beatrix kiddo said:
Brad_Ad23 said:
This interaction with electrons is itself a weak force interaction. Electrons also feel the weak force.urtalkinstupid said:
The interaction cross-section for neutrinos is well-known.
Okay, so there's an enormous outward force (the neutrinos pushing their way out) and a much smaller inward force (external neutrinos coming in). This is not an equilibrium. The Sun will still explode.
Of course they do.
Yes, that is a method for detecting neutrinos. Bravo. I'll touch on the reactor bit in the next quote.urtalkinstupid said:
urtalkinstupid said:
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).beatrix kiddo said:
Brad_Ad23 said:
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.urtalkinstupid said:
That was a fun paper.urtalkinstupid said:
urtalkinstupid said:
urtalkinstupid said:
urtalkinstupid said:
urtalkinstupid said:
urtalkinstupid said:
urtalkinstupid said:
urtalkinstupid said:
Alkatran said:
urtalkinstupid said:
urtalkinstupid said:
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.urtalkinstupid said:
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
Mass (and energy) curve space, and free-falling masses move along geodesics (the straightest possible paths) in such curved space.
chroot said:
Newton's theory is demonstrably wrong. Who cares what it said?urtalkinstupid said:
Because you presumably wouldn't understand the same explanation in the full regalia of general relativity. Newtonian gravitation is a special case of general relativity, in the limit of small masses and velocities, and thus it is acceptable for analyzing a falling hammer and feather on Earth. Newtonian gravitation is not, however, correct in general.urtalkinstupid said:
Of course there is. It can be measured.
In principle, it can be directly measured. You can draw a large enough circle and observe that the ratio of its circumference to diameter is no longer pi. You could draw a large enough triangle and observe that the sum of its angles is no longer 180 degrees. I don't know how else you'd explain those sorts of observations.urtalkinstupid said:
It's applicable, but it's still not exactly correct. Newtonian gravity is an approximation of general relativity when masses and velocities are small. It's much easier to calculate things with Newtonian model than with general relativity, so we use the Newtonian model for situations in which its answers are negligibly different. For the most part, Newtonian gravity is all we need to explain the solar system. The probes that we've sent to Jupiter and Saturn, for example, required nothing more than the Newtonian model to calculate how their engine firings would move them through the solar system. The same trajectories could have been calculated with the full computational power of general relativity, but for little gain: the final positions would have differed only by centimeters or less.
I'm afraid it's a silly endeavor to try to ascribe human properties to lumps of matter. The lumps of matter doesn't "know" anything. The universe just happens to work this way, in the same way it just happens to have two kinds of electrical charge, and so on. You can just invoke the anthropic principle if you're inclined to worry about such things.
G_{\mu\nu} = T_{\mu\nu}
To scientists, "theory" and "model" are essentially the same thing. A theory that cannot make predictions is useless.
You seem to understand very little about current scientific theories, so it's no wonder you think they're "unreal." You're just beating strawmen. It's pathetic, really.
