An inspection committee ordered an Israeli scientist (Hadasa, Hebrew University) to stop teaching immediately. The reason (according to "Haaretz"): "He baselessly assumed scientific responsibility for the articles he published." Here are some stories about similar cases that happened in the past, and an attempt to wonder about the roots of the phenomenon
Cyril Burt, a world-renowned British psychologist and statistician, published a series of articles in which he described experiments he conducted that examined the inheritance of intelligence in identical twins raised in different environments. In these studies, which proved that intelligence is a hereditary trait, and that the influence of the environment on it is minimal, alongside Burt, according to his own reports, two other female scientists participated. The unequivocal results of these experiments were accepted by many scientists, relying on Burt's reputation, as the end of the sentence on the question of heredity and the environment that has occupied science for many years.
After Burt's death, it became clear that the studies he described were never carried out, and that the two female scientists who allegedly participated in these studies, do not exist at all. The Australian doctor and researcher, William McBride, became world famous as the one who discovered the fact that the drug thalidomide causes severe birth defects.
After this discovery, a special research institute was established for him where he continued to investigate the effects of various drugs, trying to find out if they also cause birth defects. Later it became clear that this famous researcher also reported on studies that did not exist and were not created, and changed the results of studies that were carried out as he saw fit. These facts hardly ever reached the public, but McBride was forced to retire from all scientific activity.
Evidence from the laboratory
Prof. Alexander Cohen (Lashek) studied these phenomena after encountering such a case, literally "head to head".
A few years before he passed away (1995), Ami shared the experience: "It happened when I was on sabbatical at the University of Berkeley, California. At the same time, cultures of liver cells taken from an experiment conducted by biologist Prof. RS Chang were tested in the next room. Cheng tried to discover the cause of viral hepatitis (at that time the virus that carries this disease had not yet been identified. XNUMX). In some of the cultures he examined, Chang Tai found livers destroyed by an unknown factor. He believed that this factor was the cause of the disease, but was unable to isolate or identify it, and because of this, he sent the cultures that contained destroyed liver cells for examination in the Berkeley electron microscope, which, as mentioned, was located in a room next to mine.
"One morning the microscope operator called me, and showed me the cells, which according to Chang were liver cells, but in fact, they were simple amoebas... Later it turned out that one amoeba simply fell into a dish containing liver cells. She began devouring the liver cells and multiplying, thus moving from dish to dish repeating the same process and eating the cells to her heart's content. With a normal microscope it was impossible to discover the fact that the amoebae were taking the place of the liver cells, but with the electron microscope, the differences were clearly visible.
No mistakes are admitted
"Chang published about eight extensive articles about his experiments with these liver cells, which were nothing but amoebae, so I expected that he would naturally publish a new article in which he would give the new facts. But to my surprise he did not, preferring to remain silent. The burning thing for me, as they say, is a 'red light'...
The great sensitivity in the scientific world to matters of untrue reports on studies, also led to dramas and dizzying investigations that lasted years, cost millions and ended in nothing. This was also the case in the drama that accompanied Nobel laureate David Baltimore.
Leshek once told me that one should differentiate, of course, between actual scams and 'instrumental' errors. Reporting a study that was not carried out, or deliberately distorting the results to suit the researcher's expectations, is a real crime. But sometimes there are also cases where the wrong results of the studies are due to technical errors, and even disorder in the laboratory. The classic example in this regard is the case in which the Russian researcher Boris Dryagin claimed that he had succeeded in creating a "fourth state of aggregation" of water. He happened to this "fourth state of aggregation", called "polymeric water".
The experiment was based on the rapid condensation of water contained in thin capillaries made of iron. This water became a kind of viscous liquid. No less than 400 scientific studies and scholarly articles have been written on this matter over the years, and only then did it become clear that the "water" contains 20% sodium, 20% 3calcium and 3% chlorides and sulfides... in other words, because of the small diameter of the capillaries in which the water is thick, Every tiny contamination manifested itself in a fundamental change in the composition of the solution, which was supposed to be clean water.
Such things happen
This category can also be attributed to the study in which the researchers claimed that the water can "remember" the properties of substances dissolved in it in the past. It later turned out that this research, which almost provided a scientific basis for homeopathic medicine, was conducted, quite simply, under inappropriate conditions in the laboratory. This, apparently, is also the explanation for the research that set the entire scientific world on its feet, claiming that a way was found to perform a nuclear fusion of two hydrogen atoms into a helium atom, in a test tube (a process that is naturally carried out only in the sun, and can be carried out artificially today only with the explosion of a hydrogen bomb) . If this claim was true, the practical meaning of this would be the end of the energy crisis, but, even here, "instrumental errors" were discovered in the way the experiment was conducted.
Leshek tried to put together a mental cluster of the "forgery scientist": many of them are in the middle of their careers. In the university these are senior lecturers or associate professors. They are motivated by a desire to advance in the academic ladder and by aspiration for fame. Top scientists like William McBride and Cyril Burt, who are caught cheating, apparently do so for reasons similar to those that drive compulsive gamblers to keep gambling. They know they will eventually be caught, but cannot avoid reporting impressive achievements in their research. They are addicted to fame, and are ready to pay any price for it, even if it is only temporary fame, which will be theirs only until the fraud is discovered.
casino research
There are also cases where a junior research worker, hurt by the attitude of the senior researcher, takes revenge on his employer by falsifying results, so that they match the "boss's" expectations. In other cases, excessive loyalty of technicians, seeking to satisfy their employer, causes distortions in the research results.
Another factor that puts scientists on their minds is pathological arrogance. Here we are dealing with young junior researchers, who have very high intelligence, talent and charisma. They believe that they are much smarter than other people, and because of this, they allow themselves to perfectly construct fake experiments that support an important, and sometimes revolutionary, hypothesis.
One of these was Mark Spector, who claimed to have discovered the process that causes normal cells to become cancer cells. In retrospect, it turned out that the man simply secretly injected various substances into the solutions that participated in the experiment, thus "achieving" results that other researchers were unable to achieve.
Money doesn't play on the field
One thing is almost non-existent here: greed. The exception to this exception is, perhaps, the field of clinical, medicinal trials, where trials of drugs on humans are carried out by private doctors, who receive a fee for each test. Here were some doctors who reported on experiments they did not conduct, in order to win a salary, for work that was not performed. The number of these cases is relatively small. According to Leshek, out of 10,000 doctors who participated in these studies in the US, 50 doctors were caught who reported experiments that were not actually performed.
What happens to them when they are caught? The lucky ones, like Cyril Burt, die before their deception is discovered. Others commit suicide upon discovery. Most of them are immediately suspended from all scientific activity (this is what happened to the Israeli scientist who was suspended by Hadassah and the Hebrew University).
Thanks and leaves Yeruham
In one case of scientific forgery that was previously discovered in Israel, a scientist from the Veterinary Institute, attached to the Volcanic Center, was involved, who tried to trick his research partners. At the same time, the protein caseidin, which is one of the cheese proteins, was isolated from milk. The same researcher claimed to have performed various experiments and found that this substance has antibiotic properties. Later it turned out that everything, the experiments and the results together, was completely fake.
.
In another case, a young research student was required to develop a method for assembling a certain material. The experiment didn't work out for him, and he went to a pharmacy, bought the substance and claimed to produce it using a method he developed himself. This was discovered, of course. Leshek said that that student was pardoned, received a doctorate and is now part of the scientific establishment in Israel. All attempts to extract the student's name from Leshek's mouth failed. "Forgiveness is forgiveness," he said. "The man slipped, stumbled, admitted and left. Forget about it".
390 תגובות
Rah:
Indeed trivial.
why did you say that
I explained that the religious creation theory is not a scientific theory and it is not at all clear to me why you cling to it.
In any case, it is clear that there is nothing in your words that contradicts my argument, and I even explained why in my previous comments.
God,
I will say the trivial, theories come to explain a phenomenon diagnosed by experiments and observations. In the brainstorming phase, any theory is acceptable. Let's assume that the phenomenon is the existence of life on earth, then the explanation about Zeus/God/the spaghetti monster is also legitimate, as Aaron Barak said? Everything was fine. Then the predictions of each explanation are checked, dismissed and refuted. The fact that we have proven that the Torah is not pure truth because let's say the story of the rabbit casts a shadow on the "theory" of the Torah, but does not say anything about the likelihood that the spaghetti monster is real or not or about the theory presented in the new article presented yesterday regarding the world of RNA. Since they are unrelated to each other, any theory or explanation should be tested independently and not independently.
Ghosts:
If you are the anonymous commenter (and it seems so) - I ask you to stop giving marks. One should refer to the things and not to the speakers.
Rah:
I completely understood your words and wrote my response at the same level of generalization as your words were written.
Regarding the origin of life - religions are not scientific theories and are not at all on the agenda.
Nevertheless, they can be refuted as a whole for other reasons.
When you read in the Torah that the rabbit rummages, you might think it's true - until you read about the rabbit on Wikipedia.
This is true of anything in any religion that can even be perceived as a scientific theory.
Science does not deal with flying spaghetti monsters and therefore they are not relevant to our discussion.
There is nothing in science or scientific activity that can mess with flying spaghetti monsters.
The sum of the probabilities I was talking about is the one that is divided between the different alternatives - whether they are naturalistic alternatives, whether they are spaghetti monsters or whether it is the "I have no idea" alternative.
When one of them is ruled out, its probability is distributed over the others.
What you are talking about are the cases where for one reason or another - a person prefers the alternative "I have no idea" in advance, but note what a strange case this is:
If the person assigns all the probability that was excluded from the disproved alternative to the "I have no idea" alternative, then this is a person who, of all the alternatives, preferred the disproved theory before the disproving!
In other words - this is a person who is not very smart.
Refa*m,
I'm not convinced that your advice is that good, certainly considering your achievements in the field (unless you consider self-satisfaction an impressive achievement).
From my theory it appears that it is you who needs to make a leap to the same dimension from which you fell on us.
Obviously something hurts you and it's not me or Yehuda or other normal people.
Understand, you're just jealous of us because we spent less money than you on studies and learned more than you did. :)
Leave, go back to the dimension you left and say hi to the Higgs and the anti-photon 🙂
Good for you sweetie. If you found suckers willing to pay for your 'science' where you don't understand anything..
Good luck to them.
380. pay? Honey, I get paid for my science. And I still can't understand anything.
Adi, thanks for the answer in 366 but I didn't understand from it what you would expect to see if the universe was rotating? What order in the distribution of galaxies?
M*A*L,
I'm afraid you didn't understand what I meant about religions. Look at my comment to you 358. The religions for that matter are alternative theories about let's say the origin of life. Disproving one or even all of them does not bring you any closer or increase the probability of another explanation being the correct one.
And maybe,
Are you just jealous that you have to pay a lot of money and still can't figure anything out?
The user's name is anonymous (unidentified),
Fortunately for Noam Shelli and the rest of the readers on the site and for all of humanity, you are the core of "that part of the public to whom a serious opinion related to science can be attributed" (the errors in the source). Anna we come without your learned opinion? It's been a long time since we've been updated with some new dimension or particle from your delusional creator. But the truth is we didn't miss it either.
And I have a little advice for you, don't believe everything that is written on the internet, there are no free meals and no instant advanced physics studies.
Nathan
I agree with what you say. But the point is not to 'pass the criticism in more pleasant ways',
but to pass objective criticism. That is, that the criticism will refer to his theory, so that the questions addressed to him can
get objective answers. And not to expect that on this site Sabdarmish will decide to write all the answers to their questions.
The truth is that I would also advise you to avoid attaching too much importance to the reactions of Naan and RH, in my opinion, they do not constitute the same part of the public that can be attributed a serious opinion related to science.
If that's the case, Mr. Rothschild's opinion is the most eye-catching on this site.
Personally, as someone who also has little knowledge of science, I would recommend you to search and read on the Internet anything that interests you in physics or mathematics. Today, in my opinion, there is no better way than to accumulate a large amount of knowledge other than through the Internet. If you have a mind you will know who to believe and who not to believe (it is important to know the name of the author/writer, etc., just as important as the content of what you are reading), thus choosing and reading the most correct material (the kind that also exists in universities).
Nathan:
Why don't you address what was said?
Do you know how many pleasant comments he has already received?
He has simply continued for many years in his attempts to mislead the public.
Along the way, he shows disdain for the great scientists and all contemporary scientists.
In the past he also insulted and cursed those who dared to comment on his words. It doesn't happen anymore recently and it's good that it is, but I have no doubt that if he continues to get backup it will also come back.
You say you learned a thing or two during the discussion.
If you learned it from him - I suggest you check it again.
From * as:
I do not think that trying to make him wrong or bend his hands will bear fruit or benefit the discussion in any way. I testify myself that when I am attacked I tend to defend myself, the criticism can also be delivered in more pleasant ways and maybe Yehuda will even take things to heart.
In addition, during the discussion when he dealt with the physical theories and not with Judah the man, I learned a thing or two
There is one more thing I can't stand (in addition to arrogance, disdain, and undisguised pretension): intentional attempts to deceive.
In the discussion I had with Yehuda on his website, I pointed out to him that the gas he invented, which is composed of subatomic particles that have not yet been discovered, does not behave like the atmosphere on Earth, which is composed of molecules and atoms, because in subatomic particles the quantum phenomena are much more significant, with all the meaning of the wave-particle duality .
Yehuda tried to "work" on me, quoting parts of Richard Feynman's book, to strengthen his position:
"Go argue with Richard Feynman, in his well-known book Light and Matter he wrote on page 20 of the Hebrew edition of the book:-
Newton assumed that light is made up of particles that he called bodies and he was right about that" end quote.
Later he explains why we will avoid referring to photons as waves and adds on page 21 below:-
"...it is extremely important to know that light behaves as particles, especially for those of you who attended school and heard something about the behavior of light as waves. I have in mind to present to you the way light behaves, which is indeed like particles." End quote.
And for your information, Noam, the aforementioned Richard won the Nobel Prize."
Yehuda probably didn't think I had the same book... my answer was:
Yehuda,
The book you mentioned is a wonderful book, you just have to read it carefully to the end, and not quote partial and misleading quotes.
So that there is no doubt as to what Feynman meant, see the quote on page 84:
"In fact, these two entities [light and electrons] behave to some extent as particles and to some extent as waves. To prevent ourselves from using terms such as "galaxies", we chose to call these entities "particles" but we all know that they obey the laws of drawing and connecting arrows as I explained. It seems that all the "particles in nature: quarks, gluons, neutrinos, and the like, behave in this way, through quantum mechanics"
End of quote.
I'm sure Yehuda read the book to the end, and knew exactly what Feynman said, so I saw it as a sign of a dishonest attempt to deliberately mislead me.
As Yehuda says - the public will judge...
Adi - You're welcome, but don't worry, I wasn't hurt...
Nathan:
His words are without dawn and full of arrogance.
His discussions are not discussions but a collection of statements that do not face what he is told and he has been repeating them for twenty years.
Now tell me, Natan, what is the crime in accusing him (and others) of his mistake?!
Why do you choose to make claims to us and not to him?!
From*kal, Noam:
I can testify for myself that I do not understand what mass or dark energy is, I do not understand the theory of relativity and my knowledge of physics is quite little. That is, I can fairly faithfully represent the lay public who come to the site and come across the figure of Yehuda.
Yehuda's words sound strange to me, especially when he compares them with theories of Einstein or Newton. I guess that's what any layman who comes across things will think. Therefore, I see no reason to fear misleading the public.
I am ready to accept the argument that his words can sound annoying and that there is a degree of arrogance in them, but what is the crime in that?
Ugh!
This is my second comment in a row that I forget to mention all the time that Noam invests in this discussion!
Sorry, Noam!
Nathan,
Did I bemoan my temporal loss or did I compare its value to Judah's time? You asked why it was important to answer him, I explained why it was important. To emphasize the importance I emphasized that it was done even though other things could have been done with that time. For proof, see the reactions of M'Khal, who foresaw the direction of this discussion and its results, and did not want to open it at all, because he knew that as soon as it started, he would have to be dragged into it, not of his own free will, and he would not enjoy it, that's for sure. Unfortunately, I did not know Yehuda before, and his ideas, and I was really intrigued.
When a casual reader sees Yehuda's responses, he does not know who Yehuda is. For him, it could be Professor Sabdarmesh, who tells everyone that gravity and relativity are pure nonsense and that everything is explained by pressures. Honestly, it doesn't really interest him. He was given the wrong information in an accessible way and the damage was done. He also sees that it is possible not to study at all and propose wonderful theories in physics in a two-day hallucination, completely equivalent, and even superior to those that took years of toil, because who is Einstein anyway, and why invest and sweat and not sleep nights studying?
Nathan,
Those who superficially read the responses of Mr. Sabdarmish, may get the impression that this is a humble guy, with a wide knowledge of physics and a fearless fighter for his inner truth.
That's what I thought at first, and it didn't bother me that his theories seemed completely implausible.
But it turns out that Yehuda earned the attitude towards him honestly: contempt for mocking the opinions of others, and undisguised arrogance.
Yehuda presents his theories as equivalent to Einstein and Newton, and does so without blinking.
Want some of his quotes? you are welcome:
** "Scientists who knew how to put a huge amount of dark mass into galaxies"
** "The attempt to correct the data and supplement it with an invisible philatelic essay seems ridiculous to me..." I was forbidden to do this in the first year of high school"
** So we also add some dark energy which is its lame sister [of dark matter]
** "Wouldn't I make meatballs out of all the nonsense you say thanks to the dark mass"
** "Certainly certain that gravitation in distances has been disproved and trying to change this with something transparent that will add to the results to the extent necessary is a poor attempt."
** "Perhaps it is better to call the dark mass a wretched mass, an imaginary mass, a false mass, or perhaps the DM"
Rach :
Regarding religions - you are wrong about two things.
The first is that the range of possibilities includes not only all religions but also secular ones.
The second is that to this day - every religion I have come across - I have immediately noticed its falsity and the group of theories that can "enjoy" hiding a new or old theory is of course only the group of theories that have not yet been disproved.
The only thing that can be argued about the process I am going through in connection with a new religion is the following:
For a fraction of a second (usually unmeasurable) my belief in the fact that there is no true religion drops and I attribute a certain probability to the correctness of the new religion; After that split second I see that this religion is as stupid as the others and my belief that there is no true religion is reaffirmed.
I am not wrong about this and in general - everything that is theoretically true is practically true (otherwise the theory according to which it is theoretically true is wrong).
As for Judah - I repeat and clarify: read the history before you form an opinion. I have no doubt you will see that you were wrong.
I say the same toNathan .
There was a time when entire discussions on the site were deleted because of Yehuda's style of argument and as he himself says - he received a demand from my father not to raise his steam again on the accepted theories and not to repeat the same things a thousand times regarding his theories.
Most of you did not experience the period, but in the end he joined Noam for discussion and therefore he knows what he is talking about.
He also complained to me about the assertiveness with which I kill Yehuda's words (because when he joined the story already had a long history) but then - in light of my father's request from Yehuda to stop harassing the website visitors Yehuda set up his website to publish his words (of course he did not take the advice to suggest to a scientific newspaper to publish them because he knew what the answer would be - and I allow myself to guess that he understood that whoever killed her here was right - even though he says that the reason there is no chance of his articles being accepted is the fact that scientists are afraid to give up relativity).
When Yehuda set up the site, Noam tried to correspond with him there and very quickly realized that my conclusions about him were correct.
As a result, he began to kill him here as well, and in doing so I think he was wrong - not because his words were not true but because he spurred Yehuda to react and violate my father's request.
Now history is repeating itself.
Any sane person can understand that Yehuda's theories are completely unfounded and I have provided several proofs here that for some reason you do not see anything wrong with Yehuda's ignoring them (although there is almost nothing wrong with trying to sell a claim that has been refuted without dealing with the refutation).
You do find it wrong that we go back and devote time to him and clarify his mistakes over and over again.
for everyone
Below is the correction of my lecture dates
The new dates are back as they appear in the latest "Astronomy" booklet of the Israeli Astronomical Society.
For the avoidance of doubt, below are the dates"
The next lecture will be held on Thursday 15.7.2010 at 21:30 on the subject - dark energy and dark thoughts.
Here I will start to raise doubts, the main one of which is the problem that in the spiral galaxies the motion and gravitation formulas are not equal and therefore there is a failure. The dark mass that is being talked about is only one of the possibilities for solving this failure, and not the problem. There are over fifteen mathematical possibilities for solving this fallacy!
After analysis, we will give up with about five options.
In the third lecture to be held on July 29.7.2010, XNUMX, I will analyze the remaining options and everyone will be able to express their opinion as to which is better.
In the first lecture, the audience participated and expressed their opinion on the subject and the questions asked were interesting. I hope that will be the case in the future. You don't have to agree with the lecturer.
You're all invited. Cost per lecture is NIS 15-25. For members of the Astronomy Association and their immediate families - free.
It goes without saying that in the first few minutes of the lectures I will repeat the main points of the previous lectures.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
jewel:
I really wonder what damage will be done to the public from Judah. Yehuda does not present himself as a great expert, does not pretend to be a professor, and does not try to embellish his background in the scientific field. With all due respect to your valuable time, I really don't think it is worth Yehuda's time or any of the others in the discussion. Those who are here do it of their own free will and pleasure.
R.H.
In a rotating non-inertial system, 2 imaginary forces appear - centrifugal and the same Coriolis that Noam mentioned (and if it does not rotate at a constant speed, then there is also Euler, but we will leave it). These forces would be measured if the universe were rotating.
Nathan,
I don't know when you joined the discussion, but my approach wasn't like that in the first place. She became like that when I came to know that this was not someone serious. I was seriously interested in Yehuda's words, but unfortunately it turned out that there was nothing to be interested in. The condescending and condescending attitude is currently in its place and how else, because it is well based on Yehuda's statements.
Science does not need gatekeepers. The one who needs gatekeepers is the public. The public is mostly unable to judge the theories offered to them, for the same reason that Yehuda is unable to judge them - lack of knowledge. Yehuda's theory seems logical to him for a reason, it will also seem logical to the rest of his lecture island. It can make sense to someone not familiar with physics visiting this site. As a result, Yehuda harms our society by promoting ignorance, which we do not lack anyway. Sound crazy? This is the only reason why they take care to answer him, Chaz, Rafa'm and all the rest of the barangay. You think I have nothing to do but waste my time explaining why his delusions have no hold on reality? Trust me I have. And Michael is not lacking either.
Yehuda's enthusiasm and passion could have been appreciated if he had done something useful with them - like studying a little physics. He would get so much out of it! Those who are passionate about physics get pure pleasure when they learn a new subject and understand how the world works. It is a happiness that is hard to describe when you suddenly understand how another piece of the world works. but what? It is difficult. It is much easier to wave off pressures.
And again I refer you to the beginning of the discussion, see my approach there.
R.H.:
I certainly agree with the criticism you directed towards Noam, Machal, Zvi and Adi. The disdainful and condescending attitude towards Yehuda is out of place. Those who do not want to hear Yehuda's lecture will not be heard. Why is it so important for them to bend his hands? It seems to me that science does not need gatekeepers.
Yehuda's enthusiasm and passion for scientific subjects deserve great appreciation.
I think a change of attitude would also make it easier to accept the criticism
Noam, not that it's related, but how do you know that the universe doesn't rotate?
jewel,
Let me add a few more arguments of Yehuda's, which are completely wrong:
1) Yehuda claimed that there are two types of galaxies: a cyclone (in which the pressure in the center of the galaxy is lower than the edge) and an anti-cyclone (in which the pressure in the center is higher than the pressure in the edge). When I pointed out to him, that even according to his method, an island cannot form a galaxy when the direction of pressure is from the inside out, and no galaxy can be stable even for a short time (if it was formed somehow) because the direction of pressure and centrifugal force are the same (and Yehuda "deleted gravity") he answered me : "The main thing is that both (cyclone and anti-cyclone) rotate"
Both nonsense, and not true: the rotation in such systems on Earth is due to the Corellius force, the universe, on the other hand, does not rotate.
2) Yehuda claims that the pressure differences explain well the phenomenon of the galaxies collapsing, without the need for gravitation. According to him, the annihilation happens when the light passes through a changing gas density. The trouble is that in both types of Yehuda's galaxies, since the variation of its gas density is the opposite, that is, in some galaxies Yehuda predicts that there will be a scattering phenomenon and not a crowding. I didn't get an answer
3) In Yehuda's calculation of the pressure needed to rotate the galaxy, he used the well-known formula P=F/S, that is, the force is equal to the pressure divided by the area.
I explained to him later in our discussion, that in this situation, according to his method, it is expected that in the center of the galaxies there will be a concentration of light bodies, and at the edges of the galaxies there will be a concentration of the heavy bodies, this is because the pressure will exert the same force on bodies whose surface area is the same, although it is clear that some of them will be much heavier. In fact, there will be a clear separation in the galaxy between light and heavy bodies.
To overcome the serious contradiction, Yehuda suddenly changed the behavior of his gas, and stated that "I hope you understood that the pressure is proportional to the mass of the bodies" (and not to the surface area).
4) Yehuda compared the behavior of galaxies to hurricanes on Earth. When he was reminded that hurricanes dissipate after a relatively short time, and asked how it is that the galaxies are stable, he replied:
” It is true that the hurricane finally dissipates when it loses its energy. In the case of the galaxies, I believe that as long as the stars in them are active, this is the fuel that will maintain the pressure differences that will activate the galaxies."
This is a particularly strange explanation, after all, the stars emit energy, thus contributing to the increase in pressure in the galaxy, and to a more accelerated dispersion. How does the increase in pressure inside the galaxies contribute to its stability?
Yehuda tried to explain that the increase in heat may actually cause a lower gas pressure...
There is more, but I think this is enough to understand who we are dealing with...
(And don't forget to listen to his learned and well-reasoned lectures)
As a bystander: the discussion between you seems more and more, as psycho-astronomical-psychological according to the standards of Fritz Tzv-Yaki.. Look for the dark mass that was missing in his skies for as many as 80 years ago.
So? Do it!
And thus they also proved his screaming claim of Nietzsche's brain fever..and many other things.
Conclusion: If the theory does not exist? Make it exist! For better or for worse and vice versa.
Admittedly a dubious proof, but it turns out that it is also valid.
Yehuda,
Let me summarize:
1. Demonstrating a basic lack of knowledge in the simple version of the theory you are trying to contradict (it is not even about general relativity, but about Newton's basic law of gravitation), when you asked a complete question - why celestial bodies rotate.
2. You ignored most of the problems and holes presented in your pressure comparison story in a melodramatic tone while making use of steaks and syrups but without any real content (apparently the culinary issue is close to your heart).
3. Finally, in the long-awaited calculation that you finally presented after many pleas (response 289) you demonstrated a terrible lack of knowledge in mathematics as well, by not realizing that you were dealing with an integral (so that your proud declarations along the lines of "It is impossible to reach my numbers without calculations") turned out to be nothing more than gibberish . I am quite convinced at this point that you do not know how to do the above trivial integral (or even write it), so I will tell you that if you did the integral you would get 3/4 of what you got. You can use the result in your next lecture.
4. All you did in your failed calculation (289) was explain why the galaxy doesn't scatter to the winds. Have you already studied the physics of rotation and can you finally explain to us Why Are your galaxies spinning?
The main thing is that you make sure to remind everyone that you are giving a lecture on the subject, don't worry, we haven't forgotten, comment 129. If I didn't live near Haifa, I swear to you, I would come to ask you what angular momentum is.
Judah (351):
I'm not sure I'm convinced (maybe I didn't understand your words)
As a layman, the doubt I have regarding your words is regarding your claim that only the elimination phase requires a physical understanding.
If I take for example Newton's formula F=MA.
I don't think solving the equation is that important.
It seems to me that Newton's great insight is in giving a formal expression to the intuitions that existed until that time for terms such as mass and force. That is, solving the equation in this case appears to be a technical step, while the rigorous definition of the terms and equations required physical understanding.
357 R.H
But if we assume that the total probabilities for the tens of thousands of religions were not one but maybe 1 percent.
When there is one last religion left, its chance is 1 percent because everyone else got zero.
And regarding the second section of response 357
Thanks for the psychological support.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
On second thought we are both right here and it depends on the case. The daily research questions are divided into several types. There are yes/no questions, for example, does protein X participate in pathway Y or Z? And then you're right, if we ruled out Y the likelihood of Z increases greatly (unless we missed the possibility that it's even in Q which shows that we didn't really understand the system).
However, many times the question is what does X do without prior knowledge. So there are many possibilities and the negation of one of them does not increase or decrease the likelihood of the others.
352,
The argument that the sum of all the probabilities is 1 and therefore the negation of the others increases the probability may be true on a theoretical level, but in real life it doesn't work that way. I will give you an example close to your heart. There are tens of thousands of competing religions in the world, and new ones arise from time to time. If I refute all but one that is close to my heart for sentimental reasons, will that change or increase its probability of being the "true" religion?
In 353:
It is clear to me that they will be rejected and I even wrote what I think will be in the letter, but since I, unlike you, Noam and Zvi, do appreciate that Yehuda, unlike the ignorant, squeamish and New Age people around him, tries a scientific approach, so at least he should do it properly and be exposed to criticism, and who knows, maybe we'll even get to see What revised version of his words in what avant-garde newspaper? I agree that he has a bit of arrogance to think that he has found some simple and simplistic answer to the central problems in physics, but the fact that he, as an interested hobbyist, a lecturer, devotes thought and even calculations is nevertheless worthy of appreciation and less of the scorn you pour on him. He is infinitely better, in my opinion, than Chazi or those delusional rascals.
deer
Decades of searching for a solution - is that acceptable to you?
In 1933, Fritz Zwicky discovered that there was a problem with the motion of galaxies and determined that it was due to a lack of mass.
Since then they have been looking for this missing mass.
But I have the feeling that I'm talking to a matching Noam who is again talking about ignorance.
So maybe there is no point in further answers for you either.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Unfortunately, I could not find an article that unequivocally states when the search for dark matter began. However I found a nice article in general:
http://www.issibern.ch/PDF-Files/Spatium_7.pdf
According to this article (page 3, end of the first paragraph) it took something like 60 years until Zwicky's discovery began to gain momentum and it turned out that this was not some measurement error - that is, the 90s.
In practice, when you check every detector you read about somewhere, you will not see that it started operating before 1990 and usually not before the year 2000, moreover, you will not find any real reference (with the exception of Zweiky...) to dark matter before the 80s and this is not surprising.
As I mentioned before, the properties of dark matter were not predicted at all before the 80s (with super symmetry theories and so on). Contrary to your words, dark matter does not only react with gravity, it sometimes reacts with other forces (depending on the particle model it is based on), with the best candidate being the WIMP which reacts with the weak force (and therefore can be detected).
