Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

[DeShiznit44]

urtalkinstupid has a really good point, sources need to be provided but the problem is these questions are questions that top scientists of our day don't have definite answers to. Now, as to teh gravity being an attractive force and the universe still expanding. Now, i know it's not the greatest of theories but let's see what we know. It is conradictory to what we think when we see the universe is expanding but gravity should be pulling it back together. Now i think of it sort of like a "Conservation of Gravity". in order for teh universe to balance itself out since i think the total energy of the universe is 0 (not to sure on that point, correct me if I'm wrong) I think of it like gravity negating itself. An unkown force, if u will, that acts against gravity pushing the universe (or pulling, lol) apart.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

I don't understand why you want sources for these questions. It is irellivant to your theory, but i gave you answers to most of them...adn i don't see why you would need sources for some of there, some are just really obvious...No one has ever seen an event horizon, and no one knows if it really excists, i think that answers that. I don't know anything about what the cosmilogical constant is. Gravity is actually most likely a push force since there really is not such thing as "pull". When you pull something, you are actually don't "pull", you push in the opposite direction. The universe is accelerating for an unknown reason, right now scientists say its because of dark matter. I don't know about black holes forming in the biginning of the universe, i really don't know how much in the biginning you mean by that. If a star is massive enough its life can be cut down to only hundreds of thousands of years, which is very short compared to most stars. About the gravity of denser objects...thats pretty obvious from the gravity force equation.

 

[Alkatran]

I don't understand why you want sources for these questions. It is irellivant to your theory, but i gave you answers to most of them...adn i don't see why you would need sources for some of there, some are just really obvious...No one has ever seen an event horizon, and no one knows if it really excists, i think that answers that. I don't know anything about what the cosmilogical constant is. Gravity is actually most likely a push force since there really is not such thing as "pull". When you pull something, you are actually don't "pull", you push in the opposite direction. The universe is accelerating for an unknown reason, right now scientists say its because of dark matter. I don't know about black holes forming in the biginning of the universe, i really don't know how much in the biginning you mean by that. If a star is massive enough its life can be cut down to only hundreds of thousands of years, which is very short compared to most stars. About the gravity of denser objects...thats pretty obvious from the gravity force equation.

I say that there is no pushing and merely pulling in the opposite direction!

Prove me wrong. Ya, that's what I thought.

Oh wait, we're both wrong. Consider an electron between an electron and a proton. The center electron is being pushed by the other electron and pulled by the proton.

 

[Alkatran]

urtalkinstupid has a really good point, sources need to be provided but the problem is these questions are questions that top scientists of our day don't have definite answers to. Now, as to teh gravity being an attractive force and the universe still expanding. Now, i know it's not the greatest of theories but let's see what we know. It is conradictory to what we think when we see the universe is expanding but gravity should be pulling it back together. Now i think of it sort of like a "Conservation of Gravity". in order for teh universe to balance itself out since i think the total energy of the universe is 0 (not to sure on that point, correct me if I'm wrong) I think of it like gravity negating itself. An unkown force, if u will, that acts against gravity pushing the universe (or pulling, lol) apart.

The "conservation of gravity" is the force on the opposite object. The change in inertia of each is equal. There's no reason for there to be, or not to be, an anti-gravity. (unless you count the universe ripping away from itself!)

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Wow, you people take everything literally. You know what I meant by the statement nothing can travel at the speed of light. Yea, the site you provided me was one of the first sites I encountered. I want better. Neutrinos travel just below or at the speed of light. Neutrinos have a rest mass. They are also able to come close to traveling at the speed of light, but not exactly the speed of light

I want more indepth sources. Google do not provide definite sources. So, I want you to scope out the ones that you think are good and post them. I have no reason to believe in the current theories, if they aren't even logical. Mathematics is just a manifestation of logic. If the logic that lead to the math was illogical, then that math itself is illogical. Logic is the only thing that matters. The current theories do not practice logic.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

I say that there is no pushing and merely pulling in the opposite direction!

Prove me wrong. Ya, that's what I thought.

Oh wait, we're both wrong. Consider an electron between an electron and a proton. The center electron is being pushed by the other electron and pulled by the proton.

lol...thats a good point. The universe is just such a weird and crazy place. Technically don't know anything.

