Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter urtalkinstupid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Pull Push
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around questioning the traditional view of gravity as a pulling force, proposing instead a "push theory" where sub-atomic particles, particularly neutrinos, exert pressure on objects. The theory suggests that when an object, like a tennis ball, is thrown, it experiences less pressure from neutrinos on one side, leading to a net force that pushes it back down. The idea challenges the notion that gravity is a fundamental force, positing that it may not exist as commonly understood and is instead governed by sub-atomic pressure. The author invites criticism and experimentation to explore this hypothesis further. Overall, the conversation highlights a speculative yet intriguing alternative perspective on gravity's nature.
  • #201
I don't know why, but it feels really good to see proof that I was wrong and to actually ACCEPT IT: HINT HINT HINT. bah.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #202
Well, my equation is debunked, but Entropy's is also. His equation doesn't take into account the impact force due to their velocity. I know what neutrinos are, and they have rest mass. I used the speed of light, because they are said to travel at approximately the speed of light, ergo they have rest mass. Although, this rest mass is a small number.

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

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

ArmoSkater87...emission and absorption...
 
  • #203
urtalkinstupid said:
Well, my equation is debunked, but Entropy's is also. His equation doesn't take into account the impact force due to their velocity. I know what neutrinos are, and they have rest mass. I used the speed of light, because they are said to travel at approximately the speed of light, ergo they have rest mass. Although, this rest mass is a small number.

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

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

ArmoSkater87...emission and absorption...

Where was hsi debunked? The "impact force" is technicly the energy (only technicly because force != energy) transferred to the planet, which is what he calculated.
 
  • #204
I have to agree with Armo. A miniscule percent of them have interaction with the Earth as they travel through the entire diamater of it. Using the term interact loosely. They would have a negligible effect on the motion of things in the universe. The shower of protons, electrons, pions, muons and other cosmic ray events (my current project) would have a much greater effect on anybody.
 
  • #205
This whole theory couldn't have ever been right because a neutrino is practically massless, and doesn't have a charge. Which means that it can't interact with the strong forces or the electromagnetic forces. The neutrino was created for a certain purpose, that pupose being the conservation of momentum. In certain decay reaction, it was noted that momentum was not conserved since the secondary particles that are emitted didnt go in opposite directions. This meant that there was another secondary particle involved in the decay that we could not detect. In other words neutrinos can't interact at all using any of the fundamental forces, meaning that they can't apply momentum to us and thus cannot cause gravity.

Exactly. Thank you.
 
  • #206
Consider 3 particles making up an object. Particle A is 1 meter away, B is 2, C is 3, the gravity from each (they are the same mass) is m/1 + m/4 + m/9 = 36m/36 + 9m/36 + 4m/36 = 49m/36

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

so what was wrong with that again?
 
  • #207
terrabyte said:
so what was wrong with that again?

Like I said a few posts afterwards, the object isn't remotely spherical, which is the shape that the formula for gravity applies to.
 
  • #208
weird. i thought gravity formula would apply to all shapes.
 
  • #209
I always just assumed that gravity was really just ,mass warping time-space.

When you place a bowling ball on some stretched out rubber sheet, it warps and droops. When you place a marble on that rubber, it rolls to the largest dip (being the one the bowling ball made) in the rubber sheet.
 
  • #210
yeah, that's what einstein said
 
  • #211
if you could make a frictionless rubber sheet it would be almost ideal for that demonstration :D
 
  • #212
terrabyte said:
if you could make a frictionless rubber sheet it would be almost ideal for that demonstration :D

Too bad you need something making the ball want to go lower... so to prove gravity you need... gravity.
 
  • #213
Alkatran said:
Too bad you need something making the ball want to go lower... so to prove gravity you need... gravity.

Or acceleration. If you accelerate the rubber sheet normal to its "flat space" surface, the masses will follow the same rules without invoking gravity.
 
