examine the variation of the signal during the day. The particles arrive and hit the detector from different directions in the sky while the Earth rotates, so the particle flux should change with time. According to the researchers, the received signal pattern should be checked and the effects of environmental noise should be neutralized
Dark matter has always been an enigma to physicists and scientists. Many speculations have been raised in this regard, but it has never been proven what the dark matter and dark energy that make up a significant part of the universe are made up of, and attract the matter in the universe to spread at an accelerated speed. Now scientists from the University of Southern Denmark propose a new method for detecting and testing dark matter.
"We know that only about 5% of the universe is made up of the normal matter we are familiar with and from which we are made. The rest is unknown. This unknown type of matter is called dark matter. One can only speculate about the existence and composition of dark matter and energy." says Chris Kubris, a professor from the Center for Research in Cosmology and Particle Physics at the University of Southern Denmark.
According to Kubris, his research group has created a new method for detecting dark matter that does not use the existing conventional methods. In a new article published by the researcher, he suggests the possibility that the dark matter can interact with ordinary matter atoms, and therefore particle detectors placed deep under the surface of the earth will have great difficulty locating the elusive particle, because by the time the particle reaches the detector, it has already lost most of its energy.
It is widely believed that dark matter reacts only with gravitational effects and weak interactions, and does not perform electromagnetic interactions. That is, the material can pass and pass through the earth without nearly colliding with "normal" particles, so it is difficult to locate it with normal measuring instruments. In order to locate this material, the scientists place particle detectors deep underground, about a kilometer or even more below the ground, in the hope that this will block the "noise" from other objects emitting radiation and thus the detection of the particles will be possible.
"In principle, dark matter particles may lose a lot of energy while flying underground due to the interactions with other atoms, before they hit the measuring instruments. In such a situation, they might not have enough energy left to reach and activate the particle detector even when they get there," Kobris says. "In such a situation, it would make more sense to try to locate dark matter particles above the surface of the earth, or at a depth that is relatively close to the surface of the ground."
The solution, according to the researchers, lies in the patterns created during the arrival times of dark matter particles. When placing a detector close to the surface of the earth it ensures that the particles will only lose a small fraction of their energy. However, when detectors are placed above the surface of the earth, they are left with the initial problem, which is many environmental disturbances in the absorption of the particles.
In order to deal with the problem, Kobris and the other members of his group suggested that they examine the variation of the signal during the day. The particles arrive and hit the detector from different directions in the sky while the Earth rotates, so the particle flux should change with time. According to the researchers, the received signal pattern should be checked and the effects of environmental noise should be neutralized (for example, noise obtained from the cosmic background radiation).
to the notice of the researchers
462 תגובות
Miracles get the base fix 6.
Joseph
You're right... a significant improvement indeed 🙂 Your solution makes much better use of the known information.
Beautiful miracles!
Since 104-99=5
You can take less coins according to base 5. (No need for a mathematical explanation)
Now what is beautiful is that from the weight we obtained by subtracting 99 times the number of coins (geometric column of multiples of 5)
And the result is presented according to base 5.
The digits that are 0 indicate the weight 99, 1-100, 3-102, 4-103 grams.
This solution is a nucleus for solving many puzzles which apparently differ from each other in their presentation.
Yossi Simon
It seems to me (it just seems to me...) that a possible solution is to take one coin from the first bag, 1000 from the second bag, 1000000 from the third bag, and so on. The remainder after dividing by 1000 is the weight of the coin in the first bag. If we take the resulting portion, then the remainder after another division by 1000 is the weight of the coin in the second bag, and so on.
In base 1000, the number of coins is 1111111111 ….
Hello miracles!
Thank you for your consideration of my questions, as someone who is not versed in nuclear physics.
As a token of thanks, I am sending you a puzzle upgraded by me, a puzzle whose solution I really like.
Below is the puzzle
There are 10 bags of coins, with each bag containing a huge number of coins.
In each bag, all the coins weigh the same weight. But coins in different bags can have different weights.
The weight options are: 99,100,101,103,104 (the national mint did not create coins weighing 102) grams.
The question is how it is possible in one weighing (any weight can be weighed) to determine each bag, the weight of its coins.
Weighing is done by removing coins from each bag.
The total number of coins must be presented in such a way that all its digits are the same.
Successfully!
Hope you enjoy the solution
Thanks elbentzo for the interesting answer.
