Comprehensive coverage

Is it possible that antimatter powers superluminous supernovae?

Apparently there is a range of masses where a star explodes, then returns to produce matter as a result of interactions with antimatter and explodes a second time with a stronger intensity

The supernova SN2007GY
The supernova SN2007GY
Explosions are always an interesting thing and the most spectacular and violent explosions in the universe belong to supernovae. In 2006, supernova SN 2006GY amazed scientists with a "light show" with an intensity 10 times stronger than the intensity of an average supernova. The intensity of the light show challenged the traditional model of how an exploding star creates a supernova. Astronomers suspect that the reason for this is the continuous production of antimatter in the star's core.

A supernova occurs when a star is nearing the end of its life. The nuclear processes that drive the star cause an explosion stronger than the force of gravity that holds the star together. The type of supernova produced depends on the mass of the star. In stars with a mass greater than 90-135 times the mass of the Sun, this process can happen more than once and a "pulsating" supernova is formed that can repeat itself up to 7 times.

The reason for the existence of multi-explosive supernovae may be related to the formation of antimatter particles in the core, which then recombine and release large amounts of energy.

"We encounter a 'dual instability' near the end of a star's life, when a large amount of thermal energy (heat energy) creates abundantly large masses of electron-positron pairs instead of providing pressure," writes Dr. Stan Wesley of the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California in Santa Cruz.

What happens is this: the first supernova occurs, driven by antimatter explosions in the core and ejecting a large amount of material from the star into space; Despite this, enough material remains near the core and thus the star continues and restarts nuclear processes. Thus, after between a few hundred days and a few years, another supernova occurs according to the same mechanism and when the ejected material collides with remnants of previous ejected material, the interaction creates enormous amounts of light.

This process happens in stars in the mass range of 95-130 solar masses only. Stars with a mass less than 95 solar masses undergo a typical, one-time supernova, while stars with a solar mass greater than 130 undergo dual instability but explode with such force that leaves no material near the core that would allow it to start the process over.

The formation of antimatter in the core, in addition to the large amount of light produced by repeated collisions of ejected material remnants, well explains the otherwise highly puzzling brightness of supernova SN 2006GY.

"The model existed even before the occurrence of 2006GY and within its framework the possibility of the existence of a bright supernova of this type was also predicted. When we learned about the occurrence of the supernova, we performed additional detailed calculations, specific to 2006GY and indeed discovered to our satisfaction that many of the observed findings matched the model results," says Dr. Wesley.

There are other possible candidates for this type of recurring supernovae, such as "η Carinae" (a type of extremely luminous hypergiant double star. Unfortunately, not all of them are as spectacular as SN 2006GY.

For the news in Universe Today

On the same topic on the science website:

The strange nebula you are Karina

In a particle accelerator, the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang were reconstructed

Antimatter particles may also be produced in the large accelerator in the axis

Antimatter as a means of time travel? In the article Time in a side view

118 תגובות

  1. The summary of the Wikipedia article on LeSage's theory reads:

    Although it is not regarded as a viable theory within the mainstream scientific community, there are occasional attempts to rehabilitate the theory outside the mainstream, including those of Radzievskii and Kagalnikova (1960),[58] Shneiderov (1961),[59] Buonomano and Engels (1976),[60] Adamut (1982),[61] Jaakkola (1996),[62] Tom Van Flandern (1999),[63] and Edwards (2007).[64] A variety of Le Sage models and related topics are discussed in Edwards, et al.[65]
    I allow myself to add that even if in the end a similar theory is invented that successfully deals with the contradictory predictions of the existing theories, then that:
    A. It will be less simple
    B. Whoever invents it and manages to defend it will understand it and know how to answer questions seriously (without resorting to arguments like "with a little imagination it is possible to show that..." - because he will have all the necessary imagination and will be able to present the answer instead of imagining the imagination, or "I don't want to get into endless debates about a certain topic" which is an arrogant way of saying "I don't understand this topic because otherwise the debates about it would be final")
    third. It will not be any of the similar theories that have already been disproved and none of their inventors will be able to claim that this is his theory
    d. Philosophically, as Kant pointed out, it will not solve the problem that it was created to solve, and that is the need to explain attractive forces because you will still need the attractive forces that hold the particles as particles (and prevent them from disintegrating into smaller and smaller particles ad infinitum)

  2. As Yehuda writes:

    Lesage's theory is important, simple and….
    is at odds with reality for all the reasons already mentioned and certainly for other reasons as well.
    I call the situation where the theory is in conflict with reality "complication" and the act of trying to defend it "entanglement" but that is already a matter of definition.
    Neutrons in a neutron star have no reason not to decay. Neutrons are only stable when they are in atomic nuclei where there are as many protons as neutrons. As soon as there are more neutrons, the stability ends and in a neutron star there are, as we know, only neutrons.
    When someone doesn't know something, the use of the sentence "maybe this something serves my purpose but I don't know" is trending and misleading. It is more decent in this case to say nothing.

  3. Hello to the science responders

    I refer my knowledgeable respondents to the book that Roy referred me to
    http://www.redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/PushingGravity.htm

    Pushing Gravity
    New perspectives on Le Sage's theory of gravitation

    (paperback, 316 p.; ISBN 0-9683689-7-2)

    Matthew R. Edwards (ed.)

    The introduction given by the author analyzing the history of Le Sage's theory appears there.
    Below is a summary of the author's introduction as it appears there

    Collectively, the papers in this book show that the remarkable saga of Le Sage's theory of gravitation may be entering a new and exciting phase. In the new century, it may even happen that Le Sage's theory comes into prominence once more. If it does, it wouldn't be entirely surprising. It is, after all, the simplest theory of gravitation.

    Le Sage's theory is after all the simplest theory of gravitation, so people who see a complication in Le Sage's theory or in my simple universe are delusional.
    Scientists are aware of the problematic nature of it, which we have already discussed here. But it is clear that it should not be canceled outright. And the new century may bring this theory the importance it deserves.

    And as I already said in my response here from the date 21.12 at 10.52

    I believe that if there is also a reference to the diameter of the particles and the tiny distances in the atoms, the same movement is the one that creates both the strong force and the weak force. Here is a possibility to unite the forces that are looking for!.

    So the analysis of neutron stars, which is certainly familiar to many scientists, should not change the importance of Le Sage's theory.

    I have no desire to enter into an endless debate about neutron stars, but it seems to me that the neutrons in a neutron star should not decay at all, just as they do not decay in normal atoms either. Nitrogen decays as far as I know only by chance and is found in free form in nature.
    But maybe I'm wrong.

    good day everyone

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  4. A few more words about the complication of the simple universe:
    I debated a lot whether to upload this comment to the site and I guess those who have come this far can understand why.
    After several days of deliberation, I decided that it would still be appropriate to do this for those who want to deal with reality honestly.
    In the discussion so far I have shown that a model with elastic collisions will not create gravitation and I have pointed out that a model where the collisions are inelastic will conflict with the law of conservation of mass and energy.
    Later I tried to think if there is a way in which I can estimate the amount of mass or energy whose disappearance needs to be explained.
    It's not a simple matter because the gravitation is supposed to be created by the pressure difference from the two directions, but the same difference may be created by the reduction of different numbers in orders of magnitude (for example, the difference between 7 and 9 is like the difference between 9997 and 9999) so how can the result be reached anyway?
    Then an idea came to my mind: I asked myself what is the necessary energy to compress very dense stars.
    I didn't want to deal with black guys because I saw that there are people here who disbelieve in the fact of their existence, but since neutron stars have already been observed and also discussed freely on this site, I decided to deal with them.
    In a neutron star, the electrons and protons merged and became neutrons under the force of gravity.
    Let's try to calculate the energy that must be invested to "maintain" such a structure by transferring energy (the calculation I'm about to describe is related to the fact that gravity is created by collisions that transfer energy and not by opposing force fields. Two opposing forces can cancel each other out without doing work, but if its effect of force is supposed to be canceled out by collisions so these collisions transfer kinetic energy of the particles and turn it into potential energy of the force field with which they are fighting - think of keeping a spring in a compressed state by constantly throwing balls at it).
    A neutron that is not part of an atomic nucleus that also contains positrons is an unstable particle that decays in a process called beta decay (and produces, among other things, a positron and an electron).
    I searched the internet for the half-life of the neutron and the amount of energy released in beta decay.
    I found all kinds of numbers, but the orders of magnitude were like this:
    The half-life of a neutron is 15 minutes.
    The energy released in its decay is 1.3 Mev
    This means that in the maintenance of a neutron star, an average of 1.3 Mev must be invested in each pair of neutrons every quarter of an hour (to reverse the beta decay that one of them will "suffer" back).
    Since there are 6X10^23 neutrons in each gram, 1.3X3X10^23 Mev must be invested in a gram wave every quarter of an hour.
    Mev is (1.6X10^(-13 joules) and calorie is 4.2 joules.
    Therefore, every quarter of an hour, 1.3X3X10^23X1.6X10^(-13)/4.2 calories are invested in the "maintenance" of the neutrons.
    It's about 1.5X10^10 calories per quarter of an hour which is 9^10 calories per minute.

    According to the model, the "rays" of particles that create gravity wander in the universe in random directions and probably do not focus specifically on the neutrons of a neutron star. If there is a difference between the degree to which they are hit by neutron star neutrons, then the former absorb fewer particles on average than the latter (because their compactness "hides" some of them).
    If someone wants to bring up the "vortices" again, I answer in advance that the flow of vortices is from the direction of high pressure to low pressure and it will follow that the particle pressure is greater in places that are not a neutron star.

    Now let's just remember that one calorie is needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree.

    In other words, the particles proposed in the "simple" universe transfer energy to matter to the extent that it would vaporize the earth in less than a second.

    Another thing on the philosophical level.
    In my meeting with Yehuda, I asked him why he specifically chose gravity and did not see the need to explain the other forces through similar mechanisms.
    I will not dwell on his answer, but it is worth noting that the website I mentioned above mentions Kant's response to the idea and he presented the same question in a more elegant way than I did.
    Here's the quote:
    Kant pointed out that the very existence of spatially extended configurations of matter, such as particles of non-zero radius, implies the existence of some sort of binding force to hold the extended parts of the particle together. Now, that force cannot be explained by the push from the gravitational particles, because those particles too must hold together in the same way. To avoid this circular reasoning, Kant asserted that there must exist a fundamental attractive force.

  5. To Michael
    First of all, I'm glad you didn't rule out the model/sculpture issue outright as something unnecessary that won't add much and will only bother you!!
    You don't have to worry about bothering the commenters with what doesn't interest them, they don't read...that's for sure!
    I am someone who finds it difficult to decide and certainly to commit to such a project that can grow and take up most of my time..and also the fear that the right ideas will not come in time (and you need a lot of them so that it does not become a gray elephant!) and the main problem is that I actually have nothing to present except the general idea and an approximate detail of how Could be, but not how it would look, not even close! But I take your offer of help to heart and as soon as I'm ready I'll let you know!
    As for creating a body by converting energy into matter, you called it "teleportation" (the first time I hear this word) which I understand means transfer in... but that's exactly what I wrote against, i.e. there is no need for disassembly if you have a machine that reassembles the body!! Because she will not use the material but only the data that will not necessarily pass because in fact they do not exist just as there is no data on paper flakes how to reassemble them into a sheet of paper! Etc. But you're right, this is a bit of an unusual topic. Except that science is going in this direction following the stem cells and the desire for longevity or "eternal" life (a thousand years is considered forever in my eyes). otherwise or to email!
    Just one more thing about the soul/nefesh.. there is almost no chance that it will survive the process of dismembering the body, therefore the whole business is that the soul can be separated from the body like software from the computer. In the name of Peter Hale (sound familiar?) he put the recording device inside a Faraday box that blocks electromagnetic waves (to prevent radio waves and the like) and yet voices were recorded!! I bring this information from an excellent book (in my opinion) called "The Weave" authored by the psychologist Dr. Leon Liebrecht whose subtitle is "Meeting between science and mysticism".. An interesting book.
    good week

  6. to d. breach:

    I think the subject of the statue is a little too big for me.
    I do know many relevant parts of science, but I currently have no green idea how I would begin to deal with the task.
    I am ready to help you (within the time limits) in answering scientific questions and perhaps also in meeting you with relevant scientists.
    I may also be able to help clarify the placement issue at the university. I don't work there but I know a lot of people both in the academic staff and in the management team.

