Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

[russ_watters]

forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't red-shift the result of the doppler effect? (red=lower frequency, meaning a cosmic body is moving away from the viewer, thus increasing the wavelength of light emitted in the opposite direction of motion, likewise blue-shift means an object is moving towards the observer and is producing a perceived higher frequency of light) ??

You can get redshift both through gravity and through motion (apparent motion).

 

[terrabyte]

When I said not a factor, I meant that density is not a factor in the equation. I say that the equation needs to be revised to include density, because it only measures one aspect of volume. A mere radial distance from the center of gravity of two objects squared does not provide volume

that's because density is not a factor in gravitational calculations. Mass is. Distance is.

 

[russ_watters]

that's because density is not a factor in gravitational calculations. Mass is. Distance is.

Point of clarification (I want little to do with this thread due to urtalkinstupid's attitude, but I'll help you out) - Density is irrelevant, because gravity calculations are often (always?) done assuming a point mass.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

gravity

russ_watters, I tink everyone rsponding to this topic has an attitude, so please just don't point me out; it's not fair. I'd lighten up, but with you people getting an attitude towards me, I can't help but get one back.

that's because density is not a factor in gravitational calculations. Mass is. Distance is.

Thanks for telling this terrabyte. Yes, distance is a component of volume, but that is to some extent. I know density is not a factor in gravitational equations, but they should be a factor. Density has an affect on gravity properties. You people are ignorant of your own beliefs.

Unlike the pull theory, the push theory relies on density. It does not rely on distance or mass. How ironic?? It's more logical also. Why is it so hard for you people to grasp a concept as simple as the push theory. The pull theory was not even understood by Newton. It required Einstein to further explain it. How can an idea confuse the person who thought of it? Maybe because that idea is something that should not be used to represent many of the things that are happening in the world?

 

[terrabyte]

Density has an affect on gravity properties

again, no it doesn't...

 

[Entropy]

Unlike the pull theory, the push theory relies on density. It does not rely on distance or mass. How ironic?? It's more logical also. Why is it so hard for you people to grasp a concept as simple as the push theory. The pull theory was not even understood by Newton. It required Einstein to further explain it. How can an idea confuse the person who thought of it? Maybe because that idea is something that should not be used to represent many of the things that are happening in the world?

Then why does Jupiter have more gravity than Earth if your push theory relies on density? Earth is more dense then Jupiter and Earth as more neutrinos passing though it, yet Jupiter has more gravity. Can you explain this?

Newton only made equations that described his observations of gravity. And they worked in most cases. You don't need to know what something is when you are only observing it's effects. Then Einstein developed general relativity which described what gravity is, a curvature of space-time. And this is supported by many experiments. Coincedence? I think not. Should we also dismiss Achimedes' principals of buoyancy just because he didn't know water was made of atoms, even though it works? Where as you're "pull" theory is supported by zero experiments and has no mathimatical basis (not that you always need one, but it helps).

Look we understand perfectly what this pull theory is saying and it just doesn't work. As you said in your first post "this is very HYPOTHETICAL". You also assume that neutrinos push things back down to Earth even though they don't have a fraction of the power (supported by neutrino detectors and math) to do so and hardly interact with matter (also supported by neutrino detectors and math) at all (exerting any type of "pressure" would be interaction). And you also say that cosmic rays provide neutinos at night even though a tiny fraction of all neutrinos come from cosmic rays.

Look if you really know a lot about general and special relativity (like the people arguing against you) it makes a whole lot of sense and its predicted many things and supported by many experiments.

You should know that many of you're sources (Alice Law and http://amoureternal.com/oti/gravity/page1.htm ) the authors are not physicists. The author of Alice Law says so and Michael Allen Gelman doesn't give any references to his eduction, wonder why? Gelman just sounds like some know it all computer technician. Look its not that there is anything wrong with not having an education in physics and its okay to have opinions about physics regaurdless of your eduction. But if you don't have a degree is physics and someone with a phd disagrees with you, you should atleast trust him for the time being until you've really really studied the subject at hand from creditible sources. Then you might see why his right.

russ have u not read ANY of urtalkinstupid's posts describing the push theory of gravity?? he's only explained this atleast a dozen times for u people. and i could really care less whether or not u post anything else on this thread because u aren't putting up a good argument anyways, "mentor".

