An international team of astronomers managed to calculate the proton-electron ratio which is one of the most basic constants of nature in a galaxy 7.5 billion light years away and it turned out to be the same as on Earth. This assertion is important in that it disproves the argument that the laws of nature have changed in time or change over distance
Although we have been able to find out about the entire universe from afar, we can only really check what is happening in our cause, and how the laws of nature work in our homes. An important question we ask is do the laws of nature as we know them work in the same way in other areas of the universe?
A new study published in the journal Science gives a positive answer. The study, conducted by an international team of astronomers, showed that one of the most important numbers in theoretical physics, the proton-electron mass ratio, is almost exactly the same in a galaxy 6 billion light years away as that measured in laboratories on Earth, approximately 1836.15.
According to Michael Murphy, an astrophysicist from Swinburne University in Australia and the lead researcher in the study, this is an important finding, due to the fact that many scientists debate whether the laws of nature were different at different times and in different places in the universe. "We were able to show that the laws of physics are the same in a galaxy halfway across the visible universe, as they are here on Earth." said.
The astronomers made the discovery by looking back in time at a distant quasar, B0218+367. The light from the quasar, which takes 7.5 billion years to reach us, is partially swallowed by ammonia gas in the galaxy that is in the line of sight between us and the quasar. Not only is ammonia useful in bathroom cleaning products, it is also an ideal molecule for testing our understanding of physics in the distant universe. Spectroscopic analyzes of the ammonia molecule carried out using the Appelsberg radio telescope, which is one hundred meters in diameter and has a bandwidth of 2 centimeters (red shift from the original wavelength - 1.3 cm). The wavelength at which the ammonia absorbs the radio energy from the quasar is sensitive to the special nuclear number - the proton-electron mass ratio.
"By comparing the absorption of the radiation by ammonia with the absorption by other molecules, we were able to calculate the value of the proton-electron ratio in this galaxy and confirm that it is the same as the ratio on Earth," says Christian Henkel of the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany, and an expert in molecular spectroscopy, who was Also co-authored the article.
The study was published this weekend in the journal Science.
96 תגובות
hot or nice
Serious modern scientists rarely make mistakes. They observe, think of explanations for the observation, and then check the explanations. An explanation that turns out to be wrong is abandoned, and we move on. This scientific method has never failed. On the contrary - her successes are amazing.
Astronomers also work this way. Regarding your example - when absorption lines of giving are revealed, then the result is verified in other ways. What makes you think differently?
I don't understand something very basic in astronomy.
The scientists measure all kinds of things and get certain values, how do they know that the values they get are correct? Most of all they cannot conduct a controlled experiment, they cannot in any way verify the findings. For example, they measure wavelengths of light that passed through a distant atmosphere and report to us that there is hydrogen or methane there. But they never succeeded in verifying that such a reading of light waves coming from such a vast distance really represents its passage through hydrogen atoms. So how do they establish science? After all, everyone who is involved in science knows that there are many, many surprises, many, many discoveries that we did not imagine were true turned out to be so, and on the contrary, many, many predictions turned out to be not successful at all. Even scientists' predictions of what would be found on planets as close as Mars or as close as Jupiter proved to be wildly unrealistic once probes approached or even landed on Mars.
Can someone take a few minutes and explain this matter to me: how can you do science if the conclusions cannot be confirmed in any way. How can you trust measurements if there is no way to calibrate the measuring device?
What is important is not whether the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe, but whether the person who perceives those laws is different
an animal:
Is the claim that the rabbit lives part of the accuracy of the Torah?
I read the comments, I like to read science.
I was amazed by the reactions of all those who know that the Torah is the exact book, that if science itself had treated it properly, and researched with faith, it would have found answers to many questions there. As the sages of Israel, in all generations,
They knew wisdom and teachings only from studying it.
strength Strengthen and embrace your faith and this knowledge.
You have the real science that is not far-fetched. and will not be disproved.
: )
sloppiness in clothing
You chatter and babble.
It is better that you read the special theory of relativity and from it you will understand that a transformation of parameters that come from a distance is created
Cosmic. The space-time distortion formula already contains a change in cosmic parameters.
That is, each region of the cosmos has its own private laws.
But we measure them according to our local laws of physics, after transformation.
And all those "scientists" who try to interpret, explain, attack, cancel, confirm, etc., who do not understand the subject, are similar to all those "religious scholars" who interpret the Bible.
For example, you must not light a fire on Shabbat, which means that you must not talk on the phone. or water that boils above 42 degrees, it must not be mixed with colder water. And other stupid rules.
Some comments. No more simple to read this:
http://www.notes.co.il/ben-hateva/25504.asp
The laws of nature as defined by man are the same everywhere and refer to different systems.
I have a headache…
Does classical-uplifting music make sense??
Everything makes sense - depends on which octaves you play life..
Alas, Yitzchak, you simply did not understand anything I said.
First of all you are predicting what I will do if evolution is proven.
So know that you are not gifted with prophetic ability and there is no need for me to refer to your conclusion in this area.
Besides, you should know that in science there is never proof.
Besides, you should know that confirmation by findings is the best thing that can happen to scientific theory and evolution has a lot of confirmations.
Regarding the so-called "contradictions" in my words - you just repeated and made it clear to us that logic is not your forte.
There is no contradiction in my words. I'm just showing you that no matter how you look at it and even if you reject one of the reasons - your words will still remain wrong.
Besides, I wasn't trying to show that there is evolution, just that your way of drawing conclusions is wrong.
Isaac,
I explained to you exactly why the theory of evolution does not work on the laws of nature. This understanding of the theory of evolution drops the ground under your arguments, but for some unknown reason you seem to have chosen to ignore it.
