Very light boson particles are a new type of subatomic particle that scientists have proposed as a compelling possibility for dark matter. But these very light particles, if they exist, are difficult to detect because their mass is very small and only rarely do they create interactions with other matter, this is one of the important properties of dark matter
Gravitational waves are cosmic ripples in the fabric of space and time that result from catastrophic events such as collisions of black holes and neutron stars - the cores of massive supergiant stars that have collapsed. Very sensitive gravitational wave detectors on Earth, such as the advanced Wirgo and Ligo detectors, have successfully observed dozens of gravitational wave signals, and are also using them to search for dark matter: a hypothetical form of matter that is said to make up 85% of all matter in the universe. Dark matter is matter that cannot be seen directly, but we know it exists because of the effect it has on objects that we can directly observe. Dark matter may be composed of particles that do not absorb, reflect, or emit light, so they cannot be detected by observing electromagnetic radiation.
Very light boson particles are a new type of subatomic particle that scientists have proposed as a compelling possibility for dark matter. But these very light particles, if they exist, are difficult to detect because their mass is very small and only rarely do they create interactions with other matter, this is one of the important properties of dark matter.
The discovery of gravitational waves enables a new approach to the discovery of these very light boson particles through gravity. The scientists hypothesize that if there are certain very light boson particles near a rapidly spinning black hole, the very large gravitational field causes the particles to become trapped around the black hole and form a cloud. This phenomenon can create gravitational waves with a very long lifetime. By looking for the signals of these gravitational waves, scientists may finally be able to find these elusive boson particles, if they do exist, and perhaps solve the mystery of dark matter or rule out the existence of some of the other proposed types of particles.
In a recent international study conducted by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA collaboration, one of the leading researchers in which is Dr. Lily Sun, an OzGrav member researcher from the Australian National University, a team of scientists performed the world's first all-sky search adapted to find the signals of waves These predicted gravities are boson clouds near rapidly spinning black holes.
"The science of gravitational waves has opened a completely new door to the study of fundamental physics. It provides direct information about mysterious compact objects in the universe such as black holes and neutron stars, and also allows us to search for new particles and dark matter," says Dr. Sun.
Although no signal was detected, the team of researchers was able to draw many valuable conclusions about the possible presence of these clouds in our galaxy. In the analysis, they also took into account that the strength of a gravitational wave signal depends on the age of the boson cloud: the boson cloud shrinks as it loses energy by sending out gravitational waves, so the strength of the gravitational wave signal will decrease as the cloud ages.
"We learned that a certain type of boson cloud that is less than a thousand years old is unlikely to exist anywhere in our galaxy, while such clouds that are up to 10 million years old are unlikely to exist at a distance of up to about 3260 light years from Earth," says Dr. Sun.
About 1,600 researchers signed the article.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
231 תגובות
Israel
In accelerators, it is seen from the geometry of the particle distribution that there is a longitudinal shortening. I don't think there is any other explanation for it.
Is there perhaps some video or direct evidence of the shortening of the length?
Israel
Here is an interesting video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MfJ59lkABY
"If I move along a train I will see my watch moving slower, not faster."
Yes, that's what I said:
"If you move along a train whose clocks are synchronized, you will see and take pictures in each car following a time higher than yours at an increasing rate. It follows from the fact that your time moves slowly relative to the train.'
"If I calculate the age of the universe from cosmic radiation I will get the same result. I don't measure age - I calculate it. I look in all directions and know how to calculate my speed relative to the background radiation.'
So what? A temp clock calculates the age of the universe. It still shows output in time, and as I've shown you get a conflict between the clock times. On the one hand, the temperature clocks on the train show a growing gap from the time clock of the surveyor moving relative to the train, and on the other hand, they show the same time as his temperature clock, which shows the same time as his time clock.
One of the reasons is that the systems are not symmetrical: when moving against the radiation, the hr clocks always move slower than the temp clocks, but not the other way around.
Oh, I didn't delve deeper, but on the face of it, it seems that the answer is around 0.
There is the von Neumann puzzle where the bee flies from locomotive to locomotive while the trains are moving and turns around when it reaches the locomotive and you have to calculate its speed. You can calculate the limit of the infinite series or use physics.
Apologies for breaking into a discussion of a seemingly unrelated question, but one that may simplify the matter under discussion.
A question asked in high school math class:
Train A from TA to Haifa travels at a speed of 80 km/h, while on the parallel track comes train B from Haifa traveling at a speed of 120 km/h. The windows of the carriages on both trains are open during the journey. A bee flies in the carriage of train A and when the two trains meet for a moment parallel to each other the bee passes from an open window of train A to an open window in the carriage of train B.
The question: Calculate the speed of the bee.
I admit that the question quite bothered me at the time and still bothers me.
Israel
If I move along a train I will see my watch moving slower, not faster.
If I calculate the age of the universe from the cosmic radiation I will get the same result. I don't measure age - I calculate it. I look in all directions and know how to calculate my speed relative to the background radiation.
Israel
"Movement against the radiation is not only a matter of relative time, there are also physical consequences (warming for example) that do not exist for those who are at rest relative to the radiation."
Why would there be warming? A photon that hits you from the front is more energetic, but a photon that hits you from behind is less energetic.
Movement against the radiation is not only a matter of relative time, there are also physical consequences (warming for example) that do not exist for those who are at rest relative to the radiation.
Let's synchronize on what the phrase "each sees the other's clock ticking more slowly" means.
If you move along a train whose clocks are synchronized, you will see and take pictures in each car following a time higher than yours at an increasing rate. This follows from the fact that your time moves slowly relative to the train.
If you have a temp clock, it ticks faster than your hr clock if you are moving against the radiation and at the same rate if you are resting relative to it.
Therefore, if you move along the length of the train that is resting relative to the radiation, in joint photos of your watches and the temp and hr clocks on the train, the hr and temp clocks on the train will always show the same time and the gap between your clocks will increase between the temp clock ticking faster than the hr clock.
What happens if you are the one that rests relative to the radiation and the train moves relative to it?
The time clocks on the train will tick slower than the temp clocks on the train and your watches will tick at the same rate.
That's why in joint photos you will see the time clocks on the train show an increasing time from your time clock, the temp clocks on the train show a time higher than the time clocks on the train and therefore higher than your time clocks by the gamma rate squared, while the temp clocks on you and on the train always show the same time in a joint photo.
But your temp and hr clocks move at the same rate because you are resting relative to the radiation..
So how does it work out?
Israel
"The basic question is this: Are you claiming that the time of a clock at rest relative to the background radiation (all of us) moves slower relative to a system in motion relative to us?"
A clock that is at rest relative to the background radiation is no different from any other clock. If I move relative to it then it will tick slower than my watch. And someone who is standing relative to this clock at rest - will see my clock ticking slower.
Israel
Let's assume there is a clock that stands relative to the background radiation. There is no fundamental problem here - fly in the direction where the background radiation looks the reddest and turn off the engine when the radiation behind you is the same color as the radiation in front of you. I maintain that it is a clock like any clock in an inertial frame of reference. Let's call it clock A.
Let's put a second clock on a different reference frame. Let's call him B.
Now - let's ignore the background radiation. I maintain that there is no difference between A and B, or indeed any other inertial clock. A happens to show the time from an event that happened in the past.
I agree that there is something special about the big bang time being agreed upon by everyone. I don't see how this has any effect on the laws of physics.
No matter what you measure, you will always be able to deduce Nikum's age from the Doppler weighting, and the passers-by measurers will arrive at the same age.
It doesn't matter either - the universe has an age whether you measure it or not and it is the same for everyone.
The basic question is this: do you claim that the time of a clock at rest relative to the background radiation (all of us) moves slower relative to a system in motion relative to us? Because if not, you yourself have differentiated our system from any other system of which there is no common time that cannot be crossed like the age of the universe.
Israel
The background radiation clock is not a clock. In each direction you measure a different wavelength, and you calculate the age in some direction that is perpendicular to the direction of your movement.
It's not like you measure the temperature and get a single value.
That's why I don't understand how this "universal clock" is different from any other clock. Put a clock on Voyager and measure relative to it.
I sent a response, we will wait a few days for it to be released.
Yehuda, I'm sorry to say this, but our dear father is already tired and this is the reason for the failures on the site and the minority of responders.
So what is the value of seeing to slow down time if in every demonstration (Myanmars, etc.) the clocks move against the background radiation? After all, we have seen that the only possibility to solve the problem of two clocks, HZ and TEMP, moving separately is that the TZ clock that moves against the radiation ticks slower than the TEMP clock at the gamma rate.
So if the experiment doesn't work in the other direction as well (reversing the twin paradox), we are left with the conclusion that movement against the radiation causes the clocks to slow down at the gamma rate.
Do you see another option?
Another problem also exists when two clocks move and cross each other at time 0 in both. If one of the clocks measures an entangled particle with it at time 2 according to its time and the other at time 4 according to its time, the broken symmetry means that the measurement in the first preceded the second and is not affected by it.
But we saw that if the watch "stops" (immediately accelerates in the other direction) then the measurement with it becomes a second and is affected.
The problem is doubly complicated if each clock transmits the measurement results by radio and the measurer in 2 can choose whether to measure in horizontal or vertical polarization, while the measurer in 4 only measures vertically. Since the result has already been broadcast and its result is not far from him, then the measurement with him will affect a result that was already determined long ago and broadcast on the radio to the entire galaxy..
Absolute time of the cosmological clock - the time that has passed since the big bang and can be measured by converting the temperature of the background radiation to time using the Friedman formula, solves the problem in both cases.
Israel
"Do you know of experiments where clocks that are at rest relative to radiation move slower? Slower relative to what, for all of us?"
I guess we won't do such an experiment.
To my dear father Blizovsky
Regarding your response, I don't think it would be a problem to automatically approve the responses coming from Nissim's or Israel's mind and a few more. And regarding the last ten responses, it doesn't seem to me to be a complicated thing and even though it was done for a small number of responders, it's best not to ignore them because they …. Responding and this is one of the important goals of the site...
But it is your right to do what you want
All the best
Yehuda
Yoda brother Salno Tamim.
The site has been running on automatic for several years now, no one really reads or addresses the comments.
As for the delay, I don't like it either, there is a system designed to prevent spam such as Russian brides (which is another relatively easy case) or just advertisements from professionals and the price is pulse positive.
Regarding recent comments page, the technical person in charge says it makes the server work overtime for few readers.
To my dear father Blizovsky
May I comment on two small shortcomings in the operation of the site:-
The first - responses that wait a long time for approval.
The second - there is no list of recent comments.
And I will explain:-
It is clear to me that there are comments mainly from unknown people, which raise concerns about incompatibility for publication on the website, but after years of comments in which you see that the commenter is serious, and his responses are reliable, I think the time has come to publish the response automatically. And I mean, for example, the reactions of Nissim and Israel Shapira and I hope that my reactions will also risk such an attitude. Regarding the strangers, continue to behave as you do today.
Regarding the second disadvantage, a list of the most recent responses, (for example the last ten responses received), this can be of interest mainly regarding a response made regarding previously published articles. For example, Israel Nissim and myself are commenting on an article that was published a few weeks ago, and I am sure that there are many others who were interested in commenting on them but they are simply not aware of the existence of the comments. The list of the last ten comments with the name of the article, the commenter, and one line from the comment and maybe also a link to the article, will add to the commenters and attention to the science site we love.
This is my opinion for your attention
For example, this comment is addressed to you but you, my father, may not be aware of it because it is a comment that appears in an article from me several weeks ago. I will wait for your response about it and if I don't see one, I will plant it again
All the best
Sabdarmish Yehuda
A response has been pending for two days, perhaps because of the war in Ukraine.
The site has become a real joke.
"There are many experiments that confirm the predictions of special relativity - including slowing down time."
You yourself came to the conclusion that a clock in motion relative to the background radiation slows down.
Do you know of experiments where clocks at rest relative to radiation run slower? Slower relative to what, for all of us?
Israel
There are many experiments that confirm the predictions of special relativity - including time slowing down (for example GPS), length shortening (heavy ion collisions in accelerators, or changes in the electric field), mass changes (again in accelerators), the Seniac phenomenon (again - GPS) and I assume that there More.
Please Eraf, how do I know?
As Nissim says, there is quite a bit of evidence that confirms general relativity.
Do you have conflicting evidence? This is the place to get them. Also evidence that supports poaching.
That's what Popper says, isn't it?
My problem is not with general relativity - the theory of gravity - but with certain aspects of special relativity. We have already seen that I am not alone, as evidenced by the article in Scientific American "A quantum threat to special relativity".
I wonder what Israel Shapira's opinion is, Brother Salno!
Miracles my friend
My response will be based mainly on the first link. The second link declares in advance that it is based on the dark matter and energy and I do not want to discuss it and the third link unfortunately is not understandable to me.
Let's go to the first link.
It is told here about a scientist named Colt, a research fellow at the University of Portsmouth in England, he and nine of his colleagues decided to investigate the theory of general relativity at galactic distances. The reason is told later in the article, and I quote:
It is no secret that general relativity is incomplete in several respects, and perhaps even fundamentally flawed: it cannot, for example, explain conditions inside a black hole or in the first moments of the big bang. The theory also has a complicated relationship with a fundamental tenet of modern astronomy and cosmology – the notion that the universe is permeated with dark matter, a mysterious and invisible substance that interacts with ordinary matter only through gravity.” End quote.
(Just like I've been claiming for a long time.)
He made an observation of two galaxies standing one behind the other in the line of sight with the Earth so that the first is a gravitational lens for the second, and succeeded with the help of the very large VLT telescope in the Chilean Andes and with the help of the gravitational lens to arrive at a result with an error margin of 9% which in his opinion and in the opinion of his colleagues, is a rare achievement. The mass of course also includes dark matter and he sees this achievement as confirmation of the existence of dark matter
Sorry miracles like I said, I don't see the proof based on dark matter as cosmological scientific proof even if it is a wonderful 9% accuracy!
At the end of the article will be written
For now, says Tommaso Treu, a gravitational lensing expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, who is not affiliated with Collett's research, any science struggling to undo the never-ending revolution that Einstein began in 1915 must remember that undoing a time-tested, century-old theory would be an achievement. Extraordinary requires equally extraordinary evidence. "Everyone would be happy to prove Einstein wrong," says Trau. "There is no better way to be famous."
That sentiment rings true for Colt, who says he hoped the results would exceed the expectations set by general relativity. To that end, he is already working on a follow-up experiment, one that uses a different gravitational lens a little farther from Earth to retest general relativity." End quote.
That is, Colt himself is aware that the experiment he is evaluating is not satisfactory and he is already planning a similar, more accurate experiment. I wish him success.
Well, dear Nissim, not from this link will salvation come to lovers of dark matter/energy.
All the best,
And thanks to Google Translate.
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
for miracles
Thanks. I will dig in at the end of the week and respond. But I hope these are not direct proofs of dark matter. The well-known proofs with the addition of as much dark matter as necessary and if it still doesn't work out then add a little/a lot of dark energy are not acceptable to me.
And I doubt if they would have been acceptable to David Day.
But I will read and respond.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
And more!!!!
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1003/1003.2185.pdf
Yehuda
And here's another one!!
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/100310-einstein-theory-general-relativity-gravity-dark-matter-proof
Yehuda
You asked for
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-greatest-theory-validated-on-a-galactic-scale/
Miracles my friend
I agree with you that a law is a description of the behavior of a system, but what happens if we break out of the boundaries of the system, are the laws necessarily supposed to be preserved in the larger system as well? Newton saw an apple fall from the tree in his garden, so he decided on the laws of attraction. At this point in time these laws are known to be absurd only in his garden. According to David Hume, the English philosopher, in order to be able to test for greater distances we must measure for greater distances, and indeed Newton tested the moon and the planets known at the time and discovered that the law works there as well. But the universe is much bigger, and in order to measure the correctness of the laws there as well, we must check there as well and not assume that Newton Einstein's laws of gravity will continue to be accurate forever.
We, Nissim my friend, have a debate whether the laws of gravity even exist in the galaxy, David Yom would not accept the dark matter as a legitimate addition to prevent the refutation of gravity in galaxies
So please miracles, show me one measurement that showed that the laws of gravity are correct in a universe the size of a medium galaxy and a mass of billions or trillions of galaxies?, there is none! Therefore according to David Yom, if we nevertheless use the laws we know for a location of 13.8 light years, we must know that it is done with great uncertainty!