What is hard for me to understand is that mass can be converted to energy and the energy can be transferred
to another place by gravity. While forgetting gravity defines the energy/mass of the deformations
The space/time and potential power created is actually infinite.
For example if the moon was made of hard rubber and for two billion years they would collide
It has billions of meteors at a relatively low speed and splashed back into space, so can it
To create a situation where the total mass of the meteors will be greater than that of the moon?
And doesn't this break the law of conservation of energy?
Yossi Simon
From what I learned in school - fog cells and bubbles reveal trajectories of individual particles. And in the field I do know - the human eye can, in principle, detect a single photon. In principle - because a single photon is indeed detected by a rod cell, but it takes 5-6 photons in about a tenth of a second for the brain to "confirm" that we have indeed seen something.
Hello elbentzo!
In the context of your answer to the questionnaire, please ask a few clarifying questions
1. How many photons does one/more/infinity electron contain?
2. When the photon is fired, does it start from a speed of 0? (relative to its joint movement with the electron around the nucleus)?
3. What gives him the ability to get acceleration.?
4. What stops his movement? When he is "trapped" in a proton?
5. What is his fate when he "moves" alone in space. Will he be captured in the end or will he be moved forever?
6. What makes it "know" the direction towards the proton?
7. And what about the neutron since it also has mass?
8. Another question that intrigues me, do the particles "occupy" a place in space in an actual way or are they simply defined as a feature in a topographical space. And this space can contain additional particles that are not "affected" or affect the particle.
9. With the technology that exists today, is it possible to track one single particle or one single atom? In the experiment with the two holes, is only one electron sent?
10. Is it possible that, say, the proton is not really a continuous substance (then it doesn't mean that it is indivisible) but simply concentrated within a sphere-like topographical space?
I take advantage of your invitation to clarify questions, and thank you again!
questionnaire,
I have to admit that I don't really understand what you are asking. What do you mean by gravity moving without friction? Friction is a mechanical force between bodies. You can look at gravity as an effective force field - and as such it does not feel friction or difficulty "passing" through bodies. It is fully defined by potential. The real description is not so simple, and is related to the curvature of space. The energy content in space (when energy also includes mass) determines its shape, and the shape determines the movement paths of particles. If you look at a small enough body, then its effect on the shape of space is negligible and you can describe it as if it moves in a curved space (when if you want to be precise you have to take into account that the body also has mass and energy and therefore it itself not only moves in space but also affects space). Here too, there is no reason to expect friction or difficulty passing "through" bodies.
The second half of your comment is what I really don't understand, the connection to atoms and the example with the scale. In our modern understanding of gravity, there is no difference between gravity and the electroweak or strong force. All forces are expressed as particles (called force-carrying bosons) that fly between bodies and affect their movement in space. The electron in the hydrogen atom is bound because it constantly exchanges photons with the nucleus (it "shoots" photons at the nucleus and the nucleus "shoots" back at it), and this interaction does not let it escape. In exactly the same way, it can "shoot" at other particles something called gravitons, which is the force-carrying boson of the gravitational force (just as the photon is the force-carrying boson of the electromagnetic force). It is important to understand that these particles that the electrons, protons, and the other members shoot at each other do not have to obey the laws known to us - they can fly at speeds greater than light (without breaking the special theory of relativity), and in impossible orbits, can have a large or small mass, etc. . The fact that force-carrying bosons are not bound by the usual laws (of course there is a mathematical justification for this, but I won't go into it right now) is what allows them to "bypass" obstacles as you describe. If I take a real photon, one that obeys laws (like the one that comes out of a flashlight when I turn it on) and shine it in your direction, it will fly from me to you in trajectories that obey quantum laws (actually, these are not exactly trajectories, but I won't go into that now). That is, if there is a rock between us then he will get stuck in it and may not be able to penetrate, and even if he does, he will reach you very weakened. But a photon whose whole essence is to mediate between me and you the electromagnetic force (sometimes also called virtual particles) does not obey the same laws and therefore can bypass any rock you put between us.
Albenzo, if you know about gravity, maybe you can explain to me how I lose 5 kilos from my gravity?
elbentzo,
If you are savvy with gravity you might be able to answer questions I asked in comments to another article
But the answers I received did not do the job.
In the first question I asked to understand how gravity moves in a certain direction without friction, resistance or loss of energy
From the material through which it passes and on the other hand the same body does feel the force exerted on it. In other words, how is it possible?