When you decide to address the words, I can also address the apologetic and erroneous letter of the Lubavitcher Rebbe of Lithuania.
the wise and good luck,
Roy.
in her
I'm amazed at you, Michael, I won't deny that I'm religious, but getting to the point where I'm looking to attack, etc. is really irrelevant, and I'm even more amazed by your zeal in preserving the path of evolution, if it really is proven to be wrong based on scientific data, then you're one of those who will do anything And also things that are not according to reason in order to prove its correctness (which to a certain extent happens to some who have invested their lives in it), you will know that I really did not come from the side of attacking, but from the side of understanding how it fits with reality, because the reality I live in is suitable for All its details down to the smallest details, and if something doesn't fit, it turns out that there really is a problem, and if you've already talked about the Torah, you'll know that there is no contradiction between the Torah and exact science, and you can even get completeness of details from the Torah in a really amazing way. I'm not looking for you to agree with me and I really don't care what you think about it, the purpose of my question is how it connects in reality, again not from an attack side nor from the side of the virtues in the heart but from the mind side,
And regarding the answer you gave in response 72, I don't know if you notice that you are contradicting yourself several times
I will write your words in the form of A - B and you tell me how it fits
A. At first you agree that the laws of nature are probably the same everywhere,
B. The original theory of evolution... does not rely on the laws "everywhere"
third. The theory of evolution is a mathematical principle and since mathematics is correct everywhere then so is evolution
d. Even if the laws of physics are different and so on, life may not develop elsewhere
God. Your conclusion is that the theory of evolution is true
In B you say "that the original" is not based on "everywhere" and in B you agree that it is indeed based everywhere because it is mathematical
In D. even if the laws of physics are different or the same, life cannot develop because the "original" speaks of the earth.
How can you say such a thing if another planet has lived longer than ours (several million times) then life should have formed there according to the name, according to the laws of evolution which are based on the laws of physics.
I don't know if you notice, but anything you investigate will show that it goes in a very orderly manner and it is impossible for it to change its course without reason (because otherwise it wouldn't be appropriate to investigate anything) and suddenly here in evolution you get conclusions that don't connect with anything in reality
The truth is that I don't have the strength to invest and you will live by your faith (you believe more than me even in things that are the exact opposite of common sense)
I will attach a letter that I previously attached to one of the articles on Ynet from the Rabbi of Lubavitcher Shalita on this subject, you will see and wait, good luck!!!
http://chabadlibrary.org/books/admur/ig/7/1996.htm
What's new:
It seems to me that we do not have any substantial debate and the question of whether or not it is permissible to use a word that everyone uses is worthless.
Are you suggesting that we do away with the term "quantum theory"? You won't succeed. It is the nature of language. It is a statistical entity and not a static entity. There is no equivalent word for theory in Hebrew and people chose to use "Torah".
It is convenient, if you are willing to accept the accepted interpretation of the word Torah.
It is not comfortable if you decide to stick to the archaic interpretation.
Let's conclude that always - when I'm not talking about religious Torah, I'm talking about what you call theory.
And among us - this is also the appropriate title for the religious Torah - here it is not just a theory but a theory that has been refuted.
Michael
The word Torah was born long before modern science began.
The word Torah is directly related to the Bible
The original meaning of Torah is a set of stories and laws that cannot change over time (example).
Because the Torah is not a scientific book at all (except for creationists who think otherwise)
So there is no connection between the word Torah and a theory that could change over time.
Let's look at the theory of physics, has it changed?
1. The theory of physics - Aristotle was rejected
2. The theory of physics - Ptolemy Nipsala
3. The theory of physics - Newton was rejected (it is still used at non-relativistic speeds)
4. The theory of physics - the theory of general relativity has not yet been ruled out
Hence the non-scientific word Torah cannot be used for scientific theories.
B:
To me, wrong logic is wrong logic and I don't find it appropriate to respect it.
I'm not saying that all the logic used in the Talmud is wrong, but the one Isaac tried to use is wrong.
Regarding the rabbit and the rabbit, two things should be noted:
One is that it is written in the Torah and not in the Talmud, and the other is that as I said - I too am allowed to take advantage of an opportunity and if someone comes to attack a scientific theory when his motives are not pure, I want him to take into account that I will not be content with just defending the scientific theory, but will move the war to his territory and attack his motives as well, so it is desirable that he think Twice because not only will his goal not come out of the discussion, but it will actually hurt.
What's new:
Theory is not a Hebrew word.
The word "Torah" sometimes replaces it with cash.
The expression "theory of evolution" is common in the language as well as the expressions "theory of numbers" "theory of groups" and the like.
There are those who associate the Torah with religion, but there is no justification for this, in my opinion. This is a word derived from the same root as the words "teacher" and "teaching" which, although they have something more authoritative than "theory", but it is still not a religious authority and therefore the expression is acceptable.
Michael
It seems that he tried to exploit the possibility of a logical loophole against the theory of evolution.
It is true that the approach seems completely absurd to anyone who knows a little about the details of physics and evolution.
On the other hand, it should be noted that from a purely logical point of view, the approach is not so far-fetched.
Because the entire Talmud is continuous with the presentation of a kind of logical equations with 2 3 or more disappearing. Then begins a process of derivation according to each variable separately in order to arrive at the rules of operation or functions underlying the given equation.
The habit of the Talmud to act almost always based on very little information in the above way and to apply several rulings one after the other at the same time on several variables, is actually what sometimes gives legitimacy to ask such absurd questions. And as you know, this method opens the door to false gossip. On the other hand, when it is done correctly, the structures that are created are sometimes amazing in their elegance.
All in all, the acquired skill is definitely worth a respectable treatment.
In the matter of the rabbit and the rabbit, there is no point in taking this corner for the simple reason that in many places in the Talmud, facts are sometimes presented that are initially unfounded because the intention is almost always to find the simplest patterns and general rules for any given matter. There are many examples in this regard. Even for fixed dimensions there is no absolute reference in many cases they try to present such dimensions according to their derivatives even though they are in fact completely fixed there are examples in the dimensions of liquids and the like.
Michael,
".. Besides, the original theory of evolution discusses the development of life on Earth and it does not rely on the laws that are "everywhere"."
"Beyond all this - the theory of evolution is basically a mathematical principle that applies to any system in which there are factors..."
She meant the theory of evolution of course.
B:
The problem, however, is not with the fact that his logic is different from mine, but with the fact that it is different from the one that works in reality.
The truth is that I believe that his logic is the same as mine and that in his world there are simply goals that it is permissible to kill the logic for their sanctification.
In my opinion, he just found (or thought he found) an opportunity to attack evolution and took advantage of it.