Also, the dark matter postulate requires more than an observation in the 30s, it requires many and complex observations that prove time and time again that it is a suitable solution.
in brief,
Your presentation of things, as if for 80 years physicists have been sitting and adding dark matter to various galaxies at will is wrong and misleading.
First, since the whole issue has not been known for more than 30 years, and second (and above all) because there are quite accurate predictions, which are correct in the vast majority of galaxies (with the possible exception of pathological cases of galaxies that happened to have processes that statistically do not usually happen) that statistically predict what kind of dark matter halo each will have Galaxy - these prophecies turn out to be true (according to Idush, etc.).
I think that the thought that everyone has been stupid for 80 years and then you come and offer a revolutionary idea without investment and without any proper education is.... (Each person will complete as he sees fit.
In any case, your answer to the question of the analysis process you carried out when you approached the problem, indicates your ignorance - and the only reason you allow yourself to fall into delusions as if you thought of something clever, is because you are dealing with issues that are complicated enough to the point that humanity as of today does not fully know the answers to them .
Therefore, I suggest you, for the sake of honesty, examine yourself.
Go to one of the student union websites and look at a test in mechanics for first year students - try to solve it using your advanced approaches and in this case you will be able to compare your answers to the published solutions.
When you succeed in this, you can move on to areas that are more on your home turf - let's say hydrodynamics.
And finally,
Stop repeating things that have already been rejected time and time again by other writers. You may receive an "honorary chest" title.
To whom
Sometimes I'm fascinated by how much we agree with each other
Totally agree with 352
But not only that
Unfortunately I also agree with 353
Because who is the idiot who would agree to the almost complete cancellation of gravitation at great distances?
But this is what comes out of the analysis I'm doing on 351, leaving me with several solutions and those who want can still stay with the dark and cute mass and energy. I chose the pressure differences.
To remind you again, I am lecturing on this next Thursday
Details in response 129.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
By the way, Rah:
The consensus regarding Yehuda's words is broader, in my opinion, and also includes the certainty that his article will be completely rejected.
Rah:
They say it is healthy to drink orange juice.
Does this contradict the claim that it is healthy to exercise?
But, paraphrasing your words, one could say "contrary to Michael and Noam's claim that it is healthy to drink orange juice, I say that it is healthy to exercise."
None of us has ever claimed that only by refuting theories do we confirm existing theories (even though, as I explained, in the expanded sense of the word "theory" it is true and it is really easy to apply it to your words in the last response as well).
We said only one thing, and this is true without a shadow of a doubt: when there are several theories competing to explain the same observations - the refutation of one of them increases the probability of the truth of the others.
It cannot be otherwise because the sum of all the correct probabilities is constant (1) and if it turns out that one of the components in this sum is zero, then the value attributed to it before must be divided among the others.
For deer 347, 348
Are you claiming that today we know the properties of dark matter? And what are they? which has no properties other than gravitation of course. Now they know what to look for?
R.H. 349
I will organize and do it. At most they will answer me as you said.
I don't have high expectations.
to give 350
You ask how my knowledge of business and management helped here.
So let's do it together
First question asked - is there a problem here? My answer is yes and there is no point in going in again and explaining why.
Second question - where might the answer to the problem be found?
The answer - after eighty years of searching, this must be an unusual answer, usually from experience, it is an answer that is thrown out of hand if it comes up.
A third and important question - which way to act.
This is where my life knowledge and experience come in. When I saw the formula for the motion in the spiral galaxies I realized that I could find the collection of all the mathematical possibilities for the solution and then by the method of elimination stay with the physically correct solutions as well.
Note that only, but only in the elimination phase I need physical knowledge. And really not of a physics doctor.
It remains at this point to remember the second question I asked and not to be afraid of the results.
It may seem simple but it took me over a year to figure it out.
Did I convince you Nathan?
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
You mentioned in your words that the business world helped you in understanding physics.
Can you expand on this? On the face of it, there seems to be no connection between the two.
I know parallels between the analysis of economic theories and physical theories. If I'm not mistaken, economic theories should also meet strict criteria (I don't know if to the same extent as in physics).
I don't know if this is true for the business world.
Can you describe what in this world contributed to you or ignited in you a desire to practice physics?
deer 343,
Sorry, but you really didn't understand what I wrote. Regarding the dark matter, I was short, all I wanted to say to Noam and Mc*El is that if it is found it would be an example of a direct proof (or to be a pedant "confirmation") of the theory contrary to their position that the refutation of competing theories increases the likelihood of it being true.
Regarding murder on the Orient Express, you again misunderstood my intention. In the same topic I gave an example of solving a mystery (in this case a detective, but between us what is the difference from scientific mysteries?) in an interesting way by unconventional thinking outside the box. Of course I did not claim that there is any implication for specific scientific research but that sometimes we do not think of all the possibilities and even if it seems to us that we have rejected theories and only one remains, this does not mean that it is the right one. And that's from experience.
Yehuda,
There is probably a consensus here that you should submit your ideas for publication. You really have nothing to fear, even if they reject you, you will be in very good company. At most you will receive the famous letter that says:
It's a very interesting idea. However, we will not be able to publish it at this time but we encourage you to change it according to the reviewers comment and re-submit it in the future.
that's it.
Regarding the second point:
Since they didn't know his features, they couldn't look for him, so your claim as if they've been looking for him for 80 years is not correct.
Yehuda,
First, you are wrong as Noam already told you - there is a possibility of proving the absence of dark matter by inconsistency in different results of its existence.
Secondly, eighty years ago they could not know the properties of dark matter (not Baryon, etc.) because they did not yet know enough about the properties of non-dark matter.
Third and the main point:
I'm a layman - on the one hand I'm told that all physicists believe in thing X except for two and a half who believe in thing Y, well maybe they're right - they're professors after all.
But then a person who is not officially recognized as a physicist comes to me and tells me that Z is different from both X and Y. The same person is not willing to face any criticism (neither by people X nor by people Y) because he claims that they are all too conservative. Why should I believe he is right?
In short, how are you willing to put your theory to the test - so that I, who do not know what dark matter, MOND, TEVES or pressure differences are, can be convinced that there is something behind it?
deer
Nevertheless, it is not fair that science has built a theory that cannot be contradicted. After all, if the measurements do not match, add dark mass or dark energy if necessary.
How long will they agree to wait to find the particle? Eighty years already waiting for when will they realize that they have to get away from the idea?
Another eighty years?, here is a theory that bypasses Popper and his principle of refutation
How can the dark mass and energy be disproved?
Good night
Yehuda Sabdarmish
The last sentence is unrelated - it should have appeared elsewhere in the context of the innovation of your theory and therefore my inability as a reader to examine them seriously
Yehuda,
It seems that you, Noam, Michael or me, will probably not be able to convince of the truth of your theory and whatever the reasons (our conservatism or your nonsense, depending on who you ask).
However, let's say that I am an unconvinced person and lacks education or physical understanding and I want to decide whose theory to believe - you or Noam.
Noam tells me (and I believe him because I check in two and a half places) that he is presenting the position of most modern day physicists, while you tell me that you are only presenting your position and more than that, you point out that Professor Milligrom did not take your theory seriously.
Then I read that you are not ready to put your theory to the test because you fear the conservatism of the examiners. If so, tell me - which external tester do you agree to?
You understand that without the position of a knowledgeable external tester, there is no chance that I will take your claims seriously, however true they may be, if only for the reason that they are so innovative and I, as a simple reader, cannot test them (remember, I lack physical knowledge) and certainly not compare them to the existing theories (in which I am also not Understand).
Evidence requires a mind that has not been raised in hundreds of years in order to conceive them.
R.H. (336)
Your argument here is strange - if a dark matter particle is found and you find no reason to believe that it is not distributed in the universe in the way that physicists expect it to be distributed, then there is certainly a good reason to fold the modified gravity theories into their classification and store them away for the time being.
Your argument as if "all the suspects are the killers" may be nice in theory, but in this way it is impossible to maintain science - I will explain:
Let's say I propose a theory according to which there are about 10 microscopic areas in each galaxy (micrometer^3 grid) that I will call by some cool name. Every time a milligram of matter accidentally reaches such a space it turns into a rabbit (an interesting idea, isn't it....).
It would be very difficult to rule out the above theory, a single rabbit created somewhere in the galaxy would be a very difficult thing to discover - what's more, the characteristic times for the creation of the rabbit are very, very long.
In short, there is a theory here that does not bother us - the world can certainly live with this law of nature and adapt to the astronomical observations and in short everything is good - why don't we assume then that such spaces exist?
The answer is that the basic premise we assume is that nature must be explained in the simplest way that fits what is known - it is clear that this is not necessarily true and it is clear that there can always be strange corrections (spaces that create rabbits or gravity that works in a fundamentally different way at different distances), and yet, In order to avoid strange meaningless theories we make this statement.
What does this mean about the dark matter question:
Dark matter comes to solve certain problems while leaving the laws of physics intact. So far, under fairly simple assumptions, it does this in an excellent way. The only problem is that he hasn't been found yet. If it is found, then the problems have been solved and you can continue until the next discrepancy. If you find a contradiction to its very existence (of the type suggested by Noam), then it seems that the idea will have to be rejected and it will be necessary to invent or adopt other ideas.
Modified gravity is not a bad idea in itself - it does complicate physics and change basic laws but probably does so in a way that is not apparently unreasonable (for example my rabbit spaces...) - however, so far no good enough modified gravity theory has been proposed, while the dark matter theory wins For more and more reference (for now mainly in accordance with more and more theoretical predictions).
from this,
In the meantime, it is appropriate (as ordinary people) to wait for a clear decision, but to be aware that the dark matter theory does have a certain advantage over the modified gravity theories in explaining the observed phenomena. On the other hand, we have to wait for a strong confirmation of the dark matter theory, which may come by finding it, or to deny it by the scenarios of the type described by Noam.
Yehuda,
Another question, which I am sure you will ignore:
You explained to me on your website that, just like the terrestrial weather systems, where there is a cyclone (where the pressure in the center is low) and an anti-cyclone (where the pressure in the center is high), there are also galaxies, where there is a lower pressure in the center, and galaxies where there is a higher pressure in the center.
You still haven't explained how a galaxy can form in an anticyclone region (because then the direction of the pressure and the direction of the centrifugal force are the same - outward direction, dispersion, and there is no gravitation to balance), but this explanation contradicts your previous statement, that the pressure differences explain well the phenomenon of the dusting that galaxies cause, "and all It's without the need for gravitation at all."
Since in both types of galaxies, cyclone and anti-cyclone, the gas density changes in opposite directions, it is not possible for the same recirculation phenomenon to occur in both types
Your theory then clearly states that there are quite a few galaxies in which instead of a crowding phenomenon, we will get a scattering phenomenon.
Do you know such galaxies?
to give
I have already responded in response 239 on this topic
Thanks for the suggestion anyway
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Noam:
I did not see what you mean by the two "theories" (in the news) that supposedly explain a certain phenomenon and my words referred to the fact that a theory that matches the findings cannot be disproven.
It is clear that the intention is that the theories compete with each other for the same limited resource of public trust only compete when they compete for the explanation of the same phenomenon and disproving a theory that deals with the flowering of the desert will not usually affect a theory that explains the movement of the celestial bodies.
sympathetic:
I don't know how you can prefer a theory that has been clearly disproved over a theory that hasn't been disproved - even if you're talking about direction (and also, as I said - in fact when MOND was disproved, its entire "direction" was disproved).
If you found it appropriate to bring MOND as an example (and the sub-explanations are not important) - it is a sign that you saw in its existence something that should lower my faith in the dark matter theory.
Milgrom, when he formulated MOND really did not care but tried to develop an alternative theory.
That's not what you did.
By the way - you probably won't be surprised to find out that the offer you gave Yehuda - the publication in a scientific journal - I gave him a long time ago - even before any of the activists on the site today knew about Yehuda's existence. As you can see - it had no effect.
An example of one of many responses of this type
R.H.:
I did not say that the validation of theories consists only of invalidating other theories (although in a certain sense it is indeed so and I will return to this point). I said that the theories were obtained in this way.
But the truth is that all confirmations are also refutations of theories and when it comes to experiments - the theories are usually trivial theories of the kind that can be proven. The secondary theory that is disproved in an experiment that ultimately confirms a main theory is the trivial theory which claims that the experiment will not match the predictions of the main theory.
Yehuda,
Obviously, it is much easier to pretend to be offended than to deal with factual arguments.
I noticed that you have ignored a whole series of arguments (not just mine) that clearly contradict your theory.
You describe fairly well-founded scientific theories as cheap ideas that are spread in vain, and if, as you say, you are not ignorant, then the situation is worse, you are simply trying to mislead ignorant people, and convince them that scientists are not serious, do not understand things that you already understood in high school, and in the process you Trying your best to hide the huge holes in your theory (I can easily name a line of your arguments that are not suitable even for a high school student).
Since at best you ignore most of my arguments, due to your inability to deal with them, I don't think it will make much of a difference.
I promise you that every time you try to deceive, I will try to correct and reduce the damage.
Yehuda:
Have you tried to get your theory peer-reviewed in some scientific journal as suggested by Yehuda and R.H.?
I assume that even if you are not accepted, you can also learn from the criticism and improve.
When I think about it - there is a winning algorithm here. Start with some theory. Send it to journals to get a review. Improve the theory according to the review. And so on.
No soup from a button.
To Noam
Fed up
I think I am very far from the "nice" pronouns in the last sentence of your comment.
Don't contact me because I won't respond to you anymore, you're not worth it.
Ignorance is surely far from me.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael,
I do not agree that the way to confirm theories is to reject the others. For example, if a new particle that constitutes dark matter is discovered today, it will confirm the above theory in a very strong way without any elimination of the competing theories. As above in Noam's example, when Uranus was discovered it almost completely strengthened the theory that there is another planet that influences Neptune and there was no need to eliminate other theories such as changing Newton's laws.
Ehud (and Yehuda), I really agree with your last paragraph regarding publication and I have long called Yehuda to try to challenge his theory in a professional forum and not just on the science website which with all due respect is not a place to publish new theories but only a place for scientific coverage.
Michael
I also do not wish to enter into a debate again that I think we have exhausted by agreeing that we do not agree.
If you want to go back to prehistory, I brought doubts about the dark matter theory at the time you complained because I was just whining, so I brought MOND as an example, which in my opinion is more physical. We both agree that MOND is not a complete theory as it is formulated today and indeed there are problems with it, but in my opinion the theory of dark matter also has problems. I see MOND as a more successful direction in the search for the general theory that I think will be discovered one day.
For me, MOND is analogous to Bohr's model of the atom, not correct, but an important step on the way to a better design.
Again there is no guarantee that I am not wrong and I may eat the hat when the dark matter is discovered. In the meantime, I will continue to grumble because steam is the way for science to progress. I believe that it is also important for the public to understand that there is a place in science for criticism if it is reasoned and by criticizing science improves, filters out mistakes and develops. It is also very important that the public
He will understand that when they say just a theory, it is not said with disdain. The theories that survive the test of time are theories that have passed countless tests, tests and attempts at refutation. Even if in the end theories change, it does not detract from their value, but you know all this better than I do.
A side note - the first test for a theory is the ability to publish it as an article, on the way to publication it receives peer review. Therefore, for all those who have theories of any kind, in my opinion, science is not a platform for theories, if you believe
In your theory, try to publish it in a scientific journal. By the way, this is not such a strict condition, countless wrong theories have been published in scientific journals, but it is still the first step to examining the idea of bringing it to a serious scientific discussion where it deserves it.
Yehuda,
I am glad that you internalized the subject of refutation, and I am sure that following this new understanding, you will make necessary changes in your theory.
Regarding the dark matter - from your reference to the subject, it is clear to me that you have never bothered to dig deeper and study a little more deeply.
It's really not a far-fetched and non-quantitative pressure theory, but a much more complex, complicated and interesting matter.
Basically, since it is a quantitative theory, it must meet all kinds of constraints.
For example, adding a certain amount of dark mass to a galaxy to explain its motion, must also fit the calculations of the gravitational mass of that galaxy.
If, for example, X dark matter was needed to explain the movement of the galaxy, and Y dark matter was needed to explain the gravitational acceleration of that galaxy, this would cause very serious difficulties and possibly a complete refutation.
Because of the vast distances, and the nature of dark matter, it is very difficult to plan experiments, but there is a relatively new tool that has already proven its effectiveness in the field of cosmology: computer simulations.
Again, since it is a quantitative theory, based on mathematical equations, a computer simulation can be built, and check if the addition of dark matter leads to a description of the universe as we know it.
It turns out that there are several problems - at least 3 - that cause the simulation to give somewhat different results from the observed reality.
These simulations have already forced the physicists to introduce some changes in the nature of dark matter. There is certainly no situation here where the scientists "add dark matter at will".
It is important to note that the need for dark matter also comes from other places in cosmology.
For example, non-bryonic dark matter provides an excellent solution to a long-standing puzzle: theoretical calculations found that the largest structures in the universe - galaxy clusters and cluster clusters - could not, according to existing theories, have formed into their current form in 13.7 billion years.
The addition of dark ** non-baryonic ** matter to galaxies to explain their motion and their gravitational decay, provides exactly what is needed to also explain the formation of those structures in the age of the universe - this is an incredible confirmation in my opinion.
Another area where the addition of dark matter and dark energy solves a mystery is a result of the inflationary universe theory. According to the theory of the inflationary universe, the geometry of the universe is guaranteed to be flat, that is, the critical density is equal to 1. Since all the known baryonic matter in the universe amounts to only 4%, we received another reason from another field, for the presence of dark matter.
This is particularly fascinating, because the theory of the inflationary universe has solved a series of other difficult problems, but was not initially intended to solve the problem of dark matter and dark energy.
The theory is certainly not complete and perfect, but it is as far from your simplistic and mocking descriptions, which stem from complete ignorance in the field, and a minimal lack of modesty.
Personal note:
I do not consider myself a great expert in the field, certainly not one who would dare to underestimate theories that I am not familiar with.
I read and try to understand a lot of studies and books in the field, and I highly recommend you do the same, before you spread your ignorance to the public.
from *al,
As I explained, the two theories exactly match the deviations in the orbit, but the theory of the additional planet requires its existence, a certain size and orbit. If after a long time, no trace of that star is found, and assuming that the observation instruments we have are able to identify such a star with certainty, we have no choice but to state that this theory has been disproved.
R.H.:
Your approach (which is also Ehud's approach) seems illogical to me.
All the scientific theories we have were achieved in one and only way: the elimination of competing theories by refuting them.
This is also the background for Ehud's use of MOND to reduce the belief in the validity of the dark matter theory (after all, if it were not for the disqualification of additional theories confirming the theory that was not disqualified - even the raising of competing theories would not have harmed the confirmation and all of Ehud's reasoning would have had no point).
There is nothing to complain about the use of the phrase "increasing trust" instead of confirmation in the current conversation.
This is a completely sound phrase that I brought into the conversation for one and only reason. The phrase "increasing trust" also has an inversion ("decreasing trust") while the word "confirmation" does not have an inversion ("de-confirmation" is not a Hebrew word).
I needed a counter expression to "confirmation" to explain what Ehud was trying to do in bringing up MOND and the like as an argument in the dark mass debate.
Noam:
From your response 330, someone can get confused, because if both theories match all the known observations, then what is the elimination based on?
The elimination takes place when it becomes clear that some theory does not agree with the observations.
It is necessary because before the elimination it was not noticed or the incriminating observations had not yet been made.
deer:
Thanks again. From a cursory glance, it seems that academic knowledge and experience does make a huge difference (as is evident from the reactions of Zvi and Ehud, who I assume come from this world)
R.H., Noam:
"Confirmation through elimination" seems a bit problematic to me.
It seems that the term is valid only if one of the theories is known to be the correct one. Otherwise information about one does not contribute information about the others.
R.H.
Note that confirmation by elimination is only carried out when both theories ** match all known observations **, this is of course a prerequisite and necessary condition.
To Noam
A theory will be called such if it is possible to try to disprove it
Show me how it will be possible to disprove the Newton plus mass-energy illusions?
After all, when the measurements don't match, you'll add as much dark mass as you need, and when it doesn't work out, you'll add dark energy.
That is, according to the dark mass-energy patent, we will never be able to prove falsehood.
Gently I will say that it is not fair.
And maybe this is the proof that it is not scientific?
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Noam, well then really the correct term and the one that is used is confirmation and not "confidence booster".
Confirmation by way of elimination of possibilities is especially weak if you are not sure that you know all the possibilities. A strong confirmation of a theory is a prediction in light of the theory and then a demonstration that you were right by experiment or observation. But you know all that and we're just arguing about a semantic matter.
By the way, all this reminds me of the story Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie where there were a limited number of suspects in the murder and all of them were ruled out by Hercule Poirot in light of their alibi. In the end it turns out that the murder was committed by all of them together, which is a surprising possibility that is outside the box. Similar things also happen in science.
deer
Unfortunately, I am not an expert in MOND theory and in general astrophysics/cosmology is not a field of expertise. Regarding my knowledge of MOND theory, it is layman's, I have read several articles and I had the opportunity to hear a lecture by Prof. Milgrom on the subject and also two lectures by Prof. Beckenstein. One focused on MOND and the other focused on TeVes. As mentioned, I am far from being an expert in the field, although as a layman the Torah impressed me greatly. It also has extensions or rather an attempt to theoretically base the theory on the basis of two types of dark matter with different gravitational charge. MOND is obtained in this presentation as a result of the dipole field of the dark matter (I heard a lecture about this as well).
R.H.
"Strengthens the training" is a term that differentiates between "proof" and "confirmation".
Since Popper stated that it is not possible to prove the correctness of a scientific theory, the need for a new nomenclature arose: confirmation, and the strengthening of training, which we were.
pleasantness,
Yes, it's probably just nuances. Just one thing, I'm not sure you're right about "strengthens training, it's not a psychological term, it's a scientific term". Since when does our trust play a role? How can this even be measured? Either there are findings or there aren't, and if another relevant theory is rejected, I agree that it does strengthen trust because we are human. However, this is as a result of our psychology which is also based on experience and gut feelings or intuitions (which in many cases are right...). It's like many times in research, an "elegant" theory is preferred over a cumbersome one, and indeed many times it is the correct one!
Yehuda,
I agree with you that there are examples here and there, and therefore it is not clear to me where you derive this excessive self-confidence when you state: "Newton's theory at large distances has been disproved to a point"
Not just disproved, a point was disproved.
R.H.
This is probably an argument about nuances.
I did not claim that disproving one theory proves a second theory.
I said that in a given state of knowledge, at a given moment, when there are only two theories that explain the measurements, the refutation of one of them strengthens our training with the one that remains.
Strengthens the training - does not prove it!
Of course, like any other theory, the one we had training in, could turn out to be wrong.
Strengthens the training, it is not a psychological term, it is a scientific term, and also a practical one - we will use the same theory to make calculations and predictions, and we will try to explain other things with it.
Example: If the extra star theory were unfounded, we probably wouldn't launch a satellite to orbit the non-existent planet. It is also reasonable to assume that in other satellite launches we would introduce a certain correction to its orbit formulas.
(Not particularly in-depth examples, but this is only for the purpose of explaining the philosophy)
To Noam
After the discovery of Neptune, they looked for another planet that would explain the deviations of the planet Mercury and even gave it a name - Vulcan.
They couldn't find him and had to finally fix Newton
There are examples here and there
I think eighty years is a period when you should seriously think about what to do with the dark mass.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
pleasantness,
I really do not agree with 317. In my opinion this is an example of incorrect science.
There were two theories, but they do not oblige each other. Suppose they were to send a spaceship there and see that there is no star, would a change in Newton's laws necessarily be required? I don't think so. The finding would rule out the additional star theory, but neither raises nor lowers the second theory. Maybe there is a third option they haven't thought of?
This is exactly what Ehud described about superconductors. There were two theories. They rejected one and automatically received the second, but finally it turned out that there was a third option that they hadn't thought of before.
Noam,
You are of course right.
As I mentioned, I haven't done a serious simulation since, and the description I described is that of a physicist who is not familiar with Sabdarmish theory and is therefore so grossly mistaken.
The day I do simulations myself, of course I will neglect gravity at large distances.
deer,
Just a minor, but important fix. You wrote:
"This is of course not true, because at a distance between a quarter of a galaxy and the entire galaxy from the point there is not a single star that has much influence, but there are many, many stars and their overall influence is not negligible at all"
Apparently you are not up to date with the innovative theory of Mr. Sabadarm*sh:
At such distances, the force of gravity does not exist, therefore ** there is no influence ** of the stars, but their exact movement is fully explained by the pressure differences.
I am surprised that this is not known to you.
Nathan 303
The internet revolution is indeed a revolution, but it still has its limits.
The Internet can cause a person to acquire a lot of knowledge, see some of the scientific statements that are said here, linked to quotes from various websites (mainly Wikipedia) - in some cases the writer knew beforehand what he was going to say but wanted to find a grip on it and in some he read on Wikipedia and from there he knew what to write. In this respect, the ability of an ordinary person to be easily exposed to a lot of information is of course a revolution that is supposed to raise the level of education of the average person.
Theoretically, the ability of the Internet should not be limited to this, many physics textbooks (undergraduate level) are available online and theoretically you can invest your time in studying them and thus acquire the necessary knowledge - but in this respect, the Internet is not fundamentally different from ordering the books and studying them independently. Although this method of study is possible, it is probably not the most effective, and as evidenced by the fact that most people choose to study physics at regular universities and not at the Open University, for example - it seems that interaction with people is of great importance.
In any case, even these studies via the Internet, will not spare you the years of effort required to reach sufficient knowledge of the field.
As for the use of computers, this is certainly done and on a large scale. A large part of the research includes numerical simulations to examine the results (instead of an experiment) or sometimes, when the physical analysis is too difficult, all that remains are the simulations alone (see response 45 to RA in the section dealing with galaxy formation theory).
However, in this context, several comments should be made:
1. Numerical calculation is not equivalent to an analytical equation in terms of the real understanding it provides (in response 61 I told about some analytical model - one of the reasons it is acceptable to use it is that due to its being analytical, you can really do something with it)
2. Many times the computing power required for simulations exceeds the power of a reasonable home computer. I will try to give an example, but I will warn in advance that since I have never conducted a single serious simulation in my life, my knowledge is very limited and the example may therefore be mediocre. There are 10^10 stars in the galaxy and let's say you want to describe in the simulation the behavior of the stars as point particles with mass (very simplistic), for each particle you want to describe its position (3 coordinates), its speed (3 coordinates) and its mass and now you have reached 10^10* 7. You will certainly want the simulation to run over a certain amount of time - let's say 1000 different "fools"... – 13^10*7 data. Each piece of data occupies four bits, that is, the size of the data store alone will be: 14^10*2.8, which is too much for an average computer. Of course, even if you save the data on thousands of disks, the calculation time (which I did not discuss at all) will be quite long - which means that your contribution as a home computer owner is questionable.
3. All the problems I mentioned in 2 are of course also valid for computers at the university, how then are they solved?
First, physicists doing simulations sometimes need better computers. Second, many times a physicist can make very simplistic assumptions that a person without a physical education is not known to make. For example - in the specific case I mentioned, the effect of a distant star at the end of the universe on a star at the other end was calculated, this effect is obviously negligible. An innocent person will then say that you can ignore stars that are a quarter of a galaxy away from the point - this is of course not true, because at a distance between a quarter of a galaxy and the entire galaxy from the point there is not a single star that has much influence, but there are many, many stars and their overall influence is not negligible at all. The correct solution is to carry out a certain statistical averaging over the large distances, and a finer averaging over the shorter distances and so on, when in a close enough box the calculation must be carried out for each star separately.
The example I gave here is of gravity and it is relatively simple, but complicated examples also require greater physical knowledge and therefore the ability of ordinary people to contribute to physics in these fields is relatively small.
What's more, in this field sometimes, it's your turn with the help of computer people...
R.H. and Ehud,
Of course not in every situation, refutation of one theory strengthens another theory, all I claimed is that there are such cases. for example:
A precise measurement of the orbit of the planet Uranus in 1821, revealed significant deviations that did not fit the Newton / Kepler formulas.
In this situation, there were two options:
1) Newton's formulas have been disproved, and corrections must be made to them as a function of distance (Sabdram*S principle)
2) There is another planet, which has not yet been discovered (Epal?) and it causes the deviations of the orbit of Uranus (according to the Sabdarm*S principle - a poor addition by the scientists, in vain here, so as not to admit Newton's refutation)
Both theories - Newton's correction and another planet - give exactly the same orbital deviation of Uranus.
Today we know which of the two theories has been confirmed, but imagine that prolonged observations would not have revealed any additional star, although according to the calculations, if it existed, it had to be discovered.
In this situation, disproving the theory of another star would certainly strengthen our confidence in the theory of Newton's correction.
I'm sure there are quite a few other similar cases.
Hugin?, are you back?
Noam
312
Attributed to your 305 response, esp.
And in general to the rest of your arguments that are prominently expressed in science and other blogging :).
As I argued: if you didn't understand, time will take its course..
sympathetic,
Are you seriously familiar with MOND theory?
(This is not a peevish question but a completely serious one)
about,
Sorry, because of so many signs and punctuation marks, I couldn't understand what it was about.
Noam
**Young scientists** can have a spark of genius and tremendous motivation, but
Long training and study=value of time=long experience..=time..which confirms/or proves the correctness of an idea or theory being tested=power of endurance and long-term patience=value of life.
Of course, there are also cuckoo theories..:) and there will always be **young scientists** who will do everything they can to break the **serious**/their predecessors, the foundation on which they were based...until *time* does its thing and they will be in the same Embarrassing or challenging status, Wot Aber..
sympathetic:
I don't want to continue this water grinding.
If you think that rejecting other theories does not increase the trust given to the theory that has not been rejected, it is not clear to me why you brought up other theories as part of your arguments against the theory of gravity as it is.
I have already pointed out this "fault" and you do not address it.
In my opinion, the rejection of competing theories does increase the likelihood of the theories that were not rejected, and in my opinion, all the other theories were indeed rejected when only vapors are heard against the existing gravity with the dark matter.
But I'm already repeating myself for the thousandth time so I'll stop.
I will also repeat once more the claim that to me is self-evident - that there are no proofs of scientific theories.
Any attempt to present something scientists have done as proof of a theory is fundamentally wrong.
In this specific case, the mistake is in presenting the assumptions on which the scientists were based as unassailable axioms - which of course is not true.
The scientists proved that if their assumptions are correct then there is no conductivity at high temperatures but they did not prove their assumptions because they could not prove that there is no proof of scientific theories.
Breaking the authority of scientists should be justified.
Breaking the kind you do only creates Jews and Jews because anyone can complain.
pleasantness,
I tend to agree with Ehud. If the theories do not contradict each other XNUMX percent then disqualification of one of the theories does not raise or lower the other.