Forget moving that passes through a mass, affects it and continues without losing energy?
My interest is not in a Newtonian or relativistic description but to understand the mechanics at the level of the bound atom
By 3 basic forces and essentially "emits" a fourth force which is gravity. And how that gravity which was originally created by mass,
Passes without resistance through masses just like the one that originally created it - without resistance or weakening but on the side
Second, does it pull the same masses in the direction it came from?
Think you are climbing a ladder somewhere in space in an area of low gravity and each rung of the ladder is you
first pulling and then pushing, the ladder will move in the direction you came from and you will continue - without any effort or
Loss of energy on your part (with the exception of the weakening of the impedance of the square of the distance you traveled from the point of departure).
The second question for the theoretical decomposition of bodies in order to follow the distribution of gravity on the surface
A number of components that form a body to which the descriptions of gravity and the associated mathematics refer. to remind you
The force that binds atoms and molecules is electromagnetic and if it is the one that binds the material then why the material
"Emits" gravity?
Thanks. By the way, I also follow your answers, enjoy and learn.
walking
Raphael thinks so... I ask him about what is written in the book, which in his eyes is the truth.
Miracles
You are wrong about the sin of the flood generation because it is just like the time Raphael explained something. It never happened.
Yossi Simon,
Thank you for the compliments. It's very nice to talk to people who are really interested in the subject, and I was happy to try to answer your questions as best I could. Feel free to ask more questions and I'll do my best to try to help (or at least tell you my opinion, though – there are so many things I still don't know :).
Gravity is one of the most difficult things to understand in the world of physics. This is one of the reasons that it also interests me so much, and that my field of research revolves around it.
Hello elbentzo
I follow your responses and I simply wanted and received clarification regarding the statement that the distance between points is 0.
Beyond that, I just wanted to point out that although I know and am aware of many issues related to the physical world (and know or rather once knew) how to solve complex exercises, I never felt that I really understood in depth such as how, for example, gravity works? And this is sometimes true of the Big Bang.
I really admire your understanding a lot on this subject.
Raphael
Remind me where you explained something...
You always have lame excuses when you don't have an answer.
Miracles
You're wrong too, it wasn't their fault. As soon as you ask questions out of contempt and disdain and not out of a desire to understand, then it takes away the desire to explain to you.
Raphael
Check the link of my name for what I do. After that explain to me why your loving God created a baby girl born with an aneurysm the size of my fist. After all, you said - God doesn't just do things.
Oh I forgot .. it's explained in that book ... it's interesting that it doesn't say how to cure this baby.
Raphael
Let's be precise - the sin of the generation of the flood was that the sons of God slept with the women of men. And what did the good God do? Punished his sons? No...he murdered the women and their babies.
It is clear to me that I do not understand what is written and that my son of God is actually... I know all the excuses….
Maya,
1. Our understanding is that what distinguishes time from space is the signature on the matrica. That is, if the matrix has an eigenvector with a negative PE, then it is for all intents and purposes time (in fact, the technical term for such coordinates is timelike coordinates). One can certainly wonder what happens in the region where there are, for example, two vectors with a negative sign in the matrix, or none at all. Regarding the situation where there is none at all, such a space is called Euclidean because it looks like a Euclidean geometric space (in Euclidean geometry there is no time, all the relationships between directions and distances are static). Such spaces are of huge importance as computational tools, although to the best of our knowledge they do not appear in nature (in every physical system there is a dimension that is timelike, because it is necessary for the definition of energy and generally necessary for dynamics). In case there is more than one, things get a bit complicated. There are interesting things in such systems, but they appear only in very pathological and theoretical cases, and I know of no testable physical models that discuss such spaces (at least with the tools we have today).
2. Not only is it possible, it is almost certain that our universe has more than four dimensions. Already in the days of Einstein, the idea arose that our universe can actually be described in a much more compact and simple way if we look at a multi-dimensional space that we only witness a part of (a lot of work by a talented mathematician named Kaluza, and after him models we still use today called Kaluza-Klein) . In particular, it seems that if you look at a five-dimensional universe then gravity and the electromagnetic force come together, and we actually perceive them as different only because we are only looking at four of the five dimensions.