Therefore, Isaac, as I have said to other people who have tried this game in the past, I intend to include in my responses not only a defense of evolution but also an attack on the motive for which you attack it - the irrational belief in books written by people who lived thousands of years ago and whose culture corresponds to their time.
I mean, of course, the books in which it is written that the rabbit and the rabbit rummage, contrary to what is written in the rabbit and the rabbit.
Michael
It is obvious that you are not a Talmudist
Isaac's methodology in presenting the question stems from the Talmudic approach.
The logic and guiding rules work somewhat differently from the rigorous mathematical approach. In many cases this is quite similar to the solutions of partial differential equations.
Isaac:
You are missing out on almost every possible level.
First of all, as evidenced by the findings of the article, the laws of nature are probably really equal everywhere.
Besides, the original theory of evolution discusses the development of life on Earth and it does not rely on the laws that are "everywhere".
Beyond all this - the theory of evolution is basically a mathematical principle that applies to any system where there are factors that can reproduce with small and random errors and where there is competition for resources.
Since mathematics is true everywhere, this principle of evolution will be true everywhere even if the laws of physics governing it are different. This does not mean that life will form there (after all, even if the laws of physics are the same there can be places where life did not develop) but still - the theory of evolution will be correct.
Isaac,
The theory of evolution describes a process of change under the constraints of natural selection. It only works on items that meet the following requirements:
1. They have the ability to produce offspring, or pass on their traits to the next generation.
2. The traits they pass on can change between generations.
3. Some traits will have a survival advantage for the offspring.
Since the laws of nature do not follow these laws, the theory of evolution is not valid for them.
Itzhak
You are right if both theories originate from a common starting point.
But….. in this case it can be said that the evolutionary approach stems from a characteristic of the laws of physics and their various properties. That is, the theory of evolution depends on the theory of physics.
Every living being also has the laws of physics that apply to it and every matter in physics is also responsible for creating life and even though it seems unrelated, there is a very deep connection between them in reality
It is true that every Torah is concerned with its matter, but if it is a Torah that has been proven to be true, it should also connect with another Torah that is true, and here there is no connection between them.
Again in different words, the path does not have to be the same but in the conclusion it must reach the same result, interpretation, in the last line the test of reality determines and reality is one and if it cannot connect in reality then it is proven that one of the teachings here is inaccurate.
Isaac,
The theory of evolution describes the development of living things. There is no connection between it and the basic laws of physics, such as those expressed in the relationship between protons and electrons.
It is definitely related, since according to the theory of evolution it took millions of years of development from one thing to another, whereas here, looking a few billion years forward or backward, you see that the laws are exactly the same and nothing has changed from our world to the world over there, even though there are different conditions there than here.
Or in other words, there must be a certain change in the relationship between a proton and an electron there, for a simple reason that the process has progressed in billions of years and the composition must be different, according to the rules of the theory of evolution, and if there really has been no change then how can the theory of evolution be accepted???
Isaac:
It has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution, so how can it contradict it?
The truth is I don't understand, apparently according to the article then the times there are different by several billion years, so how come it doesn't contradict the theory of evolution???,
Yehuda:
Don't expect a different response from a thinking person.
I mean - in the end.
It reminds me of a story about a man who is sitting in a restaurant and is approached by a beggar.
He sends him to hell.
The beggar curses him and his mother and moves to the next table.
The person sitting there does not yet know the beggar and gives him 10 NIS.
After five minutes the beggar came to him again.
The man tells him - but you were already here and received alms from me.
The beggar says - yes, but I want more.
The man thinks it's not bad and gives him another 10 NIS.
The beggar leaves and returns again after five minutes.
The man sends him to hell.
The beggar curses him and his mother and moves to the next table.
There are people for whom nothing will help - even if you invest whole years of work in them, when you give up at the end (and there is no escaping this because they are non-stop beggars) they will curse you and move on to harass someone else.
There are also other people - those who, despite this experience, come back and give unknown beggars a chance.
But that's it - we already know Yehuda.
to the cool responder
"What doesn't work in the mind, works in strength. And what doesn't work in strength will work with more strength."
Really an excellent response.
The science site is proud of strong people like you.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yes you expected it.. That was only my second harsh reaction.
It turns out that what doesn't work in the mind, works in strength. And what doesn't work with power will work with more power.
to the cool responder
I did not expect a different response from you.
Have a good week to you and all the people of Israel
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Everyone is driving in the opposite direction in your lane*
I used to appreciate you when I read your articles*
who went in with his head against the wall*
I have schiyot khativ when my poor poor person appeared
I have spelling errors when I'm helpless..*
to Judah,
I have been waiting for this response from you for two days. And as I thought, she arrived.
1. I didn't get drunk.
2. All of a sudden some Sabdarmish comes along and claims, for no apparent reason, that gravity does not exist at all at galactic and intergalactic distances.. (
The same Sabdarmish for whom induction does not count as proof. (Apparently gravity ventilation is not visible enough for you)
How do you know that pressure differences, gases and storms/winds exist at intergalactic distances? The assumption is based (if we can say so) much less than the assumption that gravitation works at full strength (as stated by Einstein's formulas) at intergalactic distances.
According to your theory, it is impossible to explain gravitational forces between galaxies in clusters.
You can't explain black holes and of course you can't explain quasars..
According to your loose logic, galaxies have the most pressure not in their center but somewhere on the sides (which creates an uneven attraction and repulsion of matter at the edges of the galaxy assuming there is no gravity).
Leave it.. forget it.. you didn't answer the questions I asked you at all and you are starting to repeat the same lukewarm stupidity too many times..
Get your reality:
Yehuda Sabdarmish received the Israel Prize a year ago, he recreated the Year of Wonders, wrote 3 articles for Science and another week he receives the Nobel Prize - no.. no.. get out of the movie you are in..
For you, the world is screwed up and you are smart, everyone is traveling in the opposite direction in your lane. No one can understand the complexity of your theory (and you?).
Soon, in the movie theaters: "Life according to Sabdarmish"
I once appreciated you when I read the articles here in the science. Now I see that you are another fixated-square-crazy guy who goes in with his head against the wall instead of going around the wall and moving forward.. too bad..
to the cool responder
I just now saw your comment from June 26, 2008 at 3:14 and I must point out that it is quite humiliating and even insulting. Below are my comments.