For example, when it was discovered that DNA is the hereditary material, Nobel laureate (twice) Pauli proposed a triple helix model. In contrast, Watson and Crick proposed the double helix model. Even if something showed that a triple helix does not exist it would not add or subtract anything to the correctness of the double helix. By the way the proof came with the formation of the DNA which showed that this model is the correct one.
pleasantness
Note that there are roughly two situations in science. One is a correct science in which there is one dominant paradigm, i.e. one scientific theory that is accepted by the majority of the community. In this kind of situation, the strengthening of trust in a theory carried out by an experiment is indeed a confirmation of the theory. There is also a different scientific situation that I talk about in all my comments in which there are several alternative theories of which it is not clear which of them is correct, if at all. In the event that all the existing theories are flawed, as I believe this is the case, it is not clear what is the right way to look for a more comprehensive theory.
Examples of such situations in science are the standard examples of physics after
The Michelson-Morley experiment, the radiation received from a black body that they could not explain using thermodynamics.
Now let's take a private case from the history of science: Bohr proposes his model for the energy levels in the atom. The model does not fit all the data, so we will certainly reject it, but in a situation where science is facing a crisis, theories are not eliminated because they do not explain all the data, but rather try to improve on their basis. Disqualification of a competing theory in this case does not confirm the theory in which I believe since it is quite clear that none of the theories is the final theory. This phase in which there are several competing theories is not a normal phase in science and in which it is important to criticize or describe the flaws in each of the theories in an attempt to improve them. Apparently I could say dark matter contradicts the standard model therefore there is no dark matter. Such a rejection of a theory is refutable. The steam indicates the problems in the existing situation and in such a situation none of the competing theories should be dismissed as it is clear that none of them is the complete theory.
sympathetic,
Strengthening our training in theory may sound like a psychological thing to you, but it really isn't!
This is a completely scientific definition, which emphasizes the difference between confirmation and proof.
pleasantness
I partially agree. The strengthening of belief in our favorite theory as a result of the negation of other theories is a psychological phenomenon, not a scientific one in my opinion. At the moment the situation is that important theories do not agree with each other and the question of which one is correct is subject to interpretation as long as no experiment is found to determine it.
Regarding breakthroughs, I agree that you need knowledge to carry them out, on the other hand, you need enough innovation and fresh thinking
To perform them so that they are indeed performed by young people but those who have undergone a long training, there is no dispute between us about that.
deer
I liked the link between plank motion and cat walk. Perhaps it is necessary to add Planck's cat to the pantheon of physical cats next to Schrödinger's cat?
Planck units take on a physical meaning only because they are defined using the physical constants of nature and therefore are given importance. I also do not believe that the vacuum energy should be linked to Planck units through the counting of the degrees of freedom of the space assuming that the smallest unit of length is a Planck length. I personally believe that there is another physical scale and it is related to the vacuum energy of space-time. This scale is defined by a0 obtained from MOND theory. I don't think MOND theory in its current form is correct but I think it is a start in the right direction. By analogy one can think of Bohr's atom model which is not correct but was an important step on the way to the creation of quantum theory or maybe even the ether which was an important step on the way to special relativity. For me, MOND is a more physical theory than dark mass because it defines a new physical scale, but this is a matter of taste.
Regarding the authority of scientists, as I wrote to Michael, science makes its breakthroughs by challenging the authority of great scientists. There is no great scientist who did not make at least one major mistake. At the moment, since I don't have an alternative theory, I am pointing out what seems to me to be the weaknesses of the dark matter theory. You are right, great scientists have been working in this direction for many years without much success (I see MOND as a partial success), but on the other hand, experimentalists have been searching for dark matter for seventy years without success (I do not see the latest thesis of 75% probability of discovering a scientific discovery, but a media news ).
sympathetic,
There are definitely situations, in which there is a very limited number of options for explaining the results of an experiment or measurement, and in such situations, as M*kal wrote to you, the negation of the other options strengthens our trust in the remaining option. Of course there are cases where it turns out that there are more options than initially thought. But note: the expression is not "refuting one theory proves another" no one claims that!
Strengthening trust by ruling out other possibilities is similar to strengthening training after an observational finding that fits the theory. Strengthening trust in a theory is certainly not equivalent to proving the theory.
I especially agreed with your last paragraph, which exhaustively refutes all claims about science being captive to its own conceptions and unwilling to accept innovations.
It is only worth adding that the breakthroughs are obtained by ** young scientists ** with long training and study, and not by ordinary people with knowledge of physics and mathematics at a high school level.
Michael
I'll try again, rejecting competing theories does not raise or lower the value of the theory we advocate!
In science, unlike the road problem you described, we don't always have the right answer to choose over wrong theories. The usual situation in science is that there is one leading theory that scientists are working on developing.
Sometimes this theory runs into problems and then there is a possibility:
1. Renovate it as much as possible. When the problems are not serious it is possible and works.
2. Find an alternative theory.
Only in this situation there are several alternative theories that fit the data, but each of them has its own problems. In this case it is important to clarify what the problems of each steam theory are. It is not necessarily necessary to point to an alternative solution, but only to the problem. Identifying the problem is part of the way to its solution.
The situation today is that the dark matter theory contradicts the standard model. It tells us that the material that we know and exists on Earth is the least of the minority of matter in the universe. By the way of the discovery of the dark particle at a probability level of 75%, today I asked a friend of mine who is an expert in the field of elementary particles and he told me that when you want to announce the discovery of a new elementary particle you don't do it unless the discovery is real at the 5 sigma level. Yes 5 sigma and you compare it to 75%? From a scientific point of view, the discovery of a particle at a 75% level is equivalent to a discovery at a 50% probability level, either yes or no.
By the way, for your information, scientists have proven that "there cannot be a superconductor at a temperature exceeding 30 degrees" even non-trivial theories can be proven. The proof was based on the only known superconducting mechanism, the BCS mechanism, and assumed the only then known coupling between a pair of arches. As it turned out, there is another mechanism for superconductivity, which to this day is not completely clear, but it enables superconductivity at high temperatures. There is an important lesson from this in the rejection of models, a general rejection of a model relies on the fact that we know all its possible occurrences and we rule them out based on their incompatibility with the data, but there is a danger in the arrogance in which we assume that we know all the scenarios.
Finally, a word about progress in science. Science is not a hierarchical field of authority in which it is limited and progress in breakthroughs is received by those young scientists (mostly) who do not accept the rules they were taught. Breaking the authority of scientists is the way forward
Deer (286):
Thank you very much for the detailed answer.
I have a few more questions. You rightly pointed out that in the past physical knowledge was in its infancy as well as the scientific method in general so it must have been simpler to make contributions to science. Today much more knowledge has accumulated.
My question is about the impact of the revolution that we are all experiencing today - the computer revolution and the internet revolution.
First, regarding the development of extremely powerful personal computers - doesn't this allow, in a way that was not possible in the past, for individuals to perform calculations that were previously the property of only virtuous individuals? What is the role of computers in physical practice (theoretical and practical)? Are you currently doing "experiments" on a computer (for example by performing simulations)? This is available today as never before…
Regarding the second point, it is also something that has never happened before - first, there is a huge body of knowledge that is accessible to everyone in the world at any moment and is immediately available. Second, the Internet enables collaboration and exchange of interviews between scientists on a level that is again revolutionary. Does this give its signals in the academy? I know of many academics who run a blog related to their specialty, and I have also heard of a project called Polymath where mathematicians collaborate in solving problems over the Internet.
In your opinion, will the said change the way humanity does science?
Kuramkari 291,
That's an interesting question you raise. Is it possible to create a new body of knowledge that is not based on any previous knowledge? At least with regard to the examples that you brought Einstein from Axwell and Aristotle it is clear that this is not the case and all three of them broke through in the light of prior knowledge. They offered a new interpretation to the observations and attempts made before.
I suppose that if one day an alien arrives from space with a completely different biology that is not based on protein cells and nucleic acids or even on carbon atoms as the main atom, we will have to learn and develop new methods to study it and knowledge will develop almost out of nothing. But at least its chemistry and physics will, presumably, be familiar to us and we will start from there.
I think there are also examples in mathematics of people who developed new fields in mathematics that were hardly based on the previous ones, but even in this case the axioms exist and still 1+1=2 so it's not really "not based on previous knowledge".
deer
Apparently we will have to wait until the site is transferred to a more powerful computer in the meantime I can only thank you for your good will.
To my father Blizovsky
Let's hope that the matter will improve so far I have avoided looking at your site because I can't wait for it to become available.
Kuramkari
I replied to you at 12:58, my reply is still in confirmation (related to what you wrote to my father).
To Kuramkari - you hit the mark, these days a stronger server is available at our service provider and he will transfer the site to it in the next few days, hopefully it will help.
Lihuda, it seems to me that your story is taken from Danny Rupp's weather forecast about barometric depression and barometric level, you should understand that there is no connection between weather forecast and galaxy rotation.
deer
I wrote you above, maybe you missed it. Or you don't want to comment also fine.
To the website owner Avi Blizovsky
Does it also happen to you that the site is not responding?
That's how you lose patience until you get to the desired article.
What does XT TURBU run on?
Maybe you should switch to a slightly more powerful computer.
Yehuda,
You are of course entitled to your opinion - there is no dispute about that.
I have nothing personal against you, we don't know each other at all, at the same time,
I dislike your attempts at deception, your inconsistency, as well as your repeated evasions of uncomfortable questions
To Noam
I decided pressure differentials you will decide dark mass demons and spirits
So far
A righteous person in his faith will live
Bye bye Noam
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
You have been repeating this calculation for several years now, and who like you knows that it has nothing to do with your theory!
After all, you calculated the force needed to balance the centrifugal force, and it has nothing to do with pressure differences.
The force needed for balance can come from gravity, demons, pressure differences and any other imaginary source you choose.
You decided, without any basis and without any justification, that this force comes from pressure differences. I decided that this exact force comes from the demons of gravity, and most scientists are convinced that it comes from gravitation.
So why are you trying to mislead people who don't understand, and claim that this is a calculation that proves the theory of pressure differences?
Who do you think you work for???
What to do, and according to your calculation, pressure differences 100,000 times greater than the known interstellar pressure are required.
Not such a tiny gap will bother you or make you leave your wrong idea. You immediately add mysterious and dark particles to the mix and even "know" that those unknown particles can provide the necessary pressure.
All the while, you keep attacking the scientists who add dark matter. If that's not intellectual dishonesty, then I don't know what is.
Regarding the "ridiculous sentence" - you yourself explain that Zwicky added material to fit Newton's formula - he did not change the measurement results!
Some final notes:
* I did not dwell on your calculation, because it is not the main issue, and it was clear to me that you would take advantage of this to divert the debate from the issues that you are not comfortable with, but already at a cursory glance I identified serious problems in your assumptions, and the method of calculation.
* There are many cases in science, where, based on theory and measurements (not just from an overactive imagination!) new and unknown substances were added, which were discovered later. It's good that the scientists didn't think like Sabdarm*sh then, because then we would have missed a lot of discoveries:
For example, the planets Neptune and Pluto were added to the solar system long before they were actually discovered because of a certain discrepancy of the measurements with Newton's laws, and there are many other examples
Kuramkari,
A detailed answer was deleted due to the maliciousness of my computer, so I will write briefly:
The three examples you mentioned Einstein, Aristotle or Maxwell received the maximum possible education in their field in their day - and accordingly their achievements. If they were alive today, they would know more and certainly would have achieved new results compared to today.
The possibility that an uneducated person will create something new in the scientific world today is equal to the possibility that a monkey in front of a keyboard will write a play by Shakespeare - theoretically it is possible, but in practice it will not happen. The reason is that initially humanity assumed intuitive things suitable for everyday life and physics described them well, over time experiments showed other extreme behaviors and thus the theories were corrected (the example of special relativity is really appropriate - this theory was born to correct "illogical" things in electrodynamics - without knowledge of electrodynamics, special relativity would not have been born).
Mr. Sabdarmish tries to negate Newtonian mechanics (that is, general relativity...) This requires knowledge of general relativity - without this knowledge - it is impossible to negate anything.
Furthermore,
Beyond technical reasons of the need to know what you are deceiving, physics requires extensive mathematical knowledge born over many hundreds of years - without this knowledge, new physical developments cannot be made - physicists have a reasonable command of mathematics and sometimes they have to learn new techniques.
The calculation presented by Yehuda (289) indicates, for example, a lack of mathematical background since he did not consider at all that the analysis of the pressure difference should be differential and therefore taking a cone is incorrect.
As for the ability to prove a theory,
Read Michael Lahud's response - I don't think I could do a better job than him
A. If the position of all the doctors and specialists I consulted were the same, it seems to me that I would trust them and not invent the right treatment for myself according to my opinion.
B. If there were disagreements, I would try to investigate myself - but what is the investigation in this case? I would try to find as much information as possible that was produced by scientists and doctors with whom I did not consult - I would not proceed to build myself models of the operation of the heart and according to which I would want to be operated on. That is, in comparison to the physical world, I would try to understand what the great physicists think is their occupation and not try to invent for myself a theory of pressures that will solve everything.
third. The question "will a deer live or die" is very important to me, in fact there are not many expert doctors in the world for whom it is as important as it is to me - on the other hand, the question of the existence of dark matter or the existence of modified gravity is important to me to a certain extent, but I am sure that it is more important to physicists that Their profession and my heart would be happy to receive a Nobel Prize for the discovery of the truth in this field.
deer
Didn't you happen to write in Eyal Qar?
By the way, your writing flows and in my opinion indicates your talent in writing and explaining ideas.
In connection with your last response, I have a question from a challenging point of view.
Is it really possible to rule out a situation of creating new original knowledge without in-depth use of the existing knowledge base.
Or from another point of view, does the richness in the amount and variety of existing knowledge constitute a leap forward for the human ability to perceive. So that if great thinkers such as Aristotle Maxwell and Einstein were alive today they would not be considered at all.
From a seemingly extreme point of view, one can ask whether all this is nothing but an illusion.
Because, for example, most of the new ideas about the structure of the universe cannot be verified with certainty.
but only through the very indirect logical conclusion.
After all, the concepts of all major sciences are based on assumptions for which it is not possible to provide direct proofs. Evolution, for example, is based on drawing a posteriori conclusions from contemporary phenomena. There are no direct findings and evidence for the exact way it all started.
The same is true of the cosmology that treats the big bang, black holes, dark matter and discriminative energy as facts. But we must not forget that there is no direct proof for any of these, only logical reasoning.
In short, on the part of the Ifka, it seems possible to come and freeze the entire existing base.
The question is whether it is possible to create something new in its place without relying on the existing body of knowledge and its methods.
deer
There is no doubt that you have some knowledge of transplants and even worked in a nursery
So I will ask you a question
Let's say you were supposed to undergo a transplant, would you accept the suggestions of the transplanters as a Chinese Torah, or... would you also use your knowledge (even from the field of transplants) that is present in your head for the decision? Or maybe you would decide to undergo a doctor of medicine degree and only then decide? ??
From the little that I got to know you here on the science website, the final decision was only yours! And I'm sure it could also have been contrary to the opinion of doctors.
Zvi, we always use our gray cells for every decision, for better or for worse.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Noam
It is very difficult to write down formulas in science
I will then give you one calculation and that is how I arrived at the desired pressure difference
First of all, I took a segment of a cone-shaped galaxy whose base area is 1 square meter and whose length is the radius of the galaxy and I measured its mass. Its mass is about ten kg mass.
After that, I checked the size of the centrifugal force that acts on this mass in its rotation around the galaxy (mass times the linear velocity squared (230 km per second) and I divided this by the radius of the galaxy) and finally I measured what the pressure difference should be on a square meter for the same force to be applied. Here I got that the pressure difference should be 10 to the minimum power of 14 atmospheres between the edge of the galaxy and the center.
The simplest calculation in the world.
So maybe stop saying all the time that I didn't use calculations!
It is impossible to reach what I reached without calculations!
and about changing the measurements
Dear Mr. Noam
So why do you think Fritz Tzviki added the dark mass to the calculations if not to fit Newton's formula?, for his mother-in-law's beautiful eyes?
Maybe he did something very successful, but don't ignore the fact that he did it so that it would fit Newton's formula!!!
I don't think he did anything good.
And of course this ridiculous sentence in your response number 284 to me:-
"And regarding changing the results of the measurements: do you think that if you repeat this gross lie enough times, in the end they will believe you?", end quote. I'm tired of answering.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Regarding "Answer, ignore everything written..."
Please, try to write "Please" with more misspellings than me...
My last response was sent by mistake before it was completed - I answered ignore everything written in it after section (3) dealing with Bell technicians:
Below is the continuation:
4. Faraday is perhaps the last example in history of a great scientist without a formal education (mid-19th century!). However, it is worth noting that he was not completely ignorant:
A. Farday did not receive a formal education not because the universities decided he was stupid but because the England of those days was a very capitalist country and a poor man like Farday could not get an academic education.
B. Nevertheless, Faraday's genius stood out to the eyes of Sir Humphrey Davy, a famous chemist who gave a popular lecture in which Faraday was also present, and she appointed him as his assistant (doesn't working closely with a great scientist give a certain education...)
third. Faraday was an experimentalist and his lack of mathematical knowledge (due to a lack of formal education) stood in his way - the mathematical formalism of his discoveries was later formulated by others, especially by Maxwell who was a physicist with a real formal education - this mathematical formulation was not only a mathematical process but allowed insights Completely new that without the mathematical formalism could not be deduced from Faraday's experiments (primarily the conclusion that light is electromagnetic radiation, which led to Hertz's experiments as well as to the special theory of relativity).
in brief,
As you can see the main contribution of people outside of physics in it was mostly in experiments and not in formulating theories. Not for nothing, this contribution has also disappeared over the years as an innovative experiment in today's physics requires more than a household battery or a pendulum (a Bell radio antenna mounted on the face of a satellite is not standard household equipment).
You can be interested in science and learn a lot independently even without formal education, it is interesting and personally developing - but the expectation to contribute something real from this position is excessive and arrogant (even a doctorate in physics and even a coveted professor position - does not guarantee that you will solve the problems of the universe).
And finally a comment to Yehuda about his ability to analyze physics from business analysis:
Will you let me transplant you a kidney based on my fiscal analysis skills? (By the way, I worked in a nursery in my youth, so my transplanting abilities are also not in doubt)
Nathan,
In the last hundreds of years (since they stopped reading Aristotle's words and treating it as science) humanity has accumulated a rather large amount of information. Today there are more scientists than before and they come from much wider segments of the population, which certainly raises the level of science.
As a result, the amount of accumulated knowledge required in order to engage in certain fields of science is becoming greater and greater, therefore, "Renaissance men" who are at the forefront of research in many fields are not alive today.
In light of all this, it is not possible today without a broad scientific education to advance any scientific field, and certainly not physics, which is very characterized by the fact that discoveries are built on the basis of prior knowledge. High school physics is not enough and in fact (and this is even in contrast to many other academic subjects) starting to conduct research requires undergraduate studies at least as a minimum common language.
Regarding Mr. Sabramish's examples:
1. Cavendish lived in the 18th century, he was a rich man (which means he had time to engage in experiments at a time when most people could not afford it) and with the help of sensitive spring balances he was able to measure the gravitational constant with great accuracy.
A few things about him:
First, he lived in the distant past at a time when there was a lack of much knowledge that exists today, by the way he did not finish his full studies but nevertheless studied for four years in Cambridge).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish#Biography
Second, he didn't discover anything particularly deep theoretical, he just made a precise measurement (it's impressive, it's nice, but it doesn't require mathematical ability which in many cases is a big limitation on physical ability - according to Sabramish).
And thirdly (and this is just a passing comment because at that time a person with his formal education could also plan the experiment) - he did not build or design the measuring device itself, but received it from his friend John Mitchell, who studied at Cambridge
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)
2. Fritz Zwicky Kibble was an academic all his life. He began his studies at the University of Zurich (physics and mathematics) and then moved to Caltech (two well-known and worthy institutions - especially the second). Most of his occupation was in astrophysics and there his discoveries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Zwicky) - I don't know why Yehuda says that he dealt with crystals although it is certainly possible that it is true - either way he was a physicist with a fairly formal training.
3. Regarding the Bell technicians (Robert Wilson and Arno Pancias), it is worth noting several relevant details:
First, the prediction of cosmic radiation was made even before it was discovered by three strictly kosher astrophysicists (Gamov, Alper and Herman) - but since they are theoreticians they did not see it because it is not in visible light but in radio. These two radio technicians built a radio antenna intended to be used for astronomical research (….) so it is not so surprising that they discovered cosmic background radiation with it
Secondly, maybe because they were not astrophysicists but "technicians" at Bell Labs, they did not understand what they were seeing and it took two years and a chance conversation with astrophysicists who were looking for the cosmic background radiation in order for them to understand what they were seeing.
Third, again, both were physicists
This time even in Hebrew:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%98_%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9F
/%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%A7%D7%A2_%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA
4. Faraday is perhaps the last example in history of a great scientist with no formal education.
. For example
Cavendish who did not finish his academic studies but discovered the gravitational constant
Fritz Zwicky who had an education in crystals but discovered...that's right, the dark mass.
I also remembered the two technicians from the Bell company who discovered the background temperature of the universe
And it seems to me that Faraday was also involved in electricity
and many others. This is from memory.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Is the business analysis sufficient for kidney surgeries as well?
If anyone was not clear (and it turns out that this is the case), I repeat and clarify:
The lack of ability to contribute to physical knowledge without a university education is a result of the accumulation of this knowledge. It is clear that before there was any physical knowledge at all, all the contributions to this knowledge came from people who did not study physics at university. And later on there were still cases here and there of people who contributed.
Of course, if a perfect idiot walks down the street and suddenly falls into a black hole - there is a chance that he will receive a Nobel Prize after his death - just as the cosmic background radiation awarded a Nobel Prize to those who encountered it and did not understand its origin even though a real physicist had already predicted it before they encountered it.
As for "let the readers be judged" - this is beautiful: the readers to this day are divided into two types - those who delved into the things - understood them and judged them to the letter and those who said they do not understand the field and therefore perhaps should give things the benefit of the doubt.
There is no one who has read the things and confirmed his agreement with them.
Therefore - the readers have actually already judged.
Yehuda,
Are you dodging again?
What about your dark extensions???
What about the fact that you don't even offer a single formula to test the fit of your theory with reality?
Are these evasions a matter of poor memory, or of intellectual dishonesty?
And regarding changing the results of the measurements: do you think that if you repeat this gross lie enough times, in the end they will believe you?
To Noam
I state that the addition of dark mass and dark energy is actually a modification of the measurements to fit the formula
And things scream that it is so.
I also state that the addition of dark energy was done when the addition of dark mass did not help enough and something was needed to counteract it to account for the accelerated expansion of the universe.
Everything is done so that it fits Newton's "holy" formula.
Let go, snap out of it
But let's each live by his faith and please don't drag me into arguments
We made ourselves clear
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Ahand,
First, I was not "educated" on dark matter and the day it is not found I will not sit on it (I do not deal in cosmology!) - I am simply claiming that in my opinion the very fact that many smart people have been dealing with the subject for many years, and with a lot of motivation to disprove the idea of dark matter (and thus perhaps to start the scientific revolution at the beginning of which we stand) - did not succeed in their mission - indicates to me that there is a good chance that this is true. In any case, it's at least good enough so that I won't allow myself to say that it doesn't seem right to me without having read even 1% of the articles published on the subject.
Second, your claim that the cosmological constant does not correspond to the cosmological constant of Planck units really does not worry me:
1. Planck's mass is many orders of magnitude greater than the orders of magnitude of the subatomic particles and in fact does not correspond to anything (except with a half felt mass of an Atlantic grasshopper it is a fundamental constant of nature).
2. Planck time is too short to correspond to something normal and, as above, Planck length, and only therefore it is still impossible to show that it does not correspond to anything (which allows string enthusiasts to say that it has meaning for them - maybe...).
3. Planck temp is hotter than anything that has ever existed (since the big bang, then the temp was infinite so even then the Planck temp mass didn't play any interesting role).
4. Planck momentum is 6.5 kg/m/s - that is exactly the momentum of a slow-walking cat - again a fundamental constant of nature!
5. The Planck density is about 96^10*5 times greater than the density of the atmosphere of KDA and actually this time it has meaning - it is the density of a black hole whose Schwarzschild radius is exactly the Planck length... (this is not a coincidence, this is how it is defined!)
6. Planck charge is more or less (really not exactly) the charge of 11 protons - again not some fundamental constant of nature.
In short, the Planck unit system is a nice idea that sometimes makes it easier to register - however, it doesn't have any real "physical" meaning at the moment. Even theories with which I am not familiar at all (strings, on strings, etc.) which do assume that the Planck size has meaning, do not find it but assume in advance that the size of the curled dimensions has been identified.
In light of this, to complain about the cosmological constant and say that it does not agree with the Planck system of units - it is a bit unfair because until now nothing in nature does not agree with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
Yehuda,
Are you familiar with the saying: "He who rejects, in his own way he rejects"?
You don't accept the dark matter theory because ". As if to say - the measurements didn't match? So let's add as much as needed!"
And what do you suggest as an alternative?
You add at will interstellar pressure, not 10 times, not 100 times, but 100,000 times more than the existing pressure known to science, without any substantiation, without any reasoning, and you are not satisfied with that, you add a huge amount of mysterious dark particles that no one has heard of and no one Measure them, just to give an explanation for that huge pressure you wish visited.
In addition to all this, you don't even offer a single formula for medicine, which would allow you to check if the measurements fit your theory.
Tell me, with your hand on your heart, is this serious??? You don't feel discomfort, maybe a tiny discomfort due to your inconsistency?
You enjoy every opportunity to talk about the "scientists who uselessly add dark mass" and you do exactly the same - actually much worse.
In addition to this, you state that "the addition of dark mass and dark energy is actually a change of the measurements to fit the formula"
It's no longer a mistake, it's just a blatant lie.
No one changes the measurements, and I already mentioned that the mass of galaxy clusters is measured by 3 completely different methods, all of which give similar results, results that differ from the visible mass.
The existence of the dark mass, which is still uncertain, explains a number of different things, and therefore the knowledge that this mass does exist is strengthened.
The history of science is full of similar events that led to brilliant discoveries.
On the other hand, I don't remember a single case in the history of science, where a person with only high school physics knowledge tries to contradict, with arrogant and arrogant contempt, theories formulated by the best physicists in the world, theories that he doesn't understand, and also tries to convince the public that he is a real alternative Einstein.
Have we already talked about modesty? So we talked…
to give
I have to correct a mistake
A. I studied physics and at graduation I only got a 90. Admittedly it was a long time ago but since then I have upgraded my knowledge. Like most of us.
I did the physical analysis with my knowledge that I learned from business analysis. In this I have a graduate degree and experience in the industry.
So it's hard to say that I lack knowledge.
Regarding "internal contradictions and contradictions in the face of reality" as our friend M.-L? says, the readers will decide.
B. There were many who contributed without having relevant knowledge of the subject to which they contributed. For example
Cavendish who did not finish his academic studies but discovered the gravitational constant
Fritz Zwicky who had an education in crystals but discovered...that's right, the dark mass.
I also remembered the two technicians from the Bell company who discovered the background temperature of the universe
And it seems to me that Faraday was also involved in electricity
and many others. This is from memory.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Nathan:
If the questions are for an operative need - that is, to really reach a situation where you can advance physics, then it is clear that the best way is to go study physics at the university.
In that case - the question of whether there has ever been someone who contributed to physics without doing so is irrelevant because still - this will remain the best way.
If the question is to justify the behavior of Hezi and Yehuda, then even if there was someone who contributed to physics without attending university - it could not be someone who makes claims with internal contradictions and contradictions in the face of reality as it was made clear that Yehuda and Hezi do, therefore even then the question is not relevant.
That's why I asked why you ask.
to give
maybe that…. Two tiny demons playing tennis?
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
From * as:
I don't have the knowledge that's why I'm asking
Yehuda Sabdram*S:
I swear to you - I walk into the room and what I see is a ball. without a thread.
Nathan (272):
No - but I am not an expert in the history of physics.
The more knowledge in this field increases - the less likely it will happen.
In any case - even an autodidact must be based on the existing knowledge (meaning - if he did not learn it at the university - at least learn it from the literature).
What are all these questions for?
to give
Small correction
You see a string fluttering in the wind and decide from previous information you have about a pendulum that it is a pendulum and look for the ball tied to the string and when you don't find it you decide that it is made of dark matter.
Isn't it easier to think of a string fluttering in the wind?
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Nathan (269):
Your parable captures something of the situation but the example is too specific to be taken seriously.
It is clear that the scientists will look for a reason for the movement of the ball and they will be tempted to hypothesize the existence of some kind of gravitational force - not necessarily a pendulum that prevents the ball from falling.
If you think about it seriously, you will be able to remember that this is exactly the method that led to the discovery of many planets - both in our solar system and in other solar systems (in fact - for some of the planets in other solar systems, this is the only evidence we have to date of their existence, but no one doubts their existence)
From * as:
Do you know of cases of autodidacts who achieved scientific achievements in the field of physics?
sympathetic:
In light of your words to Noam referring to the words, I find it appropriate to reiterate:
I'm not trying to prove any theory because it's impossible.
I think that the rejection of all other alternatives should increase the confidence that people have for a theory that has not been rejected.
This is clear - precisely for the reason that the existence of a competing theory that has not been disproved reduces trust!
I find it appropriate to mention that you yourself have in the past raised competing theories as part of your arguments against dark matter. I don't think you did that even though you thought it wouldn't harm the trust I have in this theory.
What such a disqualification does without a doubt is to reduce or even nullify the trust given in the other theories.
Nathan:
The other ways are based on self-study from the literature.
They are suitable, for example, for those who have studied mathematics and want to gain an understanding of physics.
Advancing knowledge in physics without knowing what is known is not possible nowadays.
sympathetic:
You have nothing to say so you tell me trivial things?
First of all - even confirming the theory in an experiment does not make it more correct - in fact it does not affect the theory at all but only increases our confidence in its correctness.
Obviously, anything that happens to another theory will not affect the theory we wish to criticize.
On the other hand - disqualifying an alternative theory without our theory being disqualified - actually increases our degree of trust in the theory.
Let's take a very simple case:
You reach the Acre Safed road, there is no sign on the road that tells you which direction leads to which city.
There are two competing theories - one is that turning right will lead you to Acre, the other is that turning right will lead you to Safed.
You examine the first theory, drive to the right and reach the "Welcome to Safed" sign.
The first theory has been rejected and you accept with almost absolute certainty the second.
The cases of scientific theories are usually much more ambiguous because unfamiliar theories must always be taken into account, but still - rejecting competing theories increases confidence in the theories that were not rejected.
