Neutrinos back into the picture?

[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...

 

[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.

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 anyone 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

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. I am 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, there's just some things that you can't explain using that theory and that will tempt you to make stuff up in order to keep this argument 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 isn't a way to explain why the galaxies don't fall apart. I couldn't 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 into 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.

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 let's 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 don't avoid this and try to get around it, just answer this in a way that actually makes sense.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

100% vacuum would make both objects just sit in space. If you drop a hammer and a feather in a 100% vacuum 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% vacuum would make both objects just sit in space. If you drop a hammer and a feather in a 100% vacuum 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 doesn't 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 doesn't even have to be 100%...it actually can't on earth, but it can get very close...around 99.99% I am guessing. I though you would understand why i said "asuming 100% vacuum"...i though you're smart enough to realize 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