    Regarding the topic of "teleportation" and duplicating people - we are still so far from it that it is really difficult to deal with it seriously.
    What science knows how to do today is something that is almost equivalent to the teleportation of a particle, but if the existing techniques in this matter are the ones that will be applied to living people, then what they will do will be to disassemble the person in his current place and reassemble him at the destination. I would not enter such a teleportation machine.

    Of course, they are also thinking about replication, but as far as I know, no one has a serious idea about how this could be done.

    I have expressed my opinion on the subject of the soul before on this website and the gist of it is that there is no soul separate from the body.
    Many scientists hold this view but there are also some who reject it.
    If my opinion is correct then the issue of launching or duplicating the soul will be an automatic result of duplicating the body. No one has any idea how to begin thinking about duplicating a soul that is not part of the body.

    In any case - it seems to me that we are drifting away from the subject of the discussion and sailing into areas that are not necessarily of interest to others (what's more, I have to add the qualifying prefix "in my opinion" to almost every claim and there is no reason why many people would be interested in my opinion).

    If you would like to continue the conversation, feel free to send me an email. My address should be in the "Hidan" system and you can show them this response as my permission to give it to you.

    Best regards,
    Michael

  7. To Roy

    I will read the source you referred me to regarding the experiments on the subject. If the experiment is done then surely there is no point in me repeating it.
    One only has to try to look up Le Sage in the Hebrew encyclopedia, which was accessible to me in my early years with the idea of ​​the simple universe, to see how sparse the material on it was. Only in the last few years since the advent of the Internet, the amount of material has grown tremendously. This is also mainly in English.
    I don't know thousands of scientists, but my words came in response to a "physicist" who said that there are thousands of eccentrics like me, so I answered him in the same language that there are also thousands of scientists, etc.
    I've had my ideas for decades and really haven't heard of more than Le Sage. Others, like Nir from Israel, who also published a book on "gravity" exaggerated even more.
    There was no attempt to mislead anyone.
    That's the knowledge I had.
    I inquired at the French consulate about Le Sage and all they could tell me was only about René Le Sage, who is a different person. Thus, only in the last few years of the internet is the information really more available.

    In general, it was nice to see that even Le Sage himself was probably not the first and was preceded by someone named Patio, and perhaps another person preceded both of them. And the debate about elasticity or inelasticity took place even then. Nice.

    In any case, I now have a lot of reading material on the subject, I will look through it and draw conclusions.

    Thank you very much for your words.

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  8. to Michael (continued)
    In the book "On Space" (from a very free memory) there is talk of multiple worlds and the possibility of time travel including going back in time (by the way time travel..isn't that what happens all the time to everyone?) and the whole known story in this context!
    This is a subject that then jumped me because multiple worlds create an infinite mass for the world!
    And while I was thinking about it, I remembered the science fiction movies where the person enters a box or stands in a designated place and then a beam pulls him on a mega-fast journey to other worlds in seconds... for some reason this led me to a device we all know and it's called a fax machine! A fax machine transfers text to another fax machine without transferring the paper..that is, it does not grind the paper and transfer it to the other side, where it is reproduced again! It sounds funny, but this is exactly what is done in these fiction films, which means that there is a fundamental mistake here because they probably did not think about the process in depth and even superficially, because if it is possible to reproduce a person, it means copying a body!! And if that's the case, what needs to be worked on is turning energy into matter arranged according to a certain pattern, in this case the human body!
    From there I continued to think/imagine when it became clear to me what tremendous forces had to be used to create an atomic element required to build the body millions of kilometers away from here... and before that even in a simple experiment the most I could find was that of creating a drop of water from energy!
    And if it will be possible to produce a drop of water through energy conversion, then the way is also opened to create different types of foods and drinks, for example wine from year (?)..every year even those in which wine has not yet been produced! as well as food materials directly from energy without the need to go through agriculture or mines in one word, a machine which with the appropriate formula will produce any type of material from iron to gold from grains to prepared meat and... imagination!
    That is, if the people of science fiction were a little more careful in what they did, they would come to the same conclusion that before creating a body, the miraculous machine must be created and before that the drop of water that will herald a new era for humanity!
    The detail I wrote is much broader (you have to look for the pages)..I thought then that such a thing, even if it is possible in the future, could take thousands of years until this knowledge is in the hands of humanity! And the main problem regarding the creation of the body was the transfer of the soul to the new body! Which immediately led to the question of proving the existence of the soul... because without a soul the whole thing falls apart! Then the issue of the possibility of duplicating souls came up, that is, one person (me?) will duplicate himself into dozens of different bodies and not necessarily at the same age or the same sex, that is, the creation of an entire society from one original soul! Which can lead to maximum harmony between all parts of society and maximum agreement regarding any issue that comes up!
    And the question is to what extent is it even possible to convert energy into matter in a reasonable time without going into the type of energy required or advanced processes for using energy, let's say by preparing an infrastructure that nourishes and absorbs saturation with different materials, etc.??
    Second question..have you already thought about it in this format?
    I'm taking advantage of the opportunity I have here to ask about these matters... and I don't have a scientific ego (yet) so you can feel free to speak your mind!

  9. To Michael
    And you can also add objects that cannot be seen with the naked eye and not just particles but 99.9 percent of the matter in the universe!! So this matter is closed on a practical level and was closed all the time (otherwise they couldn't "do" science)!
    Apparently the problem remains at the philosophical principle level!
    I would like to ask your opinion about my idea (one disclosure out of dozens and in many fields..but if there is real interest I will focus on it more) of a model/sculpture that would include the development of science and its discoveries and prominent personalities who influenced it during the centuries of its existence without depriving the place of the ancient Greeks whose questions They were a powerful engine that gave a tremendous impetus to the development of science!!
    The sculpture/model will show the prevailing theories in science today, the important controversies and the understanding of the world in the eyes of science...that is, the sculpture/model comes to illustrate scientific knowledge directly and symbolically and using materials that have an affinity to different periods in science, for example the glass that according to one of the programs on Channel 8 in collaboration with scientists Bacharim promoted the observations in space with a giant step after the construction of the telescope and indirectly inspired the construction of the microscope whose decisive contribution to science is not in doubt in opening new ways of thinking and the discoveries of diverse fields of science!
    My problem is to transform a theory like let's say the theory of relativity (of which I only understood the gist, so I will need help from scientists regarding many questions that will arise during the process of converting to three-dimensional objects) and illustrate Newton's theory of gravity and the latest, etc. and arrange all this in some logical connection together in the same place ( I was thinking of the grassy square to the right of the Faculty of Science at Tel Aviv University where there is currently a statue made of two chains!
    The main motivation for building such a sculpture/model came as a result of my inability to understand various processes in science without an illustration, mainly after reading an excellent book by Michio Kaku "On Space" in early 2006...and then I thought why not a large structure where the best theories would be concentrated in an illustration that would add to the actual written text Like the illustration in the museum in Haifa that I visited years ago where children and amateur adults like me can "see" science in action and not just hear how things are supposed to happen (except for certain things like an atomic explosion!!)!
    I'm sure my intention is not clear enough, so I would be happy to hear your opinion and clarifying questions, as well as your assessment of the management's willingness to agree to such a project in its field (assuming it will be funded by a science-loving donor)! I should add more because the intention is that the model/sculpture will also show processes in motion including computer terminals and screens integrated into it and more
    And there is another matter that came up from this book "on space" and that is in the next response

  10. Yehuda,

    "My argument is that moving particles create attraction.
    There is agreement that this is so."

    The consensus is on moving particles the size of molecules. That is, matter tends to be drawn into a vacuum. There is no connection between particles the size of molecules and particles the size you suggest - 10 to the power of 40 meters. The forces that operate there are very different, and the properties of the particles are very different and are described by quantum theory.

    Beyond that, I refer you to the book Pushing Gravity (http://www.redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/PushingGravity.htm) where, among other things, experiments on the theory are described. I repeat - experiments have already been done on the theory. I strongly suggest that you purchase the book and make sure that the experiment you propose has not already been done in some way. I think it would be fair to both the readers and the physicists you want to convince, if you approach the subject only after you have formed a solid opinion about it supported by as much data and evidence as possible.

    "Thousands of scientists, not all of them.
    So your words are as if I am categorizing the modern physicists
    And not just a few thousand of them, it is excessive."

    Do you know all those thousands of physicists and scientists? If not, then you are just categorizing a lot of people and 'judging them'. If you don't even know all the experiments they rely on when making up their minds about your theory, how can you judge them so strongly?

    "And regarding gravitation, a solution must be found to the problem of energy and friction and the loss of speed of the particles and bodies.
    It is true that for two hundred years they did not find a solution, but knowledge in the world changes and it is necessary to check the problem at least every few months.
    I don't think that for this purpose it is necessary to go to university for several years."

    The world's knowledge is changing, but the laws of conservation of mass and energy are still valid, and they still frustrate the particle theory. But you say yourself that you did not study physics at university, and did not engage in research in the field. How can you take them as seriously as an academic physicist? He sees these laws being adjusted every day, in each of the experiments he does. They are the cornerstones on which he researches, and they prove themselves every time.
    When you try to establish a 'new' theory, while claiming that these laws should change, you need very strong proofs of the correctness of the theory. And these simply do not exist.

    "In addition, it is true that in the context of the discussion here, new material on the subject came to my attention, but isn't that the goal and intention of an exhaustive discussion?"

    Yes, that's the goal. But the 'new' stuff isn't hard to come by, and frankly, I'm insulted to find out how easy it is to track down. You talk about your theory here for a long time and offer many interpretations of phenomena that academic physicists study. Am I supposed to understand now that you based your entire theory on Alma's thoughts, without trying to read all the piles and mountains of texts already written on this theory? And from those ignorant thoughts, without even knowing about all the experiments - real and logical - that have already been conducted around the theory and refuted it, you offer it to us as a 'pure truth' that only needs to be conducted to confirm it?

    If I were to think of a new theory for the nature of the universe, the first thing I would do would be to review all the existing literature and look for references to previous people who thought of the idea. I would read every existing text on the subject, and try to see if they have already disproved the theory - and if so, how. Without doing that, I would not have dared to present the theory to the general public.

    And so I ask you at this point, even if belatedly: have you read all the existing literature? Have you scanned the multitude of scientific articles published on the subject of La Sage's particle theory? Did you find a reasonable explanation why the arguments of the opponents of the theory are invalid?

    "And as for me Michael/"Physicist" I really don't care.
    I was just wrong about him. He will be perfumed.”

    I don't know about why you were wrong about it. He argued with you about the theory he thought you were defending and refuted it in your eyes beautifully. It seems that there was some kind of misunderstanding between you, and both of you got upset as a result. that's it. If you really want to seriously submit your theory to testing, I would take Michael and hug him close to me. He seems to me to be a person who understands physics, and that any idea you come up with should pass through the filter of his skepticism and knowledge.

    have a nice weekend,

    Roy.