He said he wasn't going to get into this, meaning his not going to post a lot. Not that he hasn't read any of urtalkingstupid's posts. And he isn't posting because of the subject of this thread, its urtalkingstupid's attitude. Although I'd say you're attitude is far worse. You should also know that "mentor" sign wasn't put there by him. The creators of these forums gave it to him because he is extremely knowlegdeable and has helped out so many people. Just so you know the creators are professional physicists, many with phd's.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

first off, we can only make educated guesses about jupiter's true density. second of all, Jupiter rotates nearly three times faster than the earth. that would affect the "feel" of gravity on the planet. here's another site i'll give u. if u can prove this guy wrong he will give u $1000: http://www.pioneer-net.com/~jessep/
u and terrabyte seem to think that just because someone has a phd they should own the world. degrees and phd's don't mean anything if what u study is INCORRECT. and u say i have a bad attitude? do u think i actually care? i hope u weren't trying to make a point by quoting me and saying almost the same thing i said. russ is a mentor on this site whether or not he awarded himself with the title.

 

[terrabyte]

u and terrabyte seem to think that just because someone has a phd they should own the world. degrees and phd's don't mean anything if what u study is INCORRECT

it's called professional respect. we understand that a lot of people have worked very hard for many years to study and learn about the way things currently are understood to work. when it comes to their "word" as far as things go, what makes you think we're going to trust 17 year old kids with illogical notions on how they think the universe should work over professionals who make their living working in the field.

it's all well and good to explore the possibilities, which is why we've even bothered to come here in the first place. but to accept something that doesn't even hang together as plausible over something that works well and is well understood by everyone is just sad. you can't come saying "it's wrong it's wrong because i say so" and then you don't even understand how it works in the first place. kinda throws the credibility of your arguments right in the crapper

 

[urtalkinstupid]

First, I would like to respond to terrabyte's post. terrabyte, would a scenario help you see what I'm talking about? Let's make it reality based also! Take the sun and earth. The gravitational pull of the sun on the Earth and vice-versa is a force. Ok, now, condense the sun. What happens? It's volume gets smaller, it has the same wait, and now, it is more dense. Now, the Earth can get CLOSER to the sun. When it does get closer, it's harder for the Earth to move back, because the sun's center of gravity is more concentrated. Newton's equations can't prove that this stronger force exists. This is only true, because his equation choose to neglect that density has an altering effect on gravity. Now, let's kick this up a notch. Take a neutrn star. Condense it down to a string of plank's length. Same mass, smaller volume. Before, light could escape the neutron star's gravitational pull, but now, that light is able to get closer, it becomes harder for light to pull away from the string, because its center of gravity is more concntrated.

Then why does Jupiter have more gravity than Earth if your push theory relies on density? Earth is more dense then Jupiter and Earth as more neutrinos passing though it, yet Jupiter has more gravity. Can you explain this?

Entropy! Hey, boiiii! You $crazy$ boi! You have asked a question and contradicting yourself when you tried to explain what is happening...? Niiiiice! More neutrinos passing through means more pressure acting on the bottom side. This leads to competition between the low momentum neutrions and high momentum neutrinos. Making Earth have less gravity. Can you provide me some information, so I'm able to explain what you want? Speed of Jupiter's orbit? Rotational velocity of Jupiter? ! (uhhhh...not all the way so...song? )


Newton was aiming or a law degree in college. He was not a physicists! He read upon books and made everything up from observations. OMFG, SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A PHYSICISTS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE UP STUFF! He also had a bad childhood. Who's to say that Newton's theories wern't hypothetical? Every idea is very HYPOTHETICAL at first.

The sun makes lots of neutrinos. About 61,000,000,000 neutrinos per second from the sun pass through each square centimeter of cross section on the surface of the Earth. If your body presents an area to the sun of 10,000 square centimeters, this means that 610 trillion neutrinos are passing right through your body in the second it takes to read this line.

