A galaxy cluster that is also a giant gravitational lens

24 תגובות

1. To my dear father!
   I don't know who is right, but I am happy that the knowledge opposing the existence of dark matter is increasing. I wrote an article that examines twenty possibilities for solving the galaxy's gravity problem and I came to the conclusion that the solution is not gravity!
   You, for reasons reserved to you, prefer not to publish my articles and I greatly respect your opinion, your right, this is your site, a highly valued site, and rightfully so.
   I still don't understand the nature of Asher Yahalom's article, but I will dig deeper and understand what the essence of the "delay" is. When I understand you will see my response.
   Good day to you my dear father and continue your blessed scientific work.
   Sabdarmish Yehuda

2. To my dear father!
   I don't know who is right, but I am happy that the knowledge opposing the existence of dark matter is increasing.
   I wrote an article that examines twenty possibilities for solving the galaxy's gravity problem and I came to the conclusion that the solution is not gravity!
   You, for reasons reserved to you, prefer not to publish my articles and I greatly respect your opinion, your right, this is your site, a highly valued site, and rightfully so.
   I still don't understand the nature of Asher Yahalom's article, but I will dig deeper and understand what the essence of the "delay" is. When I understand you will see my response.
   Good day to you my dear father and continue your blessed scientific work.
   Sabdarmish Yehuda

3. Yehuda, Asher Yahlom was able to prove that the observations also agree with his theory and was able to publish on peer-reviewed websites. It turns out there are already some alternative theories. As long as they do not contradict the laws of physics and the observations, science has no problem with it.

4. Dear Nissim
   Did you see the new article in science?? There are other people, ordinary scientists who undermine the existence of dark matter. An article now published in Science. I will delve into the article and see their approach to the solution
   The main thing is not with dark matter, and later also without dark energy
   Please respond gently
   Sabdarmish Yehuda

5. Miracles
   Below is my response to your claims:

   1. Miracles:- If you were right then we would see different physics in Andromeda than in our galaxy - 2 and a half million years is significant. Unfortunately, the physics we see there is the same as what we see here (otherwise the stars would look different).
   My opinion - I don't know what the background temperature of the universe was in the Andromeda region 2.5 million years ago, but, in general, the speed of light decreases by 2.5 km per second per year due to the expansion and cooling of the universe. In Andromeda, it is about 25 million cm per second, a difference that is about 10,000 km per second, less than one part 2.5 of the speed of light. That is, the speed of light in Andromeda, which was made in a warmer environment of the universe 25 million years ago, is at a speed of about 299,817 km per second more than the speed of light in the Milky Way, today. About XNUMX km per second in Andromeda. But, we are doing the measurement today, and for the milk at a smaller speed of light, the problem will be how do we find out? It seemed to me that the frequency of light from Andromeda had deviated.

   2. Miracles:- Physics is not a matter of "opinion". If the speed of light was different as a function of time then again, we would see different physics at large distances (I'm talking about fusion in stars). That is not the case.

   And I (Yehuda) ask and make miracles difficult. Why do you think that the speed of light is smaller or larger than one hundredth of a percent will already give different physics??
   Is the fact that the energy yield in fusion in Andromeda is different by one hundredth or two hundredths of a percent already show that this is a different physics??, is it really a miracle you can't describe the existence of a universe where the speed of light is different?, this will really spoil the whole set of physics laws for you???, different physics ??, exaggerating miracles!

   3. Miracles:- You answered no to the matter. I know g depends on location. It is not affected by centrifugal force (there is no such thing as centrifugal force - we learned that in high school).

   My opinion - in my high school they actually taught about centrifugal force, and the French Mr. Foucault was the first to do an experiment that proved the rotation of the earth around its axis. The Fuku pendulum is also found in the observatory in Givatayim,
   https://www.google.com/search?q=%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%95%D7%98%D7%9C%D7%AA+%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95&oq=%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%95%D7%98%D7%9C%D7%AA+%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95&aqs=chrome..69i57.18793j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

   4. Miracles:- Do you claim that gravity and acceleration can be distinguished? The answer is yes or no.
   What you said after that about long distance gravity is a straw man…..