  11. To Roy
    My argument is that moving particles create attraction.
    There is agreement that it is so.

    I didn't see that an experiment was done that shows attraction created by moving particles, and in my humble opinion it should be done.
    Not for me. It's just an interesting experiment that hasn't been done.

    And as for my opinion of the scientists, everything I said in the article "New beginnings, etc.":-

    Sabdarmish Yehuda 6-12-2007 | 7:02 to RobertS
    Unfortunately, there are thousands of "scientists" who adhere to the scientific paradigm, who are unable to rise above the mire of their extended scientific knowledge.
    End quote. A
    Thousands of scientists, not all of them.
    So your words are as if I am categorizing the modern physicists
    And not just a few thousand of them is excessive.

    And regarding gravitation, a solution must be found to the problem of energy and friction and the loss of speed of the particles and bodies.
    It is true that for two hundred years they did not find a solution, but knowledge in the world changes and it is necessary to check the problem at least every few months.
    I don't think that for this purpose you need to go to university for several years.

    In addition, it is true that in the context of the discussion here, new material on the subject came into my possession, but isn't this the goal and intention of an exhaustive discussion?

    And as for Michael/"physicist" I really don't care.
    I was just wrong about him. He will be perfumed.

    Thank you for your interesting response. I will take her to heart.

    Have a quiet and pleasant weekend
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  12. Yehuda,

    I believe that if Michael was 'the same physicist', he would have responded to your words under his former nickname. Throughout the discussion, he tried to establish the argument that the theory of elastic particles does not explain the motion of the stars at all, without insulting anyone or mixing in personal insinuations.
    In the end, he also succeeded, and now you both agree that this theory cannot represent gravity - and you even convinced the science readers. This is not an easy task, for which I applaud him. I really enjoyed reading the polite and well-reasoned discussion.

    I understand from your earlier words that the theory you formulated in general terms did take into account the inelasticity that particles must have. I am qouting :
    "third. Some of the particles will be inhibited in the body while the rest will pass through it."

    This sounds like a clearly inelastic collision.

    At the same time, when Michael stated that:
    "There is, by the way, a way to escape some of the problems I raised and it is in a slightly different model.
    Note that Feynman uses the word absorbed for what happens to the particles at the moment of impact.
    That is, at the moment of impact, the particle is swallowed by the substance it hits and does not bounce back from it like a gas molecule.
    This solves some of the problems I raised but puts in their place an equally serious problem with the law of conservation of mass and energy (and of course it also leaves the problem that Feynman raised)."

    You did not respond to this claim, but continued to defend a theory that it turns out (in retrospect) that you do not support yourself. This was the point where the discussion drifted into unrelated areas.

    If you have the strength to continue debating the theory on the assumption that the particles are inelastic, I would love to hear how you can defend this assumption, and still argue for the conservation of the laws of mass and energy, as well as deal with Feynman's simple argument on the subject.

    At the same time, Yehuda, I have to offer something. Throughout the discussion here, you use physical concepts in a way that does not correspond to their use and understanding in modern physics. Concepts like pressure and temperature, for example. Your intuition is very strong, but it does not compensate for knowledge that can be acquired at the various universities, or from textbooks (and not popular science books). In addition, it seems that the first time you discovered Feynman's argument against the theory was on this forum, even though the theory has been around for over 200 years, and Feynman's argument is quite famous - and even appears on Wikipedia, along with many other problems that caused the vast majority of physicists to abandon the theory.

    Don't you think that before you categorize modern physicists as people who are not ready to accept alternative theories, you should know all the arguments for and against your own theory? Why do you expect an academic physicist to agree to conduct an experiment for you whose value is measured in several thousand shekels (if not tens of thousands of shekels, considering the hours of work he spends on it), before you can convincingly explain to him why the logical arguments put forward over 200 years against the theory are incorrect?

    This is my opinion, and Shabbat Shalom to all of us.

    Roy.

  13. To Michael

    So you admit that you consciously intended to insult???.
    I wonder what commenters like Roi Tsezana, Ami Bachar and others think.
    I'm tired of people like you.
    Maybe... you are the same "physicist"?
    If so, you really have a problem.

    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  14. Led. breach:
    I wonder how things communicate.
    Remember I think you asked about dark matter?
    So if you think about it, this is a clear example of the belief of scientists in the existence of an objective reality that does not depend on the observer.
    After all, even those who dispute the existence of dark matter do not base their claim on the fact that no one has seen it. The same holds true for black holes. All science is essentially about finding out the answers to the question of what that objective reality is.
    By the way, apart from thousands of differences, the situation is different regarding UFOs.
    The existence of these is entirely dependent on the existence of an observer.
    As you remember, a UFO is an unidentified object, so all the viewer has to do to prove the existence of a UFO is not to identify the object he sees :)
    The truth is that the example is not accurate because an object that has not been observed at all is always undetectable, but this is all just for the sake of the joke.

  15. Too bad to say too much.
    I guess it's easy for readers to tell who knew what he was talking about and who didn't.
    Your arguments are based on the fact that you do not express yourself unequivocally and this allows you to be pushed through the internal contradictions or alternatively the indeterminacy of your words.
    The Oracle of Delphi used the same principle.
    Regarding the attempt to insult - it's interesting how you call the insinuations as if I didn't know what I say I knew. Do you think calling someone a "liar" isn't insulting?
    You claim that you are the one who was offended as if this contradicts what I said.
    This is not a contradiction! I responded to your insulting words and I meant for you to be offended too.

  16. To Michael
    I am writing this response with great pain.
    What are you trying to do Michael?, impute hidden intentions to me?, say that I am hiding information? Am I stepping on your ego? Am I insulting you? Am I implying all kinds of things?

    You disappoint me.

    I think I really don't need to apologize for standing my ground until my words were accepted, which I always claimed:
    "Moving particles create attraction".
    Now you come and say that I argued only about an elastic collision? I did not refer to the type of collision in our current debate at all, your words are unfortunately misleading, and they are not acceptable to me.

    So what now? After all, my words have been heard for years on the Internet and in the lectures I gave, and in the articles I wrote, do you think you have a part in this?, I am satisfied.

    On 18.12.07 at 23.55:XNUMX I said the following in my response to you:

    "Fifth assumption: there is a need for endless splashing between the eastern and western sections and back again, God forbid, so that it would be possible to hit point A exactly from the east."

    Since I did not agree with this infinity, which can only exist in perfectly elastic collisions, then obviously I preferred the inelasticity.
    You understand that this assumption was made by me before we met and is why I give up on elastic collision.
    (At this point, because it's always good to go back and check the situation a second time.) So it's clear to you that your words that you are the one who pointed out the source of the problem to me, are incorrect, because I never defined a problem there.
    In general, I was quite surprised to find out that you suddenly agree with the possibility of particle gravitation, since
    You were actually advocating that I was wrong about the whole idea. A quote from your words: "I don't know where to start because all your claims seem wrong to me"
    But again, it was not so important to me to specify the type of elasticity when the whole pull was put in doubt.

    And by the way, I am at all satisfied if there can even be a completely elastic collision, in the macro field I know that such a collision does not exist, so the whole debate is really unnecessary and maybe also a bit childish.

    I never tried to insult you and you won't be able to show anywhere that I did.

    I'm the one who got hurt, and it's a shame.

    To be safe, I will try to refrain from responding to you in the future so that the pleasant debate we had until yesterday does not deteriorate.

    I'm sorry I had to write this comment.
    All the best
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  17. To Michael
    Thanks for the quick reply ! I read the whole thing, but I'm not sure I understood everything (tomorrow I will read it carefully again), but from what I did understand, I was convinced that my reasoning was in the realm of the reasonable, and it's a shame that there isn't a book that clearly says what you wrote here about the error of Zeno's paradox and the fact that most scientists advocate a view in which reality is independent In fact objectively!
    I would like to add some things (note) that I wrote on this subject on a page in connection with this passage from Prof. Yakir Shoshani's book in 2001 "After reading further, it seems to me that two things are put together and called reality! There is a difference between the existence of reality and what a person sees around him with his senses! This very thing That the person "sees" reality proves that it existed before (it was not created especially for him!!)
    Perhaps the question should be what is reality before discussing its existence or non-existence!!"
    Good night

  18. to d. breach:
    I do not consider myself qualified to speak for science, especially since science is not someone or even a group of people.
    I see science as the method we use to study reality.
    It is a copy from the particular to the general of our way of learning the world.
    To this end, he mobilizes experience as the final arbiter and requires objectivity and the apartments.
    Mathematics is not seen as a science according to these definitions, even though it is sometimes called the "queen of the sciences", but it is no secret that many branches of mathematics (actually - most, including the basics of geometry) were developed to answer problems that can indeed be defined as scientific.
    We play with the axioms and see what follows from a defined set of axioms, but we cannot free ourselves from the guidance of the laws of logic inherent in us that were "inferred" by evolution in a way that, despite its enormous length on the timeline, was a scientific way - the one whose way of drawing conclusions gave better predictions got an advantage in placing offspring.
    The Helsinki Convention indeed prohibits experiments on humans, but evolution conducts such experiments and promotes DNA.
    The separation between science and mathematics is, therefore, somewhat artificial, but it nevertheless helps to understand the difference between the disciplines.
    I don't know the history of the problem of Achilles and the tortoise (or of Zeno's problem) and all the politics that surrounded it at the time, but these details are not important to me because even today people face the same problems and people nowadays are certainly not trying to defend Parmenides.
    I can also understand the difficulty of people with the problem and even more than that - I have come across more than once people who thought they knew the solution to the paradox when in fact they didn't!
    Even people who knew mathematics and knew how to say that this is a "converging column" did not know how to say much beyond this expression except that it is clear that Achilles succeeds in the end.
    The wisdom in dealing with paradoxes (in my opinion) is not to find another solution that does not lead to a paradox, but to explain the error in the chosen way (by the way, the very existence of two apparently legitimate ways that lead to contradictory conclusions is actually the definition of the paradox, so that finding another way cannot - by definition - constitute a solution to the paradox).
    And what is the mistake in the way of thinking that creates the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise?
    In my opinion, the mistake is "overgeneralization".
    We examine a (albeit infinite) series of events that all occur before a certain time (as is easy to see since the series of time periods that separate the events form a converging geometric column) and draw a conclusion that relates to the entire timeline - [Achilles will "never" catch the tortoise] at a time when What we were allowed to conclude from this series of events is the conclusion that Achilles will not reach the tortoise before X hour.
    The differential calculus was developed by Newton and Leibniz more or less at the same time (and as far as I know -) while trying to solve real problems in mathematics and physics and not to deal with these paradoxes.
    As for the existence of a reality that does not depend on us, in my opinion the vast majority of scientists are convinced that reality does not depend on our perception of it. Although there were some proposals at the time that tried to involve the human consciousness in the collapse of the wave function, but in my opinion (and as far as I know - also in the opinion of the vast majority of contemporary scientists) this is really a delusional idea.
    In this context it is worth noting that in Professor Laughlin's lecture mentioned in one of the articles recently and entitled "A Different Universe" Laughlin spoke about how in his opinion (which agrees with my opinion) even the famous thought experiment with "Schrödinger's cat" was invented by Schrödinger as a joke and not as a description of reality .

