Neutrinos back into the picture?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter urtalkinstupid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Neutrinos Picture
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties and implications of neutrinos, particularly focusing on the push theory of gravity, which suggests that neutrinos may exert a force that contributes to gravitational effects. Participants explore the detection of different neutrino flavors, their masses, and the potential impact on gravitational theories. The conversation includes both theoretical considerations and challenges to the proposed ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants describe neutrinos as fundamental particles with three flavors: electron, muon, and tau neutrinos, each with distinct properties and masses.
  • One participant claims that only electron neutrinos are detected by current methods, raising questions about the fate of the remaining neutrinos emitted by the sun.
  • There is a proposal that the differing masses and energies of neutrinos could lead to a push theory of gravity, suggesting that tau neutrinos, being more massive, might exert a greater force than electron neutrinos.
  • Another participant questions the feasibility of tau neutrinos having a mass of 31 MeV, expressing skepticism about their interaction with matter.
  • Some participants argue that the energy from tau neutrinos is insufficient to account for gravitational effects, citing their rarity and the conditions under which they are produced.
  • Concerns are raised about the previous thread being closed due to personal conflicts, with a call for a more respectful discussion environment.
  • One participant suggests that during solar eclipses, the moon's gravitational effects remain consistent, questioning how the push theory would account for this phenomenon.
  • There is a mention of external sources and arguments that challenge the push theory, with some participants expressing skepticism about the validity of these sources.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the push theory, with some supporting it and others challenging its validity. There is no consensus on the implications of neutrino properties for gravitational theory, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various sources and prior knowledge, but there are unresolved questions regarding the detection of tau neutrinos, their mass, and the implications for gravitational forces. The discussion also reflects differing interpretations of neutrino interactions with matter.

  • #31
No one in the real world cares about your opinion

ouch, chroot. i mean my feelings and crap.. i might even cry if u get too condescending :smile:

for good reason

for good reason? what the heck is that supposed to mean?! let me go through this once again, for the admin. as I've said before, a pull doesn't exist. there is no such thing. when u pull open a door, when u pull a book, paper, string, etc. towards u it is not actually "pulling". u are actually pushing these objects (chroot i asked u to look at my old posts, I've explained this concept in them) do u still require further explanation?? if so, i really don't mind and i'll even give the sources i used before so u'll know it's legit...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
You can say it till you're blue in the face. I still don't care. It's a semantic argument -- physicists don't use words like "push" or "pull." They draw a diagram and show the forces explicitly. It does not matter what you call it.

- Warren
 
  • #33
beatrix kiddo said:
chroot, i thought u said u hated theory development. but it's ok, i enjoy ur company, i like it when u talk down to us and when u accuse me of plagiarism. i mean, i NEVER cite my sources anyways, right? sweet.

alkatran, why do u think that neutrinos coming in on the other side of the planet is going to null the push affect? i really want u to do the step by step math showing that the affect will be nulled if their are sources on all sides of the planet. speaking of which, where did u come up with that equation? did u just make it up, or is it from a real physics equation? i haven't seen it. i know ur a math wiz, but please give us ur sources for that equation (i don't care, even if it's from a math book..) also, why do u think the moon doesn't come crashing down on the earth? because the Earth is also pushing on the moon. in fact, the moon is moving away from the earth. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124
this guy gives an explanation that'll fit gravity being a pull, but i think it's safe to say that the moon moving away from Earth is caused by the Earth pushing on the moon.

The equations are a derivation of my own logic. I assumed that:

-The more matter a neutrino passes through, the greater the change it will interact. (assuming this grew in a linear fashion with mass)
-A certain percent of neutrinos would be absorbed, and not a fixed quantity. It just makes more sense than a fixed or exponential amount.

Can anyone confirm both of these?

If the Earth is pushing the moon away, what's holding it there? (According to you) Incoming neutrinos, right? Well that means that moon is getting more neutrinos from outside than inside (since it's going around us) and that they all happen to point directly towards earth. That means that when the neutrinos pass through other celestial bodies, they are pointed towards earth, and everything orbits earth. Fantastic.

You guys keep arguing on the amount of neutrinos, and the energy in those neutrinos, but our counter-arguments are based differently. We're saying that the universe would be much more centralized that it is now if it were push gravity (everything orbiting earth, as an example). Instead, we have a universe with trillions of "centers", be it on a small (the Earth holding us) or grandios (the galaxy holding the solar system) scale.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Why are u people arguing with an admin?? Jesus...this whole conversation is pathetic, its geting to the point where i just don't want to be part of it. Beatrix please stop being arrogant and let's handle things maturely. I am not going to say that gravity is not a "push" force, because "pull" doesn't really excist, but when so many people tell you that neutrinos can't be doing the "pushing", just let it go. If you think you are so right, then why don't you show us mathematically that neutrinos can exert enough force to cause gravity.
 