   My opinion - no, it is impossible to distinguish between gravity and acceleration, but in a spaceship placed on the surface of the earth, it is possible to distinguish the rotation of the earth (around its axis) by the Foucault pendulum, something that does not exist in the accelerating spaceship.
   Regarding straw men, unfortunately I don't understand scarecrows, if you explain your words I will respond to them.
   Thanks Nissim for a challenging response.
   Please respond gently, after all it is only science and we are only astronomy enthusiasts.
   Sabdarmish Yehuda

6. Yehuda
   1. If you were right then we would see different physics in Andromeda than in our galaxy - 2 and a half million years is significant. Unfortunately, the physics we see there is the same as what we see here (otherwise the stars would look different).

   2. Physics is not a matter of "opinion". If the speed of light was different as a function of time then again, we would see different physics at large distances (I'm talking about fusion in stars). That is not the case.

   3. You answered no to the matter. I know g depends on location. It is not affected by centrifugal force (there is no such thing as centrifugal force - we learned that in high school).
   Are you claiming that gravity and acceleration can be distinguished? The answer is yes or no.

   What you said after that about long distance gravity is a straw man…..

7. Miracles
   Below is my opinion on the fundamental assumptions of the theory of relativity as you wrote:

   1. The laws of physics are the same in any frame of reference. That is - if you and I are in closed spaceships that move without acceleration, then every experiment by both of us will give the same result.

   My opinion - on the condition that both spacecraft move in an area with the same background temperature of the universe. There is a point to the flaw, to treat a cosmic state of different temperature, as the same thing. See reference to the subject in the next section.

   2. The speed of light is constant in any reference system. In particular - in the previous example, we will both measure light at the same speed

   My opinion - the speed of light changes according to the expansion of the universe and is proportional to the root of the background temperature of the universe, in the area where the light moves. Simply, this is the fate of all waves whose speed depends on the root of the temperature of the space in which they move. It must be taken into account that the background temperature of the universe is different in different regions of the universe, and certainly at different times of the universe.

   3. The principle of equivalence. If one of our spacecraft is accelerated by one g and the other spacecraft rests on the Earth, then none of our experiments will be able to tell us which of the spacecraft is accelerating and which is on the ground.

   My opinion = on the earth g is different at every point on the surface of the globe for two reasons: the flattening of the earth in the axis of the poles, and the centripetal force resulting from the rotation of the earth at different latitudes on the globe.
   That's why if, for example, we do the "Focus Pendulum" experiment, we can find out which spacecraft is standing on the Earth and which one is flying for pleasure in space at whatever acceleration g it may be. But of course, if the earth stops spinning we won't be able to tell the difference.

   There remains the problem of gravitation in distances. You claim that gravitation works correctly over distances according to Einstein's formula and therefore if there is a deviation in the results then it is clear that the formula is correct and additional matter, usually dark, must be added to justify the measurements in the universe. I argue that this shows that the formula does not work and another / addition to the great distances of the universe must be found!

   In conclusion, the theory of relativity does not take into account that the background temperature of the universe is a more fundamental rule than the speed of light because it determines (in my opinion) the speed of light without violating the other fundamental principles of the theory of relativity. Every temperature of a universe and its speed of light and the theory of relativity close to its speed.

   Please respond gently. The response required me to refer to the principles of the theory of attribution, which are difficult anyway. So again please respond... I already said it!
   Good day, and thanks to Nisim for a challenging response!

   Sabramish Yehuda

8. Yehuda
   1 - The laws of physics are the same in any frame of reference. That is - if you and I are in closed spaceships that move without acceleration, then every experiment by both of us will give the same result.

   2 - The speed of light is constant in any reference system. In particular - in the previous example, we will both measure light at the same speed

   3 - The principle of equivalence. If one of our spacecraft is accelerated by one g and the other spacecraft rests on the Earth, then none of our experiments will be able to tell us which of the spacecraft is accelerating and which is on the ground.

9. Sending comments and unfortunately they are not printed
   Yehuda

10. for miracles
    If you write down the fundamental assumptions of one-to-one relativity theory, I will show you where I think there is a failure in the assumptions. I am not an expert in general relativity. And of course not an expert in tensors and other mathematical creatures. Nevertheless, the dark matter that the users of general relativity are forced to use as part of their proofs is very jarring to me. We talked about it and I will not add.
    Please respond gently
    Yehuda

11. for miracles
    For the sake of good order, please write down the fundamental assumptions of the theory of relativity one by one and I will show you where in my opinion there is a possibility of a failure of the assumptions. I am not an expert in general relativity. And of course not an expert in tensors and other mathematical creatures. Nevertheless, the dark matter that the users of general relativity are forced to use as part of their proofs is very jarring to me. We talked about it and I will not add.
    Please respond gently
    Yehuda

12. Yehuda

    Newton's formula is based on certain assumptions. The assumptions turned out to be wrong and so we know the formula is wrong.