First of all I hope you are not drunk. and for our purposes.
I admit that my theory "the hurricane theory is so delusional" as you say. After all, we live in a world where gravitation has always existed and forever, and suddenly a person comes along, some kind of Sabdarmish, who claims that gravitation almost does not exist at galactic and intergalactic distances?. What kind of crazy thing is this? What have we already forgotten about the apple that fell on Newton's head? And our earth doesn't revolve around the sun? And the galaxy doesn't rotate? So what if there is an error of 90%?, it's nothing, my dear, and besides, surely in a few billion years we will see how the force of gravity will concentrate everything in one point again!, that will be a conclusive proof of Judas with all his nonsense, wait... it's not Dear?, the universe is actually expanding at an accelerated speed???, a small detail, my dear, we will invent the dark energy, yes, yes, the repulsive force of the void!, and it is to blame for the accelerated expansion!, give up gravitation at galactic distances????, why not !, Gravitation forever!!, The apple didn't just fall on Newton's head!
.
Cool commenter, understood and heard well:-
There is, but, no, no proof of the correctness of Newton's and Einstein's formulas regarding gravitation at galactic distances!, no, absolutely no, and no scientist with a lip balm will change that. Certainly not Michael with his stupid comments.
So when one day, Mr. Cool Reactor, when you clear your beer, remember what I said:- There is no proof.
There is gravitation in the limited solar system, but to conclude from this that gravitation exists at distances greater than billions of meters is complete nonsense. This is something he must not do!
But the power of this paradigm is too great.
I don't expect people to agree with me, it's too big a task for 99% of human beings to agree with, (what nonsense!, a world without gravity!)
That's why this response of mine doesn't register for shallow commenters like Michael, I have an obsession with the name Sabdarmish, and apparently it doesn't for you either, but maybe there will be someone who will doubt his thoughts.
I have no doubt in my words.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Note: I announce in advance that I am not preparing to comment on any of Michael's comments on the subject.
To the cool commenter:
I see you've already stood up for him.
Since he didn't answer any of your words, I don't find a place to explain the mistakes in the things he didn't say on these subjects.
Instead he inserted here another nonsense about the temperature of the universe.
This is also nonsense that he has already brought up before and this nonsense has received an answer. The problem is, of course, that he does not refer to the answers.
We are talking about a background temperature that is very close to absolute zero and is not (I repeat - no!) represented by the background radiation.
The background radiation was left in the big bang and since then it has been spreading in the universe. To each point where radiation arrives from all different directions and wavelengths (when I see them it's because they reached me and are no longer at their point of origin) that I perceive from different directions represent differences in energy compression in the galaxy at the time of the big bang.
The radiation reaches all points from all directions, and even if different wavelengths arrive from different directions, then in total - the differences between the total energy brought by your background radiation from all directions to each point are billions of times smaller than those zero degrees Kelvin that differentiate between the radiation bones that we receive from different directions.
Yehuda's advice not to listen to me (which is based, as usual, on his lack of knowledge in psychology, since he is not successful through his lack of knowledge in physics) somewhat reminds me of Rabbi Kirschenbaum's words in the following link:
http://www.121k.com/media/yaronyadan/rabbi_kirshenbaum_livevideo.htm
to the cool responder
In your response dated June 25, 2008 at 16:40 p.m., you raised additional questions that I did not address,
Question: Does the natrine gas that has such a low pressure deserve to be called a gas?
Answer - why? It's low pressure gas.
Question: And do you think the pressure in the center of a galaxy is greater, less or equal to the intergalactic pressure?
Answer - what is important is that the pressure be lower than the environment of the galaxy.
Note - in cyclones there can be the case of high pressure in the center and there may also exist such galaxies in which the pressure in the center is greater than their surroundings. What is important is the pressure difference.
Question: And how can you explain active galaxies that emit jets of matter?
Answer - Honestly, I didn't think about it. Maybe you or one of the readers will try to find a solution. I will think about it at the end of the week.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to the cool responder
Ignore Michael's nonsense and consider my words. Background temperature differences exist in the universe even without the action of the sun. Michael is consumed by obsession and hatred in his responses. Ignore him. There is no point in even responding to him.
The idea I am presenting is simple
If you have any further questions I will be happy to answer.
Good Morning
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, I must point out that after drinking 3 bottles of beer with friends when we saw the semi-final, I still think you are more cool..
You have a puzzle of a theory in your mind.. pieces, pieces.. that you have made at different times and in different cases. Your problem is that you have never tried to connect those puzzle pieces to a complete puzzle. Because if you tried you would see that it just doesn't connect! I don't really need to explain what doesn't make sense in your hurricane theory (gravity pushing is still normal..). It's kind of like explaining to my grandfather why he has to walk around with a cell phone. You are blind to your idea, you have taken it so hard that you are no longer able to think about it critically. The hurricane theory is so delusional that it makes quantum mechanics look like Newtonian mechanics...
Please Yehuda, and this is really excessive, take your ideas and look at them from the side as if you were looking at the special theory of relativity and trying to see if it is indeed compatible with its basic assumption (the speed of light in a vacuum is constant) and check that it does not indeed give "facts" that are not based on the basic assumption. Your ideas do not pass the scrutiny that other theories pass with you..
From what you said before, I understand that you have not delved into special relativity. And I think that every person who deals with physics or develops a theory must know its conclusions and the path from the assumption to the conclusions.
Therefore, take it as a challenge to learn about special relativity. Basically Google will help, but in any case I will give you some links here. Just choose:
http://rafimoor.com/hebrew/SRH.htm
http://lib.cet.ac.il/Pages/item.asp?item=13254
http://www.e-mago.co.il/Editor/science-1565.htm
Yes, in all three the example of the train is brought up.. This was also Einstein's own example..
To the cool commenter:
Do you understand?
Now you have to think like a hurricane.
The surface of the sea is heated by the sun's radiation, the air above the warm water rises and the surrounding air is sucked in.
The hurricane moves because in the place where the air is pumped there is no longer a lack of air, but the galaxies do not have to move.
Somehow they manage to maintain a low pressure in their centers even though particles are constantly flowing there - flowing and not coming out.