Yes, neutrinos are weak, and they rarely interact. Judging by the amount that are theorized to pass through our body every second, it wouldn't hurt to make the assumption that this many in such a small area have to provide an effect on our bodies and other masses.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

ok travis no more *singing*... PLEASE!
entropy, neutrinos do effect the matter they pass through. why do u think we are able to detect them? detectors like CERN show images of neutrinos colliding with particles in the heavy water. what's to say they don't exert a force on objects? it was previously thought that neutrinos had no mass but in '98 the super-kamiokande team declared that neutrinos do in fact have mass. things math showed correct (like neutrinos having no mass) were proved to be false. so if u don't mind, provide me with the mathematics used to show that neutrinos don't exert a force.

terrabyte:
get it right.. I'm 15 not 17. and from now on please just post ur ideas about physics and not ur opinions because u make me want to post mine. and they last time i did i got a bad post report and it had to be taken off so just STFU if u don't have anything to say about the f_____ physics.

 

[terrabyte]

terrabyte:
get it right.. I'm 15 not 17.

it shows...

and from now on please just post ur ideas about physics and not ur opinions because u make me want to post mine. and they last time i did i got a bad post report and it had to be taken off so just STFU if u don't have anything to say about the f_____ physics.

i was just responding to a post. the argument was there, so i posted my thoughts on the matter. you don't like the way forums work where people are free to post their ideas, thoughts, opinions, and conjectures, then you might want to try something along the lines of solitude with a book. I'm sure it'd be worthwhile for you to invest in such an activity. we're not here to coddle you.

First, I would like to respond to terrabyte's post. terrabyte, would a scenario help you see what I'm talking about? Let's make it reality based also! Take the sun and earth. The gravitational pull of the sun on the Earth and vice-versa is a force. Ok, now, condense the sun. What happens? It's volume gets smaller, it has the same wait, and now, it is more dense. Now, the Earth can get CLOSER to the sun.

but it doesn't. it has no reason to.

When it does get closer, it's harder for the Earth to move back, because the sun's center of gravity is more concentrated. Newton's equations can't prove that this stronger force exists. This is only true, because his equation choose to neglect that density has an altering effect on gravity.

they didn't choose to neglect it. it simply DOESN'T have an affect. you're talking about getting "closer" and that IS covered by the formula given. of course stuff doesn't make sense when you're not using the variables provided to describe what's going on.

Now, let's kick this up a notch. Take a neutrn star. Condense it down to a string of plank's length. Same mass, smaller volume. Before, light could escape the neutron star's gravitational pull, but now, that light is able to get closer, it becomes harder for light to pull away from the string, because its center of gravity is more concntrated.

but light traveling the same distance from it pre-compressed is still affected the same amount. there is no argument as per things being "closer" to the gravitational object. that's very well covered in the equation provided.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

You have failed to observe that density is the factor that reduces this distance between the two objects.

 

[terrabyte]

uhh...

how so? we measure distances from the center of objects, not the surfaces. compression would not alter the computational distances.

 

[terrabyte]

Point of clarification (I want little to do with this thread due to urtalkinstupid's attitude, but I'll help you out) - Density is irrelevant, because gravity calculations are often (always?) done assuming a point mass

unless you're inside an object or close enough to a LARGE object to be affected by peripherary pulls then it's pretty safe to do so. so that's what they do

 

[urtalkinstupid]

gravity and density

When light encounters a neutron star, the color of the neutron star is given off, because the light doesn't reach the center of gravity. When the neutron star condenses into a black hole, the light is able to move towards the center of gravity, because the object becoming more dense allows this to happen. The closer you are to the center of gravity, the more attractive force. Why, because the distance is shorter. Why, because the object is more dense. By point mass, do you mean a point (smaller version of singularity) with no volume?

 

[terrabyte]

When light encounters a neutron star, the color of the neutron star is given off, because the light doesn't reach the center of gravity. When the neutron star condenses into a black hole, the light is able to move towards the center of gravity, because the object becoming more dense allows this to happen.

going to assume you're talking about light on a collision course with the "star". I'm not sure you could even tell if light was not simply traveling "through" the star and coming out the other side...

The closer you are to the center of gravity, the more attractive force. Why, because the distance is shorter. Why, because the object is more dense. By point mass, do you mean a point (smaller version of singularity) with no volume?

yes, as purely a computational process, not an actual universal object. it's a convenience.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Convience does not always lead to accurate conclusions.