Scientists have never proved that there can't be a superconductor at a temperature exceeding 30 degrees and this is because it is impossible to "prove" non-trivial theories.
I don't know the nature of the consideration that led them to the wrong conclusion, but it certainly does not have a full effect on the nature of the considerations I presented.
The same goes for the other "proofs" you mention.
I keep saying that science advances by rejecting existing theories so you'll never be able to convince me of that and that's because I was convinced of that long before I knew you.
Are you telling me you really haven't read any of my comments that say that?
What brings you to the conclusion that you ever had to convince me of this?!
But - what I fail to make clear to you is that steam is not the way to disprove a theory.
A theory is disproved through experiments and observations that do not agree with you or by exposing a logical flaw (which can also be reduced to experiments and observations).
The motivation to disprove an existing theory does not need to be fueled with steam.
Every scientist knows very well what a well-founded descriptive refutation will do to his name (and contrary to the opinion of conspiracy enthusiasts - obviously it will only do him good) and he does not need to listen to the steam of others to look for flaws in the theories.
You also have to factor in the possibility that a theory will be correct (I mean - really correct! that it will perfectly predict the results of the experiments). It is possible to formulate some trivial theories that meet this condition.
For example the theory that if I take X pingpong balls and then take another Y pingpong balls - I will have X+Y pingpong balls.
I hope you are not calling scientists to complain about this theory lest science stop its progress.
A scientist chooses for himself the theories that he will try to verify or disprove according to his scientific intuition and this is not influenced by your vapors.
Is it possible to make the following analogy regarding the dark matter in question:
Said I enter the room.
In the middle of the room I see a ball moving back and forth in the air.
The trajectory of the ball resembles that of a pendulum.
But the mystery is that I don't see any string to which the ball is tied.
In order to explain the movement of the ball I use the only analogy I know of for such movement of bodies - the pendulum. And I call her "dark pendulum".
But the trouble is that as much as I try I can't see or feel any thread.
Is this the case with the same dark matter?
Yehuda
Thanks for the update from the field. But how do you really know that Mexico is playing Argentina? How do you know that Mexico really exists? The issue is what is most suitable for the totality of knowledge before us. But beyond the jokes I agree with you.
pleasantness
I think that you don't understand Michael, but we'll leave it to him to decide. In my opinion Michael is trying to prove the existence of dark matter by saying that this is the only theory that is consistent with the observational data. That's not how science works and the fact that currently the alternatives are not good doesn't help confirm your theory.
Regarding doubting theories there are several ways (read my words again) a theory can fit observations but not fit the entirety of scientific knowledge. This is the case of dark matter. Dark matter stands in contrast to the standard model of elementary particles. Pay attention to what you said in response 204 "from the moment it became clear that general relativity did not coexist with quantum mechanics, it was clear that there was a need for far-reaching changes in one of the two theories, or both together" meaning that general relativity is not compatible with quantum theory, again an inconsistency in the body of knowledge the existing At least one theoretical conclusion is incorrect or needs to change significantly. What theory? How is it determined? By the way, this is the situation Nathan is talking about. In such a situation it is appropriate to present problematic aspects of the existing theories so that science advances. Of course, someone needs to come along and come up with the alternative theory, but until then the discussion boils down to a careful examination of the theories, what Michael calls steam. No one on the site disproves theories because for that an experiment is needed and one experiment is not always enough. What is being done is a more or less careful examination of how the theory fits into the body of knowledge available to us.
to love
The problem is much more serious
After all, there is always uncertainty in measurements and since only with the help of measurements we check the correctness of a theory, then it can only be done with a certain uncertainty. Hence, we cannot always be sure of the correctness, neither in Newton nor in Einstein, nor in any other theory or formula.
Therefore, anyone who speaks with excessive confidence about the correctness of a formula does not know what he is talking about.
Another thing, a formula is only correct in the area in which it was measured, beyond that we know nothing and no cosmological principle or Occam's razor will change this, so when we talk about the distances of the universe, nothing is certain.
And the worst thing, they don't understand that the addition of dark mass and dark energy is actually a change of the measurements to fit the formula. As if to say - the measurements didn't match?, so let's add as much as needed!
And worst of all... to make this change of measurements the most ingenious thing in the world of science in the last eighty years!
Meanwhile, Mexico eats it when Argentina, with the help of the referees, feeds it straw.
Don't cry for me Mexico
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Noam:
Is there no other option? That is, a situation in which it is known that the evidence indicates that an accepted theory does not fit well with them. There is still no alternative theory, but it is known that such a theory is needed. There is no intermediate state of uncertainty
deer
First, it is clear to both of us that we are dealing with speculations, but try for a moment to detach yourself from the theories you are raising.
What do you think the chances are that actually our earth is special that all the matter known to us is about a fifth
What matter in the universe and the matter of which most of the universe is made up is not available to us? Of the baryonic matter, the universe consists mainly of hydrogen and helium, but these are also available on Earth. Doesn't it seem ironic to you that the main ingredient of the universe is not available to us here on Earth? It is about common sense and indeed in many cases science is smarter and does not fulfill the criterion of common sense but there is also scientific common sense. What is the mechanism that produces dark matter, how was it created in such a quantity in the big bang? This is not a minor correction to the standard model like the neutrino mass...
In general, cosmology as a science is built on a lot of question marks. What is inflation and what is the scalar particle responsible for it? What is dark matter? What is dark energy? Many question marks remain in my opinion that the basic theory is lacking. There is no need to remind you of past examples where complex theories were posited to explain the orbits of the stars so that the Earth would remain at the center of the universe. That's how I see dark matter and possibly inflation in its current form.
Regarding the cosmological constant, you did not understand me and the mistake was indeed mine, I made a mistake in writing the claim. My argument is that according to the accepted theories there is a deviation of what seems to me to be something like 42 orders of magnitude between the cosmological constant and the estimates regarding the vacuum energy. If we want to continue associating the cosmological constant with the vacuum energy, it follows that the Planck scale is not the correct energy for evaluating the vacuum energy. The vacuum energy should be much smaller and then it can also play a role in the galactic scale. That was the speculation I made.
Regarding the discovery of the dark matter particle with a probability of 75%, I hope you understand that this is news and not scientific news, the scientific criteria for discovering a new particle are much, much stricter.
sympathetic,
Sorry to tell you but you were wrong twice. No one claims that rejecting a theory promotes another theory - you just didn't understand Machel.
Second mistake: it is not possible to come up with correct scientific theories, because there is no way to prove that any scientific theory is correct (Popper).
What can be done is to hold onto a theory that has not yet been disproved (disqualified).
Constant progress in science is achieved by developing theories, confirming them, sometimes refuting them, and developing a new theory that replaces the one that was disproved.
To disprove a theory, you first need to understand it deeply. To say that I don't like this or that theory, and to state that it has been refuted, is complete nonsense (A. Hazi, and to a certain extent also Sabdarm*sh)
Michael
Dismissing other theories does not make the theory you favor more correct, it just doesn't work that way. Each theory is tested for its ability to adapt to experimental results and in addition to its ability to explain, its adaptation to the complex of scientific knowledge, its simplicity and other "aesthetic" criteria. Rejecting theories is not the main way science progresses. The right way is to come up with correct theories! The only moment in which disqualification of theories is significant is when a scientific revolution occurs, even then the leading theory is not really disqualified but is generalized to a broader concept. Your attempt to prove that alternative theories of gravitation cannot explain the observational findings is too simplistic. To demonstrate this some examples from the history of science:
Scientists have proven that there can be no superconductor at a temperature above 30 degrees Kelvin. After that, the superconductors were discovered at high temperatures.
Scientists have proven that it will not be possible to cool atoms to a Bose-Einstein condensate above a surface at room temperatures. Today this device is called an atom chip.
Scientists have proven that it will not be possible to bring a sharp tip close to a surface so that electrons from it can tunnel onto the tip. Today this device is called an STM.
I can go on and on with this list. The bottom line is that science is not mathematics. Scientific proof relies on hidden assumptions that are not always obvious to the eye and therefore many times nature is smarter than all scientists.
One last point in which I also fail to convince you for some reason. Science works thanks to people's attempt to find flaws in existing theories what you call steam. If everyone is happy all the time, science will not progress. Scientists try to find flaws in theories this is what advances science Steam is the steam engine of science!
And what are the other ways?
Are there known cases of people outside the world of academia who made significant contributions in physics?
Nathan:
The proper path, in my opinion, must start with studying physics.
This is a huge and complex body of material that many smart people dedicated their lives to creating and any attempt to "skip" its study - beyond the fact that it requires infinite vanity - is also doomed to failure.
The safe and well-oiled way to study the existing knowledge goes through the educational institutions that have specialized in imparting it - the physics courses in the universities.
There are other ways but they are not suitable for most people.
Contribution to science You can start contributing as part of the work on the master's degree and more significant contributions can come later.
The general public should engage in science - simply to expand their understanding of the world around them. Even the very understanding is a very satisfying experience and you don't have to innovate anything to experience it - just like you don't have to be a painter to enjoy a picture or a composer to enjoy music.
The general public also needs to understand the connection between the discoveries of basic science and the technological developments based on these discoveries - and the standard of living they enjoy.
This relationship is based both on the content of the technological developments he enjoys (this enjoyment is not related to the country where the technology was developed) and on the impact of developments carried out in his country on the economic situation of the country as a whole (something that will help him understand the importance of institutionalized support for the continued development of science and technology in the country).
Understanding this connection is necessary for him - in the end - because democracy allows him to influence the national agenda and it is desirable for him to understand the consequences of not allocating budgets to universities, harming academic freedom, etc.
From * as:
In your opinion, what is the appropriate path for a person interested in entering the world of physics, and perhaps making his modest contribution to science?
Do you think there is any scientific contribution to the general public's engagement in science matters?
impolite of him (:
deer:
I spoke to him at the end of 2008.
It started with a phone call on November 16, 2009 and continued with an exchange of emails until November 19.
In the email, I also referred him to the sling cluster (using its description on Wikipedia - although I have no easy way to know if the innovations you are talking about have already been reflected in it).
In his answer he ignored this part of the question and when I sent him a reminder on the subject he did not answer.
I didn't ask again because I didn't know why he decided not to answer.
Noam,
I am sure that the public deserves to be exposed to your important discoveries (my contribution is really negligible and is nothing more than an application of your rich theory) - if you are careful,
We still live in a world where fame and personal prestige are important and it's a shame that some charlatan will steal from you the credit you deserve.
deer,
Thanks for your insightful comments (I won't forget to mention this at the Nobel Prize ceremony).
Your second idea is particularly interesting, because despite my great confidence in the correctness of my theory, I was missing the mechanism by which the demons move the stars and galaxies. You may have made an important discovery!
I am considering starting a lecture tour to the general public, there is no reason to hide such important discoveries from him.
interesting,
Relatively large inaccuracies in the measurement may be why M94 is not overwhelming enough evidence against modified gravity theories.
When did you talk to Professor Bekenstein (on Wikipedia it was noted that in 2008 the rather convincing measurement of the Bullet Galaxy was made)?
deer:
I talked to Bekenstein about this galaxy and he agreed (perhaps even before I presented him with this figure) that dark matter is, in his opinion, bound by reality.
He was just saying that it's certainly possible that bully dark matter would suffice and that dark matter with the same elusive properties was not needed.
By the way, since then I talked to someone else who raised an interesting question that I still don't have an answer to.
He asked how they even measured the rotation in the M94.
This question has a place because it is a galaxy whose axis almost coincides with our line of sight and therefore the usual methods based on the Doppler effect will have difficulty giving information about the rotation speed.
Michael,
Galaxy M-94, (if everything you mentioned is true and accurate - of course it does not depend on that, but on the astronomers who present the findings) is indeed an example that is supposed to tip the balance - as it is presented now, it is convincing to me.
On the other hand, I hear of well-known and serious physicists who are still exploring the possibility of alternative theories of gravity. Since I have no reason to believe that they don't know something that you and I know, I assume that they found some kind of explanation for it (starting with measurement inaccuracies and ending with all kinds of pathological and weird cases that I can't think of).
I understand that recently the evidence is growing that the alternative theories of gravity (at least the ones that exist today) fail to explain a number of phenomena that have been discovered. Among other things, an example I've already heard about several times (so it's probably solid enough) is also related to the bullet galaxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND#Discussion_and_criticisms
Like you, I believe that most of the experts in the field are probably right and not the minority - it seems that dark matter does exist, and even if it has now only been discovered in 75%, the empirical evidence for its existence will multiply over time. If so, I think that for now my position on the issue is not too important and therefore it is not important for me to formulate such a position in a solid way.
Yes, I'm interested in knowing what the reality is, so like you, I'll read, I'll be interested and if I get the chance I'll ask someone who understands more (mainly regarding the M94 galaxy which really sounds like a pretty overwhelming example).
By the way, you mentioned correspondence with Prof. Bekenstein - did you discuss the aforementioned galaxy with him?
Noam,
I think your demon theory holds tremendous potential that you haven't realized yet (although I have no doubt you would have come to it yourself). Some of these demons (maybe all of them, I'm working on it...) may have anti-quantum charges, which may explain the inability to quantize the gravitational field.
It is also possible that the swellings of the demons may create the pressure difference required for the movement of the galaxies according to Judah's theory and thus, these two theories are combined into a large and comprehensive theory.
sympathetic,
Any point failure of a scientific theory can be dismissed by claiming that its solution requires a general scientific revolution. The trick is not to declare a scientific revolution in Nablus and the Arabs, but to know when a discrepancy originates from a real problem and when it doesn't.
The problems you presented, or at least some of them, are certainly important and significant issues and may only be solved by a huge scientific revolution - on the other hand, time may prove that they can all be solved within the existing theories.
I will refer to the things you presented to the font:
1. The rotation curves are solved by assuming the dark matter. It is true that the dark matter does not correspond to the standard model, but since its creation, the standard model suffers from the status of an intermediate theory and very justifiably - it includes too many particles, does not include gravity, does not explain dark energy or inflation (which is usually explained by the irresponsibility of states that print too much money) and, of course, predict that neutrinos have no mass (not true!). In light of all these things, it seems to me more correct to assume that someone has added a black point to the bruised and unfortunate standard model than to throw away an established, complete and proven theory such as the theory of general relativity.
2. In your argument about the cosmological constant you are simply wrong. The cosmological constant was born as an additional component in Einstein's equation designed to make the universe stable within this framework Einstein added a constant whose value is X. This is not true and this became clear very quickly, Einstein even managed to point out that adding the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life. However, in the passage of time (1998) it turned out that the universe is expanding and it seemed that adding something similar to the cosmological constant could explain the accelerated expansion, except that this time its value was not X but Y, which is completely reasonable and logical (there is no reason that a value intended to explain one effect should correspond to another effect).
Moreover, the cosmological constant holds (1-)=W (W is the ratio between pressure and density, for "dust" it is 0, for radiation it is a third and for a cosmological constant (1-)), apparently, other negative values of W could also fit Accelerated (but not really exponential) expansion then did not have the same dark energy that causes the acceleration of the cosmological constant universe and this would not be compatible with the theory of relativity (which allows only W=(-1)). However, measurements repeatedly confirm that the value of W is exactly 1 - that is, dark energy is mathematically identical in its behavior to the cosmological constant and is thus completely compatible with the theory of relativity.
3. The renormalization is indeed as far as I understand the problem in the quantization of the gravitational field. If so, I mention that it took 20 years for Feynman and Schwinger to quantize the electromagnetic field. I do not know when and how they will succeed in quantization or whether it is clear that such quantization should indeed take place. In any case, it seems absolutely reasonable to me (again, based on intuition only and I would appreciate it if you could show me a more serious reference to this) that the quantization of the gravitational field will have a significant effect only in cases where exchanges of individual quanta are involved - that is, in very weak fields, and between very small bodies. Since gravity behaves "continuously" in the solar system, I don't understand why in larger and more massive systems, it will suddenly start to behave in a quantum way.
Regarding the dark energy and its connection to the quantization of the gravitational field - I don't really know if it is related. I'm just making a very general statement - unlike gravitational forces within galaxies, which I would be surprised if affected by quantum effects for the reasons I mentioned, then things related to the energy of the void (dark energy) may indeed grow from quantum effects. As an example, I gave the Casimir effect which is a macroscopic effect of a kind of energy of the vacuum, which concerns microscopic quantum results.
I am not saying that this is the case, that the quantization of the gravitational field is the explanation for dark energy. Maybe yes, maybe not - I'm just saying that it wouldn't surprise me that it would be revealed, unlike other things that would surprise me.
And again I don't understand the quantization of fields, I don't quintet any field and I'm just saying what "smells" right to me
Yehuda,
Since you ignore time and time again the essential drawback of your theory - namely that it is not quantitative, I came to the conclusion that you probably do not understand the importance of this central point.
To illustrate how important this is, I will point out that even according to Newton's theory there is no need for dark mass and dark energy, if one does not perform quantitative calculations, and is satisfied with the statement
that the movement of galaxies is fully explained by gravitation.
Think about it.
I have already explained many times that science has no way to prove theories and all it can do is to disprove them.
No one has been able to disprove the existing theory of gravitation with dark matter.
All other theories were dismissed.
Of course, everyone has the right to continue to believe in an invalid theory, but this does not infringe on the right of those who know what is wrong with the theory to point out its flaws every time they try to "sell" it to the public.
And by the way
Is the "Newton" restaurant a model?, I had a lack of understanding of the article about the models.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
for Micha-
Even ten kosher steaks will not make the restaurant kosher.
All steaks must be kosher.
Adding apple sauce to a kosher supplier's steaks does not make them and the entire "Newton" restaurant kosher
But it is clear to me that there is a disagreement between us
Good day, and with a smile!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Judah (231):
Your short words are riddled with many inaccuracies:
I do not use one galaxy - even if we limit ourselves to the discussion of M94 (and I also mentioned the Slingshot cluster as an example of many other phenomena) then I explained that M94 is one of many examples of the fact that because different galaxies that look similar behave differently indicates the existence of invisible differences in galaxies themselves (assuming that the laws of gravity that govern them are the same laws).
Beyond that - I did not make any use of M94 to confirm the known gravitation (although it certainly confirms it) but to disprove competing theories and indeed - to disprove a theory one counter example is enough!
Nathan (233):
You are completely wrong.
The law of those day-to-day actions is indeed different - but in the opposite direction from what you are trying to imply.
These are actions where every time you are betting your life on the justice of the experts, while in the discussion here no one is betting his life on this or that opinion.
I repeat: I am in favor of studying the subjects and (unlike you) I do practice this way - but no one can learn everything, and therefore it is completely rational to take this fact into account and from the multitude of subjects that can be studied - to devote time first of all to studying the things that are given high importance and only then The same goes for those who attach less importance to them.
That's why everyone - including me - relies on the opinion of experts on a subject they don't know and there is nothing wrong with that.
So where is "bad"?
When someone who has learned nothing about the subject tries to "teach" the experts, is not willing to listen to them and makes no minimal effort to understand the overwhelming refutations they present against his claims.
Of course it is also bad to protect someone like that.
Ehud (242):
What should it be?
Science advances by disproving theories and not in any other way.
Legitimate disqualification is pointing to findings that contradict the theory.
Illegal disqualification is by steams.
I take the first approach.
By the way - the main point of your argument against the dark mass is that despite all the searches they still haven't found it.
Well - beyond the fact that they apparently did find it and beyond the fact that it is clear from the outset that its properties make it difficult to find it by means other than measuring its gravitational effect, they have not yet found a theory of gravity that explains the facts either. That's why your argument against the dark mass - it is right that it should also be directed against any alternative theory. Of course, the alternative theories are also opposed by the fact that they are ruled out in advance by the findings - as I explained.
This article faithfully describes what is happening. It's a shame that the phenomenon is much more serious than it is described.
For example, a study published several years ago raises the possibility that approximately 30% of all medical studies in the US are tainted with fakes at one level or another.
Many cases have also been documented in recent years, and in my opinion the phenomenon (including the phenomenon of forgeries that is developing very much in Israeli universities - buying works, copying, etc.) must be dealt with severely and degrees and employment places must be denied to those who have promoted themselves with the help of forgeries and fraud.
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
poor chest
to love
An encouraging and fair analysis of things
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Congratulations to Ghana who advanced to the quarterfinals at the expense of the USA.
And regarding Natan's question
Hezi started with a provocative sentence:-
They are finally starting to clean up garbage left by "scientists"...
And that's what was missing to ignite a campaign of attack on my chest.
Mainly Noam's whom I know from his "unflattering" responses to me
I admit that I do not understand Hezi's ideas, he is trying to explain the movement of the arms of the galaxy and I have a problem with the whole galaxy.
But from here until calling him a liar?, the village clown?
The person comes up with an idea.
And I understand that in the end it was censored
I entered the debate quite late in response 129
Hazi at least dares to come up with ideas, true or not is another matter
What is the chance of people like me and Hazy being right?, extremely slim. Like us there are thousands who are wrong. But among all the thousands there are also some who are right.
Your wisdom, commenters, is to find the righteous few, but it doesn't seem to me that salvation will come from you because you kill them all.
It is true that most of those who dare are wrong, but unfortunately you did not convince me that there is nothing wrong with my ideas.
Apparently neither are you.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
deer
Thank you for the investment and the detailed answer. First of all, relying on people involved in the field is a good idea, but not always objective. A person involved in the field will see things through what he has learned and what he believes in. When there is evidence beyond any doubt, then of course there is no dispute about the words of the experts, but when there are doubts, one should be careful of conservatism. The assumption of induction which says that the approach I have taken until now has been successful and therefore will continue to be successful fails when a scientific revolution occurs.
Why I think we are facing a scientific revolution:
1. The rotation curves of the galaxies - do not taste the visible matter and Newton's laws.
2. The universe is accelerating and the assumption that the cosmological constant is equal to dark energy is wrong by orders of magnitude.
3. There is no quantum gravitation theory and it cannot be in the existing format. It is not possible to eliminate distractions by renormalizing the Torah when it comes to Gravitational Torah.
Continuation of 1 if dark matter is assumed:
1. There is no compatibility between particle theory, the standard model and the assumption of dark matter.
At the base we see observations that do not agree with the theory. The addition of dark matter does not fit the standard model of elementary particles.
First, since this is purely speculation, I will start with an argument about the nature of the development of science. Science goes through revolutions when the appropriate technology makes it possible to measure things that were not accessible to experiment before. Examples: measurement of the speed of light by Michelson-Morley, cooling of liquids and metals to low temperatures, observations of distant galaxies. In my opinion, the standard model has been proven in countless experiments on Earth. The field that is only now beginning to develop is the astronomical observations examining the theory of gravitation that has proven itself on Earth, but not at great distances and at low accelerations.
In addition, it is a fact that there is not and cannot be a theory of quantum gravitation in the given format, and at least one of these theories is incorrect. The assumption that it will be a minor repair is unfounded. Zvi, you believe that the scales characterizing quantum gravitation will not be suitable to explain phenomena in the scales of galaxies. On the other hand, you do think that dark energy can be explained by vacuum energy or rather vacuum fluctuations using some kind of Casimir effect. Note, Zvi, that the energy corresponding to dark energy is orders of magnitude lower than that obtained from vacuum energy, so it could be (speculation) that we do not know how to correctly evaluate quantum effects and that their scaling is not determined by the Planck scaling but by another energy scaling.
To sum up: many fields in physics for him revolutions in the last century, now in my opinion it is the turn of gravitation. Theoretically it has problems and observationally it is not suitable. In this I see (pure speculation) evidence of an approaching revolution in the field.
Michael
The attempt to disqualify the competitors does not strengthen the dark matter theory. That's not how science works. The dark matter theory will confirm its claim that the prediction that they have been trying to find for more than seventy years will come true, that is, the dark matter particle will be discovered.
Yehuda Sabdram*S:
How about HAZ*?
Of course "colleagues" but also "real" is fine
with a smile
Yehuda
to give
I'm not sure there are many real people who know my ideas.
The few I told were quite alarmed by Newton's dismissal.
Professor Milgrom from the MOND theory that I told him about told me that if I abolish Newtonian gravitation there is no chance that I will receive research budgets. Luckily I wasn't about to ask.
But from time to time there are those who are willing to listen. Maybe salvation will come from them. Willing to meet if any of them.
And if not, then no big deal.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Noam
First of all I appreciated your apology because I really didn't copy anything from anyone.
But it is also clear to me that we are in a world with billions of people and most likely someone has said similar things to mine once.
And for our purposes
You are forcing me to expand on my ideas but let's hope the site will be patient.
Let's start with the fact that all the theories:- demons, Newton plus dark mass plus dark energy, pressures, parallel universes, and God, explain very well the movement of the galaxy and the accelerated expansion of the universe. Each theory in its own way.
If the redeeming particle of the dark mass is discovered - she will be the one to lead
And if a cute elf is discovered at the edge of the galaxy - the demon theory will lead
Billions of believers in God do not need His revelation
And of course the same with the other theories.
What needs to be discovered in order for the pressure differences to lead? We need to invest in drawing the pressure map in the universe and then see if the linear motion of the galaxies matches the direction of their rotation. For example "The Great Attractor should be a low pressure area, Andromeda moves towards the Milky Way because of the pressure differences between the two.
For example, a galaxy moving towards the north when there is a high pressure area to the west and a low pressure area to the east, it will have to rotate counterclockwise. And if a galaxy moves towards it on the same plane (meaning south) it will have to rotate clockwise. I'm not sure Newtonian plus dark mass plus dark energy theory would predict that. This of course could be a good way to contradict my theory and relieve me of the pressure.
Note that for Newton we must assume dark mass and dark energy, for demons, God, parallel universes, and pressure differences there is no need to add anything so maybe they are superior to Newton?
It is possible that in the future weather experts will be the ones to advance the cosmological analysis (if it is about pressure differences).
The job is a lot and it doesn't seem like a job for me. I don't have the knowledge for that either.
Until then you will prefer Newton upgraded with dark mass and dark energy, and I will prefer the pressure differences which are enough to explain everything including the big bang and the accelerated expansion.
By the way, Newton with gravity has a hard time explaining a big bang with accelerated expansion.
Pressure differences are simpler and make fewer assumptions to explain the universe. You have to be brave enough to weaken Newton in the big rocks. And by the way, make no mistake - gravitation exists in all the large spaces of the universe, but not according to Newton's or Einstein's formulas.
It is hard for me to believe that my tiny particles (10 to the power of minus 37 grams) will be found in an experiment, but the future will tell.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the world of science to find the redeeming particle, but please - 100 percent particle and nothing less.
I again invite everyone who wants to, to my lecture at the observatory in Givatayim. Details in response 129.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda Sabdram*S:
Do you agree with Noam's opinion (which I tend to side with) regarding the role of criticism in scientific practice. Have your theories gone through a process of peer review as is customary for theories and scientific articles?
Yehuda,
a question:
Do you know a single galaxy that behaves according to your pressure theory?
Just please don't repeat the circular argument that the pressure differences explain the movement of the galaxies, and the movement of the galaxies is proof of the pressure differences - this is also proof of the existence of gravity demons
Note: Newton's theory predicts the speed of galaxies, so you can argue that there is a discrepancy.
What does your theory of pressures predict - just like that, so that we can check the compatibility of the forecast with reality
Nathan,
The scientific method in its essence supervises all those involved in it, therefore ensuring that in the long run only the best and most successful theories will survive, while the fakes will all be discovered sooner or later - this is one of the great advantages of the method.
As a matter of fact, it is possible to supervise budgets, publications, etc., and of course I am in favor of supervision as good as possible.
Yehuda,
You are absolutely right about one thing - I have no way of knowing if you came up with your ideas after reading Descartes or the other scientist, or if you arrived at similar ideas completely independently
Therefore, I rephrase my words, and ask to apologize and omit the part of the copying (even though I worded it carefully and said "probably").:
"Ideas almost identical to the theory of Sabdaram* were developed a long time ago by Descartes and by another scientist in the 19th century, I think, (whose name I have forgotten)".
(As soon as I remember the name of the other scientist I will bring it to your attention - I promise)
Another thing, indeed, as far as I know, you are the only one who claims that there is no gravitation at large distances, and it is good that it is so.
Nor have I ever argued otherwise, and since this idea completely contradicts both Newton and general relativity, it doesn't seem like anyone but you would ever support this idea.
As a matter of fact, Descartes believed that the universe is not empty but full of weak matter, that there are more pressure differences and eddies and they cause the movement of the bodies in the sky - does this sound familiar to you?
Although Descartes did not know about galaxies, and you applied the idea about galaxies (as you claim - independently), but there is no fundamental difference between the movement of planets or suns and the movement of galaxies.
Descartes went further, and formulated his theory in the form of equations, which predict the rate of movements and their direction, thus Descartes' theory is definitely a scientific, quantitative theory, with predictions and the possibility of refutation.
Although Descartes' theory was scientific, Newton proved that it was simply wrong, because it did not correspond to reality.
You still haven't even come close to this stage, so your theory is a fascinating story perhaps but certainly not a scientific theory.
Believe me, I'm not jealous of you (I think you're making fun of yourself, and I have no desire to end up in this situation), nor am I defaming you, I'm stating simple facts, which are very uncomfortable for the image you're trying to create for yourself, and that of course upsets you.
I've already told you once, instead of getting angry, invest your energy and talent in developing a quantitative scientific theory, which will be better than my theory of demons (not Michael's!), and which will be able to meet the criteria of a scientific theory.
From * as:
I think that the judgment of the daily actions you mentioned is slightly different from that of the scientific theories. Still also for the actions you mentioned, I believe that the most rational thing is to study the subject and not blind obedience to those in authority.
The question of whether I personally behave this way is a separate question, I don't think that all the actions I do are rational actions. When I'm in a dark room I get scared. I don't believe I should be afraid, but I am afraid nonetheless.
pleasantness:
I do not come to the defense of the commenters in question, and I tend to agree that before it is possible to say something smart about a scientific theory it is advisable to invest many years in higher studies.
Still, don't you feel that there is room for more criticism in scientific conduct. After all the scientists are people and the scientific activity is a human activity. As such it is affected by ego matters, the pursuit of funding sources, and other pressures that can divert practitioners from pure scientific practice.
To whom
It amazes me how a very smart person like you (really) sees one galaxy that behaves according to Newton as conclusive proof of the correctness of Newton's formula and forgets all the tens of thousands of galaxies that have been measured and do not behave like Newton.
If a store that sells pork once sold kosher meat, does that qualify it????,
Go alone my friend and ask them
(:))
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Nathan:
This is bullshit that even you don't believe.
Have you ever been to the doctor? Have you ever swallowed medicine? Have you ever driven a car? And what about a plane?
I guess you didn't study medicine, you didn't check the composition of the medicine and how it works, you don't know how to build a car, and even if you did, you wouldn't take it apart and reassemble it to see that it was built correctly, like with an airplane.