All of a sudden the whole gravity raid was forgotten. The particles in general flow from everywhere towards the center of the galaxy (and they do this by themselves in such a way that moves the entire solar system around that center. There is no longer symmetry in the arrival of the particles from all directions, therefore all their ability to rotate the planets around the sun disappears, but that is not important now because now we are lying on something else.
to the cool responder
Think in a hurricane way.
The lowest pressure in a hurricane is found in its center and note that the hurricane rotates without the need for a black hole in its center. But around that low pressure, which is the "eye" of the hurricane, the heaviest clouds are concentrated.
Let's move to the galaxy, it will rotate around its center, a place where the pressure created by the particles will be the lowest, just like in a hurricane, and there is no additional need for black holes.
But, around this center is the greatest concentration of the visible mass of the galaxy.
Remember, black holes cannot rotate a galaxy because it has a mass several tens of thousands of times the mass of the black hole.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, I do agree that "the collection of all the netrins moving in the space of the universe is actually a gas", because a gas by its very definition is a collection of particles that do not bind each other's movement.
The question is whether the pressure is so low that it does not deserve to be called a gas. ?
But with your next sentence I do not agree at all: "Galaxies rotate around their center of gravity for the same reason that hurricanes rotate around their center of gravity which is the area where the pressure is the lowest."
According to what you say.. the centers of gravity of galaxies have a lower pressure than their surroundings? Does that sound normal to you? Wish there were black holes (or extremely massive bodies according to your definition) to have low pressure?
In an instant, you turned the model of the galaxies from a disk model whose thickness increases as you get closer to its center, to a donut model where the galaxy is actually inside a ring of high pressure and the closer you get to its center, the smaller its thickness.
In your opinion, where should the highest particle pressure be? In the center of the galaxy? On a ring in the galaxy? On a ring on the edge of the visible galaxy? Or on a ring outside the visible galaxy?
And do you think the pressure at the center of a galaxy is greater, less or equal to the intergalactic pressure?
And how can you explain active galaxies that emit jets of matter?
To the cool commenter:
As you must have noticed - Yehuda did not answer you either.
He mumbled words as usual but said nothing.
Not how the pressure differences are created, not how they are maintained despite the continuous flow of the "gas" to the point where the low pressure is created, and not how it is that the place where the gas flows and where the pressure should be the lowest actually has the highest gravity - that is - the most pressure High.
Of course, he also did not answer the obvious contradictions with reality, such as the drag and energy issues.
As usual - just waving hands.
In other words - to me he does not answer officially and to you he continues to lie and claim that he does.
to the cool responder
Galaxies rotate around their center of gravity for the same reason that hurricanes rotate around their center of gravity which is the area of lowest pressure.
In addition, whether we like it or not, there are many known particles that move throughout the universe and by their very nature as free particles, they behave as a gas and create pressure differentials and winds. This thing exists without any relation to Judah's ideas.
For example: the collection of all netrins moving in the space of the universe is actually a gas. If you do not agree with this then there is no point in reading my response.
The question is whether this pressure is enough to move a galaxy? Well, the known particles are apparently not enough, so I claim that there are apparently many more, smaller and unknown, that would be enough to drive the galaxies.
Giving relative behavior as you suggested, would greatly improve my situation, but for some reason, which I do not know how to define, I am reluctant to do so. But I have no problem with relativity, and it is very possible that this will be the solution.
Note that in my response I did not mention the pushing gravity or the simple universe because they do not change the correctness or incorrectness of this response.
As I said, I stop responding to Michael.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To the cool commenter:
I don't think this is a drag that has any meaning as long as the speed is not huge.
Regarding the "gravitational gas" - there is no such thing, but if there was, the particles could not be at zero speed relative to anything (including the observer) because the whole idea is that they create gravity by transferring part of their momentum to the body they hit.
So Michael, this means that the cosmic radiation also creates drag towards those who move in relation to it..
The question is whether it is possible to prevent the drag of the gravitational particle gas by having it have properties that would give it 0 velocity relative to the observer.
To the cool commenter:
Just a historical correction.
The "king" that Judah is trying to crown was born already in 1750 and was declared naked by many good people even before I made up my mind.
In fact, he is no longer king nor does he claim the crown.
Yehuda simply found something that it turned out he wasn't the only one who didn't understand and managed to turn many people into denial for a long time.
If you follow the many words that have been poured out about discussions with him (and I have already brought links to the matter) you will see that I have presented him with clear refutations of the theory he is trying to sell.
He continues to ignore these refutations (literally - he just ignores!) because he hopes to continue dragging everyone in his endless loop.
Beyond that, he makes claims about the "gravity raider" that only show more and more that he doesn't understand this theory himself. This is a fact that is clear to anyone who understands even a little about the behavior of gases, but it is not understandable to Yehuda.
I have, as you have seen, made an effort to allow others to see that he does not know what he is talking about but as usual he just continues to try to bury the facts and history in a flood of meaningless words and baseless slander.
We both know he will never take your advice.
By the way, relevant to your words - the theory of relativity is not based on the fact that no reference system can be found and in fact even in the picture of the universe accepted by science today there is a reference system defined by the background radiation.
If we move very fast in a certain direction we will see that the frequency of the background radiation coming from that direction increases and the background radiation coming from the opposite direction decreases.
to Judah,
If the galaxies do not rotate due to the main effect of gravity, then explain why all the galaxies in the universe rotate around their center of gravity?
If the galaxies were indeed rotating due to "pressure differences" that never end, then there would also be galaxies that would not be rotating around their center of gravity.
I am not trying to discredit, because I believe that a scientific theory can come not only from doctoral students, but I think there is a bit of a situation here where everyone is silent and Michael comes and says "the king is naked". There is a saying that when someone says you have lied many times then in the end he starts to believe himself. If you don't have any proofs or theories with formulas, or at least any rational explanation that brings in addition to push explanations (why the current theory is not good) also pull explanations (which explains why the proposed theory is good compared to others), then I suggest that you get off the idea at least temporarily, so That you decide to take a project and work on your theory quietly with a page, a pen/pencil, and the three links I already wrote you.
The reason I told you that I would try to give the gravitational particles relativistic properties is that your universe is non-relativistic and that a universe composed of ordinary gas has a reference frame, aka the gas itself, so there is no point in trying to build a universe that is non-relativistic.