In recent decades, one of the most difficult and important questions in physics is how to combine Einstein's excellent theory of gravity with quantum theory. That is, we are looking for a quantum theory of gravity, and it (turns out) is very, very difficult. The closest thing we have today is string theory, which indeed fantastically combines gravity and quanta and looks correct and elegant on paper, but poses some very difficult problems (mainly in the field of testing and experimentation, but not only). In short, there are very good reasons to think that quantum gravity requires more than 4 dimensions. In particular, string theory has 10 dimensions (or 11, depending on who you ask). The problem with the extra dimensions is that they are very, very small. Our ability to perceive a dimension is related to our ability to move in it, and if there is a dimension that is compact (you said you studied math, right? Remember what a compact space is?) and very, very small, we won't pay attention to it. Unfortunately, this also means that we can only get indirect evidence of its existence, if it is so small that we cannot study it directly. The (indirect) search for additional dimensions is one of the many things being done at the Hadron Collider in Sarn (LHC).
Raphael,
It's a shame you put yourself in this corner again. You have already been asked for explanations about newborn babies dying in agony. You don't just do things, you said.
If he didn't care about us he wouldn't have created us. You don't just do things.
Maya
I think you're right about God... it's like ours would care about the bacteria in the intestines of a certain bee in Uzbekistan
Raphael
Hinduism also has one god, who has many avatars. Every "idol" is a manifestation of the Supreme God. The differences are much smaller than you think. Of course, in our area, Judaism was a revolution.
It amazes me that the monotheistic religions are so close to the truth, and don't see it. If one god is "better" than several idols (which I don't think, but it doesn't matter), then isn't 0 gods better? What is wrong with believing that there is no god?
Raphael,
Can be. I'm clueless. It was not an attempt to be precise, it was an attempt to give the general impression I had of this book which I studied for 11 years at school.
albenza,
I think I understood. It's really not intuitive this matter of wandering in the timeline but the parallel to the midnight that will always come was clear. You calmed me down by at least first tearing me apart before crushing me 🙂
Two more questions if you haven't had enough of me yet:
1. Is it possible to imagine a universe in which the space coordinates are not "identical" in the sense that what receives a negative PA is precisely one of the space coordinates? What it means? What if we become two-dimensional beings there that move freely in time but always move up?
2. Is it possible that there are more than 4 dimensions? Like the analogy that is always made about the ant climbing a mountain but it is not aware that it is climbing a mountain because it does not see the third dimension, the world around it is two dimensional. Is it possible that there is another dimension in our world (a mountain we are climbing, if you will) that we simply do not see? And if it is possible, is there a way to see it?
Thanks again for your patience.
Maya
you are wrong. The sin of the flood generation was not that they did not believe in the Creator of the world.
Shmulik,
The guy is not Catholic. I don't really know the currents in Christianity very well but I asked him if he was Catholic and he said that "the Pope is not my boss". We actually had a little discussion about the matter of heaven and hell and what he says is that heaven is a place where you are with God. But if you don't want to be with him then why would you be there? I'm not convinced he believes in the fire and brimstone of hell. We don't talk about it much anymore. I tried several times to ask him all kinds of questions, but he doesn't really answer. He refuses to think about it. This is a really intelligent and thinking person and even liberal (believes in gay rights, even with abortion he has no particular problem) and I think he avoids thinking about this issue because he doesn't want to lose his faith. It's clear to him that it doesn't make sense, but he's fine with his life like this - church every Sunday and this social and community life. So I stopped interfering because he really is a cute and happy guy (happier than I will probably ever be) so why destroy him?
Miracles,
If there is a God, I don't think he appreciates anyone. He can create entire universes. What does he care about us anyway? This is the thing I never understood in the Bible. They describe there some almighty god who created everything, then suddenly he starts behaving like a 4-year-old child: "What is this? you don't believe me It hurts my ego terribly! Take a flood!” Like an honest child to react violently but because he is omnipotent the violence is especially strong. very mature How can you believe that?
Miracles
I didn't belittle him, I just said that I understand why he says that. The Hindu religion may be older but it is a pagan religion. Abraham's father was also an idolater.
We have one unique and special Creator and there is no other besides Him.
Maya,
Yes, yes, no and no. Yes, every particle in your body will at some point reach the singular point in space, r=0. You will be crushed to a point (don't worry, long before that you will tear into pieces as a result of gravitational forces).