Density does have an affect on the amount an object pulls. How hard is that concept to grasp? A more dense object has a smaller volume, therefore it is able to make the distance between the two center of gravities smaller thus making it divide into the masses more. Say you have two objects that are attracted to each other, and they are right next to each other. Condense one object, then the other is able to move closer to the condensed objects center of gravity, causing a more attractive force. Density determines how close an object can get to another objects center of gravity. Since distance is measured from this center of gravity, I'm sure density is a factor.

 

[terrabyte]

density makes NO difference if you're calculating using point masses.

you can say what you're saying until you're blue in the face but it's not going to change the fact that this is the way we calculate things.

there's very FEW instances where you would try to calculate the gravitational effects of an object INSIDE another object that would warrant a deviation from the point-mass system, and in those cases we would use a geometry-mass or particle-particle gravity computations (a lot more number crunching) but for general use and theoretical purposes we have no reason to go there.

in other words you're barking up a tree with no squirrel on the wrong continent.

mass and distance determine gravitational effects. density is NOT what you're trying to make it, "a factor"

 

[urtalkinstupid]

So, does being closer to another objects center of gravity make the force of attraction stronger?

 

[beatrix kiddo]

when u say that it shows that I'm 15, I'm assuming u mean it shows that I'm younger than u and i still know as much, if not more, about this subject as u do. i don't have a problem with u posting ur opinions (well only a little.. hehe) but let's try to keep it more physics related and i will too. and why would i choose to be alone with a book when there are people on the internet in need of re-education??

now onto the physics.. density is a factor though. classic example: take a rubber sheet (space-time) and place a bowling ball (star) on it. then put a cue ball on there to represent a planet or what have u. now condense the bowling ball to the size of a marble (it will still have the same mass) and the cue ball is pulled closer to the center of the bowling ball's gravity. since they have been pulled closer together, the force of attraction is indeed stronger.

 

[Entropy]

Entropy! Hey, boiiii! You boi! You have asked a question and contradicting yourself when you tried to explain what is happening...? Niiiiice! More neutrinos passing through means more pressure acting on the bottom side. This leads to competition between the low momentum neutrions and high momentum neutrinos. Making Earth have less gravity. Can you provide me some information, so I'm able to explain what you want? Speed of Jupiter's orbit? Rotational velocity of Jupiter? ! (uhhhh...not all the way so...song? )

Argh! You're so childish! Now I know why russ isn't getting involved!

How did I contradict myself? I only asked a question you failed to answer.

More neutrinos passing through means more pressure acting on the bottom side. This leads to competition between the low momentum neutrions and high momentum neutrinos. Making Earth have less gravity.

What? So now neutrinos compete with each other? Can you elaborate.

Making Earth have less gravity. Can you provide me some information, so I'm able to explain what you want? Speed of Jupiter's orbit? Rotational velocity of Jupiter?

Why is it you say in you're push theory the more dense an object is the more "gravity" it has, although objects that are less dense than the Earth have more "gravity"?

Newton was aiming or a law degree in college. He was not a physicists! He read upon books and made everything up from observations. OMFG, SOMEONE WHO IS NOT A PHYSICISTS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE UP STUFF! He also had a bad childhood. Who's to say that Newton's theories wern't hypothetical? Every idea is very HYPOTHETICAL at first.

Newton was a physicist! He held the freaking Lucasian Chair of Mathematics in Cambridge for crying out loud! Read your history!

Yes, neutrinos are weak, and they rarely interact. Judging by the amount that are theorized to pass through our body every second, it wouldn't hurt to make the assumption that this many in such a small area have to provide an effect on our bodies and other masses.

Yes it would! In the detectors they use 1000+ tonnes of heavy water and only about 10 neutinos interact with all that water in one day! And those are only neutrinos with relatively high momenta. Your body gets hit with less than 1 neutino per month on average!

Density does have an affect on the amount an object pulls. How hard is that concept to grasp? A more dense object has a smaller volume, therefore it is able to make the distance between the two center of gravities smaller thus making it divide into the masses more.

now onto the physics.. density is a factor though. classic example: take a rubber sheet (space-time) and place a bowling ball (star) on it. then put a cue ball on there to represent a planet or what have u. now condense the bowling ball to the size of a marble (it will still have the same mass) and the cue ball is pulled closer to the center of the bowling ball's gravity. since they have been pulled closer together, the force of attraction is indeed stronger.