 

[Arctic Fox]

My 2 cents...

I want to get to the number 4. Einstein says the only way to get there is 1+1+1+1. You can’t go faster than that.

I’m looking at my own theories that say I can get there using 2*2. :)

Same destination, different/faster equasion.

 

[Alkatran]

Wow, you people take everything literally. You know what I meant by the statement nothing can travel at the speed of light. Yea, the site you provided me was one of the first sites I encountered. I want better. Neutrinos travel just below or at the speed of light. Neutrinos have a rest mass. They are also able to come close to traveling at the speed of light, but not exactly the speed of light

I want more indepth sources. Google do not provide definite sources. So, I want you to scope out the ones that you think are good and post them. I have no reason to believe in the current theories, if they aren't even logical. Mathematics is just a manifestation of logic. If the logic that lead to the math was illogical, then that math itself is illogical. Logic is the only thing that matters. The current theories do not practice logic.

Anything I give you won't be enough. It will either be too complicated to understand (so you'll dismiss it) or too simple (so you'll dismiss it).

 

[Alkatran]

My 2 cents...

I want to get to the number 4. Einstein says the ony way to get there is either 1+1+1+1.

I’m looking at my own theories that say I can get there using 2*2. :)

Same destination, different/faster equasion.

Yes, but you need to break down 2*2. Think, what did you actually do in your head to calculate it? You memorized it. Any calculation can take almost 0 time if you memorize it. To really calculate 2*2 you need to:

* is a series of +, so 2*2 is +2 twice
2+2
+ and - are series of numbers
a number is a series of increments (+1)
+1+1 + +1+1
++=+
+1+1+1+1
there, we broke it down all the way
4

2*2 = 2+2 = +1+1+1+1

Now, why was 2*2 faster, again?

 

[beatrix kiddo]

artic fox said the equation is shortened. if u know that adding 1+1+1+1 is the same as 2 doubled.. then that is indeed a short cut. if u have good understanding u can cut out the middle-man and just get straight to the answer. memorized or not. alkatran, i don't care how hard or easy ur sources are. I WANNA SEE THEM! i give u guys my sources all the time and i don't mind if u shoot them down.. so the least thing u can do is give the ppl on this thread the same respect and just let us see ur sources...

 

[beatrix kiddo]

WHOA! look what i found! http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae476.cfm
wow ppl. are thinking a like.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

Yea, there is no push or pull. In order to provide more of a reality, I used push to emphasize my theory. What is really going on is emission and absorption.


$P=Proton$ $E=Electron$ $\leftarrow or \rightarrow =$ $energy$ $emitted$ $or$ $absorbed$

A proton can be denoted by $\rightarrow P \leftarrow$ it absorbs.
An electron can be denoted by $\leftarrow E \rightarrow$ it emitts energy.

That is not how it works, but that's what we will use. Density is the determing factor on what emitts or absorbs energy. Thats in quantum physics?

So, what you have is:

$P \leftarrow \rightarrow P \leftarrow \leftarrow E \rightarrow \leftarrow E$

So, what happens?

$P \leftarrow \rightarrow PE \rightarrow \rightarrow \leftarrow \leftarrow E$

The outer E continues to push the E in the PE pair as it progresses towards the pair.

$P \leftarrow \lefttarrow EP \leftarrow \leftarrowarrow \leftarrow \leftarrow E$

The E in the PE pair orbits the PE and is being pushed by the other E allowing the E in the PE pair to pair up with the other P and the other E to pair up with the PEP pair. To get:

$\rightarrow PEPE \rightarrow$

This is just the jist. There is more going on. Point I'm trying to make is that everything is governed by emission and absorption which makes a pushing force.

I don't know if this is a good example. OH WELL!

 

[beatrix kiddo]

and just so we're all clear:
urtalkinstupid isn't 15. i am. he never said anything about age. i did (after terrabyte got my age wrong) urtalkinstupid is 16.. about to be 17. i am 15 about to be 16. and what's so bad about being 15?? it's reasonable considering I'm going in the 11th grade...

 

[urtalkinstupid]

solving for p

Your equation is wrong.

