Neutrinos back into the picture?

[Entropy]

Einstein did use Newton's theories as a foundation for general relativity. Einstein started out with the equivalence principal.

Wrong. In Einstein's theories gravity isn't a force, its a... you know. Show me some type of source that says Einstein started with so and so equations.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

I corrected my equation. I didnt mean to put both g's. My equation explains exactly what you said. Force due to gravity is the same as force due to the absence of gravity (acceleration). Everything gives off energy (accelerated forces). Like the sun, it gives of EM in the form of accelerated energy. This energy balances out the affect of forces caused by gravity.

Einstein's model of gravity is the result of energy and matter bending space. There is a force applied to this bending. The affects caused by this force applied to space-time is not a force, I agree with that.

I'm gone to Vino's, so don't think I'm trying to avoid anything. I need to be there in 30 mins! Later everyone have fun!

beatrix kiddo, I may try to call you later if I'm not too messed up. :rofl:

 

[Math Is Hard]

energy?

I keep hearing the word "energy" thrown around. I would like to know how this is defined in the context of push theory. I have a (maybe too simple) definition of energy which works for my purposes, but it doesn't seem to apply here.

 

[chroot]

I corrected my equation. I didnt mean to put both g's. My equation explains exactly what you said.

No. F=mg is a special case of F=ma in which the acceleration is given a special symbol because it is a standard, 9.81 m/s^2. Neither equation has anything to do with the equivalence principle. There is no equation for the equivalence principle. It is a postulate.

Everything gives off energy (accelerated forces). Like the sun, it gives of EM in the form of accelerated energy. This energy balances out the affect of forces caused by gravity.

This entire section is nonsense. And I thought beatrix kiddo was bad... :uhh:

Einstein's model of gravity is the result of energy and matter bending space. There is a force applied to this bending. The affects caused by this force applied to space-time is not a force, I agree with that.

How can you apply a force to space?

- Warren

 

[chroot]

I keep hearing the word "energy" thrown around. I would like to know how this is defined in the context of push theory. I have a (maybe too simple) definition of energy which works for my purposes, but it doesn't seem to apply here.

Very few accepted scientific definitions seem to apply here.

- Warren

 

[Nereid]

Very few accepted scientific definitions seem to apply here.

Not much recognition - by u & b - that ideas need to be consistent with observations and experiments either!

 

[Alkatran]

did i not say they'll affect the solar system or the galaxy as a WHOLE. here's why: these neutrinos are touching the solar system. the ss is not only full of planets, asteriods, and the sun, but it's also full of dust, solar neutrinos, etc. etc. these particles are coming in contact with the outer neutrinos and are creating a gravitational push all around the galaxy or ss. dust and likewise are so numerous they are going to create a constant push effect around the entire ss. this, in turn, has an overall affect on the ss (galaxy) and is going to keep this from happening:

Oh really? Spread around like dust? So is it moving or not? If it's not moving then it has so little energy that it's meaningless, and if it is moving, then it wouldn't stay dusty for very long!

Face it, your theory makes NO SENSE.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

UHHHHH...hhahaha didregtard this I am messed upa nt a friends house...but all of your theories on relativity and gravity are mean? wtf ahaha disregard this mi not sober

 

[Math Is Hard]

UHHHHH...hhahaha didregtard this I am messed upa nt a friends house...but all of your theories on relativity and gravity are mean? wtf ahaha disregard this mi not sober

You're not helping your case.

 

[Alkatran]

UHHHHH...hhahaha didregtard this I am messed upa nt a friends house...but all of your theories on relativity and gravity are mean? wtf ahaha disregard this mi not sober

Wow, that's great. Maybe you're theory will make sense to you now.

We don't care if you go out and get drunk, it is completely off subject and really doesn't make you look any more intelligent. (Don't take that the wrong way, I was at a party tonight too, but my girlfriend wasn't drinking so...)

 

[beatrix kiddo]

well i just got back from seeing kill bill vol.2 AGAIN! i was going to defend us, travis.. but seeing as u did exactly what i told u not to (getting drunk, then posting on the forum) I've got to say this is embarressing and i have $20 so come by my house...