True you have a greater warp at the center but now the warps where the particles use to be has decreased because the particles aren't there anymore. So you end up with the same amount of warp just in a smaller more consentrated area. Is that so hard to grasp?

 

[beatrix kiddo]

ur body gets hit with only 1 neutrino a month?? are u sure: http://www.princetonol.com/groups/55plus/review-listing-2003-4/meyers.html

this guy with a PHD in PHYSICS says 500 trillion pass through our bodies every second... he also explains why we can only detect a few neutrinos in the detectors. WOW!

and no it's not hard to grasp but since it's in a smaller area the other bodies around it are pulled further down into space-time's dent... thus gravity's effects are increased

 

[urtalkinstupid]

gravity

Then why does Jupiter have more gravity than Earth if your push theory relies on density? Earth is more dense then Jupiter and Earth as more neutrinos passing though it, yet Jupiter has more gravity. Can you explain this?

You contradicted yourself by trying to say that since Jupiter is less dense less neutrinos passing through. This would result in more gravity. With you saying that more neutrinos pass through the Earth this would make gravity less. With more neutrinos passing through the mass, there are more neutrinos with less momentum impacting the neutrinos with more momentum providing "competition" as they cancel each other out in a sense. I think what you meant was that Jupiter is less dense, and with Jupiter being less dense not as many neutrinos are absorbed, which means that gravity is weaker. Earth is the one with more density by the push model of gravity. Can you provide me with Jupiter's orbital velocity and rotational velocity? Then, I'll be able to explain to you why Jupiter has more gravity, though it is less dense.

Newton was not a physicists until after he thought of all of his theories on gravity. Maybe you should read more.

When I say an object is more dense and has more push, I mean that when the sub-atomic particles go through the denser object, the neutrinos that interact lose momentum. The denser the object the more likelyhood that it will interact and lose momentum. When you have neutrinos with low momentum going against high momentum, the amount of push that can be expected is their difference.

 

[terrabyte]

when u say that it shows that I'm 15, I'm assuming u mean it shows that I'm younger than u and i still know as much, if not more, about this subject as u do.

i couldn't care less how much MORE you knew about the WRONG theories than me. why would you think that would bother me?

now onto the physics.. density is a factor though. classic example: take a rubber sheet (space-time) and place a bowling ball (star) on it. then put a cue ball on there to represent a planet or what have u. now condense the bowling ball to the size of a marble (it will still have the same mass) and the cue ball is pulled closer to the center of the bowling ball's gravity. since they have been pulled closer together, the force of attraction is indeed stronger.

where do you get that idea?

the cue ball is pulled closer to the center of the bowling ball's gravity

where's your experimental data? all current models maintain that compression doesn't create gravity

since they have been pulled closer together, the force of attraction is indeed stronger

you're compressing the mass, not the distances. and even if you DID decide to compress the distances (for whatever illogical reason) that is well covered in our existing model.

...

when i say it SHOWS that you're 15, i meant it in purely in the sense that your maturity level speaks volumes. seriously, "STFU" ? no one says that to anyone in the "adult" world.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

where did i get what idea?? i put several in that quote so SPECIFY. if that object is the same mass but gets smaller the other objects will sink farther in the dent. this is because the compressed object isn't taking up as much space so the other objects can fall in more. (please give me links to ur computer models so i can prove them wrong). and the space that object takes up gets compressed. LOGIC will tell u the distance btw the objects will decrease. so again.. give me links to those comp models so i can study them (not that i haven't studied the concept of space-time for several years now) because i want to see what u've been reading. also.. have u visited
http://www.pioneer-net.com/~jessep/ and what's ur take on the whole neutrino discussion??
and when did i ever say that ppl in the "adult" world say "STFU"? i may be a little immature but since u keep bringing it up it shows that u are also immature. plus u put these really corny and cliched statements in ur posts and that's not what i'd call mature either, terrabyte. "in other words you're barking up a tree with no squirrel on the wrong continent." HAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA- I'm laughing AT u, dork

 

[Entropy]

You contradicted yourself by trying to say that since Jupiter is less dense less neutrinos passing through. This would result in more gravity. With you saying that more neutrinos pass through the Earth this would make gravity less. With more neutrinos passing through the mass, there are more neutrinos with less momentum impacting the neutrinos with more momentum providing "competition" as they cancel each other out in a sense. I think what you meant was that Jupiter is less dense, and with Jupiter being less dense not as many neutrinos are absorbed, which means that gravity is weaker. Earth is the one with more density by the push model of gravity. Can you provide me with Jupiter's orbital velocity and rotational velocity? Then, I'll be able to explain to you why Jupiter has more gravity, though it is less dense.

