Gravity

[paul gilpin]

Gravity theory ruls.

 

 

1/ All neutrinos have a very slight reaction with all matter they pass through giving the matter a tiny push or pull in the direction the neutrino is traveling. This reaction is proportional to the mass of the matter. The greater the mass the bigger the reaction.

 

2/All neutrinos are very slightly weakened by this reaction with matter.Again the greater the mass of matter the more energy lost by neutrino.

 

 

Example.

I you have one solitary fe atom in deep space not close to any stars this atom will be bombarded by a vast quantity of neutrinos from all directions. They will effectively cancel out the push pull effect.

 

I you have two fe atoms in the same area you have a similar result, as even though you will have weakened neutrinos hitting the surface of both atoms is will be an equal weakening.

 

If you introduce a third fe atom the one in the middle will appear to attract the other two towards it. This is because the weakened nutrinos hitting the middle one are only weakened by traveling through one fe atom and the weakened neutrinos hitting the outer two have traveled through two so creating a deficit in energy.

[Tres Juicy]

No,

 

That does not explain why matter is attracted to matter. It doesn't actually explain anything.

[Bignose]

Considering that the sun is a huge source of neutrinos in our solar system, that is a large number of neutrinos travel directly away from the sun, and yet the Earth is gravitationally attracted to the sun, 1/ fails fairly miserably.

[paul gilpin]

Hi Bignose and thanks for your response. It is true that all stars are a massif source of neutrinos and the closer the star the higher energy of the neutrinos. In my speculation there are no stars near the reaction going on. Stars interact in a very different way with the neutrinos.I have a third rule that explains this that I should have put up at same time as other two rules. Sorry.

Considering that the sun is a huge source of neutrinos in our solar system, that is a large number of neutrinos travel directly away from the sun, and yet the Earth is gravitationally attracted to the sun, 1/ fails fairly miserably.

[Bignose]

Hi Bignose and thanks for your response. It is true that all stars are a massif source of neutrinos and the closer the star the higher energy of the neutrinos. In my speculation there are no stars near the reaction going on. Stars interact in a very different way with the neutrinos.I have a third rule that explains this that I should have put up at same time as other two rules. Sorry.

 

So your theory has the gravity force based upon the distance from a star? Seems like our current theory is much simpler.

[too-open-minded]

So does your hypothesis also state weakened neutrinos and a deficit amount of energy causes a black hole? Kind of like an insufficient amount of energy per neutrinos in an area to hold up space?

 

Sounds cool, with the whole neutrino gravity thing.

 

Remember if things aren't working switch it up, although I do think you might be on to something.

 

In what ways does this contradict our modern general idea of gravity?

[paul gilpin]

So does your hypothesis also state weakened neutrinos and a deficit amount of energy causes a black hole? Kind of like an insufficient amount of energy per neutrinos in an area to hold up space?

 

Sounds cool, with the whole neutrino gravity thing.

 

Remember if things aren't working switch it up, although I do think you might be on to something.

 

In what ways does this contradict our modern general idea of gravity?

[Ophiolite]

Stars interact in a very different way with the neutrinos.

But we were not discussing the interaction of stars and neutrinos, but of planets and neutrinos. Since the sun is the largest source of neutrinos striking the Earth then it should, according to your hypothesis, be repelled by it. Clearly this does not happen. This - and three centuries of observation, experiment and theorising - suggests you are wrong.

[paul gilpin]

Hi,

It could explain how black holes work. I believe that neutrinos traveling through a star will be almost completely weakened or stopped. As the star will be producing as similar number of neutrinos it will counteract the deficit. In a dying star that stops producing neutrinos but still has the type of matter that can stop them you would get a huge gravitational pull towards center of dying star. I prefer this explanation as the dying star does not have to increase in mass to increase its gravitational pull as it would in conventional gravity thinking.

 

I prefer the idea that the moon is acting like a neutrino shield and causing an area of weakened neutrinos directly below it and on other side of world for that matter.

[michel123456]

Gravity theory ruls.

 

 

1/ All neutrinos have a very slight reaction with all matter they pass through giving the matter a tiny push or pull in the direction the neutrino is traveling. This reaction is proportional to the mass of the matter. The greater the mass the bigger the reaction.