I also assume that while you're typing on the Internet - you don't know how to build a computer and you don't know all the details of the software down to machine language.
In other words - you don't accept your own behavior.
Of course, studying the material is better.
This is the way that the other commenters in the discussion except Yehuda, Hazi and you took it.
Nathan,
With your permission, I would like to answer you in a slightly different direction.
Before deciding whether a theory is true or not, there is an equally important preliminary criterion:
Whether the proposed theory is a scientific theory or not. The criteria for a scientific theory are objective and clear, and are based on the so-called scientific method. There is no point in repeating its main points here, it is easy to find a lot of material on this.
The science site is a scientific site, therefore, it is not suitable for discussions about non-scientific ideas and theories. My criticism - and in my estimation also of the others - of the theories of Sabdarm*sh, Chaz* and Rafa*m is first and foremost that they do not meet the criteria of scientific theories!
None of them are quantitative, none of them explain how they can be disproved, and none of them rely on a quantitative fit with observations or experiments - just stories and nothing more.
The reliance of the majority of people on scientists is not at all similar to the reliance of religious people on their rabbis - the reliance on scientists and physicists stems from the knowledge that they operate according to the scientific method, which has been proven to be the most successful method - by a huge margin - compared to all other methods, in everything related to the deepening of human knowledge.
In fact, in most cases I don't even have enough knowledge to judge whether one scientific theory is more correct than another scientific theory, and neither do most of the site's participants!
There are some who lack understanding, who think that with the help of common sense, it is possible to determine which theory is more correct. This is complete nonsense!
Dark matter exists or does not exist not because of Sabdarm*sh's common sense, nor because of his literary talent.
Anyone who has studied quantum theory at all knows that large parts of it are fatally counter to common sense, and yet it is one of the two most important and successful theories today.
In fact, since quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, pure logic and common sense are completely irrelevant tools, and the only way to say something innovative in the field of science is to invest many years in higher studies, and only then is there a chance for it.
Anyone who tries to take a shortcut and skip the stage of acquiring knowledge is making a fool of himself, even if he is not aware of it.
deer:
I promised an explanation for my claim that changes in gravity cannot solve the problem.
Instead of redirecting you to what I wrote in previous discussions - here is the summary:
1. Galaxy M94 It was tested and it was found that there is no (or almost no) dark matter in it. It rotates exactly according to the known laws of gravity. If gravity were to work differently in large soups and accelerate the rotation of the stars there (as is the case in most galaxies) the behavior of M94 would not be possible.
This is an extreme case of a more general problem where galaxies that look similar behave differently. If a certain law of nature such as gravitation is adapted to explain the movement of one of them - it cannot explain the movement of another while (various) amounts of dark matter can do so.
2. In many cases, gravity turns out to be around "nothing". This is something that a change in the laws of gravity cannot explain. The most striking example of this is the slingshot cluster In which we see two clusters of galaxies whose centers of gravity (as they are revealed in gravitational field tests) have already passed through each other a long time ago and indifferently while the interstellar gas that makes up most of their visible mass is still engaged in a violent collision at the meeting point. This is excellent evidence - both for the existence of dark matter and for its non-violent nature.
From * as:
"Relying on the authority of the experts is also the most logical course of action available to a person who does not understand the subject"
This is the axomia I am appealing against. It seems to me that the logical course of action is to study the material. Everything else is idle chatter. I see no point in defending positions that the person does not understand and the only reason for defending them is authority.
To Noam
When you write in response 221:-
"And there was another scientist in the 19th century, I think, (whose name I have forgotten) who developed a theory almost completely identical to the theory of Sabdaram*sh, from where Sabdaram*sh probably copied his theory." End quote.
You accuse me of plagiarism, and I don't know whether to cry or laugh. Because if you say that scientists think like me, then that should boost my ego. But I think you're just jealous and disgusting.
You keep saying that I'm talking unfounded nonsense, but if it's not nonsense after all, then apparently I copied it from someone whose name is-…. you forgot
It doesn't seem to me that there is a scientist in the universe who cancels gravitation at distances, like me.
That's why I really don't feel like answering your poor slanders. I think I deserve an apology if you want me to address the more serious things you sometimes say, apparently by accident.
to Nathan and R.H.
When I analyzed the movement formula of the spiral galaxies I did not use any physical knowledge and it could have just been a formula for cooking M matzoh pie in cheese (G). I wanted one pie and got ten!, where could I go wrong? Is it because I took unleavened bread (M) ten times? Maybe cheese (G) in an unnecessary amount? Maybe something else. The simplest analysis in the world of formulas, that is a completely mathematical analysis.
Only at the stage of sifting through the various mathematical possibilities, I needed any knowledge of physics to check which of the possibilities is also physically suitable.
More in detail, in my lecture.
and give
There is no doubt that the Internet is an important tool that has access to a lot of wisdom as well as a lot of nonsense. The reader will decide.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Nathan:
You admit in advance that you do not understand, so I have nothing to attack you for not understanding.
However - you are wrong to assume that the other commenters do not understand either. Although you claimed that you understand less than them, you did not read their reasons or did not understand them.
The rejection of Yehuda and Hezi's theories is based on in-depth knowledge of the topics discussed and not on any authority of others.
More than that - relying on the authority of the experts is also the most logical course of action available to a person who does not understand the subject. Hezi and Yehuda do not take this path and do not bother to study the material. You also do not take this path and actually blame others (as mentioned - unfairly because they are experts themselves - but at the moment it is not relevant to the matter) as if taking it is not the right thing to do.
R.H.:
I completely agree with your words. My point is that the protective or disparaging attitude that the various theories receive is usually not related to the correctness or incorrectness of the theories but to irrelevant social factors such as those mentioned.
By the way, I also believe that the phenomenon of the various "innovative" theories is mainly a social phenomenon that is not related to scientific work, and the Internet provides them with a fertile ground for spreading their words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)
Nathan,
Scientific or non-scientific theories cannot be judged without knowledge. There is no connection between the "other characteristics such as the eloquence of the writing, the richness of the language, the conspiratorial nature of their words" and the correctness or incorrectness of their words.
Adi (148):
The reason I asked Haz* and Mr. Sabdarm*sh is that they seem to have different criteria than the rest regarding proper scientific conduct. I am interested in hearing their opinion (their words sound far-fetched to me too, but unlike the other scholars in the discussion, I do not have a strong physical background, so I cannot judge the theories in a matter-of-fact manner like they do, except according to other characteristics such as the eloquence of the writing, the richness of the language, the conspiratorial nature of their words, etc.).
In addition, it seems that the defense of people from the street on the prevailing scientific theories today is mainly motivated by reasons of the authority of the scientists (Ehud mentioned this point in his words). That is, even without any understanding of scientific matters, people will tend to accept the theories accepted by those in authority, and see things that contradict them as nonsense.
There is also a phenomenon of slander even within the academic world as mentioned in this article - doctoral students who will falsify measurements or adjust experiments to fit the professor's expectations. As an observer from the side, it seems that the easier way to successfully complete an advanced degree is by maximally responding to the supervisor's expectations and requirements, which can come at the expense of striving for originality and innovation (although this probably depends on the supervisor's character).
This is characteristic of many social activities, but one wonders if there is a better model for scientific conduct in which authority does not seem to have such a heavy weight.
R.H.
How can you even compare Laplace's theory with mine?
After all, these are two completely different types of demons!
Apart from that, Laplace's theory is specific, while mine is a comprehensive and world-embracing theory to explain the movements of all objects in the universe. In fact, you can say that my theory is more comprehensive than Newton's and Einstein's theory together!
I ask for some respect.
Regarding the theory of pressures of Sevdram*S - you are right of course, Descartes was also much earlier than Judah (although he used the theory of pressures to explain the movement of objects in the solar system and not of the galaxies), and there was another scientist in the 19th century I think, (whose name I have forgotten) who developed The theory is almost exactly the same as that of Sabdram*sh, from where Sabdram*sh probably copied his theory.
But May, I searched and searched for one positive thing to say about the pressure theory and I couldn't find it, so I decided to praise it, sort of like you praise a child who came last in a competition and give him an award for fairness.
Noam Via-Va-De,
Originality and thinking outside the box: high score for both theories?
The Greeks already thought about gas filling the universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_%28classical_element%29
Maxwell had already thought about a theory of demons to solve physical problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
I'm sorry Noam, but the idea of demons is Mi-L's and what you're doing is plagiarism in the scornful sense of the word.
Do not take advantage of the openness here on the site to appropriate things and ideas for yourself
I can at least be sure that no one in the universe claims like me that there is no gravity.
so good night
And let's see the new articles of the scientist
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
You've made it very clear that you don't like the theory of dark mass and dark energy, but you haven't given any serious arguments against it, except for a small number of arguments that are just as valid for your non-theory.
This is not surprising, since it is quite clear that you have not delved into this theory, even at the level of popular science. If you did, you would find that the reasons for the existence of dark matter are many and convincing, and not only for the purpose of explaining the movement of galaxies.
Precisely the recent discoveries, such as for example the accelerated expansion rate of the universe, the age of the universe compared to the size of the structures in the universe, further strengthen this theory.
Unlike your theory and mine, the dark matter theory is a scientific, quantitative theory with quantitative predictions, which gives answers to a large number of questions and not only to the movement of galaxies (whether it is true or not).
With your permission, let's leave the dark matter you hate for a moment, and compare your theory to mine:
* Quantitative mathematical foundation: neither in the pressure difference nor in the theory of gravitational forces (hereafter approx.
* Predictions that make it possible to disprove the theory: neither in pressure difference nor in KM
* Simplicity: a great advantage for the Shechem, since it invented one convincing mechanism for all ranges of distance, while the pressure difference requires both gravitation and a pressure difference
* Observational evidence or experiments that confirm the theory: neither in pressure difference nor in KM
* Assumptions without proof: a notable advantage for the SCM, requiring only one basic assumption (the existence of demons), while the pressure difference requires several basic assumptions (only short-term gravitation, the existence of a pressure difference, the existence of unknown particles, etc.)
* Originality and thinking outside the box: high score for both theories
And to sum up, the best proof of the correctness of the SAHM theory is of course the movement of the galaxies - what could be a more clear sign than that of the existence of gravity demons?
To Noam
I was sure he had suggested it to me and yet I made the presentation.
But let's do it again with pressure differences:-
On this occasion, I would like to remind the readers of the site, the original theory that I developed, it is the "pressure differential" theory of gravity"
These are "pressure differences" of a unique type, responsible for every movement of every substance in the universe: from a falling apple to galaxy clusters.
Masses of such "pressure differences" (there are different sizes) are scattered throughout the universe and their blessed action easily explains every known and unknown movement of the objects in the universe. End quote.
Well what is true is true, it is quite catchy and there is an imagination. But with the addition of dark energy demons it wouldn't work because I don't have dark energy
But still I must point out that it is food for thought
Shabbat Shalom Noam.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
You have done a great thing!
Now replace the word demons in my theory with a pressure difference and see what happens!
Yehuda,
Well done! The Jew from the chest is allowed 🙂
To whom
Happy birthday to your eldest daughter (daughter? - there is a difference between the two words)
I also have an older daughter and I try not to call her senior so that there are no misunderstandings with my other successful children.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Noam:
You didn't follow the discussion closely enough to notice that the ones who invited Zvi into it were Ehud and I, and it didn't happen because we wanted him to help us deal with Yehuda's words, but to demand another opinion in a long discussion between us.
deer:
To the best of my recollection, I wrote a few comments there that pretty much shut down the Gollel about the possibility of changing gravity in a way that would match the observations.
Right now I have to finish the preparations and go to celebrate my eldest daughter's birthday. If you don't find which comments I'm referring to - I'll point them out or plan for later.
211:
I don't understand what you want from Noam. It is allowed to bring up theories but not to refer to them?
to me
It's true that I owe you an answer about the "rotation" and what I'm going to do is learn this weekend why the galaxy rotates when explained by gravity and why the explanation is not good for pressure differences either
When I learn the subject I will respond, maybe even at the end of this week.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Noam,
You bombarded Yehuda's blog with your comments :) Isn't that enough for you?
To Noam
And now seriously!
You have no idea what a smart thing you did!
And really I'm not kidding.
Let's take what you wrote in your idea and where it says demons we'll write a dark essay and see what happens
I will do it for you!
On this occasion, I would like to remind the readers of the site, the original theory that I developed, it is "the "dark mass" theory of gravity"
These are "dark mass" of a unique kind, responsible for every movement of every substance in the universe: from a falling apple to galaxy clusters.
Masses of such "dark mass" (there are different sizes) are scattered throughout the universe and their blessed action easily explains every known and unknown movement of the objects in the universe.
End of quote.
You see what I mean when I say the dark mass-demons are ridiculous proof.
After all, it is just like a superior force that meets the requirements as good and appropriate in its eyes.
How can people not see the ridiculousness of this?
(;))
And it's a shame about the time some smells coming from my wife's kitchen - the cooking wizard
And it's all there gentlemen - bully, nothing is dark!
She will never give me one meatball and tell me that I got ten (dark nine).
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Yehuda,
First, the influence of Judah's particles was never measured in the XNUMXst century. So either for some reason there are no Judah particles in the vicinity of the Earth, or their effect is several orders of magnitude weaker than that of the neutrinos. decide
Second, first you will see how the Judas particles cause the galaxy to rotate, as I have requested several times, and you even ate a hearty lunch that included a pie, in order to fill yourself up for this difficult task, and then you will declare that this is proof of their existence.
Why is the thank you not accepted?
Shabbat Shalom
Michael
179/184
Again, thank you
deer
I'm sorry, but in the analysis I'm doing I came up with over ten possibilities for a mathematical solution (only one of which is of course physically correct) and not four possibilities as in your response. Therefore your response is lacking.
I invite you to come to my lecture and perhaps also respond to my words.
Details - response 129.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To whom
Happy about the pro-Israeli demonstrations in Italy. Agree we disagree
to me
You claim that the effect of Judah particles was not discovered.
conclusion:
The effect of the Yehuda particle flux is smaller than the effect of the neutrino flux.
I actually think there is a lot of evidence for my particles - the rotating galaxy, the big attractor, the accelerated expansion of the universe, and a few other things
The fact that you explain it differently is perhaps a matter of faith (:))
good evening
Yehuda Sabdarmish
sympathetic,
You burst into an open door. From the moment it became clear that the theory of general relativity did not live in harmony with quantum mechanics, it was clear that far-reaching changes were needed in one of the two theories, or both.
The first to claim this are the scientists and physicists and no one tries to hide anything, and no serious physicist is enslaved to one theory or another.
At the foundation of the discussion here lies the question of what is a scientific theory and what are just stories (grandmother's stories if you will).
The dark matter theory is a scientific theory, and it is valid until disproved. It is accompanied by quantitative calculations, and although it is difficult to make attempts to test it, it still provides predictions that can in principle be tested.
Yehuda's stories about pressure differences cannot be considered a scientific theory, because they are not accompanied by quantitative calculations and certainly not accompanied by quantitative predictions.
Yehuda does try to convince us that the calculation he made to find the magnitude of the pressure needed to propel the galaxies is considered mathematical backing for his theory, but of course this is pointless - these calculations have nothing to do with the theory of pressures. Yehuda does not show any way to quantitatively calculate the magnitude of the actual pressures, the relationship between the pressures and the speed of rotation, the behavior of the particles he invented especially for the purpose of his theory - in short, nothing beyond the story.
On this occasion, I would like to remind the readers of the site, the original theory that I developed, hello is the "demon theory of gravity"
These are demons of a special kind, responsible for every movement of every substance in the universe: from a falling apple to galaxy clusters.
Masses of such demons (there are different sizes) are scattered throughout the universe and their blessed action easily explains every known and unknown movement of such objects in the universe.
My original theory (I'm convinced no one thought of it before), has a number of great advantages:
* There is no need for dark mass and dark energy (tapu tapu)
* There is no need for strange pressure differences (toffee beauty, honey of pressures)
* It is unusually simple, and requires only one assumption: the existence of such demons.
* Her ability to predict is no less good than the ability to predict Judah's law.
I am considering whether to submit myself as a candidate for the Nobel Prize in Physics
Regarding the dark matter discussion.
I read the entire discussion held here in the last two days and also looked at part of the discussion to which Michael referred (154). If anyone is interested in a specific response to what was said there, I would ask that they direct me to the concrete comment (the correspondence there is very long...).
Anyway,
As all participants in the discussion know (I hope so) the idea of dark matter was first raised in the 30s to explain the rotation curves of galaxies - it turned out that the speed is constant as a function of radius and does not decrease as expected from Newtonian theory/relativity under the assumption that the distribution of matter is as it appears.
The talk can have four logical explanations:
1. What is not relevant at all in this case is that there was a mistake in the calculation of the theoretical predication - it can happen and sometimes it is very difficult to overcome it, but in this case the calculation is simple and the explanation is rejected.
2. It is possible that the observations are wrong - in this case the observations are relatively good (Doppler) and it does not seem that this is where the solution will come from.
3. The density distribution is not what it seems.
4. Newton's theory/relativity is incorrect and requires corrections.
A priori, choices 3 and 4 are both possible and now is the time to try to decide between them.
The dark matter solution is designed to solve the problem in way 3 (in the meantime, many more problems have arisen for which dark matter can be a good explanation), while modified gravity theories such as MOND or TEVES are designed to solve these problems in way 4.
Personally, I don't understand enough in the field to check these speculations myself, so I have no choice but to rely on people who understand the field and accept their point of view - at the moment, according to my impression, the more accepted position is the assumption about dark matter, and so for now, until it is proven otherwise I see no reason not to accept it. In this context, I will make several comments in response to what was said here (mainly by Ehud):
1. The question of the existence or non-existence of dark matter preoccupies two different types of physicists. The first type is the cosmologists, who treat dark matter as a substance that reacts to gravity alone (weak reactions are meaningless on this scale) - and that it does not have certain effects that characterize baryonic matter. The second type of physicists who are interested in it are those who deal with elementary particles (a field that unfortunately I do not understand enough). In recent years, the particle physicists' work on the subject is gaining momentum, and in my opinion this indicates that the (cosmological) evidence that this kind of material does exist is probably multiplying. I will mention that if dark matter is discovered, it will not be the first time that particle physicists learn about the objects of their research from astrophysics. For example, the first prediction concerning the existence of the nuclear fusion process (Eddington) arose from the need to explain the sources of energy for the stars, also, the fact that the neutrino has mass and is therefore not an eigenstate was learned from the solution of the neutrino problem from the sun by John Bacall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem.
2. In his response (151) Ehud claimed that the idea of dark matter requires ad hoc adjustments to each galaxy in order to explain its rotation curves. As far as I know, this claim is not true at all. Under the assumption that the dark matter (which responds to gravity only) is distributed in the universe in an isotropic manner with slight disturbances, over time we get the structure of the cosmic web (cosmic web, those who want pictures can search "millennium simulation" on Google and see beautiful pictures). By and large, it is simply a grid-like shape that describes the concentrations of dark matter in the universe and its flow directions according to the grid lines (there is also a simple and nice analytical model by Zeldovich from the 60's) - adding amounts of gas to this dark matter under the laws of thermodynamics creates galaxy-like structures in the center of the dark matter halos whose size reaches up to a tenth of the mass of the dark matter - this explains flat rotation curves as seen in the absolute majority of galaxies without the need for ad hoc adjustments.
3. Ehud's claim that not enough has been done regarding gravity is correct. Mainly, a second quantization of the gravitational field as conducted for the other three forces is missing. The question is whether, once such a theory is created, it might solve the problems for which dark matter was born, and my personal feeling is that this is not the case - I would argue:
If we refer to the electromagnetic field (which is similar to gravity in its long-term effect and the fact that the field particles themselves do not react to the force it represents) it seems that quantization changed the laws regarding the behavior of the electromagnetic field on the small scales - Coulomb's law is still true for the large scales and no corrections are required. There is a reason for this - when we talk about macroscopic bodies we are talking about huge numbers of photons, which causes the importance of quantum effects to decrease. In the same way, I believe that quantum gravity theory when it is found (if at all) will not change much in the large orders of magnitude but on the contrary - its effects will be in the quantum distances only, and from this point of view it does not seem to me that the macroscopic laws of general relativity and Newtonian gravity will change significantly. In this respect, not every misunderstanding indicates that the solution and the accusation that "you don't understand gravity, how do you know that there is no need for repairs" is a cheap argument. I think that here the misunderstanding will not be able to solve the dark matter problem and introduce a corrected theory of relativity - simply because it does not make sense for the corrections to be on the large scales.
On a side note, I say that a macroscopic thing that quantum gravity might be able to explain (or rather, it wouldn't surprise me personally if it explained) is phenomena like "dark energy", if you will, in analogy to the Casimir effect concerning a certain energy that exists in the vacuum.
But again, it is very difficult to say what a theory that does not yet exist and it is not clear that it will ever exist will explain - it seems to me that it is possible to perhaps smell what it will not explain (gravity at large distances).
In conclusion:
The question before us is who to slaughter:
One cow is the theory of relativity (and with it the Newtonian approximation) - a successful and proven theory that stands the tests time and time again (and since it would be so prestigious to collapse it, many attempts are made)
The second violation is the standard model which is frequently beaten and from the beginning it would seem to be thought of as insufficiently complete - moreover it is not at all clear that finding dark matter is a slaughter of this violation because in contrast to it dark matter will confirm all kinds of ideas about symmetry which I do not understand at all but it seems that They look quite complete and make those who deal with particles very happy.
Most physicists prefer (and rightfully so) to check first whether the first cow can be saved and in the meantime it seems that this is the case - alternative theories of modified gravity are no more elegant than the dark matter solution and more importantly, do not cope well enough with the observations so far. The dark matter, on the other hand, makes many predictions (in contrast to Ehud's reaction) which turn out to be justified, especially regarding the hydrodynamics of galaxy collisions.
In light of all these things, I don't think there is a reason for now to decide that this is an unlikely solution - although I have no doubt that many physicists will sleep better the first night after dark matter is definitely found.
I will end with a note that a friend who understands cosmology told me (and therefore he assumes the existence of dark matter every day) - although it has never been confirmed in my ears by someone who understands enough about particles, and yet, it sounds logical to me:
We know that there is matter that does not respond to the strong forces (leptons) or electromagnetic forces (every particle is uncharged and lacks momentum) - there is even a particle that does not respond to both (the neutrino) - why not believe that there is another particle like the neutrino only a little heavier?
I am not telling you this as a scientific argument, but only as a light persuasion for those who are willing to believe that not all Piscians are corrupters and yet want an explanation by waving their hands of the logic of invisible matter
Shabbat Shalom
Michael
First of all, kudos for coloring the names in your response in red, it helps a lot to go back and find it when the discussion has gotten longer in the meantime (much more convenient than selling the number of responses or responses) You can also mark discussions on different topics in different colors. And for us
Regarding the discovery of a particle with a probability of 75%, according to my opinion, this is a discovery with 0 certainty. In the field of elementary particles, it is customary to talk about detection in probability, not in percentages, but in sigmas, it seems to me that the standard is to announce the discovery of a particle when the probability of error is less than 3 sigma, it could even be 4 sigma. So the announcement of a wave of discovery with a probability of 75% is a non-scientific journalistic news.
Regarding Mario Livio's quote, it is clear to you that you are relying on a scientist from the community that made its scientific name from discussing dark matter and believing in it. I sound like I believe in conspiracy theory but in my opinion people in the field refuse to see things in the new way. The evidence for the existence of a crisis in the field is clear to me.
Again, the fact that the theory has no alternatives at the moment does not necessarily mean that it is correct, see for example the case of the site. The site explained all the measurements and yet the site theory failed even though it had a very important contribution to science.
And finally, I would also be happy if Zvi expressed his opinion.
Judah 199:
Let's make it really simple:
The effect of particle flux is directly proportional to the effect of a single particle and the number of particles.
It is difficult to detect a neutrino effect, but the neutrino flux from the sun is detected.
The effect of Judah particles was not detected.
conclusion:
The effect of the Yehuda particle flux is smaller than the effect of the neutrino flux.
And yet you firmly claim that the opposite is true.
By the way, there are several questions that you left open. These are guys that our sun easily passes through. If I were you, I would lower the waist and start closing it.
Yehuda:
I don't have any opinion about Italy and France in the context you talked about - I don't watch the World Cup at all.
I am much more interested in the pro-Israeli demonstrations held throughout Italy recently.
Your material and bricks - you defined it as dark matter by saying that it passes easily through normal matter without feeling it (which means, among other things, that there is no friction either).
I only agree with you on one thing and that is that we disagree.
to me
Their influence is lower but their quantity is greater and therefore also their influence.
Lm. my friend
So we don't agree and if you said that my particles can't eliminate the dark matter and they are in the SA "dark matter that explains nothing" then you must know, and the real dark matter is a honey even though it is transparent without friction and without taste and only has a lot of gravity and even 75 percent A particle and when he is not a baby then add some dark energy which is his lame sister and come to Zion Goel
Tell me what you think about Italy and France? They ruined the World Cup for us. They are not friendly.
And besides, can I already use the explicit name?
Shabbat Shalom
(:))
Yehuda Sabdarmish
This was Einstein 'falling' from the world of truth into the article inside the 'box' he would most likely have said: "From science to science".
Yehuda:
You ignore most of the questions and in the only answer you give you contradict the claim you raised earlier as if it is not about the "simple universe" theory (which has been refuted in many ways).
Even if you want to create another complication here, introducing dark matter that explains nothing to eliminate (unsuccessfully) the need for the dark matter that does explain things does not seem to me to be a very smart move.
The restriction on the name must remain mainly because of the people who think that the name is responsible for everything.
Note:
The fact that I flowed with it really does not mean that what you wrote is true. I'm just saying that if we ignore all the blatant contradictions in what you said, we'll still end up with a contradiction.
Of course, these contradictions should not be ignored and must be settled as soon as possible!
Yehuda,
exciting. If so, you say that your vanishing baryonic particles (194), particles consist ofnumber of elementary particles, More Small From a neutrino which is an elementary particle (187), and operations less interactions with atoms than the neutrino, even though the baryons are strongly reactive particles while the neutrino is weakly reactive. They were never discovered, even though the neutrino was already discovered. If so, it can be said that their effect is lower than the neutrino effect.
We'll go with it.
The amount of neutrinos emitted from the sun is enormous, the amount that interacts is much lower, but still much greater than the aforementioned pressure. If so, why doesn't Earth move away from the sun under the influence of the neutrino pressure? After all, this pressure Much Greater than your imaginary particle pressure?
to me
I will answer during lunch and hopefully no particles will fall into the answer.
For our purposes
Apparently your question is great and even excellent
Why invent particles if even in the conventional alternative case (gravitation) we are required for particles?
What are they wise? (or stupid like me)
But my particles are superior to my dark mass particles for several reasons
A. We know some of them, for example the netrins
B. My particles are thugs and have no strange properties
third. Perhaps most importantly, my particles also explain the expansion of the universe and even the accelerated expansion without the additional need of dark energy.
It seems to me that according to Occam's razor my idea should be preferred.
Lenaam
I don't know what the pressure of the particles is, I only know that I need a pressure difference of 10 to the power of minus 19 atmospheres per light year. And by the way, there may be a correlation between the background temperature of the universe and the pressure, and it is known that the differences in the background temperature vary by 10 to the power of minus five degrees in different regions
But I'm taking a break now because my pie is getting cold.
Good afternoon and bon appetit to me
Yehuda
Yehuda,
In all your responses, you bother to point out that a tiny pressure difference "certainly exists in every gaseous body" is needed to rotate the galaxies, but it turns out that the necessary pressure difference is hundreds of thousands of times greater than the average interstellar pressure as known to science.
The source of this enormous pressure, for which there is no evidence of its existence, is "probably in the particles" which you do not know how to define, and therefore cannot calculate the pressure they cause either.
Following Adi's questioning, tell me, doesn't this make you think again? Not even a little?
Does it really seem much simpler and more logical to you than dark mass?
Yehuda,
If I understand correctly, you claim That the average interstellar pressure is hundreds of thousands of times higher than the pressure known to science?
How exactly did you arrive at this figure? Is there any evidence for this or any calculation?
Yehuda 190,
I didn't understand something, did you invent special particles for your theory that no one knows about?
So invisible mass is not good, but invisible particles for pressures is fine?
Or am I missing something?
With appetite.
Lenaam
Indeed, if such is the face of things, then you should be right, but you are clear that what is written in Wikipedia is the pressure created by those atoms, ions and molecules found in the vastness of the universe.
I'm talking about smaller particles, but then tell me I'm wrong and there's no pressure there because it's all quantum theory so there's no point in commenting because we don't agree
So good day and I'll go eat to gather strength and respond to Adi and understand where the rotation to the galaxies came from
Good Day
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Yehuda,
I hope you relate to what I wrote.
Regarding what you wrote on 163 "But I will admit and not be ashamed that I do not know what the concept of "the discontinuity of the pressure function on the circle" is". I explained what I mean before, but I'll try again:
The force caused by the pressure differences is minus the gradient of the pressure function, isn't it?
And in simpler words, look at the following drawing (especially for you!):
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/3739/round2f.png
The XY plane is the plane of motion of the star in the galaxy. The Z axis is the pressure value at each point. The star moves in a circular orbit, so we will only be interested in the pressure values on this orbit. If so, the star will move in the direction of the pressure drop. Let's start from the top point. It moves clockwise, moves and moves, until it completes a complete rotation, and then... oops? How can there be one point with 2 different pressure values?
Would you say that during a complete revolution of the planet the pressure changes all the time?
Excellent, but what if we have a large number of stars sitting on the same radius. They all move together, turning in the same direction at the same speed, that is, we know that at any given moment the pressure along the circle should decrease in a certain direction, just as I drew. What then? How will you deal with the discontinuity of the pressure function?
Avi, sorry, please delete my failed attempts at HTML
Lm. my friend
I wanted to quit but I have to answer your question:-
How is it possible that the gas that is supposed to push the earth along with the solar system does not mix in our atmosphere.
And the answer:-
You won't believe it, but it is mixed and not only in the atmosphere of the whole earth with a huge permeability when most of the particles pass without even being aware that the earth and its atmosphere exist!
It is very similar to netrins but much smaller
Nevertheless, the few that collide and over a long period of time will affect the motion of the galaxy
But I already said it and I repeated it just for you
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
post Scriptum. Please and kindly, please eliminate the keyword in question so that I can contact you by your first name. I'd be happy.
Yehuda,
I would love to receive your answer to the following question:
As Tzvi wrote in response 141, the pressure in interstellar space, and therefore also at the edges of galaxies, is 10 to the power of minus 19 atmospheres.
The differential pressure theory says - and correct me if I'm wrong - that for unknown reasons, there are places in the universe where the pressures are much lower than the average pressure, and as a result the matter is "sucked" towards the center (moves to a lower pressure area), and this explains the formation of galaxies and their movement .
