Scientists look for the first time at what happened before the big bang - "the observation is big" * The new research holds that time existed before the big bang, when an earlier universe collapsed and gave birth to the universe we live in today
The unusual glimpse into the prehistory of prehistory was published in the journal "Proceedings of the Royal Society" Volume A, by Dr. Martin Bojwald, from the Department of Physics at the University of Pennsylvania. Bojwald established a new set of physics laws that do not collapse at the point of the big bang.
As implied by Einstein's theory of general relativity, the origin of the big bang is a mathematically unique situation. A "singularity" whose result is zero, yet it includes infinite density and an amount of mass that aspires to infinity.
"The popular opinion was that, according to general relativity, everything, including time, began with the Big Bang. That's why it simply doesn't make sense to ask what was here before," says Bojvald.
But he claims that the theory simply collapsed when taken too far. "General relativity sees the Big Bang as a singularity, which indicates that the theory itself loses meaning when we try to pose questions."
Now, Dr. Bojvald and his fellow physicists are investigating a field that was unknown even to Einstein - the time before the Big Bang. They do this with the help of his new theory, called Loop Quantum Cosmology.
The theory is one of a series of new theories emerging and trying to connect Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity) with the subatomic world (quantum theory). These theories are supposed to "provide a non-singular framework in which to pose questions about what existed before the Big Bang," he says.
With the help of the theory he goes back in time and locates the ancient universe. Its starting point had a minimum value that was not zero, and a maximum energy that was not infinity. In this way, the theory eradicates infinity and provides an answer that other theories do not provide.
As a result, the new equations of the theory continue to yield correct mathematical results even when going back even before the bang point. In this way the scientists can look into the time that was before the conventional time. For scientists, this opens a window into the barrier put in place by the Big Bang.
Dr. Bojwald finds an upside down universe on the other side of the big bang - a mirror image of us - expanding outward while time moves backwards.
This theory is the first mathematical description that systematically confirms the existence of the "great observation" as well as the first theory from which we can tap into characteristics of the previous universe from which our universe may have been created.
Although the theory posits that the early universe contracted before the Big Bang, it had basic characteristics that were similar to the universe today. According to the scientists these characteristics are probably the time-space geometry.
Nevertheless, Dr. Bojwald found several motifs summarized in Heisenberg's uncertainty equation, which set fundamental limits for what we can know about the universe. "This is similar to the uncertainty relations in quantum physics, in the sense that there is complementarity between the position of the object and its speed - if you measure one of them, you cannot at the same time measure the other."
Similarly, Dr. Bojvald's research, published for the first time in an article in the journal Nature Physics, indicates that there are complementarities between uncertain factors of the universe that existed before the Big Bang, and the universe that was created after it: if you know with a high degree of accuracy one of them, you sacrifices the level of accuracy of the other factors.
"What I have shown in my research is that even for advanced frameworks, there is a fundamental limit to what we can say about the universe before the Big Bang. (This is related to Heisenberg's uncertainty equations in quantum mechanics, but here it applies to the entire universe.)
"As far as practical purposes are concerned, the exact uncertainty factor regarding the previous universe will never be determined by a process of calculating backwards in time from the conditions in the universe that exists today, even if there are measurements at a maximum level of accuracy we will never be able to achieve this."
Dr. Bojvald comes to another conclusion after finding that at least one parameter of the previous universe did not survive the journey of the Great Reckoning. The conclusion is that the next universes will probably not be an exact copy of the previous ones.
He says, "The infinite recurrence of perfectly identical universes would probably be prevented by an internal cosmic oblivion."
Dr. Bojwald hopes that information from the European Space Agency's Planac mission, which will be launched later this year, will provide indirect support for his ideas. This satellite will test theories about the early universe by observing the radiation left over from the Big Bang.
64 תגובות
And what was before the Great Disappointment? After all, even for Nether you have to start somewhere. The fact that there was a universe before ours does not solve the riddle, it only makes it more difficult. How did the first universe start from nothing? And on the other hand, how can this chain of creation of the universes have no beginning?
And for some reason I thought that the end of the world was supposed to be in the year 2000 and by the year 3000 we would have peace...
tomorrow we die (:
I will add and say, on loan, that as we are built on breathing and inhalation, readable, yes, and conversely, the macro of
The universe works on the same natural principle, expansion and contraction..in slightly larger ranges, of course,
A mosquito, or a chameleon, or.. a man.. or a turtle.. and we are talking here, of course, about very deep.. distant ages..
And very close..to our hearts..of course..