Here's why:

E^2 = m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2
m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 = 0

Now, I'll start from your end equation and work backwards:
P^2 = E^2/(m^2*c^4+c^2) - 1
(m^2*c^4+c^2)(P^2+1) = E^2
m^2*c^4*P^2+c^2*P^2 + c^2 + m^2*c^2 = E^2
m^2*c^4*P^2+c^2*P^2 + c^2 + m^2*c^2 - E^2 = 0
Now they both = 0, so:
m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 = m^2*c^4*P^2+c^2*P^2 + c^2 + m^2*c^2 - E^2

eliminate everything on the left from the right

m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 = m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 + m^2*c^4*P^2 + c^2*P^2

0 = m^2*c^4*p^2+c^2*p^2
Divide by c^2*p^2

0 = m^2*c^2 + 1
m^2*c^2 = -1
(mc)^2 = -1
mc = sqr(-1)
mc = i

The speed of light times the object's mass is imaginary. That is why you're equation doesn't work.

Since you're so good at math, can you solve for p the correct way? I told you that I already thought mine was wrong, so I was wanting help.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

Tell your beloved Einstein that.

BTW, $9.81m/s^2$ is acceleration...

just so u know entropy, stupid was saying that alkatran could tell his beloved einstein that the equation was wrong.. he wasn't meaning the acceleration of gravity... and since, alkatran, u think this equation is wrong, what is ur opinion on SR, since that comes from it? E=mc^2... i guess that's wrong too...

 

[urtalkinstupid]

beatrix kiddo (is not a girl, but is a boy), he was saying that the method i used to solve for p is wrong not the total energy equation. hehehe

 

[beatrix kiddo]

oh ok.. nvm then.. sry alkatran.. i misread ur post... I CAN BE WRONG TOO YA KNOW!

 

[beatrix kiddo]

hey when i solved for p i got this:
p^2=E^2-mo^2c^4/c^2.. it's prob not right because it makes the answer imaginary (?)

 

[Alkatran]

Since you're so good at math, can you solve for p the correct way? I told you that I already thought mine was wrong, so I was wanting help.

E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2
sqr((E^2 - m^2*c^4)/c^2) = p

You have to by level, move the addition, then the multiplication, then the square. Pretty basic algebra.

 

[Alkatran]

just so u know entropy, stupid was saying that alkatran could tell his beloved einstein that the equation was wrong.. he wasn't meaning the acceleration of gravity... and since, alkatran, u think this equation is wrong, what is ur opinion on SR, since that comes from it? E=mc^2... i guess that's wrong too...

If the equation is incorrect either it was found incorrectly or the base equation is also wrong.

In this case it was found incorrectly.

*edit* oh, you were told that by urtalking anyways.

 

[Alkatran]

hey when i solved for p i got this:
p^2=E^2-mo^2c^4/c^2.. it's prob not right because it makes the answer imaginary (?)

An equation is only equal if you can take both sides and reduce them to 0.

yours now:
p^2=E^2-m^2c^4/c^2
0=E^2-m^2c^4/c^2-p^2
0=E^2-m^2c^2-p^2


original:
E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2
E^2 - m^2*c^4 - p^2*c^2 = 0

combine:
E^2 - m^2*c^4 - p^2*c^2 = E^2-m^2c^2-p^2
eliminate
E^2 - m^2*c^4 - p^2*c^2 = E^2-m^2-p^2
-m^2*c^4 - p^2*c^2 = -m^2-p^2
Multiply by -1 to remove minuses.
m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2 = m^2+p^2

m^2(c^4-1) + p^2(c^2-1) = 0

As you can see, c has to equal one, or m and p have to have some odd values for this to work.


Also, is E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2 the actual equation, or is it E = m*c^2 + p*c? (I've never actually seen the equation before, and can't find any results on it)

 

[Nereid]

General caveat: Comments etc are wrt my current understanding of the status of observational/experimental results and the two most successful theories in physics - QFT and GR.

Why is it uncertain what happens beyond an event horizon?

Because there's no way any information can come back from inside it (qualifications: Hawking's presentation of earlier this week, the ergosphere)

Why is the cosmological constant still unsolved?