Re-read what I said.

Then why does Jupiter have more gravity than Earth if your push theory relies on density? Earth is more dense then Jupiter and Earth as more neutrinos passing though it, yet Jupiter has more gravity. Can you explain this?

I said Jupiter is less dense AND has less neutrinos passing though it. Where did I say Jupiter is less dense BECAUSE it has less neutinos? Read things more carefully. Oh and Jupiter has just as many cosmic neutrinos (high momentum) as Earth and less solar neutinos (low momentum). So if these neutrinos create and equibrium on Earth, how can they on Jupiter or any other world with stronger gravity for that matter if the forcers (form neutrinos) on those worlds are less?

Newton was not a physicists until after he thought of all of his theories on gravity.

I said he was a physicists and you just agreed with me. Proving yourself wrong yet again. Besides many people start developing their theories while they're in college and not techniquely physicists yet.

the neutrinos that interact lose momentum

Even though experiments show they don't. Look when a neutrino interacts it loses all its momentum to the particle it hits and then disappears.

ur body gets hit with only 1 neutrino a month?? are u sure: http://www.princetonol.com/groups/5...3-4/meyers.html

this guy with a PHD in PHYSICS says 500 trillion pass through our bodies every second... he also explains why we can only detect a few neutrinos in the detectors. WOW!

Yeah they PASS RIGHT THROUGH US! They don't INTERACT! Thanks for proving my point!

and no it's not hard to grasp but since it's in a smaller area the other bodies around it are pulled further down into space-time's dent... thus gravity's effects are increased

Yeah its pulled down more at that center point! My point is that the over all space-time warp it creates every where is constant, just more consentrated at the center. Maybe if you'd read our posts more clearly you'd know that.

where did i get what idea?? i put several in that quote so SPECIFY. if that object is the same mass but gets smaller the other objects will sink farther in the dent. this is because the compressed object isn't taking up as much space so the other objects can fall in more. (please give me links to ur computer models so i can prove them wrong). and the space that object takes up gets compressed. LOGIC will tell u the distance btw the objects will decrease. so again.. give me links to those comp models so i can study them (not that i haven't studied the concept of space-time for several years now) because i want to see what u've been reading. also.. have u visited
http://www.pioneer-net.com/~jessep/

This guy doesn't know anything because he "assumes" people think gravity is a "pull" which it isn't, its just a geometric effect of space-time. The word pull is just a term of convinence.

and when did i ever say that ppl in the "adult" world say "STFU"? i may be a little immature but since u keep bringing it up it shows that u are also immature. plus u put these really corny and cliched statements in ur posts and that's not what i'd call mature either, terrabyte. "in other words you're barking up a tree with no squirrel on the wrong continent." HAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA- I'm laughing AT u, dork

Whatever you say...

 

[terrabyte]

have fun while you can, i guess.

i'm in no mood to look after someone's children. I'm not getting paid to teach you physics. I've done what i can to try and explain things to you, but you refuse to learn the basics before jumping ahead and then wondering why things don't work the way you "think" they should.

good luck in life

 

[beatrix kiddo]

explain to me why we can view their collisions with particles in those detectors (neutrinos do interact with us) also u were wrong about the amount of neutrinos passing through our bodies and i used that site to prove u wrong because u worship anyone with a phd in physics. the reason u won't challenge that guy's site(jessep) is because U CAN'T. he makes too much sense and u know that ur theory is failing and he makes the better argument. and terrabyte maybe u should look after ur own kids better, especially if they're taking ur advice on life.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

terrabye...you got served

Entropy! Hey boii!
Sailor Jupiter was cool! Earth is more dense, ergo it absorbs more of the neutrinos momentum allowing the neutrinos pushing down on objects to have more force. This difference in momentum is the net amount of momentum applied. Now, Jupiter is less dense. Less neutrinos are absorbed, ergo more neutrinos pass through causing a decrease in the net momentum. THIS IS WEIRD YOU SAY. This can be explained. That is not what really is going on. So, if you would, answer my questions. My answer relies on your answer so make sure thay are suffice enough for me to use them. What is Jupiter's orbital velocity relative to the sun? What is Jupiter's rotational velocity relative to it's axis?