What fun, that you scientists..calculate...everything in formulas and numbers...
Well, I come to today's main article..
That's it!..hot..hot..hot..
This is the closest article to the deepest insights...
Today I earned, my bread.. the virtual.. this is it.. and days and understandings and sciences.. will be restored
This is in the not-so-distant future.
Slowly…
Did I already say that the nature of the universe has patience?????? Well, there are those too,
May they prove that it is not always... for all of us, that its ancient.. to its characteristics.. the changing, to legality
Cosmic. Super-mega-logical.. Deceptive and spectacular.
All the best, for this article... and for seeing the logic in its content.
to their city
Regarding the year 2012 as a date for an apocalyptic event according to various religions:
...also according to the book "The Biblical Code" by Michael Droznin page 155
There is encryption in your file (by combining letters with equal skips)
according to which a comet will appear this year (and maybe a collision)
(According to this code, there is a crossover between "2012" (XNUMX) in your book
and "Comet")...
Really scary, especially since other sources also indicate the year
this…
Hope you have time to complete all your plans by then
It is unlikely that there are so many universes
D: Haha what will happen in 2012? ^^ Yes, it's actually not bad that I was born in this period.-__- Although I would have preferred to be born in a period with less takeover of modernization everywhere...(:
hahahahaha don't worry I'm one of yours too.. it's just funny to see a fight at such levels which is very reminiscent of 2 florets from the cheerful high school days... of course the dialogue is different but the result is different...
I personally think that despite all our progress we are still children who play with the instruments of gods that they do not understand...
I personally do not think that the speed of light is the highest there is or that time or anything is constant....
And regarding the formation of the universe...it's sure an interesting question to wrestle with...but
I always say this...our human brain is not capable of grasping the size of a million people in one area...not even the Earth and its size...the solar system and its size and so on and so forth...
So how are we with our most limited brain.. (everything is relative 🙂 )..
Dare to come and state that the speed of light is the upper limit...
Or these and other claims...
The new quantum theory (better new than relativity)
She is a kind of magic...everything can be according to her...I am actually a passionate fan of this idea...and believe that everything is possible if only you can harness the necessary energy and direct it in the right direction...we will hear how simplistic it is compared to the obvious and still unattainable complexity of humanity to do such a thing ..but that's because quantum physics has existed for a very short time...
To remind you that until recently the world was anything but round...
By the way, regarding Shimi who says that the earth will be 6000 years old...and he listed the reasons...everything you said according to your assumptions...it's just that in the worst case. We as humanity will not survive...
And believe it
SO FUCKING WHAT
The earth will survive after us...and life will continue and start anew...
Life has always found and will find a way.
But if apocalyptic...then did you know that some religions that are supposedly located in different areas of the earth...Inca, Buddha, etc...point out some date in 2012...as the date of something apocalyptic for humanity...it's very intriguing...only 4 more years...worth waiting 🙂
Michael,
I really tried to understand his theory
From the answers I received I understood that he had no explanation for the rotation mechanism
(Where do the pressure differences or particle winds come from?)
As long as they don't manage to prove the existence of the "Judas" particles
So the theory will remain Judah's.
Since I did not receive answers to the questions, I assume that you are treating your theory as a joke according to your response, therefore your theory should not be taken seriously.
with a smile
What's new:
Just so you know that the argument that Yehuda is trying to deal with now is Feynman's argument (and who is Feynman compared to Yehuda?!).
Yehuda constantly tries to entangle us in his eddies and goes round and round in circles, each time returning to a different point that has already been refuted dozens of times.
Now these are just pressure differences - no longer gravitation (and this is clear - because now we are not talking about the cause of circular motion, so you can cancel the whole idea of uniform dispersion that is necessary for this motion and the Earth just flies in the wind.
Oh - why in a circle? Because the pressure differences are not random and the pressure along the track is constant.
Ah- why doesn't the friction stop everything? Because we are just flying in the wind in an undefined direction.
What is difficult to understand here? Just because it is full of internal contradictions we must not understand it? I wonder about you, what's new!
why new
To say that because of friction all the movement of the galaxies in the universe will stop is simply like saying that there will be no wind in the speed ball because of friction. The temperature and pressure differences will continue to create winds without interruption on Earth as in the simple universe. In other words: the weather forecast for the galaxy in the next billion years - winds at a speed of 250 km per second will continue to blow in the galaxy and in the gas clouds around it.
You ask why every galaxy would have a pressure difference?, my answer:- Not every galaxy has pressure differences, for example I am sure that the Magellanic Clouds do not have pressure differences, hence their irregular shape.