Because the observational data aren't yet sufficient to constrain alternatives.

Why is it that gravity is an attractive force,

Study GR and you'll understand how.

but the Universe is said to be expanding?

That's what we observe, so any theory must be consistent with the observations. In cosmological models consistent with GR, an expanding universe is one of the most natural ... consistent with observations!

How come there are black holes forming near the "beginning" of the Universe?

Excellent question! This is a very active area within cosmology; if you're interested, you can go to the A&C library, in the General Astronomy and Cosmology section, and read some of the papers to which links are provided.

Why is that when something gets more densed, there appears to be a more devestating effect of gravity? (Expert's opinion, like a highly credited site would be suffice. Since you people love math and experiments, provide me with some of those from a better source than Alkatran.)

Please clarify, e.g. what does 'more densed' mean? what is 'a more devestating effect of gravity'?

If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?

You may have heard of neutrino oscillations; when you understand these concepts you'll also find the answer to your question. Here's a good thread in PF that addresses this fascinating phenomenon.

Turning to how this thread began:

So assuming everything is governed by sub-atomic pressure, what creates this pressure? Simple, sut-atomic particles. Sub-atomic particles are going through our body every second in large quantities. One of the main sources of sub-atomic particles is from the sun in the form of neutrinos. Neutrinos rarely come in contact with masses, but if in a group that consists of enough, it can interact and actually exert a pressure on that mass. So...umm...guess on to an example of my theory.

So, one day, you are playing with a tennis ball. You are just throwing it up and down in the air. You begin to wonder, "What is really happening when I throw this ball in the air?" When the ball is in your hand, the sub-atomic particles hit it on all sides except where you palm grips it providing support on the bottom. When you throw the tennis ball in the air, you exert a pressure upwards on it, making it leave your hand. The neutrinos from the sun are unable to interact with the ball on the bottom side, so extra pressure is not applied, because the Earth acts as a shield for the bottom of the ball. Now, the tennis ball can go up, but it can only go up for a short while. Why is this? Gravity pulls it back down...no. The pressure that your hand exerted on the ball decreases as the sub-atomic pressure on the other sides of the ball overcomes the pressure exerted on the ball. With the pressure being less on one side, the other sides are being pushed in that direction (towards earth). The pressure on the other sides have pushed the ball back to earth, where it is now sub-atomic pressure equillibriate.

By now you'll see that your idea (it's certainly not a theory) is wildly inconsistent with observational data, so best put it to rest.

One point that no one raised: if neutrinos play a key role in this 'sub-atomic pressure', then an excellent place to test the idea would be around nuclear reactors. Close to these, the neutrino flux is many orders of magnitude greater than that from that Sun; ditto 'downstream' from particle accelerators. So, any effect like the one you propose would be much more obvious there than elsewhere on the Earth. Since no such effects are observed, you have a tough job ahead getting your idea accepted!

urtalkinstupid 0, QFT+GR 1.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

oh ok.. nvm then.. sry alkatran.. i misread ur post... I CAN BE WRONG TOO YA KNOW!

i already apologized for getting it wrong... so now what? and the equation is correct http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae476.cfm
but thanks for helping out with it...

 

[beatrix kiddo]

i can't find a source that says the neutrino flux mag. is greater in the particle accelerators than from the sun... could u please provide me with further information that i may reasonably defend my case??

 

[Entropy]

Why are we arguing about the momentum equation or whatever? The TOTAL (includes momentum and mass) energy of the average neutrino passing through Earth is 0.81MeV like I said.

 

[beatrix kiddo]

so that i don't make the same mistake again, alkatran i'll show u my steps and u tell me which i did wrong..
E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2
E^2-p^2c^2=m^2c^4
-p^2c^2=m^2c^4-E^2
-p^2=m^2c^4-E^2/c^2
or p^2=E^2-m^2c^4/c^2

maybe i didn't do it wrong.. if so disregard this

 

[beatrix kiddo]

entropy we're trying to solve for momentum.. we all know the energy but if u know how to solve for p that would be most appreciated..

 

[ArmoSkater87]

Why are we arguing about the momentum equation or whatever? The TOTAL (includes momentum and mass) energy of the average neutrino passing through Earth is 0.81MeV like I said.