What I'm trying to conclude about Newton is that you don't have to have a degree in Physics to think of ideas. He started with math, and he thought about the planets. He was not a physicists; he originally wanted to get a degree in law. WEIRDED OUT! How does this tie into me? I'm not a physicists, and I have ideas about how things work also. Dot, Dot, Dot.

Pull due to an objects mass or an object's mass causing an inclination on space-time? Two different concepts, so "pull" is not a term of convience. Inclination is slope. Pull is...well is not well defined. Imaginary rope attached to two objects center of gravity? So, let's "pull the plug" to this concept of pull and trash it.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

here travis: http://www.surf2000.de/user/f-heeke/figure2.html info about jupiter...
my fav was sailor neptune!

 

[Entropy]

explain to me why we can view their collisions with particles in those detectors (neutrinos do interact with us)

They interact rarely with matter! They only get 10 hits a day on average like I said in my pervious post!

i used that site to prove u wrong because u worship anyone with a phd in physics. the reason u won't challenge that guy's site(jessep) is because U CAN'T. he makes too much sense and u know that ur theory is failing and he makes the better argument. and terrabyte maybe u should look after ur own kids better, especially if they're taking ur advice on life.

When did I say anyone with a phd is RIGHT. I said wait until you are knowledgeable in the subject before you seriously start to argue with them. And where on that web page does it say he has a phd?

And I can't argue with him? Well looky here:

For example: In 1964 I predicted that everything had an energy field. Twenty nine years later, I heard on TV that everything "really" did have an energy field. Why did he use the word "really" unless he was referring to my prediction?

Oh he saw it on TV! TV is alway right! I mean they wouldn't put it on the air if it wasn't true? Was it even from a credible show? Sounds like a real professional if he is taking his information from TV shows.

Look everything has always been thought to have an energy field since E=mc^2.

From NewsAlert 7-7-04:

A rare glimpse back in time into the universe's early evolution has
revealed something startling: mature, fully formed galaxies where
scientists expected to discover little more than infants.

This is what I have been trying to tell scientists for fifty plus years.

Proof? Does he have any proof that's what he said 50 year ago? No.

Some years back I said I suspected that atomic time was related to our velocity through space, and if the velocity changed, the time would change. I believe they are now finding this to be true. If Einstein is right...atomic time will not change because he says that everything moves space...so... "there would be no movement through space:" It would be moving with space. So this might turn out to be another way to prove my theory. My explanation is the only solution there can be, but it will be many years before people will have the ability to understand it. I can't read their minds so I don't know what they do not understand.

What?! Einstein said that time slows as you move faster and he was right. Now he is just re-wording it and saying he came up with it. Unbelieveable! Atomic time will not change (from are perspective) if we are moving with the clock!

My theory is the only theory that predicts dark matter, dark energy,

Really? Funny that there are dozens upon dozens of theory that also predict dark matter and energy. Even funnier that dark matter/energy isn't needed in our current model of the universe anymore! So I guess he was wrong here.

In the middle sixties I wrote a letter to a science magazine (I still have the receipt) and said there would be a problem. The problem is this: If a spaceship is in outer space its velocity will seem to change depending on whether it is traveling with or against the rotation of another planet. They did have problems. If this is getting boring it is because there is so much support.

What?! People back then already knew this, give me a break! A spaceship will move with the Earth because it inherts the Earth's rotational speed because it launched off of it. And problems with what? Why doesn't he elaborate?! Because he just assumes that any minior problem was because they didn't follow what he said, regaurdless of what the problem was!

In 1953 I was listening to the news on the radio when it was announced that the ground crews working on jet engines were receiving lung damage from the high frequency sound waves from jet engines. This would not surprise me today, but at that time, I thought that sound was nothing. I was surprised because I thought: "How could sound...which was nothing...destroy lung tissue which was something?" Well, like all Christians, at that time, I thought that anything was possible; so I thought: "Maybe everything is made from nothing?" Then I closed my eyes to try and picture what space would be like without anything in it.