 

2/All neutrinos are very slightly weakened by this reaction with matter.Again the greater the mass of matter the more energy lost by neutrino.

 

 

Example.

I you have one solitary fe atom in deep space not close to any stars this atom will be bombarded by a vast quantity of neutrinos from all directions. They will effectively cancel out the push pull effect.

 

I you have two fe atoms in the same area you have a similar result, as even though you will have weakened neutrinos hitting the surface of both atoms is will be an equal weakening.

 

If you introduce a third fe atom the one in the middle will appear to attract the other two towards it. This is because the weakened nutrinos hitting the middle one are only weakened by traveling through one fe atom and the weakened neutrinos hitting the outer two have traveled through two so creating a deficit in energy.

 

looks like Le Sage Theory.

[paul gilpin]

looks like Le Sage Theory.

 

Hi,

Thanks for the link.

[Janus]

Hi,

It could explain how black holes work. I believe that neutrinos traveling through a star will be almost completely weakened or stopped. As the star will be producing as similar number of neutrinos it will counteract the deficit. In a dying star that stops producing neutrinos but still has the type of matter that can stop them you would get a huge gravitational pull towards center of dying star. I prefer this explanation as the dying star does not have to increase in mass to increase its gravitational pull as it would in conventional gravity thinking.

 

 

 

Herein is a big part of your problem. You don't even understand what the "conventional gravity thinking" is, yet you think you have a "better" idea.

 

Current theory does not require any increase in mass when a black hole forms. All that happens is that weight of the star is held up by the energy produced by fusion at the core. The final stage of fusion produces Iron which uses energy to fuse. The Iron builds up in the core choking things off until the remaining fusion can no longer support the weight of the upper layers of the star. The upper layers fall in, and when they hit the core ignite in a huge explosion (supernova) blowing away a large part of its mass.

 

The remaining mass will collapse in a much smaller denser object. If the mass is large enough, it will collapse smaller than its event horizon,( the distance from its center where the escape velocity equals the speed of light) and it becomes a black hole. The mass of this black hole will be less than that of the star from which it formed. The black hole does not have more gravity, its mass is just more concentrated, which allows you to get very close, where the gravity is strong.

 

Another problem is that failed to work out all the consequences of your hypothesis. For example, you never considered the variation in neutrino output from the Sun. Ignoring anything else, this would cause gravity to vary also. Not only that, but neutrino flux from the rest of the sky varies also, due to gamma ray bursts and supernovae. So you would not get an even neutrino "pressure" from all sides at all times, leading to variations in gravity that we do not detect.

 

There are other insurmountable problems with "push gravity" models, which is why they were abandoned a century ago.

 

This these are common failings I see time and time again with "amateur theorists":

 

They generally have a weak or misinformed understanding about what mainstream science says about the issue. "Modern theory says "x", and I have a problem with this." when Modern theory doesn't say "x" at all.

 

They usually don't know the history of the issue. What ideas have already been tried, rejected and why Does their idea fall into this category?

 

And finally, they fail to be their own worst critic. You can't be afraid to look for the flaws in your own idea. Think the consequences of your idea all the way through. Actively look for way to poke holes in it. Try and come up with experiments or observations that would prove your idea wrong, and then research into whether or not they have already been made or not.

 

If you do find such flaws, don't be reluctant to toss the whole idea onto the trash heap.

[paul gilpin]

Hi Janus.

You are correct in thinking that I do not understand conventional gravity thinking. And thank you for enlightening me. I am not sure I think my idea is better.

 

The variation in Neutrino output from the sun is a dilemma for me at the moment.

 

I think the background levels of neutrinos apparently are a kind of constant, irrespective of gamma rays and supernovae. The area they are coming from is so big and the number of of neutrinos involved is so big I think relatively small happenings are put in to perspective.

 

Some times an insurmountable problem a 100 years ago could become something else with our deeper knowledge of the very smallest particles.

 

Finally, at some point someone who is fully qualified in physics has to stand by current thinking on gravity and explain it in terms of the standard model.