  • #35
I liked Beatrix better when I thought she was a 4rth grader. The misconceptions were kinda cute then :biggrin:
 
  • #36
Beatrix please stop being arrogant and let's handle things maturely

I'M being immature armo? how mature was this:

Beatrix, i read that site u gave me...and i can only say, LOL!
This guy is more full of crap than anyone else I've ever seen! Sorry but i couldn't help laughing my butt off from reading how full of himself he is. He is basically saying what Stupid said, except he doesn't even say what's being blocked. In the case we have, its neutrinos, but what he says is just terrible.

what the hell do u call this:

No one in the real world cares about your opinion, for good reason.

and if anyone should take the cake for immaturity on this site, it's the guy who said this:

I liked Beatrix better when I thought she was a 4rth grader. The misconceptions were kinda cute then

:mad:
ahh! u only point me out because i go against what u believe. if that's not immature, something cliche here...

The equations are a derivation of my own logic. I assumed that:

-The more matter a neutrino passes through, the greater the change it will interact. (assuming this grew in a linear fashion with mass)
-A certain percent of neutrinos would be absorbed, and not a fixed quantity. It just makes more sense than a fixed or exponential amount.

Can anyone confirm both of these?

i'm not really sure what would be an adequate equation, I'm trying though. so til everyone is sure... let's not just come up with some equations that we're not even sure are correct..

If you think you are so right, then why don't you show us mathematically that neutrinos can exert enough force to cause gravity.

u just wait, armo. i may not have an equation, now.. but i will. (i just started studying the push theory, i don't have ALL the answers...)

and just because chroot is an admin, doesn't mean he's always right, or just.
 
  • #37
Dude, i didnt say you are being imature, all i was saying is that we should try to handle the situation in a way that doesn't get everyone mad at everyone else, its just geting to be like the other thread...its becoming very personal. I know that what i said then was a little imature, but i couldn't help it...the guy at that website was just so full of himself. Besides, i didnt say anything imature agaisnt you or anyone else. Others may be saying imature things too, but its only because all the reasons you use to back your theory is nonsense. I don't mean that in a bad way, I am simply saying that you need to look at the other side of the story, and don't be so arrogant. At least try to see how the theory is flawed from what others tell you, instead of defending it with reasons that themselves have flaws. Instead of critisizing, explain in terms of physics why we are wrong if you are so sure that you're right.
 
  • #38
So, Entropy are you telling me that tau and muon neutrinos haven't been detected yet?

I know muon neutrinos have been detected but not tau neutrinos have not.

Arg, a theory that was proposed by Newton still exist. Newton even said he was unsure how to explain his findings. Does that not tell you people anything? It's all made up. In reality, there is no such thign as a pull. Even Newton said that. He explained force as an attractive force, not pull. People just associated it as a pull. It took a man years later to explain what Newton couldn't, though Newton was the person who first proposed gravity. Einstein even had a blurry concept of how gravity worked. His concept can't explain black holes, or if the universe is expanding, crucnhing, or static. All of which can be explained through push theory. Isn't the underlying concept of quantum physics emission and absorption? Think of neutrinos as the emitter, and other objects as the absorber. If physics were to actually apply quantum physics to the big scale, they see that it doesn't work. It doesn't work, anything big is associated with attraction based on their weight and distance. If everything were based on density and the rate at which objects emitt and absorb, there would be a unity between QFT and GR. String theory is pretty believable. It involves emission and absorption as the existence of everything. Once they study the strings enough, they will discover that gravity is not a pull force. Nothing can pull. Pulling has no opposite.

For the hundred millionth time! Gravity isn't a pull its an effect of space-time curvature. It isn't even a real force. We aren't saying its a pull. I though you understood that but apparently its not getting through your thick skull.

Einstein even had a blurry concept of how gravity worked. His concept can't explain black holes, or if the universe is expanding, crucnhing, or static. All of which can be explained through push theory.

It takes more than understanding gravity to determain the fate of the universe. You do know there are other forces at work other than gravity don't you?
 
  • #39
beatrix kiddo said:
i'm not really sure what would be an adequate equation, I'm trying though. so til everyone is sure... let's not just come up with some equations that we're not even sure are correct..

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the equation is almost definitely almost right. (The same way Newtonian physics is "almost" right at low speeds)

But it stand to reason that the more stuff a neutrino goes through, the greater the chance that it gets absorbed.
 
  • #40
A thread with a bang. It is amusing. Why should push be more valid than pull? Does a current in a river 'push' or 'pull'? If I swim downstream faster than the downstream current speed, why do i feel resistance to further acceleration? I need a very complicated 'push' theory to explain that. My 'pull' theory, however, yields a very uncomplicated explanation.

A link which should amuse you, Chroot

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/debating.html

You are pretty stubborn. I like that.

