast.

It doesn't have to be fast. The change in acceleration depends on the eccentricness of the orbit in question.

[beatrix kiddo]

i know!! i should have been more clear.. instead of saying perihelion, i should have said perihelion and the immediate surrounding region.. and i have been saying that warren. so according to my theory everything i said except change perihelion to the "perihelion and the region around it" and velocity is fastest, but acceleration can't go any higher.. so i apologize for misusing the term perihelion.. i can't type that fast so i cut down on as much as i can..

entropy, i am kinda short. i'm like 5.3 or 5.4 or something.. this has nothing to do with anything but i felt like saying it..

[beatrix kiddo]

but it does accelerate fastest around the perihelion region because that sounds good with my theory... i guess... and the model shows it too

[ArmoSkater87]

Beatrix, the point is that your theory is inconsistent with what actually happens in this cenario.

[chroot]

Now that you've figured out what velocity and acceleration mean, and how they change at perihelion, I will repeat my objection to your theory for the third time. Perhaps you could actually read it and respond directly this time?

The Newtonian theory of gravitation says that as a planet approaches perihelion, the point of closest approach to the Sun, it speeds up. When it reaches perihelion, it is no longer gaining speed. At perihelion, the magnitude of the planet's acceleration is zero. After perihelion, it begins to slow down again.

Your theory says that as a planet approaches perihelion, the closest approach to the Sun, its neutrino bombardment gradually increases. Its neutrino bombardment is largest at perihelion. Since neutrino bombardment results in forces, and forces result in accelerations, the planet experiences its largest acceleration at perihelion.

Note the stark difference between the italicised text.

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

ahh! warren i've known what they mean!!!

ok. my theory doesn't say that. just because more neutinos are hitting it at a certain point doesn't necessarily mean it will accelerate fastest.. in the current model, gravity's pull should result in more forces closest to the source of the pull, correct? well, for both cases, once an object is going as fast as it can possibly go, the acceleration stops and the velocity reaches its peak... this is common knowledge.. or somethin'

[Entropy]

i can't type that fast so i cut down on as much as i can..


Take your time. Its not like a race or anything.

but it does accelerate fastest around the perihelion region because that sounds good with my theory... i guess... and the model shows it too

No no no! The model shows that acceration is zero at the perihelion and the rate of acceleration decreases as it approaches the perihelion.

[chroot]

Why don't you just admit the objection is valid, and you don't know how to explain your discrepancy? You look asbolutely foolish.

Let's attack this first:
just because more neutinos are hitting it at a certain point doesn't necessarily mean it will accelerate fastest
So now you're telling me that neutrino flux and acceleration are not related. That was the cornerstone of your entire theory -- it was based upon neutrinos pushing things around, wasn't it? I suppose now your theory can explain ANYTHING, eh?

- Warren

[Entropy]

Night people. I haven't slept in 30 hours.

[beatrix kiddo]

yeah.. entropy u're 2 min. too late to correct me.. mwahahahaha!!!

just because more neutinos are hitting it at a certain point doesn't necessarily mean it will accelerate fastest

i'm allowed to correct myself, because i'm still trying to iron the bumps in this theory's shirt!!

and no, chroot. the cornerstone of my theory isn't acceleration! it's more velocity than acceleration.. yes, neutrinos accelerate, but the rate doesn't necessarily increase closest to the source, but velocity does.. just like with ur theory.

[beatrix kiddo]

*the rate of acceleration that is....

[chroot]

i'm allowed to correct myself, because i'm still trying to iron the bumps in this theory's shirt!!
You're not "correcting yourself," you're playing bait-and-switch, which is intellectually dishonest.
and no, chroot. the cornerstone of my theory isn't acceleration! it's more velocity than acceleration.. yes, neutrinos accelerate, but the rate doesn't necessarily increase closest to the source, but velocity does.. just like with ur theory.
Acceleration and velocity are intimately related. You can't have changes in velocity without accelerations! :rofl:

You've claimed time and time again that the force a body feels is proportional to its neutrino flux, which is obviously higher at perihelion. This does not correspond to reality. Done. Your theory is bunk, and this is the tenth or so obvious flaw we've pointed out.

- Warren

[chroot]

*the rate of acceleration that is....
Now you want to go into third derivatives? :rofl: Take a mechanics course! :rofl:

- Warren

[JoeWade]

but with gravity, the velocity IS the greatest at the closest point.

think of a pendulum, or here's a better example for kids, a skateboarder in the "U" shaped ramp.

he's going the fastest at the VERY BOTTOM MOST POINT (nadir) of the "U".

that's the point at which there is no more potential energy, no more acceleration (positive), and maximum kinetic energy.

there is no point on that ramp where he will ever be at a greater kinetic energy. from that point it's all conversion from kinetic back to potential energy (mass/height)

[beatrix kiddo]

what is it with u and calling me dishonest all the freaking time?!!!! and i am correcting myself. god this gets annoying...
yes, and their related in ur theory too. but the acceleration slows down as the planet's velocity increases, so i don't know what's so funny... something can reach a high velocity GRADUALLY, chroot. notice how i said the RATE of acceleration... and when did i say u can have a change in velocity w/o acceleration? that's just stupid... if the rate of acceleration slows down, an object can still reach fast velocities...

[beatrix kiddo]

i said the velocity is fastest at the closest point.. i've BEEN saying that, joe... i don't want or need another pendulum explanation...

[chroot]

Okay, beatrix, this is it. It's ultimatum time.

This thread has been entirely comical, and that's the only reason I've let it continue this long. Your theory is obviously flawed. You have now acknowledged that you understand the flaws, but you continue to make continually more desperate arguments. This site is intended for mature, intellectually honest people who either wish to teach, or wish to learn. We simply do not need people like you on this site.

I therefore present you with a choice:

1) You admit that your theory is severely flawed, and cannot accurately model reality.

2) You refuse to concede, and I ban you and your friends from this forum forever.

- Warren

[beatrix kiddo]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: sure thing mature admin!! lets's get into third derivatives!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[beatrix kiddo]

this is no fair.. fine i choose choice 1...

[beatrix kiddo]

but i don't choose the adjective "severely"

[chroot]

Fair enough. You have admitted your theory is flawed, and does not accurately model reality. Therefore, this thread is done. Thanks all for your participation.

- Warren