Yes, it is true in spatial levy, but not in space-time. In time space the singularity extends over the entire timeline (as in normal space the point t=0 extends over the entire space). And this is also why the answer to your third question is "no". You will not be able to use your ability to move freely in the time dimension to avoid the cruel fate. Just like today you can move freely in space, but regardless of where you are, you will eventually arrive at midnight. You can control where you will be at this moment, but you cannot avoid reaching the midnight moment. A black guy is the opposite - you can't avoid reaching the singularity. You can choose where you will be on the timeline when you get to it, but you will get to it anyway. It is confusing because we are used to thinking of time as a parameter by which we can measure our movement ("at time t I am at such and such a point"), but inside a black hole this is not the case, because time and space change roles.
And finally - no. Although both the Big Bang started with a singularity and a black hole has a singularity, these are two completely different physical systems and a black hole is not a cosmological model. It is very interesting for the study of gravitation but does not simulate the early universe.
Raphael
And you have cherubs and seraphim and angels and animal sacrifices...and the Hindu religion is much older than Judaism.
At least my Indian friend wants to learn... he does not disparage opinions different from his own.
Miracles
I can understand your Indian. All in all, he has statues and cows and more idols...
hello Yossi,
I understood each of your examples but I can't understand what your statement is in general.
Right now we're only talking math, we haven't talked about physics at all (I talked a little about physics in the comments I wrote to Maya, but we'll ignore those for now). When defining any topology space, geometry is considered to define an invariant distance between two points. Perhaps you are confusing distance with the length of a track - which is an integral over the distance along the track. The distances are uniquely determined by the metric and uniquely determined by the geometry. If we look at a metric of the form
ds^2 = -dt^2 +f(t) (…) z
When the z is to be ignored, the function f is non-negative defined and the three points mark some kind of spatial matrix, so at the point where f=0, the projection of the distance between any two points on the space is exactly 0. So far, just math. In physics, t stands for time. That is, at the second of the Big Bang, all spatial distances were 0.
Hello elbentzo
Thanks for the answer and patience.
From a mathematical point of view it is more clear, from a physical point of view less so.
In the context of "free" distance definitions, I intend to explain with a demonstration:
Example 1: There is a separating river, and if the points are on both sides of the river, then the distance calculation will take into account the need to reach the bridge.
Example 2: a one-sided road (one-way conductor) and there is a circular route, let's say. The distance depends on the direction.
Example 3: We will define an abstract space that contains, let's say, a field/circle/a bunch of certain numbers. In this space we will define a distance in the following way: the distance between P1 and P1 will be defined as
min(Di,Dj) IF Di=Dj
(Dn=(P1/2-PRIMEj)
That is, I look at the series of differences between each point and a series of prime numbers, and pull out the small difference common to both.
The distance (50, 100) is 3 because (100-97=3) and (50-47=3).
Maya,
I understand the guy at your job is Catholic?
If so, a few questions you can direct to him:
How does he treat the new representative of Christ on earth who recently told that God is not a magician with a magic wand (why not actually)? He also said that - "Who is he to judge gays?". Did the lightness of the new pope surprise him?
In 2007, the church canceled the idea of limbo, the place where children who died before being baptized go. The point is that for hundreds of years millions of believers have been tortured because they were brought up to think that their child would not make it to heaven because of this misshapen. What new facts were discovered that made it possible to cancel limbo and is he troubled by the torture endured by millions of parents throughout history who thought their child would not make it to heaven?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/20/us-pope-limbo-idUSL2028721620070420
Maya
If there is a God, then the only ones he will appreciate are the atheists. A good god must value integrity and morality, right?
An Indian friend, a senior engineer, once asked me: "? I know you believe in one god, but which one?"
: )
Miracles,
I have to say that I don't really feel like a failure. It doesn't really matter to me which creation story to study and it is better not to study any of them, unless it is absolutely clear that it is fiction. But it's true, that's the root of the problem. I have a super Christian guy in the lab. Once, at the beginning of our acquaintance, I asked him if according to his belief I was going to hell. It took me some time to convince him that he could answer me honestly because it really doesn't really bother me and in the end he stuttered yes. So I asked him if it's because I'm Jewish or because I'm an atheist and he said: "well, there isn't really a differentiation between the two". The best answer I got in my life. I laughed for weeks. But that's exactly the point, isn't it? Let's say I'm convinced there is a God and let's say I'm convinced it will be very bad if I don't do exactly what he says and what is necessary. How the hell am I supposed to know what I'm supposed to do? Does what I was accidentally born into have to be true by definition because that's what I was accidentally born into? No matter what you do, you will make a mistake. So isn't it better to do nothing? That's why I was interested in the discussion with David about why Judaism. Too bad he stopped answering.