  • #214
good point, although i was merely extolling the virtues of this visualization for describing 3D spacetime using a 2D model.

i wasn't planning on actually making one :D
 
  • #215
i agree with Armo, Rampant, and Entropy. I've been studying this area of physics for a long time now and when i first saw this thread i didn't immediatly dissmiss the idea. I talked to a lot of physicists who all have varying opinions, granted, the majority of them are not in favor of the theory, but then, who was in favor of the sun being the center of our solar system hundreds of years ago?
So i did my own research as well and based on many, many opinions and a lot of research neutrinos cannot be the source of gravity. Urtalkinstupid, u said that u talked to a physicist and he said that the neutrino can provide the push force, how?!
Armo put it very clearly, neutrinos are not really effected by any of the fundamental forces. If u still want to beat this amazingly dead horse then fine, just explain to me how a neutrino can give a push force if an AMAZINGLY miniscule amount are ever effected when they pass through the earth? They should push the earth. Now u might say that the neutrino "field" aroud the Earth is constant. The distribution of neutrinos hitting our planet is not constant at any given time. We should be able to notice a change in the orbit of our Earth if the neutrinos are capable of providing a push force.
The fact is there are a lot more viable and better theories about gravity out there. Neutrinos DO NOT cause gravity. That's that.
 
  • #216
Urtalkinstupid, Alkatran, and who ever else believes this theory...i really think you should give this up... me, DeShiznit, and Rampant have been studying patricle physics and cosmic rays for a while now, especially Deshiznit and I. We have been going to the physics department at UMCP this whole week and have done a lot of research because of a project we are working on. The physics department at UMCP is one of the biggest and most advanced in the country. From the physicists we worked and talked with, none of them accepted your theory of gravity. It is simply impossible for neutrinos to affect you in any way, I am not even going to say anything about the fact that gravity accelerates you at 9.81 m/s^2 on earth. I've seen you say that "the speed of light is not constant", and "the universe isn't expanding". Just from hearing you simply say those statements with absolutlly no actualy proof of it being true already tells me that you are in no position to argue about physics that you yourself clearly don't know much about. In other words everything you have said makes absolutlly no sense in terms of what physicists today accept is true or at least resonable.
 
Last edited:
  • #217
momentum

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

So...

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

or...

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

Is that an ok equation for me to experiment on? Neutrinos do have rest mass...btw.
 
Last edited:
  • #218
I don't think they have rest mass. Even if they do, it makes no difference in whether neutrinos will interact enough to cause gravity.
 
  • #219
Actually, they do have rest mass. They don't travel AT the speed of light, but they travel very close, ergo they have rest mass. This would make a difference. 500 trillion travel through our body every second. Barely any interact. Let's just assume only 1,000,000 interact. I'll do math and post again in a minute.
 
  • #220
uhhh armoskater87 i don't care what physicists u talked to at the UMCP.. or whether or not u gave an unbiased defense for the push theory of gravity... the fact is that the neutrinos DO affect us. "neutrino oscillation is exciting for another reason. if neutrinos can oscillate, then they must have some amount of mass (determined by the kamiokande team), and they are so numerous that they could exert a gravitational influence on the universe." foundations of astronomy pg. 170. and this is coming from a book that agrees with einstein's model of gravity.. so why do u ppl keep saying neutrinos don't affect us?! and I'm sorry that u think that the push theory makes absolutlly.. excuse me.. absolutely no sense to u.. but if u read more. then maybe it wouldn't..
 
Last edited:
  • #221
oh and neutrino rest mass is 7x10^-6 Mev/c^2... maybe instead of "think"ing something u should KNOW it...
 
Last edited:
  • #222
Neutrino mass is an interesting concept. Assigning it a value is even more interesting. Please show the math. That would be fascinating.
 
  • #223
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/lepton.html

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

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

E^2=m^2_0c^4+p^2c^2 Einstein's Equation for total energy.
 
