Or why the climate change skeptics are wrong / Michael Shermer
At some point in the history of all scientific theories, only a minority of scientists, and sometimes even just one scientist,
The answer may be found in a concept coined by the 19th century philosopher of science, William Yoell: consilience of inductions or "the unity of generalizations". Joel stated that for a theory to be accepted it must be based on more than one induction, that is, on more than a single generalization derived from certain facts. The theory must include many generalizations, and these must coalesce with each other independently but in accordance. In his book "The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences" Yoell wrote in 1840 that "Accordingly, only the cases in which such a union of generalizations arising from completely different types of facts was formed, are the cases that belong to the most established theories in the history of science." We will call it "convergence of evidence".
The term "scientific consensus" is often heard in the context of anthropogenic global warming, i.e. human-made warming. Is there a scientific consensus on the subject? There is and there is. The tens of thousands of scientists belonging to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, and most importantly: the Intergovernmental Panel on Change Climate (IPCC), all agree that climate change due to human influence is an existing fact. why?
Australian researchers John Cook, Dana Notticelli and their colleagues published in 2013 in the environmental research journal Environmental Research Letters a study in which they examined 11,944 abstracts of scientific articles on climate issues published from 1991 to 2011. Among these articles that expressed an opinion on the topic of global warming, they concluded 97% of them that climate change is real and is created by humans. And what about the remaining three percent? And what if they are right? In a paper published by Dana Noticelli with Ramsos Benstad of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and colleagues in the Journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology, they examined the remaining three percent and found "several methodological flaws and a pattern of common errors." That is, instead of the articles in the three percent converging on a better explanation than the one offered by the 97 percent, they did not converge at all. This is not due to the large number of scientists. After all, science is not governed by voting. Albert Einstein responded in 1931 to a book published by relativity skeptics called "100 Writers Against Einstein" with these words: "Why a hundred? If I was wrong, only one would have been enough." The answer to the question of why the theory of climate change due to human influence is gaining consensus is the fact that we are witnessing a convergence of evidence coming from different directions of inquiry: pollen, tree trunk rings, ice drilling, corals, melting glaciers and polar ice caps, sea level rise, ecological fluctuations, increase in carbon concentration Dioxide, the increase in temperatures at an unprecedented rate - all these converge to one and only conclusion. Those who doubt that man is causing global warming usually find some occasional anomaly in a particular series of data, as if a single discrepancy refutes all other lines of evidence. But that's not how unifying science works. In order for the skeptics of the warming theory to subdue the consensus they must find flaws in all lines of evidence supporting it and in addition to that they must present a consistent convergence of evidence supporting another theory that also explains the data. And they didn't do that. (Creationists face a similar problem when it comes to subduing the theory of evolution.)
"There is no single, consistent alternative theory that man is causing global warming," Noticelli concluded in an op-ed published on August 25, 2015 in the Guardian. "Some place the responsibility for global warming on the sun, others on the orbital cycles of other planets, others on the cycles of the oceans and so on. There is a consensus of 97% of experts who support a unified theory that is overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence, but the 3-2% of articles that reject the consensus appear everywhere even when they contradict each other. The only thing they all have in common, apparently, are the methodological failures, such as selective selection of data, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data and disdain for known laws of physics." For example, one skeptical paper linked climate change to lunar or solar cycles, but in order for these models to be valid for the 4,000-year period the paper's authors examined, they had to throw out data from the previous 6,000 years.
These are misleading procedures that thwart the progress of climate science when they are exposed to skeptical criticism, an inseparable factor from scientific progress.
572 תגובות
Mushon
Foolish fool nonsense.
Do you also have any comments with content? Do you understand something about something? Tell us a little about yourself, how old are you, what do you do, what are you interested in, where are you hospitalized..
And since most of your comments are only about me, I authorize you to join Israel's secret fan club.
Israel Shapira
I see you woke up from your swan sleep. How many futons did you eat for breakfast, with or without crackers? Since you distorted my name I understand that you already have dementia.
Mushon
Go to sleep.
Israel Shapira
Congratulations on receiving the Ignoble Award
Miracles
This is what Feynman showed in his QED lectures.
Skorai has arrived, we'll see when we can get to the Palm Springs pool, without it there's no fun in reading..
Israel
I got you. Maybe there is an answer here:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34947/does-the-uncertainty-principle-apply-to-photons
You have to learn a lot first to understand...
What does the error or spread matter? If a photonino is in the entire universe before the measurement at time 2 then it is also beyond the window at time 2 next to the cuckoo clock that shows 2 seconds, isn't it?
That's all it takes.
Koko.
Israel
I did not understand. You claim to know *exactly* what the error is?
And yet, what I said about dispersion at ct distance remains valid.
Miracles
dispersion.. measurement error..
So let's say that my hands are really shaking (which is true) and that I turn on the flashlight with a measurement error of 10 seconds.
I immediately change the experimental setup and place the window 10 minutes, or 10 light years away from the flashlight. Regarding scattering, it is not relevant because a single photon can be used in an experiment.
Israel
There's something else I thought of. How do you know how to measure time so accurately? Maybe you have scatter in the photon exit time measurement, for example?
And regarding the laser, if I remember correctly, the laser pulse lengthens over time. I'm not sure if that's true...
Israel
There is no contradiction here. The distance can be fixed, ct, but maybe there is a scatter in the location? I know that a laser beam, for example, always has a certain dispersion.
I still don't see how it is possible that according to the uncertainty principle, on the one hand, the photon does not have a defined position before the measurement, and on the other hand, the only place where it can be measured is only at a distance ct from the starting point.
My logic says that if before the measurement it was also beyond the window at time 2, then if at time 3 we closed the window we trapped it behind it even before it classically reached the window at time 5.
Albanzo
I think I understand. You say that although the experiments show that there is randomness, it is impossible to rule out an external factor that actually determines the results. It's like on a computer you call the random function every time you need a random value.
It seems to me that the universe at all cannot exist without randomness - otherwise, due to symmetry, everything would be something homogenous without form. It's like washes or crystals, they don't form without a "contaminating" nucleus.
A.P.
So you are a stupid secularist. It doesn't matter to me.
for miracles:
Deal with your feelings of inferiority arising from your haste and stupidity.
There is no doubt that the one who is insulted by the truth is the dumbest of the dumb.
You asked a question, you got an answer. There is no place for either condemnation or insult. We don't owe you anything, and if your goal is to discredit, say so from the beginning and don't pretend to be asking for answers, so you don't waste my time.
PS: I am not religious.
Miracles,
Yes and no. We can perform experiments and show explicitly that when we do not change the conditions of the experiment, the results are distributed in a certain way that is not constant and does not depend on our measuring devices. In this sense, we definitely see randomness. But of course we cannot prove (at least not with the tools currently available to us) that all the conditions are really the same, and that there is no hidden variable that is not visible to us. Of course, as Bell taught us, if hidden variables do exist, this has far-reaching consequences for localities that, from theoretical considerations, seem to be inconsistent with our universe, but...
AP,
I'm pretty sure you said something about that. But since I'm not going to start looking for a quote - who knows, maybe I'm confusing you with someone else. If so, I apologize and admit in Rish Gali that it is definitely possible that you say the things you say not out of religious considerations but out of sheer stupidity. My apologies and good luck in the future.
Albanzo
Isn't randomness something proven in experiments? Radioactive decay, passage of light through a semi-transparent mirror, try interweaving, etc.?
A.P.
It is sad that a man is religious because he is arrogant and stupid.
For the doppelganger:
"Everything must have a reason." That's not what I wrote!
I wrote that every result has a reason. I will define a result as a change in time.
And if it is not clear, then everything that exists in time must have a reason.
And if something is not in time, then it may or may not have a reason.
"The principle of causality began its life as an assumption..."
I was not talking about the principle of causality.
"You wrote right here on the website that to explain that Zira needs God"
I didn't write anything like that anywhere, you liar.
"You get an illusion of randomness"
And my argument is contrary to yours. There is no illusion, because there is no randomness. Every result has a reason.
The randomness is a spread put on top of the results, which there is no necessity to accept.
Miracles
"Do you even pay attention to what I write? 🙂 I say that the probability is not equal in all space. that's it".
Why not refer? What about the link I brought you? of which:
"There are an infinite number of identical maximum points (connected by the green line called envelope) that indicate equal probability."
On the other hand, if:
"The probability of measuring a photon that leaves point A and arrives at point B after time t is 0 as a result of destructive interference unless the distance between A and B is ct".
So what kind of uncertainty is there if I know for sure that I won't be able to find the photon behind the window before it classically reached it after 5 seconds, otherwise the probability is 0? If the probability is 0, then I can confidently say that at time 3 I will not be able to find the photon beyond the window, right?
Besides, when I wrote not to refer to the "physics" you are talking about, I was referring to the pile of rubbish you wrote about field theory. Just so I can understand - is what you wrote about field theory not physics but logic?
First of all, as a knight defending reason, you would expect that you would understand that if I am not worthy of consideration then you should not consider me... Second, there is no logic in your words. The claim that everything must have a cause and if in modern physics this is not the case then there is a problem with it is a religious claim, and this is because the principle of causality began its life as an assumption. If it is shown that an assumption is not necessarily true, it ceases to be valid. The only people who refuse to admit this are either religious people (for whom the principle of causality is one of the most chewed and familiar arguments) or people who do not understand what it means to assume something. So yes, it may not be a religious claim but just a stupid claim, but since it hasn't been long since you wrote right here on the site that to explain that Zira needs God, I guess in our case it's a religious claim.
Third and last - the claim that "there is no randomness. Absolutely not! Not even as an illusion." She definitely claimed physics and nothing else. Go to the lab, take measurements and see what you get. At the very least - you get an illusion of randomness (in my humble opinion, you get real randomness, but we cannot rule out the possibility that it is only an illusion, as has been discussed here a lot in the past about theories with hidden variables).
To a commenter who does not deserve any reference:
It is not about physics or religion, but logic in general.
and…..
Here is A.P. Proves to all of us how much he understands physics.
for miracles:
There is no randomness. Absolutely not! Not even an illusion.
A.P.
You wrote "Spontaneity is reasoned as contradicting the rule of logic that every result has a reason". Are you claiming that there is no randomness in the world?
"I do not recommend referring to "physics" shows A.P. Almost everything he writes ranges from a critical error, lack of understanding, or rejection of an idea for religious reasons"
I recommend that every reader pay attention to the commenters themselves and not to the titles attached to them by commenters with short fuses and astronomical egos.
By the way, spontaneity is reasoned as contradicting the rule of logic that every result has a cause. It has nothing to do with religious reasons.
In the integral over trajectories, a particle moves between point A and B in all possible trajectories. Not all trajectories (or in fact, almost none) fulfill the classical equations of motion, which among other things dictate the photon's speed as constant. But wonder and wonder, the many paths create interference between them, and the probability of measuring a photon that leaves point A and arrives at point B after time t, is 0 as a result of destructive interference unless the distance between A and B is ct.
In addition, as I have already said about his comments in the past - I do not recommend referring to "physics" shows A.P. Almost everything he writes ranges from a critical error, a lack of understanding, or a rejection of an idea for religious reasons (such as the claim that the spontaneous creation of a particle "makes no sense").
Einstein developed his teachings through thought experiments through which he clarified his concepts to himself in the simplest and clearest way.
At the root of the complicated there is the simplest. The genius knows how to identify and define the simple. The one who understands really knows how to make the complicated simple. The ignorant will make the complicated even more complicated.
If he was here in the field, he would say about a mechanical reality that is impossible.
Recognition of an object through an object is the way of scientific knowledge which necessarily limits and leads to contradictions in the end.
Field theory contains difficult conceptual problems.:
The void is not empty.
Creating a particle from an empty space.
Creating particles by chance and for no reason.
The field does not exist without measurement. (apart from dark energy which has more to do with relativity than fields)
Did the field come out of nowhere or was it always there? If anything, then it makes no sense. And a time-unlimited field must reset.
The field has no reason, and there is no reason why it will not disappear at once and the universe will disappear with it.
Why don't particles with new properties that no one thought of arise spontaneously?
Is the field an actual physical reality that gives an explanation for action from a distance, or a probabilistic mathematical description of reality?
Where do the laws of nature come from? Is it from field theory or the opposite? Who preceded whom?
Field theory did not predict the existence of dark energy, dark matter, the inequality between matter and antimatter.
Field theory does not limit the speed of a particle. She has no idea about the speed C. She has to get this figure from outside. She cannot predict him.
It will determine that a photon can move at a speed much greater than the speed of light and with a very small probability, and will determine that this photon is not measurable. The so-called inconsistency.
What really exists?
A field of mathematical probabilities designed to predict the results of experiments, which, as we got used to it, became an actual physical reality, or a particle that is in a certain place and time,
whose mathematical properties imply a non-probabilistic layer! which is under which science does not know yet.
Definition: Probability is a quantitative measure of possibility.
There is a huge difference between the possible and the actual. And despite its success, field theory, which is a theory of possibilities, cannot blur this distinction.
Actual knowledge is knowledge devoid of probabilistic meaning. It is a certain one that is well defined. "Triangle shape", "1+1=2", "The sun is rising", "The table in the room".
Probabilistic knowledge is knowledge about possibilities. Options are not actual knowledge.
-
PS: Fourth attempt to publish.
Israel
Do you even relate to what I write? 🙂 I say that the probability is not equal in all space. that's it.
Miracles
How is the uncertainty expressed in the description of a quantum particle?
In quantum theory, the behavior of particles is described mathematically by functions called 'wave functions'. These functions are of a wave nature, as Oil implies, and their value at a certain point is a measure of the probability of the particle being in that place.
To estimate the momentum of the particle, we will plot the shape of its wave function at a certain time. Its rate of change on the X axis (how many cycles it completes in a unit of length) is a measure of momentum.
Let's imagine two particles. Particle number 1 is described by the wave function in Figure 3a. We can notice that the image is completely cyclic with respect to the X-axis. Hence the momentum of the particle is precisely known. However, it is not clear where the particle is. There are infinitely many identical maximum points (connected by the green line called the envelope) that indicate equal probability. That is, the uncertainty in momentum is zero, because we know its value, and the uncertainty in position is infinite, because we have no information about its location.
https://kavua.wordpress.com/tag/%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%90%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%95%D7%93%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA/
Good night.
Israel
Yes, I know that (know, don't understand...). You said Maruch with equal probability, and that's already something else. This means, in my understanding, that the probability of finding him everywhere is equal. I think that not only is it not true, it also cannot be true. The reason is that then the probability of measuring it in a certain place is zero.
Miracles
"A photon in quantum mechanics "passes" through all possible paths and is not bound to the speed of light at all. The charge to move at the speed of light is a classical result that is related to a trajectory that a photon can maintain, but quantum is not defined as a trajectory at all (because this by definition requires knowing both position and momentum)'.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/climate-concensus-1503161/comment-page-17/#comment-705509
Israel
"Applied with equal probability"? I do not think so…
This is the point - that I can't, therefore before the measurement the photon spreads with equal probability in the universe, and therefore also beyond the window.
And hence my question: what happens to the photon if I closed the window even before it reached it? If at time 2 he was also beyond the window, then what happens to him at time 3, when the window closes? where is he?
Third attempt to post!
-
Einstein developed his teachings through thought experiments through which he clarified his concepts to himself in the simplest and clearest way.
In the complicated element, there is always the simplest. The genius knows how to identify and define the simple within the complicated. The one who understands really knows how to make the complicated simple. The ignorant will make the complicated even more complicated.
If he was here in the field, he would say about a mechanical reality that is impossible.
Recognition of an object through an object is the way of scientific knowledge which necessarily limits and leads to contradictions in the end.
Field theory contains difficult conceptual problems.:
The void is not empty.
Creating a particle from an empty space.
Creating particles by chance and for no reason.
The field does not exist when there is no measurement. (Do not bring dark energy as an example, because it is a result of general relativity that attributes energy to space, its shape and expansion)
Did the field come out of nowhere or was it always there? If anything, then it makes no sense. And a time-unlimited field must reset.
The field has no reason, and there is no reason why it will not disappear at once and the universe will disappear with it.
Why aren't particles with new properties spontaneously created, always the same particles, bosons, fermions?
Is the field an actual physical reality that gives an explanation for action through distance, or just a probabilistic mathematical description of reality?
Where do the laws of nature come from? From field theory or the opposite? Who preceded whom?
Field theory did not predict the existence of dark energy, dark matter, the inequality between matter and antimatter.
Field theory does not limit the speed of a particle. She has no idea about the speed C. She has to get this figure from outside. She cannot predict him. She will determine that Putin can enter Israel's room
At a speed much greater than the speed of light and with the smallest probability, and determine that Israel will never be able to catch this photon because only what moves at the speed of light is measurable. The so-called inconsistency.
So what really exists? A field of mathematical possibilities designed to predict the results of experiments, which, as people get used to it, has become an actual physical reality, or a particle located in a certain place and time, whose mathematical properties imply
On a non-probabilistic layer! which is under which science does not know yet.
There is a huge difference between the possible and the actual. And despite its success, field theory cannot blur this difference.
Real knowledge is certain knowledge that is well defined. "Triangle shape", "1+1=2", "The sun rises".
Probabilistic knowledge is knowledge about possibilities. Options are not actual knowledge.
Israel
So if you know exactly the momentum, how can you accurately measure the position?
Miracles
The photon momentum does not need to be measured. It is known in advance because I used a green laser that produces monochromatic photons of a known frequency.
Israel
This does not contradict what I said. If I understand correctly - there is no problem in measuring the speed and position of a photon at the same time, and that is what you do in the experiment.
Yes, there is a problem with measuring momentum and position, and as I said, and then you also said for some reason, momentum depends on frequency - but we did not measure the frequency of the photon.
anonymous
Don't be a puffy nod.
"We didn't measure that here"... we measured that in the office... we only measured the position of the photon and the speed of the photon... momentum is not related here...
Oh, and we also slapped the uncertainty principle...
Oh oh, and we only took the panel, too.
We didn't take the brain.
Miracles
Since p points in the direction of the photon's propagation, the magnitude of the momentum is
p=\hbar k=\frac{h\nu}{c}=\frac{h}{\lambda}.
Or simply: a photon has a momentum whose value is Planck's constant divided by the wavelength of the photon.
Israel
We are not measuring momentum here. Momentum is related to the frequency of the photon, and we did not measure that here.
But it has momentum.. and the uncertainty principle talks about not measuring momentum and position together.
Israel
I tried to think about it 🙂 I thought about the following: if I can measure the position of a photon precisely, and I know its speed then I have violated the uncertainty principle. But, I forgot that because the mass of the photon is 0, then there is basically no limit.
Therefore - I think this is the answer to the question: there is no dispersion in the position of a photon - after one second it moves exactly one light second.
great.
Maybe behind the deplorable appearance, you are a strict teacher who makes sure that his students read the material.. even if it's me 🙂
This is actually a quality that I respect and appreciate, and here's a fact, a reviewer is on my way. Thanks.
What about the question of the window and the futon? Can anyone comment on it? If the photon quantum spreads with equal probability in space before the collapse, then it should also be beyond the window at time 2, although classically it reaches it at time 5.
So what happens if we closed the window at time 3? Did we capture the photon outside the window? Is there any way to measure it there? Miracles?
Einstein developed his teachings through thought experiments through which he clarified his concepts to himself in the simplest and clearest way.
In the complicated element, there is always the simplest. The genius knows how to identify and define the simple within the complicated. The one who understands really knows how to make the complicated simple. The ignorant will make the complicated even more complicated.
If he was here in the field, he would say about a mechanical reality that is impossible.
Recognition of an object through an object is the way of scientific knowledge which necessarily limits and leads to contradictions in the end.
Field theory contains difficult conceptual problems.:
The void is not empty.
Creating a particle from an empty space.
Creating particles by chance and for no reason.
The field does not exist when there is no measurement. (Do not bring dark energy as an example, because it is a result of general relativity that attributes energy to space, its shape and expansion)
Did the field come out of nowhere or was it always there? If anything, then it makes no sense. And a time-unlimited field must reset.
The field has no reason, and there is no reason why it will not disappear at once and the universe will disappear with it.
Why aren't particles with new properties spontaneously created, always the same particles, bosons, fermions?
Is the field an actual physical reality that gives an explanation for action through distance, or just a probabilistic mathematical description of reality?
Where do the laws of nature come from? From field theory or the opposite? Who preceded whom?
Field theory did not predict the existence of dark energy, dark matter, the inequality between matter and antimatter.
Field theory does not limit the speed of a particle. She has no idea about the speed C. She has to get this figure from outside. She cannot predict him. It will determine that a photon can enter Israel's room at a much greater speed than the speed of light and with the smallest probability, and will determine that Israel will never be able to catch this photon because only what moves at the speed of light is measurable. The so-called inconsistency.
So what really exists? A field of mathematical possibilities designed to predict the results of experiments, which because they got used to it became an actual physical reality, or a particle located in a certain place and time, whose mathematical properties imply a non-probabilistic layer! which is under which science does not know yet.
There is a huge difference between the possible and the actual. And despite its success, field theory cannot blur this difference.
Seems like a good place to end.
Good luck with Sakurai. If you decide you want a reference to information theory or quantum information theory texts, ask and I'll give you my favorite sources.
Thanks for the specific reference.
It seems to me that you are returning to personal comments instead of factual ones, so let's end here.
Israel,
Searching on Google for "information definition" is literally playing her an idiot. What about going to Wikipedia (to which I directed you) and entering the page of information theory (which I clarified that we speak something like 5000 times)? The page contains explanations and also refers to a subsection on how to quantify information in information theory (to which I link). In addition, there is a much more intuitive explanation on the information entropy page (the link to it is on the page I am attaching). In the end, this is a branch of mathematics, and therefore the repeated requests that I define a mathematical size for you in a comment on the science website are not really reasonable or advance us nowhere. For a person who is willing to invest money in buying GPS devices and time in assembling them and conducting experiments, it seems that you are wrong to invest a minimal amount of effort in looking for basic definitions in information theory, and act as if I don't spoon feed you then it doesn't exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantities_of_information
I have to go to bed, but here's what I found on Wikipedia under "definition of information"
https://www.google.com/#q=%D7%94%D7%92%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%AA+%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94
It will be much simpler if you define and that's it, or bring a link, no?
Israel,
Indeed, as you have seen, your response is annoying. It is not so difficult to expect this, since she attacks in a passive-aggressive manner ("posting questions on amateur websites, hurling curses and blasphemies...", again as if you are innocent and everyone is just attacking you), repeatedly repeats false assertions ("as we have seen All of us, there is no such proof...") and is insanely stupid ("What pride are you talking about?", I don't know, maybe the pride that has been preventing you for two years from checking what is the definition of information in information theory as I have asked you a thousand times. Another example of stupidity - to claim that I didn't answer when you asked the forum how to set information, when you know that I decided not to interact with you anymore).
I don't have the time or energy to address her long response, most of which is overwhelmingly simply "I can't study physics properly". Ok, you're right. At your age and position - very difficult to impossible. So wait, because it's hard for you then the universe bends to your will and behaves in a simple enough way that you can understand it even without studying?
The only point I will bother addressing simply because it is getting ridiculous is the proof. I'll say it in a way that couldn't be simpler than this:
In information theory there is no "known information" and "unknown information". There is only information, even if there is a mathematical definition. Under this definition there is no difference between "information passes between two points" and "a message can be transmitted between the two points". In extreme abstraction (which I do not support, but it seems that all other methods are simply not absorbed by you) - what you call known information is information, what you call unknown information does not exist. Therefore, within the framework of information theory - if it is impossible to transmit a message to the world between two intertwined particles, then no information passes between them. You refuse to accept the definition of information theory (want to see where you decided that you don't like information theory? You wrote a response, I think to Anonymous, in which you said that the question of whether a message can be passed between two entangled particles and the question of whether information passes between them are two different questions. So that's it , which in information theory - they are not. You simply reject the definition of information theory for information and replace it with an intuitive and ill-defined definition that is more convenient for you). Obviously, when I talk about a mathematical sentence in information theory that says no information passes - I mean information as it is defined in information theory. It's not that hard. The reference is not to Moses, as you called earlier what you define as information and it is completely different from what is defined in the mathematical Torah.
There is proof. There is a consensus (the claim that there isn't is again an absurdity bordering on a lie, because to the best of my knowledge you only presented an answer here from one person (!!!!!!) from the academy who evaded the question and clearly did not say that there is no such proof, but rather said "the issue of interweaving is complex, come on I'll tell you why I like the interpretation of multiple worlds. You don't understand the proof because you didn't even bother to take the most basic step of going to Wikipedia (which I told you has a definition of information there) and see what information I (and the entire mathematical-physical community) mean when we say that there is no beyond information.
There is no more point. I've already told you dozens of times that I'm not interested in talking to you, but you're thirsty for more and more friction. I'm glad you bought Sakurai. When it arrives, open it and see what the basis of the basis of the theory you claim to understand without studying looks like.
we
The response in the article with R.H.:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/comment-page-6/#comment-324924
In Meir's article you have to click on the pdf to read the article itself.
This is only a first draft, and the experiment suggested at the end is not the experiment I am trying to perform. Mine is a bit more complex, and if successful it also has important technical applications.
Albanzo
Thank you again for the relevant response, I hope it remains so in the future as well.
I hope what I write won't upset you too much, but it's a risk I have to take.
Let's see - in the field, in reality, what can be done with your response.
Fortunately, there is the thread that you can always use and see the face of things.
"The original reason I referred you to him is to help you understand how much knowledge you lack." What, I don't know this alone?
"Yes - whether it's pleasant for you to admit or not" but why shouldn't it be pleasant for me? Have I ever claimed anything different?
"A huge part of your arguments is based on intuition, which itself stems from ignorance - you appeal to it because you are not sufficiently familiar with the research in the field."
"If you were to look at the basis of information theory and see how information is defined"
I have never disputed anything you or anyone else has said about black holes, dark matter, string theory, or any other topic.
If you check, you will see that there was only one subject where I disagreed with you, and that is the subject of the transfer of information between entangled particles.
And here I did not disagree - I simply asked for an explanation of how it is possible for two particles to be in the same quantum state without hidden variables and without the transfer of information.
If you ask, I will be happy to show you the same places where I ask.
did you ever answer I do not mean an explanation along the lines of "this is a non-local correlation". Am I supposed to understand something from this? How many times, including in this article, have I asked you and others to bring the definition of information? Has my request been answered once?
Your answer has always been: I am not your teacher, go learn.
Beautiful. Very logical, but is it realistic?
Let's just say I would decide to do what you say. For that matter, let's say I'm 20 again, with no family, no job, no obligations, no financial burden.
So where can you take a course in information or an advanced course in quantum without repeating all the previous courses from the beginning? Do you know such a place? I do not.
But that being said I would be willing to dedicate the two or three years to take that coveted class in quants.
I once took a quantum class. Forgive the humanities, this is not a history or literature class. Along with that class, I also took classes in chemistry, infinite series, and philosophy in the same quarter.
The effort and time that had to be put into that single class in quants, including all the lab exercises and exams, exceeded all the other three combined.
An advanced class in quantums is a rip off... the difference between it and the others is like the difference between the path of a fighter in a general patrol and the path of a chemist, even though they are both soldiers to the same extent.
So how do you or anyone seriously expect that at the age of nearly 60, with a family, children, work, obligations, I or anyone can go through the whole route again to take the same individual classes? Is there any shred of logic here, any connection to reality?
But luckily for us today we have a huge advantage and that is youtube university.
Because everything is there, including any class on any subject. And unlike classes at a normal university, you can choose the time and place to study, you can always repeat sections you didn't understand, check relevant topics in real time, and in many courses correspond with the lecturers or ask questions in the forums.
My daughter, a doctoral research student at the University of Pennsylvania, says that a normal university is so 20th century. Today everything is online.
And one of the excellent online courses is the Stanford course on weaving taught by Susskind, which is at a university level. And unlike a regular class that covers many topics, this course focuses only on weaving. This is the course I took.
"Right now, you just decided that information theory doesn't appeal to you" Come on. You have to be an expert in subtext to come to this conclusion. (By the way, how did you get to her?).
"You use language differences to attack or challenge ideas of this or that." Aha? You can show it to me in the thread or is it once again subtext.
I always ask. At the time I raised a question about transferring information through interweaving in several blogs. You - ah - explained to me where my mistake was (4 bell positions, remember?)
I sincerely thanked you for the response and did not return to the subject. Where was the challenge? From the moment the issue was explained, it was also closed. The same with a charged body in free fall. Do you know how many blogs I posed the question? No one was able to give a proper answer. You only gave a partial answer. Nissim's reference to the cargo paradox closed the corner and the issue was closed. Where was the challenge?
"This understanding will help you swallow your pride" What pride are you talking about? About the fact that if someone calls me an idiot and a liar, I pay them back? After all, years ago I already said (if you ask I'll show you where) that your job is to put some sense into my stupid head before I waste all my time and money on worthless experiments.
No pride. If I get a plausible explanation (for example 4 states of Bell, Bell's ships paradox, the cargo paradox) I can mark V and move forward.
"But before that you must master the basic knowledge and formalism of quantum mechanics."
Believe it or not, I'm full of anticipation for Skorai to arrive already (hopefully Modern Quantum Mechanics Revised Edition is the correct version). The greatest pleasure for me was always reading physics books by the pool in Palm Springs.
And now to the less pleasant part (not that it has been pleasant so far, who knows what).
I truly believe, I, a graduate of YouTube University, that you have a misunderstanding about the transfer of information between entangled particles.
Of course, I may be wrong, but your reference at the time to no-communication theorems as a mathematical proof of the lack of information transfer shows this. In my opinion, you are confusing the impossibility of sending information, with the question I presented: the transfer of information between the particles themselves, as shown by Bell's inequality theorems and proven by an assembly experiment.
As we have all seen, there is no such proof (correct me if I'm wrong) and there is no consensus in academia on this either.
Honestly, I would be happy if there was proof or an explanation. It would close a corner for me and set me free.
But it does not exist. And my questions about the supposed contradiction that might exist between the relative time of relativity and the absolute time of the big bang theory were not adequately answered.
And despite your criticism of the partial version of Meir's article, I think you missed the point. The theory does not claim to innovate that the photon moves at any speed - it claims to do more than that: to explain why. To turn Postulate 2 from a postulate into a theorem, part of it is required from Maxwell's theories and the Big Bang.
You can see this if you try to answer the photon and the window question I presented earlier.
Of course, the chances are that it is wrong and I simply do not know what I am talking about, which is why I also objected to Meir submitting the article at all. However, it has one distinct advantage: it can be unequivocally proven, one way or another, in an experiment (not the experiment that Meir describes at the end of the article).
So this is where we stand right now. I have no practical option to go learn all physics again. All I can do is post questions on hobbyist websites, throw in a barrage of curses and blasphemies and hope to gain some information through them, and finance experiments with money that I also know will most likely yield nothing but great pleasure for me.
Good night.
One comment I forgot - I can't help but refer to your last sentence. I think your biggest problem is the requirement and assurance that every physical phenomenon can be explained with the help of mechanical descriptions in three plus one dimensions, in a way that can also be drawn and explained to Lipif, Boris, Yehuda and Israel. All the evidence of the last hundred years shows that this is simply not true. The understanding of ordinary people is only intuitive and based on their life experience in a world with three plus one dimensions in macroscopic sizes. All the evidence from the last hundred years shows that outside this narrow domain, physics is not only indescribably different quantitatively, but also qualitatively. We have no reason to believe that everything will be explainable in simple mechanical images, and many reasons to believe that it is not. Two examples:
1. Probably the simplest example is spin. Spin is a phenomenon that, although people like to describe it to laymen as "rotation of a particle around itself" or "internal rotation" etc., there is no way to describe it in drawings and intuitive tools. All popular descriptions are simply inaccurate. On the other hand, from a mathematical point of view spin is a trivial phenomenon which is very easily explained with the help of understanding the symmetries of space.
2. A less simple but probably more beautiful and important example - in modern theoretical physics we understand that particles are not fundamental objects at all but only the way our detectors perceive much more abstract objects (=fields). This explanation has a huge amount of evidence and evidence from experiments. The whole mechanical concept is only an approximation (sometimes very bad) of reality.
Israel,
It is unlikely that Sakurai will learn to help you understand the subject of information transfer, because it does not reach that depth. If you read it, you will gain two things:
1. It does cover the subject of entanglement and impure states, which is the necessary foundation for understanding quantum information theory. At least you will know how to define what an interlaced state is, and this might be a gateway for you to start learning about interlacing.
2. The original reason I referred you to him is to help you understand how much knowledge you lack. Yes - whether you like to admit it or not - interlacing is a mathematical phenomenon that occurs in Hilbert space. It is impossible to talk about it without knowing what the space of situations is. A huge part of your arguments is based on intuition, which itself stems from ignorance - you appeal to it because you are not sufficiently familiar with the research in the field. That is, a light reading of the book will be a very serious wake-up call for you regarding the knowledge gaps you have. I hope that when you see the magnitude of the knowledge gaps, maybe you won't be so upset when people tell you that you have a lot more to learn before you can understand the problems, let alone their solution.
Where will you find the answer to your specific question? I already told you in our first conversation: you insist on using intuition and working on your definitions of "known information" and "unknown information". If you were to look at the basis of information theory and see how information is defined, you would see (as I have told you several times) that there is no such artificial differentiation - information is uniquely defined in a way that is related to the predications of experiments. "Unknown information" from which you can never extract "known information" in your language, is simply not information in information theory.
Now, you may argue that this is undemocratic and that proper definition of information should be done by voting on the commenter forum of the science site. Ok, your right. If you want to define a new language where there is a distinction between "known information" and "unknown information", you can do so. But you can't expect the scientific community to align with your language and ideas until you:
A. Defines well all the quantities in your theory mathematically.
B. shows that these definitions are consistent with reality.
third. Recapitulates all the dizzying successes of information theory (not only in applied mathematics and theoretical physics, but also its extraordinary contributions to technology in the fields of computer science and engineering).
d. Shows that your theory adds something new about it.