Yehuda:
As usual, I keep my word and as usual you don't understand.
Short answers that don't try to extract a hidden meaning from your accent exhaust me.
To Michael
You remind me of Gaza, even though they promised peace they still shoot.
Be a man and keep your word.
Anyway, until tonight you can comment freely because I'm going to work
All the best
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
You never respond quietly. All your words are just noise in the system but I hope the other readers have already learned to understand that
To Michael
Good, now I can respond quietly
But what a beautiful day!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
You produce so much language that you do not understand the content of which is simply shameful.
All your accusations are wrong and baseless as well as your physical claims.
I don't intend to exhaust myself with responses to just a jumble of letters and I'll just bother to repeat and say that these are nonsense.
to the cool responder
We know that there are tiny changes in the background temperature of the universe in different regions of the universe. This can already be a cause of pressure differences between clumps of particles moving in the universe. So it's not just the sun's radiation and the rotation of the earth that can create pressure differences in the gas. You probably just said that.
To Michael
Your entire response is full of inaccuracies and defamations. You attack me that I don't know why the galaxy rotates. The reason is simple. The force differences between the outer part and the inner part of the galaxy are balanced by the centrifugal force. And it doesn't matter if these force differences are created by gravity (like in the solar system) or pressure differences (like the hurricanes on Earth) ) Coriolis force mainly gives the direction of rotation.
The direction of rotation will be determined in the galaxies regardless of how we explain the forces: - pressure differentials or gravitation.
And you, Mr. Michael, think that only gravity can cause rotation???
Haven't you heard of electric motors??
Any force acting toward the center can cause rotation.
Another nonsense you said is that the center of the galaxy is supposed to pump the whole galaxy. This can only happen in the case of black holes and gravitation. Because according to the idea of the particles, once the pressure differential factor ends, there will be no reason for the galaxy to move to the center or rotate. And it will just scatter in space. Just like the hurricane clouds dissipate at the end of the hurricane's "life".
I don't expect you to make a comparison between the hurricane and spiral galaxies because that requires a certain level of cognition that you don't always have.
and to the student
The idea of the rotation of the galaxies by the differential pressure is a good idea and not "completely absurd" because very simply no one discusses it in a serious way. (Michael for me is not a serious person for this purpose)
The problem of gravity is that it lies deep in people's minds and you have to be brave to accept the possibility that maybe it is not the dominant force in the universe, notice what such an opinion does to people when they hurt the bird of their gravitational soul.
All the behavior of galaxies can be explained without dark mass, without black holes and without dark energy and without... gravitation in the galactic and intergalactic universe.
In short - there is no phenomenon in galaxies and their clusters that cannot be explained by pressure differences. As soon as you bring me one of these, I'll drop the idea. Please challenge.
And don't believe in providing quotes from Michael.
In short, those who want to stick to the "good old" gravitation, and those who want to look at alternatives as well.
Enough of this comment.
Have a good day.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
People like Michael really won't change my mind.
The cool commenter:
It's really complicated and I don't know how to get everything out of the way, but among other things, the electromagnetic force and Pauli's prohibition principle are at work here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
student:
Not only is Judah's theory refutable, but it has already been disproved in dozens of ways. You can find some of them in this discussion as well, although they have already been mentioned in previous discussions and some of them even in a more detailed way.
See for example here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/could-antimatter-be-powering-super-luminous-supernovae-1612072/
See also the following link (which I write without the Internet prefix because when there are two links in the response it is delayed until confirmation, and in this way I hope the system will not notice the matter:
hayadan.org.il/wp/glast-in-orbit-1306088
The Coriolis force is an imaginary force and it all depends from which point of view you look, so when you say you don't need it you must state where you are looking from.
And in general this whole debate about whether it is possible that the laws of nature are the same is quite difficult...
After all, it is impossible to prove - you only bring confirmation as in the article.
And any other theory - you can only rule out.
That's why I ask Yehuda, is the theory you present, it can be negated? Or on the contrary, is the theory that is accepted today disprovable or has one of them already been disproved?
And I mean fiscally or mathematically? After all, fiscal theory is built on mathematics.
I just have a question that interests me about particle collisions and I didn't find an answer to it on Wikipedia (maybe I didn't search well?).
How do you describe collisions of particles, if they are supposed to be supposedly one-dimensional? A particle like the photon that hits an electron and throws it into the air (as in the photoelectric effect). And according to what I know, the photon and the electron - both are elementary particles that are supposed to be one-dimensional..
Does one of the two nuclear forces create a repulsion between the two particles in a way that simulates a collision? (This proposal is being asked even though I know that the nuclear forces are forces of attraction and not repulsion)
Do you know the answer to that, Michael?
And Judah? In principle, you should also have an answer, after all, in your theory you calculated gravitation based on elastic collisions of particles.
Yehuda - and I will repeat for the thousandth time the fact that it is impossible that the center of the galaxy where the gravitation is the highest - to the point of black holes that you do not believe in their existence would - according to your theory - be a magnet for particles that are supposed to come from a more compressed place when this means that everywhere there would be black holes.
And I will also repeat the absurdity of the claim that even though particles are constantly flowing into the center of the galaxy it somehow manages to remain at a lower pressure than all the other places. Did I say bullshit?
Yehuda, I'm sorry to bother you..
But I have no idea about the Cornelius force and all the "introduction to metrology" you mentioned, but I do know one thing. The reason why there are pressure differences and changing weather (that is, not static) on the earth is that the earth rotates around itself and around the sun in such a way that the side of it that faces the sun changes all the time. (The moon also affects... but much less)
The sun each time heats one side while the other side cools, and this is what creates the initial pressure differences on Earth.
This can be seen clearly in the seasons, that during the transition seasons the sun goes from constantly heating one side to constantly heating another side, various phenomena occur such as storms, and changing currents (of air and water).
The differences between day and night also cause dynamic pressure differences.
In any case, the energy source that makes all these phenomena possible is the sun.
Now, if I may ask you, Yehuda, what is the energy source that causes the pressure differences in the universe? And how does the universe move in relation to the energy source so that the pressure differences are dynamic?
If there is no source of energy for these pressure differences, then how do they continue to exist?, even though the pressures are supposed to complement each other until their differences disappear.