With the Hasidic example you brought up, I don't want to mess with it so as not to harm the chance of having children.
And like I said, the main thing is that Chelsea won.
with a smile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Why new:
I gave a full explanation of the rotation of the galaxies here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/gravity-wave-2004084/#comment-46846
Yehuda,
"The direction of rotation can be given by a random force in space or the expansion of the universe"
I asked you about the mechanism of the rotation of the galaxy and I received strange hypotheses
Regarding a random force in space
It's like saying that Hasidim migrated from Europe to Africa not through navigation,
By chance maybe the winds drove them or the rain otherwise they would have reached Scandinavia.
In fact, what you are saying is that there is no mechanism for rotating these while moving, in the event that there is a pressure difference (why would I happen to have a pressure difference in every galaxy?) and maybe the opposite pressure difference will slow down the rotation speed later?
Regarding the expansion of the universe, I find no connection to the rotation of galaxies, which will happen
It is that the average distance between the particles of the universe will increase and this is assuming that there is a constant amount of particles.
Another thing I don't know is whether you have calculated in a practical way the similarities of rotation
Galaxies, which mathematical tools did she use.
Yehuda:
Maybe instead of referring to the colors and grades you should refer to the arguments?
I don't know if you knew in advance what Coriolis acceleration was, but when you referred to it in your comments here, you clearly did not know.
I don't know if in high school you understood what the forces are that need to act in order for a body to move in a circular motion, but your words here have so far expressed a distinct lack of understanding of the matter.
Therefore, the debate between us moved from the more problematic area of "What is the correct model of gravitation?" To the trivial realm of "what are the predictions of a given model?" This is a mathematical question that you show no ability to handle.
Yehuda,
1. According to the laws of physics, not only will the galaxies not be rotated by these particles
will slow down the rotation speed
Galaxies moving in a straight line will slow down
2. I rely on Newton's third law
The law of action and reaction
3. When a large mass of particles is in a static state around a galaxy then it is clear that the friction between the particles and the galaxy will tend to slow down the rotation speed, moreover at the points of friction the stars will be thrown from the galaxy
4. Even if a river of particles flows near the galaxy (an unlikely thing) it will not necessarily increase the rotation speed under certain conditions, it will slow down.
5. If you spin a Hanukkah spinning wheel then the air pressure will be towards the center and one of the reasons that the rotation will slow down is the friction with the air.
Therefore the particles cause a decrease in the linear/rotational speed of the galaxy
I will be happy to respond
To Michael
At the last moment I noticed the compliments you gave me in your response to Gerbil. I am glad that I am always in your heart also in your responses to others.
I just have a color problem. When you say that I have no green idea in high school physics, is the green color because I only have a grade of 90?
Do you save the more interesting colors for higher scores?
No need to answer this question.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
why new
Below is an explanation of your questions.
1. "You have to take into account that the particles are thinner at a distance"
I thought the particles were on average evenly distributed in the universe so why
Thinner at large distances?
Answer: A huge mass of gases that is in an empty environment and spreads into it will do so in the following way, the transport will be led by the faster particles from the outer layers only, only then will the slower and inner particles also join in the expansion. So that on the outside there will be only a few particles and on the inside there will be many and denser ones. Normal distribution of particle density.
2.". Likewise, one must take into account the possibility that the average free path is on the order of a light year or two."
If so the particles are in a very rare state in the universe, it seems to me that their effect on the galaxies is not noticeable (I did not do any calculations).
Answer: Not necessarily, they can be both dense and tiny with a large mean free path. As you reduce the diameter of the particle by two times, the free path will increase four times. Don't forget that their speed is somewhere around the speed of light. So if, for example, there are a billion particles in a cubic meter, then three hundred million billion particles pass through that cubic meter in one second.
3. I do not understand these conditions and in general how the particles can help in rotation
Galaxies (when they are so low density)
To rotate a galaxy, the particles have to rotate around the galaxy, which means they have to have a rotational torque, how does this happen?
What is the mechanism of the particles that causes the rotation of the galaxy?
Answer: First of all, as I said, they are not thin.
And in addition, there is a pressure difference between the center of the galaxy and its outer layers. This pressure difference activates a force acting towards the center of the galaxy, this force is balanced by the centripetal force which aims to throw the particles out.
That is, in the simple universe pressure differences take the place of gravity as a force towards the center. The direction of rotation can be given by a random force in space or the expansion of the universe. For example, let's say a galaxy moves in a straight line so that its right side passes through a denser area than its left side. The result, the right side will brake and the galaxy will rotate from left to right.