Right now, you've simply decided that information theory doesn't appeal to you, you've decided to switch to your own language (which is ill-defined), and you're using the language differences to bash or challenge one or another of these ideas.
Is that what you want? break up I can only wish that Sakurai will arrive soon, that you will look through it and understand where you are in relation to an undergraduate student, and this understanding will help you swallow your pride and learn the relevant things - the basic mathematical language of quantum mechanics (necessary for the next step, appears in Sakurai excellently) and the ideas The fundamentals of quantum information theory (they don't really appear in Sakurai, if you get to this stage I'd be happy to refer you to other sources - but before that you must master the basic knowledge and formalism of quantum mechanics).
Good luck (sincerely).
Israel
My opinion is yours. Definitely intriguing.
Regarding the reference, do you mean Meir's article? If so I could not download it and it seems to me that it is paid. And I'm Jewish, you know. You know how we are.. when it comes to payment.
we
How do I know? Do you think if I or anyone knew they would keep it a secret?
I'll read Scourai (Amazon says it's already on the way), we'll see if I can understand, and we'll move on from there.
I believe that it is possible to crack the mystery even without a fifth dimension or explanations of linear algebra where almost anything goes as long as there is no mathematical contradiction, but there is a solution of Rafat: 4 dimensions, here is here and there is there, if a particle affects another there must be something in the middle of.
I referred you to the development of the idea that explains how it works.
On the other hand, most likely I just don't understand something, like how they even thought that an M-M experiment could succeed. So you think Lorenz didn't see what I see?
So what's left? Learn as much as time and ability allow and do experiments.
Is there anything to lose? Even if they fail, it's the most important work a person can do, and also the most fun.
Israel
That's what I ask.
We'll try a different approach with you, you don't object, do you? So this way: Do you have a way to express, on the physical level, the information that passes in zero time?
If the question is not clear, then I clarify:
Suppose the polarization "passes" from entangled particle to entangled particle.
Let's assume that the device (not the Rabbi.. this box with the transistors) and you recorded the measurements.
And let's assume that the mathematical expression is acceptable to the mind and humanity.
Still:
Can you describe the trajectory of that entity moving in zero time from place to place, on a physical level?
Can you photo detector this information?
The route that the information takes?
I wonder what Jesus would do.
After all, this information somehow goes from your brain to the devices, goes through all kinds of routes, returns to your brain... Can you explain this please, sir? It's pretty important.
Waiting (what did I say? Photon? Does that mean I'm against vaccines?)
Albanzo
Thanks for the prompt response.
I wanted to write a comment, but I came to the conclusion that it might annoy you. So here's the bottom line:
1. I already ordered Skorai a week ago.
2. I highly doubt - and may God bless you - if reading it will in any way change my understanding of the subject of interweaving.
Because if the solution to the collection experiment and the effect of one particle on another in zero time is non-local correlation, Hilbert space, fifth dimension, or if two electrons in different galaxies are actually one entity and therefore if you measured one you also measured the other, then there is no doubt that this is a great mathematical and logical explanation , but I'm looking for something that will also satisfy Yafim and Boris, Yehuda and us.
But as I said - God bless you and you will die.
we
I did not understand.
The particle - a photon - has already inflated its soul the moment it was measured and no longer exists, so how can it store information?
But the information - polarization - was already recorded in our measuring means after we measured the polarization of the particle, wasn't it?
Israel
If the information was transferred, then how can the interwoven particle that no longer exists, store information that was transferred to it? Shouldn't the information (polarization) be 'deleted'?
Albanzo
Thanks! I work at UCLA, and will go to the bookstore to see what's available there.
Miracles,
The reference to the response that was released just now was originally written in Israel, but includes a reference to several books that might interest you (following our conversation about popular books for studying quantum). All the books are of international standard, and all of them can be found easily. I recommend that you look through them and find the one that you are most comfortable with. Maybe start with Gesiorovic.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/climate-concensus-1503161/comment-page-19/#comment-705593
You choose.
And now pee and sleep, snooze.
Israel Shapira
Sometimes you need a little common sense to understand where you are talking when you want to say something that means something. Two gifted autodidacts, one the late Zvi Yanai and the other Avshalom Elitzur, who thanks to his vast knowledge allowed him to do a doctorate at Bar Ilan. They lack your arrogance and conceit. If you are all confident publish articles and/write books like they did. Talkbacks are not enough. When you use the word Handel what do you mean by Handel Arsi or Handel the musician. little
But Moses! We want to hear what you have to say!
It's been a long time since we've heard your brilliant analysis about... what exactly? Have you ever said anything about anything or your whole job is to explain to us how stupid we all are..
That's fine, you're not the only one.
Run home, snooze. Handel is waiting for you in bed.
Israel Shapira
I have no pretensions to speak or write about subjects in which I do not have much experience for this purpose. I leave that to you. Entebbe University is waiting for you. You are guaranteed a position as the rector of the university, unless, because of your extreme age, you will be considered an emeritus professor.
But at least I understood something..
And you? When will we hear anything from you other than a pathetic attempt to get down on everyone?
Israel Shapira
I have the feeling that you don't actually have an academic education in any field. A person who finished high school, read a number of books, learned something, understood something and nothing beyond that. If you are so sure of yourself, send your articles to the professional literature. You might win a Nobel Prize
Moses!
I knew that if we called you, you would come.
I'm a graduate of the Rimmel College of Fly Makeup, why?
And you? Yeshiva Rabbi Hamor or Kollel Hamorotim?
Israel Shapira
May I know what is your education and what is your profession?
If the particles are intertwined in time, or in the fifth dimension, or with the boss, or with his wife - anything is possible.
But in the barn of Yafim and Boris, if the mismatch percentages triple when the sum of the polarization angles is doubled - "something" passes between the two ends of the experiment.
And what is something without a V?
Moses!
So don't call this something information, for my part you can call it Moses.
What about the photon that broke the window? Does anyone have an idea?
Israel
Clarification: Every interaction is a form of information. In other words, the fact that there is interaction between the intertwined particles is evidence that there is an "information transfer". But because the issues require critical subtleties, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to use a different term than "transfer of information".
Israel
Regarding your response to us, the truth is, I don't think "past information" is the right phrase.
I think something else is going on here. After all, the particles are intertwined not only in space but also in time. That is, time somehow has no effect on the interwoven and measured particle. The particle can be intertwined with another particle but itself no longer exist... as strange as it is, this is what emerges from the research of Prof. Hagai Eisenberg.
Israel
I'm looking for a way to do this...
Terrible mistake.
Not letters - polarizers.
(What is this here, mail?).
rival
The experiment is like this. Take three letters, or a polarized light source and two polarizers. The LCD screen is a polarized source, so all you need are the two lenses of a pair of sunglasses. I use my computer monitor, and two pairs of sunglasses.
Look through one lens at the monitor (or at a light source before you put in a polarizer). Rotate the lens until you can't see the monitor. In BHC, the polarization of the monitor is vertical and the polarization of the lens is horizontal. The vertically polarized photons do not pass through the horizontal polarizer.
Now, put another lens between the monitor and the vertical lens. If you rotate the lens so that it is polarized horizontally or vertically, no light will pass through. But - here's a magic - if you rotate this lens so that it is polarized at 45 degrees - you will see the display again!
What happens is that when measuring in one axis, we lose the information we had about a previous measurement in a different axis. In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, a similar phenomenon was measured in the angular momentum of uncharged particles.
Israel - correct me where I was wrong.
rival
Read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
rival
This assembly is French, so it's called Aspect in Arabic.. voila.
You can find the whole story at:
http://thinkil.co.il/texts/m055p004-025/
Very nice, and if you're in a hurry, go straight down to "Quantum Victory".
Israel,
What is this experiment called ("assembly experiment") in English? How do you spell it? It is impossible that Google did not hear about this experiment. Maybe he has a little more familiar name?
Israel,
What is this experiment called ("assembly experiment") in English? How do you spell it? It's impossible that Google hasn't heard of it. Maybe this experiment has a slightly more familiar name?
we
In relation to your question, there is no fundamental difference between a complete match and a complete mismatch in polarizations. Each of the results can be explained by hidden variables.
The problem is this:
When one of the polarizers is balanced and the other is at an angle of 30 degrees, you get a mismatch of 25%. The same goes for the opposite.
The logic says that if the two polarizers are at 30 degrees, the theoretical maximum mismatch can reach 50% if many pairs of interlaced particles are used, and there is no information about the state of the polarizers between the 2 sides. Can you think of any other option, however sophisticated?
In practice you get a 75% mismatch, as quantum mechanics predicts.
Therefore, the conclusion is that information - the state of the polarizers - moved from one side to the other. Can you think of another option?
(Yes, I can, there is a loophole, but it was fixed in the advanced experiments).
rival
You see? When you learn from people who understand what they are talking about (Israel Shapira) then you also begin to understand yourself. You are educated to understand that it does not make sense for one particle to be in two places at the same time. that it cannot be several particles that are in all kinds of places distant from each other.
But this is a critical part of the matter that revolves around the question presented by Israel.
First of all, how is a particle able to be found in several places in space at the same time? on the physical level.
Second, entangled particles are particles that behave as one particle. As strange as it sounds. This means that the interwoven particle is also interwoven in Africa. It is intertwined with both Africa and Andromeda. And since it is one particle, it is affected in both Africa and Andromeda at the same time.
Hence the question:
How can a particle in Africa know that it is itself in Andromeda? Something doesn't make sense here right?
But based on the tests - these are the results.
For a particle in Africa to affect its entwined friend, in Andromeda, and for both to behave as one body, at least logic requires interaction between the two. The interaction is a form of information.
How does this information travel between Africa and Andromeda in zero time?
Do you understand the question, opponent?
Shmulik,
The answer is roughly "both". On the one hand, as you said - everything we perceive as an electron particle is nothing more than an instance of the electron field. Since this field is singular and fills all space-time, all electrons are bound through it (and indeed this is a famous result of field theory). Furthermore, even if we forget for a moment about the field connecting them, electrons are indistinguishable particles. That is, there is no such thing as a two-electron waveform of the form:
Electron A sits at point A, electron B sits at point B.
It does not exist in nature. What you can find are systems described by
(electron A sits at point A, electron B sits at point B) less (electron A sits at point B, electron B sits at point A).
What does this symmetry mean? Look at the line I wrote and replace the identity of electron A and B. What did you get? As far as a sign (which we won't talk about the meaning of right now), you got exactly the same thing. That is, there is no meaning to the identity of who is A and who is B. In addition to the fact that although they seem separate to us, all the electrons are actually part of the same field and therefore intertwined, the electrons are indistinguishable and therefore again - intertwined. That is, it is not true in field theory either (although only in field theory is there a mathematical proof that it must exist, and in the framework of quantum mechanics without fields it is an experimental result that cannot be seen to be required by the mathematical structure).
rival
"We are actually measuring the same particle... How is this possible if millions of kilometers can separate the two conjugated particles?"
That's what the math says. How this happens in terms of physics is beyond me. Maybe the fifth dimension of miracles, please wait.
A.P.
"How do you explain the results regarding entanglement, which does not exist/disappears when the polarizers are perpendicular?"
I don't understand the question. Does the interlacing disappear? the wide
To Israel:
How do you explain the results regarding interlacing, which does not exist/disappears when the poles are perpendicular?
rival,
Recently a Della Link walkie-talkie where Albantezo explained the subject of interweaving. I don't know if you will get an answer to every question, but you will surely understand more. Just ignore the noises
https://www.hayadan.org.il/take-a-photo-of-schrodingers-cat-0108149/comment-page-1/#comments
Oops, I mean Albenzo.
Israel,
If this is such a great course then how come you don't know how to answer my questions? You messed up 😀
For some reason, on Google in Hebrew, "Assa's experiment" only appears in two places (one actually) which doesn't really make sense, maybe it has a slightly more familiar name?
According to what Shmulik says (Shalanzo says) when we measure entangled particles we are actually measuring the same particle... How is this possible if millions of kilometers can separate the two conjugated particles?
rival
There's a great Stanford YouTube course on weaving:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eeuqh9QfNI
But it is in English and includes a lot of math.
If you don't find Aspa's experiment and the topic still bothers you, I would be happy to try to explain the issue of non-locality, i.e. why one entangled particle interacts with the other in zero time.
Did anyone really know what Albantezo wrote? FUCKING AMAZING
Albantezo, didn't we talk about how you can't leave cool sentences like this without adding a little more color?
Do you mean that basically everything is fields and an electron is a local peak (as you once explained) of the field or if I measure two different electrons I actually measured the same electron in two different places?
And of course, as Israel said -
This does not answer the question:
"How can it be concluded that the values that A and B measured on the X axis were not predetermined" from the fact that party B measures a random value on the Y axis.
Miracles,
1. Tell us about the home experiment that demonstrates this.
2. "But, if B measures first the Y-axis, and then the X-axis, he will get a random result for the value of X"
I didn't understand why it was so strange, couldn't it be that when he measured the particle on the Y axis he actually "spoiled" the result on the X axis (from the very interaction with the particle) and made it random?
Miracles
This does not answer the question:
"How can it be concluded that the values that A and B measured on the X axis were not predetermined" from the fact that party B measures a random value on the Y axis.
Rival/Israel
Yeah, that wasn't clear. Let's say A measured on the X axis and got a plus. If B measures on the X axis, it will get a minus. But, if measured on the Y-axis, followed by X, then it will get a random result for the value of X.
Does it make sense now? And again - there is a home experiment that demonstrates this beautifully.
Wookie
On the subject of reading comprehension.
"He straight up told you how to find this proof."
Proof of why? I didn't get any proof of what I asked.
Miracles
Yariv's question was:
"I understood what you said, but it is not clear to me how, from the fact that party B measures a random value on the Y axis, we conclude that the values that A and B measured on the X axis were not predetermined (like right and left gloves that were put in boxes and sent to two remote laboratories)."
Your answer was:
"In the situation I described, if you measure the Y axis after you measure X, you will get a random result that does not depend on the result that A got.
Think your gloves also have a color, blue or red. A measured which hand and got right. If B measures a hand - he will get left. But, if B measures a color and then a hand - he will get a random result.'
And she doesn't answer his question:
"How can it be concluded that the values that A and B measured on the X axis were not predetermined" from the fact that party B measures a random value on the Y axis.
Do entangled photons know how to adjust themselves to a situation where the polarizers are perpendicular to each other, in a way that shows a mismatch?
How is 100% mismatch calculated? (The figure in the graph, when the poles are perpendicular, in the collection experiment)
If all the measurement results are opposite to each other, then it is a reverse match.
What is considered a 100% discrepancy between the measurements, is it when there is a 1% or 10% or 0.001% discrepancy?
0.001% means that one result out of 1000 is correct, but you can look at it the other way around - that 999 results could be the opposite, what does that mean?
elbentzo
Thanks, that answers my question.
They are intertwined, yes? Is there a mathematical expression for this that I might be able to understand?
walking dead,
In principle, all electrons in nature are intertwined at all times. The exceptions are the products of measurements, which, due to what is called in the standard interpretation "the collapse of the von Hegel", are not intertwined with any particle. Of course, immediately after the measurement they begin to interact with the environment and again intertwine with everything. This is why experiments in quantum mechanics begin with the production of the state we want to measure by making measurements that collapse into it, and isolating it to ensure that what we are investigating is indeed the state we have produced and not something else.
In field theory it is a bit more complicated, and all particles (of a certain type) are actually the same particle, and are intertwined. That is, the field is intertwined with itself at every two points.
Israel
"So if I change my argument to "those who preach to us about a failure in reading comprehension" instead of "those who preach to us about a logical fallacy" will it change?"
change what? That you told this false story in front of me for I don't know how long and I don't know how many times? And that's not even the only lie. Leave, I don't have time to get into it, tomorrow we return to the instructions of the Defense Ministry.
Once you said you didn't contact him except maybe in the first letter, and then you continued many times to simply claim that you didn't contact him at all. Do you expect us to understand that all these additional times were simply a shortening of the claim under the assumption that all readers understand and know this? don't get carried away (except that it is at least 2 times)
If I'm not mistaken, the eternal waiting by the way was released a long time ago, so it's better if you quote from it.
As usual, you again did not read my comment in depth and did not try to understand it, a shame but not surprising. The answer to your claims about what you defined as my logical fallacy is already there.
In short, you managed not to understand me, shocker, and to understand what you want and you somehow came to the conclusion that I claim that my opinion is the only one that is correct and that it is impossible to decide between the different opinions. From this you deduced a logical fallacy that exists only in your head. I wonder how that relates to what I'm complaining about in your conduct.
In the end, even if Feynman clearly said in some lecture that quantum mechanics is comprehensible, you would decide to understand that he actually did not mean it, and he did mean it when he said that it cannot be understood. We have a lot of evidence to support this point of view but you immediately choose to ignore it. So let's not paint an imaginary picture that it changes anything at all.
Lying is not just saying things you know are not true. A lie is also to say something that is not true. You can certainly be a liar even if you don't know and you don't understand or be aware of it. Although this is a slightly different meaning for the word, it is also valid.
Regarding your integrity, it is already a much more complex topic than the content of that specific discussion. (In short, you have nothing to expect from an apology, the case is much broader than that, and also what you claimed here is full of loopholes and inaccuracies)
Congrats on the link, was it that hard? You were right and I was wrong.
The question arises but why did you decide to chase Albenzo so many times about this when he straight up told you how to find this proof. Well, let's not get confused about who the victim is here.
I found the ultimate parting sentence, I think you'll like it because it paints me as a Nazi, and you as an innocent Jewish girl who runs away from him and after that burns dozens of Nazis in a movie theater.
Au Revoir, Shosanna
Israel,
It seems to me that the real question is whether you read what I wrote... at no point did I say that it was not a course book of one course or another. On the contrary, I even explicitly stated that the book seems to me to be typical of an international standard course usually called "Introduction to Modern Physics" (it has a slightly different name at each university, it's possible that when you did it at UCLA it was called "Quantums and Relativity"). What I am saying is that such a course is a tiny fraction of the amount of knowledge about quantum mechanics that an undergraduate should learn. The first evidence of this is that this is one course that includes both relativity and quanta - two of the most complex and loaded theories written in physics. This is true for both the course and the book. There is no chance to cover quanta in a serious way (and the reference here is to "quanta" in the sense of "the knowledge about quanta that an undergraduate student should have") when dividing the time (or the volume of the book) between quanta and other things such as relativity.
Another piece of evidence is that when we looked at the physics program at UCLA last year, we saw that it had three courses on quanta, and when we checked their syllabi, we saw that the content of two of the three was not covered in the book at all. All of this is consistent with the fact that the book is intended to accompany the introductory course (which is indeed usually taught for relativity and quantum together, due to its superficial nature) and that a graduate of a bachelor's degree in physics should then take two more heavy courses with other course books. We will repeat the bottom line that has been said many times - the standard is international. You don't have to believe me, all you have to do is search Google for the books for studying quantum in the bachelor's degree (a short list will be attached at the end of the email), open them and compare their level to the book you studied from. I promise you it will be like comparing a book by Benny Goren to a book on functional analysis for mathematicians.
A (partial) list of popular books in the world: Sakurai, Shankar, Cohen-Tannoudji, Abers, Griffiths, Gasiorowicz, Ballantine, Baym.
Israel
What did I say that you don't think is true?
Miracles
With all due respect, I'm not sure you understand why "something" moves between the particles in zero time.
Did you study the Aspa experiment, did you understand the subject of the mismatch percentages in the experiment?
Without it, it is difficult to understand the subject.
Good night.
rival
In the situation I described, if you measure the Y axis after you have measured X, you will get a random result that does not depend on the result that A got.
Think your gloves also have a color, blue or red. A measured which hand and got right. If B measures a hand - he will get left. But, if B measures a color and then a hand - he will get a random result.
By the way - this is an experiment you can do yourself 🙂
Miracles
Why does relativity not fit our logic?
Thank you Israel,
Now that you have told me the name of the experiment, I will try to look for perhaps a simpler explanation of it on Google or YouTube.
Israel
What's happening to you? Aren't you the one who said we were moving on?
I don't think there is anyone who claims that modern physics fits our logic. Not relativity and certainly not quanta.
Miracles,
I understood what you said, but it is not clear to me how from the fact that party B measures a random value on the Y axis, we conclude that the values that A and B measured on the X axis were not predetermined (like right and left gloves that were put in boxes and sent to two remote laboratories).
rival
"2. We have no practical way of knowing whether the value of the interwoven particles is predetermined like a pair of gloves (right and left) put into boxes and sent to two distant places, or whether their value is determined only at the moment of measurement.
So what is the claim based on that this is what is happening? If there is no way to verify this?'
There is a way, in the experiment, and it is edited. This is an assembly experiment, the description of which appears in the link from my name.
Wookie
I got the fix.
So if I change my claim to "those who preach to us about failure in reading comprehension" instead of "those who preach to us about logical failure" will it matter?
And do you see that the links you brought to my well-known curiosity do not indicate anything because that is exactly what I said, that I did not contact Albenzo except perhaps for the first letter in which I addressed a polite question to him?
Since you asked for my opinion on the logical fallacy I think you made (note, I never "threatened" you, I always asked you if you wanted my opinion. So here's a request).
the facts:
Feynman says in a lecture on quantum mechanics:
It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see, my physics students don't understand it either. That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does.
This is a pretty clear statement. He also adds: this is not a joke.
He also says on another occasion his famous saying:
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"
and also:
We have always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I'm an old enough man that I haven't gotten to the point that this stuff is obvious to me
Now his words can be interpreted in several ways. Israel's way, Feynman meant it very seriously.
It is also possible to follow the path of Wookiee and others, who claim that if you look at the entirety of his words in that lecture, and not just at the quote alone, then he did not mean it seriously but was just trying to interest and amuse his students. Israel commits a reading comprehension error when he refers to a partial quote.
But Israel is not convinced. As he already wrote, he reached her through his university professor who took the sayings seriously.
The debate continues, and after a while a deadlock is reached. Neither side manages to convince the other.
And here Wookie says:
"You play games. The meaning is that you choose to see things crookedly just to preserve your righteousness and not out of the search for what is the truth. It is neither psychology nor technology nor games or jokes. We all know that Feynman was an entertainer so we will look at his words and decide that he is not joking when he tells a joke and the audience laughs with him, yes? Is this how we should behave?
The lecture you gave is the lecture I linked to in Eternal Waiting. I will give you a part of it that is not a repetition of things that have already been said.
Are you looking for definitive proof that he doesn't seriously mean that quantum mechanics can't be understood? You'll probably never get it because you're looking for a quote from Feynman that he didn't mean it seriously and he was joking. This will not happen for two reasons.
1) He is no longer among the living 🙁
2) If you have to explain a joke, you've ruined it."
Besides the arrogant and preachy tone (you choose to see things crooked just to preserve your righteousness and not out of the search for what is the truth) he adds the sentence: "He is no longer among the living."
So if he is no longer alive - how do you know what he meant? Even if he was alive how do you know?
Have we not reached a situation of opinion against opinion without objective ability to decide? As Israel says later:
"As you say, "he is no longer among the living" and we will not be able to know what his intention was. Does it matter? I don't think so.
Each of us said his word, made his intentions clear, if the other side was not convinced then so be it. That's what I understand Maya is saying and she's the boss in the house, isn't she?'
You cannot say that your opinion is the only one that is correct and also say that it is impossible to decide between the different opinions. This is the logical fallacy.
Regardless, follow the nature of the reactions, see the arrogant way in which you speak all the time ("I don't have the strength to fight your ego that badly wants and needs to be right and ready to ignore the eyes and ears for this") why who are you to tell me what to think and what to believe?
And this is what leads us to the other logical fallacy in that discussion.
After all, it unwittingly developed into a discussion of my integrity, namely Albanzo's accusation that I am a shameless liar who distorted even Feynman's words to spread my anti-scientific agenda (and Albanzo will forgive me if I involve him here, it's only for the sake of the current discussion with Wookie) .
But in order to lie, you have to both tell an untruth and be aware that you are telling an untruth (I think you also need malicious intent, it's hard to call a mother who tells her dying son that he will get well soon a liar).
Because it's clear - and you also mentioned - that I'm not lying, I believe in what I say.
So the only logical conclusion is that in the context of the discussion, I am right and you are wrong, because the discussion is about my integrity, not about the question of whether Feynman meant what he said, and if you say "as I said, I think you are committing a fallacy, not lying" then you confirm My claim is about integrity regardless of whether I am right or wrong in my argument about the Feynman thing.
By the way, this is the opportunity for all of you - all without exception - to apologize for your false false accusations against me.
If you want, I'll bring you more evidence, in the meantime I'm tired.
Regarding the link to Albanzo's words:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/2011149-hunted-state-46-core-learning/comment-page-44/#comment-577164
elbentzo
The fact that information does not pass between entangled particles is not knowledge. There is a mathematical proof. You can find fault with it, and you can reject the axioms on which mathematics is based. As long as you haven't done either of these two, you can't say it's just an opinion.
Exactly as I wrote.
rival
1) True
2) Not true, and that's exactly the point! Party A decides to check on the X axis and gets a certain result. If side B also measures on the X axis, it will always get the opposite result from A. But if B measures on the Y axis, which is perpendicular to X, he will get a random result that is independent of A's result.
Nissim, A.P.
Thanks, that is from what I understand:
1. There is no practical way to know whether the particle in our possession collapsed now as soon as we measured it, or whether it collapsed into its state already two and a half hours ago because the particle intertwined with it was measured in a distant laboratory.
2. We have no practical way of knowing whether the value of the interwoven particles is determined in advance like a pair of gloves (right and left) that were put in boxes and sent to two distant places, or whether their value is determined only at the moment of measurement.
So what is the claim based on that this is what is happening? If there is no way to verify this? Doesn't classical quantum mechanics claim that as soon as one particle is measured by the other, it collapses to the opposite value? What is this claim based on if no one has tested it experimentally? (correct me if I'm wrong)
Miracles
No.
This is not a question about tunneling, the window is open at time 3. It is much more fundamental.
Because note: if the photon is beyond the window after less than 5 seconds, then classically it moves faster than light.
And this is indeed what quantum mechanics says: before the collapse it has no location, so it is beyond the window even before it classically reached it.
So what happens if we close the window in 3 seconds? Did we capture the photon outside the window? And if so, can it be discovered?
Israel
"What fallacy did you mean if not a logical fallacy?"
Very interesting, maybe by chance the type of fallacy I explained you are making in my response in the thread linked before this response that starts with roughly the same words?
This is the same mistake you make almost all the time. Failure to understand what is being read, failure to listen, failure to understand (which in my opinion originates from reluctance and trying to listen and understand).
Or as I told you yesterday: the distance between your reading comprehension and your immense confidence that you understand exactly what you are being told and what you are reading is something that can only be talked about in terms of cosmological orders of magnitude.
When I tell someone they are making a fallacy I explain what the fallacy is, therefore when I tell someone they are making a logical fallacy I tell them specifically that it is a logical fallacy and explain to them what the logical fallacy is. Since you miraculously managed to understand that I was talking about a logical fallacy in this case when I clearly did not, I was left to conclude exactly what I told you about your conduct in the matter (well, the truth was there was other supporting evidence). If by chance you suddenly decide to realize that you misunderstood what I said here, instead of deciding as usual that I don't know what I said and what I meant by my words and you do, maybe there is still hope for you after all (although, and not with the intention of insulting, simply out of the necessity of the observed reality, I must admit that I am not optimistic about the prospect of this happening).
Now to help you a little, look at the third and fourth words in your quotation from the words, and we'll do a little reading comprehension lesson. When I say "I think" or I "I side with X's opinion" or "in my opinion", this indicates that it is my opinion and what I think is true, and not the absolute truth that no one is allowed to think differently from. If you are wondering why I insisted on explaining to you so many times, it is because I got the impression that you are doing everything possible to try not to understand me.
"Would you be interested in me explaining to you where and why I think you are committing a logical fallacy?"
With pleasure*, contrary to what you decided to understand (as usual) I do not think that I am immune to errors and mistakes (I am writing these comments to you and also waste unnecessary time on it and incur the wrath of the General Staff for it) or the ability to commit logical fallacies (I am not arrogant as usual What do you have to believe? Just to save time, if it's about something from the thread of the discussion about what Feynman meant, then I have a feeling that it's probably another misunderstanding on your part. I presented there my opinion of his intention, and I also presented there some additional options that I saw as possible, some of which are not in line with my opinion (due to things related to a philosophical discussion of what exactly understanding is, I said I wouldn't go into it, but some of these other options did touch on it). And if you think that me saying that it is impossible to really know because we cannot ask him because he is no longer alive, and that I am giving my opinion on his intention, is some kind of logical fallacy, then you probably don't understand what a logical fallacy is.
*By the way, I would also love to see the link to Albenzo's quote, because it is at this stage that it requires closure (there is even a situation where it would help with my opinion of your integrity).
As for my question, thanks again, but I don't think you understood it, I probably didn't phrase it well, I'll go dig myself for the answer.
Israel
it helps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartman_effect
A quantum question for those in the know (AP?)
1. We have a flashlight, a railroad 10 light seconds long, and an open window 5 light seconds away from the flashlight. Clocks are synchronized along the track.
2. At the moment 0 on the track clocks, the light turns on.
3. At the moment of 2 seconds, are photons from the flashlight also outside the window? After all, they don't have a defined position before the measurement, don't they?
4. If the answer to 3 is positive, then if at moment 3 we close the window, will the photons or the part of them that have already passed through the window find beyond the window? After all, according to Einstein, only at moment 5 do the photons reach the window.
5. If the answer to 4 is positive, is it possible to measure those photons or fragments of photons that have already passed through the window, even though the window was closed even before the light reached it according to Einstein? If so, at what moments can the fractions of photons be measured? how?
Thanks.
Albanzo
Are you claiming that this book was not the standard textbook in course 131, Quantum and Relativity, in a third year physics major at UCLA in 1995?
Israel,
You already asked, we already talked. The answer is absolutely no. The book can be used as a course book for an introductory course in modern physics (surprise, wonder, maybe that's why we gave it the name), which in most universities in the world (including at least 2 in Israel and 3 in the US that I know of, both of which are from the ivy league), is a mandatory course that Do before doing 2 mandatory courses specifically in quantum mechanics, each of which is larger in volume than the course in modern. That is, if we clear the part on special relativity, this book covers maybe 20% - in my estimation less - of what an international standard undergraduate learns about quantum mechanics.
We also saw this the last time you asked me (so you didn't ask but simply stated that it was a good book and since you studied from it then you know quantum), when we went through the topics in the syllabus of the two courses in quantum mechanics at UCLA (I think it was the university that claimed to use this book ) and we saw that almost all the topics in her courses do not appear in the book at all - that is, either she uses it only as an introduction, or they have a magical version of the book that contains lost knowledge.
As evidence, you can look at the book and see that it does not even contain the most basic concepts in quantum mechanics, such as Hilbert spaces (which is the mathematics of quantum mechanics - a book on quantum without a comprehensive explanation of Hilbert spaces is like a book on classical mechanics that does not mention differential equations at any point, a book on general relativity that doesn't talk about curvature or a book on wave theory that doesn't mention the Fourier transform), unitary symmetries, perturbation theory, etc., etc., etc.
By no means is this a book that meets the standards of even the first course in quantum mechanics, let alone the follow-up course (which in my estimation is the most advanced undergraduate course by international standards). If you don't believe me, you can open one of the many books that are the standard (you know which one I like, but there are dozens) and compare them to your book. This is why I keep telling you to open Sakurai - if only so that you understand that you do not have knowledge that is even close to the knowledge of an undergraduate student, and this is what is preventing you from progressing and understanding difficult topics in quantum mechanics. It may be a sin in your eyes, but the bitter truth is that in order to understand you have to study.
Shmulik
Is there a slightly less heuristic explanation? Something with particles, cosmic gas, winds, pressure differences..
: )
or to interact locally with another electron interlaced with the first.
Wookie
"Do you understand the difference between a fallacy and a logical fallacy?"
Was the failure you meant a failure of the lymphatic system?
What fallacy did you mean if not a logical fallacy?
You had other comments about failures, logical or lymphatic, but I don't have the energy to search.
Would you be interested in me explaining to you where and why I think you are making a logical fallacy?
Regarding the electron - in order to be intertwined with another, it had to be in a local interaction with it first.
In connection with the mechanism of gravity, in my post from yesterday I added another theoretical mechanism that explains gravity (entropic gravity), here is a short description of Albentzo on gravity (the description is in the links in the post that Albentzo asked me and my father will soon release)
Here is his answer:
"Gravitons and the curvature of space are one. If you thought the previous answer was more math than physics, wait for what is going to come now.
In general relativity, gravity is geometry. It is determined according to a tensor (which is a mathematical structure that contains a number of numbers that are related in a certain way) called the metric tensor. The tensor contains the information about the geometry and it is the geometry that creates the illusion of the gravitational force. When quantizing, the matrix tensor becomes a field. That is, just as in field theory (the modern version of quantum mechanics) electrons, gluons, photons, quarks, etc. are described by a field which is found throughout space and at the peaks of which we call particles, so is the trap. In quantum gravity the matrix is a field with spin 2 (the spin can be easily found from considerations of behavior under symmetry) and we also refer to its quanta as particles - the gravitons.
There is a difference between the two descriptions - obviously, just as there is a difference between classical and quantum electromagnetism. If there was no difference, we would not be interested in finding a quantum theory of gravity. But in terms of intuition, I don't think a sharp distinction should be made as you say. In classical physics it is clear that the metric is an expression of geometry and that geometry produces an illusion of force. In quantum physics, this interpretation can still be used. It is still possible to think of the field we defined as something that defines geometry (it maintains the same properties and the same equations) and therefore here too all the interactions it creates are geometric. The difference is that in the classical problem there is a solution to the equations and that's it. All the particles always obey him and that's it. That is, the geometry is fixed and there is no such thing as a particle going against the geometry. In the quantum problem this is not the case - our trap - the spin 2 particle is itself a quantum field and as such it fluctuates. We also said that virtual particles don't have to obey the usual equations of motion at all, so in the quantum problem there may be an unruly graviton that would seemingly break the geometry. That is, it is certainly possible to give quantum gravity an interpretation of geometry, but it will be a geometry that makes fluctuations - quantum geometry. Think of a triangle whose sides suffer from uncertainty. Or a shape where there is a finite chance that two parallel lines will momentarily meet. I think these are the best heuristic explanations I can give without going into the mathematics of the problems.'