Yehuda:
it's really pretty.
Once, when I told you that you did not know how to explain the formation of your delusional vortices, you claimed that no one knows what makes galaxies spin and only you do.
I told you it was not true and in response you told me - so explain what makes the galaxies rotate.
I explained and then you said: Well - then why wouldn't the eddies of the Jews be created in this way? I mean - suddenly you already forgot that you blamed others for not knowing and copied their explanation for your problem.
In my explanation, the Coriolis force played a role (it is true that there I used a different expression for this force and talked about the conservation of angular momentum, but those who understand the matter know that it is the same thing in the context under discussion. Except that you do not understand the matter, so you intended to repeat my explanation here, if you were forced to, without even starting understand it (because beyond the Coriolis force it was also based on gravity).
In short - your words are senseless nonsense.
why new
First of all the pressure differences were created, then the winds. The material from which the galaxy is built flowed with the winds according to the pressures, that is, the material joined the pressure differences and not the pressure differences to the material. Why billions? Because the universe is big.
We will also see pollution where there is a high concentration of particles and dispersion where there is a low concentration of particles.
As for mathematical tools, any book on weather research will give you what you need. For example "Introduction to Meteorology" published by the Open University (book by Yoav Yair and Baruch Ziv).
There is no point in introducing concepts such as the pressure gradient, cyclones and the like into the reactions.
I prefer the logical explanation.
For those who find it enough, good! For those who don't, go to the book I recommended.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
P.S. Michael, do me a favor and don't start with my knowledge and insults so that I don't have to respond. Also, don't state that the Coriolis force is required, because it isn't!
Yehuda,
1. What I don't understand is how it is that the pressure differences get along with billions of galaxies (how is it that pressure differences are created right next to all the galaxies)
2. Will we see clouding phenomena around galaxies that will emphasize the pressure difference?
3. What is the origin of the winds and storms that are so suitable for the pressure differences of rotating galaxies?
4. Do you have mathematical tools that allow you to verify your theory
Yes, which physical math tools do you use for your calculations?
Yehuda,
You are quick to react without thinking just as you accuse others of doing so.
I expected you not to think me gullible, but I was wrong: when I wrote "not really big", I was obviously referring relatively. In addition, I did not specify which part of the universe should be checked and this should be chosen wisely and not by pulling it from the hip.
Michael,
It is absolutely clear that it is not possible to test only a tiny part of the universe, but it can be assumed that testing very different places and very far from each other could provide some basis for drawing a conclusion regarding the uniformity of the laws. Indeed, the doubt will always remain and indeed the detractors will always find a place to say "you didn't check everything", just as they demand all the steps leading from our hominid ancestors to us (for example).
The name of the original article is:
Strong Limit on a Variable Proton-to-Electron Mass Ratio from Molecules in the Distant Universe
which is a little less pretentious.
His address is:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5883/1611?sa_campaign=Email/toc/20-June-2008/10.1126/science.1156352
What's new:
I suggest that you don't be tempted because Yehuda offers you a personal explanation only because he knows that sunlight is harmful to his goods.
Let him lay out his arguments here so you can see how pundits react.
Yehuda:
To complete with imagination you need not only imagination but also intelligence.
Since I, unlike you, have been gifted with both, I have seen that when we complement each other, a different behavior emerges than what you are hallucinating.
It's not a case that you failed to describe the solution accurately - it's a result of the obsequiousness that precision leads to different conclusions than yours!
I know I'm tired of you because it's not pleasant to have someone standing guard and preventing you from deceiving people into your religion. This is behavior that every missionary will inevitably get tired of.
To Michael
Of course, only one who has a well-developed imagination can do it in imagination instead of messing with spaghetti.
What don't you understand, that pressure differences create air-wind movement?
Also, are you back to your two particles?
You know what?, I'm tired of your behavior!
Go to sleep
why new
If you would like a more complete explanation, contact my email
sevdermishy@gmail.com
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
By the way, Yehuda:
You suggested that people make up their minds.
I guess you are deluding yourself that this is what you are doing but you are only playing with your imagination and far from complete.
If you were able to complete you would be able to explain and if it was an explanation it would conform to the laws of physics.
Nothing will help. After all, you can't complete two particles in your imagination, and even when they explain to you how they behave, you don't understand.
Yehuda:
What do you want me to respond to an argument that says "if they find out so and so"?
It's just like the spaghetti monster.
After all, I will never be able to prove that they will never discover the galaxy you fantasize about. Does this make the fantasy real? Should anyone take her into account in their considerations even though she never revealed?
It's just like the spaghetti monster and whatever you say.
In relation to the explanation that Hahad asked for (after you were asked many times in the past to give it) - your words are not true and you never gave an explanation and the truth is that you never understood yourself.
This is my opinion after I gave you many opportunities to prove the opposite and you failed in all of them, either by referring to a non-existent explanation from the past or by giving an explanation that all it reveals is your misunderstanding of every detail that is relevant to the issue.
To Michael
How smart you are, our genius "Spaghetti Monster" Let's hope fireworks pop out of your ears when you switch to pizza.
What's new?
I have explained this several times.
They are not Judah particles, but many particles moving in space, some of which we know like the netrins, and maybe also the axions, but in my opinion there are many others. All these particles move from place to place and act in fact as a gas and hence there will be pressure differences and cyclones and whatever you want. The rest is for those who want to complete in their own imagination, and those who don't want to join Michael's contemptuous "Italian meal". But before the "meal" read again what I wrote about Shaul Minos because the discovery of such a galaxy would seriously damage the correctness of the known theories of gravity.
But if you don't want to, no problem, enjoy yourself.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What about the article about water found on Mars?
Yehuda,
Could you explain how "Judas" particles rotate galaxies
Actually billions of galaxies?
What causes the particles to exert a force that will rotate the galaxies?
Yehuda:
By the way, if they discover a flying spaghetti monster, all sciences will have a serious problem.
Yehuda:
We've been here before and I'm not going to go into the loop just because you think people have forgotten
To Michael
The Saul galaxy proves the existence of a galaxy without a dark mass, which is a violation of the MOND theory. But this does not prove the correctness of Newton-Einstein for the simple reason:- thousands of galaxies were tested and did not match the Newton-Einstein formula and had to add dark mass to one degree or another. So there is one that does not require a dark mass, so what?
example? Even a tree that grows thousands of rotten fruits, is able to grow one fruit that happens to be not rotten, so does that somehow improve the rot?