Footnote to urstalkinstupid and bea. Give some credit to LeSage, who proposed your 'push' theory over 200 years ago. Nobody paid much attention to it then, either.

http://mgi.my100megs.com/LeSage.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
Math Is Hard said:
I liked Beatrix better when I thought she was a 4rth grader. The misconceptions were kinda cute then :biggrin:

To BLO: Your subtlety did not go unnoticed.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Okay, i think this thread is done...when the supporters of this theory come up with actual proof, instead of nonsense, please make another thread that says NEUTRINO PROBLEM SOLVED, then i'll be glad to see what you have to offer.
 
  • #43
ArmoSkater87 said:
Okay, i think this thread is done...when the supporters of this theory come up with actual proof, instead of nonsense, please make another thread that says NEUTRINO PROBLEM SOLVED, then i'll be glad to see what you have to offer.

Use your sense of humor. I know I was laughing all the way through this thread.
 
  • #44
Fascinating article on LeSage, Chronos! I had never heard of this person.
(And I love Phil Plait and the Bad Astronomy site. I really enjoyed his commentary back during the Planet X hysteria.) :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #45
I suspect Phil posts here every now and then [a signature thing]. He is a riot, and a fairly smart dude.
 
  • #46
Chronos said:
Use your sense of humor. I know I was laughing all the way through this thread.

LOL...if you think this thread was funny, you should read the past thread that was closed down...which was like 23 pages long, I am really surprised it lasted that long. This thread is a continuing of that other thread. If its still there, its called Gravity, push, pull, or doesn't exist?.
 
  • #47
Afterthought: Be nice Armo. I try to be nice. I don't always succeed. [especially after a deluxe pizza]. My mission is to redirect bright young minds away from quackery and towards the real issues of science. I love these guys who ask dumb questions and propose even dumber theories. More power to them.

I enjoy blowing their silly theories out of the water. But, what I enjoy even more, is seeing them persist and keep asking questions. I challenge them to think and use the tools and observational evidence we have given them. All I can say to them is: keep thinking and keep working on your ideas. But, first learn and understand what we have learned on the backs of our ancestors. Respect those who helped you get to the point where you are able to ask hard questions. Go to school, do the math, and show us what you have learned. We did not create the pedestal of knowledge for us to stand upon, it was for you. Knowledge is our gift to you. It is flawed, incomplete, and we know that.
 
  • #48
Sorry if i was being mean, but what you say is right, they must know what they are talking about. So i think they should learn about it, then tell us with backed up reasons.
 
  • #49
go lesage!

there.. credit where credit is due!

chronos ur bad astronomy site was not amusing or funny or whatever. u may not think i get it, but i get it and whenever i post links on this thread it's atleast relevant to the topic and not a way for me to express my opinion about people.

Your subtlety did not go unnoticed

ur's didn't either, chronos..

Use your sense of humor. I know I was laughing all the way through this thread.

ahh.. when u say bs like this, i suppose u aren't trying to be subtle...

LOL...if you think this thread was funny, you should read the past thread that was closed down...which was like 23 pages long, I am really surprised it lasted that long. This thread is a continuing of that other thread. If its still there, its called Gravity, push, pull, or doesn't exist?.

the funniest thing about that thread was how badly u got owned in it... THAT was funny...

Be nice Armo. I try to be nice.

awwww. chronos. u're an angel! oh wait...

My mission is to redirect bright young minds away from quackery and towards the real issues of science. I love these guys who ask dumb questions and propose even dumber theories.

well I'm glad lord einstein has set u on the path of righteousness where u can preach his message unto the heathens of the science world! i mean statements that start with "MY MISSION" on a physics forum should be put into question as to what idiot said that...

Sorry if i was being mean, but what you say is right, they must know what they are talking about. So i think they should learn about it, then tell us with backed up reasons.

stupid has done that before, and the last time we got horrible answers.. so what's the use? now, if u don't mind, let us return to OUR theory (this is theory DEVELOPMENT, right?) and how we are going to further develop it. :biggrin:
 
  • #50
I'm curious, what would it take for stupid and kiddo to state that their idea has failed?

I mean, how do you two plan to test its validity? And how do you build into those tests the possibility of a clear Yes/No result?
 
  • #51
nereid, it's going to take a lot more than what u think u are capable of presenting on this thread. and "HAS failED"? u make it sound as if our theory has actually been proven false. all u guys can do is present me with things einstein said and the experiments preformed and the list goes on. u think u have officially proven this theory wrong, but so far u haven't given any exact evidence that directly states where I'm wrong.
nereid, the first test is logic. the second test is where i buy all this equipment, come to ur house, set up a neutrino detector in ur bathroom, and prefrom all these experiments and u can stand and watch, ok? we can even test that whole neutrino mag. flux idea u introduced in the old thread, just to see if ur right!
it's OBVIOUS i can't exactly test this thing, nereid. i am 15 and my resources are sadly limited. the only part of the neutrino detector i can supply is the water.. and it's not even heavy so that's going to make it even harder to detect them. geez. but if i did have all the resources, equipment, etc. me and my team of japanese super geniuses would be able to prove my theory. but until then i will keep searching for the undoubtedly accumulating evidence that backs this theory up.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
beatrix kiddo said:
...me and my team of japanese super geniuses ..