    Einstein's formula is also based on certain assumptions. If it is wrong - then necessarily at least the assumption is wrong.
    So - which assumption is wrong?

    Yehuda - I have already asked you this question several times (including in my previous reply!!!).
    I would love to know why you ignore basic science.

13. Miracles my friend
    I don't understand why you are trying to "deprive" Newton of his formula?? It is true that Einstein gives more accurate results, but it is unnecessary to state this when it is not important. If you turn to any student and ask him about Newton's gravitation formula I guarantee you he will be able to explain what it is about. Nevertheless, in my response I stated the formula as Newton-Einstein's gravitation formula, but this apparently does not satisfy you.. and regarding your Einstein formula, it is not wise to change the results calculated by dark matter and then decide that the formula is accurate in the calculations.
    Well, we probably won't agree on your Einstein formula
    All the best and may it continue to be quiet.
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

14. Yehuda
    Please - stop calling it Newton's formula - the gravity formula is Einstein's. Newton gave a descriptive formula without explanation, but Einstein developed a formula from basic assumptions.

    Therefore, if you claim that Einstein's gravity formula is wrong, you have to show that: either he was wrong in developing it, or that at least one of his basic assumptions is wrong.

    Without you saying where Einstein is wrong, your theory has no existence.

15. for miracles

    I took advantage of the planting that the Hamas did for us here, in Herzliya, to respond to your recent comments.
    Regarding your claim that Fritz Zwicky did not change any data, well it was Fritz Zwicky who discovered the "existence" of dark matter. But what he actually discovered was a discrepancy between the results measured in the Koma galaxy cluster and the Newton-Einstein gravitation formula. The deviation was 400 times between what was expected and what was measured. Instead of deciding that the gravitation formula is falsified and it is necessary to replace it, at least at cosmological distances of millions of light years, he preferred to leave the gravitation formula intact and change the amount of mass in the formula by a factor of 400. He called this addition "dark matter", and sent us to look for it. The searches have been going on since 1933 without much success.
    But, I'm glad there are things we agree on, like—
    Every physical formula we know has its domain of definition.
    But, I do not agree that the field of definition of Einstein's formulas will be tested on the entire visible universe and found to be correct. Simply, a proof obtained with the help of an invented additional substance (apple) is not called a scientific proof by me.
    So another hour has passed without any alarms so I will go to sleep hoping until morning.
    So for those who are not comfortable with my response, let them understand the fact that the response was written under flying missiles...
    We wish you a good and peaceful night.
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

16. Yehuda
    You are right that every physical formula we know has its domain of definition. The field of definition of Einstein's formulas were tested on the entire visible universe.

    And again - to be clear - I have no idea if there are dark matter particles, or if there is another explanation for what we are measuring. This is exactly the difference between us - I don't know...

17. Yehuda
    Tzviki did not change any data……

18. for miracles
    The attempt to belittle and compare me to Newton in an insulting way is disgusting and you better get off it.
    Newton was a great scientist and when he checked if his gravitation formula worked in the solar system, he did not change the measured data with the help of dark matter!.
    On the other hand, Fritz Tzviki, who changed the measured data with the help of dark matter, did something he would not do, and for that I lament
    Newton was a great scientist, but he knew the principle of David Hume (long before David Hume) who said you only have what you measured. point!. At first Newton had a formula that only works in the garden under his apple tree at a distance of a few yards, for the moon it might fit but only if we measure it and see that there is no contradiction. And wonder and wonder, it is a measure and indeed it is also suitable for the distance to the moon, without measurements it will not work. Each physical formula has its own domain of definition. To decide that it also works beyond the scope of its definition is a wild and unscientific guess.
    For example, we all know the formula for the fall of bodies on Earth - V=g*t The speed of fall is the acceleration of gravity times the time of fall, but the formula is suitable for a few seconds, that's its measurement range, it will never be (on Earth) more than 11,200 meters per second, which means a range The definition of the formula is only a few seconds, a significant deviation will be when we measure falling minutes or falling hours. Newton knew it!
    Why are you introducing a topic that is not our concern here?, I did not talk about the nature of gravity particles or not and there is no point in entering this topic here.
    Regarding what you wrote about Einstein, I do not agree with you that the formula was tested at great distances and found to be correct, but I am willing to accept that it may have been tested at great distances. (B instead of L) and was found to be correct. That is, I am willing to agree that at the edge of the galaxy or in a neighboring galaxy a solar system there will work according to the same laws of gravitation, but I absolutely do not agree that at large distances of thousands or millions of light years Newton's or Einstein's formula will be correct. (For example: rotation of galaxies or attraction between galaxies)
    Proof of dark matter sharing is unscientific and contrary to David Hume.
    And regarding the use of Occam's razor, you decide which is simpler, an explanation that does not contain dark matter and dark energy or an explanation that contains them, to me the answer is completely clear
    Good day miracles
    And please respond gently and without insulting comparisons
    Great appreciation
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