You add and ask "So does this mean that there were no photons or electrons or gravity and quarks in the past?"
My answer is simple, I don't know what exists there and what doesn't, simply, I have nothing to base it on!
But... "it seems to me" that you are right that it is a bit extreme...
Good day miracles!
Yehuda
Yehuda
A law is not something that determines how a system should behave, but a *description* of how it behaves. The laws of gravity do not determine how celestial bodies will move, but rather describe their movement (in the form of a generalization...).
Now, if you want to say that the laws in the past were different, then that means that in the past there were no photons, or electrons, or gravity, or charge or quarks or anything else that exists today.
The reason is because these particles are the laws 🙂
That's a bit extreme, isn't it?
Dear Nissim
I absolutely do not ignore the content you say, it simply requires a deeper understanding of your words, and I will explain.
I thought that since the Big Bang is built on laws known to us today, 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang, there is a great possibility of error. With other laws, appropriate for its time, that is, a denser and smaller universe with other cosmological laws, therefore, we would not necessarily have reached the well-known bang, and therefore I came to the conclusion (the wrong one!), that it cannot be disproved because we do not know according to which laws it was built. But, you showed me based on the observation from 1964 that it was indeed possible to disprove it if galaxies were revealed to us in the observation for 14 billion years, that is, even if in my opinion the bang is not based on existing laws for its time, it can be disproved! It required me time and depth and I apologize
Good week miracles and all the best!
Yehuda
Yehuda
Why are you ignoring the content of what I say?
Dear Lenisim
You wrote: "Schrödinger's experiment is a thought experiment... I am very surprised that you (Yehuda) do not know this." End quote. Tell me, dear Nissim, do you really think I don't know that this is a thought experiment? And if I write that I don't accept this experiment because the cat is not a kosher animal, then will you believe me? Hey Nissim, we're also joking when we respond, brother Salno, take The explanations and responses in proportion, please my friend.
And by the way, I have a friend with a humane soul and he generally thinks that cruel experiments should not be done even in thought, and maybe he is right...??
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
Schrödinger's experiment is a thought experiment …… I'm very surprised you don't know that.
The experiment was designed to show the paradox in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. I won't waste time explaining to you what this is about, because you're not ready to listen anyway.
Yehuda
Surely the big bang theory is disprovable!! I'm a little afraid you don't understand how science works…..
The Big Bang Theory produces a long list of predictions. I will give one example, but I have many more.
Fred Hoyle opposed the idea of the big bang (he is the one who gave the Torah the name out of mockery). He believed in the "steady state". An observation that would disprove the big bang is that the distribution of the ages of the objects in the universe should have been uniform. For example - at a distance of 14 billion light years we should have seen galaxies like our galaxy. But what to do - in 1964 we discovered that at a distance of 14 billion years there is only a black body reaction.
If we saw something else there - the big bang theory would be disproved.
We will move on to take care of the cats
I must point out that I see "Schlesinger's cat" as a cruel experiment and... scientifically unnecessary. Because what are they trying to convey to us? That we will never know what the condition of the cat is at a certain point in time?, and therefore it is found in the superposition of alive or dead at this point in time?? I claim that we can never know what the cat's vital state is at a certain point in time because the information takes time to pass from the cat to us, and there is no need to organize a murderous, radioactive experiment.. For example, we cannot know whether Schlesinger's cat is alive or dead at exactly 9:00, Without the brutal radioactive experiment, we don't need Chernobyl B to understand a bit of science!
For example, the poor cat had a heart attack at 9:00 and we are one meter away from him. We will only know about the attack at 9:00 and another C fraction (C = speed of light in meters). And this is true not only for cats, it is also true for dogs, mice, flowers and... the science responders and more.
My cat-loving friend, with tears in her eyes, shouts: - Let the animals live!, and please delete Schlesinger's cruel experiment from science. He is unnecessary!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To my friends Israel Shapira, and others
We are in a universe where there is an expansion of Hubble at a size of about 70 km per second, from here the logic says that the universe in earlier times was denser, but do we have to move back 13.8 billion years to a singular point? And what was true in the laws of cosmology known to us for a universe that is billions of light-years in size does not necessarily have to be true for the laws of a universe that is millions of light-years in size! The flow backwards by Hubble's constant must stop a little before the singularity because there we enter a dense universe where the laws of cosmology of various kinds are not defined well.
And I am not alone in my opinion about the problems in the conduct of the Big Bang in its beginnings.
For example:
On March 30.3.2017, XNUMX, three scientists named: Anna Egis, Paul G. Steinhart and Abraham Leib published an article in Scientific American. This article caught the eyes of the scientists of the Davidson Institute - the educational arm of the Weizmann Institute of Science, and they published it
I am citing an excerpt from the publication of the Davidson Institute - "Cosmic Inflation Theory in Trouble"
a quote:
"The latest astrophysical measurements, combined with theoretical problems, cast doubt on the old and beloved theory - the inflation theory of the young universe, and suggest that we may need new ideas
in brief
Recent measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the earliest light in the universe, cast doubt on the inflationary theory of the universe: the idea that space expanded at an exponential rate in the first moments of time.
One of the typical results of inflation is a different pattern of temperature differences in the cosmic background radiation (although it can be made to predict almost any result). Another result of it is primordial gravitational waves, which were not discovered.
The data show that cosmologists must re-evaluate their preferred paradigm, and consider new ideas about the beginning of the universe." End quote.
They are careful not to castigate the Big Bang itself, but they only seek to propose "new ideas" for the beginning of the universe. The idea I propose is for them to go back with the Hubble constant up to a universe the size of a medium galaxy and solemnly declare that from this size on, we do not know what the cosmological laws are before that and of course there is no need for the strange inflationary expansion. And by the way there are no gravitational waves then because maybe gravity didn't exist yet??
Good night my commenters
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To my friends Israel Shapira, and others
We are in a universe where there is an expansion of Hubble at a size of about 70 km per second, from here the logic says that the universe in earlier times was denser, but do we have to move back 13.8 billion years to a singular point? And what was true in the laws of cosmology known to us for a universe that is billions of light-years in size does not necessarily have to be true for the laws of a universe that is millions of light-years in size! The flow backwards by Hubble's constant must stop a little before the singularity because there we enter a dense universe where the laws of cosmology of various kinds are not defined well.
And I am not alone in my opinion about the problems in the conduct of the Big Bang in its beginnings.
For example:
On March 30.3.2017, XNUMX, three scientists named: Anna Egis, Paul G. Steinhart and Abraham Leib published an article in Scientific American. This article caught the eyes of the scientists of the Davidson Institute - the educational arm of the Weizmann Institute of Science, and they published it
I am citing an excerpt from the publication of the Davidson Institute - "Cosmic Inflation Theory in Trouble"
a quote:
"The latest astrophysical measurements, combined with theoretical problems, cast doubt on the old and beloved theory - the inflation theory of the young universe, and suggest that we may need new ideas
in brief
Recent measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the earliest light in the universe, cast doubt on the inflationary theory of the universe: the idea that space expanded at an exponential rate in the first moments of time.
One of the typical results of inflation is a different pattern of temperature differences in the cosmic background radiation (although it can be made to predict almost any result). Another result of it is primordial gravitational waves, which were not discovered.
The data show that cosmologists must re-evaluate their preferred paradigm, and consider new ideas about the beginning of the universe." End quote.
They are careful not to castigate the Big Bang itself, but they only seek to propose "new ideas" for the beginning of the universe. The idea I propose is for them to go back with the Hubble constant up to the universe the size of a medium galaxy and solemnly declare that from this size on, we do not know what the cosmological laws are before that and of course there is no need for the strange inflationary expansion. And by the way there are no gravitational waves then because maybe gravity didn't exist yet??
Good night my commenters
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
Not only the observations - Einstein's theory also predicts the expansion of the universe from a singular point. Remember the cosmological constant he accidentally inserted before Hubble discovered expansion?
To my dear friends Nissim and Israel
It flatters me that you miss me, so I will try not to disappoint you.
We'll leave the cat for next time.
We will refer to something a little more important than a living or dead cat and we will look at the young Komino and the course of his childhood, and infer from his behavior today his stormy childhood. We see a universe spreading everywhere Conclusion: when it was younger it was denser, and so we will continue, younger means denser, and so on... to the point????, it seems to me that we can never assume that it is scientific (according to Popper) to say Such a thing!
The question that must be asked: Is the Big Bang a scientific fact according to Popper (something is scientific if it can be disproved!) And it is clear that this thing, the "Big Bang", we cannot disprove, and mainly because we are unable to know what the laws were that worked In the moments when the universe was dense and concentrated not only in the singular point (?) even when it was the size of a medium galaxy, even then it was very different from our known location and therefore, it cannot be said that the laws then were with the certainty of the laws that exist these days, billions of years or so after his birth (maybe?) of the universe. We use the concept of inflation because we do not understand how it grew so much in a very short time. Surely this is a scientific exception for those who believe in the constancy of the slow speed of light, we can, perhaps, conclude about the state of the young universe that is several million years old, but a singular point??? This would be a radical departure from scientific thought according to Popper.
And regarding parallel universes, again it is not scientific to say such a thing because if we manage to put it to the test of refutation, we will do it through our universe and then it unites the "parallel" universe with ours.
And regarding the cat, I have a friend who raises three cats, I will consult her and comment on Schrödinger's cat, and his special condition....
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I don't understand what the problem is with the cat. It is not in the superposition of living and dead, it is either alive or dead, as long as the particle has not disintegrated it is alive. What is the problem?
Regarding the universe - is there any observation or explanation that contradicts the description I gave? Because according to my description there is an end to our private universe beyond which the infinite universe extends.
Movement in relation to the background radiation - if indeed clocks tick slower only in movement relative to it but not at rest (all of us), then where is the lengthening of time? According to relativity, the clocks of all of us tick more slowly relative to a system that is in motion relative to us.
Israel
Schrödinger showed in this experiment that there is a problem with Kopenhagen's interpretation - it is not defined exactly what "observation" is. Do you need a human observer, or a cat, or any measuring system?
In the private universe you describe - it is possible to define a unique system of axes. Look at the cosmic background radiation and calculate the center of the sphere that the radiation represents. As you throw back in time, so do the same about the location.
1. Here's what I don't understand about the cat:
A. The box is said to be open or transparent and we can see the cat. Isn't he now in a super position of life and death? But if we see him playing or licking, he is probably alive despite the superposition. Lying and not moving - dead.
B. The box is closed and you also attached a bomb to the mechanism. As long as you haven't heard boom - live. You heard - dead.
The point is that the cat falls into the living category because that's how it started, and even if it dies, we can always tell when it died and before that it was alive.
so whats the problem?
The cat also has nine souls so even if he dies it's still not final.
3. If you throw a grenade in space and you're inside the shrapnel shell, then the scattered shrapnel is your whole universe if you can't see past it.
So it was said that the universe is infinite and at some singular point in the infinite universe our big bang took place.
We see the matter around us, stars, galaxies, clusters, and they spread in all directions.
This is our entire private universe, but what does it have to do with the infinite surrounding universe?
Is there any observation that contradicts this logical description? What logic or law rules out many compensations at a distance of say 100 trillion light years or more from us?
Isn't the belief that the observable universe is the only universe that exists similar to the belief that prevailed until about 100 years ago that the Milky Way is the only galaxy in the universe?
What does Judah think about this?
Israel
1. What is the problem with the cat? I could never figure out what the problem was there.
The problem is that if the particle is in superposition then so is the cat. Schrödinger wanted to show that the idea was problematic. I think this is another evidence of parallel universes.
2. What point? In our private universe the point is everywhere.
You're right. I need to think about it some more.
3. Most scientists believe what common sense says: the universe is infinite.
I also think so. Yehuda did not...
Our private universe is finite. Even if you throw a grenade in space and see its fragments scatter everywhere, you can call the complex of fragments a private universe.
What do you mean "our" - our big bang?
1. What is the problem with the cat? I could never figure out what the problem was there.
2. What point? In our private universe the point is everywhere.
3. Most scientists believe what common sense says: the universe is infinite.
Our private universe is finite. Even if you throw a grenade in space and see its fragments scatter everywhere, you can call the complex of fragments a private universe.
What is the difference between our locations on its stars, galaxies and clusters? Not a tiny private case in the infinite universe?
Israel
There are observations that have no logical explanation other than parallel worlds. There is no other explanation for Schrödinger's cat.
Regarding an absolute axis system - this is a point that I am really far from understanding. If everything started from a point, then isn't this point a reference point (both time and location)?
Look at it this way - if the universe is finite then it necessarily has a center of gravity, and this center probably doesn't move. More than that - the logic (symmetry considerations) means that the angular momentum of the universe is also zero, so it is also possible to define a system of axes.
If the universe is infinite... Can such a situation even exist?
Is there any photo of a parallel world? Testimonies of people who returned from there? Archaeological evidence?
It seems to me that even less than the evidence for the existence of dark matter..
"Your solution, as I understand it, is actually the second solution. You say that the universe has an "absolute" beginning and therefore Einstein's assumptions do not hold. For example - every spaceship started with a speed that is zero in the absolute axis system of the universe.'
Please Eraf, the big bang theory says that we started with a singularity, but I don't know about an absolute axis system, only about absolute time.
You yourself came to the conclusion that the only possible solution to the absolute cosmic time measured with a thermometer is that those who move against the background radiation move slower than those who rest relative to it, so doesn't this solution distinguish the rest system of the radiation?
And you don't accept that breaking intertwined systems must be first and second, so what determines who is first and who is second if the systems are in motion relative to each other?
Israel
The SA article gives 2 more solutions to the problem. One of them is multiple worlds. The solution, called super-determinism, is very simple to understand, and solves all problems.
I prefer the first solution, because, in my understanding, it is simpler.
Your solution, to my understanding, is actually the second solution. You say that the universe has an "absolute" beginning and therefore Einstein's assumptions do not hold. For example - every spacecraft started with a speed that is zero in the absolute axis system of the universe.
On the other hand - we have countless observations that confirm Einstein's teachings
What also if the rest system of the background radiation is no different from any other rest system - a train for example - then why exactly relative to it most of the masses are relatively at rest? Why not relative to some distant galaxy moving away from us at almost the speed of light?
If I'm not mistaken, the speed of the background radiation relative to us increases with distance and in fact it has no rest system at all.
Take a long train whose rest system is Mars and all its clocks are synchronized with each other.
Pass it with another train whose clocks are also synchronized with each other.
Because of the relative simultaneity, a situation cannot arise that if we photograph together the clocks of two cars passing each other and they will show a certain time on both clocks (0 for example), then the photographs will also show identical times in the cars in a pair of other cars.
The difference between a train moving relative to Mars and moving relative to the background radiation for the purpose of the example is that there is no limit to the time shown by the clocks of the train, but there is a limit to the time shown by the clocks of the background radiation - the age of the universe. If the train is long enough and the passenger is moving fast enough relative to it, he will in a short time, according to his watch, photograph cars on the train whose age is much higher than the age of the universe, and this even though it is generally at rest relative to radiation and the train started its journey with all its clocks showing the age of the universe. Twins the same age as the passenger will be photographed when they are much older than him.
Remember the article about the quantum threat to relativity? out of it:
It seems that the type of non-locality encountered in quantum mechanics requires absolute simultaneity, which poses a real and deadly threat to special relativity.
And that's the trouble.
The simultaneity I proposed, the cosmological clock, solves the problem of the paradox of the spaceship that measures first but is in motion relative to the earth. What kind of simultaneity can there be between two systems moving relative to each other, yet as we saw in the interweaving there must be an initial measurement that is not affected, and a second that is.
Israel
The universe clock gives a time that we all agree on - just like a clock on Mars. Once you know your speed relative to Mars, you know the time on Mars.
Did the universe clock show 0 at the time of the big bang? Assuming the formula is correct, right. So what?
Nice, the comment on the comment has been released, is it possible to release the comment itself as well?
Unbelievable.. it takes a day to release each comment.
The response release times are getting longer and longer, and I don't think I can get the message across to you.