Maya
Indeed, there is no debate among us about those who wrote the Torah. We in Israel are studying this book, and are missing wonderful creation stories from all over the world. Our Torah is also probably based on an older story, the Anoma Elish.
The Simpsons is sacred... I bought a VCR at the time to record entire seasons...
Miracles,
I agree about not thinking in front of the TV (otherwise what's the point), but there is a difference between not thinking and assuming you don't have a brain at all, and I have a bit of a hard time with that...
I think you know that you have no argument with me about who wrote the Torah. I do say that those who wrote it, were not stupid people at all and should be treated within their time constraints. But yes, nothing about The Simpsons (I wonder how they will be treated in two thousand years. Do you think it will work if we keep them as the holy film?)
albenza,
When you say that sooner or later I will reach the singularity and die, do you mean that all the parts of my body that currently have different coordinates in space will have the exact same coordinate? I mean, I'll be really thin (or zero dimensional if you will)? Is it again about my levy on the space? I mean, wouldn't that be true in spacetime? And since I have a free hand to march in time as I please, what does that mean? Can I reverse my crushes by walking back in time? I guess not because then it means that I do move around the axis of space which is forbidden. Is this situation supposed to simulate the state of the universe at the beginning? And if so, then how did it happen that from free rotations in time and limitations in space we found ourselves in exactly the opposite situation?
This whole thing is very interesting. I'm guessing it's not trivial to explain without going into all the technical details, but in the meantime you're doing an excellent job 🙂
hello Yossi,
Maybe I was not clear enough.
1+2. I'm not talking about Euclidean geometry, and what I described is clearly not the Pythagorean theorem. Only the first line of my response referred to the Pythagorean theorem when I explained how we are used to measuring distance in everyday life. But it is certainly possible to define non-Euclidean geometries, in which distance is calculated differently, and the "parallel axiom" as you called it really does not hold. And that's exactly what I was talking about.
3. A matrix as a tensor is well defined and there is no fear of contradictions.
4. What is meant by "if the definition of the distance is different from the definition we are used to, it is necessary to emphasize this"? I don't understand who you are referring to. The way in which distance is measured in topological space is defined according to the metric. The Big Bang model has a given metric, that is, explicit instructions for measuring distances. It is not clear to me what is not emphasized here.
5. As I wrote, the distance between any two points in space (not in space-time!) is 0. That is, the distance's charge on space is 0.
6. There are some distance settings. A metric of a space absolutely defines the distances on it. These distances can be given different names (what is known in mathematical language as "diffomorphism"), but once I have defined a certain metric it no longer matters what we are used to.
7. There are no series or limits here. These are final calculations. You can literally follow the metric and calculate for yourself what the distance is between any two arbitrary points in space only (that is, in the event that the two events in space-time have the same value in the time coordinate - that is, the distance between two points in the universe at the exact moment of the big bang). It comes out literally 0, not a convergent series, not of infinitesimal size.
Hope this helped a bit.
Miracles,
I hope you took your shoes off before talking about The Simpsons
By the way, Homer has another saying about God:
God] he's my favorite fictional character]
Hello Albanzato!!
First thanks for your answer!
1. What you describe is simply the Pythagorean theorem in XNUMXD space.
As the number of dimensions in space increases, so more vectors are added and "pushed" into the calculation, the mathematical proof is quite simple.
2. The geometry is still Euclid's because for every plane section (two-dimensional), the axiom of parallels applies "because every straight line can be passed through a point that does not have one and only parallel"
3. It is true that distance can be defined in different ways such as ignoring coordinates, you just have to be careful not to get caught up in contradictions.
4. If the definition of the distance is different from the definition we are used to, it is necessary to emphasize this.
5. Reading your response, if I'm not mistaken, it implies that for every two points without any limitation the distance is zero.
6. Even with defining a distance of 0, in certain data, the definition of the distance we are used to is still different from zero, and therefore the universe contained within it also contains an actual space of an infinite collection of points.