It's late and I hope I explained well.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Gerbil:
You repeated the question I asked at the beginning of the discussion.
Peter does not want to answer and is not willing to give a link to the article.
If I find time I will look for the original article because there must be a reference to the matter there.
What's new.
It turns out that you actually fell into one of the traps that Judah set for you.
Not that he set the trap on purpose because he himself doesn't understand, but to make a body move in a circle, a force directed to the center and not a tangential force is needed. A tangential force (like the one given by molecules moving in a circle) simply throws the body out.
A court will not help and there is a simple and calculable relationship between the tangential speed and the force acting towards the center and when this relationship is violated the body flies out or falls in. Yehuda doesn't understand all of this because he doesn't have a clue about high school physics.
Yehuda,
1. "You have to take into account that the particles are thinner at a distance"
I thought the particles were on average evenly distributed in the universe so why
Thinner at large distances?
2.". Likewise, one must take into account the possibility that the average free path is on the order of a light year or two."
If so the particles are in a very rare state in the universe, it seems to me that their effect on the galaxies is not noticeable (I did not do any calculations).
3. I do not understand these conditions and in general how the particles can help in rotation
Galaxies (when they are so low density)
To rotate a galaxy, the particles have to rotate around the galaxy, which means they have to have a rotational torque, how does this happen?
What is the mechanism of the particles that causes the rotation of the galaxy?
why new
An interesting and challenging question.
It certainly puts an upper limit to what we are able to see through space.
One of my serious difficulties in dealing with the idea of particles was finding the diameter of the particles and of course their volume. I found the order of magnitude of the mass of the particle and it is about 10 to the power of minus 37 grams.
Despite many calculations I did, I was unable to arrive at its diameter and volume.
It should be taken into account that at greater distances the particles are more sparse. It is also necessary to take into account the possibility that the average free path is on the order of a light year or two.
The average free path of the oxygen or nitrogen molecules in the air is about 600 Angstroms, which is about six millionths of a cm. Nevertheless, we are able to see through at least 6 km of air. That is one hundred billion times the free path of the two air particles.
By the same order of magnitude we can see without any problems into the depths of the universe for a distance of 200 billion light years, far beyond the visible universe.
From this you understand that most of the universe for them is transparent.
Of course, this is a simplistic comparison and things are much more complicated (I admit that this is beyond my important ability and knowledge)
At the time, I amused myself with various exercises on the volume of the vessel that should contain all the matter in the universe and depending on the diameter of the particle I took I needed a vessel of different volume ranging from a tiny test tube to the volume of several astronomical units.
I mean one thing is for sure, the big bang didn't start from a point.
In short, your question is thought-provoking.
Have a quiet weekend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
I would be happy if you answer my question, I copy it here.
Glass 10 meters thick does not allow you to see the view through it.
If we look into space 10 billion light years thick then according to your theory
We will not see the stars because they will be the space particles in between and the starlight will break through them.
Or maybe we will see the stars blurred (as we see through the atmosphere) due to particle vortices in the medium.
Am I right?
Thanks
The cosmological constant is stronger than gravity, right? So what reason does the universe have to shrink suddenly?
No. Ben-Ner, and others
In an article in "Telegraph" A similar position appeared
The things are consistent with what is written in the article and indeed the author of the article disagrees with the singularity of the singularity. So, I'm keeping my fingers crossed at least on this issue.
I tried to find the source including the formulas he uses that he claims do not collapse in the initial environment of the big bang (no period), but I have been unsuccessful and will continue to search. So thank you A. Ben Ner for drawing my attention to the subject of the singularity and making a mistake in my observation.
And regarding your words in your last comment.
I'm a bit more skeptical about the proof that Idush gives for the theory of relativity at large distances.
As for short distances, then it was already proven in Eddington's measurements in the solar eclipse of 1919. There we knew the mass of the sun, as well as the position of the stars behind it and it was possible to check the correctness.
Regarding the dusting in the galaxies, I am afraid that we determine the mass according to the dusting, at least in some cases.
Later, you made two assumptions about firmness, in which in the second assumption you wrote:-
"The measurements of the motion of the galaxies are inconsistent with the known laws of motion and hence it follows that the theory of gravity (general relativity) has collapsed." End quote.
But this is not an assumption, this is the initial fact. The measurements are inconsistent. The accelerated part in the movement of spiral galaxies is ten times larger than the calculated gravitation. This is the fact that we must explain! , and although one of the accepted explanations is adding mass (darkness) to the gravitational side of the equation, there can be at least seven more options for explanations that are not dark mass.