A formula - almost any formula actually - if you feed it with input A, it will give you output B, it doesn't matter what you believe.
for our purposes. We both agree I believe the universe is cooling over time (this is what the Friedman formula also says).
In the original twin paradox, if the traveling twin is equipped with a time clock and a temperature clock, then throughout his journey he will see the time clock moving slower than the temperature clock in the gamma rate. When he reaches the distant planet before he spins around, the temp clocks at him and on the planet will show the same time, the age of the universe, but his CST clock will lag behind the CST clock on the planet.
This is based on the assumption that the CZ clocks were synchronized before the journey. The temp clocks are always synchronized.
And of course the assumption is that the twin moves relative to the background radiation.
What will happen if he is the one who rests relative to the radiation?
Now the distant planet is the one that moves relative to the radiation and the hr clock on it ticks slower relative to the temp clock.
When the traveler's twin reaches her, the temp clocks show the same time and also his czh clock, while the czh clock on the planet shows an earlier time. Reversing the paradox, time in the traveling twin moves faster than on the planet.
The twin paradox, by the way, was born even before background radiation was discovered.
Israel
Who said we both agree on the value of G?
In any case - this does not say anything about the correctness of the formula.
Israel
"Note that you don't need to use a radiation meter, a white styrofoam thermometer is enough."
The styrofoam will be positioned at the temperature of the background radiation.
Miracles
I am willing to bet you any amount regardless of whether I accept or believe in the formula, if we both enter the same data in the formula as input, we will get the same result as output.
Israel
Certainly - look at the formula: it includes c, G.
If you fail here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations - You will see that the cosmological constant is also inside, as well as the average density, and other constants that I did not delve into.
"The Friedman formula assumes that the speed of light and the coefficient of gravity are constant, the uniformity of the universe, the cosmological constant, and many other assumptions...
They are a result of Einstein's field equations.
That is, if you use this clock to determine the age of the universe, then you must accept the assumptions of the theory of relativity.'
Here is the formula.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/expand.html#c3
Below is a small calculator whose input is temperature in Kelvin, the output is time in seconds.
a question:
If I do not accept the assumptions of the theory of relativity or any other theory - then the output in seconds will be different for a certain input in Kelvin? 🙂
Note that you don't need to use a radiation meter, a white styrofoam thermometer is enough.
Yehuda
Indeed, but the background radiation also has speed and direction. If you are at rest relative to her you will measure a time of about 13.8 billion years to the age of the universe. Even if you are in motion relative to the radiation, you will be able to deduce without particular difficulty the age of the universe that would measure a body passing by you and stationary relative to the radiation by means of Doppler weighing.
Therefore it can be said that the age of the universe is the same for a number of observers passing each other at a given moment - the age that the observer would have measured relative to the radiation.
Yehuda
Israel explained that every observer would get the same number when calculating the age of the universe.
The reason is that we calculate the age by observing the cosmic radiation. If you map the temperature of this radiation from a large number of directions you will get that there is one point that is more "blue" and a point opposite to it that is more "red".
If you measure the temperature in deep space - you will find that the "color" of the photons depends on the direction of their arrival. It is different from a gas because photons do not collide with each other.
That way you can calculate your speed relative to it and therefore you can correct for that speed.
For example - the speed of the earth relative to radiation is 370 km per second. This speed of course varies plus or minus 30 km per second during the year.
To my dear friends
I just asked
If time flows for everyone at its own pace according to the relative speed of its movement, then what does the question mean, what is the age of the universe? After all, everyone has their own time, and their own age, so what is 13.8 billion years??
Yehuda
Israel
1. It is possible to create a clock that will show the age of the universe by measuring the temperature of the background radiation and converting it to time (the age of the universe) by using the relevant Friedman formula and the Doppler weighting as if the clock was at rest relative to the radiation.
The Friedman formula assumes that the speed of light and the coefficient of gravity are constant, the uniformity of the universe, the cosmological constant, and many other assumptions...
They are a result of Einstein's field equations.
That is - if you use this clock to determine the age of the universe then you must accept the assumptions of the theory of relativity.
2. Two temperature clocks passing each other will always show the same time in a common photo - the age of the universe.
Yes - provided we agreed on the meanings of receiving (1)
3. If a temp clock is next to a cesium clock and both are resting relative to the background radiation then both will tick at the same rate, and if they are reset then both will always see the same time in a shared photo or video.
Yes
4. If the two clocks move together relative to the background radiation, then the hr clock will tick slower than the temp clock in the ratio of Gamma, (the speed of the system relative to the background radiation weighted according to the relevant Lorentz transformation).
Yes
I didn't say a contradiction, I said more simple and elegant.
Let's see what we agree on.
1. It is possible to create a clock that will show the age of the universe by measuring the temperature of the background radiation and converting it to time (the age of the universe) by using the relevant Friedman formula and the Doppler weighting as if the clock was at rest relative to the radiation.
Note that it doesn't matter if we actually create such a watch or not, the main thing is the feasibility.
2. Two temperature clocks passing each other will always show the same time in a common photo - the age of the universe.
3. If a temp clock is next to a cesium clock and both are resting relative to the background radiation then both will tick at the same rate, and if they are reset then both will always see the same time in a shared photo or video.
4. If the two clocks move together relative to the background radiation, then the hr clock will tick slower than the temp clock in the ratio of Gamma, (the speed of the system relative to the background radiation weighted according to the relevant Lorentz transformation).
Agreed so far?
Israel
I don't see a paradox. It's a strange situation, but it doesn't create a contradiction. The future can influence the past as long as it does not create a contradiction.
The cosmological clock is based on all of physics - otherwise it is impossible to calculate the age from the temperature. Without relativity and quantum theory - this clock is not calibrated (and maybe doesn't exist at all).
"If we agreed that there must be a first particle that is not affected and a second particle that is. So who is first and who is second when the particles are in motion relative to each other?" - We did not agree. I don't see that it can create a contradiction
I think multiple worlds is simple. I don't see how it could be otherwise.
"What eliminates the shortening of the distance in her relationship has no experimental confirmation." – We are back to the point that you cannot define a unit of length that does not depend on the speed of light.
And if the country's time is absolute, does it change anything?
We still got a paradox between proper relativity and quantum proper that requires an external absolute clock to solve it, a clock that does not exist either in relativity or quantum.
The choice of the cosmological clock is the natural choice in my opinion for an absolute clock. It is the only clock in our universe that cannot pass its age (unlike the earth clock or any other clock).
To remind you, finding an absolute clock for smoltaneity in the collapse is not only a theoretical thing if we agreed that there must be a first course particle that is not affected and a second particle that is. So who is first and who is second when the particles are in motion relative to each other?
If in the example of the spaceship that measures at 2 and the earth at 4 according to the weather the state of collapse is broadcast on the radio after its discovery, then if the spaceship stops after or before the measurement, the spaceship which according to considerations of symmetry is the first, will receive the state of collapse that it already knows what it is on the radio at time 6 according to the answer from Earth which is now 20 light hours away.
How does that happen? Quantum says - the future affects the past. Paradox Wheeler et al.
Nice - multiple universes.
Nothing more simple and elegant than an Absolute Universal Cosmological Clock?
And also as I showed, if we accepted that in motion relative to the background radiation the clock slows down but not at rest relative to it (do you see another possibility?) then the lengthening of time (from ions for example) can be explained by their motion relative to the radiation.
What eliminates the shortening of the distance in her relationship has no experimental confirmation.
Israel
Regarding interweaving - the clock on Earth can also be used as an absolute clock. After all, this clock and the clock of the universe are synchronized.
And as in the twin paradox - there is no symmetry here.
I'm still thinking about the weaving. I believe in "multiple worlds", and do not think that the collapse of the wave function is a physical thing. I believe that the moment I made a measurement, you "divided" the universe", that is, you chose a certain branch. I think, but am far from convinced, that this division is instantaneous throughout the universe. My problem is that I don't understand how Meidi gets along with special relativity, because there is no such concept there.
Israel
The Twin Paradox describes a non-symmetrical behavior and therefore the two twins cannot claim the same thing. There is a fundamental difference between the one that flies and the one that remains stationary.
Let's choose a star at a distance of 10 light years and assume that the twin flies at gamma = 10.
For him, he flies a distance of one light year and back - a total of 2 light years - and he matures in two years.
As far as the stationary twin is concerned - the brother has been flying for 10 years because - and for him 20 years have passed.
There is no vacuum, space is full of heavy elementary particles (Higgs for example).
I see no possibility of reconciling the paradox of combining the lengthening of time with interweaving without choosing an absolute time. The comological clock is the natural choice, and it does solve the paradox.
The cosmological clock was unknown in 1905. Einstein opens the theory of relativity by defining simultaneity - logical in 1905 but not today.
In the twin paradox according to Einstein, each twin can claim that his time is the real one. It is different if you combine the bang theory when they meet they both agree on the age of the universe as common to both, therefore the remaining twin time is correct.
And if indeed the instantaneousness of the collapse is coordinated with the cosmological clock, then this is a slam dunk for the correctness of the assumption.
Israel
"If you move fast enough, you'll just die from heat."
This is not true in a vacuum. Outer space is not empty.
Israel
"The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. Thus, for example, a person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or standing at rest."
If you see photons from the background radiation then the car is not sealed.
As I said, there is always an external reference point. Please refer to what Wiki says about Postulate 1:
The principle of relativity:
The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. For example, a person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or is at rest.
Your eyes see, given is also given.
Note also that the conclusion we reached that clocks in motion relative to the background radiation tick more slowly than those at rest relative to it, destroys one of the strongest evidences for the lengthening of time, from muons. Naturally, all the tests done are on muons moving against the background radiation. That's why their clock ticks slower. The inability of bodies to exceed the speed of light can also be attributed to radiation (if you move fast enough, you will simply condense from heat...).
And for our purposes: the interlacing problem is solved if we associate the instantaneousness of the collapse of the wave function with the cosmological clock. We saw that in the collapse there must be a particle that collapses first and is not affected by the second, while the second is affected by the first. If it is said that in the example of the spacecraft flying from the earth it moves relative to the radiation, then the measurement at 2 o'clock according to the CST clock in the spacecraft is at 20 according to the temp clock in the spacecraft, and the measurement at 4 according to the CST clock in Israel is a discount relative to the radiation, it is also 4 on the temp clock in Israel , therefore the measurement in Israel precedes the measurement in the spacecraft, and the problem is solved.
If the earth is the one that moves relative to the radiation, then the measurement in the spacecraft is the primary one.
This is how an apparent contradiction between two mainstream theories - relativity and quantum - is reconciled through another mainstream theory, the Big Bang.
Israel
Also in Galileo's physics - if there is an external reference point then we can know our speed.
But, unlike Galileo's physics, with Einstein the speed of light does not depend on the frame of reference.
Each system moves relative to any external system (train for example). Postulate 1 says that you will not be able to know your speed relative to the same train or any other external system in a sealed car through any experiment whatsoever. Using a thermometer with Styrofoam you can know your speed relative to each system. That's the point.
Israel
As soon as you added to your experiment an external clock for all the reference systems in your experiment, then you violated the rule that the reference systems are equal (because each moves at a certain speed in relation to the external clock).
Therefore, identical experiments in external reference systems will give different results.
Regarding weaving - I'm not sure there is a problem. You got a very strange result, but I don't think you created a paradox.
Great question - I'm still thinking about it 🙂
This is not a theory of relationships, it is postulate 1 on which the Torah is built and which also exists in Galileo.
If the postulate does not hold and you can distinguish whether a system is at rest or in motion, then what about the Torah?
And what about the interlaced particles?
Israel
Special relativity says that any experiment will give the same result in any frame of reference. If you look at the background radiation then the first condition is not met and you really get different results in different reference systems.
Yehuda
We have not reached a paradox in the theory of relativity - we have reached a conclusion. The conclusion is that the speed relative to the background radiation should be taken into account when calculating the age of the universe from the temperature.
A. Did you take into account that at least one of the spaceships had to turn around and suffered severe accelerations??
Acceleration has no effect, as much as it does. The reason is that you can change speed with a very high acceleration, therefore - for a very short time. This means that the change in time due to the acceleration is very small. Even with a huge acceleration, what happens is that time "stops" for the duration of the acceleration. Therefore, the effect is small.
Beyond that - Israel did not mention any acceleration in his example...
B. Did you take into account that it is possible that the speed of light has changed and this has an effect?
No …. Because the experiment can be evaluated in as little time as we want.
third. Did you take into account that at least one of the spaceships "suffered" from acceleration at the beginning of the flight and deceleration at the end?
There are no accelerations in the experiment...
d. You treat the background radiation as something constant, for example to determine a speed based on it, at the beginning and at the end of the experiment, or maybe that's not the case?
This is what the observations show us. Calculations show that we are indeed seeing the temperature we expected - one of the great successes of science of the XNUMXth century.
Yoda nephew Sel Sahbek
There are no accelerations and solving the twin paradox does not require accelerations.
As I said, the only solution I see can be reached through the comments in this article.
The extended possible solution that turns postulate 2 into a sentence requires all the responses in the article, including pushing.
So to work Yoda, to work.
For miracles and dear Israel
You argue among yourselves and I, unfortunately, understand almost nothing, but I am also jealous of you and allow me to dare and respond:
A. Did you take into account that at least one of the spaceships had to turn around and suffered severe accelerations??
B. Did you take into account that it is possible that the speed of light has changed and this has an effect?
third. Did you take into account that at least one of the spaceships "suffered" from acceleration at the beginning of the flight and deceleration at the end?
d. You treat the background radiation as something constant, for example to determine a speed based on it, at the beginning and at the end of the experiment, or maybe that's not the case?
I just noticed that you did not consider the above possibilities and you came to paradoxes regarding the theory of omnipotent attribution!... Or not?.
So please respond gently
And sorry for the interruption
Yehuda
If the first postulate does not hold then what about relativity?
Even the AP paradox doesn't really fit with relativity because of postulate 2, at least that's what Einstein claimed.
Einstein was wrong about APR. What about postulate 2?
There is a solution to the interweaving problem that does not involve multiple universes and is logical and consistent. You already have all the tools to find him..
Israel
Our universe has a preferred frame of reference. Therefore the first postulate does not hold.
""The only solution that comes into consideration is that when we move relative to the background radiation, we see the temp clock moving faster than the hourly clock." - You're right.
Regarding the second problem - I have to think. My direction is "multiple worlds", but I am not convinced that this solves the paradox.
Also note that if the temperature decreases at a faster rate when moving relative to radiation, this contradicts Postulate 1.
Yes, that's what I said in the previous comment:
"The only solution that comes into consideration is that when we move relative to the background radiation, we see the temperature clock moving faster than the time clock.
Now go to the interlacing problem. There is no solution there.
Or maybe there is and it's pretty amazing?
Israel
I think my assumption is wrong, and I will explain why.
Think of the twins paradox (data as in your example): the parents aged 10 years and the daughter only a year. But - the universe also aged by 10 years.
This means that during the flight - the universe clock should run 10 times faster (although logic says that it should have run slower - if we think of the universe clock as a physical clock placed on the earth).
The explanation, in my opinion, is that we said that the universe clock is the result of a calculation - the daughter measures a temperature that drops at a rate 10 times greater because of the relativistic Doppler effect.
I searched the web for information about this. Einstein did think that the moving temperature is quaternary and therefore really decreases with speed.
The opinion today is different (Landsberg 2004): an observer of the movement does not see a spectrum of a black body at all and therefore there is no way to define what the temperature is.
The explanation is this (to my understanding) - the dispersion of the wavelengths that we perceive at rest is that of a black body at a temperature of 2.7 degrees Kelvin - this means that there is a spectrum of wavelengths, with a peak at 2 mm and a certain dispersion. At high speed you will get a different peak, but the spectrum will no longer be that of a blackbody.
And if you take all these into account - you will indeed get the age of the universe at rest (that is - the age will advance 10 times faster when you are at gamma = 10). The explanation is that you know your absolute speed relative to the background radiation.
In the meantime, due to the prolonged release times of the responses, another problem.
If we have two particles fully entwined in a room, then by measurement the spins will always be opposite.
