Neutrinos back into the picture?

[beatrix kiddo]

back

would you rather my first post have been to call you a moron?

oh yessss... i love it when people are assertive enough to call me an idiot, ****-head..

because i can go there if you want...

oh u went there...

you seem to think that there's significant matter (air or particles or whatever) out there to cause SIGNIFICANT drag upon the planets, yet you have no basis for your assumptions.

fine, joe. i was wrong about it being significant.. but there's still drag. my assumptions? i assumed that the planets would fall into the sun due to drag.. entropy says they will after a long ass time, but i thought it would be a lot sooner.. i was wrong-like... the basis for those assumptions is physics... drag slows crap down..

but i don't think I'm wrong about energy playing a role in gravity.

so. where does your arrogance stem from?

i'm too cool to know what that word means

 

[JoeWade]

but i don't think I'm wrong about energy playing a role in gravity

and what role do you think it plays, pray tell?

 

[beatrix kiddo]

i think that there is energy involved for the planets to maintain their orbit around the sun without sinking into space-time... (note: this is me ASSUMING for the current model)

 

[beatrix kiddo]

have u already heard about my push-theory, joe?

 

[JoeWade]

sure there's energy.

assume a planet travels a stable course across a space time curvature with one major entity (ie> sun) and you can see that it's orbit consists of a quantity of potential energy. both of it's position on the curvature (orbital ring) and of it's momentum/mass in it's orbit.

both of these potentials don't become kinetic unless there exists something else (ie> collision) for them to exert upon.

now were such particles to exist to cause significant drag upon planets, two things would be apparant. the speed would be slowing down, and the mass of the Earth would be increasing (accumulation of said particles)

but as was touched upon earlier, most of the particles in space also travel in an orbit similar to our own planets. so the particles wouldn't be colliding with us in that fashion. indeed if particles were simply sitting in space they'd be linearly pulled towards the sun-mass (non orbital collision course)

so you can put that crazy notion out of your head, Bea.

it doesn't work

 

[chroot]

chroot u have a horrible misconception about my theory in that u think any sudden change in distance is going to result in instantaneous change in speed. the reason there is speed change is because the planet is absorbing neutrinos at a different rate.. (neutrino flux isn't the same everywhere in the solar system) however, just like the change in neutrino flux, the speed change will be gradual.. not instantaneous!

I never said anything about instantaneous changes in speed. Here's what I said:

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.

so as potential energy decreases... kinetic energy increases?? would this mean that energy does have something to do with gravity in the universe?

Every process in physics is related in some way to energy. I have no idea what precisely you're getting at, but yes, gravity and energy are related. If you pick a brick up over your head, you've used up chemical energy to give the brick potential energy. When you drop the brick, it trades that potential energy for kinetic energy, which it then uses to deform and injure your foot.

- Warren

 

[JoeWade]

foot-crush physics are the best for explaining physics to beginners.

my physics teacher did the bucket of water thing in class to demontrate the energy of inertia.

except one of the students was sleeping. so he got the gravity demonstration when she stopped spinning the bucket and up-ended it over his head.

 

[Math Is Hard]

except one of the students was sleeping. so he got the gravity demonstration when she stopped spinning the bucket and up-ended it over his head.

Way to make a point!

 

[ArmoSkater87]

lol...chroot is on an ownage spree these past several days in this thread. But anyways, i have a few things i want cleared up. Just picture the Earth moon system. Say the moon increases in velocity around its orbit. Because of angular momentum shouldn't it go further out in its orbit. In other words shouldn't the orbit radius increase? And also...say the moon gets pushed out in its orbit, in this case the moon should decrease in speed shouldn't it?...since as it goes out, the gravitational force on the moon by the Earth decreases, and so less speed is needed to keep it in an equilibrium obrit. This is like a paradox to me, i don't know maybe I am just misunderstanding somehting.

 

[chroot]

Say the moon increases in velocity around its orbit. Because of angular momentum shouldn't it go further out in its orbit. In other words shouldn't the orbit radius increase?

The orbit will no longer be a circle -- it'll become an ellipse.

- Warren

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Assuming I understand the gist of this question, no, at least not in the classical sense of 'work' being performed.

You still haven't answered my question. By "work" are you referring to the amount of force applied to a distance.

W=\vex{F}dcos \theta

 

[beatrix kiddo]

Newton says:

At perihelion, the magnitude of the planet's acceleration is zero. After perihelion, it begins to slow down again.

i say:

the planet experiences its largest acceleration at perihelion.

kepler says:
http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/keplerlaw2.htm

oh man... look at that orbit real close (not that close) and u'll see that mercury's velocity is fastest at the perihelion (or any other planet for that matter) agreeing with me...

I have no idea what precisely you're getting at, but yes, gravity and energy are related.

so we agree then.. gravity has something to do with energy.. maybe it's even dependent on some form of energy..

so you can put that crazy notion out of your head, Bea.

which notion? about the neutrinos or about the drag?

so he got the gravity demonstration when she stopped spinning the bucket and up-ended it over his head.

hmm.. reminds me of the time my teacher burnt my face with his cigarette end after he held me down and poured HCL acid in my ear...

 

[chroot]

You still haven't answered my question. By "work" are you referring to the amount of force applied to a distance.

W=\vex{F}dcos \theta

Yes, that's how work is defined.