I performed an analysis on the subject in my articles "Spiral Galaxies Gravitation and Dark Mass".
https://www.hayadan.org.il/dark-mass-severmish-0605075/
And you can see other options there.
And finally, I will mainly refer to the closing sentence in your response:-
"It does not seem to me that science, today, has enough knowledge and experimental evidence to cancel or confirm the existence of the dark mass. Therefore science must(!) assume existence. After all, the assumption of non-existence will not allow research." End quote.
That is, according to you, the dark mass should be used as the most desirable default. Unfortunately, I disagree with you and think that instead of playing "I remembered", one should try to increase the proven ranges of the existing physical formulas.
Have a quiet weekend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Lesbadramish Yehuda
You understood my words correctly, thanks for correcting the typo. At the same time, we are currently witnessing the confirmation of Einstein's theory of general relativity by physical measurements, for example, the phenomenon of gravitational contraction, discoveries (almost certainly) of black holes and more.
It is true that at distances in astronomical KM it is extremely difficult to make accurate measurements and especially in view of the "discovery" of the dark mass. Now the debate is between two assumptions:
One: Einstein's laws are valid and hence it follows that dark mass exists.
The second: the measurements of the motion of the galaxies are inconsistent with the known laws of motion and hence it follows that the theory of gravity (general relativity) has collapsed.
Since we do not currently have any alternative theory to general relativity - on the one hand, and on the other hand, as I mentioned before, there are significant confirmations of general relativity, it is clear that at the current stage of scientific development, there is a general preference of the scientific community to test the existence of the dark mass. It does not seem to me that science, today, has enough knowledge and experimental evidence to cancel or confirm the existence of the dark mass. Therefore science must(!) assume existence. After all, the assumption of non-existence will not allow research
A. Ben Ner:
I was lazy for a moment and did not write the obvious thing that I have already written many times and that is that the model proposed by Yehuda has no explanation - not only for the rotation speed of the galaxies but even for their size. If there is no long-range gravity, why would the stars stay in the galaxy - especially when they fly at such a high speed?!
Yehuda waves some baseless argument about turbulence and claims again and again that the argument has a basis but never provides it because it does not exist.
A. Ben Ner:
What Judah is telling you is that even though there are tens or hundreds of billions of stars in the galaxy, each and every one of which obeys the laws, he is more comfortable seeing this as one example.
You understand?
If such a galaxy cluster is found it will be one cluster.
Demagoguery has great persuasive power - especially towards its user.
No. Ben Ner
You wrote:- "Einstein's theory of gravity was disproved and replaced by Newton's theory" end quote. You must have meant that Newton was disproved and replaced by Einstein. If so, I can explain to you what I think and therefore, what I am looking for.
I think that Newton's or Einstein's formula on gravitation is greatly mistaken and, in fact, at distances there is almost no gravity at all. That is, we are not talking here about tiny differences between Newton and Einstein, in my humble opinion we are talking here that at distances of light years there will be differences of at least tens of percent between what was calculated according to Newton (or according to Einstein-the theory of relativity) and the findings in the field. So much so!
What amazes me is that there was no test of correctness of the gravitation formulas beyond the ranges of a few tens of astronomical units (in the solar system).
Michael brings me a case of a galaxy that behaves according to Newton, one of thousands of others that do not behave according to Newton unless we add dark mass to them and usually a lot. Can this galaxy be a proof for Newton, or should it be looked at as one that happened to be accurate. Why is this similar?, to a factory that produces clocks in a lousy way and all of them come out damaged and are wrong by tens of percent in setting the time, but even in such a factory, a clock that is accurate may suddenly come off the production line!, so what does this prove??
That's why I don't accept that galaxy - which we call the Saul galaxy, as proof of Newton's (or Einstein's) correctness.
And I'm waiting for proof, and after years of searching, I know there isn't one.
A certain formula is used throughout the universe even though it has only been proven true in the backyard of our solar system which is one 10,000,000,000,000 the size of the entire universe, and they do so with excessive confidence.
I'm still waiting for proof. If there is none, all cosmology conclusions:- singular points black holes dark mass dark energy and more... are based on chicken legs.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Glass 10 meters thick does not allow you to see the view through it.
If we look into space 10 billion light years thick then according to your theory
We will not see the stars because they will be the space particles in between and the starlight will break through them.
Or maybe we will see the stars blurred (as we see through the atmosphere) due to particle vortices in the medium.
Am I right?