  19. To Michael
    By the way about the source..it reminded me of Zeno's "paradox" regarding the fact that Achilles will never succeed in catching the tortoise that was ahead of him but only slightly when it is clear and known to all of us that after a second or two in the real world Achilles will pass the tortoise! I didn't understand where this problem came from and why anyone is bothered by this kind of fake reality that is easy to disprove... until I read (I didn't study science or philosophy that's why I came across these things late) that Zeno actually defends the teachings of his teacher Parmenides!!
    As far as I'm concerned, it's still fake and far-fetched in its essence, including the "problem" of the progress of the arrows, which is impossible from a computational point of view?
    The problematic point for me in the whole story is that science does not outright reject this description of reality and leaves it in the past, but rather tries to "fix" the equations so that they fit the simulated paradox, at least that's how I understood the differential and integral calculus that Newton developed in order to "fit" the problem of the human perception of reality. (The Parmanide?) cannot handle her (my interpretation) !!
    I wanted to ask these questions 6 years ago, but there was no one! And more from Prof. Yakir Shoshani's book "Thoughts on Reality" about the problematic existence of objective reality!?! That is - and this is the valid conclusion even today (as I understood) there is no possibility of existence of a reality independent of us! It's not only ridiculous in my eyes but also stupid because it's easy to refute this whole philosophical tower of Babel in Chic!
    I take this opportunity to know if this is really how science thinks about reality? Or I just didn't understand!

  20. To Judah:
    This part of the discussion, like all its other parts, would not have taken place if you had pointed directly to the source instead of defending the idea without understanding it.
    Describe to you a situation where person A proposes a certain theory to explain gravity when there are certain problems in the theory that we will mark with X and Y.
    Imagine that person B presents an inaccurate version of the theory that suffers from problems X, Z, T and W.
    People who come across the words of Adam B begin to face the problematic implications of the theory he put forward.
    Person C comes along who sees both theories, points out to B the difference between them and since B does not say that he actually meant to quote person A, he focuses on an unequivocal proof of problem W which simply cries out to the heavens but stems from B's mistake in presenting C's things.
    A discussion takes place at the end of which, when it is clear beyond any doubt that C is right, B says that he actually intended to present A's theory.
    In addition, he comes and claims that in fact this was his intention all along and interprets C's repetition of what he had already said (regarding the derivation of W from the differences between B's words and A's) as an admission that B's claim was correct.
    In addition to this, he also hints that only in the discussion with him did C realize that in fact problem W does not exist in A's claim and that C's words seem to have always understood that problem W does not exist in A's words is embellishing the truth after the fact, not to say a lie.

    That's why I repeat and emphasize:
    The LeSage theory also has problems, the main ones of which are:
    1. The drag problem that should stop all movement in the universe
    2. The problem of non-conservation of mass and energy
    3. A problem regarding the ability of the particles to continue moving despite their (at least partial) help in their encounters with the normal masses.

    In your personal expansions to this Torah there are additional problems such as, for example, the whole story with the eddies.

    In theory that could be understood from your words before the last clarifications, there was a possibility to choose between the law of conservation of energy and elastic collisions.
    The continuation of the discussion about the situation of elastic collisions (in the framework of which I explained that in such a situation gravitation does not occur at all) led you to assert all kinds of claims that are not true, such as the one that the problem I describe arises from the fact that you are not a point or from the fact that the free path I assume is short (as in gas) and not long (as you mean).
    At no point in this debate did you bring up the issue of elasticity as the source of the problem, even though I actually said so even before we entered that part of the debate.

    Your insinuation as if only from your words I understood that LeSage's teachings do give gravitation and that I simply embellish history by claiming otherwise is not only incorrect, unfounded and even contradicts things I wrote in this discussion - it is simply insulting.
    The truth is that even in the discussion we had at your house, I was the one who pointed out to you the source of the problem and not the other way around, and as long as I didn't do this at all, you didn't insist on the importance of inelasticity for the model's ability to create gravitation.

    I'm sorry I had to write this but I also have a bit of an ego and I don't like being stepped on.

    As for the discussion itself, I suggest that everyone delve into what appears in the link I provided.
    The theory is presented there accurately and the analyzes of the best scientists regarding its various meanings and all the additional assumptions that can be made about it are analyzed there in depth.
    The scientific establishment's ruling to reject it was not done casually.

  21. To Judah
    Assuming that the particles exist in the universe
    If we look towards a group of galaxies that have an interaction between them
    Suppose they are close at such a distance that there is movement between them relative to each other but there is no passage of gas molecules.
    a question
    As a result of the eddy currents of the particles between the galaxies, is it possible to observe the deflection of their light and say that it is a result of the particles of the universe?
    If so, then this is the proof of their existence (assuming there are no other factors)

  22. To Roy:
    This does not agree with the laws of conservation of mass and energy.
    It doesn't go well with the friction either.
    It is hard to say that we have reached an agreement.

  23. Michael and Yehuda -
    I'm glad to see you've come to an agreement, but I'm still wondering. If the collisions are inelastic, how does this fit with the laws of conservation of mass and energy?

  24. why new

    Every day we look at things through the particles in the atmosphere (gas particles), this does not necessarily make things blurry. But phenomena like peta morgana also have winds and eddies in the atmosphere, so there is no reason why they should not also exist in a universe of particles, like the simple universe.

    I think I will now rest a bit
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  25. for everyone
    I learned about Richard Feynman's words only now, so I did not adjust my ideas in anything with Richard Feynman's words.
    I have never hidden that the idea of ​​particles appeared already in the eighteenth century, I am proud of the "renovations" I made to the above idea, with all the conclusions that result from this about the change in the speed of light, the change in weight, and more.
    Anyway, what is this part of Hoicht trying to show?
    I think it is unnecessary.

    Have a quiet and pleasant weekend

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  26. Something more about the history of the discussion:
    Rereading this discussion and its predecessors, I am inclined to believe that Yehuda really did not think at all about the question of whether the collisions are supposed to be elastic or not.
    This is of course a mistake because the theory offers no explanation for gravitation if the collisions are elastic and therefore any serious description of the theory must explicitly state that the collisions are inelastic.
    I, for my part, jumped too quickly on this oversight and interpreted it as if he had thought about the issue and found that the elasticity requirement was not important, when in practice he simply did not delve deep enough into the whole idea and did not really analyze its meanings.
    My thinking that he did was due to the fact that I thought he was the source of the idea and that it was impossible for him to come to the conclusion that there is gravitation without analyzing the model in depth.
    I first heard the name LeSage in my conversations with him (and secondly in going over other discussions he had) and now I understand that he was actually trying to defend someone else's idea. In this situation it is indeed possible not to comply with all the meanings.
    In any case, the exhaustion problem (which may have been one of the reasons for my haste) can now be solved using the above link.

  27. for everyone:
    Note that the address above does not appear entirely in blue - probably due to editor problems.
    To get to the site it must be copied in its entirety into the address area of ​​the browser

  28. Yehuda:
    Your description of the history of the discussion is incorrect.
    Richard Feynman appeared as proof that the theory is neither new nor true.
    He says in his words that there will be gravitation, and regarding the theory he describes, I also thought that it creates gravitation, only we did not talk about this exact theory.
    As I mentioned in my comments, I previously suggested that you solve some of the problems by replacing your theory, which according to all of your words and also according to your failure to adopt my proposal referred to elastic collisions. The way to say that you mean the theory that appeared in Feynman's article existed at that point and I even pointed it out to you but you didn't take it.
    Also in a phone conversation between us that preceded the meeting, you said that you would not want to give up elasticity while sacrificing the law of conservation of mass and energy.

    I repeat that the experiment is a shame and that before you conduct it you should offer a solution to the problems that seem to undermine the theory we are talking about now and plan an experiment that will prove your claims.

  29. To Judah
    If indeed the particles of the universe can change the angle of reflection of light
    So you can discover them
    If we look at the Andromeda Galaxy, it will look more hazy than it would without the particles.
    If we look at two galaxies close to each other we will see a spot of light (the particle vortices create different density areas between the galaxies due to the force of attraction between them)
    In far space we would not be able to see galaxies at all because of the refraction of light by the particle vortices.
    If so the space is brighter but in reality it is not so.
    In addition, if we observe the area where the wind of particles moves away from us, then we will see a shift in the spectrum towards the infrared.
    I would like to know your opinion thanks.

  30. Okay, for some reason I didn't see the other comments after me! now I see
    be heard later or tomorrow
    Bye

  31. Where did Sabdarmish's comment from 10:50 go?? Very strange, I'm sure I didn't imagine and there was a response that referred to the meeting with Michael in which Sabdarmish sighed with relief after the criticism he received for the past few weeks for his words and as he said, "the sun has risen" ..and another thing I don't remember! And also came to the final conclusion that he will conduct the experiment!
    am I wrong?
    And there is also a problem with the number of responses!

  32. for everyone

    On 17.12.07 at 21.52:XNUMX I published in my response the conditions under which I think gravitation will be created. a quote:-

    "On the other hand, gravity in the universe will only be created if the following conditions are met:-

    A. particle movement
    B. High permeability of the particles to any body around them.
    third. Some of the particles will be trapped in the body while the rest will pass through it.
    d. At least two bodies are required for gravitation.
    God. The distance between the bodies must be significantly smaller than the mean free path
    End of quote.

    As you can see, no condition for a perfectly elastic collision is applied.
    And to your question Peretz, why conduct the experiment after all?, because that's the only way we'll be sure of the correctness of the results. And besides, we can keep moving forward. At the moment we are only in theory.

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  33. to burst and others

    Regarding our meetings, well, first we talked to meet at the Israeli Astronomical Society at the observatory in Givatayim, where lectures are held almost every Thursday evening. But I had a problem with the car and it "stuttered", I hurried to call Michael and we changed the meeting place to my place of residence in Herzliya.
    There was a scientific and interesting meeting, over a cup of coffee, that lasted until after midnight.
    We talked not only about scientific matters, and we also got to know each other better. He is an interesting person in his work and education.

    In light of this interesting meeting, what is the opinion of the respondents to organize a meeting/meetings as above?
    We can always say that the particles managed to cause our groupings.
    Food for thought.

    good day everybody

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  34. to Michael and others

    Nowhere, but nowhere, did I claim that there must be a perfectly elastic collision, and my only claim was,

    "Particles moving in space will create gravitation."

    Now, after countless debates, end, end, there is agreement that there will be gravitation, and that's why I wanted to do the experiment.
    To come and claim now that it is obvious that there will be gravitation?, nice, but I ate bitters until this agreement.
    Richard Feynman "appeared" just a few days ago as proof that there is no gravity and here he is the one on which the existence is now based?
    Right, there is a problem, what about the friction? Where does the heat go? (dispersed in space?, moved to other particles?, radiated? There are many possibilities, ) I can also say it moved to a parallel universe?, why not? It's fashionable today to say such nonsense! Don't worry, I'm not saying that.

    But, the work is many, for this purpose it is also necessary to decide on the structure of the physical bodies, are they rigid or built themselves in a kind of bee swarm? Or maybe something else. Again, there are a lot of possibilities, and to eliminate the possibility of gravitation outright because of reasons that still need to be checked?, did you expect that there would not be additional things that would need to be checked?.

    So we came to the conclusion:

    Particles moving in space are able to create gravitation. point!.
    As I have always claimed!
    And for my part, after years of arguments, let everyone say that they said it first!

    and not only this.
    Moving particles are found in every physical body and I have never seen a reference to the gravitational forces they create as a result of their movement. And I will explore that too.
    My experiment will remove any doubt about that.

    and not only this.
    I believe that if there is also a reference to the diameter of the particles and the tiny distances in the atoms, the same movement is the one that creates both the strong force and the weak force. Here is a possibility to unite the forces that are looking for!.

    I am currently saying this right now just from intuition. I wonder when others will say that they have already said it before.
    Thanks to all the commenters thanks to whom we reached this agreement.

    Finally after days of rain the sun shone, and those who understand will understand.

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  35. To Michael
    where did you meet And since when have you known each other? I did not follow these developments...and why was Sabdarmish not convinced by your opinion and still wants to conduct his simple experiment?