19. Yehuda
    This is precisely why Newton was a great scientist and you are not - the same explanation for the fall of the apple also works for the movement of the moon and the planets.

    You are the one who claims that Ockham's razor should be used, but decides that the physics formulas depend on the scale…. interesting.

    We have already discussed that the movement of elastic particles cannot create gravity. And you never tried to confront that fact.

    And by the way - there is a very good reason, one of the best of the best, to think that Einstein's formula is good at large distances.
    The reason is very surprising - the formula has also been tested for huge distances 🙂

    But, you are on your own…. Eliminates all conservation and symmetry laws and invents a sea of ​​new particles...

20. for miracles
    My explanation for the movement of the galaxies is not based on gravitation at all. There is no reason why in a world a formula that explains the movement of the solar system, which is a few tens of astronomical units - about a thousand light years, would also explain the movements of galaxies and galaxy clusters that are hundreds of thousands of light years hundreds of millions, billions, or trillions of times the size of the solar system. Just as it is clear to me that the force with which I move the table in my room is not the force that will explain the movement of the moon.
    I claim that the vastness of the universe is a huge gaseous body that also contains stars. The gas is made up of photons, neutrinos, cosmic radiation, laminia, axions, Higgs bosons, etc. All these particles define the expanses of the universe as gas and therefore explain the pressure of gas and of course the pressure differences, and these are the conditions that explain the rotation of the galaxies and the dust, without the need for dark matter. This is also what will explain in a simple way the expansion of the universe, also the accelerated one, no need for dark energy. Really a simple explanation of the expansion of a huge gaseous body into the emptiness around it. The effect of gravitation in the large cosmological systems is negligible, its effect is only a few percent, and is only activated by the baryonic matter and not by the illusory dark matter that no one knows what it is and its purpose to grasp In Newton-Einstein's "holy" gravitation formula in the expanses of the universe of millions of light years.
    So far!
    Good day miracles.
    All the best
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

21. Yehuda
    Dark matter explains the aging, the rotation rate of galaxies, the movement of galaxy clusters (according to Zwicky), the dispersion of galaxies and the distribution of power in cosmic radiation. These cannot be explained by changing the gravity formula.

    By the way - you stupid scientists who don't understand basic science like you do - clearly point to a number of phenomena that particulate dark matter does not explain, for example: the distribution of small galaxies and the amount of satellite galaxies (we would expect much more than what we see and there is another Tully-Fisher ratio for example).

    What does explain these phenomena is changes in the gravity equation.

    But to be clear - changing the gravity formula cannot explain the first phenomena I described.

    Do you really think you have a way to explain all this, without breaking existing physics? (And this is a requirement of every new theory, since time immemorial)

22. Dear Nissim
    Where did you see that it was my claim that gravity does not bend the light???, I never claimed that!, I agree that you see that there is a clouding, but, what I am saying is that there are several possibilities for creating clouding, show me the test that was done that determined that the clouding in the article is actually gravitational? It is clear to you that the bully data will not be enough to prove the large gravitational entanglement created, and additional matter (dark, of course) will be needed whose gravity will prove entanglement with such intensity. But you have no way of proving the reality of the dark matter whose nature is invisible and undiagnosed and we don't know what it is...
    Good night miracles
    Yehuda

23. Yehuda
    Are you claiming that gravity does not bend light?

24. Dust will be seen here with confidence, there is no doubt about that, but, I am a bit skeptical if we can with absolute confidence assume that the dust that appears is a gravitational dust? Why not for example assume that a concentration of spherical gas clouds create the dust? The galaxies are spherical??,
    Please respond gently
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.