 

[beatrix kiddo]

oh man..

Oh really? Spread around like dust? So is it moving or not? If it's not moving then it has so little energy that it's meaningless, and if it is moving, then it wouldn't stay dusty for very long!

spread around like dust? when did i say anything was spread around like dust?! i said there is dust and solar neutrinos. etc. what's moving? the neutrinos or the dust? the neutrinos are revolving rapidly and the dust is moving towards it so both are moving. dust is abundant! and the solar neutrinos are no question as long as the sun is still burning...

Face it, your theory makes NO SENSE.

hahahaha.. ur counter-arguement makes no sense...

 

[Entropy]

I can help but feel you guys are going off topic on purpose... I have a feeling that they realize their theory is wrong.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

energy is Internal or inherent power; capacity of acting, operating, or producing an effect, whether exerted or not..
courtesy of dictionary.com!

maybe that's the right one?

I can help but feel you guys are going off topic on purpose... I have a feeling that they realize their theory is wrong.

ur feelings are poopie... we got off topic for a second.. but now we're back on TRACK!

 

[chroot]

I'm getting close to just closing this thread. I think everything that can be said has already been said.

- Warren

 

[Chronos]

Chroot, I have no idea why you are wasting your time beating this dead horse. I do, however, know why I am. It is so easy to blow this baloney neutrino concept out of the water, even I can do it. Stupid and bea are so far out there even gravity cannot pull them back into orbit. We are not as dumb as you think.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Haha, stupid post earlier. I'm ok now. So, now back on topic.

I have a really good source that supports my theory. This guy used multivariable calculus to derive equations regarding neutrinos and how they are absorbed and cause a force on objects. It's a very nice paper. It's 44 pages long though. So, if you are up to it just tell me, and I'll send you link through PM.

So, it is can be said that neutrinos do interact through strong nuclear forces. Just not in the way that charges do. They collide with electrons. One of the methods that are used to observe neutrinos. At least I'm right about one thing.

Both of those equations do have to do with the equivalence principal. You can not tell the difference betweena fore caused by gravity or acceleration in a vaccum. A star collapses because the forces due to acceleration can no longer counter the forces of gravity.

The appliance of force to space was the wrong way of explaining it. Sorry for that.

chroot, why close the thread? You are unable to make beatrix and me a believer? You are unable to provide us with things that sway our minds. Hey, I have a challenge for you. Provide me with enough evidence that supports the current proposed theories and I will be more than happy to concur with yoru decision in closing the thread. Sources that people have provided me contradicts with what they are aruging. In the previous thread that was closed, people provided me with a source on black holes that they claimed supported gravity not being affected by denisty, and on that site it claimed that density was a factor. So, please provide me with evidence strong enough to sway my easy going mind. Since, I seem so easy going to believe everything I see. That's obviously not the truth if you can't make me a believer.


Entropy, I wasn't getting off topic. Let's make that clear.

Alkatran I see what you mean by the inverse of distance squared thing. See, I'm up for corrections.

 

[chroot]

I have a really good source that supports my theory. This guy used multivariable calculus to derive equations regarding neutrinos and how they are absorbed and cause a force on objects. It's a very nice paper. It's 44 pages long though. So, if you are up to it just tell me, and I'll send you link through PM.

And surely he's a crackpot, too. You should be very careful which sources you believe. You, for example, are not a reputable source.

So, it is can be said that neutrinos do interact through strong nuclear forces.

Neutrinos interact only via the weak force. There is no room for argument on this one.

They collide with electrons. One of the methods that are used to observe neutrinos. At least I'm right about one thing.

Stop using the word 'collide' -- it is loaded. Neutrinos can interact weakly with electrons. The word 'collision' is meaningless in this context.

Both of those equations do have to do with the equivalence principal. You can not tell the difference betweena fore caused by gravity or acceleration in a vaccum. A star collapses because the forces due to acceleration can no longer counter the forces of gravity.