  36. Another note of mine:
    In fact, of the alternatives I presented to him in my response from 15:39 on 18/12, Yehuda chose the one that is exactly the model that Feynman describes and according to which the particles are slightly absorbed.
    As I mentioned in my response at the time, this model also has problems, but after he realized that in the elastic model we talked about, no pull is created at all, he preferred them.
    In my opinion, the questions raised in this alternative are also questions that the theory has no answer to unless you give up principles such as the law of conservation of mass and energy and the force of friction.
    Even in this case, it seems to me that there is no point in the planned experiment because it will not prove anything for the following reasons:
    1. He will not answer any of the questions raised in the thought experiment
    2. The absorption of the energy in collisions with the gas molecules will, in my opinion, be too low and he will not even be able to see the attraction that may theoretically be created (and he may, therefore, abandon the model for not the right reasons since the right reasons are those raised in the thought experiment)

    We did not go into the calculations of the gravity that should be created.
    In my opinion (and also in Feynman's opinion, as can be seen in the quote from his book) it will be proportional to one part of the square of the distance, just like Newton's, but in Yehuda's opinion it will depend on the free path and the resulting dependence is exponential with a negative power of e, which adds more problems beyond the ones I mentioned The rotation speed of the galaxies as I commented at 22:07 on 16/12.
    Yehuda's response based on vortices is not at all acceptable to me and I tried to explain to him that it exacerbates the problem because instead of adding a radial component to gravitation (the lack of which is created by the negative power) it adds to the force acting on the bodies a tangential component that will only cause them to be thrown out of the galaxy (and this is beyond what I think This is an incorrect description of what will happen to the particles because these have no reason and possibility to create vortices under the circumstances described).

    There are a number of other imprecise things that came up in the discussion (in writing) and to at least one of them I find it appropriate to expand my answer: the background radiation that was proposed as a mechanism for changing the energy of the particles is not at all suitable for this topic also because it is so cold, both absolutely and in relation to radiation that is not background radiation and Because the areas that seem "warmer" to us are actually areas that were like that billions of years ago, when the radiation that we perceive came out. The radiation, in this sense, only expresses some of the energy that these regions have lost and not energy that they can impart to the particles.

  37. What's new?

    To your question: Will these particles in the vicinity of galaxies cause light passing through them to change angle?
    The answer is yes.
    In other words, if the idea of ​​the particles is valid, some of the things explained with the help of gravitational manipulation will be explained with the help of pressure differences.

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  38. To Judah
    Are these particles in the vicinity of galaxies (quoting these pressure differences will cause winds and even large eddies which are the spiral galaxies.)
    will cause the light passing through them to change angle due to the transition from a medium with a low density to a high density of the particles.
    If so then if we were to see the Andromeda galaxy through a telescope it would look a little blurry and if we were to look at a group of distant galaxies they would look like a spot of light.
    So according to your theory do the particles have an effect on the light (changing the angle of reflection and more)?

  39. To Roy and his equally dear wife.

    Michael has just left, and I turn to your response
    Regarding A, you understand why a particle from the east cannot reach it, but the same thing also happens to the environment very close to A, even to which a particle cannot reach even if it is splashed.

    And by the way, I discussed my proof with Michael and what Michael showed me in the meeting that there is no reason to assume that only one projection is allowed, because we are talking about a completely elastic collision, therefore an infinite number of projections are also possible and therefore no attraction will be created and apparently he is right.
    Therefore, only the possibility of a not completely elastic collision remains, and then gravity will be created with all the problems I mentioned in my previous response.
    Now it remains to do the experiment and see results.

    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  40. To Whom It May Concern

    I am still in an interesting one-on-one meeting with Michael, and I must point out that in the conversation I realized (which was already clear to Michael) that there will probably be gravitation, but only with particles whose collision with bodies is not completely elastic (less than one hundred percent elastic). But there are still several problems that need to be taken into account:-
    A. Where does the energy go?
    B. What about the friction of bodies in their movement in space.
    third. How the particles maintain their speed.

    Please don't worry about us
    And we all have a good night

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  41. Dear Yehuda and Michael -

    We went through everything that was said here with great interest, including the mathematical arguments. For us, the discussion boils down to trying to understand Yehuda's assumptions, since we are unable to see where they came from.
    Yehuda says that - "If you understood that A does not "kidnap" from the east, even a particle splashed from the eastern section, then the environment close to A will not "kidnap" from the general direction of the east either."
    We understand that particles from a direction 90 degrees from the east do not hit A. But there is no mathematical or physical reason that would prevent the environment near A from being affected by the general direction of east. The explanation of 'Epsilon environment around A' doesn't fit here either. Epsilon tends to zero according to the mathematical definition. In fact, when we define an environment around a point as epsilon, we are only defining the point itself.

    So our main problem is still with Judah's XNUMX-XNUMX assumptions.

    Regarding Michael's less intuitive and more mathematical proofs, my wife (who will live) agrees with them. And, from rich experience, I agree with almost everything she tells me about mathematics and physics.

    Ok, she went to see 'The Next Top Model'. But when it comes to math, she's the man of the house.

    Greetings friends,

    Roy and Gali.

  42. d. breach:
    I am not disparaging dark matter and I am sorry if that is what was understood.
    If you look at the two comments that preceded my joking reference, you will see that in the first one I apologized for an error in the text and described its cause as a technical fault.
    "Dot"'s response, or so I thought, joked about my apologetic response and said that it might be because of the dark matter.
    To which I responded with the same joke.

  43. I'm afraid I haven't yet had time to pay the proper attention to the responses of the two debaters, but I would like to respond to Mr. Peretz (and also to Mr. Sabdarmic, indirectly).

    You say that the theory should be closed with a simple experiment. You are right, of course, but it is worth noting that simple and problem-free experiments are extremely rare animals. From all the reading I do around science and the history of science, and my personal experience as a researcher, I learn to recognize that in every experiment a problem can be found. In every experiment some error is possible. In each experiment, you can put your finger on a different problematic point - not because they didn't think about it, but simply because there are enough standard deviations in the results and the fact that we work with tools that are not always sensitive enough. There will always be an unusual result or two, and those who believe in the correctness of the theory they are trying to disprove (or confirm) experimentally, will usually stick to the few unusual results with the claim that 'there are things in the body'. This is despite the fact that they are almost certainly the result of standard deviations.
    This is also why science insists so much on repetitiveness. Only when an experiment is repeated many times in different laboratories, it is possible to weed out the results that are the product of human errors and standard deviations.

    That's why I recommend Yehuda to think carefully about his theory before he tries to transfer it to an actual experiment. What he and Michael are doing here is a thought experiment of the most successful kind, and it seems to me much better than a real and actual experiment, the results of which will never come out as conclusive as both sides would like.

  44. Lesbadramish
    I also aimed for him to sound very upset and eager to prevent you from doing the experiment! Yesterday I tried to write it, but it didn't come out right, so I stayed with the limited version!
    Beyond that, Michael does show a high degree of mastery of the physical sciences, including entering and exiting the darkest alleys in it..and a willingness and willingness to invest in writing long responses (a tiring thing from experience, and he also complained of back pain). This did not go unnoticed by me!
    And despite that, you have probably held this theory for a good number of years in which you have examined it from all sides, but you are probably not sure enough about its correctness and are looking for someone to take you down from the very, very tall tree (theory of everything!?!) On top of it you sleep soundly every night "knowing" that you have the solution The ultimate (this sleep is familiar to me, the problem is the awakening)!
    In my opinion (and do what you think.. of course) it is better to close this theory with an experiment, especially if it is simple (as you say) than to remain with a doubt that.. if.. etc.
    Have a good day and a successful experiment (no errors of intent)

  45. to burst

    I'm not a person who enjoys spending money and if I'm convinced that there's really no point in the experiment I won't do it.
    But if I see that there is a chance that we will see an "interesting" result, I will carry it out

    So Michael is fine when he tries to spare me

  46. A comment to Michael's comment on the point he made "Or it is some kind of interaction with the dark matter." (16.12)23:14 contemptuously "My only interactions are with gray matter"!
    From all of your responses I am actually impressed by your extensive knowledge of physics and above all by your good or excellent command of all the relevant fields of physics...that's why your comment is strange implying that dark matter has no role in the whole subject of gravity when senior scientists have proven through a computer model that without dark matter the stars collapse and in fact do not form Rule! Which means and they said it explicitly (I feed on science programs on TV - in this case Channel 8) because the dark matter holds the star and is therefore part of the gravitational force, but we still don't know how the dark matter interacts with the normal matter!! But all the prophecies show that she exists!
    Therefore, your comment to the point is out of place and you may understand from this that the whole topic of dark matter is part of science fiction!
    And if you think differently from this scientific direction, feel free to correct me and explain!
    Good night
    And by the way, what do you care if Sabdarmish does his experiment? Are you trying to save him expenses? Let him do it and see what the results are, even though many surprises are not expected, there is nothing like an experiment to be convinced!

  47. To Michael

    It was an interesting and fun conversation.
    See you tomorrow at the Mitzvah.

    good night and sweet dreams
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  48. To Judah:
    I did not refer in the previous descriptions to the possibility of an unclosed but infinite path that never emerges from among the particles.
    Theoretically, such a trajectory can be described, especially if we allow the particles to actually touch each other (think, for example, of four tangent circles that form a kind of square and of the paths that are inside this square.
    What's nice is that everything continues to work correctly even on such tracks. In fact, what I said in the 8:50 response on 18/12 is exactly correct!

  49. Yehuda:
    The one and the F were replaced by copying from the editor I used. This is not a distribution fault but a technical problem that I only noticed after I clicked "publish" but I didn't bother to fix it because I was sure you would understand.
    A closed track is a track that so-called particles cannot enter or leave. At material points on such trajectories it could be argued that the same number of particles do not reach them from each direction.
    Although I showed that even if this claim were true, the general picture would not have changed, but in order to close everything under lock and key, I decided that it would be desirable to provide proof that even points located on such routes are intercepted from all directions equally.
    In general, the conclusion stems from the fact that just as particles cannot enter these orbits, they also cannot exit them, therefore the particles inside the orbit continue to hit the points with exactly the same blows they would have received even if the orbit were not closed.

  50. To Michael
    Although there are "distribution errors", for example
    Quote: "The duration of time between the occurrences of a particle at a given point before closing the trajectory will therefore be on average 1/F". End quote. I think it should be one of the F parts.

    You won't believe it, Michael, but I understood the math, but I didn't understand what you meant by the closed part, but what's more important, I didn't understand what it meant. What does this prove? What goes into the closed segment(?) is also what comes out with the same frequency F?.
    An explanation is needed.
    I must have misunderstood something.

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  51. Yehuda:
    You ask me to understand your proof but I don't see any proof you have given.
    All in all, I see that you have made some assumptions that, in my judgment, are all wrong, but if you proved them, I would still accept them.
    I have no doubt, however, that you will not be able to prove them because it follows from my proof that they are wrong.

  52. Another allusion to Judah:
    Please treat the balls I have drawn as particles of matter and thus you can mentally free yourself from the need to say that you are not a point.
    Y in the drawing is indeed a point and so are N and A.

  53. To Michael
    I didn't understand what you are trying to show in the new drawing? Show that a ray is reflected from three spheres/circles?, parallel to the original ray?
    I did not understand.
    I will go to 17.11 and try to understand there.