Walking Death
If I understand correctly, in the fission of uranium, radioactive nuclei are formed that emit beta radiation. That is, it is possible to initiate beta emission by bombarding uranium with neutrons. And if so, it's hard to believe that every electron created has an intertwined partner.
The pairs of electrons in an atom are intertwined, but if there is an odd number - then I find it hard to believe that the single electron is intertwined with another electron. I don't think there is a way to check it either.
And if you do a measurement - doesn't it harm the weaving?
To Israel:
Thanks.
To the opponent:
"How do you know that the value of the distant particle was determined only when we measured our particle and not before?"
Before any measurement it is not possible to know what the value of the particle is. Therefore the claim that the value of the particle is determined before the measurement and the claim that its value is determined during the measurement are physically equivalent.
In terms of gloves in a box - the same.
It can be argued that the identity of the gloves was determined in advance and it can be argued that the identity of the gloves was determined the moment one of the boxes was opened. Both claims are valid from a physical point of view, because they do not contradict any physical fact. (allegedly)
If the value of the particle is determined only at the moment of measurement, then does information pass between the particles, or does it happen simultaneously?
Infinite speed and at the same time equal time in their meaning which is zero time.
Hence, no information passes at infinite speed.
The theory states that interweaving is the identity of a system. It is not a process.
There is no mechanism that transfers it from one place to another, therefore the transfer of information in time does not take place.
If information travels between one measurement and another that are both the same distance from the source of the interlacing, then the information must travel at infinite speed.
-
Formula for calculating information speed:
X the distance between the first measurement location and the source of the interlacing.
L the distance between the second measurement location and the source of the interlacing.
C the speed of light.
V the speed of information.
Given: L≥X.
V =( LX\X+L )•C
The speed of the information has to increase in order for the information to reach the second photon and it is always greater than the speed of light and reaches infinity when the distance between the measurement locations and the source of the entangled photons is the same.
If what transmits information always does so at the same speed, then it must have a speed that is suitable for all cases - infinite speed.
In short: a process of transferring information is not possible.
albentezo,
waiting
albentezo,
I think you meant the following links:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/einstein-big-mistake-0711143#comments
https://www.hayadan.org.il/daily-modulation-as-a-smoking-gun-of-dark-matter-0812145/comment-page-12/#comments
And attach the following link that explains about virtual particles:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
Israel
Do you understand the difference between failure and logical failure?
Regarding your answer to my question, thank you, but I don't think you understood what I was asking.
Miracles
Is there a situation that this glammed electron decays in concert with another electron in the universe that does a similar thing or that the electron is swallowed and its partner intertwines with the glammed electron?
Walking Death
I think the answer to your question is no. A valence electron can be created by the decay of a carbon 14 atom.
Maybe that's what you meant?
walking dead
Israel
Like I said, I think you're faking, not lying, so you're just wrong.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/issac-newton-bigraphy-1101152/comment-page-5/#comment-579247
there's more.
About your question:
"Is an electron constantly in a state where it is entangled with another electron, but usually we just don't know that, that is, we don't know which other electron it is entangled with and where they are *located*?"
We know where the electrons are located and with whom they are entangled, but before the measurement we do not know to which quantum state the electron will collapse, only that its entangled brother will collapse to the opposite quantum state.
1) What is not clear in - Can you please give an example of someone trying to explain to you some logical fallacy of yours?
2) You threatened to bring links that prove you are right. It hasn't happened yet.
There were a few, N.C., Moshe..
Do you want a link to a specific link that you are trying to explain to me the logical fallacy in my words and getting into a logical fallacy yourself?
you lost me I have no idea what link you want me to bring you.
Don't think I didn't notice in case you still avoid providing relevant links.'
Half of the comments here are moderated and outdated, and I'm already old and senile.. Can you repeat the comment with the link?
Israel
Can you please give an example of someone trying to explain to you some logical fallacy of yours?
If "we" is one of the good respondents, then your situation based on "tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are" is very bad.
Don't think I didn't notice in case you still avoid providing relevant links.
There were two links.
Well I have a maybe stupid question. Is an electron constantly in a state where it is entangled with another electron but usually we just don't know that, i.e. we don't know which other electron it is entangled with and where they are *located*?
rival
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Wookie
Thanks. You brought exactly the links I was talking about in the response where I said that I dared to politely ask questions before I realized who I was dealing with.
out of it:
"I never started with Albanzo, for the simple reason that I never approached him first, except perhaps for the first article in which he responded and I still didn't know who I was dealing with and dared to ask a polite question. If I'm wrong, show me where.'
https://www.hayadan.org.il/issac-newton-bigraphy-1101152/comment-page-2/#comment-578834
Tell me, aren't you tired? Maybe instead of constantly getting into fights, let's get into physics?
As the responsible adult (59) I announce that from now on one, two, three - quiet in the garden! Only relevant comments! No personal comments!
But if someone starts - may Allah have mercy.
Israel,
Thanks, I went through your link before and I can't say that I completely understood what was said there, I only understood in general. When I have time I will take a look there again, maybe with another reading it will be clearer.
"This light is really smart - he did something that, unfortunately, most of the commenters here are scared to death of. He opened a book on quantum mechanics and checked what was written in it.'
Is the book:
Modern Physics
Serway, Moses, Moyer, 1989 edition
It will be considered a worthy book for studying quantum mechanics, or it is a regrettable book of popular science.
A.P. Welcome back, we'd love to hear more from you, we miss you.
rival
Anu is one of the best responders here. Probably more than those arrogant know-it-alls who only try to educate us and explain our logical fallacies without even understanding what it is about.
We have no way of knowing whether the particles in the remote laboratory collapsed when they were measured or when they were measured in Israel for example.
But we can logically conclude: if the clocks in Israel and in the remote laboratory are synchronized, and the particle in Israel was measured an hour before the particle in the laboratory, there are two possibilities in my opinion:
1. The particle in the laboratory collapsed immediately upon measurement in Israel.
2. The wave function common to the particles collapsed immediately upon measurement in Israel and when the particle was measured in the laboratory it received the value of the wave function.
Therefore if we accept the wave function as something physical, it is the one that actually transmits the information.
Regarding your gloves question, the link from my name explains the difference in the case of entangled particles. If you wish, I will be happy to explain the difference to you as best I can, but I believe that A.P. He can do it better than me.
Albanzo
I thought so. In the end, you are observing a property of a particle and have no idea whether it is part of a entangled pair or not. And if you know it's part of an interlaced pair, you can't tell if they made an observation on the other side.
Miracles,
There is no way to tell if the particles are intertwined through a local measurement of one of them. It can certainly be seen in the experiment that there is a non-local correlation between them, which cannot be mediated by a particle that interacts with one, goes to the other and interacts with it (as the forces in nature work), but it is important to understand that what changes immediately is the Hegel wave (or the situation in space Hilbert, in fact) which is not a measurable quantity.
Albanzo
Is it true what I just wrote?
rival
The test you do for photon polarization is simple - put a Polaroid sunglasses lens on and see if a photon has passed through. If you do this to a lot of photons, and you don't know anything about the source, then half will get through and half won't. It is not related to the angle of the polarizer and it is not related to measurements on the other side, in the case of entangled particles.
That is - there is no way to know anything about the other side. You have no way of even knowing if the photons are entangled or not.
rival
I'll be the first to admit that he doesn't understand enough in this field to answer questions about it. That's why I don't. At most I am willing to link to something or say something that explains something that I feel comfortable with on a superficial level and even then I will usually qualify it by saying that it is only what I understood and not necessarily true. Although some trolls are able to make up stories that tell otherwise.
walking dead,
He is not one of the regular commenters so I didn't know how to react, but I told myself that if he claims that others don't know and don't understand then maybe he will at least have some answer to my questions.
By the way, the questions are addressed to everyone, the topic is very interesting and it's a bit frustrating that I can't get clear enough answers.
rival
Advice for the future: do yourself a favor and don't talk to "Anonymous" (or any of the other nicknames he uses), he is a net troll, and he is number two on the select list and is several orders of magnitude worse than the first.
anonymous,
I re-read his long message and yes he answered I must have missed it.
But you sound like an expert to me, so please explain to me simply (as much as possible) how do you know that the entangled particles in the remote lab really collapse instantly when we measure our particles, and not just when they (in the remote lab) measure them?
And another question, I still haven't understood how do you know that the value of the interwoven particles was not predetermined when they were interwoven together? (Like a pair of gloves, the right one we put in a box and sent to a distant place, and the left one we also put in a box and sent to a distant place, then whoever opens one of the boxes in one of the distant places immediately knows which glove is in the other box - right glove or left glove) How do you know the value of the distant particle Was it determined only when we measured our particle and not before?
To the opponent:
Whoever is closer to the source of the entangled photons is always the first to "cause" the collapse.
If the measurement is performed at equal distances from the source, the collapse is done at the same time.
rival
This is exactly what Israel did. He answered your question.
If you don't understand it then it's probably because you learn "physics" from people like walking joke, Shmulik and Nisim. If so then good luck.
Shmulik,
I'm pretty sure that some time ago we had a rather long conversation about virtual particles, including explanations that an unmeasured particle moves off mass shell and can move at any speed it wants - and what the trajectory of a particle means in quantum terms. Do you happen to remember if we did talk about it and maybe know in which article (and if you can find a link to it)?
I think it was in the context of attractive/repulsive forces in quantum mechanics.
This luminary is really smart - he did something that, unfortunately, most of the commenters here are scared to death of. He opened a book on quantum mechanics and checked what was written in it.
There is no modification in the "article" to the concept of the integral over trajectories: from the moment it was invented, it was a version (and proved in experiments) that a photon in quantum mechanics "passes" through all possible trajectories and is not bound to the speed of light at all. The charge to move at the speed of light is a classical result that is related to a trajectory that a photon can have, but quantumly, a trajectory is not defined at all (because by definition it requires knowing both position and momentum). Of course, quantum mechanics does not disprove special relativity - it refers to its results by showing that it is not possible to measure a photon at one point and after t seconds at another point unless the distance between the points is ct. But it only concerns measurements.
In other words, the subject has been known for more than 70 years and is explained in every quantum textbook. In particular undergraduate books.
In particular, the subject is simply explained in Sakurai.
Of course, none of this implies in any way the transfer of information or the existence of an ether (unless we decide that from now on the word "ether" has any meaning we like, and also a vacuum that has energy density but does not contain any particles is also called an ether).
Good luck later.
that are woven into my particles.
Israel,
"You have no way of knowing in advance what state the electrons will collapse into"
I didn't ask to know what state the particles would collapse into, I just wanted to understand if there is a way (even statistically) to know if the particles in my possession collapsed as soon as I measured them, as a result of my measurement, or if they collapsed already two and a half hours ago because someone else in the parallel laboratory measured the particles that are intertwined with them (i.e. These are intertwined with my particles).
Not to take into account = I didn't take into account
walking dead,
I understand, thanks for the explanation, it's really correct not to take into account the radius of our galaxy... with such a distance from the earth, it turns out that this is actually a galaxy that fits into our galaxy.
Okay, so let's change the question and refer to another planet that is one light year away from Earth, and on it is the laboratory with the entangled particles.
we
: )
I don't correspond only here - I try to provide information wherever possible. Nisim, the artist or not, succeeded where some experts failed:
1. Bring the link to the explanation of relativity to the twin paradox.
2. Brought the link to the Accelerated Charge Paradox (issue that whoever raised it, believe it or not, is... you).
3. The most important for our purposes - with the help of his advice I was able to plan the GPS experiment.
Meir Amiram, one of the most talented responders who were here if not the most talented of all, he also contributed quite a bit and his technical knowledge helped me save a lot of money on the experiments.
Meir is interested in publishing a scientific article following the discussions we had:
http://vixra.org/abs/1510.0065
(The link in the article should bring you to the same discussion with R.H. regarding the solution to the drag problem at Lesage and the failure of the M.M. experiment).
I oppose. In my opinion we have to wait for unequivocal experimental results. In any case, the chances are that I'm wrong, and an article more or less won't change anything. Just an experiment.
I believe I am very close to the slam dunk experiment.
rival.
You have no way of knowing when the particles collapsed in the experiment you proposed. You have no possibility of knowing anything about anything, only the spin or polarization state you got in your measurement.
To explain the problem of transferring information faster than light, think about the annual monkey exhibition held on Saturn.
Mars is represented by Kufiko, Naga by Chipofu and the earth by Moses.
Whoever knows who is the first in the country to win, will be able to win the match by betting on the right monkey.
If when Moshe the chimpanzee is announced as the winner you collapse your electrons in Saturn, the electrons in Israel will collapse into reverse spin, but you have no way of knowing in advance what state the electrons will collapse into so it is not possible to send information, even though it has passed.
Barbecue at Dave's.
No doubt
Try it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd2Ua9dKEl8
rival
In other words what he told you about the galaxy is not really related to the experiment. It's just semantics that you don't actually have to say in another galaxy, it's enough that you specify some distance.
rival
It just happens to be a very, very small galaxy and very, very close to another very, very small galaxy. Our galaxy, for example, is 100000 light-years away, and the distance to Andromeda is 2.5 million light-years.
anonymous. This means that when the comments are not about vaccines and the system still blocked them and I release them.
We will probably check something in your IP.
my father
It's possible...
Why should the distant galaxy be at a distance of
At least a million light years from Earth? Why is one light year (the distance that light travels in one year) not enough for the purpose of the experiment?
All my attempts to understand from physicists how the spin "works" came to naught...
It seems that the whole distant spin thing is an unproven theory...
rival
A distant galaxy should be at a distance of
at least a million light years from Earth,
And by no means one year…
Spring.
Would you prefer if I bypassed your system and posted my comments here?
You claim you don't block comments.
So why are you hiding and not providing answers? Did you swallow your fingers?
Spring.
I wonder why you are delaying my response... after all, I didn't write anything about vaccines.
Why is the response delayed and others not?
Don't you think it's rather strange? ☺
Miracles,
It's amazing, the first time I've heard such an explanation.
So now I want to return again to the topic I already brought up here a few weeks ago, and we'll see how it goes with what you say - let's say we have two parallel laboratories, one on Earth and the other in a distant galaxy that is one light year from Earth.
In the laboratory on Earth there are a million particles in a state of superposition, and in the distant laboratory there are a million particles interwoven with them.
It was decided in advance that on a specific date at 14:45 a coin would be tossed in a laboratory on Earth, and according to the result they would decide if:
1. Measure at once all the million particles in their possession.
2. Do not measure any particles.
At 15:00 all the particles are measured at once in the parallel laboratory in the distant galaxy, do they have any way of knowing (even in some statistical way!) if the particles in their possession collapsed already at 14:45 as a result of a measurement carried out on Earth, or if they collapsed just now in 15:00 as a result of the local measurement they performed?
Hope the question is understood.
rival
Yes. But it's not me saying that. This is the result of experiments.
Under the theory of relativity, there is an explanation for gravity - the curvature of space and I explained why Feynman's words do not contradict this claim. I wrote that the theory of relativity is indeed a mathematical theory (after all, Newton is also a mathematical theory) and one that correctly predicts phenomena related to space itself. I wrote that it is certainly possible to ask why mass distorts space, I want to say, not all things are known, de, but under the theory of relativity, there is an explanation for gravity
For those who want to move forward and not get stuck, here are some interesting things:
Below is a lecture by Sean Carroll on the arrow of time and the origin of the universe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFMfW1jY1xE
For those who don't want to hear the whole lecture, first check from minute 47 to minute 48 or so and then skip to one hour and four minutes, when he talks about Eric Wolandi's idea that describes gravity as a result of entropy and not a basic force. I have no idea where this idea is going and if it still exists as a parentage theory, but it's interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
Of course the holographic principle and gravity
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/tensor-networks-get-entangled-quantum-gravity?mode=blog&context=117
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/holography-entangles-quantum-physics-gravity
To conclude, here is a lecture by Nima Arkani Hamad who asks whether time-space is "lost". I haven't seen it yet and I have no idea if I'm good enough to understand this lecture, but it's in the program
http://motls.blogspot.co.il/2012/04/nima-arkani-hamed-on-doomed-spacetime.html
Miracles,
That is, you claim that when particle A is measured on Earth and collapses into a state of higher spin, it immediately transmits (much faster than the speed of light) information to particle B that is interwoven with it and is on Mars, telling it that it must now immediately collapse into a state of lower spin?
I understand it right ?
rival
In my understanding - the information passes immediately. I think the misunderstanding stems from the meaning of the word "information". In English, a distinction is made between data and information. You can say that data passes between the particles, but this is not what we call information. In Hebrew, I think the concepts are "data" and "information".
Think of a particle that is not being observed. Albenzo will tell you that this particle is actually a probability function (roughly) over the whole space, as long as no measurement is performed. As soon as you measure - the probability in the entire space (almost) immediately drops to 0.
Anyway, that's my understanding.
Miracles,
If I understood you correctly, you are saying that it is possible that information does pass between the interwoven particles faster than the speed of light (and thus they synchronize with each other according to what I understand), but because this information is not useful and cannot be used to transmit messages between the two points, then there is nothing to do with it problem.
Did I understand you correctly?
rival
I will give you an example that explains where there is a problem. The example was originally by Mario Livio (as far as I know).
Imagine a plane coming in to land and a jeep crossing the runway. You stand at the end of the track and look. Let's assume the plane collides with the jeep. Let's assume that you are taking a picture at the exact moment of the collision. Of course you'll see the plane and the jeep at the same point, right?
Now - assume that the speed of light adds up like any other speed. That is - the speed of light that reaches you from the plane is greater than the speed of light that comes from the jeep. If so - in the photo you will see that the plane is further away as soon as the jeep crosses in front of it, and you will not see a collision.
It can't be of course.
rival
If the information passing can create a paradox, then there is a problem. Otherwise, who cares?
rival
What contradiction do you see?
Miracles,
You're confusing me. Earlier you said that there is no rule according to which information cannot travel between two points faster than the speed of light, and two sentences later you say that information traveling faster than the speed of light can create a paradox, which is a forbidden situation.
So can information travel between two points faster than the speed of light?
Miracles,
What you say is very surprising to me, I thought that the whole long discussion we had recently on the subject of entangled particles revolved around this matter of whether information can pass between the two particles faster than the speed of light. I thought it contradicted Einstein's theory of relativity.
Albanzo, do you agree with what Nissim claims here?
Israel
It is not clear why you keep talking about complex issues with simple people.
After all, none of them can understand the questions you ask. For everyone, it stems from a lack of knowledge. (Although they pretend to understand physics and mathematics. Come on, even they themselves know they are not at the level of the commenters who used to be here).
Maybe Tambaltso has some knowledge of physics, but he, like hundreds of thousands or even millions like him, has no answer. They do not have the intelligence that people like you and Yehuda like Ehud and Michael Rothschild have. Even Roni Harmoni, known as R. H. ☺
They (Shmulik, Nisim, Debilbenzo and a pinch of their by-product) are all romantic people who fell in love with the educated discussions we conducted, and wanted to imitate us.
They are like a 6 year old boy trying to teach his parents how he came into the world.
Like a cucumber trying to teach the cook how to make a salad.
Why do you continue to have this discussion with them?
Don't you see that they don't understand enough about the things they are talking about?
They are using you to push their twisted agendas. that's it.
That's why you've been going round and round for a long time on this site.
This is not a science site.
They don't even know how to do grammar on the website... strange, isn't it? I would say pretty stinky.
rival
In my understanding - there is no such rule. The rule is that there are no paradoxes in physics. If I give you information and receive a reply before I actually send you the information then a paradox can arise.
Transferring classical information at a speed above the speed of light can create a paradox. You can see this if you look at Minkowski's space-time.
What is meant by causality is that event A which causes event B cannot occur after event B.
In weaving there is no such problem.
Correction - between two points.
Miracles,
It is not clear to me what you mean when you say "causality", but if the particles are a light year apart and information passes between them in zero time (at least that is what Israel claims) does this not contradict the rule according to which information cannot travel between two points faster than the speed of light?
rival
Why is this a problem? There is no violation of causality here, that is, a paradox cannot arise.
Nissim, Israel
All this discussion has a name Barbara. As a result of this so-called discussion, did any of you come to any discovery? I wonder about you miracles, you have an extensive education. I don't know about Israel Shapira. Maybe a retired intellectual is bored. He probably pulled you by the nose and you, like Fati, followed him. Without knowing the subject, I felt that it was nothing more than water milling. I would even say brackish water and you wouldn't? It doesn't make a good impression.
Miracles,
The problem is that according to his claim (and tell me if the claim is true, your English is better than mine) the link experiment of his name proves that information passed in zero time between the two intertwined particles, i.e. faster than the speed of light.
And if that's true, it's obviously a problem.
Israel
What is the problem? For my part, let the valley train pass between the photons. As long as there is no violation of causality, why should it bother you? And please don't answer me "but Einstein said..." What bothers you?
on agreement and unanimity.
What is all this discussion about? Did you follow the link from my name? How can the percentage of mismatches in the polarizations of the photons increase three times when the state of the polarizers is doubled if there is no transfer of information from one side of the experiment to the other?
What have we been arguing about here for a year and a half if not the question of whether there is a transfer of information between the interwoven particles?
Good night.
This whole discussion has a name.. Barbara
Israel
So what is all this discussion about?
No.
It is impossible to transmit information through interlacing, no matter how fast.
But does this mean that information does not pass between the interwoven particles? This is another question.
If you followed the discussions, the answers that came from the academics are divided. There is no consensus on the matter. There is also no mathematical proof that there is no transfer of information between the particles, but only that it is impossible to send information through interweaving (no-communication theorems).
If you access the link from my name, you will see why "something" passes between the particles in 0 time (this is the conclusion we reached in the discussion with AP). How something like this can be different from information, especially that it causes correlation between the particles, is not clear to me.
Probably also for Einstein, because this is exactly what the EPR article is about, which, at least according to Wikipedia, is about the transfer of information.
Good night.
Israel
Does correlation damage causality?
Miracles
"If you can convey information without harming causality - there is no problem."
According to relativity, if you can transfer one bit of one or zero faster than light by a billionth of a percent - you have hit causality.
There is no condition here.
Israel
I don't understand why these games. Information (information in Hebrew) in physics is what I said. If it wasn't clear - (1) Information (in physics) is the value of a certain variable of a certain particle.
(2) If you can transfer information without harming causality - there is no problem. I don't think special relativity precludes it.
I think all the definitions we have given are perfectly fine, and it is enough that we will be able to transfer one bit that can be interpreted as one or zero faster than light between two points to get a relativity contradiction.
And maybe a shorter definition -
Information is some measurable value, which can be represented by combinations of 0 and 1.
What do you think ?
Israel,
I think the definition I gave is good enough, "information" is anything whose value can be measured (the spin state of an electron, the result of a football game, the intensity of the radiation coming from the sun, etc.) .
Is anyone willing to bring a better definition for information from combinations of 1 and 0?
Israel,
Yes of course.
What's wrong with combinations of 1 and 0? Is it not possible to use them to define any information you want?
Maybe we define "information" as something whose value can be measured?
result of a football match.
The spin state of an electron or photon.
The intensity of the radiation coming from the sun.
and so'.
Miracles
Is the result of the match between Beitar and Sakhnin not considered information?
How can you transfer this information from YMCA to Bloomfield using the value of particle properties, say up or down? Not using modes that represent one or zero?
Israel
There is no "general definition for information". Humpty Dumpty already said that words are a tool that serves us, and not we serve them.
In physics, the definition I gave seems good to me. We are not in court, so please stop trying to catch everyone at their word.
Is there anything I said that you disagree with?
Shmulik, for you:
That brings us to our current understanding. Gravity still remains one of the biggest mysteries of physics and the biggest obstacle to a universal theory that describes the functions of every interaction in the universe accurately. If we could fully understand the mechanics behind it, new opportunities in aeronautics and other fields would appear.
http://www.universetoday.com/74015/what-causes-gravity/
Israel
You are pitiful. The distance between your reading comprehension and your immense confidence that you understand exactly what you are being told and what you are reading is something that can only be talked about in terms of cosmological orders of magnitude.
Regarding my use of the word liar in describing you: If the shoe fits
Under the link I provided a detailed explanation of why it is there. I'm sorry this was hard for you to understand, though I'm not at all surprised.
What exactly do you want me to do with your list of questions that have to do with something you've conjured up in your fevered mind?
How many times and in what form should I explain to you that I don't care what you do? Do you think you are threatening me? Do you want to bring a link and show that you were right? bring Do not want? don't bring Do you want to show the places where I commit a logical fallacy? look Do not want? don't look do you think you scare me? You do not. I have no need for you. You are completely useless to me.
Since you want me to point out your lie so badly then I'll take two steps and hop over here, it's very easy, each of the times you claimed you never contacted Albenzo*. Want another one? Every time you said that I told you that you have a logical fallacy somewhere (no discussion between us was about anything that raised such a claim) you are welcome to search, you will not find. Want more? Every word you say about me.
* Here is a link without conditions (two)
https://www.hayadan.org.il/take-a-photo-of-schrodingers-cat-0108149/comment-page-1/#comment-558356
https://www.hayadan.org.il/hapiness-equasion-0310149/comment-page-1/#comment-563473
Wookie, the word liar is a recurring motif in your poetry.
So why is it so hard for you to find even one lie in my words? After all, 80% of what I say is a lie, isn't it?
And what is this stupid link you brought? Is it supposed to express something deep and hidden from view? Is he supposed to spill some hidden grudge on even one of your ridiculous claims?
Where are the distortions?
Where are the logical fallacies?
Where are the lies?
After all, 800%, right? Is it so hard to find one and only? If I do believe stories about things that were never said or happened, why not bring one of those 80,000%?
If you ask, I will show you exactly the places where you commit a logical fallacy. I'm taking a very small risk, because as in the case of the non-existent mathematical proof, there is very little chance that a proud and inflated rooster like you will answer the challenge where his folly will be publicly proven.
Israel
Sorry to tell you that I'm completely calm, your kindergarten tantrum following every word I write really doesn't bother me at all. It's just a pity for me that people like you comment on the site and wreak havoc on it, so I'm trying to put some order. You are nothing more than a thug on a dime who thinks he is a victim and a noble fighter for justice.
I'm sorry to disappoint you again, but contrary to what you think, you are not the center of the world and you are not important enough for me to bother pointing out all your lies and distortions for you in addition to attaching evidence to it one by one. I don't see the need to do this because anyone who cares can see the claims and the threads and prove that I'm right and you do behave in them as I describe, and because it won't matter if I do it because in any case you will still see yourself as the poor victim who is being attacked by evil people on the internet
All your games and stupid talk about bringing a link is confirmation that you do indeed lack integrity. Just so you know, a person with integrity would have brought the link in the beginning when it was brought up wondering about the truth of what was said in it.
Until you don't want to see reality it really doesn't matter what I say, because it won't be able to change your mind about the lies you've made up for yourself.
I have no problem bringing links.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/issac-newton-bigraphy-1101152/comment-page-1/#comments
Here, anyone who wants can see what I said and what you understood from it, and why since then you talk about subtext, logical fallacy, etc. Shapira). When I interpret things, I explain why I interpret them that way (as you can see in the linked thread), when you do, well there's no reason for it other than you decided you want to interpret it that way (and there's nothing like quoting out of context and other distortions for you to convince yourself).
Waco
What happened, you entered the tilt again?
You had to confront facts and quotes so you suddenly changed?
After all, you wrote that I would never bring the quote, right? You said I distorted it, right? You write that I'm a liar without integrity, that eighty percent of what I say to Albanzo are lies, right? So why don't you show us all which of what I wrote is false?
You also know how to back up your nonsense with quotes and facts, or maybe like in Feynman's case everything is based on a subtext that you interpret as you wish?
Dumbbell.
Shmulik
Disagreement is a legitimate thing, but if you don't want to fight with people as you claim, try to stay matter-of-fact. Stick to the facts and don't get into personal papers. Do not write "the space, even if you do not want to recognize it, obey Einstein's mathematics" (where did I write that I do not know the space?) Be a Wookiee.
Israel
Bring whatever you want, it won't change the fact that you are a liar with no integrity.
If you bring the quote I will have no problem saying I was wrong about it. What I said about him is that since I don't remember him and given your other lies and distortions of people's words, I wouldn't trust it without a link that shows it. So be right about this and see that there is indeed this quote? So what? It doesn't change all your other lies and there really aren't any (for example, about everything you've ever said about me). After all, if you bring the link in question, it is likely that we will only get another source for your collection of lies and distortions.
All the things I said about you and your conduct will still remain true. One less lie from your mask of lies here about what people have said won't make even a slight dent in your percentage of lies.
Wookie
You're claiming I'm a liar with no integrity, right?
You claim that I changed Albanzo's words, and that I will never quote his quote, right?
So why don't you answer the challenge I offered you?
I will bring the link with the quote and if it is exactly - in D. W. K. - as I wrote, will you thank me for being wrong and apologize?
Maybe we will all see who is the liar without integrity living in a world of imagination.
Shmulik
I'm not here to fight either and try to be to the point. But sometimes I'm still not mature enough and don't know how to deal with the fact that a person comes and reacts to my words the way Israel does. See value: understands what he wants to understand from what he is told; does not try to understand at all the things that are said to him; quotes things out of context and twists their meaning to fit the story he wants to tell regardless of whether what he says is related to reality in some way; speaks in a dull and non-committal double language and zigzags between meanings and pretends as if he has done nothing wrong when he is told about it; Completely ignores the option that what he thinks is true is not really so; lies non-stop while telling stories about things that were never said or happened; Approaching as if his entire family was murdered while he is chasing people who stopped responding to him twenty comments ago with curses and profanities like a little thug etc.
Even now when he wrote a response saturated with eighty percent lies to Albenzo he is living in his own delusional reality where everything he wrote there is true. The thread I linked to clearly shows to any reasonable person that this is the case but that won't stop him from thinking and screaming out loud that he fully supports his twisted version. And I don't even begin to talk about all the lies he keeps telling about me and my words.
What am I supposed to do with it?
If you have any advice on how to deal with such people in a better way, I would love to hear them.
Miracles
Let's go with your definition, even though that's not what I asked (I asked about defining general information).
Do you mean perhaps up and down in the case of electron spin?
Israel
Information in physics is the value of a property of a particle.
Special relativity doesn't prevent you from moving anything as fast as you want, as long as you don't violate causality. The limitation is not something physical, i.e. it is not related to the fact that mass cannot be accelerated above the speed of light. The limitation is actually prevention of paradoxes. That is, we must not allow something that would cause a paradox.
Albenzo - is it in the right direction?
Miracles
"He also explains quite well what information is."
What is the definition of information?
Miracles,
I haven't read the book. In principle, Susskind is a man who can be trusted to say the right things - although he can indeed be one-sided at times, so I understand why you ask. I don't know, I haven't read. Probably fine.
Albanzo
Thanks! What do you think of Susskind's book - The Black Hole War? He is of course not at an academic level, but I am interested in the "correct" physics there, that is, whether Suskind's views are indeed acceptable.
He also explains quite well what information is ….. 🙂
Wookie
Sorry for the response, but that's not what's being discussed.
It also illustrates what I claim: ignoring Bell's theorems and experimenting with aspect.
But could you maybe move forward two comments after her to see who is the one trying to forget the past and make peace?
for everyone,
There is no subtext in what I wrote. I simply do not agree with Israel's claim that Feynman claims that there is no explanation for what gravity is. The theory of relativity is indeed mathematical but one whose observations have been realized, including gravitational waves and it definitely explains that what we call gravity is the curved space. In my understanding, the way the apple will make from the tree to the ground is called geodesy (this is where my knowledge ends) but what it means is that this curvature is the mechanism of gravity. Newton doesn't have that and it does exist in the theory of relativity and in Feynman's diagnosis, the theory of relativity is a "more complicated mathematical description".
walkie,
I'm not here to fight with people and try to be to the point. If I see a point I think I can make, I make it. I definitely think twice if it's worth it when it comes to Israel because I certainly don't have the need to say the last word even if there is one. This time I decided to respond because I clearly did not agree with his claim. It is allowed and I explained why. As soon as he wrote what he wrote, I cut off contact with him, why bother. I think that the description as I understand it of relativity provides an explanation for gravity and, of course, raises new questions, alternatively, it can be said that there is no such thing as gravity in relations, but only a curved space according to the mass and energy in the area (therefore there is nothing to explain the mechanism of attraction because there is no attraction), that is Unlike Newton, there really is no explanation for attraction.
Those who still want to read more material, there are of course a million websites, but here are two nice ones:
http://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html
https://www.quora.com/Relativity-physics-How-can-space-time-curvature-be-explained-in-laymans-terms
Miracles,
Sakurai is an excellent book for studying quanta from scratch to a level of proficiency suitable for an undergraduate student. I don't think there is a book I would recommend more. On the other hand, note that if all you want is to master the language, then it's possible that reaching the level of a bachelor's degree student (which usually takes two rather small courses) is a bit too high. God knows - and so does everyone who reads the correspondence here - that reaching the level of a bachelor's degree is necessary, necessary but really, really not enough to explore the topics in depth, but if that is not your goal, there are more accessible books. Of the accessible books, I quite like Gasiorowicz whose level is basic but he explains slowly and with examples. There are also more basic books but unfortunately I'm not that well versed in them because I've always had the motivation to go as deep as possible.
Albanzo
As usual, there is something that gets in the way of the whole distorted picture you are trying to paint here: the thread.