F=ma and F=mg are the same equation. And I have no idea what a "force of acceleration" is.

chroot, why close the thread? You are unable to make beatrix and me a believer? You are unable to provide us with things that sway our minds.

When a wise man argues at length with a fool, it becomes difficult to tell them apart.

Hey, I have a challenge for you. Provide me with enough evidence that supports the current proposed theories and I will be more than happy to concur with yoru decision in closing the thread.

Every experiment performed in hundreds of years of scientific inquiry by tens of thousands of people all confirm our current models. There is no experiment known whose results cannot be explained by either the standard model or general relativity. If you know of one, please share it with us.

Sources that people have provided me contradicts with what they are aruging.

Your sources are dubious. Both you and beatrix have already presented us with several supporting sites that were nothing but rubbish.

So, please provide me with evidence strong enough to sway my easy going mind. Since, I seem so easy going to believe everything I see. That's obviously not the truth if you can't make me a believer.

You can choose ignorance if you prefer it, and I'm not going to stop you. The evidence is all around you. If you're too blind to see it, I'm not going to lose any sleep. Your ignorance is your burden, not mine.

- Warren

 

[Alkatran]

hahahaha.. ur counter-arguement makes no sense...

You said that neutrinos were spread out like dust, and that was why Jupiter wasn't going haywire. Tell you what, here's a challenge which should be easy since your theory MUST be right:

Make a model of a solar system, it should contain:
1 sun at the center, which the planets revolve around
2 planets, the inner one with 1 moon and the outer one with 2 moons
3 moons (already explained where they are)

Now, since your theory is so much better than the current model, please go ahead and setup something that would allow this. You can even do it in 2d if you like!

Look, I'll do it for the current theory!

m=moon
p=planet
s=sun

         mp         S                            mpm

 

[urtalkinstupid]

chroot, you are heartless. That was a comment. This source is actually a valid source that I'm talking about. I'm at work now, but I get off at 2. I'll send you the link when I get home, because I assume you want it? Well, I'll send it anyways.

The force applied by an acceleration is the force mass experiences when it is accelerated. Force applied by gravity is the force mass experiences due to the gravitational pull (space-time curvatre or what have you). I'm sure you knew that?

Sorry, neutrinos "interact" with electrons. I thought that couldn't happen though? *GASP* :surprise:

 

[russ_watters]

I can help but feel you guys are going off topic on purpose... I have a feeling that they realize their theory is wrong.

I'm getting that feeling too. This idea of theirs is so wrong its funny, and I have a hard time accepting that they aren't smart enough to see that.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

OMG, how are we going off topic? When you people are the one asking us questions that do not refer to the topic.

Here's the link I was referring to:

Induced Gravity Model Based on External Impinging Neutrinos: Calculation of G in Terms of Collision Phenomena and Inferences to Inertial Mass and Atomic Quantization

Have fun scrutinizing him.

 

[Entropy]

Induced Gravity Model Based on External Impinging Neutrinos: Calculation of G in Terms of Collision Phenomena and Inferences to Inertial Mass and Atomic Quantization

From what I read he believes scientists think gravity is simply an attractive force field created by matter he calls "Newtonian field view". Then says that others believe in the "graviton view". This is simply untrue. Most scientists like I have said a million billion times believe that gravity is a geometry property of space-time, not a "true force". That alone makes me want to discredit this guy right away. After that I can't really comment, I do not yet have the math skills to examine his work.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Yes, I agree with you. He only goes by trying to disprove Newton's model of gravity of being an attractive force. He does not go into space-time curvature. I would really like for him to do that, but he provided sufficient enough stuff for the push. Well, at least that's what I thought.

In explaining neutrinos in a way of space-time curvature. I already made that relation. Someone noted that they cause a "repulsive" force to gravity. This would make their curvature on space-time negative. So, think of their pushing as a hyperbola. They create a curve towards the inside pushing what's between them. Geometric view of gravity caused by neutrinos.

 

[Math Is Hard]

energy is Internal or inherent power; capacity of acting, operating, or producing an effect, whether exerted or not..
courtesy of dictionary.com!

maybe that's the right one?