No. Ben Ner
You wrote in your response:-
"After all, as explained in the article, the Bojwald theory eliminates the singularity (which appears in Einstein's equations) and determines final values for the dimensions of the universe (at the time known until now as 0=t, according to the "big bang" theory) and the mass of the universe."
Bujvald is actually "going towards you" at this point and you reject him?…..
Not pretty." End quote.
Dear Mr. Ben Ner. I did not understand the article in this way
Other sentences caught my eye, such as:
"Bujvald founded a new set of laws of physics that do not collapse at the point of the big bang." From this I understood that he agrees with the definition of the big bang as a point.
"Dr. Bojvald finds an upside down universe on the other side of the big bang - a mirror image of us - expanding outward while time moves backwards." I don't believe in traveling back in time.
But if he really cancels the singularity then....at least it won't be included in the nonsense I've seen.
Listen, I have to read this article again, and maybe it would be better if I also access the source. There's nothing like a weekend to get back to basics.
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And in light of your words, I'm going to read the article again and maybe even go to the source, and I tell you in advance that I won't be afraid to change direction - what will be called a big deviation.
Of course, don't be sure that this is what will happen, but, at the moment, all options are open.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
A. Ben Ner, I think you are taking things out of context.
Your claims are true but you are definitely exaggerating.
To my (virtual) friend - Sabdarmish Yehuda.
Please allow me to deal, in short, with your claims, as raised in the responses to the article on the Boj Wald theory, below:
A. You wrote:
1... a collection of unproven nonsense that cannot be tested because they talk about singularities... and also:
2…I don't agree with Singularity…
My response:
After all, as explained in the article, the Bojwald theory eliminates the singularity (which appears in Einstein's equations) and determines final values for the dimensions of the universe (at the time known until now as 0=t, according to the "big bang" theory) and the mass of the universe.
Bujvald is actually "going towards you" at this point and you reject him?…..
Not pretty.
B. You wrote:
I'm still waiting for proof of Newton's gravitation formula for a light year distance
At least one...
reactive:
1. It is not possible to prove a theory that has been disproved.
After all, Einstein's theory of gravity was disproved and replaced by Newton's theory. Newton's theory can be considered a good approximation to Einstein's theory only under the conditions that:
a). The distances are small (KNM XNUMXth East).
b). The speeds are low. (KNM Est.).
c). The required level of accuracy is small (as above).
2. About a quarter of a jubilee years ago (approximately), I read the excellent (and thin) book by Prof. Ze'ev Bahler called (to the best of my memory) "The History and Philosophy of Science". The book summarizes and explains the teachings of the (average Jewish) philosopher Karl Popper on the subject.
To the best of my recollection, the main claim that comes up in the book is: that a scientific theory, as such, cannot be proven, but only confirmed - on the one hand or refuted - on the other.
Whoever obtains this book and reads it-
His pleasure is guaranteed.
(This in itself is a sentence that can be considered a "scientific theory" in the sense that it can be disproved).
Dear Friends
After all, it is clear that Bojwald's theory is nothing more than a conclusion arising from the equations he developed. Now, if he finds
that the Bojwald equations predict some measurable physical parameter (a certain frequency of radiation, in a certain distribution, etc.) in a way that is fundamentally different from the predictions derived from Einstein's equations (general relativity) and if, measuring that parameter, you will recover (and not "prove" as our friend Sabdarmish demands) the Bojwald predictions then, what do you think the conclusion will be??
In my humble opinion, the (temporary) conclusion will be: Bojwald equations - valid.
Peter:
What, you don't want to tell me what you already know?
Michael, an educated guy like you, surely knows how to search on Google
The commenter's question in response number twenty:-
to Judah,
a question
If we take as an example the star that escapes from the Magellanic Cloud at a speed of about 2 million km/h
According to your theory, the particles of the universe will compress in the direction of the movement of the star, while behind (against the direction of movement) there will be vortices
Kind of like in an airplane that splits the air during its flight.
Well the answer is negative most of the particles pass through the bodies without feeling that they exist just like the netrins behave. The particles in question are several orders of magnitude smaller than the netrins, so I don't think there will be a trail or vortices or compression that we can notice.
In addition, this is about a theory called Pushing Gravity, which Shelley is supposed to change a little.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Peter:
This still does not establish Nietzsche's idea and certainly does not give it a stable basis.
There are two reasons for this.
One is that in order to establish Nietzsche there must also be quanta of time and space and as long as these may be continuous - there are still infinite states.
The second is that quantum theory introduces randomness into the story and therefore even identical situations can develop differently.