Everything is written, you don't need to remember, you can't say I didn't say, I didn't do, I wasn't..
So let's take your words and try to see if there is any connection to reality.
"Did someone ask me for help with something? Did anyone even contact me?'
did i address you
"In the end you don't even know how to define information or that an entangled system is never unique - two things that every undergraduate student must know in order to pass a second course in quantum mechanics)"
I defined information several times (combinations of 1 and 0) and asked you to bring your definition. did you do that
"Why do I always start cursing straight away? I do not".
But somehow you always end up cursing, don't you? Liar, idiot, moron, charlatan.. I hope you're not claiming that N is the one who ever started with you? You remember, there is the thread..
"I made the mistake of mentioning your name."
Indeed, an honest mistake.. Did you mention my name in the context of excellence and wisdom or in the context of stupidity and trolling? Who do you think you're working for here?
"I did not develop the hostility towards you because your name is Israel Shapira, but because of things you said and because of the way you behave."
You developed your hostility towards me from the first moment on the background of the transfer of information between interwoven particles. After that you treated me at every opportunity without provocation. Denying? Don't forget, the thread..
"I'm the only one of the two of us who tried to bury the hostility in the past, apologized for the rude language and asked to turn a new page"
Say, are you completely delusional? Did I ever attack you first? What to apologize for, for reacting strongly to your aggression? And when you apologized, didn't I always accept your apology and agree to start a new page? Did it help? Haven't you always found a new reason to attack me? Have you already forgotten the thread?
"The master of partial quotations and the attempt to turn science into jurisprudence and verbal arguments."
Can you use the thread to substantiate this claim of yours? Am I the one who starts verbal fights?
Which brings us to the last topic: the famous quote. I don't think I said it the way you claim I did, but I can't rule it out 100%. And that's because it's not really far from the truth, and it's certainly possible that in a debate of a hundred responses, when each response is long (God knows I'm not always short with words), I didn't make sure of rigorous wording and I came up with a sentence like this.'
You said it exactly as I said - the thread.. You said that there is a mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles. I asked for the proof. You screamed like always that you are not my teacher and you didn't bring anything.
The topic is important, both in terms of physics and in terms of the incidents between us since it is almost the only topic for arguments.
And you were wrong, in physics, in your field. This is mostly what gets you out of the tools. There is no mathematical proof that this is simply not true. I didn't do any crop to your stuff, stop rambling. take responsibility You made a mistake, be a man, apologize and move on.
"It seems that even Feynman did not expect that they would take a three-page piece in which he repeats over and over again that he is referring to Newton's universal law of gravitation."
Are you claiming that Feynman did not say that there is currently no explanation for the mechanism of gravity? Do you claim like Shmulik that the curvature of space-time is the explanation for the mechanism of gravity? Say it clearly so you can be quoted later.
"Looks like you're preparing the ground for some stupid victory dance, and as usual you're doing everything except studying physics."
We better not start talking about a moron, mentally ill person like you (and yes, I can use the thread to show the signs of your mental illness). And as it turns out, I'm not the one who didn't study physics. You did learn, but you didn't necessarily understand.
"If you had spent the last two years studying the basics of quantum information theory - or even just the definition of information and trying to understand what 'information' is - there would not be any debate here, and this is simply because the definition you built in your head for information is not the mathematical definition, which refers to the ability to observe Results of experiments.'
Your usual "go learn" eh? I already told you where I studied, didn't I? So what do you mean you learned more? Does anyone doubt that yours is the greatest? Does that give you the right to attack people without provocation?
My sergeant major in the reserves would also look down on the reservists, because he is an old army man and who are they anyway?
"Israel, note that a whole year has passed in which we did not communicate. I had a blast. Are you so poor that you must look for the fight?'
Say, Degenerate, haven't you heard of a thing called a thread? Don't you see who is starting here? Can you bring up one time I started with you, Wookie, Shmulik or someone? Want me to bring you all the times you start?
I forgot, you are allowed because you are a doctor of physics..
"So I just wanted to ask how you are and ask if by any chance you opened Sakurai in the last year. You know, just to validate how well you understand the issues you're talking about.'
What do you have from Samurai? Are you opening a judo gym? Didn't I already tell you which book I used to study quantum and relativity? Or as usual, what you know is better than everyone else, because yours is the biggest.
"That's it, hello and goodbye. I really hope that after a few comments you write here about how stupid I am and how much I'm a liar and don't know anything and don't understand etc. etc. etc. …''
Thread, dumbass, thread.
If you want to get rid of me, there is nothing easy. Just shut up, like you shut up all last year. I never start with you or anyone. Even now you were brought up only because of the dumb walkie.
Just remember the simple truth: you were wrong about the transfer of information, and you just don't have the honesty to admit it in front of everyone, especially after all the noise and curses you cursed.
And this was said by Prof. Granot and Prof. Weidman, real professors, with a name, address and record, not some anonymous impostor, chatterbox on a blog.
Goodbye and Goodbye.
Albanzo
I just want to understand more. It's like learning a new language - at first you try to translate everything into the language you know, but at some point you start thinking in the new language. Somehow, I manage to stutter a little in the language of "relativity", but "quantum mechanics" is still a foreign language.
I didn't write in English because I was afraid that the comment would be blocked.
Yes, that's the book. There is one newer edition (also signed by Napolitano) and it is better in most subjects. By the way, if you are looking for information about quantum information, this book only has very basic ideas. I am not sure for what purpose you need the book, but overall it is an excellent book that is the standard for a bachelor's degree in most of the world.
Albanzo
Thanks. is this the book http://www.fisica.net/quantica/Sakurai%20-%20Modern%20Quantum%20Mechanics.pdf
It's easier for me in English...
Sakurai is the name of a physicist, and refers to the standard undergraduate quantum mechanics textbook. Note that he has two books on quantum mechanics, freely translated into Hebrew, "Advanced Quantum Mechanics" and "Modern Quantum Mechanics". I mean the modern one, which is the simpler and more basic book of the two.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/take-a-photo-of-schrodingers-cat-0108149/comment-page-4/#comment-558804
Albanzo
What is Skorai? I'm struggling hard with Penrose's book, and I can't understand all the math there..
I will deviate from my practice and refer briefly to Israel Shapira.
Did someone ask me for help with something? Has anyone even contacted me? Yes. Although I did not make an official sample, I am quite convinced that I am the most contacted person on the site. Shmulik, Yariv, Maya, Punka Teva and others - they all initiate interactions with me, ask questions and sometimes ask for help. You also turn to me in your fits of rage, as evidenced by the current reference and the order of magnitude of about ten responses a few weeks ago that tried to tease me and drag me into a discussion that ended years ago.
What makes me think I know anything more than others? Nothing, I don't know anything more than others. But there are definitely certain things I know more than others. And what makes me think that? I listen to what others say and see that they do not know what they are talking about. This is also in line with the fact that I am the only one here who invested his life in studying the field, who read professional literature in it (and did not take an open course that he claims is at least a master's degree level and at the end of which you don't even know how to define information or that an interwoven system is never a unit - two things that every student A bachelor's degree must know to pass a second course in quantum mechanics), the only one to publish articles in it that receive citations and awards. All this does not mean that I am always right, but it is probably not a coincidence that I know what I am talking about and others - not necessarily.
Why do I always start cursing right away? I do not. First, 90% of my interactions on the site are very pleasant. In fact, you threw your last tantrum a few weeks ago at the height of a conversation where K., Shmulik, Maya and others told me how nice and pleasant I was on the site, and I made the mistake of mentioning your name. Second, the interactions where I don't maintain clean language don't start like that either. Neither did the first conversation between me and you, nor between me and Yehuda, begin with insults or attacks. I developed hostility towards Yehuda only after several interactions in which he continued to claim that there was no evidence for the existence of dark matter even though I provided him with scientific articles showing that there was. This lack of sincerity is what caused my disdain and hostility. The same is true for you - whether it is justified or not, I did not develop the hostility towards you because your name is Israel Shapira, but because of things you said and because of the way you behaved. In fact, I'm the only one of the two of us who tried to bury the hostility in the past, apologized for the rude language and asked to open a new page - something that for some reason was interpreted by you as a weakness and you later tried to use it as a weapon against me. I don't pretend to say that I'm always nice or pleasant - but to say that I "straight up start cursing" is burying your head in the sand, something that suits you very well - the master of partial quotations and trying to turn science into jurisprudence and verbal arguments.
Which brings us to the last topic: the famous quote. I don't think I said it the way you claim I did, but I can't rule it out 100%. And that's because it's not really far from the truth, and it's certainly possible that in a debate of a hundred comments, when each response is long (God knows I'm not always short with words), I didn't make sure of rigorous wording and I came up with a sentence like this. This is because I did not imagine that when I say something, they will crop my comments and select certain things from them to quote, just as Einstein probably did not expect that Israel Shapira would make him a website supporter. He wrote a full text in which he explains *exactly* why he uses the word ether - to differentiate the "no-ether" of general relativity from the "no-ether" of classical physics where a space without an ether has no physical properties whatsoever. is just a system of axes and nothing else, and that is not the case of general relativity. In the space of general relativity, not only is there no natural frame of reference (which is the only point you are willing to address because it does not contradict your claims), there is also no particle and no radiation. The only thing that distinguishes it from being the same as the "no-ether" of 19th century physics is its physical properties, in particular its energy density.
In the same way, Feynman probably did not expect that a three-page passage would be taken, in which he repeatedly repeats that he refers to Newton's universal law of gravitation, and that he does not look at explanations that significantly complicate the mathematics (since the entire passage is written about intuitive interpretation of closed mathematical formulas) , and cut one sentence from it. As Shmulik has pointed out many times, a reading of the passage itself is so different from the selective quotation that it's funny.
Anyway, I think that's all there is to say. Looks like you're setting the stage for some stupid victory dance, and as usual you're doing everything but studying physics. If you were in the last two years studying the basics of quantum information theory - or even just the definition of information and trying to understand what 'information' is - there wouldn't be any debate, and that's simply because the definition you built in your head for information is not the mathematical definition, which refers to the ability to anticipate results of experiments. The exact wording of my argument - which I am *sure* I have used many times - is that there is a mathematical proof that no information is passed between two entangled particles as long as a classical bit is not also passed between them, and it is possible that among the arguments upon arguments there was a place where I missed the last few words.
Israel, note that a whole year has passed in which we did not communicate. I had a blast. Are you so poor that you have to look for the fight? Your delusion has reached such a level that you would rather have a character to explain to you that you are wrong that you can pin all the evil on her and explain to yourself how ignorant and stupid she is, than to just sit and do your experiments with the GPS and the grasshoppers or whataver?
And two final comments - before you jump, yes, I remember that in your eyes the claim "you need to learn something to understand that you are wrong" is something dirty and terrible and terrible that should never be said in a discussion. What to do, deal with it. And a second note - we haven't spoken in a long time, so I just wanted to ask how you are and ask if by any chance you opened Sakurai in the last year. You know, just to validate how well you understand the subjects you're talking about. In the last year, did you gather enough courage to try to deal with the material of the second year of a bachelor's degree and prove (to yourself, of course) what your level of knowledge really is?
That's it, hello and goodbye. I really hope that after a few comments you write here about how stupid I am and how much I'm a liar and don't know anything and don't understand etc. etc. etc. …
Miracles
In my opinion the MM experiment "failed" - well it didn't fail but it didn't find what it was trying to find - because the MM experiment couldn't find the preferred rest system of the site, which is what it wanted to find.
A preferred rest system can exist on the ground - this is the ground, on the plane - the plane, or on a moving train, the train.
Each of the rest systems I described is different from the other and each of them is preferred.
But what preferred rest system can there be in an infinite homogeneous and isotropic universe? It is said that Michelson would have found it and it is the same as the resting system of the Milky Way - so why this one and not Andromeda's? Where is the homogeneity?
Good night.
Israel
I did not understand the last sentence. The Michelson-Morley experiment failed…
Miracles
At least 3 times in this article alone I referred to the "new website", which does not have a defined rest system".
But why go far? Brian Greene also refers to the site in his books about the universe and claims what I am saying.
And what about the quote from Einstein? He's also talking about a site without a certain rest system, isn't he?
So if he doesn't have a certain rest system - and how could he have one in an infinite homogeneous and isotropic universe - how could an M-M experiment succeed?
Israel
I quote you: "A mediator has qualities? Isn't it empty? Could it be that such an intermediary could be called... a merciful website?"
Space has properties, but those properties are not ether in the sense of ether before the Michelson-Morley experiment. So call it a site space if you will. Again - this is not the classic site that was thought to be an attribution system.
I agree with the carcass on a few things: I have no desire to argue with those who I think are quacks and not really interested.
There are a bunch of commenters here whose interest is not the truth but to show everyone that they have the biggest.
Walkie is a classic example. Most of his comments are not about the articles or the comments, but about the commenters. Usually he tries to "help" the poor commenter understand the "logical fallacy" in his words. He tries to "understand the way of thinking" of the commenter and other psychological nonsense of the same kind.
And the strange thing: has anyone even asked you for help with anything? From Albenzo? Has anyone even contacted you?
Why are you so convinced that you know everything more than the others? Why do you immediately start cursing? Did it occur to you that you might be wrong?
And don't play it for me, tzaddik. You're the one who called me a liar without provocation, you're the one who always talks about a logical fallacy, you're the one who digs and doesn't let up and you're not ready to accept a different opinion than yours.
You write: "And therefore he will never bring the quote that he claims that Albenzo said."
You pathetic scumbag. What does it matter if I bring it? Will you admit your mistake then or will you invent some new "subtext" to show that uh, uh, uh - he actually meant something else, it wasn't him at all, he was in Tel Aviv at the time when it was said.
Ready to take the challenge? I will bring the link with the quote and if it is exactly - in D. W. K. - as I wrote, thank you, you were wrong and apologize?
Will Albanzo admit his mistake and apologize?
Want to continue and show you the rest of the logical fallacies in your many ramblings?
You and anyone else are welcome to show me my mistake, just please, without subtext.
Subtext is a magic word markets invented to purge any creep. By means of it you can say that black is white, tomorrow is yesterday, a walkie-talkie is Shmulik.
And then when you catch Wookie talking and tell him what the hell you're talking about, then he has another invention: General Command orders.
Therefore he does not have to deal with unpleasant facts, quotes and truths. He can erect his chin with genius and say to himself: I am not talking to this terrible man because of the orders of the General Staff.
Chief of Staff.. At least the Chief of Staff will have the courage to come out of the hole he is hiding in and face it.
So here is the challenge for you as I suggested:
I will bring the link with the quote and if it is exactly - in D. W. K. - as I wrote, will you thank me for being wrong and apologize?
You're right..
And this human is called Wookie, the walking carcass.
Or perhaps more correctly: Waco.
Miracles
Puns - me.
What game is this time?
Miracles
I apologize for the need for this, but in my understanding a child in kindergarten is spoken to like a child in kindergarten, even if he has long passed the age of 50, and unfortunately that is exactly what he is.
In the end, both he and I know that he is wrong, and therefore he will never bring the quote that he claims that Albenzo said (it is a situation that is horribly similar to Yehuda's here, so I wondered if he is able to distinguish the reality here), but since this is a child in kindergarten, then it is more important Be right and to hell with reality. And what does a child in kindergarten do when they put him face to face with a reality he doesn't want to acknowledge? Very true, throws a tantrum.
That's why my every two words put him into ecstasy and he has to go out in a dance of curses and teasing. His only tool to preserve his distorted and wrong reality is to reject those who correct him, and to tell himself the lie again and again in the hope that if he repeats it enough times he will finally believe wholeheartedly that it is indeed the truth.
This is a person who does not care or is interested in what is answered to him. The man lives in the movies. For him reality is what he wants it to be and everything else doesn't matter. He lacks integrity and is unable to really listen to people and try to understand what they are saying, it is actually not important to him at all. He just wants to be heard and to receive feedback that he is heard by those who respond to his words, even though he is not at all interested in what they say to him.
Not that it matters because no matter what they say to him, he only understands what he wants from what is said. If Ogi tells him that he doesn't like cakes and immediately after that tells him that he does like cakes, he will decide that one of them is correct according to what suits him, and after that Ogi can say whatever he wants to explain to him that he didn't mean what he understood but he will stick to the truth that he He decided on her and Ogi as far as he is concerned (and therefore also in terms of what is right in the world) will be what he decided and not what Ogi intended.
Little by little, more and more people here understand this and eventually he will have no one to talk to here and he will have to take his chatter elsewhere.
Albanzo learned this a long time ago, the Chief of Staff at home understood it a long time ago as well, and it seems to me that Shmulik is on the verge of understanding.
Onward, to another series of attacks and lies on his part. At least now anyone who reads this comment will be able to understand why it is so important for him to attack a person who does not speak to him.
Israel
You are making puns here. does not fit you. Actually………
The experiment showed that there is no preferred reference system, and invalidated the site in the sense of a reference system.
Yushkin
With all these blocks, I almost missed your response: "What is a "site without a defined rest system"?
This is a good question. I remember the discussion with R.H. A few years ago? I had a comment there that summed up the idea:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/comment-page-6/#comment-324924
Good night Shmulik.
Israel,
delusional goodbye
Shmulik
You write: "Space, even if you don't want to recognize it, obeys Einstein's mathematics."
When did I ever say the last piece of crap you wrote? Subtext again?
You start once again with your ramblings, and I'm already tired of them.
A month ago you wrote:
"In any case, is it true that this round you put words in my mouth that I didn't mean and you won't do it again?"
And to that I answered you:
"Enough with the chatter."
I didn't put any words in your mouth, and the whole matter of transferring information between particles is very fundamental.
You wrote a few hours ago:
"Israel,
No. First show me what I asked for. If you bring a quote, please also bring a link.'
I brought you the link. It says there what I said it says.
So now answer the questions I asked, or it will be difficult for me to take anything you write seriously.'
Of course you didn't answer and continued in your usual haughty and aggressive way.
So allow me to stop taking seriously all your rants, at least 10 in this article, including replacing me with Judah. Start taking responsibility for what you spew out and don't blame everyone else for your lack of reading comprehension.
Israel,
And if we write the whole quote then:
But up to today, from the time of Newton, no one has invented another theoretical description of the mathematical machinery behind this law which does not either day the same thing over again (this is Laplace), or make the mathematics harder (Einstein) or predict some wrong phenomena (pushing). So there is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form.
The paragraph, and the one after it, come to tell that everything is described through mathematics and he does not know how to explain why this is so, but nowhere can it be concluded that today there is no explanation for what stands behind gravity. There is and it is explained by the theory of relativity.
Regarding your other quote, bring a link, I can relate.
Israel,
Other than…
Other than…
Newton brought a mathematical description to gravity without explaining the mechanism
Einstein came up with a mathematical description of gravity that includes the mechanism
Einstein's mathematical description was recently confirmed by Liege: space, even if you don't want to acknowledge it, obeyed Einstein's mathematics, expanding and contracting when two black holes collided. This is the mechanism. We may only have math to describe it, but that's the mechanism
Miracles
An anti-scientific instigator like you.. Does a mediator have qualities? Isn't it empty? It could be that such an intermediary can be called... a merciful website?
where is the tall tree
So here, attach Gerr to Sage and try to answer the following question:
Why did the Michaelson Morley experiment to find the resting state of the ether fail?
Kabbalat Shabbat.
Israel
Radiation may solve the drag problem. I don't understand how, but you just diverted the question of what creates gravity.
Israel
that's what I said. The medium is the electric field, which has properties of a viscous fluid.
Galileo did experiments on an inclined plane. He made a mistake in the measurements, and nevertheless came to a correct conclusion.
WD
You just asked him 🙂
Wookie
Why, Albanzo never said that.
Judah deduced this from the subtext.
Why only you are allowed?
Maxwell built a hydrodynamic model of the ether, where pressures, molecules, vortices, viscosity, currents.. right to Sage and the particles.
Maxwell calculated the speed of a wave in his model and discovered - to his surprise - that it was the speed of light.
Therefore he concluded that light is also an electromagnetic wave.
But if the model is not correct - how did the calculation succeed?
Miracles
Can you please ask the one I can't talk to if he thinks Judah is right when he claims that Albenzo said he has conclusive proof that dark matter exists.
Israel
Maxwell shows that there is "viscosity" to the electric field. Trying to quickly change an electric field causes a magnetic field that opposes the change in the electric field. So, the medium is the electric field, right?
Oh, and it's Epsilon, not you…
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
Equation 136
Israel
I need to look for Maxwell's calculation in the notebooks.. I remember that it has to do with the primacy and primality of space (you and me). 40 years have passed….. Take two parallel and infinite plates and apply voltage on one side. That's what I remember right now.
Wookie
Your problem is that you are an idiot.
Your second problem is that you don't know you're an idiot.
Therefore, when you try to help Albanzo out of the hole he made for himself with the non-existent mathematical proof of non-transfer of information between particles with a requirement for the original quote, you are only complicating him. For if the quote is quoted in the original, will it prove that it is a hoax?
Oh I forgot, there is the matter of the subtext.. everything can always be explained.
Oh help a good-hearted fool.
He is more dangerous than any enemy.
Spring.
You said you don't block comments.
Only of those who oppose vaccines.
Just a few days ago.
What do you have to say about the two comments I wrote being delayed?
Hey! Mr. Cherry Picker, play a quote for me
Misrepresentation won't hurt in the place I'm going to
Hey! Mr. Cherry Picker, do misquote for me
In this jingle jangle dance of ambiguity
Israel
What is a "site without a defined rest system"?
Miracles
These features of the site were already explained by Maxwell.
Can you explain how he was able to derive the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism if the properties are not what he claimed?
Israel
"Existing site" - means that the space has properties. I don't think anyone, except Judah, thinks otherwise.
Miracles
Indeed, the site cannot be used as a reference system. But does that mean that he does not exist as many of the writers here claim? Did Einstein claim he didn't exist? Or Brian Green (the article about Einstein from the week)?
I would be happy to discuss with you or anyone who would like the Lesage drag and why in my opinion the solution to the problem solves many other problems, including the ether, the Michaelson Morley experiment, inertia, Mach's principle, constancy of the speed of light in all reference systems, the galaxy anomaly and non-locality.
But it can be long and exhausting and most likely wrong. It is better to concentrate on experiments that will prove if there is anything in the idea, which I have been doing for several years, including right now.
Israel
Calm down 🙂 As I understand it, Einstein says that this "site" cannot be used as a reference system. He says that space is not the "nothing" of Euclid, Descartes, Galileo and Newton, but it is also not the site of Plato, Newton (in his youth, and where.
But, what about the trailer?
Commands of the General Staff
Doesn't what you said relate exactly to what I always claim about the site - "the new site", which does not have a defined rest system."
https://www.hayadan.org.il/climate-concensus-1503161/comment-page-11/#comment-705132
And does this mean that in the subtext Einstein meant that there is no ether, as Feynman meant that if he says that no one understands quantum mechanics including himself and adds that it is not a joke, he actually meant that quantum mechanics is understood by everyone, it is indeed a joke, and that Israel the liar distorted everything as always?
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there would not only be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the characteristic quality of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
Miracles
Why don't you bring the continuation of the quote? I don't know which one exactly you mean.
The drag problem in Lesage theory is solvable in my opinion, explain if there is demand. For that matter, if instead of particles you use radiation exerting pressure, you get Lasage gravitation but without drag. agree?
True, it creates new but much smaller problems.
There is another fundamental problem in Lesage, with particles with radiation or any other form of pressure difference.
If you are in free fall, according to Lesage there is a pressure difference between the upper and lower part of your body and that is what causes the acceleration.
So how come you won't feel it? It was said that you fall at 1000g, shouldn't you be crushed under the different pressure press?
On the other hand, the same problem also exists with Newton, according to which a great force acts on you in acceleration. So the lack of understanding is probably on me, because it can't be that they didn't notice this for 300 years.
Israel
I already wrote to you - this Einstein quote has a sequel, and you should bring it
But come on, a quote from a scientist doesn't prove anything. Explain to me motion relative to a non-drag viscous material. According to Yehuda what causes gravity is exactly this drag!
Is there (anything else) I'm missing in this theory?
Shmulik
"That's not what Feynman said."
Here is what he said:
there is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form
"In other words, the theory of relativity does explain gravity."
This may be your Pharisee, what is called a "subtext" in scholarly circles, but not what he said.
On the other hand, he died and was buried, so how can we know what he meant? Maybe when he said, wrote, was photographed, saying:
there is no model of the theory of gravitation today
Maybe he actually meant:
there is yes model of the theory of gravitation today?
And perhaps when the head of the physics department at MIT says:
scientists don't know the cause of nature's most obvious phenomena; gravity
He actually means:
scientists do know the cause of nature's most obvious phenomena; gravity?
And perhaps when Einstein says:
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable
He actually means:
According to the general theory of relativity space with ether is unthinkable?
And I'm just a twisted lie and spreading anti-scientific nonsense when I say that maybe they meant what they said?
Subtext Baby, subtext.
Israel,
This is not what Feynman said because he also added that the other experiments are described by more complicated mathematics than Newton's (which is also mathematical) namely, the theory of relativity does explain gravity
Yehuda,
Are you serious?
"The prosecution gathered evidence suggesting the suspect's guilt"
Can you conclude from this sentence that it has been proven that the accused is indeed guilty? of course not.
There is evidence (not all of it related to galaxy rotation. It's been written a million times, why don't you address it?) but no one has yet discovered if dark matter really exists. There is no contradiction in this statement and nothing else has ever been claimed. Albantezo may or may not be certain that dark matter exists, but he did not claim to have actually discovered dark matter. Stop here and think for a second about what the whole forum is trying to tell you.
Chutsamza, I didn't see any answers to my questions.
Yoda
Although you are right and "devilbenzo"? Indeed unable to bring even confirmation to dark matter except for speculation - still, on the subject of pushing gravity there was already a discussion years ago where people who understand more than "devilbenzo" showed you the flaws in your theory. Including Israel Shapira and Anouchi.
Could you present the problems your theory encountered? Thanks.
Miracles
"Your theory falls on the drag issue. Is there a reason you don't get it?'
I see that you have become interested in theory. True or not, there is no doubt that the theory is beautiful, and as Feynman pointed out the only and last attempt to explain the mechanism of gravity. If you saw the previous link, it can also perhaps explain the anomaly of the speed of the stars at the edges of the galaxies.
In my opinion, the theory does not fall on the drag issue. It is possible to build a mechanism that makes sense and requires the existing knowledge in which the theory will work without drag, and will also provide additional explanations, including Shmulik's question about the lengthening of times (in accelerated systems only).
But the fact that she is beautiful of course does not mean that the theory is correct. It has other fundamental flaws that we haven't mentioned yet.
Shmulik
Albanzo keeps claiming that there is evidence for the existence of dark matter. I collected three examples from his quotes:
Continues to call me stupid, but flatly refuses, in a way that really resembles a religious fanatic, to address in any way or way the observational evidence, the experiments, or the theoretical evidence.
The person who has stated that he refuses to read about the evidence for the existence of dark matter, and who in hundreds of posts on the site over the years has not even once agreed to refer to observational evidence (the dark matter mentioned above),
His inability to account for simple questions like "Do you know what the observational evidence for the existence of dark matter is?" He himself is strong evidence that he is talking nonsense.
Albanzo is sure of the existence of dark matter. point.
Please, without excuses, show proof. Because there is none.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Since when do I make myself? Give me one link that shows Albantezo says it exists. Something is happening to you, Yehuda. Stop here and check it out for yourself.
How about an answer to my questions?
Shmulik
Don't do yourself
The man said that the dark matter exists and I don't want/am able to understand the proofs, so in the sweep he will bring proof and not confuse the head. Except that he won't talk because I'll pay him back sevenfold.
Fed up
Yehuda
דניאל
The man, the one who kept calling me a liar said that he has conclusive proof of the existence of dark matter and I claim that there is no such proof so either he will see proof or he will shut his dirty mouth. Also the scientist Damicolo.
Apart from that, the dinner was wonderful in my opinion, delicious food prepared by my wife, a dark substance in the form of a juicy goleush, incredibly tasty and suitable for a carnivore like me
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
But no one, including Albantezo, has ever claimed that there is proof that dark matter exists but that the evidence that supports its existence does not rely only on the rotation of galaxies but there are also other, independent pieces of evidence. This is the reason that the scientists in Sarn are looking for him. How do we not know that they are not a bunch of delusional people who just want to celebrate the millions of dollars they get from us (mostly from you)? Because they recently discovered the Higgs, and one achievement I would say, so they have some reputation and credibility don't they?
I did not receive any answer to my question from you. In addition to the refutations you have already received, I am interested in the measurable phenomena predicted by relativity, namely, the lengthening of time and the expansion-contraction of space: given that your particles are "normal" particles, even though they are very small, how can they produce the effects I mentioned, which have been measured and proven?
Yoda
Your obsession has turned you into a caricature. is not that a loss?
Maya
Devilbenzo said he has conclusive proof that dark matter exists?, let's see. If not, he's just a liar.
Come on
The food is getting cold
Yehuda
Here maybe it is, find gamma dibilbenzo radiation maybe this is the solution:
Indeed, not long ago a team of researchers published an article, in which they claimed that they had detected gamma radiation in the universe - which corresponds exactly to the prediction of the radiation that would be emitted from a meeting between dark matter (wimps particles) and antimatter (anti-wimps); In any case, they believed that they proved that dark matter exists, as hypothesized. For the abstract of the article:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212686416000030
However, other scientists believe that the gamma radiation they describe in their research can also be explained in another way; And in any case, because this is no proof of the existence of dark matter. Thus, for example, another team of researchers was able to explain the same radiation, based on the assumption that it is radiation emitted from a cluster of stars called 'pulsars', which we do not see. For the abstract of the article:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.06584
To this the first team replies - because there is no reason to assume that in that region of the universe there is such a cluster of pulsars... and the debate continues. This is how science works. Hypotheses are tested, and evidence is collected, in an attempt to verify and disprove those hypotheses.
So has the existence of dark matter been proven? Probably not yet. Other hypotheses that explain the finding of the same gamma radiation need to be refuted. The riddle has not yet been solved." End quote.
It's annoying that there is always a last sentence that spoils the optimism!!
The riddle has not yet been solved. Let's continue!, we must not break. It is impossible that the great scientist Devilbenzo is just a liar who misleads the innocent readers of science. It didn't matter if he was a Shankar graduate or a high school student, no. Please dibilbenzo minetroso don't stretch us and show conclusive proof of the existence of the dark, this dark!
Come on, let's go eat at my wife's pleasure
Good Day
Yehuda
Here maybe it will redeem Albanzo Minetroso
An article published in Israel today
If it turns out that the latest observations do not reflect new forces or interactions of dark matter, Obel 3827 will become another example of what dark matter is not. Meanwhile, the search for its particles in underground detectors continues to turn up clay. Additionally, dark matter has yet to appear at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The scientists hope that these trends will change soon: the accelerator resumed operation in April 2015, at the highest energies it has ever reached, and the detectors are now incredibly sensitive. "Dark matter has been so elusive until now, but we've never had the data that's coming our way," says Harvey. "In my opinion, it's now or never."
Again the last sentence is annoying: dark matter has been so elusive until now but we never had the data…… that is about to come to us?? That means there is no data yet! And the article ends with the punch line "It's now or never!!"
And it's annoying because why be pessimistic??, only 80 years looking for the illusory dark matter, so what, you can't wait a few more hours??.
No and no debilbenzo you couldn't have lied and you don't have any conclusive proof of the existence of the dark matter so don't stretch us and show proof, you don't want me to call you debilbenzo minetrozo.
I will not break and I will keep looking!
Yehuda
Yehuda
Do you know the phrase: "straw man"?
From Wikipedia: “In rhetorical use and as an informal logical fallacy, a scarecrow or straw man is a point of view deliberately created to easily defeat an argument. Creating a scarecrow argument does not accurately reflect his opponent's best argument but distracts or distorts it so that the opponent's position appears weak or ridiculous."
When did anyone claim to have found dark matter? I don't remember it at any point in the discussion. We also claimed during the discussion that there is a lot of evidence for its existence and that you did not refer to any of it. You might want to start dating a few if you want to be taken more seriously. Maybe it's worth addressing the fallacies in the things you said that people repeat and point to.
This discussion is really getting boring and as an observer from the side that really doesn't have much to contribute to the content of the discussion I can tell you that there is clearly one side here that is not listening and it is not the other side. Please note.
Ariel
The pushing gravity particles transfer momentum to the "pulling" bodies, so they have no problem transferring a little more momentum to overcome the friction as well. It's so simple I want to cry.
How many times can this be repeated?
Good Day
Yehuda
Dibilbenzo
Why don't you show conclusive proof of the existence of your favorite dark matter so much. It is not possible for your self-confidence to exist that is not backed by anything,
Backed up only by a nonsense text in which science has nothing except perhaps flying formulas of disillusioned scientists who stick to the Newton Einstein formula and create a dark universe.
I will donate NIS 1000 according to your request wherever you want with an apology if you see such a simple and readable article here on the commenters that will undoubtedly prove proof of the existence of dark matter.
If not, you're just babbling and repeating other people's poor statements. If you don't publish such an article then you are a liar, a liar Albanzo Minteroso (liar in Latin).
Regardless, I will keep looking and promise that if I find the article that will redeem you I will not be ashamed and publish it.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Since Einstein published relativity (1915), four years passed until observational proof was given (1919). According to your logic, it was already refuted in 1916.
Yehuda
Your theory falls on the drag issue. Is there a reason you don't get it?
Here's another "proof" of the existence of a new, straight-from-the-oven debilbenzo dark matter:
If it turns out that the latest observations do not reflect new forces or interactions of dark matter, Obel 3827 will become another example of what dark matter is not. Meanwhile, the search for its particles in underground detectors continues to turn up clay. Additionally, dark matter has yet to appear at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The scientists hope that these trends will change soon: the accelerator resumed operation in April 2015, at the highest energies it has ever reached, and the detectors are now incredibly sensitive. "Dark matter has been so elusive until now, but we've never had the data that's coming our way," says Harvey. "In my opinion, it's now or never."