I am satisfied with this definition, Beatrix. Thank you. It is close enough to my own. However, I see a conflict between your definition (above) and urtalkinstupid's definition of energy as "accelerated forces". There are a few other nits I could pick with urtalkinstupid's use of this term, but I am going to stop now to avoid getting off topic.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

My definition is just forces. These forces can evolve into energy. When something has mass and is accelerating, it generates a force. This acceleration leads to velocity which can give the object that is being accelerated kinetic energy.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

brad.. of course neutrinos play a part in the gravitational bending of light... http://gravity.ontheinter.net/ click the link that says neutrinos bend light or something... i don't feel like describing it to u right now..
armo-ahhh! i have given u book sources that say neutinos are so numerous that they can in fact affect gravity in the solar system. (the book agrees with einsteins model of gravity, but it still says neutrios play a part in gravity) I'm taking it further and saying they are the only cause of "gravity"... i have many sources to defend my theory and i have used them against u and u couldn't refute them. i'll re-cite if u want me to...

That site implies that there would be one side of the Earth that is going to be such that people will not have gravity as strong as the other. Again, I am still waiting for a good answer as to how neutrinos, which interact via the weak force, can in any way do something with a photon. Not only that, how could neutrinos in any way account for various orbital phenomena such as good ol' Mercury?

I will also like to point out that when neutrinos do interact with matter, they will often create a flurry of other particles or a corresponding lepton.

To add more criticism:
If neutrinos are a push force for gravity, how pray tell do stars stay together? If all these neutrinos generated from within are moving out sphereically from the sun, it will create a force that should push the sun apart. But so does the very heat/pressure of the sun as well (it is after all, a big big big big big big hydrogen bomb). So we have no net force keeping it together. Oops.
Also neutrinos can be produced from cosmic ray showers. This would mean that people would weigh more under such a shower.
Or what of nuclear reactors? Should people not feel a force that acts to repel them ever so slightly from said reactors?

Sorry, there are just too many flaws for neutrinos to be a candidate.


edit:
Oh and how exactly would neutrinos account for objects falling at the same rate regardless of density?

 

[beatrix kiddo]

You said that neutrinos were spread out like dust

noooooooo... i said there is dust and neutrinos.. i never said the neutrinos are spread like dust. i also said they are like sprinkles on a bubble! but i never said they were spread like dust..

I'm getting that feeling too. This idea of theirs is so wrong its funny, and I have a hard time accepting that they aren't smart enough to see that.

well we were on topic until russ got us back off topic by saying we were off topic and now I'm going off topic for pointing this out...

Make a model of a solar system, it should contain:
1 sun at the center, which the planets revolve around
2 planets, the inner one with 1 moon and the outer one with 2 moons
3 moons (already explained where they are)

Now, since your theory is so much better than the current model, please go ahead and setup something that would allow this. You can even do it in 2d if you like!

Look, I'll do it for the current theory!

m=moon
p=planet
s=sun

i'm really not sure what u did with that code thingy.. but if u want a model of my solar system, there are plenty online. (it looks just like a sun with all these planets around it)

Chroot, I have no idea why you are wasting your time beating this dead horse. I do, however, know why I am. It is so easy to blow this baloney neutrino concept out of the water, even I can do it.

I enjoy blowing their silly theories out of the water.

WHEN?! did this occur before u gave us that opinionated link by phillip or after u said u were laughing all the way through this thread? i have yet to see chronos blow on anything...

look entropy, the point is that stupid found a source that agrees with our theory and the guy even has all this complex math to support himself... and as soon as i understand the math, i will definitely work with it.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

. Again, I am still waiting for a good answer as to how neutrinos, which interact via the weak force, can in any way do something with a photon.

It has already been clarified that neutrons do act via weak forces, but they are also able to interact with electrons. This interaction with electrons allows one method of detecting neutrinos.

I'll explain Mercury's orbit when I get home. Right now, I'm at work, and I'm fixing to get off. So, if you can wait about 20 mins, I will explain.

We know neutrinos interact with matter, we all agree on that. It's the rate at which neutrinos react with matter that we can not reach an accordance on.