What IS the going rate for a team of Japanese super geniuses? That can't be cheap!
 
  • #53
i know.. that's why I'm about to get a job at mcdonalds... ok?!
 
  • #54
beatrix kiddo said:
u think u have officially proven this theory wrong, but so far u haven't given any exact evidence that directly states where I'm wrong.
There are many, many, many easy experiments that prove that a push theory of gravity is wrong. Many of them require nothing more than a bathroom scale, or the solar system. (You can a simple calculation of the way the solar system WOULD look, compared to how it DOES look.) Neither of these sorts of experiments require any serious money. You presumably already have a bathroom scale, and the solar system is pretty much a free lunch. Several experiments have already been proposed in this thread -- why haven't you done them? What are you waiting for? Don't snivel and whine about how expensive equipment is -- the equipment you need to prove your theory wrong is even simpler than the equipment Newton had.

- Warren
 
  • #55
the funniest thing about that thread was how badly u got owned in it... THAT was funny...

lol! I GOT OWNED? I don't recall a single time that i was disproven in any way for why i think your theory is wrong. While you have been disproven in more ways and by more people that i just don't know how to compredend how you still persist with your belief despite even admins and mentors telling you that your theory isn't possible...im not even going to say how much more physics they know compared to you. In other words, you and your friend urtalkinstupid are the ones who got owned by pretty much everyone that goes agaist your theory.
 
  • #56
chroot my bathroom scale isn't sensitive enough for that. but i can go to the local vets office and ask to use their really sensitive dog scale. so there's a start! and i could measure if i jump higher at night! oh now it's really getting good! chroot, ur a genius! all i have to do is some amateur experiments and that should put all of ur minds at ease about my theory!
u know that's not going to be enough. but i'll do it anyways, since I've been "whining" about it. so right now i weigh 113 (lbs). all i have to do is see if i weigh a little less than that at night...
but even if it does show i weigh less, that won't necessarily mean I'm right. i really want to get some results from neutrino detectors and such.
and i read that if gravity was a pull all galaxies would look like doughnuts. and that makes sense... http://www.pioneer-net.com/~jessep/why.html can u refute this?? and hey u can win money too! i know armo thinks this dude is crazy, but if u can silence him, there's a serious reward...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
armo, who was it that kept saying, "i really THINK that's too high to be the energy for a neutrino" hahahaha. so i had to give u 2 sources to show u i didn't make that up. and if i was getting owned so bad, would i have even bothered to come back and write in this thread? armo i guess u think because CHROOT says something, i should automatically give up what i know is right. just because he's an admin.. who's admining the admins?? i get in trouble for something i didn't do and now I'm half way to getting banned for 21 days. (look at my crappy warning level!) i don't know if my warning level has anything to do with this but I'm constantly having to sign in, every few minutes which really sux. and u also can't expect me to take chroot seriously if he comes here to TD and starts talking down to me. should admins do this? i mean, chroot is supposed to be understanding and trying to "help" me. instead he tells me i don't know my "ass from a tensor" and then slaps me with a 7 point warning level! what happened to not getting personal. this is so backwards...
 
  • #58
beatrix kiddo said:
so right now i weigh 113 (lbs). all i have to do is see if i weigh a little less than that at night...

It would be more scientific if you would weigh something that wasn't subject to fluctuations in weight. If you eat dinner or go to the bathroom between now and your next weight recording you will almost certainly throw off your calculations.
 
  • #59
i know.. but chroot says that i should test the experiments proposed on the thread, and that was one of them so...
 
  • #60
I'm also curious as to how a push theory can explain how light bends around massive objects. I mean in your push model would not the neutrinos knock the light passing near a star away from the star and not towards it. Not only that but how exactly would neutrinos affect the path of photons?
 

Similar threads

Graduate Neutrino masses and sterile neutrinos
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Graduate Why do neutrinos always have a specific flavor when detected?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
How Does Earth's Electron Density Affect Neutrino Oscillations?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Fraction of solar neutrinos arriving at the Earth
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Graduate Do All Stars Emit Only Electron Neutrinos?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Graduate How Do Neutrino Oscillations Reveal the Nature of Neutrinos?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad Extremely strange consequence of the speed of heat value
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Special Relativity homework problems
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Graduate How Does the Double-Slit Experiment Illustrate Wave-Particle Duality?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
White Paper on Revolutionary Technology - X-FORCE
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K