Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

[ArmoSkater87]

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.

 

[Alkatran]

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.

 

[Alkatran]

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

 

[urtalkinstupid]

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.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

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).

 

[urtalkinstupid]

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

 

[Alkatran]

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.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Tell your beloved Einstein that.

BTW, 9.81m/s^2 is acceleration...

 

[Entropy]

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."

 

[Entropy]

Tell your beloved Einstein that.

BTW, is acceleration...

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

 

[ArmoSkater87]

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

lol, that step you personally like is very impossible and not true. I really don't think that equation is manipulated right.

I think this is the best and easiest way to solve for momentum...

E^2 = m_0^2c^4 + p^2c^2
\frac{E^2-m_0^2c^4}{c^2} = p^2
p=\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m_0^2c^4}}{c}

 

[Alkatran]

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

Think of it this way, let's say there are N neutrinos headed towards us per square meter. For simplification let's assume that both the wave of neutrinos headed towards us flat, and so are we. (it's so close it won't matter).

Now, let's assume that for every cubic meter, Y% of the neutrinos are absorbed. Let's also say each neutrino gives off a push of X
Let's also say the planet is only 1 meter deep.

You're in a forest, above you there are branches and leaves, making up 1 cubic meter: Push on trees: N*Y*X

Then the neutrinos hit you:
Push on you: N * Y^2 * X

Then the ground:
N * Y^3 * X

The only thing changing in this equation is the exponent on Y. Let's say Y is 50% (a very large amount is absorbed)

The trees get a force of .5NX
You get half that
The ground get's half that
You're being pushed into the ground with a force of nx.5^2-nx.5^3 = .125NX Newtons. And the trees are being pushed into the ground at .375 Newtons (assuming they have massively thin trunks)

That means that trees weigh three times as much as you per kilogram. Oh, and when you walk out from under the trees your weight triples.

Alright so a high number isn't going to work. We need a lower % of absorption, or else things above other things would weigh MUCH more than the things below. Ok, then, let's put Y at 1%

Force on trees: .01nx
Force on you: .0099nx
Force on earth: 0.009801

Alright, now the numbers are a lot more equal! Oh wait, oh no! We're floating! Oh shi-...

It gets worse when then planet is getting 100000 more absorption than us. and if the % absorbed is very low the neutrinos are going to affect people on the other side of the planet...

 

[Alkatran]

lol, that step you personally like is very impossible and not true. I really don't think that equation is manipulated right.

I think this is the best and easiest way to solve for momentum...

E^2 = m_0^2c^4 + p^2c^2
\frac{E^2-m_0^2c^4}{c^2} = p^2
p=\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m_0^2c^4}}{c}

I'm really hoping you got the joke.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

lol, nice explanation Alkatran. :D

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Armo, answer is negative. The rest of you I don't have time to read what you provided continually, so when i get home I'll read it. I probably won't be home tonight, because I'm actually going to have a life, rather than have a life in physics.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

Wow ok, so now you're going to say that everyone here has no life because they like physics.

 

[Alkatran]

Armo, answer is negative. The rest of you I don't have time to read what you provided continually, so when i get home I'll read it. I probably won't be home tonight, because I'm actually going to have a life, rather than have a life in physics.

Uh huh, that's great. I'd go out but I live a half hour from anyone and my girlfriend is camping.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

Alkatran, i thought u were supporting this theory. Btw, how old are u?

 

[Alkatran]

Alkatran, i thought u were supporting this theory. Btw, how old are u?

I wasn't supporting the theory, I was supporting my theory that density affected curvature at a point. But I proved myself wrong (a rare feat for most!).

17.

 

[DeShiznit44]

ok, look urtalkinstupid. We all have lives. We're not 15 yr old kids trying to prove a theory that has less weight than a neutrino. The very first message u posted stated that you wre open for critisism and questions yet you have still reacted negativly maybe because u are not mature enough to be open minded about our answers/comments or you are just horribly stubborn. Either way it doesn't matter. We thought about your theory and it leaves waaaaay to many questions unanswered. Further more it has made u contradict yourself. You infered in the first post u made that experiments would be needed to prove this theory and then u said a few posts ago that experiments don''t count for anything. Now ur going to say we don't believe you and are critisizing you because you are young. No, we're not. We're treating you as old as you are acting. To coment about our personal lives when you don't even know us is ridiculus. You've made more comments on this thread than any of us. If anyone doesn't have a life stupid, it's you. I'm going to go have dinner with my girlfriend now. If you have any other parts of this theory you would like us to point out the holes in, pease feel free to let us know.

 

[DeShiznit44]

And Alkatran, I'm impressed, i expected you to be older lol. You have a really good understanding.

 

[Alkatran]

And Alkatran, I'm impressed, i expected you to be older lol. You have a really good understanding.

Thank you. I owe it all to trying to figure it out for myself, and not paying attention to my high school teachers.