If we measured the first at 2 o'clock and the second at 4 o'clock, we can say that at 1 o'clock the spins were not yet determined and they were in a state of superposition, at 3 o'clock we already know the spin of the electron measured at 2 and therefore also the spin of the electron measured at 4.
We can therefore say that the measurement of the first determined the state of the second, but not the other way around.
We will now take 2 interlaced electrons and put one of them on a spaceship passing over the surface of the earth at moment 0 in the clocks of the spaceship and the earth, gamma 10.
The electron in the spacecraft is measured at 2 according to the spacecraft clock, the electron in Israel is measured at 4 according to the Israeli time.
The systems are symmetrical except that in the spaceship the measurement is two hours earlier according to the season. We can therefore say that the measurement in the spacecraft preceded, and it is the one that determined the state of the electron in Israel and not the other way around.
But due to the lengthening of time, hour 2 in the spacecraft is already almost hour 20 in Israel, so the measurement in Israel at 4 is actually the initial one.
But as we have seen, the measurement in Israel cannot affect the measurement in the spacecraft due to symmetry considerations.
So what's the solution?
For this we have sharp resolution cameras that shoot from both sides. Everyone agrees with the cameras.
The only solution next in mind is that when we move relative to the background radiation, we see the temp clock moving faster than the hr clock.
This contradicts postulate 1, and the question also arises whether in the twin paradox (which was born before the discovery of the background radiation) the traveling twin is the one that rests relative to the radiation, so the two clocks in his spaceship will always show the same time, and precisely on the distant planet he reaches before turning back, a clock The clock moves relatively slowly to the temp clock.
So when he arrives at the same distant planet, the two temperature clocks show the same time, and his time clock shows the same time as the two temperature clocks, so what does the time clock on the planet show? A time earlier than the traveling twin time? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Well, we will now wait two days for the response to be published.
Israel
I think the problem exists in a much simpler case.
A spaceship with a standard clock, and each planet has a standard clock.
The spaceship passes the first planet and everyone resets their clocks.
From the point of view of an observer on Planet B - at the moment of the suit on Planet B, the local clock shows 10 years and the clock on the spacecraft shows 100 years.
From the point of view of the passenger in the spaceship - his watch shows one year and the watch on the planet shows 10 years...
There is a contradiction here, isn't there? I'm avoiding your question, I just think my question is included in yours.
Ok, now a spaceship carrying two clocks, cesium and temp, passes by planet A on its way to planet B which is 10 light years away for the sake of the example, gamma 10, but any distance and any speed will fit, even non-relativistic speeds. The cesium clocks of A and B are synchronized, and temp clocks are also placed in them.
At the moment of the suit, cameras from the spacecraft and the planet capture all four clocks, CZ and temp in the spacecraft and B. All show 0.
The journey to B takes almost 10 years according to the clocks of the planets, during which, according to the assumption, the temp and hr clocks in the spaceship are ticking at the same rate as a video showing the two clocks shows.
When the spaceship passes by B again, the four clocks in the spaceship and B are photographed by cameras from both directions.
The temperature clocks will always show the same time in a shared photo.
But there was a gap of about 9 hours between the clocks due to the lengthening of the times.
So how does this work out with the video that shows the temp clock and the time clock in the spaceship ticking at the same rate?
Note that the computer software in the temperature clocks considers the universe time it measures by reading the temperature to an absolute universe time as if it were at rest relative to the background radiation.
Israel
Yes, both will show the age of the universe.
So the clocks won't show the same time, all the time?
It was said that we introduced a correction so that now the clocks show the same time all the time - what will two temperature clocks passing each other see at the moment the suit is taken together in a photo? the same time in both (the age of the universe)?
Israel
The age of the universe clock needs to be corrected for speed. The background temperature depends on the speed relative to it. For example - the relative speed of the earth is about 400 km per second.
So both watches will always show the same time in a shared photo regardless of speed?
Israel
The clocks will show the same time, all the time.
Ok, so we have a clock that shows the age of the universe by measuring the temperature.
We will put an ordinary cesium clock next to it and take a video of both of them, and reset the time on the cesium clock so that it will show the same time as the temperature clock.
Will the video always show the same time on both watches? Will there be a gap between them? If so, which of them will lag and who will rush? In what ratio? Does the ratio depend on speed? If so, speed relative to what (the system is not accelerating).
Yehuda
"We all agree that the temperature is 2.725 degrees Kelvin."
To be precise - the photons in space correspond to blackbody radiation at about 2.7 degrees Kelvin.
"Now I have to answer your next question: "You will find definitions for a meter and a second that do not include the speed of light. No scientist has succeeded in this before you." My answer: - We already had the standard meter in Paris, it was good..."
A very bad answer - for the reason that every high school kid knows: this definition is very temperature dependent.
"We will leave the definition of the second to Greenwich. "
So let's conclude - you failed to define a unit of length or a unit of time, therefore you cannot make any claim about speed.
for miracles
So, we all agree that the temperature is 2.725 degrees Kelvin.
Now I am left to answer your next question: "You will find us definitions for a meter and a second that do not include the speed of light. No scientist has succeeded in this before you."
My answer:- We already had the standard meter in Paris, it was good except that it required the applicants to create a new one to travel to Paris. You probably want a standard meter that everyone can create for themselves, just like with... The light, to sit in the laboratory and determine the size of the meter, then... Only with the light!, I think it will require correction once every few years, when there is a big deviation in the background temperature, but I will think, maybe an idea will come up….
We will leave the definition of the second to Greenwich.
Good night science readers
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel
If and only if the box is not insulated - then yes.
I would not commit to high accuracy.
1. Your measurement is probabilistic.
2. The formula for calculating the temperature makes assumptions that compromise its accuracy
Yehuda
Because it follows - a body in space (which is not empty) will absorb a temperature of about 2.7 degrees Kelvin.
Let's simplify: just a white styrofoam box and inside a simple thermometer connected to simple software.
Will it always show us the age of the universe with any precision we want?
Yehuda
I explained in passing that a thermometer in space would read about 2.7 degrees Kelvin. This is because there are photons in space, and those photons are of a blackbody at this temperature.
This is not the temperature of space!!! Don't get confused please.
Israel
Your styrofoam box contains photons from the background radiation, so you will really measure a temperature of 2.7 degrees.
Yes - I agree that the age of our universe can be calculated by measuring the wavelength of photons in space.
Dear Nissim
Please answer in one word:-
What will be the temperature of any body that is several days in space far from any star, for example the styrofoam of Israel. Two possibilities :- Will it go and cool down to absolute zero or up to 2.725 degrees Kelvin?. No explanations please just say a number. Because here is apparently the disagreement between us, waiting for a one word response please.
good week
Yehuda
Miracles
You already explained yourself what the thermometer measures.
In all searches on Google, including Wiki, the space temperature is not lower than 2.7 Kelvin.
This is also what the thermometer in the Styrofoam will show, I believe.
But what will he see a billion years ago? 14 billion years ago? In a billion years?
We can easily turn the styrofoam thermometer into a clock that shows the time that has passed since the bang by using the relevant Friedman formula.
getting?
Yehuda
I should probably explain high school physics here. And this is not the first time I explain the same topic, even in the current thread. It's a terrible shame that you are full of your opinions and useless quotations from philosophers, and don't even try to understand what I'm saying.
This time, please try to concentrate and understand what I'm saying.
A thermometer measures the kinetic energy of its molecules, and nothing else.
To define a temperature you must first define units, and in particular a unit of length. No scientist to date has found a way to define the unit of length without the speed of light. Neither do you….
The thermometer heats up from the energy transfer of particles from the environment - collisions of air molecules for example. Collisions of photons for example. The thermometer also emits heat - and in the steady state its temperature will equal the temperature of the environment. In particular - in a complete vacuum - a thermometer will show at the end (after some time……) a number that strives for absolute zero.
Now (and again I repeat myself...) the temperature of the cosmic background radiation is that of a black body at 3000 degrees Kelvin. Because of the relativistic Doppler effect, we measure about 2.7 degrees Kelvin. That is - the thermometer is bombarded with photons of different wavelengths, which correspond to a black body at a temperature of the same 2.7 degrees (the peak is around a wavelength of 2 mm).
Each cubic meter of "space" has around 400 such photons, so space is not empty. This is the temperature Israel is talking about. There is no other temperature.
Yehudi Yehuda, we took the event and location of your birth as the beginning of labor. How does it define units of length and time - without cheating and using temperature and speed units of course!! 🙂 In particular - what is the distance to the Ra'anana junction??
Israel
How does the thermometer measure temperature? What does it actually measure?
Dear Lenisim
I think you Nissim, Israel and I do not agree on the meaning of the concept of the background temperature of the universe. I believe that the meaning of 2.725 Kelvin is a temperature that a body receives from the very fact that it is located in the spaces of the universe far from the heat of any star, in our regions, that is, it is the temperature of the space itself in our regions. Israel's Styrofoam will be at a temperature of 2.725 Kelvin.
I can define a location without a length unit!, for example I live in Herzliya. - I defined a location without a length unit!
Believe me miracles I can measure both temp and speed when I set the distance and time while measuring.
But first let's agree what is 2.725 Kelvin??
Have a good week everyone
Yehuda
"If the side of the spaceship (I believe you meant the box) will be black"
If it is black, the thermometer will boil. That's why I wrote to Ben.
"It depends on the temperature of the Styrofoam itself. The Styrofoam radiates photons into the space, and in practice you will measure the temperature of the Styrofoam.'
For this we waited a few days, to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium. My understanding is that the thermometer will measure about 2.7 Kelvin.
"The thermometer will cool down towards absolute zero. But, the third law prevents reaching absolute zero..." Quantim says that it is possible to go below absolute zero.
Dear Lenisim
I think you Nissim, Israel and I do not agree on the meaning of the concept of the background temperature of the universe. I believe that the meaning of 2.725 Kelvin is a temperature that a body receives from the very fact that it is located in the spaces of the universe far from the heat of any star, in our regions, that is, it is the temperature of the space itself in our regions. Israel's Styrofoam will be at a temperature of 2.725 Kelvin.
I can define a location without a length unit!, for example I live in Herzliya. - I defined a location without a length unit!
Believe me miracles I can measure both temp and speed when I define the distance and time while measuring.
But first let's agree what is 2.725 Kelvin??
Have a good week everyone
Yehuda
Yehuda
I asked for a definition *without* the speed of light, and I was given a (wrong) definition - with the speed of light.
A point in time cannot be defined unambiguously. You must also define the place - and these definitions should be absolute. I would love to know how you define a location without a unit of length.
Also, I would love to know how you measure temperature, without defining a distance unit first (the meaning of temperature is kinetic energy of molecules).
How do you measure the speed of light before defining the length units of speed?
Israel
"Take a sealed box made of white styrofoam and put it in a space with a baby thermometer for a few days."
It depends on the temperature of the Styrofoam itself. The Styrofoam radiates photons into the space, and in practice you will measure the temperature of the Styrofoam. And another complication arises from the fact that the wavelength of the photons is limited to the size of the box.
If the side of the spaceship is black and at absolute zero - the thermometer will cool down towards absolute zero. But, the third law prevents reaching absolute zero...
for miracles
To your question/request: "Yehuda, then - find us definitions for a meter and a second that do not include the speed of light."
My answer: There is nothing simpler than that!, and precisely with the speed of light, very simply, you have to decide on a date, and on that date measure the background temperature, and the speed of light, then divide the speed of light by 299,792,458 and we will get the "Sevdarmish standard meter" We will be left to decide on a date , so of course there is nothing better than my birthday 26.5., a year after that on the next birthday, the speed of light will change according to the new background temperature, then we will divide the speed of light by another number, we will be left with the second definition, I would continue to leave it in Greenwich England. Simple and easy!
In addition to miracles, I await your answer to Israel's question: What is the temp of the white Styrofoam?
Good day miracles
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel Shapira
Thank you for the minor support during my difficult times in the face of miracles, I hope that now that the historical response has already been released, the prisoners from Hamas will also be released, and Russia and Ukraine will reconcile!!
for miracles
Awaiting your answer to Israel's question about the Styrofoam temperature
All the best
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The waiting was released
Miracles
Take a sealed box made of white styrofoam and put it in a space with a baby thermometer for a few days.
What temperature do you think the thermometer will show? 0?
Yehuda
If so - you will find for us definitions per meter and per second that do not include the speed of light.
No scientist has succeeded in this before you……;)
Yehuda
Temperature is an expression of the thermal energy (ie: speed) of particles. A vacuum has no temperature.
The cosmic background radiation is blackbody radiation at a temperature of 3000 degrees Kelvin. Because of relativistic redshift (which you don't believe in) - we see photons at a wavelength that corresponds to blackbody radiation of about 2.7 degrees Kelvin.
Israel
"Measure your speed relative to the background radiation (Doppler)" - why not just look through the window?
Lanisim and Israel Achim Salno
And in general to the whole science family
Good Morning!
Apparently, there is nothing like scientific responses to warming in these freezing days, especially if the ongoing discussion concerns the temperature. I woke up this morning and 7 comments are waiting for my opinion/reaction!
Let's start with my friends Nissim
You write: Yehuda, I explained to you that space has no temperature. why don't you listen
Yehuda answers: So what is 2.725 degrees Kelvin??
I googled and the best definition I found there:
"The actual temperature of the cosmic microwave background is 2.725 Kelvin. The middle pair of images shows the same map displayed on a scale such that blue corresponds to 2.721 Kelvin and red is 2.729 …” end quote.
I explain what is written here as the temperature of interstellar space in our beloved universe so please miracles, explain to me what is the mysterious 2.725?, temperature of what?? And by the way, later on in the quote it says that the temperature is between 2.721 Kelvin and 2.729 Kelvin, which is much more than one thousandth of a percent?, so explain to me how to call the mysterious 2.725??
The second thing, my friend, is miracles, you state: "The speed of light is constant by definition. What is not fixed are the units of length and time." End quote. Dear Nissim... It is not acceptable for me to use a meter and a second that is a bit "dark" to justify a constant speed of light.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Measure your speed relative to the background radiation (Doppler). From it calculate your speed relative to the country.
The temperature of the background radiation is the temperature of the space that Yehuda is talking about, I believe.
And the speed of light is not constant by definition - it was found experimentally - the definition (postulate 2) is that this speed is the same for every measurer regardless of his speed.
From this definition follows the principle that a speed greater than light violates causality.
Yehuda
You don't think light is photons? Are you claiming that light is waves in the "ether"?
Israel
"I can propose an experiment that will always show you the speed relative to the earth even inside a sealed car, and this is contrary to the first postulate"
how?
Yehuda
I explained to you that space has no temperature. why don't you listen
Judah/Israel
The speed of light is constant by definition. What is not fixed are the units of length and time.
Yoda brother Salam
The idea of vsl- varying speed of light is not new in physics, and exactly for the reason you mentioned (more because of density which is proportional to temperature).
I gave up on releasing the reaction, it's easier to release kidnapped soldiers from Hamas.
Nissim, are you sure that 1 is correct? I can propose an experiment that will always show you the speed relative to the earth even inside a sealed car, and this is contrary to the first postulate which says:
The principle of relativity:
The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. For example, a person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or is at rest.
for miracles
How did you come to this?, Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away from the Milky Way, every year the speed of light will change by 25 cm per second at most, and that, at most 10,000 km per second difference in the speed of light (and not 299,817 km per second as you thought ) That is, the speed of light there is at most 300,000 km per second. But Andromeda is the closest large galaxy to us and I believe that its background temperature is like that of the Milky Way, so the speed of light there is roughly the same as ours, about XNUMX km per second, and the laws of physics are the same!
The speed of information transfer is at most the speed of light and it will change if the speed of light changes.
In your previous comment you ask how I came to this idea in the first place, well, from Wikipedia and other places I found that:
"Undoubtedly the most important factor affecting the speed of sound in air is temperature. The speed is proportional to the square root of the absolute temperature" end quote
And here I did a "bold" act and decided, .... "It seems to me" that what is good for sound waves, it will also be good for the speed of light. So, the speed of light is also proportional to the root of the absolute temperature for which it will apparently be 2.725 degrees Kelvin (willing to hear other ideas...)