In the case of picking a brick up off the ground, you do W = mgh work on the brick. In its new position, it has gained that much potential energy. When you drop it, that potential energy is turned into kinetic energy. When it strikes the ground, that energy becomes heat and sound and broken molecular bonds.

- Warren

 

[Entropy]

oh man... look at that orbit real close (not that close) and u'll see that mercury's velocity is fastest at the perihelion (or any other planet for that matter) agreeing with me...

Velocity and acceleration are different.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

ahhh entropy but it accelerates to a faster velocity.. how's that??

 

[chroot]

oh man... look at that orbit real close (not that close) and u'll see that mercury's velocity is fastest at the perihelion (or any other planet for that matter) agreeing with me...

Listen carefully. I said

acceleration[/size]

not

velocity.[/size]

I'll repeat myself, this time coloring the important words red:

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[/color] 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[/color] at perihelion.

There, does that help your reading comprehension any? Of course Mercury has its largest speed at perihelion -- but if you had any idea what you're talking about, you'd realize instantly that an extremum of velocity corresponds to a zero in acceleration. That's basic calculus. Mercury accelerates up until perihelion, at which point it has its fastest speed and zero acceleration, and then begins decelerating. Obviously for Mercury to go from accelerating to decelerating, it must go through a=0.

so we agree then.. gravity has something to do with energy.. maybe it's even dependent on some form of energy..

I can't even fathom what you mean, but I fear more bull****.

- Warren

 

[Entropy]

ahhh entropy but it accelerates to a faster velocity..

Dude think of a pendulum, you must of gone over this in Physics I its so basic. I'm really starting the question the quality of your school's physics program.

At the maximum of a pendulum's swing it has maximum acceleration and zero velocity because it is essentially at rest at its peak but still is being accelerated by gravity in the x and y directions (x is centripetal though, it is constant and isn't the acceleration we are talking about). At its minimum it has maximum velocity because its ready to start going back up and work against gravity. But also at the minimum it has zero acceleration in the x direction.

Maybe this will help you: http://encarta.msn.com/media_701508235/Energy_of_a_Pendulum.html

 

[beatrix kiddo]

1. i don't know calculus
2. look how fast it accelerates when it reaches the perihelion and look how fast it decelerates out of perihelion
3. i know the difference between velocity and acceleration
4. u're right.. i have now set u up for more bull-**** from my theory

big words and red colors are not needed for me chroot... u and i both know it accelerates and decelerates the fastest in and out of perihelion.. we've got a connection

 

[Entropy]

1. i don't know calculus

Its not calculus. Its level 1, high school, freshmen physics. I think I learned it the third week of my freshman year.

 

[chroot]

1. i don't know calculus

You must be at least this tall to ride this ride.

2. look how fast it accelerates when it reaches the perihelion and look how fast it decelerates out of perihelion

You seem to be using words for acceleration when you mean velocity.

3. i know the difference between velocity and acceleration

Apparently not. Try again.

big words and red colors are not needed for me chroot... u and i both know it accelerates and decelerates the fastest in and out of perihelion.. we've got a connection

False. Mercury's speed is not changing at perihelion.

- Warren

 

[beatrix kiddo]

i know how a pendulum works, entropy thanks.. but we are not talking about something that reaches a zero velocity... we are talking about a planets, once it reaches its fastest velocity there is zero acceleration, not zero velocity...

 

[beatrix kiddo]

yes it is.. let me see here.. in perihelion (the green shaded region) it goes from 58.2 km/s to 59.1 km/s to 58.1 km/s that is some speed change, warren

 

[chroot]

once it reaches its fastest velocity there is zero acceleration

Uh.. that's precisely what we've been saying. The planet has its fastest speed, and zero acceleration, at perihelion. Do you finally get it?

- Warren

 

[beatrix kiddo]

or change in velocity.. whatever

 

[Entropy]

we are talking about a planets, once it reaches its fastest velocity there is zero acceleration, not zero velocity...

I was just including it. I also said at max velocity you have zero acceleration. Also planets do have zero velocity at there maximums, just like a pendulum. Its all the same principal.

 

[chroot]

yes it is.. let me see here.. in perihelion (the green shaded region) it goes from 58.2 km/s to 59.1 km/s to 58.1 km/s that is some speed change, warren

Perihelion is a point, not a region. The green region in that applet is 1/10 of the entire orbit. At perihelion, speed is not changing.

Since you've observed that its acceleration is > 0 before perihelion and < 0 after perihelion, you should understand that it must be 0 at perihelion.

- Warren

 

[Entropy]

You must be at least this tall to ride this ride.

Ohhh! Ouch, that's harsh man...

 

[beatrix kiddo]

no.. I've been getting it warren.. I'm saying that it accelerates really fast, to the point where it can't accelerate anymore, then it decelerates really fast. all of this occurs in and around the perihelion.. haven't i been saying this?

 

[Math Is Hard]

yes it is.. let me see here.. in perihelion (the green shaded region) it goes from 58.2 km/s to 59.1 km/s to 58.1 km/s that is some speed change, warren

here's where the calc comes in handy!

 

[chroot]

Repeat after me:

Before perihelion, the acceleration is positive. The planet is speeding up. At perihelion, the acceleration is zero. The planet reaches its largest speed at this point. After perihelion, the acceleration is negative. The planet is slowing down again.

- Warren

 

[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"