As you said, "the pressure difference required to rotate each cylinder of a galaxy, and necessarily the entire galaxy, is 10 to the power of minus 14 atmospheres in total, an amount that is extremely tiny by all accounts" (an article you published)
This pressure difference (10 to the minus 14 power) is 10 times greater to the 5th power than the average interstellar pressure (it's not a tiny difference, it's a huge difference).
In order for such a huge pressure difference to occur between the average pressure at the edge of the galaxy and the pressure in the center of the galaxy, it is necessary for the pressure in the center of the galaxy to be well below zero - how is this possible?
The question can be phrased in everyday language:
In an area of almost complete vacuum, how is it possible to have an area of much, much lower pressure?
184:
Yes.
It is a language that can be learned and it allows combining the text with control instructions
Yehuda:
There are always others who because of their religion do fight me.
It is not redundant and probably never will be.
By the way, I'm already wishing for the day when you won't be comfortable repeating things because you'll recognize that they're unfounded.
After all, no one obliges you to repeat them, but since the explanations you give suffer from internal contradictions and contradictions with reality, questions constantly arise and from time to time people notice the same contradictions over and over again.
Yehuda,
Are you starting to twist facts?
After all, I quoted you (163):
"Why don't the planets fall into the sun and prefer to rotate? (I actually have an excellent explanation for this!)"
That is, you claim that the accepted explanation, which stems from gravity, is not acceptable to you, and you actually have an excellent (other) explanation!
Then in response 183:
"The laws of gravitation in the solar system are acceptable to me. point."
So what happened here? Acceptable or unacceptable?
If so, can we conclude that you don't have a problem with the reason for rotation in the theory of gravitation after all?
Excellent. Now we are back to the original question - what causes this in the theory of pressure differences.
to me
The laws of gravity in the solar system are acceptable to me. point.
In the galaxies the story is different.
It is not pleasant to repeat it endlessly
Good Day
Yehuda
to m.
I think she has become unnecessary, and besides, today Mr. M.L., I no longer wish to approach me.
But whatever you want.
Good Day
Yehuda
Judah, 163
"What planets do not fall into the sun and prefer to rotate?"
The analysis is really not very complicated, I reviewed it briefly in the second part of my comment (166), assuming you know what it is about. It is studied in the third semester (I think) of a bachelor's degree in physics.
"I actually have an excellent explanation for this!"
Is it possible to get Kepler's laws from your excellent explanation (for example, that the planet moves faster when it passes close to the sun in its orbit, and not just faster by an unknown factor, but so that the line connecting the planet with the sun covers equal areas in equal time intervals)?
"Between us, what is good for gravity will also be good for pressures"
As mentioned, I do not agree - there is no connection between them.
M-L's dragon started excreting red arrows of fire :) Sophisticated, how do you do it? Teach us..
Passed, passed, I succeeded!
I developed the theory of science
And I proved her right
The science can be what it is, it's a waste of time!
A wonderful day!
Yehuda
Yehuda
Yehuda:
In the meantime, the response has been confirmed.
You are right in your conclusion regarding the word that causes the response to be delayed and I assume you also understand why it is there.
And those who want to know how to relate to the new/old ideas should read the things said here and in other discussions that I have already pointed out.
Below is the response that is waiting for approval without the keyword. I wonder if it will pass now.
for everyone
Let's get off of it. As Shm-L says, we have already discussed this a lot.
Whoever wants to believe in the dark mass
Anyone who wants to hear other ideas should come to my lecture. Details in response number 129.
good day everybody
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Of course I forgot to mention (here. In the past I already mentioned) another significant chapter in the theory of pressure differences:
How is it possible that the gas that is supposed to push the earth along with the solar system does not mix in our atmosphere.
In general - the questions and rebuttals are numerous. What happens with gravitation - is it or isn't it? If there is - why should nonsense be added? If not - how does the earth move around the sun?
All in all, these are obviously frivolous claims. I was afraid that any mention of Yehuda's name would cause us to re-enter, so I refrained from doing so. Too bad it happened.
Again my response is waiting for confirmation and it seems to me that I discovered one of the key words and it is from our friend
I wonder if this is true?
Yehuda
for everyone
Let's get off of it. As Michael says, we have already discussed this a lot.
Whoever wants to believe in the dark mass
Anyone who wants to hear other ideas should come to my lecture. Details in response number 129.
good day everybody
Sabdarmish Yehuda
A Freudian mistake? Noam.."The galaxies move from a high pressure area to a low pressure area"??
(low..)
Judah (168),
The question of the source of angular momentum is not at all relevant to the theory of pressure differences, unfortunately.
As I have already said, angular momentum will be preserved under the influence of a central force - a force directed towards the center of mass of the attracting body (for example, the sun - the force always points to the center of the sun). The direction of the force is always radial. In your theory of equalization of pressures at any given moment there is a directed force acting tangential. The angular momentum is not conserved and the gas particles are constantly transferring momentum to the body! Therefore there is nothing to compare the two cases at all!
Regarding the source of angular momentum - let's take something massive, for example a black hole. It was set as the center. Now a central force acts on everything that is near it. Kinetic energy is given to the stars. Hop! You have angular momentum.
So what are you asking? Where do stars get their kinetic energy from? I mean why do stars have speed? Could that be what you are asking?
Yehuda,
Apology accepted.
Now, please explain which pressure difference you are talking about: between the pressure inside the universe and the pressure outside the universe?
sympathetic:
All the examples you gave have never been a problem for the scientific community.
Just because someone thought something up doesn't make it such a widespread scientific consensus. There was no phenomenon that they did not know how to explain otherwise and whoever thought that these were the face of things only thought so because all the examples he saw obeyed (with the accuracy of his measurements) these laws and therefore thought they deserved to be elevated to the rank of laws of nature.
This is a completely different matter here!
And again - I say - this is not the subject of the discussion and no one here has ever said that the scientists are always right.
The whole discussion was about whether someone who dismisses the words of many others should understand what they are saying before doing so and whether someone who has adhered for many years to theories that have been thoroughly disproven is acting logically and fairly.
(also, R.H - Yehuda also practices this way - and for as many years as Chazi has been doing it - and in significant periods in the past - also with considerable rant, albeit in a richer language. A large part of his comments of this type have been deleted and I will refrain from referring you to those that remain because I do not want to open this Pandora's box again).
(back to sympathetic:)
Every discovery and every measurement is "with probability" so please tell me after what probability it is entitled to the title "discovery" and under what probability it is "undiscovered".
I think that the 75% probability that it will be discovered already passes the threshold beyond which it is not correct to say in judgments "it has not yet been discovered in the laboratory".
The model we have is built from many thousands of galaxies.
In a correspondence I once had with Mario Livio he said: The evidence for dark matter is overwhelming and in our discussions I presented you with some of the evidence that not only does dark matter explain but that no one has yet been found who can explain it otherwise.
Again - I mention that I would like to read what deer Thinking about the matter (after reading the discussion on which I voted).
Yehuda:
The claim that a body in gas will eventually get its speed is not relevant to our case!
This is not a uniform movement, but an accelerated movement (circular movement is an accelerated movement), meaning that bodies continuously and immediately behave like gas. Your "explanation" in this matter is not an explanation and the fact that you do not understand it is just another example of the seriousness of your words.
Gravitational movement has an explanation for all these things and it is not necessary to explain the rotation, but those who understand the things (and I have already explained them many times) know that the gravitational movement does explain the rotation.
to me
But the question in both gravity and pressure differences is where did the angular momentum come from? As soon as it is found I have no problem, and the rotation is explained.
You take the angular momentum as a given. What is the reason for this?
Yehuda
Yehuda,
In response 157 you note that what causes the pressure differences that cause rotation is the expansion of the universe.
In response 164 you note that the expansion of the universe is accelerated by the pressure differences.
You can't treat the same phenomenon as a cause and an effector at the same time.
Judah (157-158),
1. "Bodies will eventually get the speed of the gas in which they are inside, with almost nothing to do with their specific gravity." That is, you assume that the pressure is a linear function of the distance (more precisely of the angle, because of the rotational movement, but let's say), in order for the speed of the "wind" to be constant and uniform. If so, how do you deal with the discontinuity of the pressure function on the circuit (as I already asked in response 155)?
2. "As for the mechanism that will cause the rotation, there are many candidates that can cause it, starting from the expansion of the universe and ending with the movement of the galaxy in an orbit where the two sides are under different pressure"
You don't need much, one is enough, but established. For example the expansion of the universe you mentioned. Can you show how the expansion of the universe creates such a pressure function that will cause the galaxy to rotate?
"By and large what is important are the pressure differences" - I think I have already understood this idea.
"Why the gravitational explanation does not require an explanation of the rotation" - I am not clear what you mean. Under the influence of a central force (gravity is such, while particle pressure is not) the angular momentum is conserved. Therefore, the movement is carried out in a plane (perpendicular to the angular momentum vector). You can look at the kinetic energy p^2/2m and divide it into a radial part and an angular part (in the transition to polar coordinates). Add the angular part (l^2/(2mr^2) to the gravitational potential. We got an effective potential with a global minimum. Every body with a total energy lower than 0 is in a bound state (its rotation radius is limited between two values) and therefore the body rotates .
But of course you know that, so I'm not sure what you're asking.
In the meantime my response is awaiting confirmation and until then I will use the time to correct a misunderstanding I have with Noam
I think that the universe is expanding and even its expansion is accelerating and this is due to pressure differences.
What I don't agree with is the story of the inflation period (ten to the power of minus 35 seconds after the big bang, remember?) What happened is that space expanded faster than the speed of light but not the galaxies inside it (?)
Did you understand that?, I don't agree with that.
If I was understood differently, I apologize and if you want, accept my apology. If not, then no big deal.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Noam, it's you who didn't understand, that Yehuda knows too much about the expansion of the universe.
It is more radical than any other free radical.
That's the point.
I'm sorry for your disappointment
But I will admit and not be ashamed that I don't know what the concept of "the discontinuity of the pressure function on the circle" is?
If I knew what it was then maybe I could answer you or maybe it was the winning question that would blow away all the pressures of the theory and myself to the heavens and the galaxies and I would be smiling and happy. And Michael would have loved me, and Noam would have been my friend, only Hazi would have been sad, well, there is no good without bad. (:))
Believe me, it's not fun to stand non-stop under attack from commenters.
And regarding your requests to explain the things that don't exactly make sense to me like the rotation of the galaxy, a gravitational explanation doesn't explain the rotation either. Why really don't all the stars fall into the center of the galaxy and prefer to rotate?
Why don't the planets fall into the sun and prefer to rotate?
(I actually have an excellent explanation for this!}
Between us, what is good for gravity will also be good for pressures.
I must apologize but my father asked me to refrain from commenting on this subject of my ideas and I will respect his wish.
I will only answer if there is something very special that we didn't talk about.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Do you suddenly recognize the phenomenon of the expansion of the universe???
What happened to "my universe is not expanding, but the galaxies are moving from a high pressure area to a low pressure area"?
In an overly rigid approach I expressed my opinion regarding the position taken here that scientists are right by virtue of their authority. Theories are raised here in the discussion which in my opinion are not scientific and regarding which a critical position must be taken. On the other hand, there is a possibility for a person who is not a scientist to criticize scientific theories. In science, there is a place for criticism and an important place! Many scientists like people from the settlement tend to hold their opinions and tend to be conservative.
In these contexts I bring up again and again the issue of a*fela energy and a*fela clay. In my opinion, modern cosmology has fundamental problems and in the hope of maintaining the existing models, it invents imaginary entities: a*fel matter, a*fel energy and in the past it was ether. The claim of the discovery of the material with a probability of 75% is completely debunked. It is enough to have a basic understanding of science to understand that this is not how findings are published. Scientists publish the results of shocking research (especially in the field of elementary particles) when they are sure beyond any doubt that they are correct. A 75% probability claim is for media and news.
The problems with the cosmological theories are an example of scientific conservatism while in my opinion there are several clouds at the door. Since you find that this topic repeats itself, I can also discuss (although I don't understand much in the field) theories about solar systems. Regarding solar systems, the leading theory explained why:
1. The planets in solar systems must move in nearly circular orbits
2. Major planets can only be within 5 AU of their Sun.
3. The orbits of the planets must all be in one plane.
All three of these claims have been refuted observationally but the model is not abandoned but is being revised to explain the new observations. We have a model built according to one example, ie our solar system, and now when we have a window opened to many solar systems, the model is not replaced. Astronomy tends towards this since the days of Aristotle.
Michael
In an overly rigid approach I expressed my opinion about the position taken here that scientists are right by virtue of their authority. Theories are raised here in the discussion which in my opinion are not scientific and regarding which a critical position must be taken. On the other hand, there is a possibility for a non-scientist to criticize scientific theories. In science there is a place for criticism, an important place! Sometimes a bystander has the ability to see problems in a research field that scientists in the same field do not. Many scientists like people from the settlement tend to hold their opinions and tend to be conservative.
In these contexts I keep bringing up the topic of dark energy and dark matter. In my opinion, modern cosmology has fundamental problems and in the hope of maintaining the existing models it invents imaginary entities: dark matter, dark energy and in the past it was ether. The claim of discovering the material with a probability of 75% is completely debunked. It is enough to have a basic understanding of science to understand that this is not how findings are published. Scientists publish the results of shocking research (especially in the field of elementary particles) when they are sure beyond any doubt that they are correct. A 75% probability claim is for media and news.
The problems with the cosmological theories are an example of scientific conservatism while in my opinion there are several clouds at the door. Since you find that this topic repeats itself, I can also discuss (although I don't understand much in the field) theories about solar systems. Regarding solar systems, the leading theory explained why:
1. The planets in solar systems must move in nearly circular orbits
2. Major planets can only be within 5 AU of their Sun.
3. The orbits of the planets must all be in one plane.
All three of these claims have been refuted observationally but the model is not abandoned but is being revised to explain the new observations. We have a model built according to one example, ie our solar system, and now when we have a window opened to many solar systems, the model is not replaced. Astronomy tends towards this since the days of Aristotle.
Yehuda,
I feel a little disappointed.
1. "Bodies will eventually get the speed of the gas in which they are inside, with almost nothing to do with their specific gravity." That is, you assume that the pressure is a linear function of the distance (in order for the "wind" speed to be constant and uniform). If so, how do you deal with the discontinuity of the pressure function on the circuit (as I already asked in response 155)?
2. "As for the mechanism that will cause the rotation, there are many candidates that can cause it, starting from the expansion of the universe and ending with the movement of the galaxy in an orbit where the two sides are under different pressure"
You don't need much, one is enough, but established. For example the expansion of the universe you mentioned. Can you show how the expansion of the universe creates such a pressure function that will cause the galaxy to rotate?
"By and large what is important are the pressure differences" - I think I have already understood this idea.
"Why the gravitational explanation does not require an explanation of the rotation" - I am not clear what you mean. Under the influence of a central force (such is gravitation, while particle pressure is not) the angular momentum is preserved, therefore there is not much to explain the rotation here.
And by the way, a difficult question is why the gravitational explanation does not require an explanation of the rotation?, after all, it is not simple there either. Food for thought.
Yehuda
To me, and in short:-
Bodies will eventually get the speed of the gas they are inside with almost nothing to do with their specific gravity. Leaves, raindrops and hail fly in the wind at the same speed. As long as they have not reached the speed of the wind, a force vector acts on them in the direction of the wind.
Regarding the mechanism that will cause the rotation, there are many candidates that can cause it, starting from the expansion of the universe and ending with the movement of the galaxy in an orbit where the two sides are under different pressure.
What makes galaxies keep spinning is apparently the energy generated by the stars themselves in the galaxy or the expansion of the universe itself.
By and large, what matters are the pressure differences.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Ehud 151,
I agree with your first paragraph. If you read what I wrote above, I completely disagree with Noam that Yehuda and Hazi are in the same category. I think people who think outside the box and against the stereotypes are challenging and thought provoking even when they are wrong. But in order to be like that, you need a tremendous knowledge of the existing theory, its successes and problems. The fact that there is sometimes a child who shouts "the king is naked" is very rare and not every child who shouts is right.
In biology, for example, there is the story of Duesberg, who for years argued against all findings that the HIV virus is not the cause of AIDS. In his case it was even dangerous because the implication was that there is no point in treating AIDS patients with the antiviral cocktail because it is only a symptom and not the cause. A lot of people opposed his words but they were important from the scientific point of view as breaking conventions and testing extremes.
"The pressure differences recorded for the movement are of the order of 10 to the power of minus 19 atmospheres for every light year in the galaxy for it to rotate"
"It is impossible to reach my conclusions without calculations"
Excellent! It seems that you have made calculations and your conclusions are well founded. So why don't you post them? Better even in a science magazine like Nature?
And in the meantime, let me ask a question, and since I haven't seen the theory in its entirety, it may sound silly:
If I understand correctly, the pressure difference causes the galaxy to rotate. Why then do the pressures change in a circular fashion? And a second question, if I understood correctly and the pressures really change circularly, how do you ensure the continuity of the pressure function? After all, there is a point on the circuit where there is both high pressure and low pressure (if we take any point on the circuit, and under the influence of the pressure difference we will start moving in the direction where the pressure is low, say clockwise. We will continue to move clockwise while the pressure is constantly decreasing, until we complete a complete rotation and we will reach the starting point with a lower pressure than the one we started with).
Could you please refer to point 3 that Makhal raised? I would define it as a critical point for testing your theory.
Good night to you too.
sympathetic:
What do you mean by "too rigid an approach"?
The discussion here was not about dark matter or dark energy, but about the contempt of science ignoramuses and their pretension to offer unfounded alternatives to theories that they are far from understanding.
As for the dark matter - I don't know why you repeat the matter at every opportunity, but since you did - I refer the readers to one of the places where we had a discussion on the subject.
This is the place where it is explained what kind of reality you are describing with the phrase "not yet discovered in the laboratory" which in fact the correct description is "discovered in the laboratory with a probability of 75%"
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particle-may-be-leading-candidate-for-mysterious-dark-matter-1802102
In the thread under this article there is a long discussion of me personally, it is quite clear which side in it gives real reasons and which side does not.
At that time deer He has not yet commented on the site and I would be happy to hear his opinion on the same discussion.
Yehuda:
What is "the subject is not the simple universe"?
The topic is, among other things, the "cosmological theories of Judah" and in my opinion it is important to see them all in order to better see the whole and to better assess the weight of the claims (that is, the knowledge and understanding behind them).
Your explanation about the pressure balance is of course meaningless and in fact is equivalent to the "explanation you gave" for the other points (which you chose to ignore).
The refutations of the "theory" of the pressure differences are arbitrary and permanent and will not be waved away in vain.
I will respond to comments from the end to the beginning and in short
Lahud - you are right and apparently something stinks in the dark mass and energy system
R. H. is XNUMX percent right! When the king is naked and walks in dark clothes with dark energies, we need a child to shout:- The king is naked!
Lm.- The subject is not the simple universe so don't include it, and in addition I will only refer to section 1. There will not be a balance there because the stars in the system add energy in their area which impairs the balance. Just like since the big bang there is still no balance in the background temperature of the universe and there are still changes from place to place.
To R. H. in response 143 - In a small scale up to about a thousand light years, gravitation according to Newton is proven and works
Regarding distances greater than a hundred million times or more (galaxies) pressure differences work.
The pressure differences recorded for the movement are of the order of 10 to the minus 19 atmospheres for every light year in the galaxy for it to rotate.
Lezvi - the discovery of the planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto adds nothing to the correctness of Newton's gravitation formula in the vastness of the universe - distances that are millions, billions and even trillions of times the distances in the solar system.
Doesn't that make you skeptical?, maybe a little?, even a little bit?
To all those who claim that Descartes, who did not know the galaxies, spoke about how they are activated - I have nothing but to laugh.
To Noam who doesn't finish mentioning that I didn't use calculations for my conclusions - I'm sorry, but it's impossible to reach my conclusions without calculations.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I would like to clarify that my previous words do not indicate that this deep problem was solved on the Hedaan site by Hazi and O Yehuda.
To the respondents, in my opinion, you are taking too rigid an approach. Not about the conspiracy theories and literary theories put forward but about the problems in science. R.H. He mentioned the legend of the "Naked King" and there is some truth in it. Sometimes it is necessary to look from the outside to discover flaws. I agree with him that it takes more than a child to do this but not much more. Knowledge is power but it also entails conservatism. It was Einstein who said that "imagination is more important than information".
A little about the current problems in astrophysics and cosmology.
The dark matter:
There are observations that do not fit the theory of rotation speed of stars in the galaxy. To explain the discrepancy, the retention of dark matter was raised.
1. The dark matter theory does not make any predictions, the only prediction is that this matter will be discovered in the laboratory!
facts:
A. Dark matter, despite being predicted for over seventy years, has not yet been discovered in a laboratory.
B. Dark matter originated in astrophysics and not in the theory of elementary particles. Attempts have been made to expand the particle theory to find a candidate for dark matter.
For each galaxy, its dark matter distribution must be assumed ad hoc to explain the velocity field of the stars in it. It is not enough to observe the mass distribution in the galaxy to determine the velocity field, fine-tuning must be done.
In my opinion, we have a theory here that predicts one fact, namely that there is dark matter and despite attempts for seventy years such matter has not yet been found.
In this sense, for me, dark matter is similar to the previously neglected ether theory.
dark energy:
1. The acceleration of spacetime was found to be raised from Einstein's cosmological constant orb that occasionally returned like the phoenix.
I have no problem with the cosmological constant but when it is attributed to vacuum energy there is a problem of a very large number of orders of magnitude, in my opinion the biggest discrepancy ever raised!
General problems:
1. There is currently no quantum theory of gravity
2. There is no connection of gravitation with the other three forces in nature.
In my opinion, the above points point to serious problems in the existing theory
They can be solved one by one, but together they form a decisive testimony in my opinion.
Well, I don't have an exchange theory at the moment and as far as Michael knows I'm dealing purely with steam. In my opinion, voting on problems
Scientific theory is an important part of science!
Again, in my opinion, it is enough to look at the history of scientific teachings to understand that we are on the verge of a scientific revolution.
Nathan,
This is also very simple.
The scientists discover something, build a theory and very quickly discover that it is also incorrect. But then the scientific "establishment" and all the scientists are unanimous, because as you know there are no arguments between scientists, they all silence the findings that contradict the theory. Everyone in unison lies, falsifies, denies and clings to the wrong theory until the brave boy comes who shouts "the king is naked".
The child is one who has never studied, does not know all the mathematics involved or understand the trials and results and therefore can afford to ignore this nonsense and show everyone the hidden light. After all, the world is simple, why complicate it so much?
Friends:
Yehuda has a number of theories, all of which have been refuted to exhaustion in the discussions that took place here.
Someone once asked about these theories and I wrote to him This response
I haven't re-read everything that the comment describes, but based on the timing I assume that it mainly refers to the theory he called "the simple universe".
In this theory he also incorporated formulas, but beyond the fact that the theory is refuted by the facts - the formulas he provided also do not match the model he described. These are just formulas that are wrong even without any relation to the physical facts.
At a later stage he brought up the theory of pressure differences in which he really did not provide any formula that allows for prediction, but it is also really easy to see that it is wrong and I even showed it in several comments that I don't have the energy to search for now.
Among the other refutations of the pressure difference theory are the following refutations:
1. If the gas flows from a place of high pressure to a place of low pressure - eventually (very quickly) a balance should be created between the pressures. Yehuda does not propose any mechanism that maintains the external pressure exerted on the galaxies according to his claim.
2. Even before a balance is created - the pressure differences change (decrease) and this fact is probably not being addressed either.
3. Bodies with different specific gravity and a different drag coefficient will act differently under the influence of pressure differences, in contradiction to the fact that all bodies behave in a similar way.
There is more, but I assume that the above will allow you to understand what it is all about.
incidentally:
Needless to say, the claim that Yehuda put forward in this discussion as if the dark mass is "matching the measurements to the existing formula" is not related to reality in any way.
Nathan,
It's a bit ironic that you ask Hezi about "the way I should study physics if I want to enter the field and understand it".
The link below refers to a question in high school physics, which has been presented to Hazi several times, but has not yet been resolved. Basic question. From this you can conclude that Hazi did not study physics, and certainly does not understand anything about it (as he admits himself repeatedly). Is this your ideal?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/explained-why-many-surveys-of-distant-galaxies-miss-90-of-their-targets-0204105/#comment-265008
In addition, I would be happy to hear from the scientists, if they criticize the current conduct of the scientific establishment, what in their opinion is the ideal method for correct and effective scientific conduct
R.H.
A nice and exhaustive answer, but it is clear that many of the commenters here gave up on section (1), and started straight from the next section 🙂
Nathan, it's very simple.
1) Read a popular science book
2) Choose the biggest open question such as what is the dark energy accelerating the universe
Alternatively, choose the most established theory, for example relativity, Newton (or if you want biology too, go for evolution!)
3) Assume in advance that everyone who investigated the above is talking nonsense, so there is no point in delving into what he said.
4) Think for a few minutes or even if you are really serious a few hours.
5) Formulate an alternative theory to the conventional nonsense.
6) Go to the science website and post your guess independently of the article you are responding to.
7) It is to be expected that a slight resistance will arise (for example Michael will not respect you particularly). But don't worry. This is all due to the relationship of silencing that exists between the scientists who know it's all nonsense and are hiding it.
Successfully
As someone who does not have much of a background in physics, I would be interested in asking Yehuda Sabdarmish and Hazi (but others are welcome to answer, even if their answer is a little more predictable):
In your opinion, what is the way I should study physics if I want to enter the field to understand it and maybe one day make my contribution to science?
Yehuda,
Are you saying that gravity doesn't exist at all? Or only at great distances? Does an apple also fall because of the pressure difference? If not then why does it fall?
Yehuda is indeed much more cultured and intelligent than Shazi, but his arrogant disdain for the existing theories and the leading physicists in the world, while presenting himself as someone who understood things they still did not understand, and all this without having the faintest idea of the existing theories, is simply outrageous.
Whoever looked at Yehuda's blog, will find that Yehuda determined a new type of "razor" - on the weight of Ockham's razor:
Any scientific theory must be simple enough for him, Yehuda, to understand it.
The use of "Judah's Razor" causes him to dismiss with arrogant disdain all existing theories, and to place his theories as advanced alternatives ("for the brave" as he once noted) and relevant.
I have no intention of hurting anyone personally, but when Yehuda preaches to me to be modest, it's already too much...
Yehuda points out in his response that the interstellar medium is gas - therefore there are pressures and where there are pressures there are also pressure comparisons and hence these can be an explanation for the movement of galaxies.
This presentation of things is wrong.
The interstellar matter is very thin and the pressure in it is about 19x10 times less than the atmospheric pressure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Quality
The assumption that it is fluctuations in such a small pressure that shape the movement of the galaxies or the shape of the galaxies (hundreds of kilometers per second!) sounds completely absurd on the face of it and certainly requires an adequate mathematical analysis (what is more, these fluctuations are averaged over orders of magnitude of entire galaxies).
Three comments:
1. Newton's law is correct and tested in the solar system and when it was necessary to introduce corrections it was done (general relativity)
The theory of gases, on the other hand, has never been tested at such low pressures since these are not achieved in any laboratory - why then believe that Newton's law is incorrect on larger size scales but believe that the theory of ideal gases is correct on orders of magnitude different from what is tested?
2. To say that Newton's theory is adopted to large orders of magnitude "without batting an eyelid" (129) is a demonstrable disdain for the efforts that have been made since the 17th century to test Newton's theory time and time again - efforts that led to many scientific discoveries, including the planet Neptune, the body Pluto (which is no longer A planet...) and to a certain extent also to the theory of special and general relativity.
3. Descartes had similar ideas about the movement of the stars due to eddies and pressures in the atmosphere - they were disproved by Newton, among other things, because Descartes, in his stupidity, bothered to make calculations and give predictions that went wrong - an important lesson is therefore that if you have a beautiful theory in your hands that you don't want to be disproved, be careful not to make actual calculations !
And a final note to finish,
R. H. and Noam, I agree with both of you - Yehuda does hold unfounded theories based on a lack of knowledge and dismiss with disdain efforts that are being made worldwide to confirm or disprove the validity of Newtonian gravity (or in fact relativistic) as well as the existence or non-existence of dark matter.
However, he is definitely nicer than Hazi and does not adopt any conspiracy theory that comes his way (by the way Hazi, I am sorry that you did not warmly embrace the nice conspiracy theory that I presented to you in response 96, I really did my best) - and therefore, does not deserve the blatant treatment that Hazi received (and rightfully so) throughout most of the correspondence.
Don't reply to Hazy even if he pretends to be anonymous.
Yehuda, do you have a consolidated document regarding your proposal for comparing pressures?
The general mechanism of what you propose is not clear to me - you treat the medium between stars as a gas, and the stars are objects that drift along with it when it moves from place to place to equalize pressures? Is that the idea? Or is it something else?
R.H.
Since Yehuda's theory is not quantitative (and no, he does not have a single equation for medicine that supports his theory), any observation that is not found will always correspond to the distribution of pressures desired by Yehuda.
It is not possible to refute a theory that does not make ** quantitative ** predictions, and in fact such a theory is not considered a scientific theory at all, but a belief, or just grandmother's stories.
I repeat and remind you that Descartes' theory, about the movement of the planets as a result of pressure differences, was accompanied, contrary to Judah, by quantitative equations and predictions that could be contradicted and this is indeed what Newton did
Noam does not defame - unless bringing exact quotes from Sabdarmish (and not just from the last article) is considered defamation.
If an inaccurate quote is found - I undertake to apologize.
On the other hand, Yehuda ignores arguments that are not convenient for him, such as a complete contradiction between the theory of relativity and the theory of pressures regarding the expansion of the universe.
In addition to this, the need for a dark mass arises from other reasons and not only from the speed of the galaxies.
In recent years, the mass of galaxy clusters has been measured by 3 completely different methods, all of which yielded almost identical results. When you compare the calculated mass of the galaxy clusters to the visible mass of matter, you get that 90% of the mass of the cluster is invisible mass.
Also, the calculation of the time needed to create structures in the universe shows that without a large addition of non-baryonic matter (the main candidate for dark matter), the age of the universe is too short.
The reasons for assuming the existence of dark matter are many and much more complex than Yehuda's simplistic description, but Yehuda does not refer to them at all, and probably has not heard of them either.
Originality of thought is generally a welcome thing, but not in every field and not in every case.
The strange attempts to invent new theories without any quantitative substantiation, without any understanding of the existing theories, the attempts to attribute to physicists a complete lack of understanding, to the point that they do not understand things that Yehuda already understood in high school, it is simply pitiful.