Then I checked myself. First of all, regarding the Michaelson Morley experiment and it took me a while to decide that the speed variation does not contradict the experiment, simply every date and its speed of light and its relativity. Then I checked the speed of light during the recombination period when the background temperature was at least a thousand times that of today (3000 Kelvin, therefore, the speed of light is over 30 times faster) and I asked a lecturer from the University of Jerusalem (I remember Professor Avishai Dekel) if a greater speed of light after the bang and during the inflation and recombination period would have interfered To him and he replied that no! And even actually would have helped and maybe would have prevented us from the inflationary expansion! It was enough for me to decide that the speed of light changes.
So I know Newton would have been upset and Einstein would have sighed but I am an astronomy lover and I am allowed to dare!
And I don't care what Nissim and Ach Sali Yisrael and the other contributors of science say, and most importantly...
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
I don't understand the concept of "space temperature"? Space has no temperature. Particles with mass have temperature, but how do they affect the speed of light? The speed of light through the atmosphere does not depend on temperature.
How did you even come up with this idea?
Yehuda
"Yehuda says: I do not agree!,
The reason - the speed of waves depends on the temperature of the space in which it moves. The speed is proportional to the root of the absolute temperature! This does not contradict the Michelson Morley experiment in 1886, the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second but today when the background temperature of the universe is 2.725 degrees Kelvin. In a year, the universe will be colder due to the expansion of the universe and the speed of light will decrease by about 1 cm per second
This does not contradict the principle of equal speed in every direction that was discovered in the Michelson Morley experiment, for example during the time of Michelson Morley the speed of light was about one and a half meters faster per second.
In conclusion, the speed of light is the same in every direction but not in every time! ("A simple universe", article 40)"
According to this, the speed of light at a greater distance is much greater. Roughly speaking, the speed of light in Andromeda is about 10,000 km/s faster. If that were so, the physics there would be completely different from the physics here. In this we have observationally invalidated your idea.
Another observation that disproves the idea is that radar measurements are long accurate to less than a micron!
And of course, you ignored the little detail I wrote "there is a fixed maximum speed for transferring information". Not related to radiation….
1 for miracles
I owe you a response to your comment on January 18.1.2022, 10 at 17:XNUMX am
In my opinion regarding the 3 principles of the theory of attribution:-
. Nissim says:
The physics equations are the same in any frame of reference. That is: if I hover in a spaceship in any random place and I perform an experiment in the spaceship - I will get the same results. In general relativity - this assumption is also true in accelerated systems (with the same acceleration of course).
Yehuda says: I agree. If the speed of light is the same in both experiments. See section 2
2. Nissim says:
There is a fixed maximum speed for data transfer. In practice this means that the speed of light is equal in any reference system. For example, in the whole spaceship light will travel a distance of 299.792458 meters in one millionth of a second.
Yehuda says: I don't agree!
The reason - the speed of waves depends on the temperature of the space in which it moves. The speed is proportional to the root of the absolute temperature! This does not contradict the Michelson Morley experiment in 1886, the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second but today when the background temperature of the universe is 2.725 degrees Kelvin. In a year, the universe will be colder due to the expansion of the universe and the speed of light will decrease by about 1 cm per second
This does not contradict the principle of equal speed in every direction that was discovered in the Michelson Morley experiment, for example during the time of Michelson Morley the speed of light was about one and a half meters faster per second.
In conclusion, the speed of light is the same in every direction but not in every time! ("A simple universe", article 40)
3. Nissim says:
the principle of equivalence. In practice this means that the same m in F=ma is also used in the gravity equation F=GmM/r^2
Yehuda says: I agree with small entities. Not sure if this is true in large bodies. But an explanation for the reason for the doubt requires a lot of preparation, and will be given another time if there is a demand for an explanation.
Good Day
Please respond gently
Yehuda Sabdarmish
To my dear father Blizovsky
I think the time has come when you can afford to automatically approve comments from certain commenters without delaying them. For example, Israel Shapira and Nissim, and of course Naki, are sometimes just delayed for days, and I'm sure you will find more commenters who have no reason to delay them.
It is also desirable to have a list of the last ten comments that entered the site with a reference to the place of the comment. Just a joke.
And please confirm Israel Shapira.
All the best and appreciated!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Can you maybe release the comment for me already? two days..
Nissim said: The non-uniformity of the background radiation is about one thousandth of a percent.
Yehuda says: We see the non-uniformity in a two-dimensional image of the universe and we see non-uniformity of a thousandth of a percent, but the universe is three-dimensional (at least) if we were to see the three-dimensional image of the non-uniformity then the non-uniformity would be greater between points in the universe XNUMXD (at least)
In addition, the calculations are relativistic, and the particles move at almost the speed of light, so the non-uniformity is more significant than a Newtonian pressure calculation. The pressure is determined at the point of contact between the particles and the bodies being pressed therefore, a relative calculation is acceptable to me.
All the best
Yehuda
Yehuda
The non-uniformity of the background radiation is about one thousandth of a percent.
If this non-uniformity was the cause of gravity then we would see a correlation between the radiation and the matter in the universe - and this is not the case.
If the "matter" is not dark then we would see it. We don't see any rotating radiation….. there would have to be a huge amount of particles, much more than the mass we do see.
It is much more likely, for example, to think that dark matter spawned primordial black holes. This is both consistent with the observations and consistent with our insights into the formation of the universe. It also explains why we have such a hard time discovering them.
So, again, which is better? A theory that supports all observations and all existing laws of physics, or a theory that explains nothing and contradicts all laws?
Miracles
https://www.hayadan.org.il/60-years-since-einsetin-death-1804158#comment-
593009
And from a link from your comment:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/how-einstein-reinvent-reality-1403165#comment-703998
The corresponding electric and magnetic fields of an accelerated charge are also given in Rohrlich.[8] To find the fields of the charge in the supporting frame, the fields of the uniformly accelerated charge are transformed according to the coordinate transformation previously given. When that is done, one finds no radiation in the supporting frame from a supported charge, because the magnetic field is zero in this frame. Rohrlich notes that the gravitational field slightly distorts the Coulomb field of the supported charge, but not enough to be observable. So although the Coulomb law was discovered in a supporting frame, general relativity tells us that the field of such a charge is not precisely
1
/
r
2
1/r^{2}.
Where is the radiation?[edit]
The radiation from the supported charge viewed in the freefalling frame (or vice versa) is something of a curiosity: where does it go? David G. Boulware (1980)[9] finds that the radiation goes into a region of spacetime inaccessible to the co-accelerating, supported observer. In effect, a uniformly accelerated observer has an event horizon, and there are regions of spacetime inaccessible to this observer. Camila de Almeida and Alberto Saa (2006)[10] have a more accessible treatment of the event horizon of the accelerated observer.
The limit of the speed of light for the transfer of information is not a basic assumption - as it is a logical development of the assumption that the speed of light is the same for every measurer. Any speed that is identical to any meter in any system is the maximum speed for transferring information, also the queue speed.
Nissim says: "What is most strange to me is Yehuda's claim that he dismisses dark matter only because we haven't found the particles themselves, and on the other hand he invents other dark matter, other forces, and completely new physics to explain how his dark matter moves galaxies..." End quote.
Yehuda answers: It would be really strange if what you point out was true, but Yehuda absolutely did not say that!, I am eliminating the dark matter because for a hundred years we have been searching for it without success, so let's decide that it is time to try and look for another solution and that is what I am doing. The power that I use is all the radiation that exists in the universe and the emphasis is on the word "that exists", and I am not inventing it and it is absolutely not dark!, and I replace your dark matter with existing radiation that is not given the honor of using it itself to move the universe, without inventing powers new ones Our universe is a gas giant and has other forces besides gravity! You cling to gravity by dark cables and refuse to try to see some light at the end of the dark (tunnel). I saw a well-known picture of the background radiation of the universe, it is not uniform, there are hotter points and there are colder ones, hence pressures and pressure differences and winds exist, nothing is dark! And this explains to us the rotational movement of galaxies, and the accelerated expansion of the universe, and you will notice miracles without dark things!
Yom Tov Nissim and Israel
All the best
Yehuda
Israel
The fact that (1) is also Galileo's only increases the probability that it is true. He nevertheless did postulate in the theory of relativity.
Einstein formulated (2) differently, but in this way it is easier to understand why it is most likely true. Without limiting the speed of information transfer, you reach paradoxes (where the future affects the past).
(3) He does sweep. If you are near an electron in a gravitational field then you are also in accelerated motion. If you were in free fall then you would feel radiation. It has a detailed explanation in Rohrlich's book
(https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Charged-Particles-Third-Rohrlich/dp/9812700048)
General relativity has been tested on a huge range of ranges, from a millimeter to hundreds of millions of light years. Galaxies are pretty much in the middle of this range...
What is most strange to me is Yehuda's claim that he dismisses dark matter only because we haven't found the particles themselves, and on the other hand he invents other dark matter, other forces, and completely new physics to explain how his dark matter moves galaxies....
Peace to Israel - Welcome back, Nissim challenges me with responses from the best of the best!
For miracles - your last comments are really challenging, I prefer to delve into my answers to your last comments and then respond. Patience please.
Miracles
2 and 3 are not fundamental assumptions of relativity but derivatives.
1 is also Galileo's basic premise.
3 is not comprehensive. If it were sweeping, then an electric charge at rest on the table would radiate electromagnetic radiation from a direction that, according to the principle of equivalence, it is accelerating.
Yehuda
If your particles are not visible - then they are dark. So isn't it better dark particles that don't break all the laws of physics??
Yehuda
We tested general relativity for ranges of hundreds of millions of light years - far beyond the size of any galaxy.
Therefore - I cannot agree with you..
Yehuda
Let me do the Google search for you:
1) The physics equations are the same in every frame of reference. That is: if I hover in a spaceship in any random place and I perform an experiment in the spaceship - I will get the same results. In general relativity - this assumption is also true in accelerated systems (with the same acceleration of course).
2) There is a fixed maximum speed for transferring information. In practice this means that the speed of light is equal in any reference system. For example, in any spacecraft light will travel a distance of 300 meters in a millionth of a second.
3) The principle of equivalence. In practice this means that the same m in F=ma is also used in the gravity equation F=GmM/r^2
Yehuda
A little math background won't hurt you, so here's a free first lesson (the next ones will be fairly paid….)
There is a concept called "complete induction". The idea is this: if a condition holds for every subgroup then it holds for the whole group.
In the case of the swans: if everyone in a group of swans, all the swans are white - then all the swans are white.
Another example: if everywhere I check the water temperature I measure 20 degrees, then the temperature of the entire sea is 20 degrees.
And in our case - if the space has properties at every point I measure (which you agreed to), then the whole space has properties.
Miracles my friend
Please don't get angry, I really, really don't do things precisely "because it contradicts my theory". One of us doesn't understand what David Day said. I understand David Yum as follows: he said that what is true in the short term is not necessarily true in the long term. A hundred white swans you saw in England must not lead you to the conclusion that all swans in the world are white. Conclusion: If gravitation is true in the solar system, it does not mean that it is also true in a galaxy that is a billion times larger than the solar system. Do you agree with this?, this is the disagreement between us and we must clarify things. So please, your knowledge is greater than mine, I realized that a long time ago, so I await your response with appreciation.
Please respond calmly
Thanks and appreciated
Yehuda
post Scriptum. In your response please give me the assumptions on which the theory of relativity is based and I will refer to them. Thanks.
Yehuda
I ask you to stop trying to use analogies, because you are doing it very badly, and wasting both of our time.
Please, try to treat what I say honestly and decently - don't dismiss what I say because it contradicts your favorite Torah.
And to clarify how wrong your method is - if dust floats at any point on the water then it can be assumed that it will float on the entire ocean.
The theory of relativity is the result of several assumptions. If you say that these assumptions are correct in the near term and not in the long term - then tell me which assumptions are incorrect in the long term?
Regarding photons - your response surprised me, and not for the better. And why not for the better? Because I explained it to you before, and as usual you ignore everything that endangers your mind.
And for that matter - we "see" photons in a range of wavelengths from a hundred million meters to a trillion meters. So - either your photons are more energetic than gamma rays, and of course we would have detected them, or their length is much higher than the size of the particles it is supposed to move....
And beyond that - how can you explain the gravity of photons if they cannot collide? 🙂
"If you discover attraction from elastic collisions experimentally then you have disproved all classical physics.
Yehuda answers: not sure," - yes Yehuda sure, and your ignoring it only shows how much you don't understand physics.
Miracles my friend
Nissim said: If space has properties then it has properties. Range cannot affect this.
Yehuda answers: If I have a short-term quality, I will not necessarily have the same long-term quality. For example, if I am able to sail a boat, then am I able to sail a ship? If I can jump over a puddle, will I be able to jump over a lake?? If I like a lizard then I also like a crocodile?
If dust has the ability to float on water, then do stones also have the same ability?
Nissim said: If there are photons everywhere - how come we don't see them!
Yehuda answers: Our eyes are not designed to see all types of photons, for example photons of infrared and ultraviolet rays and of X-ray radiation, and photons of radio waves of the background temperature of the universe circulate in the vastness of the universe and we do not see them but sometimes perceive them as interference in radio receivers.
Nissim said: If you discover attraction from elastic collisions in an experiment then you have disproved all classical physics.
Yehuda answers: Not sure, but now my goal is to remove from the universe the dark matter and its mother, the dark energy
Good night
Yehuda
Yehuda
If space has properties then it has properties. Range cannot affect this.
If there are photons everywhere - how come we don't see them!
If you discover attraction from elastic collisions experimentally then you have disproved all classical physics...
for miracles
You are right in your first comment, I should have written this :- baryonic matter and in addition all the radiation in the space of the universe such as neutron photons and more. That is, I don't have dark matter and dark energy, which for you is most of the universe.
Another thing, you ask: "How can it be that you accept that space has properties in the near range and not in the far range?" The answer is that this is the case with anything in the universe, a formula or feature that works in the near term, it does not necessarily work in the long term. In order to be able to say that it also works in the long range, we need to put it to the test in the long range. You put the universe to the test and it didn't work so you added dark matter and…. It works!!, only you can't find it for 100 years!!!
You ask where are all the particles? So they are in the universe, why do you repeat the question, our universe is full of particles and photons that move from everywhere to everywhere since the big bang, they fill the vessel in which they are (the universe), and this is the definition of a gas, with everything that results from such a large gaseous body with pressures And winds and Snell's law and,,, gravitation for small distances!
Finally, you claim that I claim something about elastic collision, so you are wrong. I claimed such a claim in one of our previous debates, so let's leave it for another time. And don't think that I neglected it. I went to the Weizmann Institute and convinced a nice man, Yigal Shahar, the director of the laboratory, to conduct an experiment under conditions of high vacuum. We conducted the experiment and unfortunately the experiment did not provide evidence on the subject.
Maybe this is proof that you are right Nissim, but it "seems to me" (!) that I did not do the experiment with sufficient preparations.
Good week miracles
And all good!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
Baryonic matter does not include neutrinos and photons. Just a small detail (and it does not include many more particles...)
I can't make something clear. General relativity states that space has properties. How can you accept that space has properties in the near range and not in the far range?
I also don't understand (1) where are all these particles you talk about - how come we don't see them??
and (2) what causes these particles to circle us? Gravity cannot affect them if they are the cause of gravity.
And of course (3) - I have explained to you countless times, and Israel has also explained to you countless times - elastic collisions cannot create gravity.
for miracles
I know that dark energy was invented and added to the universe just to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe. And as for the complexity of the theories?, surely mine is simpler because it works with only baryonic matter, which is about 4 percent of your universe. In your case, you must add the strange dark matter and the even stranger energy to operate your theory..
My Torah does not need to invent the theory of relativity for close distances, because I have it ready, why invent something that exists, and is even well built for small distances? You state incorrect things for example that I don't believe in the theory of relativity?, Where did you see that?, My Torah does not need to invent pressures because they exist everywhere in the universe. Neutrinos, photons, Higgs bosons, including the types of radiation found in the universe, all of these behave like gas and behave like gas with different pressures in different regions of the universe, for example regions with different temperatures, etc.! I don't need to find a source for the particles. There are some that have been moving since the big bang and there are some that are now being created in stars, for example neutrons and cosmic rays of various kinds, and as for Ockham, I'm sure he whispers to himself, that he finally has light in the darkness in which he finds himself!
Good day miracles!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Peace be upon you my friends!
