/sci/ - Science & Math

Research Pending

Read a book or something.

I don't see any equations in any of your notes.

That's an enormous pile of speculation and assumptions.

>>7484884
It is but it uses some basis in fact and common sense at least. It also completes a major part of the mystery to existence itself. We know that there is not many numbers nor tests yet to prove something like this yet but we wanted to put this information into words at least and share the idea before we going into years of intense schooling to possibly begin researching and testing these ideas.

>>7484884
Especially with the rising interest in neutrinos recently

>>7484915
There's no mystery about gravity slingshotting, it makes perfect sense even with aristotelian physics, let alone netwonian

>>7484798
TL;DR: Infinite energy from gravity windmills, space travel, and unsupported speculation.

>>7484806
More like everything pending

>>7484915
>some basis in fact
In the sense that it uses words that are commonly used to describe things that exist, yes. Otherwise, no, it's a bunch of gibberish.

> common sense
My sides, orbit, etc.

>>7485373
>>7485363
Have you guys studied this a lot? I came up with something that works that can yet be proven and researched. You fail to consider that scientists may have certain ideas wrong in the first place. I'm not trying to be a complete dumbass here I legimimately want to discover new fact for the benefit of all humans before we destroy ourselves overtime. I want to work these ideas out. So far there has been nothing that tried to make sense of how everything in the universe worked as a whole and I'm simply saying all light, space, matter, time, gravity, and other energy are connected and intertwined in a similar fashion that Einstein discussed. Do I have any idea what I'm actually talking about? No, but I believe I can learn a lot more and continue schooling to come up with a similar theory that shows I know what I'm talking about.

>>7485363
I know how scientific minds work and until I have a shred of evidence none of you will give me the time of day to even consider anything I've said. The thing is, I'm going to have to spend a very long time to get to that point if there is one,so I felt like the sharing the very general concept right now.

>>7485477
I don't care about the math or the evidence. I'm willing to consider new ideas just based on ideas, but your ideas are incoherent and rambling. You disregard many simple ideas including what a neutrino even is; saying they seek out black holes is complete fantasy. Dark matter also seems to be thrown in there without any knowledge on it's purpose in physics, as completely leave dark energy out of your "theory." Please try to gather your ideas and simplify what you are attempting to spew at us, nobody is going to be able to react to 5 pages worth of shit all at once.

>>7484798
99% of everything you've ever been told, anyone's ever researched, is incorrect

The more I think about it the more it seems it seems to me that I was wrong about neutrinos seeking out black holes and rather that it would be the trillions of neutrinos within space and generating gravity off of atoms in all directions. The only way black holes are created are when an abundance of neutrinos with resting mass, no charge, or no light condense upon the crashing of a type of stars.

>>7484798
Read like half of pic and here's your fucking answer

HEY YOU REMEMBER GRAVITY WAVES? Well shit these things were proven just last year and basically there's 'the speed of light' and then there's 'everything influenced by relative magnification of gravity' SO! Nuetrinos basically travel a little faster than light in its initial phase, do to it's nearness to it's relative largest gravity mass and the 'gray zone' the largeness of the thing produces when in comparison of the gravity waves influenced in what the actual speed of light is, and this gray zone of that is only really notable in comparisons of large spaces (and it's detection in smaller spaces is what I'm working on) is what causes a rift of again 'gray space' where A: expansion of the universe is propagated in a more accelerated than thought of way and B: associates itself with the wave theorem to the point of a Weyl particle likeness of masslessness when associated with energy

>>7485453
>I legimimately want to discover new fact
> I want to work these ideas out
So what you need to do is start by learning what you're talking about. All you have here is a mash of words that looks like it's been generated by a computer program designed to form grammatically correct(-ish) sentences without any regard to what the content actually is.

Look, here's a brief rundown of the problems in your first image.

> atoms produce neutrinos when absorbing light
This would violate weak hypercharge conservation and either B-L (if producing a single neutrino) or spin conservation (if producing a neutrino-antineutrino pair).

> quantum entanglement
That clearly doesn't mean what you think it means. I don't know what you were getting at.

> about the same speed as light
Sort of, for some value of "about." But not the same speed as light, so who cares?

> decay (aging?) of radiactive material
Among other processes, yes. In the Sun, their generation is due to nuclear fusion. The fact that you looked this up, but then hypothesize that they are generated by ionization of atoms... not good. Neutrinos interact via the weak force, but not the electromagnetic. (At least, not strongly... they may have a very tiny magnetic moment.)

> interaction with gravity in some way
Well, yes, and that interaction is well known, because the particle's mass is well known.

> seek out black holes
Subatomic particles do not have minds. They don't seek things. They just are.

> opposite force of gravity is created
If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that there is some pressure from neutrinos and it counteracts the force of gravity? In that case, since the Sun is the primary source of neutrinos around here, why do we not get heavier during the day (when the Sun pushes us down) and lighter at night (when the Sun pushes us up)?

> all atoms generate gravity
Right.
> to compensate for these neutrinos
I hope you realize upon reading this again that this makes no sense.

>atoms produce neutrions when absorbing light through their electrons

Nope.