7 Perhaps it is meant that the relevant calculations create a series aiming for a certain point (or 0), in the 4-dimensional linear space, which is perceived in our understanding. A point that for some reason received the "great honor". And we can only guess what exactly happened in that delta (or rather epsilon of time) epsilon (number > 0), (but < of any number greater than 0)
Hope I understand
Even in everyday life with "normal" attraction, a particle pulls down to the smallest size with infinite force, and this is reflected in the replication of the particle after repetition, again repetition in time in zero space, to inflate the visible dimension into three dimensions
Albanzo
Correct me with I'm talking nonsense…
Shmulik
Think of a neutron star - it's hard to get denser than that, yet it can emit radiation. That is - its size is above the Schwarzschild radius
Maya
The last thing I want to do in front of the TV is think... 🙂 That's why Anit doesn't see news, or series to follow. And think about it - the one who invented the Simpsons is the man.... So isn't it clear that man can create anything simpler, like the Torah for example? (The same goes for whiskey and water...)
Miracles,
But before it collapses? Why would this massive star allow light to escape before it became a black hole for all its singularity?
I know I'm probably wrong, but I still wondered...
Shmulik
A star that has collapsed below the Schwarzschild limit is a black hole. If I understand correctly, then a less massive star will collapse into a neutron star (which could be a pulsar), and if it is even less massive - it will collapse into a white dwarf.
That is - a star that collapsed below the Schwarzschild limit is denser than a neutron star and will eventually turn into a point.
albentezo,
Did you mean this by chance?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_analogs_in_quantum_mechanics
I didn't know and I enjoyed the brain short that this value caused me
Maya,
Yes. Theoretically, inside a black hole it is possible to move in both directions of time at will. But note that sooner or later you will reach the singularity and get crushed. It's a bit confusing, and maybe you need to see the math to understand it all the way, but these are the observations from our theories of gravity (and of course, all of this is only theoretically true according to the models. We have no ability to test it empirically. On the other hand, the models have been tested and proved themselves fantastically in every Another scenario that can be tested, and there is no fundamental difference between a black hole and any other gravitational system).
Its not easy to juggle a pregnant wife and a troubled child, but somehow I managed to fit in eight hours of TV a day. – Homer Simpson
Speaking of a black hole, does only a black hole produce a Schwarzschild limit? Is it possible for a star big enough that it also won't allow light to escape due to its strong attraction?
Shmulik,
I went through the link you sent. Maybe this evening I will read the original article and go a little deeper into the matter. At first glance the matter looks nice but does not give the impression that it will change a paradigm or change the way we understand or do physics. It is known and recognized that waves (even completely classical waves) have an effective uncertainty principle, so the connection between the two things has been known for years. The researchers in this case seem to have succeeded in quantifying it, i.e. connecting two different languages, but I don't see how that would fundamentally change our understanding of quantum mechanics.
If I have more serious insights in the evening when I read the article, I will write to you.
Miracles,
I have to say that I don't have a lot of experience with Big Bang, but I've heard so much about it that once on a flight I saw all the episodes they had of it on the plane (and it wasn't a little, the flight was also quite long) and I have to say that my main problem with it (Besides that even I, with my limited understanding of physics, found this section ridiculous) It's that it's just not funny. The characters are flat, there are no interesting interactions, the script is predictable. That is, just like any average and rather bad comedy, only that the heroes are "scientists". If it's more for me, here's a comic from the best Israeli web comic I know that's worth reading regardless (if you're looking for people who laugh about religion and God and also about superheroes and physics) that explains it well:
http://www.ho-lo.co.il/archives/523
Sorry, I don't usually do this but I had to express my opinion on this matter. I have strong feelings about television, especially when there are so many better things worth watching.
albenza,
magnificent! You did listen to me. Does this mean that the timeline can change direction inside a black hole? If I marry a black guy can I be younger? Maybe it's worth this whole thing of losing touch with the world (but then who would know I'm young?)
I did indeed follow your debates on the site with interest (quite a long time ago I stopped watching telenovelas and soap operas and I also don't watch reality shows, so I need something...) and I agree that it's a shame. but it is what it is It comes with the territory of commenting on the site (there is an element of exposure here that cannot be avoided).
In any case, I personally thank you again and would be happy to hear more.
Albanzo
I didn't enjoy it at first, but the physics there is just background... it goes well with a glass of whiskey and snow outside... good rest for the brain.
Raphael is a good example of what Dawkins (and others) say - religion is a process of not thinking. On the one hand, he says that all science can be explained with the help of the Torah, and on the other hand, science is full of nonsense. This is true for many other beliefs, such as homeopathy, vaccine resistance, global warming denial, etc. The problem is that such people run the country...
albentezo,
I recently came across an article that claims that wave-particle seconds are essentially Eisenberg's uncertainty, in disguise (translation from the article):
http://phys.org/news/2014-12-quantum-physics-complicated.html
If this is true, are we before a paradigm shift? The article is very dramatic on this point ("It's like we found the Rosetta Stone)
Miracles,
You know very well that Raphael is the least of my problems here on the site...