    I'll be right back
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  54. To Michael
    I was sure that this is how you would answer me that every point on my body is similar to the first, it seemed to me that we were already in this movie and my answer is the same as there, for the second point on my body the situation is already different because the universe it enters has a point (the first) and therefore it may disturb the first and the first may disturb it. Ignoring that there are interactions between the points and themselves is a mistake.
    I promise to try to understand you but please also try to understand my proof.
    I will now access your new referral and get back to you.

    bye for now
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  55. To Judah:
    Every point in you is the size of a point and therefore it will also take place in it.
    Perhaps the second drawing I sent will help you see this and the final clarification should come from what I wrote later.
    If before I was convinced of the correctness of my claims for more intuitive reasons, now I have no doubt at all that what I wrote is perfect proof of the matter.

  56. Good evening everyone

    How are you, Michael?
    Well today I took a break and delved into what I read in the morning about drawing from Google and I'm happy to state agree with Ada that if I am point size, then, indeed, you are right. like you said!
    Just so everyone knows what this is about, well, when I'm close to the ball I'll only catch 50% of the bullets but if I'm even a tiny epsilon away I'll be hitting from all sides equally. But,….only if I'm the size of a dot.
    I still maintain that if I am an actual size, there will be a difference.
    And it's not cleverness, Michael, because if I thought otherwise, then, I would admit it without shame. But, I am afraid it is not so in actual size.
    In addition, I just went to your second reference from 12.07 and tried to understand and unfortunately I did not understand, the reason is apparently that my Turkish head has a hard time thinking about the delicious foods that my witch wife probably prepared, so after the meal and bath I will look at it again.
    This will be an opportunity to look at your proof from 17.11 and maybe the redeeming solution will finally come.

    To Roy and his wife
    If you understood that A does not "kidnap" from the east, even a particle splashed from the eastern segment, then the environment close to A will not "kidnap" from the general east direction either.
    If you understand this, then this is the proof that there is no equality and gravitation will be created between the two segments
    If you want, please 09-9505072 but only from 21.00.
    Michael, the phone, of course, for you too.
    A pleasant meal for me

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  57. Roy:
    So please advise your partner regarding this.
    In my opinion, there is a completely closed mathematical proof here, the general and initial description of which you understood and even tried to explain to Judah.
    The Arab may read my words and be convinced, but I am satisfied and would love to hear what a person who has not taken it upon himself to defend a particular idea thinks.

  58. Michael –
    I will admit and admit that as soon as the discussion descends (or rises?) to the level of mathematical equations and assumptions, my intuition stops and I have to sit down and think carefully before I understand what is being said. Fortunately, my partner has a much deeper intuitive understanding of math and physics than I do, so I will consult her on your last two posts.

    Yehuda -
    This morning my partner and I sat and tried to understand your message explaining your five assumptions about the theory, and we even drew the diagram according to your instructions. Out of those five assumptions, we only agreed on the first assumption. I am sorry to say that we have not been able to understand where you came to the assumption XNUMX - XNUMX.

  59. Yehuda:

    In order to close the picture completely and not be forced to argue about the "gravitational" meaning of the closed orbits (although, as I have already mentioned, this meaning is zero, I am afraid that it will be more difficult to teach probability than to convince in the following diagnosis) I will now show also from the "protected" directions ( the same directions that I described as part of a closed return path) particles actually arrive and they do so with the same frequency as from any other direction.
    At the moment of the formation of the closed track, particles that entered it before it was closed and have not yet had time to leave it are "imprisoned" on its surface.
    Let's say the speed of the particles is V
    We will mark the frequency of their appearance before closing the track with F
    The time between the occurrences of a particle at a given point before closing the trajectory will therefore be on average 1/F
    The average distance between a particle and a particle will be obtained by multiplying this duration by the velocity and will therefore be V/F
    In a closed track of length L, there will, therefore, once closed, on average LF/V particles in each direction
    Each particle traverses the trajectory in time L/V
    The particle arrival frequency will therefore be LF/V)/(L/V)=F)

    This.
    It can't be more proven than that.

    I would also like to hear from Roy if he is still following and if he understood what I said.
    Thanks.

  60. To Judah:
    Please make an effort and really read everything I wrote on the matter.
    I am referring to both the response that refers to the drawing (and also explains why the text is in English) and the response that your last response responds to (in which I explained how a situation of many bullets can be understood relatively easily)
    In my opinion, there is a complete mathematical proof of my claim here.
    It's a shame that you write any comment before you read and understand all my words.

  61. To Michael
    I entered the section on Google that you mentioned. The section is in English. I will delve into it in the evening and promise to respond.
    Tomorrow evening I am preparing to attend Albert Kalifa's lecture "One Hundred and Twenty Moons", which will be held at the Givatayim Observatory. Maybe you'll be a little early, we'll get to know each other and we'll shuffle. In four eyes things can be easily explained.
    So I would also like to meet you.
    I have to go to work
    So see you in the evening

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  62. To Judah:
    I still can't tell from your response if you saw the drawing I uploaded to the internet (which can be reached through the link I mentioned).
    There I clearly show how to find the trajectory for any point from any direction (except for the direction that connects it to the point geometric center of the opposite star/particle) and in this regard it is not important even if it is a quarter of an epsilon from another.
    I can add another drawing that illustrates this better with multiple stars/particles but before I make that effort I will try to make it clear in another way.
    Imagine a finite collection of balls (stars or particles - it doesn't matter).
    I have to break into my own words for a moment and point out that I have come to the conclusion that even with that single direction out of infinity there is no problem, but it is more complicated to explain and also requires certain assumptions about how the particles were created and therefore, since, as I have already mentioned, this has no effect, I will leave it for another discussion.
    So let's get back to the final collection of balls.
    According to your claim, there is a section of epsilon length on the surface of one of the spheres, where particles do not hit from a certain direction and I claim that it is not.
    What would you do to find the particles coming from this direction?
    First of all - paint all the balls silver (they will reflect light).
    Then - equip yourself with a flashlight that shines exactly along a geometric line (without thickness).
    Now assume you are a dot (I know that's someone else's name but let's assume anyway).
    Take the flashlight, position yourself at some point within that section of epsilon length and shine in the direction from which you claim no particles will come.
    Follow the beam of light as it bounces from sphere to sphere.
    With a probability of one (!) the light beam will find its way out because this will only happen if its path returns exactly to the starting point.
    The particles that will hit you are the ones that will travel along this path and their frequency will be the same as the frequency of the particles coming from any direction.
    As mentioned - I also have a nice solution for cases where the route returns to the starting point, but since it has no physical importance and since people are already having difficulty at this stage, I'll leave it to that.

  63. To Michael
    If I were to claim that only from the eastern point no particle would arrive then you would be right but I immediately claimed also regarding the epsilon section around point A to which no particles arrive in all 360 degrees either, even if they are jetz.
    It's hard, it's hard to explain it like that over the internet, and I really don't say this to be evasive.
    I will try again. Check again to extinguish each particle that splashes and reaches A, instead of which particle it reaches. Thus you will see that there are many for which there are no splash particles to replace them.
    Note that for the purpose of the solution you cannot simply increase the yield of particles arriving from a certain angle and the amount must be the same from every point on the arc of the circle, i.e. from the east exactly as from the west, from an angle of 39 degrees exactly as from 79 degrees, etc.
    I think, (it occurred to me) that with a little effort, and maybe with a little help, I can even reach the magnitude of the gravitational force.

    And regarding Ami Bachar's words, thank you for your assessment, but with a smile I will add that you started this whole debate and threw me and Michael into the (positive) scientific campaign, and now you are "evading" the campaign by claiming that "the connection has been lost" and abandoning us, but, that's fine, Your expressions of appreciation in your last response make us forgive you for everything, and I hope I am also speaking on Michael's behalf, all with a smile.

    I must also mention the "physicist", remember, who will show how it is possible to conduct a long "journey" of responses without disparaging psychological analyzes of the respondent's personality and level of knowledge. It's a shame, because some wise things were said there as well.

    So all the best and have a good day

    Sabdarmish Yehuda
    Have a good morning

    And in connection
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  64. To Judah:
    I think I'll go to bed as well.
    I will try to appear to you in a dream and explain myself better.
    Good night:)

  65. I don't know if you noticed in the other response I sent that I actually added a drawing showing exactly how to find a replacement bullet for every bullet that was spared from you (except for the bullets in one and only direction out of infinity.
    Of course even 1000000^1000000 directions out of infinity is still zero so you can add as many stars or particles as you want and the argument will still be true.
    I described a situation of a point near a star. If you have a lot of points (another planet) and some of them block some of the paths, then these paths are replaced immediately with the same method (the particle hits you after a path with several "zigzags" but hits you in the end and the number of particles that pass this path is the same as the number of particles that would have arrived without the concealments).

  66. To Ami Bachar

    If a miracle happens, and there is something in the idea of ​​the simple universe, then these particles will also have the property of diffusion like any gas, and then, I promise you, you will hear from me.
    But Hanukkah has passed and we need to find out if miracles happen even in Betu Bashvet, specifically Pesach can be a good candidate for miracles.

    so good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  67. To Michael

    You didn't understand something.
    Point A is in the western section, nothing hides it from the west, so 180 particle degrees strike from the west.
    I checked again, and I was not mistaken.
    But it's hard to be without a blueprint and we may have to give up on reaching an agreement.
    In any case, I thank you for posting your comment from 20.39. I still think it is significant.
    And regarding the "I thought" I learned to express myself that way even when I'm sure, just in case.

    So, it occurred to me, soon I will slip into bed.

    Bye for now, and thanks to all the responders
    This was said by all my educated respondents
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  68. To Michael
    Regarding the question from this morning about the formation of spirits - 18.12.07 time 8.53:XNUMX.
    Well, I checked on Wikipedia and it is true that whirlwinds are formed around a low pressure area, then they are called a cyclone, but they are also formed around high pressure, then they are called an anticyclone.
    Besides, you are right in your words that the gas has a temperature and its particles have the kinetic energy, and when I wrote differently it was at 1.44:XNUMX after midnight, so I apologize.

    But I see that in the meantime you rushed to answer my response from 23.55:XNUMX p.m. I will look at it and respond shortly

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  69. Yehuda:
    What allows me to say that your words are true is that you added "I think" at the beginning.
    Without this expression they are not correct.
    Although from the exact west direction no particles will arrive that will hit A (you wrote "east" instead of "west") but this is a single direction out of an infinite number of directions in which there is no interference and therefore it has no effect.
    Particles will come from any other direction.
    This is the case with respect to every point. Particles will reach it from all directions except for the only direction which is the straight direction connecting the center of the sphere to it.

  70. An interesting discussion and I must praise Sabdarmish, Michael and Roy for their substantive contribution to the discussion in a respectable manner.

    Unfortunately, you lost me a long time ago... I am less than the last readers in this matter. I will just send dear Mr. Sabdarmish an idea that he may have as a thought thread: both in the fifties of the last century and in the seventies, great leaps were made in our understanding of the concept of diffusion while developing tools for direct measurement of the movement of different particles in different mediums. During my PhD I worked with oxygen in particular and I know that the chemical/physical/mathematical literature on this subject is extensive and thorough. It seems to me that a careful study of such a treasure can contribute a lot to formulating your ideas into their details.

    Greetings friends,
    Ami Bachar

  71. Although no drawing is attached here, I have explained in simple terms the aforementioned two-dimension system.
    And by the way, this proof is very basic in my opinion for Le Sage's idea and my idea of ​​a simple universe so I would also like to hear what other commenters in science think.

    Available for questions in the next hour.
    Please respond gently
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  72. To Michael

    It seems to me that you are wrong.