But if a galaxy is discovered that will be Saul Minus, meaning that its movement is slower than required according to the visible mass or then the Newton Einstein formula will have a serious problem!
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yigal:
extension:
The assumption that the laws of nature are the same everywhere is convenient and we do use it most of the time, but it is still justified to check its correctness whenever possible.
We will never be able to test even a billionth of a billionth of the universe and we will never have proof of the identity of the laws of nature everywhere. Precisely if they are not the same everywhere - which I do not believe, but they can be - precisely then we may find proof that there are two different places with different laws, but if the laws are really the same everywhere, then the small amount of systems that we can test will always leave room for all kinds of contempt for the past The scientists who allow themselves to infer so much from so little - even if these claims are heard by people who infer much more from literally nothing or even from evidence that contradicts their conclusion.
I must add one more thing,
Even though I do not agree with the decisive conclusions of the authors of the article regarding correctness in the entire universe, I still think that this is the way to act, to try to prove the laws of physics over large distances and not to hide behind a poor principle called "the cosmological principle".
Sorry, things are only proven as far as they are proven. point.
Beyond that, there is uncertainty that grows as you move away from the proven limit.
So have a good evening once again
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Grace:
I wrote 6 million by mistake (perhaps because in our sad tradition 6 usually goes with millions) I meant 6 billion.
In any case - this is a quasar that is still being seen.
When it comes to an article published in Nature, I would not be so quick to classify it as delusional.
Legal c.
Yehuda again tries to forget the Shaul galaxy.
I don't know what causes this.
Legal c.
According to your words, it is enough to prove "even in a (not even very large) part of the universe to conclude that they are probably true in the entire universe."
So let's see what in your opinion is not really big:-
If something is true for a galaxy (100.000 light years) would it be enough for the entire universe (13,700,000,000 light years)?
And if something is only true for one light year, will it be enough for the whole universe??
And maybe we'll make another attempt:-
If something is true only for a thousand light years, will it be enough for the whole universe even then???
For your information, Newton's and Einstein's gravitation formulas were only proven for the solar system, which is less than a thousand light years, and yet, without any fear or hesitation, they assume their correctness for the entire universe.
Maybe you think a thousand light years is enough, I think not.
Have a good evening.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
As I see it, this is a certain process of research in the field of the universality of the physical laws known today compared to the laws that prevailed for about half of the age of the universe as we see it, in this research they did not determine any far-reaching results - but in general they claimed that the ratio between the masses has been preserved for the last billions of years (In the realm of the universe we know, there may be other universes that we are not aware of) which is a very interesting result, but from here to establishing facts in the field the distance is quite large, the point is certainly interesting and may even mean that we are more or less in the right direction.
Have a nice day everyone, viva la science
Michael
In archeology the numbers 7.5 billion or 6 million are indeed irrelevant. According to the article the source of light is 7.5 billion, the intermediate gas ammonia 6 billion or million (in the original? I didn't bother to read) this is still archeology. The ancient meteorite in question was mentioned in the science "now the scientists confirm - the origin of life from space"
And he is not 2.5 but 3.5 as I wrote.
Not that it matters as mentioned in the matter of archeology the numbers are not particularly important.
It is delusional to draw unequivocal physical conclusions from this.
Grace:
The light beam passed through an entire galaxy that is 6 million light years away.
That's why there is a mistake in the title.
After that she didn't go through too many things because otherwise she probably wouldn't have come at all.
A 2.5-billion-year-old meteorite is indeed old in the field, but it could not have come from distances that even approach billions of light-years because the speed of its movement is thousands of meters less than the speed of light.
Note 7.5 billion light years! This is archeology and not physics. What is the difference between this hypothesis and testing a 3.5 billion year old meteorite. The latter at least can be checked physically. The hypothesis that a light beam carries exactly the same information and has not changed for billions of light years. It didn't go through different types of media on its way, it seems a bit strange.
Yehuda,
It seems to me that it is enough to check whether some of the laws relating to a certain (scientific!!) theory also exist in a (not even very large) part of the universe to conclude that they are probably true in the entire universe. It is unlikely to go through and check all the laws everywhere in the universe, and it is also impractical. And in any case, this is progress and not the end of scientific research forever (note the question mark in the title).
Yehuda:
You need to know how to understand the intention even when it is not written in a legal document.
This is an important constant that values such happiness.
We have seen that the laws of gravity are the same a long time ago (it is true that you will soon put us in your Pandora's box, but that is your decision).
If you want to continue arguing about nonsense, you are welcome to do so, but remember that the claim that all scientists are stupid and only you are smart has already been made, so there is no point in repeating it.
To Michael
Why are you confused?
The subject of the article:
"Are the laws of nature the same throughout the universe?"
And later they wrote:-
"This statement is important in that it refutes the argument that the laws of nature have changed in time or change over distance"
So they do talk about changing the rules for long distances, and I'm against that.
And exactly to this I answered that it is not possible to deduce from a proton and an electron about laws in the distances of the universe.
Read carefully before you comment.
And I really don't feel like opening Pandora's box because I'm tired of it.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Avi:
I guess the title should have read 6 instead of 7.5
Yehuda:
They do not claim that this shows that all the laws are kept but only that this important law is kept.
In addition to this, the subject of the article, if you narrow it down to the field of gravity, is not the relationship between gravitation and distance but the relationship between the laws of gravity and place (that is - for example - is the attraction between the earth and the sun the same as the attraction between another sun and its planet if they are similar in size to the sizes of the earth and the sun ).
The article deviates a bit by assuming that determining the proton-electron ratio will prove something, it is possible that at such distances both are smaller although the ratio between them is preserved.
It is hard for me to agree that such a statement will prove anything. The laws of gravitation, for example, can be different at great distances regardless of the size of the proton or electron.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
J:
You did not understand.
The "pace" of time progress is not a law of nature in itself.
The fact that time slows down near a black hole is one of the laws of nature that try to show that they do not change.
Inaccurate near the black hole the laws of nature change for example time slightly to almost zero