The second caveat is less strong, but I will leave that to the intelligent reader to figure out for himself.
I would be happy, however, to receive an answer to the question I raised in the first response in this discussion. Is there a link to the original text and does it have a reference to the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
Nimrod, you are right, it opens another window of questions for the theory.
Another point to think about - if the universe has ever existed and will exist forever, this gives Nietzsche's "triumphant return" hypothesis a solid foundation. The hypothesis says that if you have infinite time and a limited amount of matter, the probability that the particles will line up in the same way is certain. That is to say, it is certain that in the infinite variations of the universes, a universe like ours has already been created.
In other words, there were already universes like ours - identical transcription. And there are going to be more such universes. We were here once and we will be here in the future as well (and this is assuming that the theory of the Great Disappearance is correct).
Today and once upon a time, many scientific assumptions are based on theory and mathematical descriptions, many things like big bang/pre-big bang, superstring theory are light years away from proven experiments, most of them are based on mathematics.
In this case, I do not completely rule out the issue of detection, and that the universe dissolves between bang-puff-collapse-bang... and God forbid, it sounds logical in a certain sense, for those who completely reject this idea - remember that scientists found it difficult and strange to believe even things that were proven de facto, even Einstein and Schrödinger Actually did not really believe that the wave function predicts probability when they were from the ancestors of the quantum theory.
By the way, even if we are talking about repeated observations, if we try to go back, we will find some kind of stuck for the reason that we may find that in the current universe we started from a bang, but back in time there were similar universes that in the end was probably the first universe that probably started from a big bang, which shows that the beginning of the existence of some universe It started with a bang, or maybe we will discover that the trigger is not necessarily a bang (brings us back to the article about the propagation of gravitational waves).
There is definitely a lot to think about here.
Yehuda:
In what you wrote after the word "for your information" you did not add anything to my knowledge.
Besides, what to do, the attraction exerted by body A on body B cannot be measured except by observing the movement of the bodies. - even in the optical field - we will base ourselves on the effect of certain things that we assume exist on our devices. All this, by the way, should never satisfy a person like you, because he who is not convinced by a hundred billion stars will not be convinced by a billion stars either.
To Michael
True, increasing the ranges will allow a re-examination of the Newton-Einstein formula in relation to gravitation.. and for your information, it is not only about a measurement range of length but also about another measurement range such as large masses, high density, etc.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What's new,
I didn't really understand your question, but if I understood its intent, it should be related to the Pushing Gravity test.
If this is the case then there is no point in me delving further because there are already a lot of proofs (some of which I have already pointed out) that disprove this theory and there is no need for another one.
Another thing I am impressed by in your question - again - without fully understanding it is that an answer to it apparently requires a higher viewing ability than we have.
Michael,
Are there any photographs of binary stars or stars moving at approximately the same speed (not to say that the star is distorted due to the acceleration) at a high speed so that the compression of the particles in the direction of movement and the eddies behind will cause the light
which is due from them to show the star from signs according to the refraction of light.
to Judah,
a question
If we take as an example the star that escapes from the Magellanic Cloud at a speed of about 2 million km/h
According to your theory, the particles of the universe will compress in the direction of the movement of the star, while behind (against the direction of movement) there will be vortices
Kind of like in an airplane that splits the air during its flight.
Assuming that the motion of the star is approximately equal to speed then if we observe the star
It will be seen on the part in the direction of movement the star is enlarged, while on the side against the direction of movement a trail of light will be seen
is it true?
If so then it is possible to examine images of stars in similar situations.
and see if the theory is correct.
To Michael
To each his own tree
I'm going back to the Champions League Chelsea Liverpool
Sabdarmish Yehuda
But we have already talked many times about the Saul galaxy.
Sad or not - Saul galaxy exists. I claim that there was enough information without it and certainly that there has never been a theory that matched the known reality better than the theory accepted today and few theories contradicted reality itself as much as Pushing Gravity.
But in any case - a borrowed galaxy is what you read (by mistake, but it's a small mistake compared to your other mistakes) proof, so you are welcome to come down from the tree.
To dear Michael
You have the right to despair or not.
And maybe it will even make me sad if you give up, but
I'm still waiting for proof.
Not about an infinite number of stars, not about an infinite number of galaxies, just about one, one whose motion, if possible, can only be explained according to Newton.
If it is not understood, then in the raffle, where others are given a chance.
It doesn't disappoint you at all that you only have one "proof". You certainly have countless proofs. It is very sad that all the proofs of cosmological gravitation appeared for you only a month ago with the bright appearance of the "Saul" galaxy
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I haven't given up on you yet, but if you keep asking for mathematical proofs for physical theory I will give up.