Well, since another year has passed, it seems to me that they haven't discovered a dark debilbenzo substance here either.
I have an idea that maybe Devilbenzo will show conclusive proof of the existence of dark matter. I have read maybe ten articles and all of them are disappointing.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
elbentzo, interesting, thanks.
A small follow-up question - assuming that the factor that drives the expansion (say, vacuum energy) is constant and uniform throughout space and time. So in such a universe, can we say that the expansion accelerates between galaxy clusters but not on smaller scales?
This is because acceleration is simply a direct result of the fact that the degree of expansion is proportional to distance. That is, when the galaxies are moving away, then there is more space between them, and then their moving away becomes even faster - and this is precisely the acceleration. So you can say that on small scales the acceleration does not occur, because simply in the solar system or inside the atom the distances remain constant (more or less).
Here is "conclusive proof" of the existence of dark matter:
An attempt to discover dark matter[Wikipedia edit source code | editing]
In October 2013, it was announced that the most sophisticated and sensitive dark matter detector ever created, called LUX - Large Underground Xenon, did not detect any dark matter and that apparently all the dark matter discoveries reported earlier were wrong. The sophisticated detector was built at a depth of one and a half kilometers inside a former gold mine, in South Dakota and the idea was to detect dark matter particles as they pass through the earth, but the attempt as mentioned failed. These results do not yet completely rule out the possibility of dark matter's existence, they only narrow down the possible forms in which it may exist, if it does exist. The plan of the experimenters is to create a much more sophisticated device and try to use it to discover the elusive "dark matter" [4].
I will continue to look for conclusive proof of the existence of the didibenzo substance.
Good Day
Yehuda
floating point,
Before I answer, I will comment that I am making a small simplification of the topic, because there are some slightly delicate points in it. But in principle, the answer is that the second explanation you gave is correct, and the first explanation is irrelevant. I will expand:
The second explanation says that the expansion is a phenomenon related to space itself (for example, through vacuum fluctuations in quantum mechanics) and therefore every space has to expand, whether it is a vacuum between galaxies or between two electrons in one atom or another. But the expansion in particular, and gravitation in general, are such small and negligible phenomena compared to the other forces that in practice these phenomena are irrelevant and cannot be detected. It can be said that the repulsion between the two electrons is so much greater that the fine definition of the distance between them does not matter. In fact, the only situations where (classical) gravity is very significant are over large distances, because the other forces are short-range relative to gravity and also tend to average to zero (since they are both repulsive and attractive). At large and empty distances, there is only gravitational repulsion so the expansion is significant.
The second explanation is not so important. It is true, but it explains why the specific model that mathematically describes the expansion of the universe on large scales is not relevant to describe the expansion of the universe on small scales. He does not explain why we do not feel expansion on small scales, he only says that FRW is a description of a different physical system - an isotropic and homogeneous system (which is indeed the picture obtained if we look at our universe on very, very large scales, so in this case FRW is a good model) .
Miracles
Optimistic, eh?
Good night.
Israel
Maybe if we use the right term - drag - Yehuda will address the problem. We can also talk about viscosity, turbulence and Reynolds numbers... in the end he will understand that there is a problem
elbentzo, I would appreciate it if you could address my question. Thanks.
Says there is no evidence for the existence of dark matter, but refuses to read peer-reviewed scientific articles with the title "evidence for the existence of dark matter".
He calls an established scientific theory that is in consensus "stupid hypotheses" but when Shmulik accuses him of belittling the academy, he becomes indignant.
Continues to claim that the only reason why everyone (*everyone*!) is convinced of the existence of dark matter is to settle some issue he read in a children's book, even though he has been explained dozens of times (including scientific articles for reference) that this is not even the tip of the iceberg.
Continues to call me stupid, but flatly refuses, in a way that really resembles a religious fanatic, to address in any way or way the observational evidence, the experiments, or the theoretical evidence.
Judah, have mercy on you. Honestly - I feel sorry for you. You should be happy that your dementia prevents you from seeing how miserable your existence is.
Yehuda,
When will you understand when a physicist tells you that your idea is fundamentally wrong, it does not mean that it is in an academic "fixation". No, it means he is an expert on the subject, he really understands the math behind it and he understands the implications. You are, as you have said before, only an engineer, and as much as I respect Shanker College, an engineer is not a physicist. Do you really understand what dark mass means? Do you really understand friction? Do you really understand gravity? I don't think in light of your responses in this discussion and also in the previous discussion that took place in the summer from which you left if the saying "maybe I'm wrong" when I and Albenzo explained to you why your theory about the expansion of the universe is wrong.
Yoda
The problem is that the ship, or the country, has a chosen direction. This is the reason for the friction.
your reference?
Dibilbenzo
When will your petrified head realize that there is still no proof of the existence of dark matter, it's all just stupid hypotheses that came to fit the situation with Newton's existing formulas of relativity.
But it has to have a certain level of IQ which apparently ended when it was distributed in your country on the other side of the world.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel Shapira
In Pushing Gravity particles, there is no direction to be chosen, all directions are of equal importance, there is no preference for one direction over the other, therefore the particles help in every direction on the movement and there is no room for the question of what happens against the direction. Do you understand?, if not, then no big deal.
Good Day
Yehuda
Yehuda
Let's try to address the main problem in pushing - the friction.
It cannot be neglected as marginal, because as Feynman said in his lecture, the effect of accumulated friction over years, not to mention hundreds of millions of years, would have slowed down and stopped the earth in its orbit around the sun. getting?
Your solution was: Lasage particles entering the system, like wind blowing and helping the ship to overcome the friction with the sea. agree?
But here's the problem: what happens to a ship sailing in the opposite direction? What happens to a satellite orbiting the sun in the opposite direction to that of the earth? How can the same wind that is in a certain direction relative to the sea help ships sailing in opposite directions?
Please your reference.
And I'll just point out, how funny is it that Yehuda accuses me of ignoring evidence...? The person who explicitly said that he refuses to read about the evidence for the existence of dark matter, and who, in hundreds of posts on the site over the years, has not even once agreed to address observational evidence (the dark matter mentioned above), experiments (such as the friction experiments), or theoretical evidence (the weak-field approximation Newtonian is fundamental to the theory of relativity, that is - its change collapses the whole theory of relativity, which is known to be one of the most verified theories in nature).
No.
No to everything: No, I don't have a mental problem. The one with the mental problem is the shaky old man who tries to say that all the scientists in the world don't understand what they're talking about, and that to solve advanced problems in physics you don't need to look at the evidence (which you've consistently refused to do for years), but do a degree in management at Schenker College, read A partial and inaccurate description of a specific aspect of the problem in a book that says in huge letters that it is intended for children and should not be relied upon as a source of scientific information, and then shout loudly that there is a conspiracy.
No, Anomalous Pioneer won't save you. First of all - if there was indeed friction then it should have been measured everywhere and at any time, and not only in space flights. The same friction should also have appeared when I take a ball in the room and get up here in DHA and try to throw it. What to do - he is not. The ideas you espouse with such stupid fanaticism have been disproved in the experiment. Second, the anomalous pioneer is - what to do - not an anomaly. is a solved problem. Attached is a link at the end to NASA's message - the phenomenon was studied and explained independently by several different groups, all of whom came to the same conclusion and even calculated exactly what the size of the "anomaly" should be - a calculation that of course completely matched the observational data. The "anomaly" is only a phenomenon related to heat loss through the electrical circuits in Pioneer. You can find explanations in a lot of places - and since the chances of you reading a scientific article tends to 0 from below, you can also find a pretty good and accurate explanation on Wikipedia.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/pioneer_anomaly.html
Dibilbenzo
I understand that you already had a history of slandering others, so you must have a mental problem. You are not the only person who descends on others and in the process feels that he is superior.
By the way, dear Devilbenzo, the Pioneer anomaly clearly shows the existence of friction and turbulence in space motion of about a billion meters per second squared towards the sun, so how much fun it is to just ignore it and live in your fucking empty world.
Come on, you're tired
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Why, Israel, did I not address your questions specifically?, maybe you are not ready to accept the explanations, but that is another matter
Our friends will admit.
Does the following sentence sound familiar to you?
When you are interested in addressing specific questions, let me know.
Oh, and two more notes:
1. Don't worry, I noticed that in your last comment you continued to call me a moron but you didn't even touch the facts that were presented in front of you (just like in every other comment of yours ever).
2. Once again the hunt has begun for where I am or where I work? This time, too, I have to expect all kinds of people to pop out of their holes and claim that I'm some commenter who once shouted at them in the forum or some teacher they once had at Ben Gurion University or something like that? Can't you just accept that I'm someone - no matter what his education is or where he works - someone who doesn't fall into your stupid trap? Someone who reads the scientific articles and follows the observations and testimonies, and bases his opinions and research on that instead of "what is simple enough for Judah to grasp in his loose mind"?
Nature will not simplify itself so that you can say that you understand the world of phenomena. cope
Yehuda,
First of all, it's not my morning. So I had a whole day to deal with beautiful things in physics before you fell on me with your inability to understand things that my nephew already grasps in elementary school science classes - that if an experiment can be performed, and the experiment disproves your hypothesis - then it is wrong.
Besides, calling a person who lies several times a day a "liar" is not profanity. It is irresponsible not to call him a liar. And by the way, it has already been explained to you exactly how to do the experiment to measure the friction (and no, you don't need to measure the sun at all - it's an experiment that can be done anywhere you want). Also, on the page linked here some time ago (I don't remember who brought it, maybe Shmulik? Maybe miracles?) on the refutations to the model of mechanical gravity, actual numbers also appeared - what should be the characteristics of the particles in order for the friction to be so small that it is below the measurement threshold of all the experiments done to date that show there is no friction, and in particular why such parameters are not possible.
But as usual - expecting you to refer to things that are taken from reality is a losing battle. You live in a fantasy world where you are not a stupid and crazy person who tries to sell all kinds of lies on the Internet and invents conspiracy theories about the scientific establishment, and all this in order not to look reality in the face and admit exactly who you are and what you are.
Israel Shapira
What does "Yehuda's explanation of mean free distance for collisions between the particles does not work" mean?? This is the only reason why gravity is not visible in free gas in air. If the air will be thinner (10 to the power of minus 8 atmospheres approximately) so that the average free path will increase then there will be a "force of attraction between bodies in the thin air. Someone pick up the gauntlet and do an experiment on a space station.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Tell me Dilbenzo, did you wake up today on your left side, or just my back?
After all, I'm explaining why this friction shouldn't bother me. Simple math!
After all, if the planet rotates a few meters away from its orbit, it will already be worth all the friction.
After all, a small change in the gravitational constant will be more than all the friction.
So you say that you are able to measure it??, a distance of how many meters between the planet and the sun?
screwed!
And already in the morning the mouth starts to rot. Also professor! Shame on the Technion you work at. (Maybe?)
And as Galileo said: Friction?, and even so move move!!
Did you get it Devilbenzo??
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel Shapira
Error should be dihydrogen sulphide.
Yehuda,
"Just because a personality like Richard Feynman mentioned it prevents you from accepting the simple calculation I show"?
really?
That's the only reason?
Don't you think there might also be another reason? For example, that the friction, even if it is constant and small, and negligible and the ships sail on and on - is a measurable quantity? Don't you think that maybe the fact that your nonsense is predicting a laboratory measurement result that is 100% false and completely unfounded, is perhaps also something that prevents people from falling into the pit you are digging?
are you senile Or do you remember having this problem raised before you (multiple times)? And if you remember this problem being brought up to you, can you help me find a word to describe a person who knows that there are serious criticisms and refutations in the laboratory of his idea, but he continues to claim that people don't accept it just because Feynman told them to? I once heard such a word. projector, spiker. do not remember. prodigal Maybe an old man? curious?
remind me please A person who does not tell the truth knowingly to glorify his stupidity and prevent himself from facing the fact that he does not know what he is talking about.
Israel Shapira
Gazkom has sulfur dioxide - H2 S and rectal gases.
Miracles
According to Yehuda and the simple universe there is no difference between the particles and the gas. He also gave it a name - Gazkom. the gas of the universe.
Original Balsage, minimal or non-existent interaction between the particles. This is the reason that the theory does allow gravitation, and this is in contrast to bodies in gas, between which there is no attraction.
Yehuda's explanation of mean free distance for collisions between the particles does not work, but he, as usual, refuses to address specific questions.
Yehuda
Question: How are your particles different from a gas?
Israel - do you know what the answer is?
again:
When you are interested in addressing specific questions, let me know.
I referred ten times to friction and explained why it has no effect, it is a constant size and it will be reduced by the force of gravity. The centrifugal force will be obtained only from the force of gravity minus the friction. I don't think there is a problem with that. It seems to me that just because a personality like Richard Feynman mentioned it prevents you from accepting the simple calculation I show.
So that's it, the insomnia is over!
Good night
Yehuda
"To say that friction is a problem is stupid"
Yoda, when you are interested in addressing specific questions, let me know.
Yehuda
God is also a simple explanation, which Newton believed in.
Menken said that every complex problem has a clear, simple and wrong solution.
Newton and relativity give a mathematical way to calculate gravity, but only pushing gravity gives an explanation of the nature of gravity and how it is created. If the explanation is correct, then one can draw conclusions such as the range of gravity, weight loss, the Pioneer anomaly, and more.
To say that friction is a problem is stupid, because Newton also has friction with asteroids, gas clouds, solar storms and of course the particles that fill the spaces of the universe - the ether, such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc. for billions of years that do not affect gravitation and the orbit of the planet.
But those who want to actually distort the time space instead of the simple explanation of the pushing, Zebsho.
Good night
Yehuda
Miracles
I have said this dozens of times, I even called it "the new website", which does not have a defined rest system.
Israel,
Newton is used because it is most convenient for some applications but that is not the point. The point that there is an explanation for the mechanism of gravity in relationships.
In my opinion, you overstressed what Feynman said and it seems that you are not doing injustice to the additional quote, but I need to see the whole lecture to understand what he is talking about.
I'll look at Einstein's quote later
Good night
Israel
When you quote, bring the whole quote. Einstein says that this site is not the site of the last century.
Shmulik
Newton's theory also produces mathematical predictions. Most of them are still used today.
My point is that instead of debating for two weeks, see that my claim is also voiced by experts so that you may try to see what is meant by it.
The link to Einstein:
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
In summary below:
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time
Good night.
Israel,
It seems to me that the models are always mathematical, even when they are simple, so there is no real claim here, but this is a side point. The point is that the theory of relativity explains the mechanism that is gravity, although through mathematics but which produces predictions (Laigo recently). You claim that the curvature of space is not an explanation but a description, it seems to me to be a debate about the interpretation you give to mathematics, but what is clear is that the mathematics of the theory of relativity definitely explains not only how but also why bodies are attracted to other bodies. This is qualitative progress beyond Newton
The second sentence is very decisive, but without seeing the entire lecture, it is difficult for me to relate. Does he believe that there is no qualitative progress between Einstein and Newton?
By the way, when I write Einstein I mean the theory of relativity and without any connection, bring the link on the site to the site
Shmulik
Here is what I said, as you stated:
Einstein, like Newton before him, did not explain the mechanism behind gravity. Pushing does.”
and also
"As far as I know, there is currently no explanation for how the gravity mechanism works. This is also what Feynman said in a lecture at Cornell, and what the head of the physics department from MIT said in a lecture at UCLA a few years ago."
איפה
Then you also wrote in response to the miracles: "And how exactly is space curved?".
And here is what I asked you:
What do you think about the following sentences:
there is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form.
scientists don't know the cause of nature's most obvious phenomena; gravity.
Do they differ in any way from what I say?
My claim is that today there is no explanation for the mechanism of gravity, while the Lesage theory provides such a mechanism. If you read the Feynman link, he agreed that Sage provided a mechanism, but claimed it was wrong. He also added that this was the last attempt since Newton to explain how the mechanism of gravity works, and that today there is no explanation for such a mechanism.
Are you saying it's not similar?
Regarding the second sentence:
scientists don't know the cause of nature's most obvious phenomena; gravity.
It was shown on a slide in a lecture by EDMUND W. BERTSCHINGER from MIT at UCLA a few years ago, which incidentally dealt with the distribution of dark matter and the big bang.
Are you also claiming that it is not similar?
There is no doubt that Einstein improved the understanding of gravity, and it is a fact that his theory replaced Newton's. But this does not mean that Einstein proposed a mechanism, as Pushing suggests, that explains gravity.
He also argued in the lecture that general relativity does not exist without the ether. I actually have a link to that, but it doesn't seem to me that any of the regular opponents of the site are interested in it.
Israel,
What is it like?
you wrote:
Einstein, like Newton before him, did not explain the mechanism behind gravity. Pushing does.”
and also
"As far as I know, there is currently no explanation for how the gravity mechanism works. This is also what Feynman said in a lecture at Cornell, and what the head of the physics department from MIT said in a lecture at UCLA a few years ago."
איפה
Then you also wrote in response to the miracles: "And how exactly is space curved?".
I disagree with you about the first and second sentence. Einstein in the theory of relativity advanced a step beyond Newton and explained the mechanism that causes gravity. There is no more force than the curvature of space.
Regarding your third sentence, good question, but this is the mechanism.
I also think that it is impossible to conclude from Feynman's words that there is no explanation but that the explanation is mathematical. It is not the same and it does not mean that there was no progress from Newton to Einstein.
Regarding the other quote you brought, Link?
I recently asked a smart fishing boat owner from the port of Jaffa "How does his ship know how to return to the port?" He thought for a second and said: There are two explanations. And what is the second explanation I asked? The second explanation is a new and interesting explanation and well the ship and the port curve the space-time so that the ship slides towards the port in the curvature of the space-time.
And which explanation do you think is correct?
Well the fisherman answered after a moment of thought, "I know how to catch fish!
good day everybody
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
Arguments to Feynman.
Israel
Einstein also distinguished. In the classical world - I don't think there is a fundamental difference between them. A field is a curvature of a certain space.
Miracles
In complaints, come to Feynman. He is the one who distinguishes gravity from the other forces.
The electromagnetic force is carried by the photon. Even a single one can be measured in a multimeter.
What about the graviton, do you have any device to measure it? Legumton?
Israel
What do you mean why is the curvature of space actually gravity? I assume that the other forces are also curvatures of space but in other dimensions. I guess the equivalence principle is true for an electric field. Is there any reason to think otherwise?
Spider, uh..
In short, you don't confess.
The project is progressing and every day it seems as if we have reached a slam dunk experiment and then new problems emerge, after all we are dealing with c. Now there is a new toy - spectrum analyzer. I don't know if and when it will happen, but the adventure along the way is worth every moment.
As far as I know, a black hole is more the result of gravity than the cause of it.
Did you catch me, Israel...?
Looks like a spider on camera, don't know.
What's going on with your Drakel Springs project? advanced? Did you catch a flying saucer? are you miracles Did you ride a cat? ☺
Satham.. I'm laughing along with you.
Say, what do you think, could gravity be due to a black hole?
Shmulik
What do you think about the following sentences:
there is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form.
scientists don't know the cause of nature's most obvious phenomena; gravity.
Do they differ in any way from what I say?
Israel,
Indeed, Feynman said that there is no theoretical model of gravity except for a mathematical model, but why is this not an explanation? A mathematical explanation that produces predictions is already physics, isn't it? Einstein did explain the origin of gravity. For Einstein, mass distorts space and this creates the illusion that there is a force between the bodies. There is no force but distortion. In this description, Einstein went a step further than Newton and also explained the origin of gravity and it falls under Feynman's category "...or makes the math harder...". As I wrote in my first response that you can always keep asking why: why does mass warp space and keep asking why (why not?) but that doesn't mean that Einstein doesn't have an explanation for gravity. there is. Newton has none. This is a qualitative difference.
I think you are claiming that because you don't understand what a curved space is then it is not an "explanation" and you do understand what particles that hit are and therefore it is an explanation (wrong but an explanation that can be implemented). Ok, but your misunderstanding is not necessarily sweeping or a point of failure for the explanation. I'm certainly not able to explain what a curved space is (and you'll probably ask me in your next response), I'm not sure that there is anyone who can imagine a curved three-dimensional space except through the videos we've all seen, but it comes from mathematics. I'll ask again, what's wrong with explaining through mathematics that makes predications?
By the way, in Lasage particles, how do you explain the dependence on squared distance if not through mathematics? I did not understand what is the qualitative difference between the invisible particles and the intangible space? Why do you call an explanation for one (we'll ignore the fact that it's wrong for a moment) and not the other
This album
I wanted to ask you a question related to the subject of the expansion of the universe and why it does not occur within the solar system or between the atoms of our body (and all this given that the expansion of the universe is accelerating).
I read two different explanations about this and I don't understand how they fit together.
Explanation A: There is a matrix called FLRW and it is a mathematical description of an expanding homogeneous universe. But the metric is only relevant for very large cosmological ranges. At ranges of galaxy clusters and below, it is simply irrelevant, so the universe is not expanding there (perhaps irrelevant because of gravity? I'm not sure).
Explanation B: There is a dark energy that produces a porpocinal force of repulsion for the distance between every 2 bodies. So at huge cosmological distances it causes the bodies to move away from each other, at smaller distances, for example within a galaxy, it is negligible compared to gravity.
I just can't understand what the connection is between the 2 explanations, is explanation A an arranged mathematical version of explanation B, or is it two parts of the full explanation?
Thanks in advance.
Warping space is not an explanation, it's a description. Why gravity? Ask Feynman. Pushing does explain.
Good night.
Israel
What do you mean how? How does an electron create an electric field? There is an endless chain of questions.
It is hard to argue with the curvature of space, the example of the light beam in the falling elevator clearly illustrates this. The question is: how?
Einstein said: Mediated by the website (link if there is demand).
Our Yoda is.. Yoda. If after all these years we are still arguing about the friction, there is probably nothing we can do.
Crop circles, a true story: two years ago we woke up in the morning to discover that our entire garden was upside down and full of strange shapes.
A review of the security cameras revealed that the reason was simply… a ghost! (Where did a ghost really go?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHsUE0HZir0&feature=youtu.be
Israel
I don't know Newton's explanation. I remembered he just found a formula. I liked the explanation of the curvature of space, so I'll stick with it for now. I don't call scientists idiots and I don't say they waste public money.
But that's not the point here. Yehuda's approach is not scientific even though he claims the opposite. It's kind of like the chatter of the crop circles - an explanation that is unnecessary and cannot be refuted...
Miracles
So what's wrong with Newton's explanation? Gravity?
And why did Feynman find it appropriate to differentiate between a theory and Sage, which is an explanation (admittedly wrong), from today's reality where there is no explanation?
And why did the head of the physics department at MIT bother to point out that there is currently no explanation for gravitation?
Are you convinced there is an explanation? Take care, you are not the only one, the main thing is the feeling. But at least the witnesses I brought claimed that there is not.
And that's the point: Pushing does explain, but as Feynman pointed out, this is also the last explanation there was.
Israel
Indeed. Many years ago I read about the idea that the meaning of mass is the curvature of space. It convinced me then and today it makes sense to me. What you are doing is like asking "Why does an electron have a charge of such and such a coulomb?". You can always go back and keep asking.
The explanation of the curvature of space is probably not complete, because in my understanding it does not fit with quantum theory. But the feeling that my chair is moving in a curved space definitely seems natural to me.
Shmulik
http://people.virginia.edu/~ecd3m/1110/Fall2014/The_Character_of_Physical_Law.pdf
On p. 39, Feynman says that there is no explanation for gravitation, only a mathematical description (like Newton).
This comes after he tells the history of the Lesage theory, which he notes was the last attempt to explain the mechanism of gravitation.
Good night.
Before we talk about relativity, let's talk about the strong force. Do we know how to explain why there is a strong force? Depends on how far you go with the question. We know how to hang it on the fact that there is a "color" charge in nature, and this charge determines the strength of the interaction with gluons. But why are there gluons? Gluons are a manifestation of a certain symmetry and it is possible to show mathematically that they are "created" as a result of it. Why exactly does this symmetry exist in nature, and not otherwise? Why only one copy of it? Of course, at some point we get stuck and don't know how to answer the question "why this way and not another way".
Einstein's general theory of relativity is a special case of theories that derive a force that derives from some symmetry. Here the symmetry is not exactly like the symmetry that creates the strong force, but a symmetry of the space for exchanging coordinate systems. The theory of relativity is a classical theory and does not have a particle interpretation like gluons (although quantum definitely has one and there is no essential difference between the way the two theories are interpreted by us), and the interpretation is geometric.
So instead of a mechanical explanation ("There are particles that hit all bodies all the time from every direction") that gets stuck at a certain point (because we don't know how to explain why they exist, but only use them as a crutch), there is a geometric explanation that gets stuck somewhere. The only difference is that people who have no experience with multi-dimensional non-Euclidean geometric theories can understand a mechanical explanation intuitively and the geometric one cannot. And again the question arises, so what? So Yehuda is able to imagine the mechanical gravity in his head, but not the curvature of space. What does this say about the correctness of each of these theories?
floating point,
don't feel bad Your things, which according to Yehuda "are not worth a response", are in good company along with many other things that the Yehuda religion has no point in addressing: observational evidence for the existence of dark matter, their laboratory experiment to detect gravitational friction, mathematical consistency between the various theories, etc. On the contrary, if I were you, I would worry if Yehuda saw fit to address your words. His inability to account for simple questions like "Do you know what the observational evidence for the existence of dark matter is?" He himself is strong evidence that he is talking nonsense.
Israel,
No miracles, Shmulik...
I wrote that it is possible to ask why mass distorts space, but I don't know if there is an answer to that, but he clearly advanced one step beyond Newton. For Einstein, gravity is not a force. By the way, Einstein is not in the Einstein sense but in the theory of relativity, that is, it wouldn't bother me if the man himself was talking about an ether.
I have no idea what to answer you about what Feynman and Co. said. Can you send a link to what you mean?
Yoda
Start eating asparagus and talk less nonsense
Miracles
Do you claim that there is an explanation for the mechanism of gravity?
Yehuda, concentrate. It's even simpler than the simple universe.
You wrote "the phenomenon of weight loss of bodies measured in a number of standard kilograms found in different parts of the world", but how was their weight loss measured? Just compare them to each other. IM coming back:
Compare them to each other. Here is an article in science: https://www.hayadan.org.il/whats-the-meter-2009078
And it says there "the reference kilogram lost about 50 micrograms compared to its dozens of copies."
Does gravity pushing prefer to reduce the weight of a certain cylinder and not of other identical cylinders? I do not think so.
Israel
Mass is the curvature of space. What should be explained? You can always go back further and further. The thing is, these particles of Judah are nice. But - it does not explain many things that we observe, and it contradicts the successful theories that we have. And to this - Yehuda denies.
Yehuda
calm down!! Floating point is right! There are many copies of the standard kilogram in the world, and the one that is the standard - loses weight relative to the others - that are identical to it!
What do you have??? You got caught by mistake so you get angry??
Yoda
What shall I tell you? If Archimedes read your stuff he would ask? Lord of the universe, what have we come to and what did we do wrong in Yoda's education
Yehuda
Fp=Fn*e^(-r/d)
Why? How do you arrive at this formula? And how does she describe the Mercury strike?
Miracles
"The curvature of space explains exactly where gravity comes from."
And how exactly is space curved?
And if there is an explanation for the mechanism of gravity as you claim - why do Feynman and EDMUND W. BERTSCHINGER from MIT claim that there is not?
Note that Einstein's explanation clearly speaks of the ether as mediating gravity.
Floating point
What are you clever and confusing your head. The kg loses its weight point The last sentence in which you blame the pushing gravity is not worth a response.
Israel Shapira
It's hard to write down a formula in a response, but I'll try:
Fp=Fn*e^(-r/d)
The force of gravity according to pushing gravity is equal to the force of gravity according to Newton times the natural number to the power (minus the distance between the sun and Mercury divided by the mean free path of the two pushing particles)
The mean free path of the two pushing particles is approximately 1.463 times 10 to the 16th power
And the sun-star Hema distance is 5.8 times 10 to the power of 10 meters.
This formula will give the precession of the planet Mercury.
Successfully
I'm sure over a cup of coffee it would be possible to explain it better.
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
Israel
Shmulik took the answer from me - Yehuda's particles only postpone the question. And the curvature of space explains exactly where gravity comes from.
And Judah's particles contradict relativity and quantum theory. It's a little hard for me to accept that all physics doctors are wrong, and Yehuda is right.
Yehuda, your description of the standard kilogram losing weight is inaccurate to say the least (compared to why it is small??)
A kilogram has several copies, and instead of remaining exactly the same weight, the copies move away from each other:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/169448-good-news-dieters-the-kilo-is-losing-weight-changing-all-of-science-but-unfortunately-we-dont-know-why
Does gravity pushing succeed in distinguishing one block of metal from another identical block of metal? very strange
Yoda
You said that pushing explains Mercury's declination. how?
for everyone
Even Newton said he didn't know how gravitation works but he was sure it was with a messenger particle.
The mechanism of the gravitational pushing explanation is a good explanation, there is a debate as to whether friction interferes. It seems not to me
But, watch out!
Pushing gravity accurately explains some phenomena that are ignored in scientific explanations and are treated like anomalies.
Mainly I will mention the phenomenon of weight loss of bodies that was measured by a number of standard kilograms that are found in different places in the world and especially in Paris where the standard kilogram is kept for 24 hours. And see it's a wonder the kilogram loses its weight 0.43 micrograms per year.
Let's explain it according to pushing gravity.
The universe expands at about 69 km per second per mega-persec, which means that the number of pushing particles decreases every year by the third power of this size (volume), but it is a product of masses, so the weight loss will be according to the sixth power of this size. The exact result is a weight loss of 0.43 micrograms per kg per year.
Exactly as measured.
By the way, for those who really want it, it will also provide a simple and accurate method for determining Hubble's constant without the complicated need of the current measurement of the distance of the galaxies from the Earth. Simply measure the weight loss over time and see which Hubble constant it corresponds to.
This is just one of the examples of the correctness of gravity pushing. And he shows wonderful and accurate explanations of other "anomalous" phenomena.
Now we come to the "painful" part: can the aforementioned pushing gravity really not exist with the theory of relativity?? Albanzo, with your hand on your heart you couldn't run the pushing at a relative speed and draw conclusions. Think carefully, as if you are in another universe, where Pushing Gravity stars. Don't dismiss it outright, you sometimes get ahead of yourself. But I know you, you will now do a psychoanalytic analysis of Yehuda and his lies, etc., etc., I hope someone else will pick up the gauntlet and introduce pushing into relationships.
Just food for thought for everyone ()
good day everybody
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Shmulik
As far as I know, there is currently no explanation for how the gravity mechanism works. This is also what Feynman said in a lecture at Cornell, and what the head of the physics department from MIT said in a lecture at UCLA a few years ago.
Pushing Gravity offers a mechanism, and it is not exactly a figment of Yehuda's imagination. Even Newton tested Lesage's theory.
Israel,
I disagree with you. Einstein explained the mechanism of gravity by saying that mass distorts space and this is actually gravity. That is, he definitely advanced a step beyond Newton.
True, one can always ask why mass distorts space and that would be equivalent to asking what is the source of Judah's particles, but actually here the answer is clear - his fertile imagination
Miracles
It seems to me, if I'm not mistaken, that late in his life Karl Popper withdrew from the idea of refutation.
Life
There is no doubt that push ups can help with the problems caused by gravity..
Israel Shapira
Think blue pushing up or pushing down and come to Zion Goel.
Miracles
Einstein, like Newton before him, did not explain the mechanism behind gravity. Pushing does this.
Yehuda
I don't think you understand how scientists work, and that surprises me a lot. I don't advocate Popper's approach, but he was partially right - if there are two hypotheses, then to know which one is correct, if any, you need to check one of the following. The first is whether both explain the observations. The second is whether they do not completely contradict other hypotheses that seem very correct to us. The third is predictability. And the fourth and last is refutability.
Now - take general relativity and pushing gravity. Honestly - is there a priority for gravity pushing??
Yehuda,
Huh? Idush was heavy because of a board? I mean is there a lens there? Fetta morgana, meaning there is hot air there? are you listening to yourself
The theory of relativity predicts this situation and Hope, what was discovered billions of light years away from us, matches the predictions.
How do you explain this effect using particles, apart from the two wonderful explanations you gave?
Relativity also predicts what happened when two black holes collided. What was discovered is consistent with observations. The source of the event is a billion light years away. The disturbance that advanced towards us was in line with the predictions. One of the ribs actually shortened and the other actually lengthened. It happened in two different places in the US, by the way. What more can you ask for from a theory?
I would like to understand, how do your particles explain the shortening and lengthening?
Albanzo
You touched my heart.
The truth, I admit, that for me the dark mass was formed only in the spiral galaxies (Vora Rabin) or in the clusters of galaxies (for example Fritz Tzviki in the Kuma cluster.)
It seems ridiculous to me that I have to add dozens or hundreds of times dark matter just to preserve the gravity formula in the above cases, but...
In a conversation with someone from the academy, he told me that the dark mass is needed even in the production of the galaxies themselves, the truth is that I do not understand this, but is this need dominant for me to believe in the necessary need for the dark mass?? In a good spirit I will say that I don't think so.
Here you enter a dark section in your response with a psychoanalytical analysis that put me into a dark depression. So I will end here because it seems to me that we are treading water.
Come on, good night
Yehuda
Yehuda,
I already made it clear to you that I don't care if you curse me. But if possible, in a nutshell, an estimate of how many more times are you going to call me a moron and a whore before you look in the mirror and admit that you have less knowledge on the subjects you're talking about than a 19-year-old starting his first year at university? Or at least, you would do well to address the fact that time and time again you are caught in a lie, as for example in your last comment where you wrote "...adding dark matter to them and the entire universe just to preserve Newton does not seem "fair" to me", and this when you fully and completely know that it is not The reason why people believe in the existence of dark matter - this is only one aspect among dozens of observational evidences for the existence of dark matter.