    I tested the problem in two dimensions.
    I took a circle. 360 degrees. The north is zero degrees, the east is 90 degrees, the south is 180 degrees, and the west is 270 degrees. The circle will be a source of particles hitting the center area of ​​the circle.
    A small section will be drawn in the center of the circle from north to south, that is, it faces west on one side and east on the other.
    Particles from the circle hit every point in the above segment. That is, every point in the segment is hit by 360 degrees of particles.
    Now another section will be drawn to the east of the previous section, parallel to it and identical in size. The two segments are a short distance away.
    We will take point A which is in the center of the western section.
    In your opinion, Michael, at point A, 360 degrees of particles will hit, some of them splashed from the eastern section.
    In my opinion this is not so and the following assumptions must be true: please check them one by one.

    First assumption: there is no way that a particle will hit point A exactly from the east (90 degrees arc) even if it splashed from the eastern section.
    Second assumption: around point A there is a section of small epsilon size that will also not be damaged by particles even if they are splashed from the eastern section.
    Third assumption: the size of epsilon is inversely proportional to the distance between the segments
    Fourth assumption: the size of epsilon is directly proportional to the length of the segments.
    Fifth assumption: there is a need for endless splashing between the eastern and western sections and back again, God forbid, so that it is possible to hit point A exactly from the east.

    So what do you say Michael? Am I right in my assertion that the western section is hit by fewer particles than the east?

    Food for thought
    sweet Dreams
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  73. To Michael

    This is important, is the determination of an immediate change of the shots from 50% to 100% in the case of even a tiny deviation, is it well defined mathematically?
    This is an important and fundamental thing that I am going to go into in depth.
    Check it again please. Thanks.

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  74. To my father:
    Is there a way to upload drawings to the site?
    It seems to me that there will be people who will understand my words better if I illustrate their part in a drawing.

  75. To Judah:
    If you stand inside the ball nothing will hurt you.
    If you are part of the rim of the ball, half the number of bullets will hit you.
    If you move away from the edge of the ball, even if it is a millionth of a millimeter, you will be hit by exactly the same number of bullets that would hit you if there was no fence there at all, and this is because, like in basketball, many bullets will hit you "with the help of the board".

  76. To Michael and Roy
    To say that nothing has changed in the simple universe if bodies are introduced into it, is a wrong thing, in my opinion.
    Their immediate environment will surely change.
    I will show it with the help of our logic.
    Let's assume for the sake of the example that the particles are rifle bullets fired in space from any direction in any direction, and the bodies are large, hard steel balls. Apparently according to your words there is no difference between a universe with a steel ball and a universe without a steel ball and in both cases particles/projectiles fly from everywhere to everywhere.
    But, if I am destined to be in such a universe, I think I would prefer to be in a universe with a steel ball, close at least on one side to a steel ball and my chances of getting hurt would decrease by about 50% compared to a universe without a steel ball, well how do you explain that? The cases are the same.
    And what will happen if I stand a cm away from the steel ball? 2 cm, …. N cm?, it seems to me that the degree of my protection will decrease as I move away from the steel ball, what exactly is the formula?, you are smarter than me in this.
    but,…. The experiment would solve the sufficiency,
    And I will do it, even to see that Michael was right all along (maybe)
    Michael, I hope you're smiling, after all, it's all for the glory of science.
    I hope the science commenters appreciate the barrage of bullets I absorb for science.
    Why take a risk?, I should have sent Schrödinger's cat there, he is already used to being asked if he is alive or dead.

    Well, at this point I'm going to take off my clothes and go take a shower and eat.

    So see you in an hour, two hours.
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  77. Yehuda -
    If I understand correctly what Michael is saying, then if we throw a ball into a cauldron of particles, particles will start colliding with it from every direction. Each of them that collides with it will splash at a different angle. But if all the particles arrive from all directions in equal measure anyway, then on average all the particles will be scattered back from it in all directions in equal measure.

    This means that apart from the volume that the spherical body occupies in the cauldron, it does not affect the movement of the particles.
    If we put in a second ball, the exact same thing will happen. And again, since the total number of particles in the cauldron is not affected by the first body, there is no reason for the first body to affect the second body.

  78. Yehuda:
    You're just wrong.
    After adding the first star, every point in the universe looks exactly as it would have if we hadn't added the ball.
    Right?
    This of course also includes all the points where the second ball will be located and everything near them. No Yes?
    The second star is only affected by its immediate surroundings and it looks exactly as it would if the first star was not in the story.

    There is, by the way, a way to escape some of the problems I raised and it is in a slightly different model.
    Note that Feynman uses the word absorbed for what happens to the particles at the moment of impact.
    That is, at the moment of impact, the particle is swallowed by the substance it hits and does not bounce back from it like a gas molecule.
    This solves some of the problems I raised but puts in their place an equally serious problem with the law of conservation of mass and energy (and of course it also leaves the problem that Feynman raised).

  79. To Michael
    Your response from 8.53:XNUMX
    It seems to me that this is your mistake:-
    Quote from your response:-

    OK. So now throw in a second star. For him, he was thrown into the Genesis universe, which behaves exactly as if the first star did not exist, because we already understood that the universe remained unchanged after the addition of the first star
    End of quote.

    The mistake is that the second star is thrown into a different universe than the first, because there is a star there on one side (the first star)
    When there was only one star in the universe there was symmetry in all directions that passed through the center of the single star.
    When you threw the second planet into the universe, this symmetry was lost and only symmetry remained for the line passing between the centers of mass.
    And what will happen when we add a few more stars?, the symmetry will be lost altogether. And what will happen when a star touches another star even then nothing happened?
    Please check your claim again.

    I hope that the experiment I am planning will show the correctness or incorrectness of Le Sage's claim and subsequently the claims of the simple universe.

    Now I really have to run to the client who is waiting for me

    Have a good day for all of us

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  80. To Michael

    It's morning and I'm on my way to work
    I have now also seen your comment from 1.30:XNUMX. In short I will say that it seemed to me that winds form both around high pressure and around low pressure. So it is enough to assume that the pressure in the center of the galaxy is different from its surroundings.
    I will check this in the evening with a weather book I have and maybe also online. So until tonight, goodbye

    Have a good day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  81. To Judah:
    I don't know where to start because all your claims seem wrong to me and their serious refutation requires a lot of work because I can't allow myself to use phrases like "with a little imagination X can give the explanation for Y".
    A gas has a temperature. Its particles do not have All they have is kinetic energy (derived from mass and speed). The temperature is a statistical description of the kinetic energy of the particle assembly.
    Radiation also has a temperature that is a function of its frequency.
    In the quantum world, you can indeed talk about the frequency of the particles, but if it is about particles that do not collide with the nuclei of the atoms, they will not collide with the much smaller photons and there will be no energy exchange between them.
    The temperature changes are also the result of collisions.
    The pressure is also a statistical phenomenon that expresses the momentum of the particles. A single particle has no pressure.
    ..........
    …. Audio. This business is starting to tire me.
    I will content myself with trying to go back to the beginning and explain to you why the whole principle is wrong from the beginning. This implies that the average collision-free distance you are talking about has no effect but it is not only that.
    Let's see if I succeed:
    Imagine an empty universe with only the particles in it.
    Particles arrive at each point from all directions in a uniform distribution. Right?
    OK.
    Now throw in a spherical star (it doesn't have to be spherical but it's more convenient to explain it that way and you didn't rely on the shape of the stars as an explanation for the pressures).
    At every point in the star, randomly directed particles hit, and this is also the distribution of the particles splashed from it. Right? If the star is spherical then there will be no preference for any direction and for reasons of symmetry the rest of the world will look as if there was no star there at all. So far so good?
    OK. So now throw in a second star. For him, he was thrown into the primordial universe which behaves exactly as if the first star had not existed because we already understood that the universe remained unchanged after the addition of the first star. Its effect on the universe is therefore like the effect of the first star and the universe remains undisturbed and the particles continue to move in random directions and the story ends.
    Do you now want to start referring to the shape of the star?
    No problem.
    Throw it into the cauldron of particle particle.
    After you finish putting in all the pakillion particles of the first star put in all the zillion particles of the second star.
    Nothing will change.

  82. To Michael
    If the particles of the simple universe exist then they would have always existed and would also have existed in the big bang and were part of it. They were hot then and have a temperature even today. I thought to Tommy that this temperature must be the background temperature of the universe, but I just came through Google to Astropedia and the following quote:-
    The Big Bang model predicts the existence of neutrino background radiation. This radiation should, according to the predictions, have characteristics of blackbody radiation at a temperature of 1.9 K. With the existing neutrino detectors it is not possible to detect this radiation. End quote
    Therefore, if neutrinos are "allowed" to be at a temperature different from the background temperature, then apparently the particles of the simple universe are not at this temperature either. What is the same temperature? I do not know. Is it 2.73 degrees Kelvin?, or maybe 1.9 like the neutrino?, or maybe another temperature. But all this does not change the clear and certain fact that the simple gas of the universe has a temperature and there is a pressure and there are temperature differences., and that is what is important.
    And by the way, if I knew how they arrived at the calculation about the neutrino I could also calculate about my particles.
    In conclusion, it would be more correct to say that my particles have the speed they received in the big bang, but not necessarily, that they express today the background temperature of the universe.
    About this it is said:- Of all my teachers I have been educated.
    So much for your response from 23.23:XNUMX p.m
    We will then move on to your response from 23.15:XNUMX p.m
    You ask: Why would pressures be created? Well, it is because it is a gas that exists in a place full of activity like our universe, and I believe that an overall picture of the pressure differences in this gas may be very similar to the known pictures of the background temperature of the universe obtained by the Cuba satellite.
    So let's get down from gravitation regarding the galaxies and only pressure differences work there.
    So the question remains whether this gas is capable of creating winds and eddies. Well. On a small cosmological scale, the answer is no. As you say, even the particles will not be enough to collide with each other and do this, but what about the galaxies? Even if we take the mean free path of the particle as the size of a whole light year, there will still be tens of thousands of collisions for each particle in the vastness of the galaxy. It is worth thinking about the winds in the thin atmosphere of Mars and their great speed to understand that thinness is not necessarily a lack of wind.
    Here I come to your last comment about the Coriolis force..
    In my humble opinion, if a little imagination of the expansion of the universe can give the impetus to the rotation and also the direction of rotation of the spiral galaxies
    But, but, but…. I'm already tired, and with your permission we'll continue tomorrow
    So all the best and good night Michael, and thank you for your questions and comments
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  83. A few more problems with the background temperature as a "ghost" generator:
    1. They should create a higher pressure outside the galaxy than inside it. This creates a state of constant "wind" that blows into the galaxy and the number of particles entering is always greater than the number leaving. how does it work out It is not!
    2. To create a higher pressure outside, they have to be higher outside - that is, the galaxy has to be a cold region relative to the rest.
    3. If the background temperature accelerates the particles then it itself has to decrease and if the energy it imparts to the particles is enough to keep the stars in their orbit then it has to decrease at an enormous speed.

  84. To Judah:
    There is a reason to explain why I asked about the reason for the pressure differences because apparently you gave an answer - you said "background temperature".
    The background temperature is radiation. How should it affect the pressure created by the particles?
    For this to happen, she must accelerate them (how will you do that? And to what speed can you accelerate them if they are already close to the speed of light? And how will they return and slow down when they leave the hot zone?) or increase their density (of course, the background temperature can't do that either because it won't produce particles out of nowhere)

  85. To Judah:
    Why would there be pressure differences? If it is because of the concealment created by the bodies in the galaxy, then this is exactly your replacement, gravitation, and if that is the case, your formula should still work, and if it works, then the rotation speeds of the galaxy should be smaller, and if then vortices are formed in the gas of the particles (which God knows how it would be formed if the particles almost never collide, this In this and there is nothing that will cause the particle to change direction except for a collision) then they will accelerate the stars and then the galaxy will disintegrate because the stars will get a speed that is too high for their orbit.
    And more:
    The main reason for the formation of wind vortices on Earth is the Coriolis acceleration resulting from the Earth's rotation.
    What would cause turbulence in space?