  • #224
just woke up

sry, stupid. i forgot to post (tv) and then it was 6.. so i just went to sleep.. but anyways i found another site by a guy who worked the neutrino mass more indepth and came out with the same answer as the guy i emailed!
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/deutsch/neutrino.html
sweet... i have to find this dude's email so i can talk to him...
 
Last edited:
  • #225
beatrix kiddo said:
oh and neutrino rest mass is 7x10^-6 Mev... maybe instead of "think"ing something u should KNOW it...

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

Second, neutrino rest mass is 0(7x10^-6 Mev) as shown on the site urtalkinstupid showed us.. btw, 7x10^-6 Mev is just 7 ev. Now, 0 times any number is zero. Thus the rest mass is zero. And let's pretend for a second neutrinos have rest mass, 7 ev is WAAAAAAY to big.
 
  • #226
Yea, true that, and btw...MeV isn't mass, MeV/c^2 is. Read more carefully beatrix.
 
Last edited:
  • #227
i left that out.. but i know that it is needed
 
  • #228
Einstein's equation was E=mc^2 i don't see where you get momentum from that.

and beatrix this is from your link
Therefore, 0.07 eV = 1.24786389 x 10^-34 gm.
and that is assuming their velocity is equal to the speed of light. The rest mass is still 0.
 
  • #229
total energy

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

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

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

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

So don't tell me I'm wrong on something if you don't even know what Einstein's Total Energy equation is.
 
  • #230
500 trillion travel through our body every second. Barely any interact. Let's just assume only 1,000,000 interact.

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

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

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

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

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

Btw, that is the correct equation for total energy.
 
  • #231
No, not believing...just trying to sink to you people's level...Give you all something that you can go by.

When I bring out something that you should all go by, I'm pronounced wrong. As if! You people don't even know what you are going by.
 
Last edited:
  • #232
urtalkinstupid said:
No, not believing...just trying to sink to you people's level...Give you all something that you can go by.

I think that's funny coming from a 15 year old who refuses to believe experimental evidence.
 
  • #233
Experimental evidence don't mean anything. I run an experimetn I eat two sandwhiches and chips. Experimental results: I eat two sandwhiches and chips.
 
  • #234
Experimental evidence don't mean anything. I run an experimetn I eat two sandwhiches and chips. Experimental results: I eat two sandwhiches and chips.

WHAT?! :smile: That doesn't even make sence.
 
  • #235
Whats ur point, are you saying you are going to calculate the energy of a neutrino with that equation?
 
  • #236
urtalkinstupid said:
Experimental evidence don't mean anything. I run an experimetn I eat two sandwhiches and chips. Experimental results: I eat two sandwhiches and chips.

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

Math is just math until experiments hint that it could be physics.
 
  • #237
Entropy said:
WHAT?! That doesn't even make sence.

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

ArmoSkater87: yes.

Alkatran, math is what you make it.
 
  • #238
urtalkinstupid said:
sense* exactly...experiments can be performed, and they can also not make a lot of sense, because the math used to arrive at their conclusion is not well derived.

ArmoSkater87: yes.

Alkatran, math is what you make it.

Until it's confirmed by experiments. Stop twisting my words.
 
  • #239
No twisting is necessary. Math, whether it be proved by experiments or not, is what you make it. It has no definite form. You can manipulate math however you want to get the expected experimental outcomes.
 
  • #240
urtalkinstupid said:
No twisting is necessary. Math, whether it be proved by experiments or not, is what you make it. It has no definite form. You can manipulate math however you want to get the expected experimental outcomes.

That's the entire point of physics. The math matches the experiments. You're talking as if being right is somehow wrong.
 
  • #241
urtalkinstupid said:
E^2=m^2_0c^4+p^2c^2

So...

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

or...

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

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


I'm just curious how you arrived at that...can u show how you manipulated that equation to solve for momentum. Btw...neutrinos don't have rest mass.
 