To your question in your last comment, "Why don't I get the correctness of the gravity in every range?"
Well my answer is because of David Hume who said that if you see a thousand white swans it does not mean that all the swans in the world are white, but, at least the thousand you saw are white. Newton saw that the entire universe he knew worked according to his gravitation formula but Newton did not know galaxies and for him comets were atmospheric phenomena. Saying that gravity moves the galaxy is like saying that the mechanical force that moves your car is the one that moves the moon. It is also a million times that of your car. I also don't agree that gravitation works at distances of millions of light years, you automatically increase the mass of the galaxy and claim: here it works.
but…..,
In my previous response, from today at 11:55, I realized that in fact I have no refutation of the gravitation solution for the entire universe and with your permission I also listed it as a correct solution that brings correct results. What's more, I see it as a somewhat uneconomical solution and requires a lot of investment in dark matter and dark energy. But the results it gives are incredibly accurate. There is an issue here of preference between the gravitation solution, which has already passed the baptism of fire, and a solution that...has a bit of an "immature" taste. But this is my boy and I prefer him. Good day miracles.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
In the meantime, you made another comment. I will delve into it and respond to it tomorrow.
Yehuda
Cosmologists add dark energy because this energy exists in the theory of general relativity (not accurate - because it is possible that dark energy is not constant, studies are being carried out today that check exactly this).
In other words, this energy is also a part of the Torah that has been tested at ranges between a millimeter and hundreds of millions of light years, and is also suitable for observations. Ockham was happy!!
And about the dark matter. This material explains phenomena that your Torah, which is much more complex (!!!) does not know how to explain - gravitational perturbation, poles in the cosmic background radiation, gravitational perturbation, galaxies that do not have an anomaly in the rotation speed and so on.
Your Torah, on the other hand, needs the theory of relativity in the short term - but only approximately: you reject the explanation behind the theory of relativity (you believe in flat space and uniform time, for example), and also reject - without any explanation (!!!) the basic assumptions of Theory of relativity. I hear Ockham turning over in his grave...
In your Torah there is no explanation for the origin of these "pressures" - you don't just invent new particles that are dark.... You also invent another source of energy to drive these particles….. Ockham is now digging his grave to walk away from shame…..
And all this for what? Because Yehuda does not see... (your words)
to Israel and miracles, and others
Below is a list of the 20 possible solutions to the cosmological case before us as they appeared in my response to this article dated 9/1/2022 at 22:42 PM :- with the addition of the required correction and the reason for the rejection
A. Changing the members of the formulas (the letters) 5 options:
M1 the mass of the galaxy with the addition of dark matter and dark energy has not been rejected
M2 the mass of the star appears in both formulas, and can be reduced to zero
R different rotation speed for similar galaxies. Not acceptable! Rejected
G is a different gravitational constant for similar galaxies. Not acceptable! Rejected
V Determining a different rotation speed for similar galaxies is unacceptable and rejected
B. Correcting the formulas 2 options:
Gravitation formula correction, various corrections for similar galaxies rejected
Correction of Newton's second law (e.g. MOND). For the same reason it was rejected
C. Changing the formulas:- 7 options:
Another centrifugal force: (an unknown force that may not even exist).
Cannot meet Popper's refutation principle rejected
Other attraction forces instead of gravity:-
Short term:- the strong force, the weak force, other forces
(For example: Casimir effect) because of the short-range remote-3
Long range:- electric force, magnetic force,
Not suitable for the behavior of visible distant galaxies-2
A force resulting from the pressure difference in space and the fact that space is a huge gaseous body was not rejected
Continue in the next comment
to Israel and miracles, and others
Below is a list of the 20 possible solutions to the cosmological case before us as they appeared in my response to this article dated 9/1/2022 at 22:42 PM :- with the addition of the required correction and the reason for the rejection
A. Changing the members of the formulas (the letters) 5 options:
M1 the mass of the galaxy with the addition of dark matter and dark energy has not been rejected
M2 the mass of the star appears in both formulas, and can be reduced to zero
R different rotation speed for similar galaxies. Not acceptable! Rejected
G is a different gravitational constant for similar galaxies. Not acceptable! Rejected
V Determining a different rotation speed for similar galaxies is unacceptable and rejected
B. Correcting the formulas 2 options:
Gravitation formula correction, various corrections for similar galaxies rejected
Correction of Newton's second law (e.g. MOND). For the same reason it was rejected
C. Changing the formulas:- 7 options:
Another centrifugal force: (an unknown force that may not even exist).
Cannot meet Popper's refutation principle rejected
Other attraction forces instead of gravity:-
Short term:- the strong force, the weak force, other forces
(For example: Casimir effect) because of the short-range remote-3
Long range:- electric force, magnetic force,
Not suitable for the behavior of visible distant galaxies-2
A force resulting from the pressure difference in space and the fact that space is a huge gaseous body was not rejected
d. External influence on the formulas - 6 options:
Centrifugal force of the entire universe (Professor Yuval Na'im),
Another dimension, a parallel twin universe (Professor Milgrom),
The galaxy is a living production (Dr. Menachem),
Higher Power (proposal of religious believers),
An unknown force that man is unable to solve (Dr. Menachem).
All sections D cannot meet Popper's refutation principle and are therefore rejected-6
SA rejected 18, 2 remain:
The first possibility, gravitation, with changing the mass of the galaxy with dark matter for the purpose of explaining the rapid rotation of the galaxy, and with the addition of dark energy to the expanses of the universe for the purpose of explaining the accelerated expansion of the universe.
A second possibility, the pressure difference in the universe, which explains the rotation of the galaxies, and the accelerated expansion of the universe without dark matter and dark energy.
My friend Nissim chooses the first option, I choose the second. What do you think Occam would have chosen?
Please respond in moderation
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
If you accept the theory of relativity in the near ranges, then how can you not accept that it is true in every range?
If it is not true, then (at least) one of its premises must be false. What discount are you giving up?
I am currently ignoring the fact that general relativity has also been tested for much larger distances - hundreds of millions of light years.
for miracles
Agree to write in your last comment!
Regarding a short distance, I have no problem with Einstein's formulas and with gravitation and time slowing, and I do not deny the Michelson-Morlay experiment, and I do not even deny Eddington's measurements in the solar eclipse of 1919 which proved that the relativistic results are more accurate than Newton's, and I believe that this will be the case in every solar system in the galaxy at a distance billions of light years from us. Everywhere a solar system is millions and billions of times smaller than the galaxy in which it is found, therefore it is not necessarily the case that the laws of gravity that work well in the solar system will also work well in the galaxy or between galaxies. The pressure difference in the universe can be a reliable solution to the rotation of the galaxies and the accelerated expansion of the universe.
So far.
In the next response I will begin to analyze the 20 options and show the two solutions we are left with, with a good chance of being the right solution:-
The first, the currently accepted method, that is, your favorite gravitation miracles, over all the expanses of the universe, with relativity and with dark matter and with dark energy, over the entire universe, to explain the rotation of the spiral galaxies and the accelerated expansion of the universe.,
And the second, gravitation and relativity for short distances only, the order of magnitude of solar systems, and pressure differences over the entire universe, without dark matter and without dark energy to explain the rotation of the galaxies and the accelerated expansion of the universe.
So please respond kindly, it's just science, and we're just astronomy enthusiasts!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
Einstein's equations say that the slowing down of time and gravity are the same. If time is x length then gravity is f(x).
That is - if Einstein's equations work at a short distance then they are also the explanation for gravity at that short distance.
Yehuda
So I understand that the planets orbit the sun because of a particle "wind" that for some reason orbits precisely where the sun is, and moves with the sun around the center of the Milky Way.
great.
So how is it that there are comets that orbit the sun in the opposite direction?
For miracles and others
I want to apologize. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. It is true that I have about twenty possibilities for the solution, but they represent endless possibilities for the solution, for example, when I determine that the change is, for example, in the G member, then this change alone represents countless possibilities for the change, for example 10G 11G 10.2GG^2 and more, and more. But when I eliminate the possibility of changing the G organ, I actually eliminate all of the above options. So let's be precise and say" we have countless options represented in twenty groups.
It is said about this: He confesses and leaves, Yeruham.
apologetic
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Peace be upon you
Did you make a mistake? It's not bad, it happens, it is said in the book of Mishli: "Confess and leave, Yeruhem"
In addition, you asked: - How is there any inertial mass in your theory at all?"
Answer: There is inertial and there is gravitational according to our method of measurement, resistance to movement or gravitation.
Question:- A body at high speed has to slow down, doesn't it?
Answer: Leaves in the wind move with the wind, and do so at the speed of the wind! And if the gas moves towards an area of low pressure, then it even accelerates, along with the leaves. Have you heard miracles?, Accelerator!, without the need for dark energy.
Well, we have come to a conclusion: if we agree that there are pressures in the space of the universe, the galaxies will rotate without the help of dark matter and the universe will expand rapidly, with the stars in it, and without the help of dark energy, really a miracle!
Question: How is the slowing down of time or the bending of light in a gravitational field explained?
Answer: Exactly as you explain, with the theory of relativity, you will understand miracles. It does not seem to me that a little wind or a pressure difference in my theory would interfere with Einstein's theory.
And what about the fresh air that I don't know how to explain?? I just don't know the laws of lensing (Snell's law?), let's also let someone else win the Nobel Prize!, is there a candidate?, it shouldn't be complicated, there is a galaxy with a lot of mass, the region with different pressures, and it is hot from its surroundings, and there is even A relatively small lensing of the mass of the galaxy that exists in the region, and there are a lot of moving particles there, and there must be other things.
So far. That's it, a new day has arrived
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
I was wrong in saying that MOND is not related to the second law. gross mistake…..
But - please explain to me how your theory has inertial mass at all? A body at high speed should slow down, no?
My insistence on Einstein's formulas stems from the fact that they explain many phenomena that Newton does not know how to explain.
And neither do you… How do you explain the slowing down of time or the bending of light in a gravitational field?
for miracles
1. Newton's beacons deviate in our solar system by a fraction of a percent regarding the cycle time, but in the galaxy they deviate in the cycle time by hundreds of percent. The deviation is expressed in a greater way in the planet Hema, but even there it is expressed in fractions of a percentage.
2. It seems to me that you don't know what Newton's second law is, in rotation! a=(v^2)/r is the radial acceleration, therefore Newton's second law in rotation is equal to f=(mv^2)/r, and it is equal to the gravitational force acting on the system (with the opposite sign). These two forces should be equal if the galaxy is not falling apart! In a relativistic calculation there will be a deviation of less than a percent but the error is hundreds of percent so why are you confusing my brain to do the relativistic calculation and then you will be missing a mass instead of 1000 percent only 999.9 percent????, the measurement errors in galaxies are bigger!!
3. Later on you slander and go to personal lines, so there is no point in continuing to explain to you.
So all the best miracles
Yehuda
1. Newton's equations are not accurate even in our solar system.
They are not even accurate enough for satellites orbiting the Earth.
2. I don't think you know what Newton's second law is…… F=ma. What does gravity have to do with this law?
3. No, I don't know mechanical power…..
4. Well done for finding 2 …. You don't understand what the word "proof" means, Yehuda? I didn't find any triplet that disproves Ferma's last theorem…… so I proved something???
5. "Idush can appear from a pressure difference in the gas, from a temperature difference - Fetta Morgana, Mirage, and more, and even-... gravitation" ... excellent!!! Explain how your explanation explains Idush .. .I'm waiting!
6. You have no right to claim that your Torah agrees with Einstein's formulas - if you do not understand these formulas.
There is no point in this discussion if you deny basic physics.
Good Day.
for miracles
1. Our world is mostly Newtonian with small velocities, so there is no reason to use the theory of relativity when we are in a Newtonian world. What do you repeat every time that Newton has not been used for a hundred years??? The result in both ways will give almost the same result!!!, so stop it, galaxies move at a speed of several hundreds of kilometers per second and the speed of light is known to be about 300,000 kilometers per second and this does not require the use of Einstein's formulas and relativity.
2. The MOND theory works on changing Newton's second law, and not as you wrote!
3. You don't know mechanical power??, sorry but everyone knows what it is, I also mentioned where in the universe we get mechanical power.
4. I found 20 options from 4 different groups of options, if you claim there are thousands more options please show how many options?, I will give you a challenge, start with one more.
5. Dark matter can explain the dusting in galaxies, but dusting is not only gravitational, dusting can appear from a pressure difference in the gas, from a temperature difference - Peta Morgana, Mirage, and more, and even-... gravitation. I don't rule out the smudging that the sun does during a solar eclipse. And you are proud that the dark matter brings about ??, you must know that it also requires to bring how many times to invent dark energy to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe. For me it is explained without dark matter and without dark energy the accelerated expansion of our precious universe will also be explained.
6. Understand that sponsorship and Einstein can live in my theory and do not need dark matter as an additional "dowry",
Please respond gently.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
In conclusion - as long as dark matter explains more phenomena than your explanation - you should continue looking for dark matter.
On the other hand - today there is no justification to test another theory, if it rules out quantum theory and general relativity. After all, there is no other theory that comes close to the explanatory power of these teachings.
Yehuda
1. Maybe you got the memo - but Newton's formulas have not been used in cosmology for more than 100 years....
2. The observations that suggest dark matter are not just spiral galaxies. Dark matter also explains - gravitational clouding, some of the non-uniformities in the cosmic background radiation, large structures in the visible universe, the center of gravity of the bullet cluster, measuring distances to different types of supernovae, and there is more.
Dark matter explains all of these, and modifying the gravity formula (MOND) doesn't work.
3. I don't know the concept of "mechanical" power. You are mixing Newtonian physics with modern physics. The Casimir phenomenon is an electric force ….. and also a magnetic force is ultimately an electric force.
You found 20 options ….. it doesn't work that way. You must prove that there is no other option.
to Israel and miracles, and others
First of all we will check and find out what the cosmological problem is before us:
The problem is that we have two formulas of powers, which should be equal in magnitude but they are not. One is the gravitation formula that expresses the force by which the masses are attracted, and the second formula is Newton's second law that pushes the masses outward
These two forces are supposed to be equal in the spiral galaxy otherwise the stars of the galaxy would disappear in the space of the universe or fall towards the center.
When we have two formulas that should be equal between them but they are not, then, there are 4 options for the solution. And they are:-
A. Changing the members of the formulas (letters) - in our case 5 options
B. Correction of the formulas - in our case 2 options for correction
third. Replacing the formulas - in our case 7 replacement options
D. External influence on the formulas - in our case 6 options
SA 20 options
Note:-. Don't dismiss any idea for a solution outright!, it's a source of mistakes! The elimination of the "ridiculous" or "unacceptable" ideas is done at the end, only after finding all the possibilities.
Below is a list of the possible solutions for the cosmological case before us:-
A. Changing the members of the formulas (the letters) 5 options:- M1 GRV M2
Explanation:- We all know the change made in M1 with the help of the dark matter, but the same change made for example in G will give the same solution, and so in each of the elements of the formulas (s.h. 5 options)
B. Correcting the formulas 2 options:-
Correcting the gravity formula, for example the power of R will be less than 2
Correction of Newton's second law (e.g. M. Milgrom's MOND theory)
C. Changing the formulas:- 7 options:
1. Another centrifugal force: (an unknown force at the moment, which may not even exist).
2. Another attractive force instead of gravitation:- We will check all possible existing attractive forces:-
Short term:- the strong force, the weak force, other forces (for example: the Casimir effect)
Long range:- electric force, magnetic force, mechanical force (for example one resulting from pressure difference in space)
D. External influence on the formulas - 6 options:
Centrifugal force of the entire universe, another dimension, a parallel twin universe, the galaxy is a living creation,
A higher power, an unknown force that man is unable to solve.
These are the 20 options I found, and before we move to the "sifting and choosing" stage, please check if you have additional options, if not, then the right solution will also be found here, waiting patiently for you to find it.
If there are no other options in my next response I will give the solution.
In appreciation
Sabdarmish Yehuda
post Scriptum. Regarding your question, Israel, who is the secretary who was hired?, the answer: It depends on who the manager is, you and Nissim would fight for the champion in administrations, I, after deep thought, would choose... the blonde!!