So what are you saying? For once in your poor, stupid life would it be worth mentioning that your theory was tested and found to be wrong? That you use general relativity to explain certain things even though your nonsense invalidates relativity 100%? Thank you for refusing to read about dark matter and the evidence for its existence because of your paralyzing fear of the realization that you are a total idiot and delusional person who, instead of dealing with the fact that he doesn't know something, built a crazy fantasy for himself in which everything that doesn't fit his worldview simply doesn't exist?
Or maybe you'll ignore all of this, and write once more that I'm a fool, a whore, screwed up, inhuman and - may God help us all - Prosporus.
liar. coward. Stupid.
Oh, and I almost forgot…
Please respond gently!
Devilbenzo did you start writing poetry????
"A hysterical mass of hashes
and shapeless swans,
tied with a comic thread
of insanity.”
I do not believe the poet Del- Benzo
What can I tell you, you manage to surprise every time!
Good day to you Maestro Del-Benzo!
Good Day!
Yehuda
to Shmulik
GPS is explained according to the theory of relativity and this has nothing to do with how we explain gravitation and the fact that two massive black holes shook space a billion years ago so why should it bother me? Phenomena like Super Nova 1987A also happened in the Large Magellanic Cloud 160,000 years ago And we were able to measure, so what if I claim that the gravitation formula is a ceiling for a distance of several tens of light years?, this does not mean that we will not be able to distinguish the gravitational waves from a billion years ago or the background temperature of the big bang from 14 billion years ago.
In your place, I would suggest that you get an impression of what the thought of Pushing Gravity brings to the solution of problems that are ignored that I mentioned some of in previous responses, loss of weight, the Pioneer anomaly that shows the existence of friction, and more.
You ask, Shmulik, what about observed gravitational evaporation?, well, you are making a common mistake. What you see is filth. Gravitational or not is an explanation for Idush. Idush can have other explanations such as Idush of diska, Idush of Feta Morgana and more. And I don't determine what kind of pollution we are talking about here.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I can't stop reading this comment. I'm literally falling down laughing, people who pass my office don't understand what happened to me. 🙂
One of the pearls. Something that needs to be cut and saved. I recommend everyone to read. A hysterical mass of structureless jumbles and swans, tied together by a comic thread of insanity.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/climate-concensus-1503161/comment-page-8/#comment-704787
Yehuda,
Beyond your ignoring everything that Albantezo keeps writing to you (the evidence for dark matter is not only related to the rotation of galaxies), I ask for an answer to my questions:
Lego proved a prediction of the theory of relativity: collision of two black holes 1.3 billion years ago! How does this fit with your disparaging claim that "when will you realize that Newton is a local phenomenon that was barely proven only at a distance of barely a thousand light years"?
By the way, what about the observed gravitational cooling that is required by the theory of relativity? Is this also a phenomenon that was predicted billions of light years away from here? What do you say about her?
You wrote "The particles of pushing gravity and the simple universe are ordinary particles of matter with momentum and kinetic energy only". I ask again: how can they explain the lengthening of time that GPS proves every second that the effect exists?
And I ask again: if the particles are ordinary matter particles, how can you explain the Leigo result - the shortening and lengthening of space-time itself using them?
"I like pushing gravity and the simple universe."
And what is love if not a little friction?
Oops! This is the problem with Pushing Gravity..
For miracles and others
There is a serious difference between the known dark matter and that used in Gravity Pushing and my simple universe.
The gravitational pushing particles and the simple universe are ordinary matter particles with only momentum and kinetic energy. They have no inherent gravitation. They themselves create the gravitation in their collision with the bodies. We saw a nice explanation from Richard Feynman in his lecture at Cornell.
Dark matter has the property of gravitation built into it like normal Newtonian matter. It also warps spacetime as in general relativity.
The material of the Pushing Gravity does not need this and it solves the gravity and also the precession of the planet Hema without relativity.
I love the pushing gravity You can love the conventional explanation along with 99.9 percent of humanity.
There are differences in the results of the two methods and it seems to me that this actually proves gravity pushing.
For example weight loss of bodies and its amount is calculated exactly by my simple universe. 0.43 micrograms
It does not seem to me that it is possible to calculate this with a conventional explanation. As with the decrease in the speed of light in cm per second per year. If this is true, how will the theory of relativity live with it? The simple universe explains the accelerated expansion of the universe by its very nature, without the need for a cosmological constant and more.
So maybe it's not scientific what I'm saying now but…. I love pushing gravity and the simple universe.
Please respond in moderation.
So far
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
All you are doing is inventing your own dark matter, and disregarding all other evidence of dark matter by those who are their profession.
The theory of relativity cannot be "only valid for short distances", because this contradicts its most basic assumptions! The theory of relativity is a certain set of equations - do you really think that your model replaces these equations?
What about electrical forces? Are they also limited in range?
To all those who confuse their heads with the theory of relativity, GPS, etc
I believe in the theory of relativity and its conclusions on earthly scales.
I don't think that gravity is defined for the entire universe according to Newton. A maximum of only a few decades of light years,
The galaxies rotate not because of gravity.
And adding dark matter to them and to the entire universe just to preserve Newton does not seem "fair" to me.
Do you understand?, when will you realize that Newton is a local phenomenon that was barely proven only at a distance of barely a thousand light years???
To conclude from this about gravity as above according to the same laws in the entire universe seems to me poor!
Whoever wants can insult, I don't mind.
I have a feeling that now I will sleep better.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel
have fun!
Miracles
You don't need GPS satellites - an atomic clock is enough that you lift it one meter and it will speed up relative to a clock on earth.
I offered Yehuda a quick high school level explanation of relationships, but I don't think our Yehuda is interested.
Going to hear Alon Ben David.
Yehuda
Can I ask a question? Can you believe that the clocks on GPS satellites are faster than clocks on the ground?
Judah/Albanzo
enough!!!! Both of you, not up to par! On the other hand - it is very unflattering for both of you.
it's ok albanzo,
There are minds that think the same way.. and there are minds like yours
I don't know how to break this to you, but it's not even close to what I asked...
Just because you asked then IQ130
Sorry, I forgot "inhuman", "illogical" and more.
Yehuda, I have a question. Just want your opinion on something. From 1 to 10, how smart do you think you are? be yes
Ok.
what did we have dumbass son of a bitch screwed. wretched. Professor (oh oh oh, just not the awful curse "Professor"). An ill-defined claim about me "going against the Greeks" or something stupid like that, simply because I (unlike you) understand that "what seemed right to Judah" is not the definition of logic, nor what tells if any idea is logical or not.
What didn't we have? Any reference to you advocating something that was disproved by a simple experiment over a hundred years ago. A reference to the fact that when it comes to you, you turn to the theory of relativity, but fail to grasp in your mind (yes, let it go. Very weak) that when you invalidated Newton's laws in weak fields, you invalidated the entire theory of general and special relativity (which, as mentioned, is a special case of general relativity). There was no reference to the fact that you consistently ignore 95% of the evidence for dark matter because you think if you only address the tiny bit that appeared in the children's book you love so much, you can disprove it.
Although I lack any creativity and flight and self-thought (this is of course the reason I publish new articles and studies: because I have no ability to think for myself but only quote what I was told), but I think I hit quite a ball on what your response would be before it was even written. I must have read it once in some book and now I just quoted it.
By the way, vls (theories in which the speed of light changes) is something that was brought up a good few decades ago, almost a hundred years ago, and is being studied in academia to this day. Did I say in the academy? I meant places where people have independent and free thought, that is, in private circles of old, stupid and disgruntled people who read children's literature and decide a priori that the entire universe must bend to the laws they set based on their ignorance.
Dibilbenzo
Now you are in a senseless and idiotic attack on logic itself. A subject that was discussed extensively by the Greeks of the West and the East. Logic means nothing to you???? And you are angry why I say a sentence
That mass increases only because it moves faster seems illogical to me. The fact that an action on a particle here causes an immediate change in another particle light years away also seems illogical to me. Unfortunately for Devilbenzo, you have become a thinking machine devoid of logic and emotions
Now you have decided to define Yehuda as having a feeble mind????
Fuck you, your analytical skills are pitiful. Inhumane and illogical.
And sees the greatness of a human being if he knows how to predict the structure of a black hole.
Damn, the laws of physics aren't defined in a black guy because they've never been measured there, you get it damn professor (you're a professor right?, it makes sense for someone like you to be a professor) so you know that not only does nobody know what's going on in a black guy, nobody knows If this creature, a black hole, exists at all. You've got it???
I think of your frightened students who must repeat only accepted truths. I wonder if you don't destroy their originality? Will your student dare to say that the speed of light changes??, or will you immediately expel him from the faculty. Just for your information, according to my theory the speed of light changes in cm per second per year, which is the most logical thing in the world, and it also does not contradict the Michelson-Morlay experiment, and bodies lose 0.43 micrograms per kg of weight every year, which is again the most logical thing in the world, and the moon moves away only 25 mm per year from the earth even though all the measurements show 38 mm and it all stems from my theory.
Are you going down on Shenkar College??, who are you to go down on a college that is built on originality in fashion and engineering. wretched!
Enough, I'm tired
You got on my nerves, you devilbenzona
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, a personal response to you awaits.
Spoiler: you are a liar, and also a small child who is unable to look reality in the eyes and simply accept the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Yehuda seems to have infected you with the disease of taking the word "logical" and thinking that it means "what seems right to me based on not learning the field and basing all the conclusions on my acquaintances with everyday life". Sorry, that doesn't make sense. This is classic intuition. Reasoning is the rigorous derivation of conclusions from premises using a well-defined and consistent set of tools. Every well-defined mathematical theory - just as relativity or quanta are well-defined mathematical theories - are completely logical. Not all of their results are intuitive, but… so what? So based on his life experience in a factory or at Shenkar College, Yehuda does not know how to predict the quantum behavior of a particle or the structure of a black hole.
Do you despise nature to such an extent that you decided that it should bow to what Yehuda manages to grasp with his mind (letting go)?
Yehuda,
This has nothing to do with restraint. I call you a liar because you are, not because I don't hold back. pretend to be innocent and say that there is no contradiction between your nonsense and the theory of relativity, when you know for sure (because I explained to you more than once) that in the theory of relativity a weak gravitational field obeys Newton's laws at any distance, therefore if you claim that Newton's equation is incorrect (even if It's only in certain cases or certain distances or whatabar), you throw away relativity. The fact that you understand nothing and know nothing about the theory of relativity, does not mean that you have the right to both say that it is true and use it to explain results that are greater than your disproved theories, and also to say that it is wrong and that it yields wrong predictions. A person who claims at the same time that relativity is both true and false suffers from intellectual dishonesty, and if he does so knowingly because his mistake has been explained to him (and he does not know how to find a flaw in the explanation), then he is a liar.
You know, like you. liar.
And this is the essence of the difference between us. I keep calling you a liar because you lie. You keep calling me stupid because your head is so empty of content that, like a child in compulsory kindergarten, you try to cope with curses. Liar may not be a nice word, but it does not express my desire to insult you or my inability to deal with your second-grade scientific abilities. It expresses the fact that time and time again I show that you lie, blatantly ignore evidence that you know exists (and even dare to lie and say that you neither refuse to read nor ignore), sweep under the carpet any problem with your stupid ideas simply because you don't want to face it, etc.
On the other hand, your insults towards me are just the Internet analogy of a 4-year-old boy who doesn't understand what he's being taught in kindergarten, feels stupid, and as a result tries to beat up the other kids. Let's do an exercise - the next time you answer me, keep calling me an idiot, I have no problem with that, but try also to address matter-of-factly that there are contradictions to your ideas (whether mathematical contradictions, such as the theory of relativity requires Newton's law in a weak field, contradictions Methodologies, such as your total disregard of the dozens of evidences for the existence of dark matter, or observational contradictions such as the fact that there is simply no friction in gravity. Note: it is not that there is friction, but the ship nevertheless continues to sail. That there is no friction! Friction is a measurable quantity, and in the laboratory we measure and see that it is It doesn't exist, so any twisting that aims to say that ships are stupid despite the friction is simply burying your head in the sand).
And by the way - Alit Ali. Really "something in your childhood doesn't allow you to be around people at an above average level with a certain original thought". That's why I went to academia, where I'm surrounded by moronic people who can't come up with even one original thought when their lives depend on it, and not hang out with the cool guys who got 90s on their high school physics test, got a management degree from Shanker College, and spend their poor lives reading children's science fiction and development Delusions who are smarter than everyone and are the only ones who understand what is true and what is not (and all this without even bothering to study the relevant theories and observational evidence).
It is well known that scientists in general and physicists in particular are people with below average intelligence who are not capable of independent or original thought. you got me.
Dear Israel
Most greetings
The coffee only at Eli Cohen 3 apartment 8 Herzliya!, period. I don't know Yaari. Welcome. Just call and I'll be happy
First of all we will talk about my sailing ship business. They are able to sail not only in the direction of the wind but also against the direction, of course with the wind they are faster. The difference in gravitational pushing is that there is no direction and the particles move in any direction and cause gravitation in any direction.
Please google points of sailing
And as for the friction, well the calculation is simple and the gravitational pushing force less friction will give us the centrifugal force. point. Did you understand that, dear Mr. Israel? We can really talk about the taste of quantum coffee - Turkish of course. so when are you coming
Good Day
Yehuda
Miracles
You are indecisive..
You found someone for you..
And here is another phenomenon from the field of geometry" he drew a sphere on the board while using perspective. "Or should we say: stereometry? Has it ever occurred to you, dear law, why nature, whose nature you claim is the increase of entropy, uses spherical symmetry so much even though it is the most perfect and orderly symmetry?"
"Would you mind explaining to the court what spherical symmetry is?" The plaintiff was determined to use the advantage to the end.
"Spherical symmetry is the only symmetry that allows us all to be "on top". The professor chuckled to himself, enjoying every moment. "A person standing on top of a mountain on Earth will see himself as taller than another person standing on top of another mountain of the same height, and this is because of the uniform curvature, at least theoretically, of the Earth's surface. The other person will see himself as higher and so on, with any required number of people.”
"The shape of the sphere, which is considered the most perfect geometric shape, is the most common shape among the large celestial bodies, another example of order in an apparently disordered universe."
"It is because of gravity, which causes bodies to have the smallest surface area, as in the case of soap bubbles.." Law began.
"Oh! gravity!" exclaimed the professor excitedly "And what causes the perfect radial symmetry of gravity? How does it happen that the force of gravity is directly proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance, without a remainder and without an additional term in the equation of gravity?
The law was silent.
"What makes numbers create such perfect structures out of the loosest order?
What causes the squares of the opposite sides in a right triangle to be exactly equal to the square of the hypotenuse? Why is there not, for example, a ratio of 1.147 between them?
What makes the constants of physics fit together in such a smooth way that any slight deviation from it would have prevented the formation of the universe?
What causes the formation of life, and the formation of intelligent life in particular?"
"Well, evolution.." the law opened.
"To the DM, absolute nonsense!" The professor was now screaming at the top of his lungs. "Do you know the probability of the spontaneous formation of a single living cell capable of replicating itself? Zero, absolute zero!”
The audience demanded an explanation.
"Here" the professor removed his watch from his wrist and threw it furiously on the stand. "If you found this watch lying on the ground on some distant planet. Would you assume that the clock was created by itself through evolution? The forces of nature, through a completely random assembly of molecules? No, of course not. Someone had to create it.”
The crowd nodded in agreement.
"And are you ready to believe that a living, thinking, feeling, creating person, consisting of billions of cells, each of which is composed of a million times more than the clock, was created spontaneously without an external creator?"
Complete silence reigned in the hall.
"I can testify, as a mathematician, that the probability of such a perfect universe, as well as the probability of the spontaneous formation of life, is exactly equal to zero."
"Are you implying that..." The prosecutor's voice was hoarse with excitement.
"I'm not implying, I'm saying it explicitly. God Almighty is responsible for the amazing perfection of mathematics, geometry, physics, chemistry, and as a result, biology. Because we are biological beings, we owe our lives to everything.”
Israel
Do you really think people in Australia are on their heads? Although I'm in Australia right now, but seriously, what nonsense.. and you think it makes sense that we used to be monkeys? Doesn't it make more sense that we were created in God's image?
I didn't say that relativity doesn't make sense 🙂
All I said was that "logic" is not a compelling reason to accept or not accept something that we know exists from observations.
Miracles
What doesn't make sense in spherical earth? In evolution? in a relationship?
Yehuda
The theory of evolution doesn't make sense either. Also the fact that the earth is spherical does not make sense.
It says something about our logic, not about the teachings themselves.
Yoda our brother.
Let's start from Sipa:
coffee. We meet as we agreed in the apartment of Yeari Bali Cohen 10, fourth floor.
(Is he still there? It's been 33 years..).
friction. Your solution is not acceptable. If according to you, particles enter the system like a wind that blows and helps a ship in the sea to overcome the friction with the water - then what about ship B that passes by ship A but sails in the opposite direction relative to the sea? What wind helps her overcome the friction with the sea? It is impossible for the same wind to help two ships moving in opposite directions, right?
Relativity, quanta.
If you are interested, David Israel will be happy to try to explain to you in high school physics the subject of time lengthening and length shortening, and why the experiments show that a change in one particle causes a simultaneous change in another particle.
I promise it won't be complicated, and that in the end you'll say "I'm grateful".
Isn't it worth a small Turkish and some Turkish Delight?
Albanzo
You will receive a response later. My middle head is working overtime.
Yehuda
post Scriptum. I see that you didn't hold back again and at the end of your response you called me a "liar", a seller of nonsense to anyone willing to listen", etc., so listen, like it or not, you have earned the title of Devilbenzo with honor. Apparently something in your childhood does not allow you to be around people at an above average level with a certain original thought. I will still prepare a response for you later today. It is not certain that you will be able to go down to Nisteria. Good day Devilbenzo!
Israel Shapira and Ofer.
1. What doesn't make sense in the relationship?
Maybe it's childish and suitable only for a high school student, but it doesn't make sense to me that just because bodies are moving fast, their mass increases and their dimensions change. I will know how to calculate how much it shortened and what is its mass at speed V. But makes sense??, not to me. I am like that. And I think both of you are being defiled, and it doesn't make sense to you and to any of humanity. But it is what it is.
2. What doesn't make sense in quanta?
Well for example a change in one particle makes a change in another particle at the same time. It doesn't make sense to me. Why so.
3. What about the friction? We talked a million times.
4. What about the coffee? Always welcome
Good morning with insomnia
Yehuda
Israel Shapira
Regarding Yoda, there is Einstein and there is Zwinstein.
Yehuda,
"...but I don't like the lack of logic in it (in relativity, p.) and in quantum theory"
You don't have more logical, consistent, aesthetic, conceptually perfect and predictively successful teachings than these two teachings. If you do not see logic and perfection in them, then you do not understand them at all, and you do not know them at all. Therefore - and this is important to emphasize - you are not at all in a position to express an opinion about them, and if they contradict your mechanical world view of reality, it would be appropriate, only out of integrity and humility, that you let things go and be satisfied with the knowledge (of creation) that you do not know.
Yehuda.
1. What doesn't make sense in the relationship?
2. What doesn't make sense in quanta?
3. What about the friction?
4. What about the coffee?
Yehuda,
Check again what I asked and what you answered.
How can your particles explain the Lego result? Is there any direction?
How can your particles explain the dilation of time? Is there any direction?
And one more thing: in what way is your concept of invisible particles fundamentally different from dark matter? You try to explain a certain phenomenon with the help of particles that have not been discovered yet (you will not succeed, but so be it) and the physicists explain a phenomenon measured with the help of particles that have not yet been discovered (and they will probably be discovered, hopefully soon). Why one and not the other? Just because you decided that your logic is more correct than the results of experiments?
Yehuda,
It has been made clear to you *many* times in the past that Einstein's theory of general relativity obtains for a weak field exactly Newton's equations. Any proposal (I will not respect your hallucination with the title "theory") that holds that for low gravity the universal law of gravity is not true, is completely, precisely and unambiguously contradicts the theory of relativity. It has been explained to you in the past (again, not once or twice but many times) that it is not mathematically consistent to decide that in some cases the theory of relativity is correct (miraculously this is your approach when you are asked to explain things you have no idea about) but in other cases it is not. If you want to change something small in the theory of general relativity, you have to replace the whole Torah with something consistent. And no, the law "Yehuda said" is not a rule of consistency. Wonder of wonders, a hundred years and no one has succeeded (or even come close) to finding an alternative Torah.
As usual, the terribly real thing here is not that you fail to understand general relativity (by the way - I'm willing to pay a hundred thousand dollars right now to see you perform calculations in general relativity, as you claim you know how to do). The terrible thing is that you - as is your habit in the holy - lie. You know that you can't change only part of the theory, you know that you can't say "when I feel like it, the field equations are correct and when I feel like it, they're not", but that doesn't stop you from trying to sell this nonsense on the website to anyone who is willing to listen.
And then he doesn't understand why they call him a liar...
Shmulik
Time dilation and ligo behavior are relativistic phenomena. The attitude towards them is that I agree with them and they are in principle not in conflict with the ideas of Pushing Gravity. There are differences between the relativity of a Newtonian world and the relativity of a world with pushing gravity, but this does not matter for the extension of time.
I agree with relativity, and know how to do its calculations (not always) but I don't like the lack of logic in it and in quantum theory, I know that what I am saying is not scientific but it is what it is.
We'll settle for that
Have a good day and happy holidays!
Yehuda
But it can also be gas com
Interstellar gas is an appropriate name
Yehuda,
Did you get frustrated with the time extension?
Have you ever thought about how your particles explain Lego? And if so, why only they extend/shorten the space itself and not other particles?
Gazcom, Gazcom.
asked Yoda.
Israel Shapira
You were wrong, it's not gas com. It's supergas and emgasit. Rectal gas is also a possibility.
Gazcom
Yehuda
Is it correct to look at your particles as a gas?
Another question - do they also affect photons?
A'
Believe me I understand you, unfortunately I also have a similar problem with English that is beyond basic and it definitely makes it difficult. I would suggest you one of the following options:
1. Search Google for "dark matter", "dark matter" evidence, and similar terms, there is quite a bit of information in Hebrew, maybe you will find what you are looking for. Here's one example I found with a quick search:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/science/.premium-1.2562287
2. Let Google Translate translate the article into Hebrew for you, the translation is far from perfect but it can give you a pretty good idea about what is said there.
3. It is much more convenient for me to understand by hearing, try copying the article into the Google Translate box and click on the speaker icon, a human voice will read the article to you. Another option if you have an iPhone is to copy the text to a note and let Siri read it to you.
4. Try to deal with reading the article anyway, it's good for improving English.
Yehuda, description of the problem:
As the Earth orbits the Sun, it should encounter a "wind" of Lasage particles, right? This is what Feynman describes in the lecture, it's like running when it's raining.
The particles, like the rain, are supposed to slow down the earth, just as rain that falls vertically relative to the earth will slow down a ship sailing horizontally, no matter which direction, right?
If according to you there is a wind that helps the ship to overcome the slowing down of the rain - then what happens to a ship that sails in the opposite direction? Doesn't she need a wind in the opposite direction to not be slowed down?
But the wind can't blow, cool, in opposite directions at the same time, can it?
That's the problem.
It will rotate in the same direction as Newton, after all, Newton also has a question as to which direction it will rotate.. I just think that the direction of rotation will be the direction of rotation of the galaxy.
And which direction does the wind blow in the case of Lasage particles? Why not in the opposite direction?
Miracles
A ship in the sea sails despite the friction it has in the sea because the wind continues to settle. Also here in gravity pushing particles are constantly entering the system. If you don't see it, then it's a shame.
Yehuda
Yehuda
I don't understand how you think this can work 🙂
What does a ship at sea have to do with the problem described by Feynman? You, like Newton, claim that there is a higher power that makes sure that the earth does not slow down?
And again - you didn't answer me about the light: if these particles cause the photon to deviate in the direction of a large mass, how come they don't slow it down in the direction of movement?
Yoda admits, as usual, that he sticks his head in the friction, even though I explained to him several times that without the friction he would not have been born.
Nissim The concept of pushing gravity is so simple and I don't understand what you don't understand, maybe you are thinking about bodies being attracted, so please think about atoms being attracted. The particles penetrate the matter like X-rays and hit the particles of the bodies in the atoms and quarks. There are always a few that stop and they are the ones that push and create the gravitation.
The push is proportional to the mass of the bodies because what matters is how many atoms you hit and also proportional to the square of the distance - roughly, although not exactly
There is the friction that everyone talks about, but it doesn't seem to me that it should have an effect. Silly sailing ships in the sea despite the friction!
Shall we go back to bed?
Good night
Yehuda
It makes sense from this point of view that if you build a laboratory model you will get gravitation as Feynman showed in the lecture.
The problem is the drag or friction, as he pointed out. It is very difficult for me to accept Yoda's solution to the problem.
There is a beautiful, elegant and very logical solution, but that is another discussion.
for miracles
1. To your question: "If I understand what you are saying then the attraction between bodies should depend on their speed, right?" End of Cytotz
It is clear that if the speed is greater the momentum will be greater and this will be expressed in a greater "pull" I hope you understand how gravity is obtained in Pushing Gravity.
Second question - "In a solar eclipse, shouldn't we feel a sudden change in gravity from the sun?" End quote. Well, it shows that you understand how gravity is created in Pushing Gravity, but. that the pushing gravity particles are very permeable so that in fact the sun is "transparent" for them and a small moon will not change that. The particles are so small that they hardly hide each other. But…… you're right, there should be a difference!, I just don't know if it's measurable.
Good night
Yehuda
Israel
Your explanation with the elevator is excellent - but I was referring to Judah's particles. I tried to understand his idea, and it really doesn't make sense to me 🙂
This is another discussion, not related to Lesage.
But if you think about the example of the elevator falling in the previous article about Einstein, you will see that it can be seen in another way: when the elevator falls, a light beam from one wall of the elevator will hit exactly the same point on the opposite wall, right? This is because from the point of view of the observer in the elevator he is at rest and does not know at all that he is falling.
But how does it look from the point of view of an outside observer on Earth (it is said that the walls of the elevator are transparent)? that the beam bends due to gravity and does not move in a straight line.
Israel
Do light rays not bend near a large mass? Isn't it attraction, like the attraction of a comet to the sun?
Are you attracted to mass? Why?
Israel
Thanks! But, it doesn't answer me about the photons - why are they attracted to the mass?
The drag is Feynman friction, the great failure of Lesage theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd0xTfdt6qw
8 minutes.
Photons are not relevant to the original Lesage, but the theory works even if you replace the particles with radiation, photons in the previous link.
Israel
No drag as a result of speed? And how does concealment not have a relatively large effect?
How does gravity affect photons? A large mass changes the direction of the light so there is an effect perpendicular to the direction of motion, but why don't the particles slow down the photons?
Miracles
1. No.
2. In a solar eclipse situation, shouldn't we feel a sudden change in gravity from the sun?
minor. But a change in gravity will be felt at the edges of galaxies.
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/55415/29691
Yehuda
If I understand what you are saying then the attraction between bodies should depend on their speed, right?
And another question - in a solar eclipse, shouldn't we have felt a sudden change in gravity from the sun?
I'm sorry, but the link leads to a site in English. Thanks anyway. For Yehuda, the question was not aimed at those who said (and I no longer remember who) that there is more evidence of dark matter besides the missing mass. I know and understand the story of the missing mass. I guess if it hasn't been explained here until now then it's probably not something that can be explained in a message. Thanks again to those who tried to help,
Good night.
to Shmulik
I am not mobile.
Eli Cohen 3 apartment 8 Herzliya 0522-570989
Coffee on me.
And if anyone else wants to join, please pick up the phone and coordinate.
Yehuda
And maybe we'll meet in Sydney?
We know that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light. This is a prediction of general relativity. This is the same theory that provides us with the gravity formula.
How does your Torah predict gravitational waves? And the light surge? And time dilation? These are existing observations…
to Shmulik
It's already late
We will deal with the time dilation tomorrow at the school. I will have to study the subject.
Yehuda
Yoda
"Who wants, let's arrange to meet"
Is tomorrow at 2 in Aroma suitable for you?
Prefer in Valli or in the city?
to Shmulik
There is a limit to the output of my comments. patience.
I of course appreciate Einstein and the theory of relativity reaches excellent results. The Michelson Morley experiment proved that light does not need a medium and I currently believe in the theory of relativity. I have a problem with the gravity pushing clicks that move above the speed of light. are they allowed??? If not allowed I can change everything in relative formulas. Y's question is if I am allowed to use relative formulas?. Believe me, if I had used it, everything would have looked beautiful and no one would have been aware of my dilemma. Only I was upset.
About Lego. There is no reason why there shouldn't be gravitational waves and it doesn't seem to me that pushing gravity rules it out.
Pushing gravity can live with relativity. point. I don't know what time dilation is, I'll look on the internet.
Since I agree with the theory of relativity I have no problem with the GPS problem.
But again, without getting angry, I don't like certain aspects of the theory of relativity. I'm allowed, right? Maybe it's just childish but that's the way it is.
I think that maybe we should hold a meeting to discuss the above issues. Coffee on me.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
A. , Nissim, Israel and Shapira.
The truth is that it is difficult to have an argument or an explanation this way. Who wants, let's arrange to meet and explain the discussed issues. I will still try.
I will try with a.
You write: "I repeat the request. If someone can write what the additional evidence for dark matter is, I would be grateful." end quote, . So maybe I am confusing you but most of the evidence for the existence of dark matter is evidence of gravitation. There is a huge lack of gravitation in many star systems. For example, in order for the spiral galaxies to rotate, they need to have a mass ten times greater. And in order for galaxy clusters to move, they need to have hundreds of times more mass. I mean, that is, what we see is only the deviations from the gravitation formula. All the beautiful diagrams shown to us on the Internet are deviations from the gravitation formula and not of dark matter. Other deviations are the deviations that manifest themselves in the phenomenon of the distortion of the light rays. We are used to calling it gravitational pollution, but this is again a mistake!! It could be a turbidity, not necessarily a gravitational one, pressure differences will also create a turbidity! The fundamental mistake I see is that they try to adjust everything to Newton's gravitation formula, but in fact what needs to be done is to adjust everything to the measured results and not to an arbitrary formula, however important it may be. Gravitation as we know it in the solar system has been proven up to a thousand light years. point. There is no reason for gravity to work according to the same formula for trillions of times distances!!!!!!!
Fritz Tzviki and others decided at the time that dark matter was the one that would solve the problem of incompatibility with Newton's gravitation formula. I, your faithful servant, think that gravitation is not the solution and the solution is another. There are other forces in the cosmos such as pressure difference and it can be dominant!
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
A'
I assume you read this link:
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-reasons-we-think-dark-matter-exists-a122bd606ba8#.yzp16nmdr
He is the second or third in the search that Albantezo recommended you do.
I press Yehuda because he regularly ignores accumulated scientific information and is unwilling to answer my questions. They keep confronting him with Newtonian questions, but I try to find out from him how his idea fits with knowledge gained in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and all I get from him are terrible answers, such as I don't believe in Lego. is this serious When I try to ask him about another, proven result of the theory of relativity, which allows GSP to work, he is dumbfounded and suddenly does not understand what I am talking about. How many times can I ask how his idea predicts the lengthening of time under a gravitational field? By the way, without relativity, why is it impossible to exceed the speed of light???
Thanks guys for the fix. I didn't want to write in English so as not to be blocked and it turned out that I made a mistake in the translation.
Yehuda, I don't understand a word of what you replied to me. Are you saying that because Einstein did not receive a Nobel Prize for his theories of relativity there is no need to take them seriously? Did I understand you right?
With all due respect to your belief, there is a publicly published result and I haven't seen any peer review that contradicts Leigo's result. Maybe there is and I missed it. So, other than turning a blind eye and saying it didn't happen, what else do you have to say? If it's true, if, if, if, if what does that do to your idea? If there are gravitational waves that caused Lego's arms to lengthen and shorten, will you throw in the towel?
And try not to dodge now: how do you explain the time dilation under your theory? Although Einstein did not receive a Nobel Prize for this, time dilation exists whether you believe it or not. So for the millionth time, how does your theory explain this result?
א
You have been directed to a large concentration of evidence. Why are you playing the innocent?
It's a shame they don't respond to serious questions
I tried to look for what other evidence for dark matter besides the missing mass. I didn't really find it. What I did find is that there are also attempts by many serious scientists to explain the findings without the use of dark matter. And there are also attempts to build new equations that will eliminate the need for dark matter.
Unlike Judah, I do not pretend to say who is right, the majority or the minority. But maybe the attack was excessive after all.
In any case, as Hawking said, time will tell if today's theories will be as clear as the structure of the solar system or as ridiculous as faith. that the world is on the back of a turtle. This is not said with disdain for science (Hawking himself wrote it) and it is clear that if someone comes and says that a central theory like relativity is incorrect (which is the alternative explanation for dark matter) it is clear that he will encounter resistance and that is good. But the criticism must be objective and not personal (of course assuming that the person is a scientist with the required knowledge. Yehuda is not a scientist perhaps but is based on scientists who work on solutions of this type)
In conclusion, I repeat the request if someone can write what is the additional evidence for dark matter, I will thank him. sorry but i don't know enough english
Yehuda
What is the concentration of these particles? They end up exerting a very large force on a tiny iron ball, don't they?
Finally, worthy candidates for the Ignoville Award have been found
Yoda
Gravitational attraction also exists in my room between all bodies.
There is gas (air) in my room, and it does not contribute to gravitation.
Where's the mistake?