I really think that that's wayyyyy too big for a neutrino.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

I think this is the best and easiest way to solve for momentum...

$$E^2 = m_0^2c^4 + p^2c^2$$
$$\frac{E^2-m_0^2c^4}{c^2} = p^2$$
$$p=\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m_0^2c^4}}{c}$$

 

[urtalkinstupid]

No, that always yields an imaginary number. Yes, it utilizes all of the right steps, but the answer is never within reality.

Entropy, I know the total energy of the neutrinos. I'm trying to find the momentum that is included in the total energy. Is that clear to you?

Nereid, you make me sick. One, you break up a complete question and give partial explanation. When i asked, "Why is gravity an attractive force, but the Universe is expanding?" I meant that as ONE question. I didn't mean for it to be broken down into two questions with separate definitions. Experiment and observations don't mean anything. Logic is the ultimate determining factor of how things work. You raise a good question about nuclear reactors. How would the flux be of a greater magnitude, when it has not near the fusion power of the sun? Or does it? If it does, can you please provide me with a source.


Oh, you made the comment urtalkinstupid 0, QFT+GR 1. Well, I have news for you buddy. QFT+GR does not exist as one. They can not be combined as of yet, because they do not allow unity. So, QFT+GR 0, urtalkinstupid 1+n

(n increasing by one for everyday QFT and GR remain in disunity)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Experiment and observations don't mean anything. Logic is the ultimate determining factor of how things work.

You're talking stupid.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

selfAdjoint, experiments really don't mean anything. If you pay close attention the math that they used in the experiments was derived from other things. Math is a manifestation of logic. Logic made math. The new string theory sounds way more logical than the theories out today. Logic says that QFT and GR can be unified, but as of yet they haven't. Why? The logics within the two fields are not compatible. Why? They both consist of math that is not logically possible. Things attracting other things depending on their distance and mass...Yea, right. String theory fits into my theory, because it involves emission and absorption. How did this universe start? A string. How did this strnig become? The universe was asymmetrical; it had to equal out somehow so it emitted energy so it could be absorbed and so on.

QFT+GR 0

 

[Nereid]

When i asked, "Why is gravity an attractive force, but the Universe is expanding?" I meant that as ONE question. I didn't mean for it to be broken down into two questions with separate definitions.

Perhaps you could be more precise in your wording then? For example, "We observe that the universe is expanding. However, gravity is a long-range, attractive force. How is it that the universe can expand against gravity?"

Experiment and observations don't mean anything. Logic is the ultimate determining factor of how things work.

If you would like to discuss physics, or any other science, you will need to adjust your expectations; AFAIK, only in maths is 'logic the ultimate determining factor'. In the meantime, I will continue to demonstrate inconsistencies in your ideas by referencing experimental and observational results.

You raise a good question about nuclear reactors. How would the flux be of a greater magnitude, when it has not near the fusion power of the sun? Or does it?

Because the Sun is ~150 million km from you, and near a reactor the distance is ~150m. Assuming both the Sun and a reactor radiate neutrinos isotropically, then the Sun would need to produce neutrinos at a rate >10²⁷ of that of a reactor for an approx equal (local) flux. Stay tuned for links.

 

[Nereid]

You raise a good question about nuclear reactors. How would the flux be of a greater magnitude, when it has not near the fusion power of the sun? Or does it? If it does, can you please provide me with a source.

Try http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/history/nobel/nobel_02.asp: "... the probability of chlorine's capturing a neutrino was ten quadrillion times smaller than its capturing a neutron in a nuclear reactor." It refers to Cl, but the statement for any other target is similar.

 

[Alkatran]

so that i don't make the same mistake again, alkatran i'll show u my steps and u tell me which i did wrong..
E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2
E^2-p^2c^2=m^2c^4
-p^2c^2=m^2c^4-E^2
-p^2=m^2c^4-E^2/c^2
or p^2=E^2-m^2c^4/c^2

maybe i didn't do it wrong.. if so disregard this

-p^2=m^2c^4-E^2/c^2
That step is wrong, you need to divide the ENTIRE side by c^2.

The funny thing is that this is the exact same error I predicted you had made.