What to do, in the field of science, it is necessary to acquire a lot of knowledge before you can be original and come up with new theories that are not a lame joke.
There are some people who do not understand this, and try to take shortcuts - to skip the knowledge stage, and start immediately with the development of original theories, and even lecture on them with great importance
Well, in all my responses to Noam you received approval
It is said: better late than never
Yehuda
Unfortunately I am not allowed to respond
It's not fair
Yehuda
Below is what is written in my last response:-
The dark mass is, in my opinion, an unsuccessful attempt to adjust the measurements to an existing formula. And I was forbidden to do that in my first year of high school. I stand by what was said in this sentence, even without Noam's permission.
And in addition, since in the vastness of the universe countless particles move from place to place, colliding with each other, etc., then this is the definition of a gas of particles, therefore the universe is a gas of particles in which pressure differences exist as in any gas.
I also stand by what was said in this sentence. Quantization won't change that. It is not possible that due to quantization the momentum of particles will disappear - the law of conservation of momentum.
There are people who find it difficult to agree with the obvious thought that our universe defines a large gaseous body and I would not expect Noam to come to the end of my mind,
I have not seen anyone anywhere who takes the motion formulas of the spiral galaxy and analyzes them the way I do. What to do Mr. Noam, that's how it is.
The listeners to my lectures will decide if the analysis is correct or not, if it is even worth anything and if there is room for improvement.
Noam will continue to slander, and I don't expect him to agree with me.
Noam is apparently never able to come up with an original thought of his own, so he is angry with those who are able to.
Let him go to my chest and learn something.
It doesn't seem to me that I will continue to respond to the words of Noam.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Noam In my humble opinion it is easy to show that he is wrong because if that were the case there would be no galaxies but a uniform distribution of matter. If you throw paint into a pool, the shapes of galaxies will not be created, but a uniform distribution according to diffusion.
But that's not the point. At least he tries. It is my understanding that he is also trying to develop formulas and this is noteworthy. There is nothing to compare it to the nonsense of "maybe" and "I don't think it makes sense, so maybe there is a double photon in our dimension and in three other dimensions" or "I have a secret alternative theory to evolution, but if you don't admit it and kneel down and beg, I won't tell you".
Just another clarification regarding Yehuda's opinion on the theory of relativity:
Yehuda wrote to me "In his response, for me the universe is not expanding, but the galaxies are moving from a high pressure area to a low pressure area"
R.H.
There are clear differences between the two in the culture of discussion and in sophistication, not in substance.
Sabdarmish, in a cloak of false modesty, vainly refutes Newton's and even Einstein's teachings ("For me, the universe is not expanding") without providing a single serious reason, mocking the idea of dark mass because "scientists add mass at will to fit the measurements", and explains that - "I was forbidden to do this in my first year of high school."
And here, what does Sabdarmish do, after graduating from high school? You guessed it, he adds pressure at will, so that it matches the movement of the galaxies
Needless to say, Sabdarmish does not provide a single piece of evidence for the existence of this pressure except "it is likely that where there are particles there are also pressure differences".
And even if there are pressure differences, who says they are in the right places and directions?
No problem says Yehuda, the structure of the galaxies and their movement proves it. That is, Yehuda explains the movement of the galaxies in terms of pressure differences, and proves the existence of the pressure differences with the help of the movement of the galaxies - sophisticated, isn't it?
Mathematical formulas? Not even once!
I had a long conversation with Yehuda and pressed him on the subject. The maximum he was able to say was: "My theory is based on all known gas formulas"
Do you take into account that the known gas formulas refer to atoms and molecules and not to subatomic particles, where quantum mechanics must be used?
"In my opinion there is no difference" was his answer.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with opposing existing theories, but Yehuda dismisses relativity without understanding it, and this is of course unacceptable - after all, you cannot dismiss something that you do not understand!
Yehuda puts forward theories that are presented as innovative (even though Descartes already put forward a similar theory at the time, which was proven to be incorrect) without any substantiation or confirmation and without any quantitative equations, and he is already a great expert like no other, who performs an analysis "that I have not seen anywhere and maybe that is what was missing", and lectures on So before the general public.
Unbelievable, but he even preaches to others to be humble...
pleasantness,
As you see and also saw my response 103 about scientific hassles, Sabradmish and Hazi must not be put in the same category and there is no comparison between their seriousness and understanding of the issues they are talking about.
Presumably both are equally wrong but it is not a sin. The sin is arrogance and disdain for others or "scientists" as Hazi likes to call them.
for everyone
These days I am holding a series of three lectures at the Israeli Astronomical Society at the Givatayim Observatory on topics related to the debate here. All lectures are held on Thursdays at 21:30
The first lecture was held on Thursday 17.6.2010/XNUMX/XNUMX on the subject of dark mass.
As I promised, I discussed (this is not a mistake) about the dark mass and showed how they arrived at the idea of the dark mass mainly from movement problems of the spiral galaxies. Simply, since gravitation was missing so a guy named Fritz Zwicky came up with an idea to add it by adding an unseen mass. And since then they have been looking for her.
I mentioned that the state of the gravitational mass phenomenon actually increases the chance that this mass exists.
The next lecture will be held on Thursday 8.7.2010/21/30 at 15.7.2010:XNUMX (and not as published in the early publications - XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX) on the topic - dark energy and dark thoughts.
Here I will start to raise doubts, the main one of which is the problem that in the spiral galaxies the motion and gravitation formulas are not equal and therefore there is a failure. The dark mass that is being talked about is only one of the possibilities for solving this fallacy, and not the problem. There are over ten mathematical possibilities for solving this fallacy!
In addition, the dark mass is, in my opinion, an unsuccessful attempt to adjust the measurements to an existing formula. And I was forbidden to do that in my first year of high school. The measurements are sacred and not the formula, even if it is the famous Newton's gravitation formula. It is impossible for a formula that was measured to be correct at the distances of the solar system (a thousand light years) to be considered correct even at distances a trillion times
In a certain way I will show all the possibilities for solving this failure of the inequality between the formulas. The emphasis is on all the possibilities! Obviously, only one of the options is correct and all the others are wrong. In the elimination method, I will delete one option after another and leave with only about five options.
In the third lecture to be held on July 29.7.2010, XNUMX, I will analyze the remaining options and everyone will be able to express their opinion as to which is better.
In the first lecture, the audience participated and expressed their opinion on the subject and the questions asked were interesting. I hope that will be the case in the future.
You're all invited. Cost per lecture is NIS 15-25. For members of the Astronomy Association and their immediate families - free. The cost includes observation and explanations and a planetarium in the observatory starting at 19:00.
It goes without saying that in the first minutes of the lectures I will repeat the main points of the previous lectures so that even those who missed the first lecture can understand.
I have raised my opinion on the site several times and there is no point in raising it again. Although since then there has also been an upgrade in my opinion, but not in favor of the dark mass. In addition, it was made clear to me that they were not interested in hearing this again. Zebsham
I must point out that I have not seen the surgery I am performing anywhere and maybe that is what was missing.
Good night
And a good night's sleep
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Oops sorry Adi,
RH has already done so.
Adi
Can you attach a link where Hezi writes letters to the Hebrew Language Academy regarding spelling 'errors'?
It's definitely much funnier. 🙂
gift,
I agree with every word you wrote in your response number 120, but I have to disappoint you - unfortunately it won't help.
Similar things have been hammered into his chest countless times, and he seems to be completely immune to them.
post Scriptum. Your analysis is completely accurate, the things were posted on his blog and he presents them proudly when asked to explain God in words such as Amratha. For him, this is a failure of the Language Academy.
to R.H.,
Thank you... I did read and enjoyed it (perverted pleasure - something, I'll admit, to read how unpleasant, power-hungry and arrogant a certain person is... and also lacks self-awareness, since as I understand the materials were uploaded on his own blog).
gift,
Read and enjoy: http://www.kaspit.com/hebrew/hebrew.htm
That is, if these "errors" are a deliberate matter for him, we have before us not only a brilliant biologist and a genius astrophysicist, but also an expert linguist and etymologist like him. I take off my hat: this is a real Renaissance man!
gift,
The errors in the style of "laughing" or "hearing" are something of principle that Hazi has been waging a petty courtship war on for years in the linguistic establishment.
chest 118,
When you present a theory backed by evidence we'll talk science for now what's left for us is to laugh (or cry).
What is your alternative theory to Darwinism?
What is your theory that will replace the big bang?
The world stands still and waits.
Hello everyone,
This is the first time I am commenting on the website, which is usually a source of knowledge that broadens my horizons and is fascinating in fields of science that are very different from my discipline - I am a doctoral student in history, a profession in which there are occasional professional debates and conflicts, but usually the level of emotions in it is lower and certainly you don't reach tones revealed in this forum.
My problem is - could it be otherwise - with that "chest" (does the nickname come from the word "pretender"?): the concept of proof in science, it seems, is completely foreign to you. It is allowed to be skeptical - classical science is built on the ability to refute previous theories - and it is allowed and even desirable to ask questions, and difficult questions. But do so from a sufficient base of knowledge, and certainly from familiarity with the main existing corpus in the field of knowledge in which you claim to present claims and arguments. I'm sorry, but you show no semblance of familiarity with the corpus in question. This is both in the biological matter of the butterfly's incarnations (I would suggest you start with "The Hungry Caterpillar" by Eric Carle. It's in Hebrew) and with the physical-astronomical field.
Another thing is, of course, the matter of language. Repetitive writing with errors ("Understood" and many other examples) may be due to dyslexia, or just impatience in front of the keyboard, but what can you do - science is a field based on language and communication, and being naughty, let's face it, doesn't turn you out very well. Not a particular problem in English either, I'm afraid. And in particular, you ruin a discussion that could have been serious with low and insulting texts of the type "I put on you..."
Kudos to Zvi, Noam and my editor father for your answers and for the ability and patience to answer as much as I can. Good night to you all, Shay.
You have to admit the truth:
The strange scientific phenomenon called "Hazi", is much more fascinating than Hazi's stories, which are mistakenly called "scientific theories". Hezi's stories do not show any literary talent and they are simply boring and empty of any content.
We have already reached 117 responses in this thread.
Just count how many of them are dealing with my chest and not dealing with what he wrote...
This is the face of "science" these days...
Is Chazi an alien???
In view of Hezi's innovative theories, which contain in-depth information unknown to anyone else on Earth, nor does it correspond to any reality known to us, is it possible that Hezi is an alien with much more advanced knowledge and technologies than us?
We should not dismiss this possibility outright!
Chest:
How many times do I have to explain to you?
I am not a vile person because I am not a person at all! I'm a proud Zybizikobzi.
Of course, I would have preferred to be an ignorant brat, but in this matter I have already passed because I cannot forget what I learned.
Happily, I can still make sure that our future generations learn nothing.
That way they will at least earn the bills.
I still don't know if the arrogance and feelings of grandeur will result from this directly or if I will have to do something special to give them these qualities as well (I'm afraid I'll have to do something special but I hope I'm delusional).
In any case, I was already worried that my spacesuit would show "chest" on my chest.
Friend, have you noticed that we have become a place?
Noam,
I have a land and my chest roams freely there...
incidentally,
If I were looking for advertising,
I couldn't have found a better place than the commenters here…
To 105
You are a vile person.
I will not descend to your lows with slander. It's not my style.
interestingly,
Instead of scientific responses,
Those who react to board jokes come in...
This is the face of the square people who represent science here...
It turns out that Hazi has been immersed in his nonsense for many years.
Below are amusing quotes from 2003 (!) from the Land of the Deer website, which will make it very clear that there is no chance of getting Chazi out of his mind:
"Former Physicist" Lehazi writes:
"...and best of all, try to learn a little astrophysics, the people who have been studying it for more than twenty years are not as stupid, and not as fixed, as you think."
writes to another reader:
"I ask to publish the theory only on websites where there are people with respect and the ability to understand the genius in the theory"
And here is Hezi's amazing answer:
"Your cynicism is out of place, it's a serious issue, and not everyone understands it. Basic knowledge of the laws of physics, such as Newton's laws and more, is necessary. Idle argument is not appropriate here
This is a theory that could definitely create a revolution. People who understand the subject are really shocked"
I think that in one thing Hazi is completely right: everyone who reads his theories is really shocked - although of course not for the reasons that Hazi thinks...
Zvi Machal
I've always suspected your zibizikobism, there was always something zibizikobzi in your comments.
In any case, say hello from me and all the members of the human race when you return to your planet. 🙂
104:
Just because a black hole has no hairs does not mean that everything without hairs is a black hole.
All dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs.
The conclusion you suggested is a logical fallacy.
I prefer to patent a tautology rather than a fallacy.
Of course, patents are not intended to protect insights, but only their commercial exploitation.
And besides - I register patents only on my own inventions.
Dear Anonymous,
It is clear that NASA wants us to think that the earth is a spherical body revolving around the sun (planet) - but that is because NASA are aliens who are interested... (see 96) - in fact the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it - so there was no mistake.
By the way, I did not understand the context of your side note.
By the way, it turns out that I have already begun to wake up in the human environment because in my previous response I spoke about myself in a "personal" way (as if I were a person) when I should have been speaking about myself in a Zybyzykovian way
deer:
We would have turned you into a mouse a long time ago if we knew how to raise the intelligence of a living being.
The problem is that we only know how to download it.
Besides, the mouse still has access to the computer and we are looking for some solution to prevent it from doing so.
When I say "we" I mean, of course, the Zibizikobazis as a group and not me personally because I - as I said - was already captivated by his charms and I had fun turning all the Zibizikobazis into mice (perhaps in two stages for adaptation - first to a mouse and then to a mouse)
Machel
"A black hole has no hairs"?
Is this a hint that the bald are black holes?? A huge scientific discovery!!! Run with it to register a patent!
deer
There is a mistake in your response 96:
Not "Plate Haaretz" but "Planeta Haaretz". You forgot to add 'N'.
incidentally,
I thought honest people didn't know how to lie.
deer,
You made a big mistake. Your name has been forwarded to the regional scientific silencing council in your place of residence and they will contact you as soon as possible. Watch for the visit of the men in black.
And now a few words about scientific troubles.
pleasantness,
I think you are exaggerating a bit about Sabradish. You can't put him and my chest under the same wings. In my understanding Yehuda is trying to base his ideas on equations. He gives lectures and thus exposes himself to criticism. He also wrote his doctrine even here on the site and again exposed himself to criticism. The problem is that this review is unorganized and unprofessional. He should, and I already told him in the distant past to try to publish his ideas in professional journals and then he will also receive legitimate criticism that may even help him in their formulation or alternatively convince him that there is nothing wrong with them.
At least in some place he tries to be serious.
On the other hand, Hezi brags that he has an alternative theory to evolution, he knows how the world was created, he knows how the black holes were created, but what? He is not ready to find out because we are not "ready" yet. There is no place to compare.
And if we are dealing with scientific troublemakers, then also Rafa*im, who builds theories about dimensions and particles that have not yet been identified based on the hypothesis that maybe (?) they exist. True, maybe. And maybe not?
After them in the parade of troubles and folly come the dossers of all kinds and the supporters of the conspiracies who first draw a target and only then shoot the arrows. I want to say that they proceed from a point of assumption that what is written in the Torah is true (dosim) or any finding that was discovered to be incorrect (conspiracies) and according to these assumptions they refer to every article or finding regardless of what is written in it.
This was, in short, the guide for scientific nerds on the 2010 science website. Updates coming soon.
Hezi,
In response 96, I explained in detail why a Shikpur physics student in Einstein's theory would not receive a physics degree - this could disrupt the invasion plans of the Zibizikobazis. Since they control the academy, it is understandable that they will make every effort to silence them, and it is a well-known fact that a large part of the laboratory mice are nothing more than students who were happy about false scientific theories and in order to silence them, the professors turned them into mice.
In light of this, I do not understand the essence of your response (101), it is clear that a mouse cannot get a degree in physics...
Deer 96
I have no doubt that you will not be able to point to a physics student who denied the correctness of Einstein's theories,
And yet he got a degree in physics...
incidentally,
This reminds me that in the 50s there were people in the life sciences who expressed doubt about the correctness of Darwin's theory.
They were called by the terrible name "creationists"...
This is the face of science nowadays...
To 94
I was happy to read that there is a refreshing breath of fresh air in Yehuda's views,
After all the squares of the commenters here.
Besides saying "Amen" to "solid" theories invented by sleepwalkers,
I haven't found anyone here with an independent mind.
I would be happy if Yehuda himself would write a few lines about his views...
If so Michael, welcome - we have plenty of wakes!
deer:
I also broke down and decided to join the confession.
The truth is that we are fascinated by the wonderful ability of the inhabitants of your planet - especially the uneducated among them - to find out what is happening behind the scenes - to understand what is really happening.
I decided, therefore, to defect and stay on Earth for at least another 5000 years (our lifespan is much longer than yours - otherwise we would not have been able to travel these distances even with all the technology at our disposal) and then return to the quarry reactor just to share with them the fascinating conclusions that are gradually forming in me that Fehan - being awake is the right way to understand reality.
Michael,
Of course, if you are not Zyvizikovz, then I apologize in advance,
The situation led to everyone being suspected...
The discussion broke me - I decided to admit the truth
In one of the relativity classes, I asked the lecturer a number of difficult questions - he interrupted me and asked us to talk privately during the break. In the personal conversation, he admitted to me that the theory of relativity is one big piece of nonsense and that NASA pays him a hush fee (like every other professor in the world) in order not to reveal it to the public. Since then, they've been paying me too ($10,000 a month for those curious).
Noam, R.H., Michael, Liza, Adi.... You are certainly not shocked - I assume that certain organizations pay you similar silence fees in order not to reveal the deceptions of any scientific theories. R.H., the fact that the Order of the Knights of Malta or BRAM pays you so that you will not expose the lies of the theory of evolution stands out from KM (note 1). The difference between me and you is that I (of course thanks to Hazi who opened my eyes) did not accept these payments as a matter of course, but began to investigate....
The results of this research are the reason why I find it appropriate to reveal it here on a public website to the whole world (I hope that even if you find it difficult to recognize the truth at this stage, you will at least appreciate the tremendous personal risk I took on myself and not mock me).
It turns out that a violent alien culture called the Zibizikobazi, who apparently originated from a small planet near WR324DF988, destroyed its planet about 970 years ago (note 2) and since then it has been on its way to Earth. They are expected to arrive here in 2021.
Before their departure, the Zibizikobazis sent vanguard forces on rovers to reach the Earth and establish powerful organizations that would take over humanity - a very large part of the powerful frameworks in the world today (governmental and private) are actually under the control of the Zibizikobazis (as a side note, I say that I have long suspected that Michael is Transplanted Zybizikovez).
Starting in the 16th century, these organizations pay scientists in order for them to destroy the correct scientific world view that was accepted in the Middle Ages, and build under it a far-fetched scientific view that will ensure the technological superiority of the Zibizikobazis on the day of the battle.
We arrive at the day of the battle without alchemists and without witches, we do not even know the paths of the sun around the earth's plate so that we cannot properly prepare for their attack -
The time has come for us to truly admit it and go back to developing these abilities in our souls.
Note 1 - For those who don't know, these two bodies still live and breathe under cover names of toilet paper manufacturing companies
Note 2 - not by the greenhouse effect of course - because this is also another scientific lie, the destruction of the star was done by other means that I have not yet gone into the full depth of.
Note 3 - Directors in Hollywood are paid to raise awareness in the public as if it were in 2012 so that in 2021 we will already be indifferent!
Note 4 - The probes move much faster than the speed of light or through wormholes.
91:
First of all, it is important to understand that there probably won't be such a classification of black holes because one of the characteristics of black holes is the Hetholic expression (which if I'm not mistaken - originally claimed by John Wheeler) "a black hole has no hairs" which is intended to express the current conclusion of science according to which Black holes do not have any properties that manifest outside the event horizon other than mass, charge, and angular momentum.
In other words: a classification of black holes will not be able to rely on any distinguishing feature of them other than these three features.
Regarding the way black holes are formed - if we ignore for a moment the possibility (which comes up from time to time) as if they cannot form at all - it must be remembered that in relation to the past we can only make assumptions and we cannot know for sure what happened. Even today we make assumptions and it is likely that these will be the assumptions in the future as well. What may change is the probability we attribute to the various possibilities.
With regard to the alternative theories that are proposed here by various people - it is important to know that beyond the fact that, as Noam said - there is not a shred of confirmation for these ideas - a sea of facts contradicting them has already been presented here on the website. That is to say - these are not ideas that need to be sat down and checked if they are true because they have already been disproved in many ways. The only thing that keeps them alive is an obsession.
Yehuda,
It's strange that you preach to me about modesty, when this is exactly what you lack.
Although you don't have the faintest knowledge of the latest scientific theories, you don't hesitate to attack and mock them (with considerable literary talent to be admitted).
You also do not hesitate to present your stories as equivalent to established scientific theories, and even to lecture in public on these topics.
With you, the universe is not expanding, but "the galaxies move from a high pressure area to a low pressure area", completely contrary to the theory of relativity, with you the speed of light changes, with you there is no gravitation at large distances - and needless to say that for all the above delusional claims you do not have even one proof/confirmation for medicine.
Modesty my friends Yehuda, modesty is exactly what you lack, in addition to a lack of basic knowledge.
Yehuda,
Finally here is another hero who goes against the "permanence" of the scientific establishment.
86 87
It's strange that you keep attacking me even though I don't blame you...
You can't shut up, huh?
Noam response 66
I see that I am always on the board of your heart
I wish you to continue to believe in black boys singular points and dark mass and energy
Just like most of the scientific world believes
It's just that I don't understand something, if all this is so sure to be true, why spend a billion and a half dollars to find the particle in space and ten billion euros in the axis for the same purpose? Not a waste of money?
Maybe instead of taking care of me, go to NASA and Asa and tell them it's unnecessary because you believe in it?
Sit down and be humble, and don't mock people who try to come up with alternative ideas even if the ideas are not acceptable to you.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Machel
"Primordial black hole" is indeed interesting.
As Zvi pointed out, "...the massive black holes were created by other unclear processes", probably the classification of black holes in the future will be analogous to the classification of stars such as a white/brown dwarf, a neutrino star, the sun, etc.
No Yes?
89:
Bigger black guys do have more "substance".
I put the word "matter" in quotation marks because what black holes have is mass/energy that is a bit difficult to call matter because it is not composed of the same elementary particles that make up the rest of the matter we know.
If they have more mass - evidence is that they have "gained" more mass.
Also "accumulate" in quotation marks - as you noticed, because the word "accumulation" usually refers to a process that lasts over time, but if these are primordial black holes - of the type I pointed out in response 62, then they were massive to begin with - without mass having "accumulated" in them in the usual sense of the word.
As you could probably get an impression from the discussion - there is no clear knowledge regarding the process of the formation of these holes and the process of their growth, but many scientists think that they did accumulate more material in exactly the same process that caused the growth of the galaxies in which they are located - when small galaxies merged - the black holes in their center also merged (if there were In the center of them are black holes) one with the other, along with interstellar dust and with stars that (certainly) had larger black holes in them.
Noam
I thought I was the village clown.
Adi
Who are or what are the "main subcontractors"?
Machel
Why are black holes at the center of galaxies larger?
Doesn't this indicate that if they are bigger then there is more matter in them? I mean, have these holes managed to accumulate more material over time or are they bigger for other reasons?
He was indeed joking, and the word "seriously" that opens the second paragraph implies that.
Lisa:
I guess you were joking but the joke can be misleading.
Proof by exhaustion or proof in Brute Force translated into Hebrew as brute force - this is a completely legitimate form of proof.
This is not about a war of attrition such as the one that Chazi is conducting, but about tedious treatment in each individual case (as is also written in the Wikipedia entries you mentioned).
But it is true, and I said this a long time ago, that my heart needs more than anything else - treatment.
However, we know that he does not understand this, so the only way is to hospitalize his reactions to an involuntary hospitalization off-site.
In order to prove his claims, "Hazi" uses a well-known and accepted method called "proof by exhaustion":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_exhaustion
(which is sometimes also called "brute force" proof:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/כוח_גס)
And seriously, I'm afraid that the gentleman needs professional help (and not from physicists or biologists), any attempt to talk to him logically is doomed to failure. It's like trying to prove to a paranoid person that they are not being persecuted. There is no point in getting angry at "Hazi's" stubbornness, if he needs compassion and mercy.
We love you "Hazi".
A- The readers see here how the "scientists" fight against my every attempt to contradict Darwin's theory and the accepted theories for the formation of galaxies.
Surely they will not accept the failure of Einstein's theories, when it took them so much effort to understand them...
B - I happened to follow the shipping time in 2004 and followed the strange delays in the publication of the results.
Anyone who considers himself a "scientist" sees the theories of relativity as an indisputable truth.
C- As I already wrote, I have no idea what is wrong there. I have no idea if this is a minor failure or a serious failure,
What is clear to me, that they are trying to hide important information from the public...
Oops
R.H. - I didn't notice that you were ahead of me...
Anyone who thinks that Stanford University is an unreliable source of scientific information is a complete fool.
Moreover, of all the delusional conspiracy theories that crop up in every corner, the claim that they are trying to hide the refutation of the theory of relativity is probably one of the strangest.
Any serious physicist would be happy if he could disprove the theory of relativity, because disproving an existing and established theory always leads to new discoveries and breakthroughs.
(It is true that Hazi and a few other delusional people already refuted the theory of relativity a long time ago, but of course I am referring only to serious physicists and not to clowns).
Hezi,
And what is the motivation of non-NASA scientists to ignore the blur? Do you really think that NASA paid/threatened everyone and only the brave Mr. Hezi dares to stand up against the NASA dictatorship?
After all, every scientist in the world would be happy and happy to reject the theory of relativity/evolution/the big bang/black holes or any other accepted theory and for a new theory to be registered in his name. After all, there is no greater ambition than that of a scientist. But you live in some kind of conspiratorial world where the "scientists" belong to some guild or Masonic organization and withhold information from the public.
Get out of the movie and start studying science and about science and its conduct and we'll talk then.
Another response to 77
I am attaching a long list of websites that refer to the subject.
There is no doubt that the failure of the project to verify Einstein's theories,
resulted in many attempts to obscure the severity of the failure.
Only a qualified summary of a Masa site can be reliable (if at all...)
http://www.google.co.il/search?hl=iw&q=%22Gravity+Probe+B%
Hopefully the link will be received correctly.
To our readers, who may think that Hazi knows what he is talking about,
The satellite mission was supposed to test two predictions of general relativity. She did detect the stronger effect of the two with impressive certainty, but had difficulty detecting the weaker effect due to unaccounted-for noise. NASA stopped funding the project in 2008 because a team of experts determined that all the information that could be produced had already been produced, and trying to reduce the noise like this would not lead to unequivocal conclusions, therefore they cannot take a risk and invest in the aforementioned project. Stanford University (to which Noam referred) was one of the main subcontractors, found other funding and continued processing the data, trying to reduce the noise and discover the effect. As you can see from her website, this effect is also being revealed with increasing certainty.
Gentlemen,
It seems to me that the subject of the chest has been exhausted to the end. Everything that can be said has been said (Zvi, response 73 is almost word for word something I wrote), to no avail. We all know who we are dealing with:
Ignorant, arrogant, liar, who will never be able to understand what is written to him, and worse, will not try.
He will never be able to read the theory of general relativity and feel the spiritual elevation (!), the happiness that fills you in the face of this brilliant and beautiful theory! If we liken the theory of relativity to a statue of David, Einstein to Michelangelo, then Shazi will be the dove that shits on him, and puffs her feathers with pride about it, and when you try to explain to her that what she is doing is not a good thing, she will not understand you, and on the next occasion she will shit on him again the statue
I suggest (again), that we all act like Noam and stop wasting our energy and time:
There's no point in talking to Chazi directly.
There is a need to prevent disinformation from readers who do not know who Hazi is, therefore, after Hazi's response, his words must be contradicted to the readership (see response 77 for example). Since Hezi's repertoire is incredibly limited (the reincarnations of the butterfly, the theory of relativity and 1-2 other subjects), this will not be difficult for us.
good evening
Noam 77
You are an easy person…
The link is not of NASA's website, which launched the satellite,
which cost the American taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It is not clear what this is about.
I guess this is one of the pranks to obscure the affair.
make another effort,
And bring a link to the NASA website, which summarizes the results of the mission to verify Einstein's theories.
As I wrote, it is not clear to me what is wrong with these theories, because there is a vigorous campaign to obscure facts
(Those who remember here my correspondence with Yael, who writes here on the subject of astronomy, who was "confused" by my question...).
So that the village clown does not mislead readers who really want to understand, a link is attached with an update about the satellite, which completely confirms the prediction of the theory of relativity (and at the same time shows Hezi as a liar once again):
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
Deer 73
unlike you,
I do not pretend to be a "scientist".
I present questions that fail those who claim to be scientists.
If you still haven't understood my theory about galaxies,
A sign that you lack the knowledge you are talking about.
I'm just reminding all the esteemed friends who read here (the silent majority who don't write)
who have not yet been able to answer simple questions that I have asked here in two accepted theories.
The mistake of "scientists" these days,
To think that presenting mathematical formulas are a substitute for actual proofs.
Rock to mention string theory,
who succeeded in "reviving" it by a mathematical solution that requires "only" 10 dimensions...
To 74 75 I put on you...
Noam:
You are right because you may not have thought of him.
You are afraid that the clown will disappear from our village, but you should also be afraid that he will suddenly decide that he is - for example - a surgeon (or - if we discard his addition of the letter "e" to all kinds of words - maybe we should say "doctor from the ass") and then people will die just because he decided stop being a clown
distinguished gentlemen,
Every village has a village clown, and this is no accident.
This is a very important role for reducing tensions and providing entertainment in these difficult days.
It's nice that Hazi has taken on this important role, and we shouldn't mock him too much, lest he decides to change his profession.
Hezi,
Against the background of your brave and thoughtful argument about the big bang theory and the theory of relativity -
Are you able to write one equation involving them and know what all the signs in it mean?
You do not have the most basic knowledge of high school mechanics and you allow yourself to say that you are disputing a theory that you do not understand a thing or a half about.
Aren't you ashamed to make such a joke of yourself?
Hezi, you really behave pathetically!
Chest:
You're right.
Sorry for the words.
In fact, I've been trying to convince you of this for a long time, but you didn't internalize it and continued to waste your lofty powers on gray minds like ours.
Now that you have come to this conclusion yourself - maybe stop wasting your time?
After all, in the time you will save like this, you will be able to reject many more accepted scientific theories!
68 69
It's a shame for the words, because you don't deserve them...
I am sorry that people who claim to be "scientists" are not able to be objective.
In addition to my "appeal" to the two theories we discussed here,
1- I also dispute the correctness of the "Big Bang" theory.
2- I have reservations about the "theories of relativity", but here I have no possibility to point out the erroneous points,
Because of censorship by the "scientists" in everything related to the subject.