Agree with Nissim. How do you know if you have all possible solutions? I know the story about the three secretaries who submitted resumes to get hired, one as the fastest model, the second a champion in administration, the third the best connections.
So who was accepted in the end?
😀
Yehuda
"The method I propose to reach the right solution is to discover all the possible solutions to the problem"
I would love to know how you *prove* that this set contains all possible solutions. I don't know of any past cases where this method has been successful.
You are the one who claims "scientific"...
Dear Mr. Sabdarmish
Again you have fallen for your arrogance, as many times before.
Why do you have only 20 solutions and not 200, or 2000?
How are you sure that you will include the correct solution in the 200 or 2000 solutions?
Pay attention, and take seriously what your friend Israel wrote to you in a very gentle way, but so sharp and true
Dear Nisim and Israel and the other science readers.
I will present you a question:
Suppose we have any problem for which we are looking for the right solution.
The method I propose to arrive at the correct solution is to find out all the possible solutions to the problem, both correct and incorrect, and the emphasis is on all solutions. Then, after I reached the "group of all possible solutions", I am absolutely sure that the correct solution will also be found in the group. Now, in order to arrive at the correct solution, I check the solutions one by one and anyone I prove to be incorrect as a correct solution to the problem I throw away. After going through all the solutions, it is clear to me that I remain in the group of possible solutions as the only correct solution. And if I am left with only one solution then it is clear to me that it must be the right solution, there is no other option!!
For example, we have a problem that has only 20 options for a solution, 18 of the options turned out to be incorrect. Does anyone doubt that the correct solution is one of the remaining two?, would it be arrogant or presumptuous to claim this?, is it not a strong claim to say so?
Dear Israel, I am not claiming that at great distances, God forbid, there is no gravity, in a galaxy billions of light years away from us, gravity works for all the solar systems there. What I claim is that when two masses are light-years away from each other, the gravity between them dissolves and disappears faster than the square of the distance and this is precisely due to a gravitational explanation of pushing. So you didn't understand my words in your last comment.
In sincere appreciation!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
post Scriptum. I would be happy to share with you a similar analysis of the cosmological problem we face, what do you think?
Yehuda ach Salno.
Perhaps it is possible to avoid categorical statements such as dark matter does not exist period and that the existence of dark matter is a stupid claim? You can disagree but please don't dismiss out of hand the claims of experts on the subject who understand at least as much as we do and are just as smart as us and know more than most of us claim.
Even if you are right, until you have unequivocal proof leave the issue open. It sounds a bit pretentious and condescending the series of education you are trying to convey to the scientific establishment, even if your knowledge and understanding surpasses theirs, even more so if not.
Are you claiming that there is no gravity or that gravity is decreasing in galactic space? If we put two planets the size of the earth side by side they will not attract each other or will the attraction between them be much less than usual? Why?
I said that pushing could possibly explain the rotation anomaly at the edges of galaxies, but it does not mean that gravity does not exist there.
What if there is no gravitation, then what about inertia? What about Einstein's Law of Equivalence? Not working in the galactic spaces?
Miracles and Israel
I see you arguing and not reaching an agreement on what activates the gravitation, so maybe my (perhaps stupid) claim that there is no gravitation (almost) in the galactic and intergalactic distances, and something else moves the galaxies? Between us, it's no more a silly claim than dark matter. I think it's worth thinking about
Good night
sweet Dreams
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel
Yes, I agree to that.
I think this is problematic when trying to explain the gravity of neutrons or other elementary particles. At the end the gravity particles have to collide with elementary particles - and most of the particles (if not all) have zero size. This means that the size of the gravitational particles is not zero, or that they have some kind of field - and then again we are in a state of no explanation.
Your radiation also only moves the problem further...
I agree, but I don't know what will happen in the case of pushing resulting from radiation whose properties we don't know.
Until 1905 no one imagined that the speed of a photon is C relative to any measurer. Pushing still gives the only logical explanation we know of the origin of gravity. If we overcome the problem of elastic collisions and Feynman friction, pushing also gives a non-contradictory explanation for gravity.
Israel
We don't know what gravity is. We also don't know what an electron is. In practice, we don't really know anything, except for some formulas that work well.
There is no debate about this.
I agreed that there is gravity between two flat and very close sails. This is also true in normal gases - if there is no room for gas particles between them, then the gas from the outside will bring the plates closer together.
But - the more important case is two bullets in a gas range. In this case, if everything is elastic then there is no gravity. Do you agree with that?
So will they stick or not?
And once again we started with a crusade against the oppressors of science? What's the deal with de Broy, who even talked about photons, don't you understand that the whole pushing issue is theoretical particles or theoretical radiation that hasn't been discovered yet?
Note (third time):
Electromagnetic radiation excels in the property that its speed is the same for each meter. This distinguishes it unequivocally from particle radiation. You can call a photon a particle, but it is fundamentally different from an electron or other elementary particle.
Essence: I am not saying that pushing radiation, if it exists, consists of photons. I have no idea, but the idea of a new kind of radiation is less imaginative to me than the dark matter particles that make up most of the matter in the universe, but haven't been able to find a single gram of them for a hundred years.
Don't forget that there is no explanation for the cause of gravitation, only description and quantification. So please don't start again this time with investigations about the type of radiation, what the particles are made of and what the particles that make up the particles are made of.
Israel
I agree that if the two sails are very very close then "gravity" is possible.
But, gravity should work even in the case of two relatively distant balls. In this case there will be no gravity.
Israel
"If you take two sails that are slightly apart and splash water on them from all directions, you will see them stick together. A move that prevented."
If everything is elastic - you won't see them sticking together. The number of particles hitting each side of each sail is the same. I did the calculation once - it turns out that if a particle enters between the sails it bounces between them a large number of times.
In a solar engine, the repelled photons have a change in momentum, so that the overall momentum is conserved.
And again - I don't know of a type of radiation that doesn't end in particles. I assume you're ruling out the de Broy equation, right?
For miracles and Israel
In the case of gravitational pushing created by moving particles, it must be remembered that the particles also collide with each other and lose the pushing effect as the distance between the masses creating the gravitation is greater, which means that gravity loses its strength much faster than according to the square of the distance
And it doesn't matter if the collisions are plastic or elastic. Apparently this will also happen in Karina's bashing.
The result:- This will increase the lack of "dark matter" required in the case of spiral galaxies!
Conclusion:- The beautiful and beloved gravitation, will not be able to explain the movement of the spiral galaxies!!
(Explanation, Google, "a simple universe", article 62)
But, you continue to have fun with gravity even though it PASSES for the great distances.
Your right!
Please respond patiently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
In order to account for a net gravitational force, it must be assumed that the collisions are not fully elastic, or at least that the reflected particles are slowed down, so that their momentum is reduced after the impact. This would result in streams with diminished momentum departing from A, and streams with undiminished momentum arriving at A, so a net directional momentum toward the center of A would arise (P3). Under this assumption, the reflected particles in the two-body case will not fully compensate the shadowing effect, because the reflected flux is weaker than the incident flux.
Like duh? Didn't you see the or? (Literally..) It refers to pushing *with* elastic collisions. Obviously the momentum of the particles passing through the body decreases, so what?
That's not why elastic collisions don't work, it's a bit more complex.
Believe me, David Nissim, if you take two sails that are slightly apart and splash water on them from all directions, you will see them stick together. Prevented movement.
And what happens with solar engines in space? Where is the momentum stored in them if nothing is repelled, how does the spaceship accelerate? (Obviously there is an explanation, but it is not clear from the beginning, but it is related to radiation).
Anyway, that's not the issue. My argument is simple: if there is a solution to the elastic collisions, and I don't know how, but radiation is fundamentally different from particles, then maybe there is also an explanation for the rotation anomaly that does not require elusive dark matter.
Israel
There is no gravity if momentum is conserved. We have already talked about this a lot... Here is an explanation from Wiki:
f the collisions of body A and the gravitic particles are fully elastic, the intensity of the reflected particles would be as strong as of the incoming ones, so no net directional force would arise. The same is true if a second body B is introduced, where B acts as a shield against gravific particles in the direction of A. The gravific particle C which ordinarily would strike on A is blocked by B, but another particle D which ordinarily would not have struck A, is re-directed by the reflection on B, and therefore replaces C. Thus if the collisions are fully elastic, the reflected particles between A and B would fully compensate any shadowing effect. In order to account for a net gravitational force, it must be assumed that the collisions are not fully elastic, or at least that the reflected particles are slowed down, so that their momentum is reduced after the impact. This would result in streams with diminished momentum departing from A, and streams with undiminished momentum arriving at A, so a net directional momentum toward the center of A would arise (P3). Under this assumption, the reflected particles in the two-body case will not fully compensate the shadowing effect, because the reflected flux is weaker than the incident flux.
Where is the momentum not saved in pushing?
Israel
Radiation exerts pressure on bodies due to conservation of momentum (vector Poynting...).
Conservation of momentum is more basic than conservation of energy - do you want to throw it away too?
Why conservation of momentum? The radiation exerts pressure on the masses that mask each other. Classic Lasage.
Yes, we are still in gravity, the pressure differences are great on us.. It is also not clear why the differences will be.
Mr. Sabdarmish
I do not come to argue with your views, which for more than a decade many good people have tried to explain how wrong they are, but in your last response you surpassed even yourself. What ignorance and arrogance are found in the following sentence:
"
I checked all the options and came to the conclusion..."
Really, you alone checked "all" the possibilities.
I hope you even understand the meaning of the words you wrote.
to Israel and miracles
Fritz Tzviki came up with the idea of dark matter in about 1920. 100 years of intensive searches have passed since then and the dark matter has not been found. I claim that the chance of the above material being real is zero. Therefore, consideration should be given to a substitute for the force of gravity in a universe of distances over thousands of light years. I checked all the possibilities and came to the conclusion that the pressure difference in the universe could be the explanation.
You are stuck in gravity. But I claim again that if (apparently) there is no dark matter then gravitation in any case will not work in the galaxies and the large spaces of the universe. So why investigate how it works, which is interesting but not our concern in this article.
Check and say if the pressure difference in the universe can explain the movement of the galaxies, the honor of gravitation has been in its place since the days of Newton. But, Newton did not know about galaxies, his world was smaller - only the inner solar system, and the farthest star in his universe was the planet Saturn, so he was not wrong when he stated that gravity works on the entire known universe at the time. I don't know what Newton would have thought about gravity if he knew the universe was so huge. I'm sure he would have tried to check other options as well. I checked and found another 20 other possibilities and the conclusion: pressure difference, without dark matter and without dark energy. (A Simple Universe, Article 75.)
Happy New Year and please, think a little outside the gravity box,
And please respond gently, it's just science.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel
I see no difference between radiation and particles.
In my understanding, if there is conservation of momentum then there will be no gravity.
Don't know what kind of radiation, they didn't recognize it.
Oh, they didn't recognize Lasage particles either..
Ahh, dark matter particles were also not identified even though they are the majority of the matter in the universe...
What I'm saying is that radiation from all directions creates a pushing gravitation. Also electromagnetic radiation. don't you see it
Happy New Year to everyone, may we be happy.
Israel
Do you know radiation that is not particles?
Your radiation should push neutrons, right? But, we know that neutrons fall continuously like any baseball. How does this work out with particles that collide with neutrons?
Don't know if photons, just saying that pushing can also result from radiation, not only from Lasage particles, which maybe solves the problem of elastic collisions.
Feynman said that there is currently no explanation for the origin of gravitation other than its mathematical description. Pushing gives such an explanation, and in my opinion there is a logical and compelling explanation that solves the friction problem that Feynman talked about.
Yehuda
If you had a better idea, they would listen. It has been explained to you several times that elastic collisions cannot cause gravity.
Can you please explain to us where this limit of 100 years comes from? I didn't find it in any book….
Israel
Ok, you mean photons. Do you have an estimate of their wavelength? I guess it should be shorter than gamma rays (a trillion meters) or longer than radio waves (which reach a hundred thousand kilometers). Every wavelength within this domain would have already been detected.
So - a high frequency that would crush any atom that hits it? Or a low frequency that would not affect atoms at all?
Kalamata will admit.
What I said is factually correct - the fact that they did not find the dark matter is not proof of its non-existence.
I don't understand the field (does anyone here?) and leave the issue to those whose job it is, the experts.
Even with Corona, I don't understand and do what the doctors say..
To Israel
So I understand that you want to search for another hundred years? I had an idea... Those who want to search should do so at their own expense, go to Halat and explore as much as they want... what do you think? , or maybe you decide until when to search? Yuval Naman told me that he discovered the existence of the omega-minus particle theoretically and in the end three Americans discovered the particle and received the Nobel Prize. Understand that for the discovery of dark matter and/or dark energy no one received a Nobel Prize and they know why. Dark matter will have a place of honor next to the phlogiston and caloric that have been sought for forever and today are in the graveyard of dark matter's stupid ideas next to the great tombstone of dark energy.
That's it, I'm tired
Please respond gently
Yehuda
Where is the proof that there is no dark matter?
The fact that they didn't find it is not proof. The existence of electromagnetic waves was also not found for decades after Maxwell predicted them from theoretical considerations and many did not believe that they existed, until Hertz experimentally showed that they existed.
Dear Nissim and Israel
Happy New Year
I don't understand you, after I think in a hundred years of research it has been proven that there is no dark matter, so gravity will not be a full explanation for the movement of galaxies either, so what's the point of messing with how gravity works?. Just like if we're not going to Bloomfield then what's the point of debating how the seats are built there, or if the foot ball works by elastic or plastic collision or radiation??... The debate should be: if there is no gravity then what is there??
So since we don't have another century to decide, it's better to leave the plastic/elastic or radiation decision for another time and decide what instead of gravity / or maybe in addition to gravity which is able to explain only a tiny part of the movement of galaxies.
Please respond in moderation
Yehuda
Electromagnetic radiation, unlike ordinary particles, has the property that its speed is relatively the same for every measurer. If all the masses radiate, we get pushing gravity, don't we? And as we have seen, the laws of gravity will be different at the edges of the galaxies (not that I have the tools or power to calculate, we'll leave that to Yoda).
Israel
Radiation is particles. Do you know a non-particle type of radiation chess?
Yehuda
The periods and the full stop are unnecessary. There are other possibilities, although I also don't understand how you can't find even a gram of something that makes up most of the matter in the universe.
Maybe Dunedin knows?
Miracles
Elastic collisions don't work but what about radiation?
Lauhad, Ed, Y. Porat and others:
It would be interesting to know your opinion on the matter as well
Is a statement about the non-existence of dark matter really "arrogant and stupid"?
And what do you think of the decision: "The unreality of the dark matter substance inevitably leads to the denial of the possibility that gravity is what moves the galaxies"
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Lauhad, Ed, Y. Porat and others:
It would also be interesting to know your opinion on the subject:
Is a statement about the non-existence of dark matter really "arrogant and stupid"?
And what do you think of the decision: "The unreality of the dark matter substance inevitably leads to the denial of the possibility that gravity is what moves the galaxies"
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
for miracles
Dark matter cannot be seen, the reason for this can be one of the following two possibilities:
A. He won't be seen because we didn't look for him enough.... (a hundred years???)
B. It is not visible because it does not exist.
You choose option A, I choose option B, understand, dear Nissim, that there is a need to put a limit on the hifis, and this is absolutely not an arrogant or stupid request as you say. I offer you another idea for the Nobel Prize, please check what are the chances that the dark matter will be discovered?? , 99 to 100?, or maybe 1 to 100??? Such a calculation was also made regarding the Higgs boson and they decided that it exists! I'm not a great expert in statistical calculations and I don't understand the calculation, but maybe you?? It seems to me that 100 years of searches are enough to conclude that dark matter does not exist. point. And hence also for the decision that gravitation is not sufficient to move the galaxies (a simple universe, article 75) I checked twenty other possibilities there and the conclusion...pressure difference is the explanation.
I'm sorry, but I don't have another hundred years to come to a conclusion.