It's funny the article is trying to indoctrinate a theory by using (once again) how all scientists agree on global warming while not showing one evidence
You offer authority again rather than evidence
And as someone who knows the Norwegian culture inside and out - they are politically blind when it comes to these issues
IDA the hoax missing link was "discovered" in Norway by Norwegian "scientists"
But I get the aims of the article is to get us
appreciate authority rather than evidence
Israel Shapira
You are wrong!. I believe that normal gas will yield gravitation. The attraction will be created if it is thin enough and the average free path of the two gas particles must be much longer than the distance between the "attracted" bodies. A testing experiment must be done in weightless conditions.
good week
Yehuda
Dear Shmulik
I don't know what is time dilution. It's hard for me to believe that they managed to achieve ultimate accuracy in gravitational waves. The Nobel Prize Committee is more cautious. Einstein did not receive the prize for the theory of relativity. We'll see what she decides.
Miracles
Why don't they collide?, if they travel a large enough distance then they will collide! I calculated the mean free path of the pushing gravity particles and I got 1.55 light years. This explains the precession of the planet Hema without the need for relations. If this is true then it means that gravitation is only something for relatively small distances, after ten or twenty light years it no longer actually exists. This is what came out of the theory. There is no proof of the correctness of the gravitation formula for larger distances.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
the lengthening of time.
La Sage particles only interact minimally with each other, otherwise you get a normal gas which, as we know, does not produce gravitation.
Shmulik
Do you mean the concept - time dilation? If so, a better translation is expansion, like pupil dilation.
Yehuda
It seems a little strange to me that such small particles would collide with each other. What is their concentration in space?
Shmulik, are you sure that "dilution of time" is an accepted concept in physics and science?
I don't think there is such a concept in the physics books, maybe you should use a little more accepted terms so that people understand you.
Yehuda,
What is "what is there"? Why is it difficult to get an answer from you?
Leigo published a discovery that meets all the criteria for a discovery in terms of statistical significance. Because of a gravitational event, one side of Lego shortened and another side lengthened. It happened today, at two sites in the USA and maybe also in Italy (not sure). How does your theory explain this result? Try to answer without underestimating this discovery. She probably deserves a Nobel Prize.
Assume and disregard. What about a much, much more common and measurable phenomenon: time dilution. How does your theory explain time dilation?
This is the thousandth time I ask you. can you answer
to Shmulik
What about gravitational waves??? I really don't know.
That's what it is
Yehuda
I'm anonymous
Yehuda,
What about answers to my questions?
for miracles
Indeed . Gravity results from kinetic collisions. Cute and Newtonian idea.
Yehuda
Yehuda
That is, gravity comes from a kinetic collision?
Israel,
Well, you jumped on me in good faith. so be it.
I understood about Newton. What about what happened since then? What about gravitational waves? Yehuda, how does this go with the discovery of Lego if, if, if, if Lego is real?
Shmulik
I was in a bar in Texas, everyone's drinking alcohol and I'm apple juice.
Suddenly the door is kicked open and nine gunmen burst in shooting and roaring: Who is a Jew here??!
"Me", I answer.
You're a Jew?! roars the mustachioed leader and stomps his gun.
"Yes, and I'm proud of it" I answer and continue sipping the juice.
Fine, replies the thug, so come and fill in the money.
Yoda, tea?
Are you suddenly becoming an Ashkenazi? English? cup of tea?
Turkish coffee, just before gliding - taken down. Ask Mr. Hasson and Sergio Constanza from Givat Halfon.
Shmulik is our brother.
If you haven't read it, here it is again:
"My argument is about Nissim's comment "La Sage's model contradicts roughly all the rest of science."
So here it is, simple:
Lesage's model does not contradict all scientific knowledge, it gets along quite well with most Newtonian physics except for the friction problem.
It is understood that he does not agree with relativity, but neither does Newtonian physics.
The sermon, that is, that I am a liar/idiot/inciter/murderer, delete or add as you wish - I leave the constant persecutors of the madon to the bored.
Miracles
In gravity pushing, the particles are the ones that create the gravity by their momentum and energy, and the damage they do to bodies. Richard Feynman explained this nicely in his lecture at Cornell, minutes 8-11. They carry only energetic mass that creates the gravitation.
Albanzo, the decision to continue to call me a liar and also of course to decide when I lie is unacceptable to me and I will react accordingly.
Waiting for the after-dinner tea and cakes to arrive.
Bye
Yehuda
Israel,
By the way, I don't drink (I really hate alcohol. Quite a shame: when I was with friends, twenty years ago at Go Go Bar, in Washington, I got a drink on the bill. When I asked for orange juice, the waitress said to me "Sugar, why do you order orange juice when you can order a beer"), does not smoke and does not play snooker. Just a little hold'em, once a month
Israel,
I responded to Yehuda, go and it took me a second to correct myself and in the meantime A had already had time to respond. I can only assume that you didn't skim and that's why you didn't see my correction and A's response before jumping to attack me, otherwise I'll have to conclude that your "who" is fake and shows that you're looking for me. Did you really not understand that I mean Judah?
Regarding Pushing, Essage or whatever, you wrote that only Feynman is essential and I wanted to understand if Leigo's result is also essential. I understand that the idea can also be disproved with the results of the beginning of the twentieth century, except that Yehuda answered you about Feynman but not about this (he has since managed to write a terrible answer), so I actually insist on the confrontation of his idea with the science of the twenty-first century.
So, essential or not?
Oh, I see you've reset in the meantime..
So maybe you'll understand that I'm not related to pushing, I just brought the link to Nissim?
Shmulik
You write:
"Israel,
I don't want to get into an unnecessary analysis, but you made a scandalous and false claim that most scientists receive money by engaging in fruitless research while they know it is fruitless research.'
Did you once again sip too much Golog Golog Golog in the morning? Or maybe like Wookiee you are referring to the subtext with which you can do whatever you want?
In short - bring the link to this quote of mine or apologize for the last rant.
What is meant by "dilution of time"
Do you mean that time is slower near large masses?
Secondly, I am ashamed to admit that my English is bad.
If anything could still briefly explain the other points of evidence for dark matter besides the missing mass.
Thanks in advance.
I think all physicists are stupid (now everyone will respond
to me 🙂
Seriously, invest more in responding to serious questions instead of non-serious company.
My long response is to Judah of course
Israel,
I asked you if explaining Lego in Pushing Gravity, which you talk about every few weeks, is it essential? Is it difficult to answer yes or no?
Israel,
I don't want to get into unnecessary analysis, but you made a scandalous and false claim that most scientists receive money by engaging in fruitless research while knowing it is fruitless research. It is slander against a very large population of people without any basis. A person who makes false claims is a liar. A liar in this situation is not a curse but rather a statement of fact. In the meantime, I saw that you've gone back a bit. so be it. In response, you call Albantezo stupid. well, are you a boy? And what do you ask him questions? This is the flaw that makes me sick. Mila is stupid but don't you have self respect?
You only answered one of my questions and your answer is terrible. poor quality. Do you know how many controllers there are in Lego? How hard did they work to filter out all the possible noises? You know the project managers are constantly planting false singles on purpose just to test the control arrays? Do you know that only three people know in advance that there is a false signal? You know that now, after they published the results, a lot of other scientists are working to disprove these results, and are not succeeding? They are trying just as it happened when Ceran discovered a faster-than-light neutrino or just as it happened when others thought they discovered gravitational waves from the big bang a few years ago.
Really really sad to see your answer degenerate to such a level of ridiculousness.
Anyway, if this is true, do you agree that your theory should explain this result?????
You didn't answer my other two questions, and I'll try again: how do you explain the dilution of time and how do you explain the prime dragging?
By the way, if you explain GPS through relativity then... Huh??? There is no relationship without all these effects. You also have to explain them outside of relativity only by particles that hit us, which are not false dark matter (not albanzo dark matter. Go ahead)
Yehuda
Is this mass gravitational or inertial, or both? How can it have gravitational mass? Does that mean these particles are attracted to each other? Are they sucked into a black hole?
And if it's an endurance test, that means they carry a huge kinetic energy, huh?
So what kind of mass do you mean?
elbentzo
I have a question for you. In one of your last comments you use the word validity. This word has a Hebrew translation - validity. Why not use Hebrew if it is possible to do so?
Miracles
The particles that create the gravitation have a very small mass. On the order of 6.3 times 10 to the negative power of 37 grams. very small But again I have the relative problem if I am allowed to use it.
We will move on to the next reaction with Albanzo. A lot of slime. We will leave her. I will go to the link that Albenzo gave to A. And look there.
good evening
Yehuda
Shmulik, am I supposed to explain Lesage? Why?
Well, I tried to find the reason for the delay. I managed to pass two thirds of the response. The last third will be released in the future and I apologize in advance for the fact that it will probably be released several times (due to the failed attempts).
It has already been explained to you many times in the past that your hallucinations clearly contradict the theory of relativity. In the theory of general relativity, Einstein's equation of universal gravitation is obtained in the approximation of a weak field. If you claim that the equation is incorrect, then inevitably Einstein's equations are also incorrect (because Newton's equation is explicitly derived from Einstein's equations). It has been explained to you - even in this thread - that it is impossible to replace only a small part of the way we explain gravity because everything is built one on two. As soon as you demand to change one equation, you have to change the whole theory. And this, what to do, people have been trying to do for a hundred years and fail again and again and again.
No one is in a hurry to draw conclusions. The measurements in Lego were done a long time ago, and they were published only now so as not to rush and publish something that is not certain. Again - the very fact that you do not understand what they saw in Lego and why does not affect the validity of the measurements. You, unsurprisingly, prefer to ignore than learn.
Yehuda,
I'm not calling you a liar as part of a chain of insults. I call you a liar because you lie. There is no such thing as a "truce" where you stop calling me a moron and a maniac and I stop calling you a liar. I will stop calling you a liar the moment you stop lying, and not a moment before. This does not mean claiming that you have never refused to read material presented to you on the subject, but mostly it means not closing your eyes and shouting that the idea of dark matter is based on a mistake when you *know* for sure that there are mountains upon mountains of evidence that you have never bothered to acknowledge.
Israel,
I ask your opinion if it is material. You are busy and manage to answer this, so I hope you will consider this as well
Yehuda,
I'm not calling you a liar as part of a chain of insults. I call you a liar because you lie. There is no such thing as a "truce" where you stop calling me a moron and a maniac and I stop calling you a liar. I will stop calling you a liar the moment you stop lying, and not a moment before. This does not mean claiming that you have never refused to read material presented to you on the subject, but mostly it means not closing your eyes and shouting that the idea of dark matter is based on a mistake when you *know* for sure that there are mountains upon mountains of evidence that you have never bothered to acknowledge.
It has already been explained to you many times in the past that your hallucinations clearly contradict the theory of relativity. In the theory of general relativity, Einstein's equation of universal gravitation is obtained in the approximation of a weak field. If you claim that the equation is incorrect, then inevitably Einstein's equations are also incorrect (because Newton's equation is explicitly derived from Einstein's equations). It has been explained to you - even in this thread - that it is impossible to replace only a small part of the way we explain gravity because everything is built one on two. As soon as you demand to change one equation, you have to change the whole theory. And this, what to do, people have been trying to do for 100 years and fail again and again and again.
No one is in a hurry to draw conclusions. The measurements in Lego were done a long time ago, and they were published only now so as not to rush and publish something that is not certain. Again - the very fact that you do not understand what they saw in Lego and why does not affect the validity of the measurements. You, unsurprisingly, prefer to ignore than learn.
Another delayed response. Comments on the site are becoming a really unpleasant matter.
Yehuda,
1. I'm not calling you a liar as part of the chain of insults. I call you a liar because you lie. There is no such thing as a "truce" where you stop calling me a moron and a maniac and I stop calling you a liar. I will stop calling you a liar the moment you stop lying, and not a moment before. This does not mean claiming that you have never refused to read material presented to you on the subject, but mostly it means not closing your eyes and shouting that the idea of dark matter is based on a mistake when you *know* for sure that there are mountains upon mountains of evidence that you have never bothered to acknowledge.
2. It has already been explained to you many times in the past that your hallucinations clearly contradict the theory of relativity. In the theory of general relativity, Einstein's equation of universal gravitation is obtained in the approximation of a weak field. If you claim that the equation is incorrect, then inevitably Einstein's equations are also incorrect (because Newton's equation is explicitly derived from Einstein's equations). It has been explained to you - even in this thread - that it is impossible to replace only a small part of the way we explain gravity because everything is built one on two. As soon as you demand to change one equation, you have to change the whole theory. And this, what to do, people have been trying to do for 100 years and fail again and again and again.
3. No one rushes to conclusions. The LIGO measurements were done a long time ago, and they were published only now so as not to rush and publish something that is not certain. Again - the very fact that you do not understand what LIGO saw and why does not harm the validity of the measurements. You, unsurprisingly, prefer to ignore than learn.
Penthouse? Bali Cohen? Did you mean the attic?
I woke
to Shmulik
Why are you contacting me?, at the tenants' meeting I am constantly called a liar when I claim that the basement was not built well and therefore there is no point in continuing with Tama 38 and the tenant Albanzo who lives in the penthouse claims that everything is fine and calls me a liar, that he should stop calling me a liar and other nasty names and I promise that I will not call him names disgusting I stop calling him nasty names right now. Period.
And as for the GPS, I explain it like everyone else with the theory of relativity! Don't say now that I don't believe in relativity. But can I use it in my theory?, I'm not sure. She is not part of it yet.
Regarding the gravitational waves. Let's let the celebration of the connection calm down. I don't know what they saw there in Lego. A tiny movement the size of an atomic nucleus in two facilities of something that exploded a few billion years ago. Let's not jump to conclusions.
good evening
Yehuda
essential? So explain. I'm a bit busy today..
Israel,
And do you think that explaining Lego is essential to the theory that explains gravity?
Yehuda
1) You earned one: https://media.giphy.com/media/yTAugkkABvlfO/giphy.gif
2) What I wrote about the particles of pushing gravity was not written to please anyone but because it is the most correct thing that can be said about them. You have no way to describe them except with words and calling for the help of magic to solve the problems that arise when you compare the theory with the measurements in reality. No mathematical formalism exists to describe these particles and the interactions between them and the rest of the universe in a way that matches the observations.
3) Your problem is that you behave in this matter in a way that is no different from that of all religious believers in different things. See the value of selective evidence selection, ignoring data, blanket denial of your ignorance on the subject, unwillingness to read and study sources that people bring to you, and blind faith in what you have already decided is the truth (I must have forgotten some).
4) These are called galaxies
Shmulik
Thinking, thinking.. not to avoid responsibility. Get started right away in your new role as the official Lasage Gravitation Time Dilution Therapist.
Israel,
So you don't think that a theory that explains gravity should also explain everything that relativity explains?
albentezo,
you did not answer. Today, people no longer see the need to publish results only when they are similar to something known. I say that you answered because I assume that if you heard about stories that people used internal censorship and only published results that matched matches you would tell.
Regarding the LHC result, if you entered for a moment the millions of dollars you receive and your fellow theorists receive, do you have the freedom to say, I stop for a moment and help what I was dealing with and free my time to try to understand what happened there? After all, there is (almost) concrete information for a breakthrough. Of course, I'm only talking about those who are involved in the fields relevant to this discovery.
And a slightly easier question: if there is indeed a particle, does that mean there is also a field behind it?
Shmulik
"Israel, why isn't "your" theory supposed to deal with time dilution? So who does?'
You... I hereby designate you as the official Lasage Gravitational Time Dilution Therapist.
A,
I am attaching a link to the article I sent at the time to Yehuda. is a scientific paper and systematically enumerates the overwhelming majority of the evidence for dark matter. If you are having trouble with the article, you can google "evidence for dark matter" (preferably in English) and find articles on popular science websites. Most likely they will not include all the information, but they will be easier to read if you are not familiar with the scientific language.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0316v2.pdf
Yehuda,
I'll start with something a wise man told me a long time ago. Well, not a wise man but a complete fool, and not a long time ago but yesterday:
"What did you write in SSA?? That Yehuda refuses to read on the subject? (Lie, lie!!)".
Yes, this is your quote, in which you deny the fact that you ever refused to read the many pieces of evidence I presented to you. And your last comment:
"I will not read the article you sent me at the time. point."
If that doesn't light up a glowing purple and green 1982 style neon sign that says "Liar Liar Liar Liar", then I don't know what does. You're a liar, deal with it.
How was the summary enough for you to understand that an article detailing the evidence for the existence of dark matter is not of interest, when the issue is "Are the physicists wrong when they claim that there is dark matter?". How are you not ashamed of yourself? If I were that stupid I would cut off my internet connection for fear of someone realizing what a retard I am.
No one presented the attitude that "you have to read a book or at least a not easy scientific article, in English of 20 pages if you want them to respond to you". All you've been told is that you're talking nonsense, and presented with the peer-reviewed scientific evidence that you're talking nonsense. There is no problem that you write what you want, and they will respond to you regardless of what you read or not. Just be prepared for the fact that if you haven't read material on the subject, then the responses will be "You're talking nonsense because you have no idea about dark matter" and if you refuse to read on the subject and continue to make the claims even though you know they stem from ignorance, then the responses will be "Stop lying, ya liar".
There is no point in commenting on the swans with dark matter and dark energy. These are two completely different phenomena that have no connection. If there was no dark matter but you kept all the measurements in the universe around us as they are, then dark energy would be different. So what? What is the connection? It's like saying that if you had no hands but miraculously your mass would remain the same, that means your legs would have to be heavier and therefore arms and legs are one. Are you listening to what you say? do not answer. I know the answer.
Then again, just because you don't know the difference between mass and matter doesn't mean there isn't a difference. There are also forces that have mass - for example, the weak force. Besides, it is a matter of convention. If you go to a political website and write what you think of "Prime Minister Benny Netanyahu" then you won't be mistaken - because his name is Binyamin and Benny is an abbreviation of Benjamin - but you will look like an idiot, because no one (including himself) calls him "Benny". When you invent your own world of terms you are not necessarily wrong, but don't be surprised when people correct you.
Finally, I will comment on the fact that you continue to write comments without any content (for example, in the last comment all you wrote was that you admit that you refuse to read the evidence for the existence of dark matter, and you asked a few questions) and continue to call me a moron, but on the other hand you expect me to serve as your private teacher, Let me direct you to summaries that suit your shockingly low level of intelligence, and let me explain to you the difference between matter and mass. Like, how much audacity does Grandpa have that he can call me a moron and a maniac in the same breath and ask me to explain things he doesn't understand? And again, aren't you ashamed? Do yourself a favor, copy all our discussions here to a text file and delete the names. Let your grandchildren read and ask them if they are proud of their grandfather.
clown.
Yehuda
Do the particles that produce gravity have mass?
Shmulik,
Let's start with the second question: yes, in the last round of experiments, two separate detectors measured resonance at 750 giga electron volts (which is 750 times the mass of the proton, definitely a heavy particle if it is indeed a particle). As you said, no one can yet say with sufficient certainty whether this is a real measurement or some kind of fluctuation - the answer to this will probably become clear next year. If we assume for a moment that this is indeed a new particle, this is a tremendous discovery. Not because this particle is special in any way that we know of, simply because it will be the first measurement coming out of a axis that is beyond the standard model, and that is at the end of the day why we do experiments. Although many people think we do experiments to show everyone that we are right, and a few people like Yehuda think we do experiments because there is some mysterious figure who pays us millions of dollars for every unnecessary experiment we invent, the real reason we do experiments is to find inconsistencies between The theory to reality, thus orienting ourselves to the next step in the theory. There are already many physicists from the field of phenomenology who are trying to understand what needs to be changed in the standard model to get such a particle.
I didn't really understand the second question. Yes, there will always be bad physicists or charlatans, but the science of physics certainly does not overwhelmingly suffer from the problems that Feynman describes, which mainly belong to scientific fields that are not so precise and much more difficult to quantify. Maybe if you are more specific I can give a better answer.
Yehuda,
Do what you want but be serious. You are at a tenant meeting and you call someone stupid while asking for their help on some issue. What do you think he will do? The fact that you pose questions to someone you call a moron makes me sick. Don't you have self respect? If he is stupid, why would you trust his answers?
It's great that you think gravity is not a cosmic force, but what do you say about what Laigo saw? Please explain to me what it means that the results of Lego so closely matched the theory? Is everyone there lying to get funding? Shall we tell the Nolan brothers not to talk to Kip Thorne anymore?
And what about the dilution of time? How do you explain that? All GPSs need general and special relativity to work. On their basis you get from place to place in Wise. Why are you actually using Wise (and don't tell me you don't use Wise)?
What about prime dragging? How do you explain that?
Judah, God forbid, not Jehovah.
to Shmulik
I have restrained myself in all my responses to date. Today we will break. How they respond to me, I will respond doubly. I'm far from being a liar or a moron or a psycho or any of the other unflattering nicknames I've been called.
In addition, regarding the difficulty of formulating a theory about gravitation, so let me be stupid until the end. In my opinion, gravity is not the leading force in the cosmos and in fact there is no proof that it exists at all at distances of several tens of light years. That's what there is.
Anyone who wants to bring me one that shows this and I'll invite them to a delicious meal! The late Professor Yuval Neman also agreed with me on this in my conversation with him, I have a witness who was present.
Now we will go to rest. I'm tired
Move not to go wild until I get back. It's just science.
Bye
Lord
Can someone answer matter-of-factly what other evidence is there for dark matter? Instead of just going down to the third grade level if Yehuda.
And Judah in the Newtonian equation you are talking about there are only two variables mass and distance. Everything else is constant, to change them you need a new physical theory. When you have one like this, talk (one that also includes the mathematical side
Yehuda,
I do not understand. You call someone stupid and expect them to answer you. I really don't understand this behavior.
I also don't understand the childish demand that everything be easy and clear and if something isn't, then aren't you willing to read it and in the same breath, ignore the information the article provides?
to divilbenzo
I will not read the article you sent me at the time. point. The summary was enough for me to see that it is none of our business.
I don't accept the attitude that you have to read a book or at least a not easy scientific article, in English of 20 pages if you want them to respond to you!. We came to have some fun here and if possible also study science. You forget what the purpose of such nice sites is. And the science is really a nice site!
If you want, send a link to an article suitable for high school students. It is impossible that they did not write an explanatory section on the subject.
You said that I suddenly switch to dark energy, which has nothing to do with dark matter, except that the root APL appears in the name of both of them. End quote. Do you really think so?, strange! After all, dark energy is the opposite of dark matter, it is anti-gravitation that causes the universe to expand. It could be much smaller if it didn't have the dark matter on its head. Another question, I really don't understand why it is allowed to say dark energy but not allowed to say dark mass. What is the difference between mass and matter? For me, material is a translation of an essay.
But if you don't want to say I'll do without it.
I'm tired and maybe I'll go rest
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
albentezo,
Right though Bennett is working on it 🙂
I don't know why I'm getting into these arguments. I feel a bit hypocritical and fake (because I really only know how to quote others) but I'm tired of Yehuda's slanders. Agree or disagree, but if you claim that 99% of academia is blah blah blah, come up with some proof of that and stop using computers or toasters
I'm posting a post where I asked two questions, the first one is somewhat related to the topic. Recently (just lately I've been wearing a lot) I came across the following wonderful speech by Richard Feynman discussing science and pseudoscience.
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
In physics, are the dangers he points to peso out of the world (by and large. I guess there will always be quacks/charlatans)?
second question,
Lately I've been coming across a lot of articles (in the mainstream press, what my wife calls Scientific Evening) coming out of the LHC that there is strong evidence (probably not yet 5 sigma) of a new, heavy particle that the standard model doesn't predict. Is something brewing there?
Yehuda,
No, you didn't bring it up at all. I only saw history. I know and know the Spherical Bastard too.
Where is the hidden article? Did I see Sean Carroll's YouTube lecture on this very topic discussing the difficulties of establishing an alternative theory of gravity? Are you repeating the accusation of 99% of the academy? Won't you say it anymore in this forum? Won't we read in a month a disgusting, arrogant and hypocritical response to the scientists (whose research you enjoy by actually typing on the keyboard)?
In addition, I asked you some questions:
What about Lego's result, which agrees with relativity? How do you explain her?
What about diluting time? How do you explain that?
What about prime dragging? How do you explain that?
Dear Shmulik, a little historical background:
When Perik Zviki, a Swiss astronomer, 1933, an arrogant scientist, first proposed the idea of dark matter, no one accepted it. He came up with the idea when he studied the motion of galaxies in the "Koma" galaxy cluster and showed that the motion is too fast. The idea he put forward is that there is another mass in the cluster, which will automatically be discovered. The missing mass…… 400 times the mass of the cluster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And just so you know, he referred to all his fellow scientists as "spherical bastards" bastards from every side that looked at them. The scientists did not accept this, also due to his arrogance. Years later, a scientist named Vera Rubin, a 22-year-old young mother, the complete opposite of Fritz, raised the problem of the rapid movement of the stars of the extreme layers in spiral galaxies in 1950. Everyone returned to Tzviki's idea. Everything is written in the childhood book for high school students and liars that I quoted from. Pages 27,28. But remember, my dear friends, all of them, Apollo Albanzo, remember well, none of them saw gravitation or mass!!!. What everyone saw was a deviation from Newton's gravitation experiments. Well, understand in these formulas, gravitation and centrifugal, there are many members, the error could have been in any of them. The ultimate choice in the letter M - the mass and increasing it is haphazard. Try and you will see that even a haphazard change of other organs will lead to the desired result. And of course you can do other things like Professor Milgrom from the Weizmann Institute did, who dealt with the centrifugal force and not gravity with his MOND theory.
There are about twenty options. Of course most of them are probably wrong except for one or maybe two.
And I don't blame the academy. I will be a bit of a psychologist. What are the chances that anyone will come close to my approach?, you saw the audience at Cornell University laughing at Richard Feynman's joke. No one would stand up and protest and express their opinion. Except maybe Yehuda Sabdarmish who really doesn't care what people think and is having fun. I hope I helped you Shmulik.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Shmulik,
The article that shows that the bullet cluster is not a direct measurement of dark matter is a companion to an article that Yehuda read about evidence of dark matter (he claims that he never refused to read an article I sent him, and I sent him many such). That is, found in the land of fantasy by Sabdarmish Yehuda.
Also, you forgot to address in your comment the fact that a scientist's salary does not depend on how much he supports dark matter or any other theory. Sorry, but no one ever told me "this month we'll pay you only if you publish an article that says dark matter exists", and no one ever told me "if you ask for a grant to build a dark matter detector, you can take part of the grant money and chain it to money without going to jail for embezzlement."
Of course I won't stop calling you a liar. As long as you keep lying, there will be people who will keep calling you a liar. Want them to stop? Try to tell the truth - that your opinions, which you are entitled to hold no matter how silly they are, are completely hidden by modern science and your criticism of dark matter stems solely from one specific aspect of the theory while completely ignoring the rest, and refusing to read articles that explain it. The problem is not that you don't understand. The problem is that to mask the fact that you don't understand, you lie and hide the truth.
Regarding psychology, note that I'm not the only one who has pointed out that it's clear to him (in this article as well as others) that your refusal to address anything that explicitly contradicts your stupid ideas seems to stem from an inability to cope. You are welcome not to trust my opinion. I never claimed to be a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Which brings us to another point, about the alternative career I had: no thanks. There is no need. You see, I already have a career and I'm very good at it, and very successful at it. This career is to understand the things you fail to do (and also to teach them to others, usually 20-year-olds who have no problem grasping what you fail to begin to understand).
And one last point - everyone knows that I am not afraid of ugly language and I strongly believe that form is not as important as content. If you have something to say, I don't care if you speak well or not. But what does it mean that you completely ignore all criticism of you, do not utter a single word of taste, and only curse? It means that you are - as expected - a poor stupid man who would not be able to give a direct answer to a simple question even if his life depended on it. And the question is, “Have you read the many articles I sent you about the evidence for dark matter? If you read, what was written in them?"
Let me guess - you will not be able to answer the question in the next response either, but maybe you will add some other nickname that will keep company with "devil" and "maniac". I will be happy, because with every comment you write and every drop of white foam that comes out of your mouth, it becomes more clear to me (and probably also to the other readers of the forum) who Sabdarmish Yehuda is and what exactly his thoughts are worth. Besides, as long as your mouth is busy frothing and chanting "devilbenzo", it's not doing science a disservice, and I'd really rather you curse me than spew out one more stupid sentence about dark matter or dark energy.
Yehuda,
you wrote:
"Another example that I like is our friendship the dark mass. The fact that the gravitation formulas are not suitable for the movement in the spiral galaxies does not bother anyone, they simply invent material and add it as much as necessary and use it to correct the results so that they match exactly what is required!!
And 99 percent of the academy happily agrees and runs to find the funds dedicated to the search for this delusional material for over eighty years and without much success.'
and-
"If the data measured in the field does not match what is obtained from a formula, the formula should be thrown away and the data should not be changed to fit the formula."
What is 99% of academia? What is "... and not to change the data". Look what you blame the academy? You accuse them of fabrication to get money. Do you not understand what you are writing? This is ridiculous on such large levels, I can't even begin to describe how ridiculous you sound. Just contempt.
Science is a creative chaos that is based on the publication of articles that everyone can read, comment on, and if someone managed to produce a better theory than what exists today, it would be published in a minute. Don't you get it?
For your part, did you listen to Sean Carroll's lecture where he describes the attempts to fix gravity? And if so, where is the hidden article that contradicts the data of the prominent cluster?
Listen, I see that you have responses waiting. Lucky that the dark reactions pass. The problem is that you don't see them. Maybe sometimes in particles. LOL.
We will wait a bit. My grandchildren have arrived and they are grandchildren of improved bully material.
But what a beautiful day
Yehuda
Hell, where did I write that all scientists are frauds and liars???
If I wrote that I believe dark matter is the biggest mistake of the XNUMXth century then that means I think all scientists are liars????, what happened to you?
To all dark matter and energy believers I belong to the three percent who do not believe in dark matter. point. And no one comes out of it as a liar, and please don't offend. Everyone will live in his faith!
Returning from a delicious lunch, and seeing all around me depressed commenters (hello, not all of them!) Relax, it's just science!!!
And Devilbenzo, did you become a psychologist? You decided that "my nonsense is really stupid and stems from a fragile state of mind." End quote. ??, please try another profession because patients are not always patient!
And besides, maniac, your joke about the driver was good and made me laugh out loud, and I spluttered on the poor computer screen. And he is really not guilty! But, I admit that I may have discovered a new side in you, maybe when they find out that there is no dark energy and the tower of cards (or the tooth), will collapse, you will be able to work in stand-up. It's always good to have another profession!
Come on, I calmed down
I apologize to all my friends for hurting their feelings (on the dark issue before us) that's not what I meant.
And honestly for everyone. I didn't come to hurt. Except for Dibelenzo who doesn't stop calling me a liar and is now also moving on to a psychological analysis of my personality.
We will now move on and handle any serious feedback.
Good Day
Yehuda
The question is over
What other evidence is there for dark matter besides the missing mass?
Yehuda
As long as you have no alternative equations no one should take your theory seriously, even if your ideas are nice. Science doesn't work that way even if it sounds fixed and not serious to you. Even if you have a new formula, it will still not be considered until an experiment is carried out that can prove it. Even Einstein's genius theory was not accepted until enough experiments were performed. No theory is accepted just because it explains the existing if it does not predict something new. Maybe it sounds to you that whoever didn't think Einstein was right turned out to be a fool. Maybe in the end they will explain all the things in a different way but that doesn't mean you were right and we have to eat the hat. Science needs to explain findings according to the equations it has or formulate new equations (it's much more complicated than sitting at home and saying maybe the gay is changing) because no one has succeeded so far. So if the calculations show that there is an amount of matter in the galaxy and observations show less matter, then it follows that some of the matter is dark, i.e. we do not see it (it is dark because it does not produce light, not because it works for the fact that its name cannot be said)
I also have a pending regarding the slanders of Yehuda because there are two YouTube links of Sean Carroll and Susskind the fraudsters (because they think there is dark matter and dark energy). This is not a quarrel between Albantezo and Yehuda, but between all of us. If Yehuda declared that the physicists are all liars who distort results (except for those who built the computers that make it possible to write these messages), we need to relate.
Israel,
Why shouldn't "your" theory deal with time dilution? So who does?
Well, I tried to move my pending response by breaking it into shorter sections, but only the second part worked. So those who don't want to wait for the full response to be released can in the meantime try to guess how it starts.
Then, you try to contradict my claims. But of course you can't contradict them with evidence or scientific dialogue (because you are consistently avoiding information, realizing that the more you learn, the more you will have to accept the fact that you know nothing about anything, and you have no ability to absorb any new knowledge). That's why you are babbling words (repeating again the unfounded claim that observations change, the subject suddenly switches to dark energy which has nothing to do with dark matter, except that the root A.P.L appears in the name of both). By the way, dark energy - or energy of the vacuum - is a measured and proven result in the laboratory. Yes, it also has things that are not yet understood (for example, the big mistake), but that does not mean that it is wrong. Of course, for you it is wrong, because you are too ignorant and too stupid to understand it, and your fragile state of mind does not allow you to admit the truth of things you do not understand due to the extremely low degree of intelligence you possess. And before you jump in - yes, I remember you got a 90 on your physics test in high school and you have a degree in management, as you bother to mention every time your physics knowledge is questioned. I repeat, you must be a genius in your own right.
Yes, I look at you from the top of a tower. But this tower is not a card tower and it is not dilapidated. This tower is called science - I bothered to climb it, and you instead decided to play in the mud in the garden in the yard and build a kingdom for snails. Even if we ignore for a moment my research - which is published in the most prestigious journals, which receives citations, which undergoes peer review - I look down on you because I (if I may quote) stand on the shoulders of giants. In the last hundred years there have been a good few thousands of people much smarter than me, and whose level of intelligence I can't even compare to yours, who researched, and tested, and questioned, and solved. I read them. I studied them. I checked them. I compared their observations, I keep up with the measurements they make.
You read a book for high school students and think everyone but you is dumb.
And precisely because you gave up on the request to respond gently (which of course stems from the repressed knowledge that you are talking nonsense and that people who are not mentally and/or intelligently will not accept your words), I will end with a joke:
One man comes home and his wife tells him, "You won't believe it! I heard on the radio that there was some crazy driver who was driving in the opposite direction on the highway!"