Mind you, I had an awful string of math and physics teachers in high school. REALLY bad. I'm talking "Here's 5 problems to do for the next 3 classes" bad. I'm talking "You got 2/10 on that question because you didn't use the method I taught you" bad. (I had solved a geometric equation with a quick little shortcut: T(3) = 9, T(6) = 81, T(9) = ?, I said since 6-3 = 9-6 that T(6)/T(3)=T(9)/T(6) so T(9) = T(6)/T(3)*T(6). But NO. I had to SOLVE T(6)/T(3) and figure out all this obvious stuff...)

*edit* Wow. That turned from an innocent thank you to a rant. Sorry about that.
I'd say more but I really would come off as arrogant. Like I just did. Right there too. And...

 

[ArmoSkater87]

yea Alkatran you're pretty smart, I am 17 too, Deshiznit will be 17 very soon.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

The current theory aslo has WAYYY too many questions unanswered. So, don't try that. Tell terrabyte not to comment on everyone's personal lives. Don't just point me out. Why is it so hard to unify General Relativity with Special Relativity or Quantum Physics? There are obvioulsy WAYYY too many questions unanswered, because of the hassle that arouses up from trying to combine them.

Why is it uncertain what happens beyond an event horizon? Why is the cosmological constant still unsolved? Why is it that gravity is an attractive force, but the Universe is said to be expanding? How come there are black holes forming near the "beginning" of the Universe? Why is that when something gets more densed, there appears to be a more devestating effect of gravity? (Expert's opinion, like a highly credited site would be suffice. Since you people love math and experiments, provide me with some of those from a better source than Alkatran.) If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?

Yea, Alkatran, I feel you on the bad teacher thing. As you can tell, I've quite a few bad teachers myself.

ArmoSkater87, you still think gravity travels at the speed you mentioned? HAH, I'm sure everyone can agree with me for once on this one.

 

[terrabyte]

leave me out of the discussion completely before i have to go back and quote you two provoking me.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Welcome back, terrabyte. You started getting into people's lives. I was simply telling them that I'm not the ONLY one. Not trying to bring you in; I'm just trying to point you out to tell these people that other people are making unecessary comments.

 

[Alkatran]

The current theory aslo has WAYYY too many questions unanswered. So, don't try that. Tell terrabyte not to comment on everyone's personal lives. Don't just point me out. Why is it so hard to unify General Relativity with Special Relativity or Quantum Physics? There are obvioulsy WAYYY too many questions unanswered, because of the hassle that arouses up from trying to combine them.

Why is it uncertain what happens beyond an event horizon? Why is the cosmological constant still unsolved? Why is it that gravity is an attractive force, but the Universe is said to be expanding? How come there are black holes forming near the "beginning" of the Universe? Why is that when something gets more densed, there appears to be a more devestating effect of gravity? (Expert's opinion, like a highly credited site would be suffice. Since you people love math and experiments, provide me with some of those from a better source than Alkatran.) If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?

Yea, Alkatran, I feel you on the bad teacher thing. As you can tell, I've quite a few bad teachers myself.

The universe is expanding because it is moving at a very high speed. Gravity can't stop objects after a certain speed (duh, you knew that). Anything that has 0 rest mass can theoritcly move at the speed of light, because it accelerates instantly (or so I assume! Don't trust me on this).

When something gets more dense there is a more devastating effect because of the massive curvature at ONE SPOT instead of having spread out over a large area. If you go to the center of the sun, you're being pulled from all directions and don't accelerate very much, besides being cooked alive. However, if the sun was the size of a dime, you would implode because there's nothing on the outside to balance it out.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

I want sources that prove this stuff. So, can you provide?

 

[ArmoSkater87]

But you don't understand...those questions that you mention actually have answers or at least partial answers that make sense in terms of out understanding of physics at this point. GR/SR and QM have been united before. Stephen Hawking united them and proved that black holes slowly evaporate. The event horrizon of black holes might not even excist, we really don't know much about black holes since they are so far away and hard to detect. This is why you can have large debates about black holes and no one can actuallty prove much about them since out knowledge of them is so limited. About the density...its because of the equation Fg = Gm1m2/r^2, g=Gm/r^2...dividing by a smaller radius means and at the same time having the same mass, means more density...and therefore the gravity increases.

"If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?"
Not a bad point actually.

 

[Alkatran]

I want sources that prove this stuff. So, can you provide?

The black hole thing is simple common sense. If you go inside an object of equal density througout, you are only affected by the mass towards the center (from you) and not the outside. The outside "shell" completely nullifies itself. Since by the time you reach the inside of the matter of a black hole you've passed the events horizon... well you're not going anywhere.

As for the very high speed thing allowing expansion: Consider this, you launch a rocket off Earth going 0.9c.

What happens? For a fraction of a second the light feels more than 9m/s^2 of acceleration, then it gets further away from the earth. Soon the pull is 8, then 7, 6... in fact, the decrease in acceleration is so high that the rocket will NEVER stop due to the Earth's gravity. It may get close to stopping, but it will always be moving forward.

I'm trying to figure out the maths for this in my head. I find myself going in circles, but give me a minute.