Those who followed the issue were sent about 5 years ago to a satellite by NASA specifically to check the issue, and the results were unsuccessful. There was an attempt to obscure and forget the affair...
I'm sorry for the hostility towards the "scientists", but failed theories are bound to fail...
Zvi and McEl,
thanks to both of you. I assume that in the future with the idea that every galaxy has a black hole will be more established there will also be theories linking them and explaining this fact so for now we will wait.... Maybe Hasi has a solution?
Most people have holes in both.
Does this mean that people are created from a hole in a tooth?
Remind you: the two are not made of rubber.
The previous response (of the ignorant) was cut off in the middle.
What is missing after the three points is "aspiration for the correct utilization of the time of the sane people"
Deer 61
It's not an explanation and it won't even run...
What characterizes the arms of spiral galaxies:
A- Irregularities in the thickness of the arms, which results from irregularities in the amount of material emitted from the two jets.
In a miraculous symmetry of the "thickness" of the two arms at equal distances from the center of the galaxy. (
which is the time of throwing the material from the center.)
The knowledge you bring up here on the subject of galaxies is trending knowledge that comes to substantiate failed theories.
Repeated calls from the "all-knowing" to block me only point to...
Hezi,
If you are really interested in getting a super professional and objective opinion on your theories, I recommend you contact Racha Rafaim and Yehuda Sabdarmish - and even invite them to your blog.
Both have long since contradicted all accepted scientific theories, and developed their own innovative theories.
I wish you a fruitful discussion with them on your blog, in the hope that you will also have less time to write in their knowledge.
Hello Zvi
The internal search engine doesn't search comments, but Google does. In each search result there is an option to search on Google within the knowledge.
My father and other scholars,
In many cases (such as this correspondence), the discussion drifts beyond the original scope of the article.
As far as I understand, the search on the site does not refer to the comments at all, and so in fact if I remember a comment I wrote in the past but I don't remember in which article I wrote it, I have no way of finding it (I guess the problem is much more serious for those who are older than me).
Is there any technical way to search also based on comments?
If so how, and if not, what can be done?
Thanks for the link Michael
I learned something new.
Regarding Zvi's response 45:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_black_hole
R.H
During the life of the universe the galaxies keep getting bigger and bigger. For example, the Milky Way is today a fairly average galaxy, while in earlier stages of the universe, almost no such giant galaxies are found. There is an analytical theory (i.e. an actual equation and not a computer simulation) that gives a prediction of the characteristic masses of the galaxies throughout the life of the universe (a little more complex than that) - the theory is called "press - Schechter"" and unfortunately the Wikipedia entry about it says less than what I have written here. In fact, the above theory does not discuss baryonic matter galaxies but the dark matter halos that surround them - such a model is simpler because only gravity enters, while other physical quantities remain outside. In order to understand how the size of the halos affects the galaxies that are formed in the content (which the theory I talked about earlier does) additional physics is needed and here the solutions are in many cases computer simulations as it becomes too complicated.
I digress a bit, in any case, the fact that at the center of every galaxy there is a massive black hole, does not necessarily indicate its importance in the process of the formation of the galaxy. Suppose for example (this is not necessarily the case) that the black hole was created at a stage when the galaxy is already large enough - in this case its effect will be small since there is enough mass in the other factors in the galaxy for its effect to be negligible - I do not know if this is the case but the claim as if the fact that every galaxy has a black hole must affect the processes of galaxy development, is not necessarily true
anonymous 55,
As Michael pointed out there is no fundamental difference between massive black holes and ordinary black holes. If so, it is very possible that before they were formed, the bodies that created them were very different. While the normal black holes (which are only 10-100 solar masses) were created by the collapse processes of normal stars, the massive black holes were created by other unclear processes (see my note 45)
Hezi,
I already answered you that since every physical theory assumes that the laws of nature are basically the same everywhere, it is very likely that the two sides of the galaxy will be similar to each other since the conditions there are similar. In the same way two galaxies that start out similar are likely to grow to be similar to each other.
As stated here at the beginning of the correspondence (by Noam and Adi) you are really not interested in receiving answers. You keep repeating your mantra, according to which you got no answers and only your "theory" explains things that no one else in the world can explain. In order to justify this claim you bend (not to say lie...) everything in the external world or in your previous words (for a more specific example, see my words to you in 52) and this, in order to fit everything to your main goal - "to create a false representation of yourself and the world according to which you are Knows everything and everyone else is stupid."
In any case, it doesn't seem to me that you will change your ways following my response and you know what - beauty - will smell good on you.
Continue to walk in your imaginary world on the "genius in your own eyes" standard and continue to be bitter that no one in the real world understands you. In your free time, you can console yourself with the fabric stories according to which Einstein (like you) failed in mathematics because "the teachers didn't understand him" - these fabric stories will be sewn according to your exact measurements.
For my part (like most of the world except maybe your dog, the parrot and the younger of the two hamsters) I will stop from this moment on trying to share any actual knowledge with you, and I will just focus on making sure that no one mistakenly thinks that you understand what you are talking about.
Have a nice cuddle on your blog!
And also towards the claim that there are no black holes at all:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23677/
Rah:
In my previous response I referred to the data on which you based your words.
But the data was not the reason why I said "what a wonder" but the fact that as I mentioned and as Zvi also mentioned - the black hole has no special ability in this matter or at least not one that arises from the known laws of physics.
By the way - there are data and speculations in all directions - also in the direction of the involvement of black holes in the creation of galaxies:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/black-hole-gala/
R.H.:
The information about the existence of black holes in the center of all galaxies is unknown to the authors of the Wikipedia entry.
There it is written that most giant galaxies (only most and only giant ones) contain a black hole in their center.
You are welcome to read for example this:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/no_blackhole_010719.html
The giant galaxies are formed, according to some theories, by collisions of small galaxies.
It may also be the process that creates the black holes in their center.
Anonymous (55):
There is no fundamental difference between a black hole at the center of a galaxy and other black holes.
They do not evaporate more or less.
What's more - black holes in the centers of galaxies are usually larger.
Hezi
I think it is still too early to answer such questions, there is not enough knowledge among scientists or researchers to be able to give answers about it today. There is still a lot of data missing to confirm your theory. (Data is missing not with you but with the scientists who study the galaxies)
Deer 52
If you really are a physicist,
How can you not (also the others of course)
Give an explanation in theory which explains the symmetries of the galaxy arms?
I do give an explanation for this typical phenomenon...
And what about black holes that are not in the center of the galaxy?
Do they evaporate over time and have no connection in the formation of the galaxy?
What is the difference between a black hole at the center of a galaxy and a black hole that is not at the center of a galaxy?
Michael, what is "what's the wonder"? Doesn't it seem a bit of a strange coincidence to you that in every galaxy or as Zvi wrote in every galaxy tested there is a black hole in the center? Hence the conclusion that if this is true then the black hole certainly has a role in the formation of the galaxy or conversely the galaxy has a role in the formation of the black hole at its center or massive black holes have a tendency to get trapped in the centers of galaxies which is also strange and interesting.
Avi:
Please block this bra already.
See how much time a quality person wastes!!!
Michael,
Thanks for the link. I looked at this entry before replying to RA. But unfortunately there is no explanation of the new theory in it - although from what I understand it is definitely quite central and that's why I preferred to add the links in the knowledge. Note that it is possible that the black hole had in the past (when the galaxies were still smaller) a more significant role, albeit a completely Newtonian one - nevertheless the prevailing theories do not discuss it and its influence, even in the past, was probably small.
Hezi,
I completely understood that at the center of your Baron Munchausen stories (credit to Max!) are the outgoing jets. But in your response (47) you linked the theory of the three cold gas jets to your two jets and this despite the fact that the cold gas jets go in and your jets go out. Therefore, it may be appropriate for you to act in one of two ways:
1. Update your "theory".
2. Contact the Israeli professors who came up with the theory of galaxy formation and inform them about the changes that your theory requires in their theory.
No matter which way you choose, at least don't claim that your theory is being strengthened day by day (27) since you treat completely unrelated things as strengthening your theory (to remind you, you claimed in response 47 that the second link is already approaching your theory even though its jets are three , coming in and cold and your two, coming out and hot)
Note that I avoid giving you an exact answer - simply because almost every physical theory I can think of assumes that all galaxies operate according to the same laws of nature and therefore two similar galaxies will have arms that curve in a similar way.
So I really don't know which one to choose.
Zvi, R.H.:
Read here the current theories on the formation of galaxies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution
The existing theories are not based on the existence of a black hole in the center of the galaxy and actually - what's the wonder? After all, there is nothing a black hole can do at astronomical distances that ordinary stars or any other accumulation of mass cannot do.
This is an important point that I'm sure Zvi is aware of (and he also expressed it in his words), but many people miss it, so I'll repeat it again:
A black hole functions like a normal mass for all intents and purposes at any distance that is not in its immediate vicinity.
The popular concept - as if a black hole "swallows" other stars just because it is a black hole is not true.
On the other hand - in my opinion - over the many trillions of years - it is likely that the galaxies will nevertheless be swallowed by a black hole in their center - not because the black hole will do anything bad but because as time passes, their rotational energy decreases by the emission of gravitational waves and therefore the rotation radius must also fade.
Deer 49
I'm sorry to inform you that you did not fully understand what I was talking about...
The center of my theory is the outgoing jets...
Speaking of which,
You will present a theory that explains the symmetries of the arms of all galaxies (excluding distortions created in a few galaxies after their formation).
R. H.,
The idea that the black hole swallows matter is incorrect (at least on a quantitative level).
The length scale that characterizes a black hole is called the Schwarzschild radius - for the sun the Schwarzschild radius is about 3 km and since it is linear in mass, for the black hole in the center of the galaxy it is about 15 million kilometers - 0.1 AU.
The Schwarzschild radius is actually the event horizon of the black hole - from it onwards nothing is seen from the outside, however non-classical phenomena start at a distance of several Schwarzschild radii.
One of these phenomena is the instability of circular orbits at distances smaller than 3 Schwarzschild radii - from this distance onwards matter can no longer move in a circular orbit and it falls into the black hole - any matter that reaches this distance from the black hole will be "sucked into it".
In light of this, it can be understood that the absorption radius of the black hole in the center of our galaxy is 0.3AU, which means less than a third of the distance between the Earth and the Sun (for the sake of proportions, this is something like 2.5 light minutes when the size scales that characterize the density of stars are orders of magnitude of light years - the nearest star The most observed around the black hole is a little more than ten light-years away).
In light of all these things, our black hole absorbs almost no matter, so it is not an AGN (active galactic nucleus).
Other galaxies have active galactic nuclei and to say that the galaxy is being sucked in is a very exaggerated statement. We made a calculation:
Let's say a very active galactic nucleus (which reaches an intensity of 47^10 erg) - since the energy production rate from absorption is about 10%, it absorbs something like 48^10 erg per second. This means an absorption of 27^10 grams per second, which means 35^10 grams per year. In normal units it is about 50 solar masses per year (and this is really assuming crazy absorption - usually the illumination is 100-1000 times lower than what was presented, meaning we are talking about something like a tenth of a solar mass per year).
Considering that a galaxy like the Milky Way has a mass of 12^10 solar masses, even with the galactic nucleus it will operate for the entire age of the universe (9^10*15), at the craziest illumination rate that exists (as said, about 50 solar masses per year) then it could not His galaxy entirely. AGN do not operate at maximum luminosity all the time and the specified luminosity is very rare, so it can be said that the statement according to which the galaxy is sucked into the black hole is absolutely incorrect.
Hezi,
I'm sorry that I'm responding to you even though I decided not to do so - nevertheless, please note that the jets in question are incoming jets and not outgoing ones, so it would be better if you correct your "theory".
To commenter 47 guess what you have is not a theory but the stories of Baron Munchausen.
Deer 45
The first link is irrelevant.
The second link is closer to my theory.
He claims there that the galaxies are formed from jets of cold matter.
Talking about an average of 3 jets.
This is not true.
There are always only two jets, as explained in my theory.
Only recently was it discovered that our galaxy originally had two arms and not four as previously thought...
Another thing: the jets are hot matter and cannot be cold matter.
A very important point: there is no other theory that can explain the wonderful symmetries of the arms.
On the topic of the source of the material: I have a revolutionary hypothesis which may arouse a lot of opposition, so I am not bringing it up yet.
deer,
Thanks. Just one last question for you. According to the current theories, is the black hole in the center of the galaxy going to swallow the galaxy?
R. H.,
As I wrote in (33) the answer to the question of whether the black holes were created in the centers of the galaxies or whether the black holes were and began to center the galaxies around them is unknown - I'm sure there is work on the subject, I wasn't that exposed to it but I did hear that it's an open problem.
In general, the black holes in the centers of galaxies are too problematic bodies. Their masses are considerably larger than the masses of stellar black holes (tens of solar masses at most) and simple calculations show that in the lifetime of the universe, a stellar black hole could not absorb the mass difference required to reach the mass of a large massive black hole.
Another problem is that with a normal black hole it would develop into a supermassive black hole, we would expect to find an intermediate self (say 4^10 solar masses) and such bodies have not been found so far.
As of today there are several theories, I think the leading one is that primordial bodies - like stars with masses of thousands to millions of solar masses, which could exist in the early universe (the important data is that it was in the first generation of stars - in the absence of metals) and can no longer exist, created in their collapse the These black holes.
On the question of the formation of galaxies -
In recent years, a group of Israeli physicists led by Prof. Avishai Dekel presented a new and comprehensive theory of the formation of galaxies. As far as I know the black holes in the centers of galaxies do not play a particularly significant role in the formation of galaxies according to this theory (I don't know if it answers your question):
https://www.hayadan.org.il/how-the-galaxy-formed-1412084/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/avishai-dekel-formation-of-galaxies-nature-2201099/
The explanations in both articles are quite complicated and not the website's fault.
The proposed theory (I heard several lectures on it) is a complicated theory because it includes many variables. While the preoccupation with the distribution of dark matter in the universe only includes consideration of the gravitational force, the preoccupation with visible galaxies also includes thermodynamic variables such as pressure and temperature as well as stellar processes (for example, factors such as supernovae or GRB originating from a single star have a very large effect on the formation of entire galaxies in the early stages of the universe).
In light of all these things, it is difficult to properly explain the entire mechanism of the formation of galaxies in an intuitive way (certainly to me, who is not involved in this field) and yet it is important to know that there is a theory, although not perfect, but certainly broad and serious that is accepted by the majority of those who understand the field.
Cheers, good luck and good luck. To date, there has not been a single person who has received a Nobel Prize in both biology and physics. But you after refuting evolution and explaining how the spiral galaxies were formed... see you in Stockholm.
deer 40,
So if indeed every galaxy has a black hole what are the thoughts on that? Do galaxies form around black holes? Or on the contrary, necessarily in every galaxy a hole is created that moves to the center? Or are there other ideas?
To 39 mi kal al
As I have already written,
Not enough will be known about what is happening in those galaxy centers.
But the fast rotation there is a fact that has been proven in recent years (it is true that it is not "logical").
40 deer
From the previous response it turns out that you did not understand the theory.
I am not claiming any gravitational effect of the black hole.
The gravitational effect on the movement of the ejected mass is negligible compared to the ejection and rotation energies of the ejected material...
To Boaz (23), in the first step you should say thank you, I went through the junk comments and pulled your comment from there for approval before deleting the rest of the comments. The filtering system is an automatic system that does not like capitalists probably….. maybe because it is an open source system.
As for your request - I do not publish lies and fairy tales about climate gate type conspiracy theories. I accept the testimony of Diane Evans, that there is enough evidence for global warming even without the data from the University of East Anglia. NASA certainly has enough independent means to monitor global warming. https://www.hayadan.org.il/climategate-is-nonsense-2701101/
As for the hockey stick - I know Miki (Michael) Mann very well, do you mean the field coordinator of the Or party? I didn't know he was a hockey player.
Hezi,
It seems to me that in my previous response (32) I told you the main points of my understanding of your theory - at Michael's recommendation I think I will not add more.
Michael and Adi,
See my note to my chest.
R.H.,
It is not known with certainty that there is a black hole at the center of all galaxies, what is true is that at the center of every galaxy where the observations are good enough a black hole can be located and hence the estimate that at the center of all galaxies there is a super massive black hole with a mass between 6^10 and 10^10 solar masses. The black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy is quite small and has a mass of a few million solar masses (estimates about the exact mass vary from time to time, but in general it is between 3 and 6 million solar masses)
For a discussion about black holes in the centers of galaxies, see my previous response at:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/black-hole-gets-kicked-out-of-galaxy-2005104/
deer:
You have no chance with Chazi.
Believe me. I devoted far too much time to him and nothing helped.
He really does not bind himself - neither logic nor fairness and every word written to him is pure waste.
That's why I also asked my father to turn it off, but my father sometimes prefers to show mercy to cruel people.
I remember that in one of the debates he defied science that no scientist can explain why black holes spin so fast.
I explained to him that this was nonsense and that the only reason they were thought to spin at all was the fact that the known laws of nature generally required them to spin at enormous speed due to conservation of angular momentum, so his defiance of science was unjustified.
Beyond that - I asked him how he knows they are spinning - after all, he can't see them.
That was about two years ago and you can probably guess that even though I occasionally remind him of the question he just ignores it.
The guy is - in the language of the pale tracker - completely unconquerable and his crazy fight in the language academy also proves it.
deer,
I take my virtual hat off to you.
You have the patience and serenity of a Zen-Buddhist monk.
Well done! 🙂
Noam
let's stay "friends"
stop please…
Hezi,
Within the limitations of the site, this is a well-concise explanation. More detailed explanations are unfortunately not available for you, due to two serious limitations you have:
1) Not knowing how to use links
2) Lack of understanding of the English language
The main thing is that you stop spreading lies...
deer
I have not claimed anywhere that the black hole has a gravitational effect.
I recommend that you try reading my theory again.
What I claim is that two jets of matter are thrown from both ends,
A material whose movement is affected both by the force of the shot and by the rotation moment that the material receives during the shot.
After the matter is ejected, there is no gravitational effect from the black hole.
By the way, the term supermassive black hole is a misleading term, which is derived for lack of a more appropriate term.
Another thing,
the discontinuous forms in the density of the arms,
prove that there are long pauses in the injection of material, which can continue for millions of years.
This has been proven for the spiral of the Milky Way.
This fact is another reason for the inability to bring numbers...
deer,
Is there a black hole at the center of every known galaxy?
Hezi,
Around the black hole at the center of the galaxy are stars. After a distance of about a parsec (for the Milky Way), the gravitational field is dominated by the stars and not by the black hole. The size of the central bulge in the Milky Way is relatively small and its size is about 1000 parsecs - meaning that its edges have almost no gravitational significance to the black hole.
The sun is approximately 8000 farsecs from the center of the galaxy, so the black hole's gravitational field is almost invisible.
The question of whether the supermassive black hole preceded the galaxy or the galaxy preceded it is an open question that is well known and discussed a lot - you can decide that the first option is your favorite and if so you will be fine - I personally don't know and if I had a well-founded theory I wouldn't have discovered it Go, but to a scientific journal - the Nobel Prize committee would have already contacted me.
What is certain is that your "theory" is based on 0 knowledge and 0 observational data and the reason you can fit anything that is discovered to it is only because it does not really exist. All you do is say that there are things that go around - it's true and known!
Hezi,
Even today, the accepted view is that black holes do not emit anything (except Beckenstein-Hawking radiation, which is completely negligible). The radiation emitted from the centers of galaxies is from material that has not yet been attached to the black hole - so unfortunately science has not yet come to the understanding that you are right.
Also, your statement that there is not enough data to calculate what happens in the centers of galaxies is also incorrect - there is not all the information that they would like, but there is certain information and it is enough for many things. For some reason (perhaps because you don't know even high school physics sufficiently) I find it hard to believe that your private scientific limitations stem from the limits of human knowledge.
Zvi, another very important thing,
I present in theory the element of rotation which is a central part of the explanation of the formation of the spirals,
and their marvelous symmetry.
No other theory can explain it.
Another important thing,
This rotating hummock is the basis for explaining many rotational phenomena in space.
It also explains the dispersion of matter away from the centers of galaxies.
It may be a good basis to abandon the need for explanations like "dark matter"...
27 deer
Science does not yet have enough information to calculate data about what is happening in the center of galaxies.
Therefore, I have no possibility to display numerical data.
What I presented is a principle of action that was considered at the time to be in contradiction to all the theories that were accepted in physics.
(who claimed black black is not capable of emitting matter...).
Lenaam 28,
If for you it is a scientific explanation to describe how a process of 4 completely different incarnations could have formed randomly for the formation of the butterfly, then I do not intend to continue discussing any topic with you...
Hezi,
You really don't understand English.
The quote I gave explains the development of the reincarnation step by step over a long period of time, not the reasons for its survival.
By the way, asking for forgiveness and admitting your mistake won't hurt, and I hope you don't continue to spread the lie that no one answered you...
Hezi,
No one laughed at you and never will because the theory you presented is not true. Much greater scientists than me and you have presented and will present many wrong theories and no one in the scientific community will hold a grudge against them for a wrong theory if it seemed reasonable enough at the time. The bottom line is that to say that your theory is not true is an unprecedented absurdity because you have no theory at all.
All that Data presents as a theory is an unclear narrative description of an unexplained mechanism and this without any quantitative calculation.
I tried in the past to read and understand what you are talking about but it is impossible so I won't do it again, it's a waste of my time. In what you call it, you don't have a theory that you present, not even one equation that quantitatively describes the phenomena you are talking about and that is quite important.
With your permission, I will quote something you said in the past about the theory of relativity:
"Physics is not beautiful literature... Since Einstein's theories are considered the pinnacle of physics, there must be a formula that calculates the curvature of space and time near a black hole. Since the black hole at the center of the galaxy is of the supermassive type,
That is, having an extremely large mass, physics must give us a formula how to calculate the curvature of time and space. Otherwise this is not physics but a bluff..."
https://www.hayadan.org.il/callisto-2904106/#comment-267974
If Einstein is obliged to present equations, it seems to me that it would be fair for you to do so as well (by the way, of course, in addition to the explanations, Einstein also presented a very broad mathematical basis for his theory and those who are interested can read my answers to my chest in the correspondence I referred to).
Finally, I would like to repeat my recommendation to you from Takabat 28 in the attached link:
"If you want to know more in detail (and of course you will because you want to expose the scientific community to its mistakes), you will have to start studying physics at a slightly higher level - you will start in high school, and from there you will move to a first-second-third degree, after that there is a chance that you will understand enough to doubt If you still feel it is necessary.
Before that, doubting is not healthy skepticism but groundless stubbornness"
Noam 24
It is an attempt to explain how the egg survived but not how it was formed.
It should be remembered that there are three more stages of incarnation,
Even if the egg could have been created randomly,
They were not capable of being randomly generated.
Lazvi 25
Since you are a physicist,
I will present to you my theory from 7 years ago,
which receives reinforcements from day to day.
(At the time, I was often made fun of her...)
You are welcome to respond as a physicist:
http://www.kaspit.com/assil2/index.htm
Noam, R.H. and Adi
In his response (5), Hazi raises a fair question: how is it possible that of all the tens of thousands of scientists (including a significant number of Nobel laureates!) who log into his blog every morning - he does not receive clear answers to his questions.
Hezi time and time again exposes to the public the hidden science - the lies of the theory of evolution and the malicious tricks of general relativity (still only within the framework of science and not within the framework of his free and innovative blog).
As of today, Hezi's blog only deals with alternatives to evolution, and for that, RH as a biologist should be happy, because he fell in part to come across such a deep and fresh brave criticism of the academic brainwashing he went through.
I, as a physicist, have no choice but to envy biologists and wait for the day when he will lift his glove and shake off the blind worldviews in my field of work, most of which all stem from the dark lies that were forced into my mind during many years of bad study.
Your evil attempts to undermine Hezi's faith in his established and learned world view will not succeed
And Liza already said about this in response 140 in the link to which Noam referred:
"What is the difference between a dialogue and a monologue?
A monologue is when one person talks to himself.
A dialogue is when two people talk to themselves"
Good Day.
Hezi is probably not only a liar but also a lack of understanding, who doesn't understand that if you click on a link, you get to the quote. To help admit his mistake, below is the quote as published on the science website:
13-05-2010 בשעה 18:02
Another explanation for the "mystery" of Hezi:
"Not all insects go through the Complete Metamorphosis cycle of life. Cockroaches, very ancient insects by fossil standards, hatch as a small version of their adult selves and just grow larger. Other insects that appear later in the fossil record go through Incomplete Metamorphosis, consisting of egg, nymph, adult. Apparently at some point some insect eggs started hatching before they were fully formed. Cockroaches stayed on in their way, having no competitive pressures to change, but for other insects a nymph stage aided their survival and it was added to their life cycle. Eventually at some point a nymph formed a cocoon around itself before maturing to the adult stage. This enabled it to survive a winter and emerge fully grown. So, by a long step by step process, the Complete Metamorphosis cycle did arise. "
Source: Intelligent Design – Skeptic's Dictionary
The site is extremely interesting, although there is no fear that Hazi will try to visit it - it will destroy all kinds of beliefs.
Adi 20
Noam 21
You both try to lie with a determined forehead...
Quote here what you have to say.
Referring to the link is Noel's attempt to cover up lies.
I also bring a link to the YNET forum
where I also presented the questions,
And apart from the slanders, no answers were given there either.
You should scroll back there and see more "discussions"...
http://www.ynet.co.il/home/0,7340,L-2389-13174,00.html
I would love to be updated when the scientist will also cover the Climate-gate affair and the story of Michael Mann's hockey stick graph, and will not be content with quoting cover-up committees.
You forgot to mention Mann and his friends.
When a liar is caught red-handed, he has two grays:
1) Apologize, and of course stop repeating the lie
2) be silent in shame
Not surprisingly, Chazi the liar chose a third option:
He made a strange claim that I provided a link to the quote, and not the quote itself...
If anyone needed further proof of Hazi's "honesty", then Hazi provided it himself.
When you think about it in depth, there are two other possibilities that cannot be ruled out outright:
1) Hezi doesn't know that if you click on the link, you automatically get to the quote itself
2) Hezi simply does not read English, but is ashamed to admit it. This could explain at least some of his lack of knowledge. The lack of English knowledge, on the other hand, cannot explain and/or justify such dishonest and primitive behavior.
Readers of the site, pay attention to Hezi's method of operation above:
1. Noam unequivocally shows that the question that Hazi raises like a scratched record has already been answered, by a direct link to the answer he gave.
2. Hazi comes with a strange and unfounded demand for a requote of the answer and accuses Noam of drowning the reader in nonsense (who is this reader? Hazi? What nonsense? After all, the link is a direct link to the answer).
3. Hezi ignores the answer for the u... time.
4. In the future Hezi claims "there is no answer to the question of how the butterfly incarnations were created".
And for the avoidance of doubt, Hezi deletes comments that are uncomfortable for him on his "blog". As he admits, he deletes "only garbage", but Hazi is the one who sets the criteria for "garbage" - and that is everything that does not match his agenda.
My father is 13
No because they didn't write.
I only delete junk, as you also do here...
Lenaam 14,
If there is an answer, cite it here and don't include links that drown the reader in nonsense...
Noam, you are a person who is not decent (in gentle words)...
Insults won't help.
An interesting article, it's just a shame that the author assumed that everyone knew Prof. Alexander Leshek who was one of the founders of the biological institute and its director for a long time. He was also one of the top microbiologists in Israel and at the same time was interested in ethical questions of science. Leshek was also known for his sense of humor and the fact that he founded the journal for results that do not repeat themselves - The Journal of Irreproducible results.
What's up with the bird flu fakers?
One of the biggest forgers in science is Jan Hendrik Schon, who was also considered by his fans at the time to be Einstein's successor. As a researcher, he published countless articles in the respected science and nature newspapers, articles that were discovered to be fakes. In connection with another article in the scientist (the bell curve) - Shawn was caught when a researcher noticed that the noise in his experimental graphs in one article was too similar to the noise in another article.
The researcher remarked to him that he had accidentally given the same graph to two different papers but this detail was enough to make people start to doubt his results. Shawn "succeeded" in doing things in the lab that no one could reproduce and because of his name it almost cost him a job for many postdoctoral students who were asked to reproduce his results.
Oh, Noam, you exaggerated.
It is written in English…
An excellent opportunity to check who the liar is (12):
On 13/5/10 I posted the following comment:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evidence-for-the-existance-of-david-kingdom-0705104/#comment-268984
A short but exhaustive explanation of the evolutionary development of the butterfly's reincarnations.
Hazi, as usual, ignored the explanation, and continued to claim that no one was able to answer him...
So who exactly is the liar???
(I think Hezi got more answers, but I didn't try to look for them)
You probably didn't delete it, but I will volunteer to answer - there is no difference in principle between the incarnations of the butterfly, and the process that the mammalian fetus goes through inside the womb. With the insects you just see it because it happens outside.
Nice,
You have no shame.
A lie and another lie.
There is no response to the question of how the butterfly incarnations were created.
So quote if there is an answer...
"An inspection committee ordered an Israeli scientist to stop teaching immediately"
Why is the name of the scientist in question not published?
R.H.:
You're right.
Just as one chest does not testify to the readers of knowledge.
Scientists are also human beings and a doctor's degree does not confer any moral superiority, but I am convinced that the moral level of scientists, as I know quite a few personally, is higher than any other corresponding sector. So please Hezi and all his followers calm down, a small and lonely rotten apple does not indicate anything.
Hezi
Can you introduce yourself?
For readers of the website who are not familiar with Chazi:
Agree with every word of Noam.
To the readers of the site, who may be misled by Hazy:
Chezi lies with a determined forehead. He received full answers to all the questions he raised.
Moreover, on his blog he usually censors responses to his questions, thereby creating the false impression that no one can answer his genius questions.
There is no doubt that Hazi is among the worst I have come across, he has no desire to learn or understand, but only to mislead and lie, and he does so in the most ugly and primitive ways.
pleasantness,
I show that there is rubbish in Darwin's "scientific" theory.
No one is able to admit that this is a failed theory.
Check out my blog…
No "scientist" has answers to simple questions...
http://www.kaspit.com/blog/index.php
I have an uneasy feeling about the results of Dr. Bacher and Professor Skortsky's research on the subject of the Jewish kindergarten as published here
It is possible that this is a commissioned study from the Khazar/Zionist native
Hezi,
It's not "finally" it's at the foundation of the scientific method.
The scientific method guarantees that over time, there will be no garbage left in science.
Exactly because of this, garbage like you and your ilk often produce and spread everywhere, does not enter the gates of science.
"Chest":
And what do you think about garbage left by counterfeiters and false prophets?
They are finally starting to clean up garbage left by "scientists"...