Neutrinos back into the picture?

[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!

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? Take a mechanics course!

- 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]

sure thing mature admin! lets's get into third derivatives!

 

[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