Please respond in moderation
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
"Dark matter is not seen because it does not exist. point. "
I have nothing to add to such an arrogant and stupid comment...
for miracles
Dark matter is not seen because it does not exist. point. Photons are visible to anyone except miracles. Lift your head on a dark night and you will see a lot of nice photons of light coming out of the stars of our galaxy at least, in addition, it is possible to distinguish the photons of the big bang in radio waves corresponding to a background temperature of 2.73 degrees Kelvin but they have already received a Nobel Prize for this so it does not interest us, so don't say that This information is instead illusory dark matter. In addition there is no need for dark energy and he did not explain why again. The only thing left is the explanation for the rotation of the spiral galaxies?, I tend to believe that a disturbance in the movement of the flow causes a direction of rotation which is just like the sink in my bathroom that chooses a rotation for the tap water depending on the random direction of the tap.
I will leave the issue open. Others will also be given the opportunity to win the Nobel.
Good night miracles
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
A hurricane rotates because of the Coriolis force. Galaxies, and solar systems, and even stars and planets, rotate because of the laws of conservation of momentum.
We did ask ourselves…. Sometimes you still manage to surprise me 🙂
On the other hand - to you that there is no explanation for the rotation of the galaxies.
From what you describe, we should have seen those photons. Do you have an explanation for not seeing them?
You didn't give any explanation, Yehuda. You just called "dark matter" by another name. And very, very complicated the universe for no reason.
for miracles
Think of a hurricane, I claim that in the center of the galaxy there is a lower pressure than in the vicinity of the galaxy, to this center the stars of the galaxy move and in the spiral galaxy they do so in a rotation just like in a hurricane, around the center and not around an outer point. And by the way, in hundreds of years of gravitation, you didn't ask the question what causes the spirals to rotate? The same reason will apply in this case too!
You ask what is the origin of this matter?, in my opinion in the big bang and the stars themselves in the galaxy. For example, neutrinos are emitted in the sun, as well as photons, which add to the creation of pressure. You ask: how come we don't see him? So it is that we do see him and know about him. You ask how stars are not formed from this material, and how does this gas affect normal material? My answer is that this is a topic for the next Nobel Prize and not our concern in this article...
To Israel
You and Nisim constantly return to the direction of gravitation, just don't forget that without dark matter it explains in most cases only a tiny part of the forces required for the operation of the spiral galaxy and in general for the operation of the universe. Here I give you an explanation about the rotation of the galaxies, the movement in the spaces of the universe and the accelerated expansion of the universe, really so simple that you want to cry. It seems to me that Hukam is actually satisfied!
All the best and a happy new year to Nisim and Israel
And to the rest of the science readers
And of course we will not forget to congratulate the one and only Avi Blizovsky, thanks to whom we are here,
Happy New Year and all the best!
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
Israel
I agree with that. But that doesn't explain why galaxies rotate.
Except that of course pushing doesn't work because elastic collisions don't create gravity (even Lesj thought so...)
Miracles
If the source of the pushing particles are the masses, then there will indeed be different gravitational laws for the stars in the center than at the edges of the galaxies.
Yehuda
That is - you claim that in the center of the galaxy there is low pressure, in empty space there is high pressure.... And every galaxy rotates around a point outside the galaxy... every galaxy around a different point....
Now - what is the source of the material in this gas? How come we don't see him? What is its source? If the particles have mass, then how come "stars" are not formed from this material? How does this gas affect "normal" matter?....
I hear Ockham turning in his grave……
To Israel my friend
Why did I disappoint you??
After all, our friend Einstein abandoned belief in the Mach principle and even Mach himself doubted his principle, therefore I am reluctant to try to Machamiach the spiral galaxies (Hebrew Wikipedia) in the principle that it will take to prove it, if at all, as the years of a new universe.
On the other hand, if my pressure difference idea makes sense, then…. The sky is the limit!, and the universe is also expanding and in an accelerated way, without the dark energy because the outward pressure will always be greater than the inward pressure. (I admit that the above explanation has a hint of machinism...)
Miracles
Cheers for the new year!
To our eyes:
The pressure difference in the space of the galaxy causes all the stars to fall towards the center and they do this by rotating in the spiral galaxies. Ditto in hurricanes and ditto in the sink in my bathroom. When I told Professor Yuval, peace be upon him, about this, in one of our conversations, he corrected me and said that the rotation in hurricanes is due to the Coriolis force created by the rotation of the Earth, and with a smile he brought up the idea that maybe our entire precious universe is rotating, and Coriolising the rotation of the spiral galaxies. I think the Coriolis force is good for hurricanes but not sure it determines the direction in my bathroom sink but if it determines the rotation of the spiral galaxies it would be interesting to see if the spiral galaxies have a preferred direction because then that would be proof that our beloved universe is rotating. But then the question would arise: why do the elliptical galaxies not rotate?
Dear Nissim, this is surely another source for Nobel, and I admit that your comments have a side to the matter, and you are an unfailing source of ideas for Nobel prizes.
So let's just always smile
And we will only respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Israel my friend
Why did I disappoint you??
After all, our friend Einstein abandoned belief in the Mach principle and even Mach himself doubted his principle, therefore I am reluctant to try to Machamiach the spiral galaxies (Hebrew Wikipedia) in the principle that it will take to prove it, if at all, as the years of a new universe.
On the other hand, if my pressure difference idea makes sense, then…. The sky is the limit!, and the universe is also expanding and in an accelerated way, without the dark energy because the outward pressure will always be greater than the inward pressure. (I admit that the above explanation has a hint of machinism...)
Israel and Judah
Happy New Year!!!
Yehuda
I did not understand anything. Are you saying that the pressure difference causes the galaxies to rotate? I don't understand how this can happen. Do you mean that this gas is in rotational motion around the center of each galaxy? Does this gas have angular momentum?
Yoda in galaxy matters disappointed disappointed disappointed.
Pushing actually gives a good direction to explain the rotation anomaly. After all, if the pull originates from a push and the source of the particles is the masses as demonstrated by Mach's principle, then it is clear that the stars on the edges are under a great pressure from the stars inside the galaxy which does not act on the stars in the center, the force on them is concentrated due to the divergence principle of Gauss on bodies in the mantle.
for miracles
You asked several questions:
"Why is it forbidden to add matter to spiral galaxies?
Answer: Because they have been looking for it for a hundred years and can't find it. There is no escape but to decide that it apparently doesn't exist, and then come to the conclusion that the movement is not determined by gravity,
Question: Is this the correct explanation? I don't know, but for now this is the best explanation there is.
Answer: Check out the idea I presented to Israel Shapira about "pressure differential"
Question: That "formula" you despise so much - it is (are) Einstein's field equations. These equations are developed based on several assumptions (the principle of equivalence for example.)
If you claim that Einstein is wrong then you are claiming that one of his assumptions is wrong.
What assumption do you think this is?
Answer: I do not underestimate Einstein and his laws, but I state that they are not unfounded only at short distances. The distances of thousands of light years require the help of dark matter and this is unacceptable to me.
Question: Please - explain to me how there are galaxies that do not need to add dark matter and other galaxies that do need to add dark matter to them?
Answer: In my previous response to Israel Shapira I showed a way that does not require dark matter at all, isn't that better??
Question: If any of you have another theory that explains better (from Einstein) then the Nobel Prize is waiting for you!
Answer: Please check if the pressure difference idea that I proposed to our friend Israel is good enough.
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to Israel and miracles
My response has been waiting for confirmation for several hours.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to Israel and miracles
My response has been waiting for confirmation for several hours. Sorry. Yehuda
Peace to Israel Shapira and a happy civil year!
And for our purposes:
You ask: "How does pushing explain the rotation anomaly at the edges of galaxies?"
Answer: Sorry, but pushing does not explain, as I said in my previous response in this article on 25.12 time 02:51, I do not accept gravitation as an explanation for the movement of galaxies! And the force I accept for the explanation is the one created by the pressure difference in different regions of the universe. Our universe with all the moving particles in neutrons, Higgs bosons, photons, cosmic rays of various kinds and more, must define the expanses of the universe as gas, with all the properties assigned to gas, such as different pressures in different regions of the universe and hence to pressure differences between different regions of the universe and hence also to winds. Hence, the short way to explain the movement of the galaxies, for example Andromeda moves towards the Milky Way not necessarily because of gravity, but mainly because of the pressure differences between them.
And what about the movement formulas?, here the story is simple,
I checked the wind movement formulas on Google and in books about weather (for example "Introduction to Meteorology" by Yoav Yair and Baruch Ziv, Open University Press)
The wind speed created by the pressure difference is proportional to the size of the difference and inversely proportional to the distance between the points that define the pressure difference. The conclusions from the explanation of the rotational motion in the spiral galaxies is the following dominant formula (instead of the gravitation formula):-
V = (P1-P0) / (R1-R0)
or P1-P0=V*(R1-R0)
In the spiral galaxy the data are:-
0R = zero (galactic center)
1R is the distance from the center of the galaxy
1V the speed of rotation at point 1R
0P is the pressure at the center of the galaxy
1P the pressure at point 1R
In the spiral galaxies, I drew the representative graph of the required pressure difference as a function of the radius and it turned out that all the galaxies line up on a straight line, starting from the center of the galaxies to beyond their edges. The whole movement is explained beautifully, beautifully without dark matter and without dark energy and without... gravitation!
You requested that I not refer you to another article, so therefore I will not refer you to a simple universe, article 75.
And just smile, and respond gently!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Nissim and Yehuda have a good and successful civil year.
Yoda - how does pushing explain the rotation anomaly at the edges of the galaxies?
If possible without references, just an explanation as simple as a universe.
Yehuda
"Why do you think that a proof covered in hundreds of percent of dark matter is a valid proof?"
Since when is the word "proof" used in science?
Is this the correct explanation? I don't know, but for now this is the best explanation there is.
The same "formula" that you despise so much - it is (are) Einstein's field equations. These equations are developed based on a number of assumptions (the equivalence principle for example).
If you claim that Einstein is wrong then you are claiming that one of his assumptions is wrong.
What assumption do you think this is?
Please - explain to me how there are galaxies that do not need to add dark matter and other galaxies that do need to add dark matter to them?
It is indeed tempting to think that everyone who talks about dark matter is just talking and hasn't seen the light yet..
But it should be remembered that there are several different evidences that there is more matter than we see with conventional methods, not only the shape of the rotation of the galaxies but evidence such as the measurement of excess gravitational dusting, and dynamics on the scale of galaxy clusters
Dear Lenisim
How are you?
And for our purposes:
Why do you think that a proof wrapped in hundreds of percent of dark matter is a correct proof? Do you really not see that it (the dark matter) in the SS is changing the data/reality to fit the formula?? I estimate that I can fit the motion of galaxies to any imaginary formula you come up with if I have the ability to use dark matter and dark energy as needed as much as I want and where I want.
Using the same method, how would a similar possibility to solve the problem of the lack of fresh water in arid areas with the help of "dark" water look like to you?? Ridiculous solution, just like your dark matter solution. Are you looking for another solution? Go to Google, simple universe will find article 75, and read patiently about a solution.
Dark matter is the biggest scientific mistake of the twentieth century, and the comments in the article here show that the voices against evil matter are growing.
It's a miracle you don't notice this.
Good week miracles.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The laws of gravity today are basically Einstein's field formulas. These formulas were tested on objects the size of a galaxy. for example – https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.08300.pdf
If any of you have another theory that explains better, then the Nobel Prize awaits you!
Regarding Ockham's Razor: First of all - this is a rule of thumb and not a law of nature. Second thing - the rule means to look for the simplest explanation for all observations. I would love to hear about a Torah that explains better than the theories of relativity and the Standard Model - a Torah that explains *all* observations of course
To simplify the article, I can safely claim that the magic phrase "dark matter" does not belong to the subject of the original article. There is a new type of science here that is still in its infancy and it is the discovery of the north of the universe through gravitational waves. Undoubtedly a groundbreaking field that frees us from the limitation of exploring the universe by electromagnetic means only. We may and will be able to answer one question in the near future, whether gravity is a "force" or just a product of distortions in space-time as Einstein argued at the time. And here it is already known that the gravitational field is dynamic and changes frequently in response to violent events that occur even in galaxies, what with the sophistication of the sensing means we may be able to understand some of the gravity's consciences about which we are in awe and raise theories and speculations for the most part.
It is common knowledge that if the rotation of the planets in solar systems is well explained by gravitation, then it is necessary that the movement of the galaxies and their rotation must also be well explained by gravitation, and this is not the case. Galaxies are bodies billions of times larger than solar systems and their laws of motion can arise from other causes. But, since we were born, cosmic gravity and its laws are implanted in our brains and genes, as an unshakable truth, and therefore, in order for gravity to work in galaxies, we have to upgrade it with the addition of illusory dark matter, and later, with the addition of dark energy, which is even more illusory. (Simple Universe Article 75 onwards)
Please respond gently
Have a nice New Year's Eve
Sabdarmish Yehuda
9
Lanisim V. Porat:
Speculations existed and will exist in the field of science, and in fact they are necessary for scientific motivation.
The problem with the 'speculation' begins when someone forgets that it is only a speculation, and not a scientific hypothesis with a conceptual basis and an acceptable methodology for arriving at confirmation, much less a scientific "explanation" or a scientific theory.
In all that concerns "dark matter" - the situation today is that we have a problem of a gap between the empirical findings and the ability to explain according to the existing theories: we have no understanding of what it is that causes abnormal accelerations at the edges of certain galaxies (by the way, not all of them!). In addition, we do not have a conceptual system that can be a basis for such an understanding. We only know one thing: there is an occurrence that changes something in the gravitational field. We don't know anything or any other feature. We have no possibility to define what the cause is - we cannot say that it is an existing object (for example: matter, transparent or dark) or something that is obtained from the existence of other known objects or forces.
But for some reason - the majority of the scientific establishment decided to make the anti-Ockhamian leap and think that this is "matter" (admittedly - 'dark') as an ad hoc solution to the problem, considering "there is a problem, we don't understand what is happening in the box - so let's invent, like a magic trick, A demon that plays inside her." In the next step, the speculation becomes - without any additional conceptual or empirical basis - a 'hypothesis', and in the third step this bizarre matter becomes an "explanation", as if it were a scientific theory, and most of the scientists begin to formulate accordingly: there is dark matter, it is the cause of the information gap , now tons of effort, effort and money have to be poured into discovering the culprit, even though we have not the faintest idea who and what it might even be. This also has a benefit: it generates budgets and jobs, and also calms the feeling of insecurity in the certainty of existing physical knowledge (a very important thing in today's physics, which is debating over forty fundamental problems, some of which are critical to the truth value of physical theories).
And what would Ockham say about it? First he will wave his razor. He will tell you something like: "Stop the self-deception, it's not serious, it's primitive science. Don't forget that this is speculation, not a well-founded hypothesis and certainly not an explanation. It is better to change the proportions in the investment of research energies - focus more on research that is based on the existing knowledge and tries to develop and perfect it, and here we have only recently seen progress in the form of a new hypothesis that improves MOND. More improvements are needed, but the direction looks promising, certainly not negligible. The results may be better and faster if more research energy is channeled in this direction. It's a shame to invest so much too much discourse around speculation, and certainly it's a shame to invest so much effort and money around experiments that, however sophisticated they were, ended up in one big zero."
To finish, Ockham will mention the ether theory, which gained recognition in the 19th century and was discovered in its depths starting with the Michelson Morley experiment. "It was also an anti-Ockham leap, spectacular and equally stupid. Today it turns out that the ether theory has a sister, the dark matter 'theory'. Time to swing my razor at her. Come help me, it's important for science", he will say.
to Ed:
How do you think it is possible to handle the issue without raising hypotheses (speculations in your language) and testing them? And yes, sometimes to explain the unknown you have to make more assumptions that derive from it and test *them*. In the meantime, the attempts to explain the observations without assuming the existence of unknown particles ("MOND") encounter serious problems, but continue to try in this direction as well.
This is the scientific method, as primitive as it may be, and if you have any suggestions on how to improve it, please share them with us.
It's a shame they don't explain what light boson clouds are. Especially since it's theoretical particles
Ed
Do you have a better explanation for the observations?
How do you verify the speculation regarding the existence of "matter" that, apart from gravity, is not attributed any other property?
By proposing a speculation regarding the existence of particles that are supposed to be "very light" and there is no other evidence or reason to assume their existence, apart from their consumption to generate verification for the first speculation. In simple words - to explain the unknown by another unknown.
Literally a peak of logic (crooked) and a peak of (primitive) science.