    Regarding the United Torah - I don't think there is a solution here, but let's postpone the discussion until the loopholes are identified and the contradictions in the simple universe theory itself are reconciled.

  86. In a normal universe - not my simple universe, there is one theory for the macro, the theory of relativity, and one theory for the micro, the quantum theory, and it is difficult to connect them.
    Now I notice that in the simple universe this connection arises, that is, the gravitation in the macro arises from the micro movement of the particle.
    I didn't think about it in this defined way until your question, Mr. Michael, and it will be interesting to develop it later.

    Food for thought

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  87. To Michael

    Good question, and for the answer I had to dig deeper and think.
    The answer is the differences in the simple universe between the macro and the micro.
    Let's start with the macro. These particles in the macro define a gas. The galaxies are inside this gas. In this gas there are pressure differences as in any massive gaseous body which mainly result from temperature differences - in our case the background temperature of the universe. These pressure differences will cause winds and even large vortices which are the spiral galaxies. A kind of cosmic hurricanes. In this case, for the purpose of the movement, one body is enough for us and we do not need at least two bodies to create the movement as in the case of gravity.

    On the other hand, gravity in the universe will only be created if the following conditions are met:-

    A. particle movement
    B. High permeability of the particles to any body around them.
    third. Some of the particles will be trapped in the body while the rest will pass through it.
    d. At least two bodies are required for gravitation.
    God. The distance between the bodies must be significantly smaller than the mean free path of the particles.

    Only in this case will a gravitation be created that is proportional to the size of the mass.

    I must point out that gravitation is created from the momentum and kinetic energy contained in the movement of the particle.

    For example, from the macro and micro field, in the Earth's atmosphere, under normal conditions, the wind speed is measured in a few meters per second, but even then the speed of gas separation is hundreds of meters per second. Whereas the average free path of the mules is only about 700 angstroms (one angstrom equals ten to the minus eight power, cm)
    Whereas in interstellar space, the rotation speed of the spiral galaxies is hundreds of kilometers per second, while the speed of the particles, if they exist of course, is somewhere around the speed of light, and the average free path will apparently be measured in thousands of astronomical units at least.

    There is no point in explaining again how gravitation is created. Richard Feynman also explains it, and by the way I forgot to thank you for the relevant section of Feynman, which you brought to my attention and to the knowledge of the other commenters.
    On the other hand, it makes sense to try to explain where the friction of the bodies moving in space disappears, do all large bodies moving in space have internal heat?, and why won't they finally stop?. I still don't have a solution for this, although I have all kinds of thoughts, some of which I mentioned.

    And by the way, I started to interest a number of people at the academy in my experiment and they asked me to come back a second time in January, I regret that they didn't do that to "fan" me. The truth is that January also suits me because of the end of the tax year on 31.12.07/XNUMX/XNUMX with all that entails regarding being self-employed.
    It would be nice to check if the idea expressed in the simple universe is worth anything.

    Thank you for your interesting question.

    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  88. Yehuda:
    It is not clear to me what you mean by "pressure differences" here. After all, the gravity you suggest is also a pressure difference. It is not enough to say that something will speed up the rotation of the galaxies. It should be said how he does it.

  89. To Michael
    True, the force of gravity decays much faster than Newton's formula, so another force will rotate the galaxies, the pressure differences.
    But the friction problem raised by Richard Feynman needs further thought, and its strength must be checked and how it relates to the expansion of the universe may be that there is the solution, on the one hand the reduction of the speed, and on the other hand the expansion of the universe which will cover the reduction..
    In addition, Richard Feynman completely disregarded the mean free path of the particles.
    Thought-provoking
    I don't have an immediate solution to the friction problem.

    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  90. In the previous answer, the orphaned "n" should be replaced with the phrase "that also in nothing"
    (All because of an unintentional press on the Insert key)

  91. To Judah:
    It's a bit off the hook but something in your formula seems very suspicious to me.
    Its effect increases as the distance between the bodies increases.
    According to which the force of gravity would have faded at greater distances much faster than Newton's gravitation and this would have actually resulted in a smaller rotation speed of the galaxies and even more dark matter would have been required than the existing Torah requires.
    I didn't go into details but that's how it looks at first glance.
    Regarding the random direction of the arrival of the particles, I explained (more or less) that collisions between the particles will hit the moon with the same amount of particles that would have hit it if the earth had not been near it (because of particles that were not originally on their way to the moon but because of their impact on the earth were thrown in its direction) so that the length of the free path is not Should have an effect.
    In relation to Feynman's explanation, I assume that every reader understands that not only the Earth was supposed to fall from its orbit and in fact most of the movement in the universe was supposed to stop.

  92. Good. My back broke from the crooked sitting I had to sit in to copy and divert the focus of the gaze effectively but here is the quote (hopefully without too many copying errors):
    Many mechanisms for gravitation have been suggested. It is interesting to consider one of these which many people have thought of from time to time. At first, one is quite excited and happy when he "discovers" it, but he soon finds that it is not correct. It was first discovered about 1750. Suppose there were many particles moving in space at a very high speed in all directions and being only slightly absorbed in going through matter. When they are absorbed, they give an impulse to the earth. However, since there are many going one way as another, the impulses all balance. But when the sun is nearby, the particles coming towards the earth through the sun are partially absorbed, so fewer of them are coming from the sun than are coming from the other side. Therefore, the earth feels a net impulse towards the sun and it does not take one long to see that it is inversely as the square of the distance - because of the variation of the solid angle that the sun subtends as we vary the distance. What is wrong with that machinery? It involves some new consequences which are not true. This particular idea has the following problem: the earth, in moving around the sun, would impinge on more particles which are coming from its forward side than from its hind side (when you run in the rain, the rain in your face is stronger than that on the back of your head!). Therefore there would be more impulse given to the earth from the front, and the earth would feel a resistance to motion and would be slowing up in its orbit.
    One can calculate how long it would take for the earth to stop as a result of this resistance, and it would not take long enough for the earth to be still in its orbit, so this mechanism does not work.

  93. First of all, I'm glad I got back on the computer before someone commented on what I wrote about the tide. It's a mistake but if it didn't bother anyone then I'll ignore it. If someone is convinced by this reasoning and wants me to convince them that it is not valid, then I will elaborate more.
    Now I will turn to copy from Feynman but it will take some time.

  94. To Michael or Roy

    Perhaps you can present us here the words of Richard Feynman relevant to the subject.
    I tried to find them on Google and got stuck.

    Thanks in advance
    Sabdamish Yehuda

  95. To all Man Dibai

    I'm sorry, but according to the idea of ​​the simple universe, the two balloons are absolutely not supposed to get close to each other. The reason is that the average free path is very small relative to the distance between the balloons, so any horse moving from one balloon to another will collide with dozens of other horses before reaching the other balloon, and it will actually arrive from a completely random direction. Only if the mean free path will be significantly greater than the distance of the balloons, for example in very low atmospheric pressure, should attraction be created.
    I can't get my formula into the reaction here, it's a little different from Newton Le Saz and even from Nir and others.
    This is the small difference that should not be dismissed outright, and this is the experiment I am planning - finding gravity in low pressure gases. I will explain the formula in words:-
    My formula is Newton's formula double {E^(-R/D) where E is the natural number, R is the distance between the bodies, and D is the mean free path. It is easy to see that when D is very large relative to R then the power becomes one and the formula is like Newton , and if on the contrary and the distance is very large relative to D, then the attraction formula resets just like what happens in balloons that are in the air at atmospheric pressure.
    Whoever understood, understood.
    I will also read what Richard Feynman said but I am satisfied if he was referring to the mean free path of the particles.
    I don't know if the simple universe idea is worth anything but I don't dismiss it outright, and look forward to doing the experiment.

    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  96. When I talked about the fact that the balloons floating in the air are not attracted to each other, I meant, of course, the attraction beyond the gravitational one; Attraction that the described model would predict as a result of the activity of air molecules. This does not exist as it does not appear in other flows either (the hydrostatic pressure acting on a body is the same in all directions regardless of the presence of other bodies in the environment and the kinetic model of gases even predicts this result. In a figurative way it can be said that according to the kinetic model a particle that came from the second past of a sphere The earth will not hit the moon, but instead it will be hit by a particle that reached the earth from the general direction of the moon and then splashed back from the earth in the direction of the moon)

  97. By the way, wondering about drag can be answered by claiming that most of the particles actually pass through the body and actually affect it by hitting individual atomic nuclei, but then an equally great contradiction arises with the tidal forces - after all, it is clear that the Earth will mask the surface of the water (on it) that is close to the Moon from The impact of the particles in a much more efficient way than the moon and therefore a trough will actually form on the side facing the moon.

  98. There are many other refutations that are not mentioned there (and I haven't seen them elsewhere either).
    For example, the fact that balloons floating in the air are not attracted to each other is one of them.
    Another refutation is related to the equality between inertial mass and gravitational mass, and another puzzlement can arise from the fact that it is mass in general and not surface area and shape (after all, it is actually a drag effect that is affected by these and not by mass).
    I guess a little more thought will yield more rebuttals.

  99. Thanks, I found it. Very interesting indeed. It's just a shame that the review is so short and only one refutation for the theory is described.

    Chapter 7, pages 9 and 10.

  100. Actually this page is in the main chapter 7 called The theory of gravitation and not in the first chapter (I was talking about the first book - not the first chapter)

  101. It is a single page numbered 7-9 found in chapter 7-7 called what is gravity
    By the way, a similar idea is presented in the book "Attraction" by Reuven Nir and when my friend Hami Ben Nun wrote an introduction to this book I also referred him to the same chapter in Feynman's book.

  102. Michael –
    Can you say in which chapter you found the review? I can't find it on pages 7-9, in the first chapter of the first volume of Feynman.

  103. To Judah:
    I probably don't need your answer.
    Browsing the site I came to the conclusion that this is an old theory that was first put forward in 1750 and is brought up again and again from time to time (including, apparently, this time) even though it has already been disproved in the past.
    A brief overview of the history of the theory and its refutations can be found in the first book of the trio of excellent lecture books by the well-known physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics (the description begins at the bottom of page 7-9).
    Correct me if I'm wrong.

  104. I don't know the model but I can imagine how it might work.
    It has been known for a long time that the void is actually not empty and it is bustling with activity of the formation and ionization of matter and antimatter particles (it "borrows" energy from the void and returns it subject to the principle of uncertainty).
    These particles may separate and their mutual ionization may be avoided as a result of a gravitational field that changes very quickly as a function of the distance from the mass that creates it (and creates tremendous tidal forces).
    Such a field exists, for example, in the vicinity of black holes and the separation of matter and antimatter particles on the edge of the black hole's event horizon as a result of the tidal forces it creates is the explanation put forward by Hawking for Jacob Beckenstein's prediction of black hole radiation (Hawking radiation).
    A similar process could be behind the formation of antimatter in the star's core.

    Yehuda:
    What is the "simple universe" idea?

  105. To all Man Dibai

    I don't know at this point how the simple universe idea relates to antimatter, so I really have no idea what the article says.
    If the scientists are comfortable with the antimatter, then great.
    I have no idea at this point.
    Have a good and energetic week

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  106. It's a theoretical model, now bolstered by the fact that its calculations predict nicely what actually happened in 2006GY.

    This is not final proof, but it certainly strengthens the theory, even if it is difficult for us to understand how the process itself (the anti-matter creature) occurs.

  107. I agree with what Sabdarmish is going to say.

    post Scriptum.
    "A persistent creature of antimatter in the star's core" ???

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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