Are you still really waiting for proof or are you just saying that?
If you're still waiting, then you don't understand what science is and it's a shame for every extra moment.
If you just say it then say "I just said" and what do you want anyway.
So does this actually mean that our universe is a leading perpetum?
For Michael and Pizkai
If you see the collection of nonsense in this article as an achievement of the human race, then you will be disappointed.
My problem with this article is not a lack of understanding, on the contrary, if you knew some scientific basics you would understand that everything said in the article is at most from the writer's imagination, just arbitrary conclusions of the writer about things that are beyond the measurement range of any scientific theory.
But, Zebshkam, and I wish you all the best in the next detection of the big bang in which you believe so much.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
post Scriptum. I am still waiting for the proof of Newton's gravitation formula, with or without relativity, for a distance of at least one light year.
Mr. Sabdarmish likes to feel that he is in the league of the world's best. He really convinced himself that this is the situation and the feeling up there is simply wonderful... He talked to Yuval Naman but "didn't get his point", he has an argument with the Big Bang model, he doesn't like this theory while this one does, and so on. I once went to hear him speak with a lot of openness and goodwill. My personal impression is that his ideas are horribly simplistic and completely ignore the impact of the achievements of the human race in hundreds of years of research and development... of all the strange types I have met so far, in my humble opinion, he is the closest to the description of a crank that appears in Wikipedia (quote):
1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
(Sorry, there is one more... I came across a Hebrew website of Man-Dhu with a theory about the formation of galaxies which he proves with... pictures)
I know there is a theory that the speed of light is not constant, but has been steadily decreasing since the big bang. If we take into account a decreasing speed of light, could it not be that the rate of expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating for a uniform speed of light, but in fact it is slowing down until it stops and collapses back?
The link was dropped in the previous response, so here it is: http://www.lbl.gov/supernova/
To 9:
See for example here, especially in the episode called "A Special Kind of Supernova is the Key"
...
..
.
How do you know that the expansion of the universe is accelerating? In order to measure acceleration, don't you have to measure the speed at two different times and compare them? How did they do this in a practical way and with a level of precision that shows that there is a difference between the first measurement and the second? Anyone willing to detail how this was measured?
.
..
...
Yehuda:
What happened? Every time there is something you don't understand you have to describe it as if the others don't understand? Isn't it better to learn a little, ask the right person and try to understand? How do you think the "famous" became famous? By talking nonsense? Is the whole world stupid? Enough with this childish attitude.
Put:
You can't really argue with facts and as you prove all you can do about them is make ridiculous statements and expect other brainwashed people to buy them.
Hahahahahahahaha in the end everyone goes back to the roots
From the age of 5 I know that the world is meant to exist for 6000 years and one year no more (of course if you are not religious it is much harder for you to accept this)
According to the Jewish counting we are in the year 5768-232 by simple calculation XNUMX more years... Now let's move on to the facts
Global warming (no need to add anything), in the next 20-50 years the oil that can be extracted by normal means will run out, by then new methods will have been invented, but the principle remains the same - extracting the last drop of juice from the earth
Helium is also going to run out in the next few decades (used by laboratories, NASA and God knows what else)
And there are some other phenomena that we humans cause that simply eat the earth, in the end something will explode in our faces
Religion is not religion, science is not science, facts cannot be argued with
to the point
All the laws are not valid in very small sizes because they will never be measured there.
Also, contrary to your opinion, most scientists seriously believe in singularities.
Sometimes we agree among ourselves.
Good Morning
Sabdarmish Yehuda
A non-singular theory is nothing new. No one has ever seriously thought that there is a singularity in reality.
And as for the theory, interesting. But why does it not refer to the second law of thermodynamics? Or maybe at very small sizes this statistical law is no longer valid.
I would say reincarnation de focus
This article proves that if you are famous enough then you can publish whatever you want, in the most famous scientific magazines.
A collection of unproven nonsense that cannot be tested in life because they talk about singular points that have never been measured there, and never will be.
It is equally possible to create countless new theories.
I do not agree with singular points and certainly not with what preceded the singular point.
I apologize in advance to commenters who will see my response as an injury to their chances of returning to life in the next visit - truly a deluxe reincarnation.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Peter:
I must say that for a long time I thought that this type of cycle was the most likely scenario, but as soon as it became clear to me that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, I abandoned the idea because it is not clear to me how it can come back and concentrate in one point.
Is there a more detailed description regarding this issue?