"One?!", he answers her, "There were thousands!"
Think about it for a bit.
Yehuda,
Sorry, don't know who this divilbenzo is you keep referring to. I do know who Yehuda Sabdarmish is - and he is a man who does not need to add the word moron to his name, just as one does not need to specify that Einstein was smart, Wilt Chamberlin was tall or Stalin was crazy. Stupidity is an integral part of your being and there is no need for me to call you stupid - it is enough for me to call you Yehuda Sabdarmish and that already says it all.
So what will Yehuda do when the truth is presented to him - that he consistently ignores everything that does not exactly fit his hallucinations, that he relies solely on children's books because only in them is a picture presented so simplified that it can be distorted, that he is frustrated by his lack of understanding and therefore decided to try Force the universe to behave according to principles so stupid that even he can understand them? will of course do the only thing he knows how to do. will turn to a fantasy world.
In this case what he will do is invent a conversation. He will imagine what would have happened if he had presented me with arguments and decided on my behalf what I would have answered him. He knows that if God forbid he really tried to understand what I have to say, as usual he would have been exposed for his stupidity. So he chooses the easy way, and decides for me what I'm going to say.
So sorry, Yehuda, it doesn't work like that. I never called Michael Brooks a liar, and I never said he was stupid. Your claims are just a poor attempt to put yourself in the same category with people who are not necessarily stupid, thereby easing your sense of insecurity, which comes from knowing (deep down) that you are indeed stupid.
All the quotes you brought - all of them without exception - refer only to the fact that we do not know what the microscopic composition of dark matter is. We don't know what its charge is, we don't know what its mass is. We do not know what his coupling constants are to all the forces in nature and what are his properties under the various symmetries. You will of course not do this - because you fear information like fire - but anyone who is interested can browse previous articles and see things I wrote on the subject, and in particular see that I never claimed that the scientific community has such knowledge or that the very fact that we do not know what the particle composition of dark matter is One of the biggest and most fascinating puzzles in modern physics. Yehuda of course tries to change my claims and put words in my mouth, all with the aim of not being exposed as an ignorant and poor person whose great frustration with his inability to understand basic ideas in physics pushed him over the edge.
Yehuda,
First, I wanted to congratulate you for coming up with the conspiracy. You finally discovered that every person who does not agree with your nonsense (because they are really stupid and stem from a fragile state of mind) is in fact my puppet, who only challenges you in order to please me and receive praise from me! In fact, if you ignore all the talkers, then you'll find that nobody actually has anything bad to say about the idiotic delusion you've concocted to ease your (justified) sense of inferiority. In a very sharp transition and without any connection even the slightest, I would like to direct you to read a little about paranoia. Just in case, you might be interested.
Secondly, I wanted to ask if the throat doesn't burn when you lie so much. You know very well that a mismatch between gravitational forces is only the catalyst for thinking about dark matter, and since then there are mountains upon mountains of positive evidence for its existence that does not depend on "missing mass" at all. So you can leave the lies at home, here on the site there are people who see through them easily. Besides, I'm already tired of explaining that dark matter does not mean "I will arbitrarily decide that I add as much mass as I want to make everything work out". This is just what very stupid people who don't understand dark matter and haven't bothered to read about it (except in a children's book) think the Torah says. In fact, it is a serious scientific idea that can be tested in the laboratory, and - wonder and wonder! - When you test it, it adapts to a very high accuracy.
to Woking Dt
Your response: "In order for gravity pushing to be possible, the particles responsible for the phenomenon should be magical colored unicorns. End of quote, she added, "many" to understand the basic scientific problem we are discussing, you will be perfumed, but when I see who it is intended for - our friends Devilbenzo in a bold attempt to please him, then I have no words, enjoy!
Miracles,
When you write "the hypothesis of dark matter matches the observations, in my understanding, much better than any other hypothesis". End of quote, you write the most correct thing in the world!, if dark matter I can imagine that you weigh exactly 452.73 kg because I can always add/subtract more dark matter as required. And hence I see the ridiculousness in the dark matter that gives the ultimate result that is completely accurate. I expect/want the measurements to have deviations because we measure with imperfect tools, and not only that. Even our language is not built to say things without uncertainty! But that's for another debate.
Later you write." It is not true to say that we have not discovered dark matter - we do not know the nature of the particles that create this matter." End quote. So let me show you how my average mind works. We did not discover any dark matter in the observation, we discovered a deviation from what was expected according to Newton, do you understand miracles?, we only discovered in S.A. a deviation, a deviation, !! We can explain it, the deviation, with dark matter, but also in other ways, a simple analysis of the deviation led me to about twenty other ways. Want an example?, please, the G - the global gravitational constant, varies with distances!, we would get exactly the same results of the expensive and good, and delusional dark matter. But the G is not the solution either.
And to the last question, why don't we detect the particles because they are very small in size. And I have a problem with their calculation because I am in a dilemma if the calculation should be done according to the theory of relativity or Newtonian, I believe in the theory of relativity but I have not yet linked it to my theory. I believe the order of magnitude is about 10 to the power of minus 37 grams. with great uncertainty.
So far so good.
The sun has disappeared in the meantime and it's a bit chilly and it's time to make tea.
Bye
Yehuda
WD
Yes 🙂
Miracles
The answer to your question for Yehuda in my last response. (It came out by accident when I typed the comment without seeing your comment)
elbentzo
True, but specifically it was for Yehuda's last comment.
Like seriously, for gravity pushing to be possible the particles responsible for the phenomenon should be magical colored unicorns.
Yehuda
right. I wrote that Newton's formula is an approximation, and general relativity, which is based on a small number of simple assumptions, gives results that are more consistent with observations.
The hypothesis of dark matter also matches the observations, in my understanding much better than any other hypothesis. It is not true to say that we have not discovered the dark matter - we do not know the nature of the particles that create this matter (in my understanding).
Saying that scientists are lying, or stupid, or arrogant, is beside the point. You have another hypothesis - then propose a test that will show which of the hypotheses is more likely. You have no right to say that the search is unnecessary - I don't hear that from any scientist who thinks differently from the "consensus".
And I completely disagree with you that we don't learn from formulas! A formula squeezes a huge amount of measure into a few lines. Kepler looked at Brahe's measurements and built formulas from them. Newton (to the best of my memory) understood from the formulas that there is a central force. As above Einstein with the formulas of Fitzgerald and Lorentz. I'm sure there are more examples (in economics for example).
Just a question - why don't we discover the same particles you are talking about?
walking dead,
I'm not sure who you aimed the gif at (unfortunately it can answer more than one comment in this thread) but it's brilliant.
https://media.giphy.com/media/JbzlnJr0NedJ6/giphy.gif
For anyone who thinks friction is a problem, it's absolutely not!
First of all, don't talk about La Saz, talk about "pushing gravity" because that's the theory. With the simple universe I changed some things that were not compatible with Newton.
Richard Feynman explains explains this theory, and later, refutes the idea that pushing graffiti can be an explanation for gravitation (in his lecture at Cornell University, minute 8-11 of the lecture. )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd0xTfdt6qw
Richard Feynman's conclusion in his lecture:
1. The gravity pushing explanation is convincing, but…..
2. Since there should be friction of the moving bodies with the gas, this explanation is not suitable as an explanation for gravitation.
The proof of the mistakes in Feynman's explanation: there is a certain friction, but the friction doesn't have to have an effect? After all, all the time new gravitational pushing particles enter the system and continue to move it just like the wind particles that move sailing ships that continue to move despite the friction with the sea and the air.
That is, the centrifugal force will result from gravity minus a small friction and there is no contradiction here and the equation is balanced!
Good day and what a beautiful sun
Yehuda
Nissim, don't get dragged into an argument with "maybe" he is one of the trolls who try to interfere and drag us into a religious debate. Let's continue with our topic. When there is an article about evolution, we will talk.
may be…
What exactly do you not like about Darwin's theory? I will be happy to hear. Describe just one thing and we'll discuss it. And try not to get into slander, okay?
Yehuda,
You do realize that every time you call me a moron, you're just adding a little more makeup to your clown mask, right? A person your age should be able to tell when they are acting like a 4-year-old who discovers that the world is not working out according to their wishes. On the other hand, a person your age should also have a minimal degree of intelligence.
okay, well.
True, it's possible, if it's that simple - then show!
Shmulik
You missed the "golem... liquid... how is that possible, why don't we study it... evolution makes a poof... I have no brain" argument. of the genius from the school of L. Ron Hubbard?
"My" theory does not address this because it is not supposed to address this. Almost no one today claims that Lesage's theory is correct - it encountered many objections and was rejected even before relativity.
My argument is about Nissim's comment "La Sage's model contradicts pretty much all the rest of science." he is not. Certainly not Newtonian science, otherwise you wouldn't get gravitation in the laboratory model I proposed.
You may,
"Just to show how wrong Darwin's theory is,"
What do your calculations say? How do you disprove evolution simply?
Did you read the link?
Space-time is a result of relativity. There is nothing else that can affect time except gravity. If your theory does not address this, I think this is a fundamental problem
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I want to strengthen your hands...
For me there is a small and simple fact to prove the nullity of all scientists
who think they know everything...
Just to show how wrong Darwin's theory is,
And how fiercely the scientific establishment clings to it...
I didn't say the unit, I said the essential.
If you build a device in the laboratory that simulates the Lasage model with particles moving in all directions and almost never colliding with each other, and then you put 2 bodies between the particles, I believe you will get an attraction between the bodies, proportional to the distance squared. None of the opponents argued otherwise.
The problem begins when the bodies are in motion relative to the average speed of the particles, like the planets in their motion, and then you will encounter resistance to the motion, like a ship's sail that is in motion relative to the light air relative to the sea.
This is Feynman friction.
The friction is really not the only problem. Albantezo proposed a simple rebuttal experiment. I asked before what about time dilution, gravitational waves, prime dragging that relativity predicted and the experiments confirmed? I never got an answer to these questions. Why would Laigo be affected by the collision of massive bodies without the explanation of relativity?
For another discussion, a bit more serious, see here
http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/30064-why-push-gravity-does-not-work.html
Hard, hard language.
And La Sage's explanation does not contradict the rest of science. Most of the objections to it, from Newton to Lord Calvin, were always technical (heating, permeability) or philosophical something like Kant's (what are the particles that make up the particles made of?).
Only the Feynman friction is essential.
And not that La Sage's theory or its derivative, Yoda's simple universe, is the correct explanation for gravity.
Israel
Hebrew is a hard language….
It is not built piece by piece, it is not even built piece by piece.
It was tested at the time with every fat and grain, and the main flaw in it is the friction.
And it's true, our Yoda's solution to Feynman friction deserves every reproach..
Yehuda
Newton's equation only talks about weak gravitational fields. We have known this for close to a century. Do you think general relativity is wrong? Do you want to compare her predictions compared to the predictions of other teachings?
Israel
According to the link you gave - La Sage's model contradicts about all the rest of science. It is built layer upon layer upon layer.
What's good about this?
Miracles
"Newton's formula has a physical explanation, and I want to understand what the physical explanation for the formula you propose is."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
Yehuda the liar I liked your lying response. straight power (liar) liar.
And don't get excited by miracles either. You must have already learned what an unappetizing salad this car whisperer makes every time.
For miracles I will address your question.
"Yehuda
And I ask you the same question again and again: Newton's formula has a physical explanation, and I want to understand what the physical explanation for the formula you propose is. How exactly does matching a formula to measurements teach us anything?" End quote.
The truth is miracles, I'm having trouble understanding your series of questions. and explained:
You write that Newton's formula has a physical explanation, explain to me what you mean and I will show you the physical explanation of my formula and maybe I will also be able to write it on the website.
Then you ask "How exactly does matching a formula to measurements teach us anything?". End quote.
Do you think miracles that the essence of a formula is to teach something? A formula is not a teacher! I think the essence of a formula is to express all the measurements that have been measured regarding the phenomenon, to show that it also reaches the same results, within the uncertainty that always exists in measurements, and only in the field of measurement. That's why a sentence that says: gravitation is to infinity, has no meaning for me because there are no measurements at infinity!.
I have already written a dozen pages on this subject, starting with what scientific correctness is, and up to changing the speed of light that changes - and this does not contradict the Mikkelson Morley experiment or the laws of physics. It also follows from the idea that bodies lose weight over time. And there is no need for dark energy to explain the (accelerated) expansion of the universe. And in addition, also other acceptable and unacceptable things.
Now Devilbenzo will say that I am a liar, pretending to have written nonsense, repeating the lies.
But I will sleep well tonight. No fool or dark substance will be able to prevent me from a pleasant sleep!
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
waiting
Yehuda,
Sorry, don't know who this divilbenzo is you keep referring to. I do know who Yehuda Sabdarmish is - and he is a man who does not need to add the word moron to his name, just as one does not need to specify that Einstein was smart, Wilt Chamberlin was tall or Stalin was crazy. Stupidity is an integral part of your being and there is no need for me to call you stupid - it is enough for me to call you Yehuda Sabdarmish and that already says it all.
So what will Yehuda do when the truth is presented to him - that he consistently ignores everything that does not exactly fit his hallucinations, that he relies solely on children's books because only in them is a picture presented so simplified that it can be distorted, that he is frustrated by his lack of understanding and therefore decided to try Force the universe to behave according to principles so stupid that even he can understand them? will of course do the only thing he knows how to do. will turn to a fantasy world.
In this case what he will do is invent a conversation. He will imagine what would have happened if he had presented me with arguments and decided on my behalf what I would have answered him. He knows that if God forbid he really tried to understand what I have to say, as usual he would have been exposed for his stupidity. So he chooses the easy way, and decides for me what I'm going to say.
So sorry, Yehuda, it doesn't work like that. I never called Michael Brooks a liar, and I never said he was stupid. Your claims are just a poor attempt to put yourself in the same category with people who are not necessarily stupid, thereby easing your sense of insecurity, which comes from knowing (deep down) that you are indeed stupid.
All the quotes you brought - all of them without exception - refer only to the fact that we do not know what the microscopic composition of dark matter is. We don't know what its charge is, we don't know what its mass is. We do not know what his coupling constants are to all the forces in nature and what are his properties under the various symmetries. You will of course not do this - because you fear information like fire - but anyone who is interested can browse previous articles and see things I wrote on the subject, and in particular see that I never claimed that the scientific community has such knowledge or that the very fact that we do not know what the particle composition of dark matter is One of the biggest and most fascinating puzzles in modern physics. Yehuda of course tries to change my claims and put words in my mouth, all with the goal of not being exposed as an ignorant and poor person whose great frustration with his inability to understand basic ideas in physics pushed him over the edge.
Then, you try to contradict my claims. But of course you can't contradict them with evidence or scientific dialogue (because you are consistently avoiding information, realizing that the more you learn, the more you will have to accept the fact that you know nothing about anything, and you have no ability to absorb any new knowledge). That's why you are babbling words (repeating again the unfounded claim that observations change, the subject suddenly switches to dark energy which has nothing to do with dark matter, except that the root A.P.L appears in the name of both). By the way, dark energy - or energy of the vacuum - is a measured and proven result in the laboratory. Yes, it also has things that are not yet understood (for example, the big mistake), but that does not mean that it is wrong. Of course, for you it is wrong, because you are too ignorant and too stupid to understand it, and your fragile state of mind does not allow you to admit the truth of things you do not understand due to the extremely low degree of intelligence you possess. And before you jump in - yes, I remember you got a 90 on your physics test in high school and you have a degree in management, as you bother to mention every time your physics knowledge is questioned. I repeat, you must be a genius in your own right.
Yes, I look at you from the top of a tower. But this tower is not a card tower and it is not dilapidated. This tower is called science - I bothered to climb it, and you instead decided to play in the mud in the garden in the yard and build a kingdom for snails. Even if we ignore for a moment my research - which is published in the most prestigious journals, which receives citations, which undergoes peer review - I look down on you because I (if I may quote) stand on the shoulders of giants. In the last hundred years there have been a good few thousands of people much smarter than me, and whose level of intelligence I can't even compare to yours, who researched, and tested, and questioned, and solved. I read them. I studied them. I checked them. I compared their observations, I keep up with the measurements they make.
You read a book for high school students and think everyone but you is dumb.
And precisely because you gave up on the request to respond gently (which of course stems from the repressed knowledge that you are talking nonsense and that people who are not mentally and/or intelligently will not accept your words), I will end with a joke:
One man comes home and his wife tells him, "You won't believe it! I heard on the radio that there was some crazy driver who was driving in the opposite direction on the highway!"
"One?!", he answers her, "There were thousands!"
Think about it for a bit.
Yehuda,
I am responding because you crossed every line. Your response is terrible. You are slandering an entire community when you claim they are liars who falsify data. This is a serious accusation that you didn't provide her with a shred of evidence because you have no evidence. A person who knowingly fabricates accusations is a liar. I don't believe a word you wrote. Brooks, if we take your quote, says we have no idea what dark matter is. No idea but still material. How does this help your argument? Where is the quote from the book that he thinks the formulas should be changed? Where is the quote from the book where he accuses the scientists of forgeries? And if so, where is the secret article that invalidates what was said in the Bolt Cluster? Dismiss how, by the way, claim that the measured data is wrong?
At the time, I referred you to an agent of the enemy, the propagator of lies Sean Carroll. Have you seen YouTube?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8KV9Ht5o_M
Did this community make suggestions (which were not so successful) to change the formulas or not? Were the attempts tested in good faith or not?
What about elderly Susskind? Alzheimer's makes him talk nonsense? NASA knows what he did last summer and is forcing him to talk against his will?
http://youtu.be/3SiGujnfDVc
Yehuda
You didn't answer me...as usual 🙂
rival
Not so. Cars are manufactured, they are not duplicated.
to divilbenzo
There is no point in repeating each of our principles, because each of us is fortified in our own truth.
I am currently reading Michael Brooks' wonderful story "13 Scientific Mysteries -" (the most intriguing questions of our time), and I am enjoying it. Obviously, this book will not be suitable for Devilbenzo because it is popular science suitable for high school students and liars.
The first chapter of the book is (how could it not be?) "The missing universe" which talks about dark matter and dark energy.
There on page 20 Brock writes:…. "We have no idea what this stuff really is." And at the end of this lying piece of journalism, something of the Sabdarmish type, he still dares to claim: "When you get to the main components of the universe, it seems that no one knows much about anything. (What a liar, Devilbenzo knows!)
And Mr. Brock the liar still dares to say:
"The known world of atoms, the thing we are made of - is only a fraction of the mass in the universe. Everything else is an enigma still waiting to be cracked.”
Pay attention Devilbenzo, how rude this Brooks is, he doesn't know Devilbenzo, who knows everything and is sure of everything. For Devilbenzo dark matter exists, dark energy exists, this is his scientific truth.
What will the wise Devilbenzo say now??
What will Devilbenzo say now??, may I guess?? "The above-mentioned Michael Brooks is just a petty journalist who doesn't understand anything and certainly didn't quote correctly." point.
And you also write in your response to me:
""In the academy, you study the subject, understand it, examine the evidence and see that the theoretical prediction matches the observations (what suddenly matches the observations?.... isn't there a lot of mass missing???) and even predicts new observations which match"……. match like what? Like the Pioneer Anomaly?, predicting new sightings like…. Dark energy you might say is also a calculated product of your scientific way??, oh yes the cosmological constant, another wonderful product of the creators of dark matter, who wanted to bring back Einstein's cosmological constant - anti-gravity, dark energy, and see this as proof.
Dear Devilbenzo, forgive me for being short, but it seems to me that we completely disagree, you are looking at me from the top of your tower of cards whose foundation is extremely shaky. The day will come when it will be discovered that dark matter together with dark energy are the biggest mistake of the twentieth century. And not only them.
(Hopefully the response will go through)
Good night
And you can respond however you like
That's how you do it - but I'm not offended because it's just science.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
They replicate, in a car factory.
WD
I actually liked the replica car 🙂
Miracles
Are you really trying to start a discussion with Mr. "The golem turns into liquid how is that possible why is no one checking this"?
He has nothing to contribute.
Why encourage him to respond?
Possibly
You asked a question and I answered it. Do you want to respond factually to my answer, or continue the attempts to discredit?
I think this article sums up the types of skepticism regarding climate change due to human emissions of greenhouse gases.
There are skeptics about global warming,
There are skeptics about the assertion that greenhouse gases are the cause of warming
And there are skeptics about human emissions of greenhouse gases being the cause of warming.
Each type of skepticism should be discussed separately.
"Flower pollen, rings in tree trunks, ice drilling, corals, melting glaciers and polar ice caps, rising sea levels, ecological fluctuations, increasing carbon dioxide concentration, rising temperatures at an unprecedented rate"
It seems that these factors indicate global warming but do not indicate its cause and here perhaps it is better not to underestimate the opinion of the skeptics.
may be…
It's better that way than talking embarrassing nonsense...
Miracles
You are arrogant, empty, without an independent opinion...
may be…
I actually wrote something original, and it was the subject of my master's thesis. There were a number of original ideas, one of which, God willing, will be the basis of my PhD. On the other hand, I try very hard to say things that most scientists, as far as I understand, support them, because otherwise there is no basis for these things. unlike you…..
You must not have written anything original! You throw out a basic sentence that contradicts science, or some crazy explanation for something you read. The point is that there are many like you, those who think they are smarter and see something that tens of thousands of educated and wise people have not seen.
A good example is your comment about the temperature differences between day and night. You read something by some global warming denier, you didn't understand, and you weren't ashamed to write it without citing the source. :)
Understand something - there is no such concept as the "scientific establishment"! There are scientists and there are studies. When most studies by most scientists say something, then it is very likely that this something is not something stupid, that someone like you will find holes in it.
I suggest you drive less arrogantly. Won't hurt 🙂
albentezo,
Two questions for you,
I recently (much to my chagrin) came across the following wonderful speech by Richard Feynman
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
In physics, are the dangers he's pointing out peso out of the world (by and large, I guess there will always be quacks/charlatans)?
second question,
Lately I've been coming across a lot of articles (in the mainstream press, what my wife calls Scientific Evening) coming out of the LHC that there is strong evidence (probably not yet 5 sigma) of a new, heavy particle that the standard model doesn't predict. Is something brewing there?
Ofer,
There is no doubt that the first time Yehuda wrote his nonsense, he did not lie. Maybe not the second time either. But he is writing this for the 100th time, and each 100 times he has received detailed explanations of what his mistakes are, he has received links to scientific articles that show evidence of the existence of dark matter that are beyond the one issue he refers to over and over again (missing material in comparing the centrifugal force to the gravity in galaxies), it was made clear to him why the model he proposes instead is absurd, etc. A person who continues to assert the claims in complete disregard of the refutations presented to him, a person who continues to say that physicists "changed the measurements" even though he received detailed explanations of what the dark matter theory is and why no physicist has ever changed the measurements to fit it - this person is simply a liar. If you want to argue that his lies are due to an inability to deal with reality, then I certainly agree.
Yehuda
I think it's your mistake that you don't understand something about the paragraph. Jurisprudence is mainly the mathematics part that you are less proficient in, it is understandable because you mostly know jurisprudence from popular science books. I will give you an example. There used to be a scientific theory that there was a substance called ether, it was bound to exist because they discovered that light is a wave and a wave must move in a medium. A scientific experiment they performed did not match what it should have been if there had been an ether. Albert Einstein came and said there is no site. So it's not!!
Einstein came up with an alternative theory with equations that explained the findings. Do you have new equations that show there is no dark matter?? According to the existing equations there must be dark matter. It may be that one day they will be replaced and it may not be. (The replacement of such a big theory is quite rare and it can be said that it only happened twice Newton and Einstein) As long as you don't have a theory (with formulas not just words) you are just spouting nonsense.
It is true that every new theory is met with resistance and that is a good thing. Note that in all your tragic stories in the end the scientific establishment accepted the theories and at least got closer to the truth. Think what would happen if everyone who published an honest theory everyone accepted it. For every one like the one who said that the sun is made of hydrogen, there are 10 students who wrote nonsense. And there are also cases where a theory is accepted late because at first it lacks evidence, those who were not involved in the work on the sun are not necessarily stupid in that year, for example, they did not know about nuclear fusion and she did not know either. what do you want to say Because science is changing, everything is nonsense and anyone can say "I don't think it makes sense that there is dark matter, so there is no dark matter"
Even if they find out that today's equations are incorrect, they must be very close to the truth.
albenza,
Judah is not a liar. He is a person who truly believes in the 'truth' that lies in his heart. He is also quite sure that one day this private truth of his will prevail. There are quite a few of these and this phenomenon is called "compulsive nagging". By way of the parable, one who lacks the sense of hearing is not lying when he reports that the world is silent. A color blind person is not lying when he reports that a tomato and a cucumber have the same color.
The troublemaker convinces himself that the picture of the world he has created in his heart is the plain and simple truth. This inner conviction allows him to skip all the hurdles and therefore it does not bother him at all that he is not able to understand what others write in their articles. After all, it can't be true anyway because it doesn't line up with his positions.
You may,
"The temperature differences between day and night are getting smaller and smaller..."
What do your calculations show? What was once and what is happening today, especially in Israel?
miracles
I have been following your writing for years.
Never, but never did you write that nothing is your original…
You always always always agree with what the scientific establishment considers to be correct and true...
Not only do you agree, but fiercely defend him...
What it means ?
Yehuda,
There is no such thing as "the truth I believe in". There is truth, and there is falsehood. You and everything you say is a lie. There is also no matter of consensus here - your claims have been completely refuted, and you ignore it - as befits a liar.
You don't refuse to read? really? Maybe we should ask a third party like Nissim, Shmulik and others what happens every time I bring you scientific articles about the positive evidence for the existence of dark matter. "It's in English", "It's too long for me", "I started reading but I didn't understand anything so I stopped". I think I've brought you links more than ten times and you never - *never* - read what I brought you. Also, I explained to you dozens of times that no one changes the data. You just don't understand something very simple, and instead of dealing with it you make up imaginations. No one has ever changed a value measured in an observation. All that has changed is the theory that explains the values, from one that doesn't match reality at all (=no dark matter) to one that matches reality with great precision and produces new predictions that are matched experimentally (=dark matter).
And, of course, Moelem, you did not bring any article that rules out the bullet cluster being the definitive evidence for the existence of dark matter. Or maybe I missed some recently awarded Nobel Prize? Either way, of course missing mass in galaxy clusters is only the edge of the evidence for the existence of matter. But you won't know that, because you flatly refuse to read the rest of the evidence. And no, lying and saying you don't refuse won't change the fact. If you don't refuse and I'm just making things up, maybe tell me what was written in all the articles I sent you? Maybe tell me what are the positive evidences for the existence of dark matter? At the same time, tell me also how you disprove them. The Nobel Prize will arrive in the mail.
I have referred to your stupid sentence many times already - it is simply a lie. No one changes observations. Like many people who can't deal with the fact that they are not smart enough to understand what every first-year student in a bachelor's degree in physics understands Benkel, you try to convince yourself and others that in this case, there is no need to study the field, and looking at a book for high school students whose introduction says in huge " This book is an abstraction for high school students and should not be treated as a complete picture of physical reality" This is enough to disprove all the physical knowledge of all the people who actually sat down, studied and understood. Somehow in your twisted mind, your ignorance becomes your strength, when in reality it is clear to everyone that you are just another joke about a person who wanted to be a physicist.
may be…
on the contrary. The difference between day and night is created because there is no sun and the heat "escapes" into space. Warming from within the Earth would affect day and night equally.
Maybe you're talking nonsense?
The scientists like to search only under a flashlight that shines...
There is a simple fact that everyone ignores:
All over the world, and especially noticeable in Israel,
The temperature differences between day and night are getting smaller and smaller...
Isn't this evidence that the heat is moving away from the earth,
Is it more influential today than in the past?
Yehuda
And I ask you the same question over and over again: Newton's formula has a physical explanation, and I want to understand what the physical explanation for the formula you propose is. How exactly does fitting a formula to measurements teach us anything?
Albanzo
If what I write is a lying comment then apparently you don't know how to treat comments that are not from your consensus. (But at least you made progress compared to the last time when you insulted me and simply called me a "liar")
And regarding what was said today in my response, what did you write in S.A.?? That Yehuda refuses to read on the subject? (Lie, lie!!)
There is not one paper that proves there is dark mass for sure. But this is the opinion in academia. You brought me the slingshot cluster and I saw and read an article that invalidates what is said there.
I met with a number of scientists (I'm not shy.) and brought up the subject of dark mass and even they defined the situation as problematic.
I never close my ears, and there is no mistake in the main argument I made in my response:
If the data measured in the field does not match what is obtained from a formula, the formula should be discarded and the data should not be changed to fit the formula.
And understand that this sentence is a very basic thing even if it is said by a high school student or a high school level commenter. Treat this sentence as it is!
In math, 5 times 5 is 25, and if you get 20, don't add another 5 dark ones that can't be discovered, and the main thing is that you get the 25 you want.
And I will write my response whenever the need arises because it is the truth that I believe in.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
You meant to write "In the academy you study the subject, understand it, examine the evidence and see that the theoretical forecast matches the observations and even predicts new observations that match, instead of relying on secondary knowledge and firmly refusing to read on the subject, ignore when you are presented with scientific articles that show the positive evidence, close your ears When they explain to you the mistakes in the alternatives you offer and only go back and write again and again the same lying and wrong response on the science website every two months"?
Because that's the truth. What you wrote, not really.
You can take more examples:
Sarah Payne Gafushkin, 1925, wrote a doctoral thesis in which she proved for the first time that the sun is made of hydrogen and helium. The conventional wisdom was that the sun was made of red-hot iron. She received a passing grade only after she was forced to apologize for her "work". No one came to apologize to her for what they did to her when years later everyone already agreed that she was right.
Another example that I love is our friendship the dark mass. The fact that the gravitation formulas are not suitable for the movement in the spiral galaxies does not bother anyone, they simply invent material and add it as much as necessary and use it to correct the results so that they match exactly what is required!!
And 99 percent of the academy happily agrees and runs to find the funds devoted to the search for this delusional material for over eighty years and without much success.
So what if the formula has been around for 350 years? The known universe has grown trillions since Newton, the formula doesn't have to fit even for a universe this size. And Newton's sacred formula will continue to rule
Please respond gently.
It's just science
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Miracles Your answer is ridiculous. You haven't provided a shred of argument as to why warming is a long-term problem. Remember that I argued that large extinctions are a blessing, and sea level rise is a financial problem for those who invest in real estate by the sea, etc.
You can take more examples:
Sarah Payne Gafushkin, 1925, wrote a doctoral thesis in which she proved for the first time that the sun is made of hydrogen and helium. The conventional wisdom was that the sun was made of red-hot iron. She received a passing grade only after she was forced to apologize for her "work". No one came to apologize to her for what they did to her when years later everyone already agreed that she was right.
Another example that I love is our friendship the dark mass. The fact that the gravitation formulas are not suitable for the movement in the spiral galaxies does not bother anyone, they simply invent material and add it as much as necessary and use it to correct the results so that they fit exactly what is required!!!!! 100 percent match.
And 99 percent of the academy happily agrees and runs to look for the funds dedicated to the search for mass - this illusory material for over eighty years and not with much success.
And their representatives run to disparage and abuse and discredit the single percent that demands a simple thing: throw away the formula responsible for the disgrace, so what if it has existed for 350 years? The known universe has grown trillions since Newton, the formula doesn't have to fit even for a universe this size. Logic will not help and of course, an article on this topic written by your faithful servant will not be published on the website of knowledge!
And Newton's holy formula will continue to rule and 99 percent will continue not to see that the king is naked!!!
Please respond gently.
It's just science
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Lior
You are simply wrong. The damages of the warming are real and evident in many places in the world. Damage at a certain point gets an article in the local newspaper. But - it is science that has shown that the damages are global and therefore it is a problem that interests everyone.
Only science sees climate change, average warming, ice retreat, coral damage and sea level rise. And only science has resulted in the fact that every intelligent person today can understand that the problem is real.
The interesting counterargument is that the rate of warming is much lower than the models presented
http://mida.org.il/2015/12/10/%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%93%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%90/
These three percent are important to science. But harmful when you have to make practical decisions. These three percent are probably found on every scientific theory. But you get reinforcement and why only when there are usually financial stakeholders. In a normal situation, 3% skeptics would challenge the rest, find flaws in the theory and in some cases would even bring about its change. That is why it is important that science is not democratic and it is forbidden to denounce the three percent who oppose and say they will be deprived of degrees. On the other hand, when an operative decision needs to be made and there are vested interests, the three percent skeptics are either used for propaganda purposes or greedy scientists pretend to be skeptics. This causes a double harm to pure science because in addition science becomes more rigid towards all opponents of accepted theories. Thus the progress of science was harmed. I have no magic solution to offer except to remember the risk that pure science has in the war on these 3%. And also the risk of humanity making decisions from those 3%.
There are quite a few failures along the way that the scientific community recognizes
in the discoveries. For decades Professor Dan Shechtman fought alone
On the existence of quasi-periodic crystals mol
A broad consensus headed by Linus Pauling who won the second
Nobel Prizes.
Still, there is weight to the scientific consensus and the precautionary principle is binding
humanity to recognize warming as a danger caused by it.
Maybe
Man has indeed caused global warming since industrialization. But it is a great luck and a blessing for humanity. Otherwise we would be in a mini ice age today.
The failure is in the political conclusion that there is something bad about warming.
The scientists do not present the facts (warming) and call on the voters and the elected to decide what political policy they want to implement. Rather, they give instructions, supposedly in the name of science, on what should be done (to stop the warming) and how.
For example: species extinction happens all the time. Neither the mammals nor man have been without major extinctions. But all sorts of stakeholders are shouting in the name of science apparently that this is a problem.
Another example: people who live near the coast up to 100 meters above sea level want to raise the price of energy (and flights for example) to stop the warming that will claim their property. Why is it obvious that I have to pay more to save their property?