It is well known that all stars go through fusion reactions. Noting the sun as a huge hydrogen bomb, is not necessarily the right terms. All stars go through fusion processes which yields neutrinos and EM. What holds this star together? The stars also absorbs, but emission takes over absorption. Although it emitts many neutrinos, it also takes in some. This absorption of neutrinos is what counts for the stars holding together, just as the current model of gravity is used to hold the star together by counter-acting the emitted radiation.

Reactors do not have the power of the sun to produce neutrinos. The force is very subtle and unoticeable. I'm probably wronghere, but I'll look into it. That's just what I think.

 

[Entropy]

look entropy, the point is that stupid found a source that agrees with our theory and the guy even has all this complex math to support himself... and as soon as i understand the math, i will definitely work with it.

There is a big difference between a mathematian and a physicist.

It has already been clarified that neutrons do act via weak forces, but they are also able to interact with electrons. This interaction with electrons allows one method of detecting neutrinos.

They react via the weak force period. They react with an electron and everything else though the weak force.

 

[chroot]

It has already been clarified that neutrons do act via weak forces, but they are also able to interact with electrons. This interaction with electrons allows one method of detecting neutrinos.

This interaction with electrons is itself a weak force interaction. Electrons also feel the weak force.

We know neutrinos interact with matter, we all agree on that. It's the rate at which neutrinos react with matter that we can not reach an accordance on.

The interaction cross-section for neutrinos is well-known.

Although it emitts many neutrinos, it also takes in some. This absorption of neutrinos is what counts for the stars holding together, just as the current model of gravity is used to hold the star together by counter-acting the emitted radiation.

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.

Reactors do not have the power of the sun to produce neutrinos.

Of course they do.

- Warren

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Gladd we reached an agreement that they DO interact. Don't know why you people tried to tell me they DIDN'T at first.

Most of the power associated with nuclear reactors are that of free neutrons. These neutrons are radioactive and can pierce through stuff. Neutrinos are not as abundant. Especially in an H-Bomb, because that bomb uses both fusion and fission to power it. Well, I take that back. I thought fission only produced neutrons from heavy elements? I don't know. Can someone run clarity on that?

Yea, Newton started out as a mathematician and became a physicists. Where are you going with this?

 

[beatrix kiddo]

yeah, entropy.. Newton would be pissed!
reactors DO NOT have the power to produce neutrinos as much as the sun. are u kidding?

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.

it kinda is.. it is under a constant state of fusion! thanks to emission over taking absorption.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

Again, I am still waiting for a good answer as to how neutrinos, which interact via the weak force, can in any way do something with a photon.

u can't follow directions.. i said click the link that describes gravity bending light... but it's ok.. ur new on our thread so i'll take it easy on u and i'll explain to u myself, why neutrinos bend light.
ok. let's say we have the Earth and a quasar. inbetween the Earth and the quasar is a star. the star bends light coming from behind it outwards because the neutrinos are exerting a slight pressure on the photons coming from the quasar... also, there are neutrinos coming in towards the star (though not as abundantly) to keep the photons from the quasar from going out of whack! it's so simple it must be TRUE! :tongue2:

 

[Entropy]

Yea, Newton started out as a mathematician and became a physicists. Where are you going with this?

I'm saying that just because you know a lot of math doesn't mean you know how to use it.

it kinda is.. it is under a constant state of fusion! thanks to emission over taking absorption.

Sorry but that doesn't work. In the process of fusion where two protons are brought together and one proton is converted into a neutron and a position and a neutrino are released the net force on the newly created deutrium atom is 0. So basicly when that proton shoots out a neutrino it also shoots out a position in the opposite direction with equal momentum.

So you see in the emission of a neutrino by proton the net force on the proton (which becomes a neutron) is 0, and visa versa, where a neutron absorbs a neutrino, becoming a proton and emiting an electron, the net force is zero on the nucleon.

Funny but that's how the neutrino was discovered. Beta decay didn't seem to obey the conservation of momentum so the neutrino was theorized to make the net force on a decaying atom 0.