  • #242
ArmoSkater87 said:
I'm just curious how you arrived at that...can u show how you manipulated that equation to solve for momentum. Btw...neutrinos don't have rest mass.

I was wondering that too. It looks like you just grabbed the whole thing, divided and changed the P to a -1 on the other side.
 
  • #243
ArmoSkater87 said:
I'm just curious how you arrived at that...can u show how you manipulated that equation to solve for momentum. Btw...neutrinos don't have rest mass.

Wait I think I figured out his steps:

E^2 = m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2
E^2/(m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2) = 1
E^2/(m^2*c^4+c^2) = 1 + p^2 - Personnaly I like this step very much
E^2/(m^2*c^4+c^2)-1 = p^2
 
  • #244
BTW, neutrinos have rest mass. They travel at .999999c. THAT GIVES THEM A REST MASS. Although, this rest mass is very small. As I posted earlier, I wasn't exactly sure how to manipulate the equation. Everyone I've asked has gotten different ways of solving them. All of them were logical, but some yielded a negative answer. So, If you are able to solve for p, I'd appreciate your help.

I had that equation at first, but it didn't seem right...I'll work with it when I get home. I'm in the lab at my college course right now.
 
  • #245
How do u expect to use that equation to get a neutrino's energy?? That equation doesn't give you a particle's energy, it gives you the energy that would be released if all of the particle's mass would be converted into energy. The conversion of energy has nothing to do with your gravity theory. Not to mention that neutrons don't have rest mass...Besides Entropy was right about almost none of the neutrinos interacting with your body, or anything else. Out of all the neutrinos that go through the earth, only about 1 out of 100 billion interact with it. This means that pretty much all the neutrinos that come to earth, go right through it (in other words, if u were right, then we should be floating in the air right now). Even if the neutrinos had rest mass, and had energy or momentum...anything u want them to have, it wouldn't be enough to cause gravity. Especially when you think about how fast gravity accelerates you on Earth (9.81m/s^2).
 
  • #246
Provide me with a credited source about exactly how many neutrinos interact.
 
  • #247
urtalkinstupid said:
BTW, neutrinos have rest mass. They travel at .999999c. THAT GIVES THEM A REST MASS. Although, this rest mass is very small. As I posted earlier, I wasn't exactly sure how to manipulate the equation. Everyone I've asked has gotten different ways of solving them. All of them were logical, but some yielded a negative answer. So, If you are able to solve for p, I'd appreciate your help.

Your equation is wrong.

Here's why:

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

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

eliminate everything on the left from the right

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

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

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

The speed of light times the object's mass is imaginary. That is why you're equation doesn't work.
 
  • #248
Tell your beloved Einstein that.

BTW, 9.81m/s^2 is acceleration...
 
  • #249
BTW, neutrinos have rest mass. They travel at .999999c.

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

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

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

On that page they say: "The SNO detector, which is located 2000 meters below ground in INCO's Creighton nickel mine near Sudbury, Ontario, uses 1000 tonnes of heavy water to intercept about 10 neutrinos per day."
 
  • #250
Tell your beloved Einstein that.

BTW, is acceleration...

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

Similar threads

Discussing Push vs Pull with My Boss
Replies
2
Views
7K
Detecting Gravity Waves: An Exploration of Using Them for Communication
Replies
2
Views
2K
I What happens when an explosion occurs on the surface of the moon?
Replies
5
Views
2K
B How Does Gravity Influence Energy Production in Hydroelectric Generators?
Replies
11
Views
1K
B Does an orbiting mass exert force on what it is orbiting around?
Replies
7
Views
3K
What are the accepted theories for the source of gravity?
Replies
40
Views
6K
B What Causes Mass to Exert Gravitational Pull?
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Gravity: Force or Acceleration?
2
Replies
69
Views
7K
I Is dark energy pushing or is it a mirror concept of gravity?
Replies
31
Views
4K
I How weather conditions affect a golf shot
Replies
6
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top