Oh this is rich... Sound is something! Its the vibration of air molecules for crying out loud!

I realized that "Space" has to be endless. Not so much as just being endless, but the fact that there is no other place for anything to come from. So If my theory is wrong, why does it look like all my predictions, and assumptions, are coming true?

Funny that most experiments, oberservations and theories say space is not endless. So why does he say that his theory is coming true when all data says its not? Maybe because he doesn't know what his talking about?

This was important to me because I just knew there had to be a way and I just knew that I would find it because as far as I am concerned I was certain my theory was right...and I did find it...It was in late 1953 or 54...I predicted to an older brother that there had to be a way to package energy and that I would find it. A short time later I noticed a younger brother blowing smoke-rings...I knew this had to be the answer. Then in 1957, I read in the news that hydrogen gas under certain conditions would take the shape of a doughnut. This was support for the smoke ring theory...I then predicted that all stable particles are shaped like a smoke-ring, or are made up of particles shaped like a smoke ring.

So it only "looks" like a doughnut sometimes. And what experiment said this? Why not all the time like he said? Why doesn't he give more information? And notice its the "gas" that takes that shape, not the particles!

What we think of as suction is not suction at all, it is pushing. We expand a cavity and call it suction, but all we are doing is going through the same motions. We expand a cavity against atmospheric pressure, and this is pushing. At the same time it is reducing the pressure inside the cavity. We can't relate to true suction because we don't experience it. It would be a new kind of an exerience if we could experience it.

And to end this I will say it yet again: yes there is not true suction and gravity isn't a suction, its an effect of space-time!

I could go on and on pointing out the flaws in this guy's pathetic excuse for a theory. But I've got a life and I could write a whole book on why this guy is wrong.

 

[Entropy]

Sailor Jupiter was cool! Earth is more dense, ergo it absorbs more of the neutrinos momentum allowing the neutrinos pushing down on objects to have more force. This difference in momentum is the net amount of momentum applied.

Thats the thing! Even if all the neutrinos that got through the Earth gave all there momentum! It still wouldn't account for the force of gravity! Neutrinos only have about 5% the momentum of the sun's light!

 

[terrabyte]

that whole site is pointless propaganda in turquoise and pink. complete with all the expected sweeping generalizations, false analysis, and baseless claims.

no wonder it's capturing the imaginations of 15 yr old kids. it's speaking the on the precise frequency to indoctrine their fragile minds.

RebelliousTeen1: OMFG Grownups are teh suq, we R teh smarter tehn them, whoa! this idea is KEWLZ look at it PUSHING Planets ROX!
RebelliousTeen2: Taht maykez senz! My yung impresinistic mind can undRstnd Push Bettar! God Peepul who spend monies and life on edukayshun R Stupid this guy didNT and he is SMARTAR!

good lord...

 

[Entropy]

Ouch. The truth hurts, eh kiddies?

 

[urtalkinstupid]

gravity

Sailor Jupiter OWNS Sailor Neptune...end of arguement.

Considering the amount of neutrinos that go through the earth. Multiply that number by the momentum to get an approximate amount as to how much momentum neutrinos have. Many pass through Earth and are absorbed every second. Many pass through and interact with our body, as well. As for the mystery as to why Jupiter has less of a force through my theory, I got that covered. As you can tell from the site that beatrix provided, Jupiter has a large equitorial velocity, as well as a high orbital velocity. The planet itself has a high momentum. Once neutrinos interact with the surface, their net momentum is already affected. As they pass through the surface and are absorbed, they have little to no momentum as they come out on the other side, allowing a greater push, therefore more "gravity." I already know you are going to argue against it, but I'll ellaborate after I hear your argument and your questions towards my idea.

Even though experiments show they don't. Look when a neutrino interacts it loses all its momentum to the particle it hits and then disappears.

So, matter can be destroyed now? Is this what happens:

Oh, I've ran out of momentum. Guess I'll just disappear in thin air

Weird...I didn't know that people who rode with Einstein or Newton believed that energy and matter could be destroyed or created!