Neutrinos back into the picture?

[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.. let me 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.. let me 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, that's 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.. let me 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"