I've heard about the big bang, but I've never seen it. I have to admit that I'm a little reluctant about this because I know that my pedantry about scientific inaccuracies will prevent me from enjoying the jokes... It's hard for me to hear gibberish that sounds scientific and it will just make me not enjoy the series (although it's clear that the problem is with me and not with the series - if others watch and enjoy, great).
Albanzo
Unfortunately, it is very rare to discuss with a religious person... usually it immediately turns into an argument. There are some TV series now that dare to go down a little on religion, and that's kind of nice. I hope you know The Big Bang Theory - there are some big statements there 🙂
For example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4sYUmcsSIk
What you said with the train is 100% true, except that I'm not convinced that the train is supposed to travel faster than light. I personally would not get on such a train, but to each his own.
also. The negative sign of time in Matrika gives it many very special and fascinating properties that we associate with time. For example, the very fact that it is not possible to "turn around" in time: if I travel in the positive direction of the x-axis, I can always make a turn and change the direction of my speed so that I start moving in the negative direction of the x-axis. But in time this is not true - as soon as I move in a certain direction in the timeline, it is not possible to turn around and start moving backwards. There are many other beautiful features that directly result from the role it plays in the hammer.
And now something for the advanced - inside a black hole, the geometry becomes a little more complicated and what happens is that time gets a positive signature in the matrix, but the radial direction (that is, the axis that connects a certain point to the heart of the black hole) gets a negative signature. That is, time and space change roles. This is responsible for two of the most well-known phenomena in black holes - the fact that once you've crossed the horizon you can't change direction and go back, and the fact that particles with negative energy can live inside the black hole (which in turn causes Hawking radiation). It's a bit more complicated, but just to explain the ear.
with fun In recent times I've almost only had the chance to argue with people here on the site (whether it's for religious or other reasons), it's nice for a change to just talk about physics and math.
Excellent, Albenzo, thanks again for the super detailed and super clear answer.
So what you are saying is that if I measure the distance in the space of time between me waiting for the train in Haifa and me at the train station in Tel Aviv after I have already arrived there (late, of course, because the train, as usual, was delayed) I will get a negative distance. Because I am a particle. But, if the train was traveling as it is supposed to travel (at a speed higher than the speed of light) I would get a positive distance? I feel that there is some deep significance to the fact that the EE of the time vector turns out to be negative. Is this what makes this base vector so unique and sublime among us (the common people)?
Again, thank you very much for the investment. It's really fun to understand some things that I didn't really think there was a chance I would ever understand.
Okay, I wasn't careful enough.
The signature is usually written in one of two ways: either as three numbers each representing how many eigenvectors the matrix has with positive, negative, or zero (in that order), or as a vector of the eigenvalues themselves. For example, we can write that the signature of a matrix is
(+,+,-,+,0)
And this means that the first eigenvector is 0, the second is positive, the third is negative, and the last two are also positive.
In physics we are almost always in a situation where all the eigenvectors have a positive PE except for one. If this one has a positive PA as well, the metric is said to have a positive signature. If the remaining one actually has a negative signature, it is said in short that the signature is negative. I mean, when I said negative signature I used not entirely accurate language to say that the signature is
(+,+,+,-)
Or in the second language (the one you mentioned), the signature is (3,1,0).
Time is indeed one of the basic vectors of our space. That is why we say space-time.
The matric sign and the space sign are indeed related, but not in a very trivial way. If the matrix has only positive e's, that is, its signature in the language you used is (0,0,d) where d is the number of dimensions, then all the distances will always come out positive. If the truck only has negatives, all the distances will be negative. Any signature that is not only positive or only negative, can give distances of both types.
It is important to understand that the distance measured across space-time is *not* the distance we measure with a ruler across Earth. As you said, this space also includes a measurement of the time that has passed between the two points (the points are in space-time, so there is also a temporal separation between them and not just a spatial one). As I wrote earlier, the form of our metric is such that the base vector of time has a minus sign and everything else is a plus. Without going into too much technical detail, this means that the square of the distance over time space between two events is
r^2 = d^2-t^2
Where r marks the distance across space-time, d marks the physical distance between the two points where the events occur, and t marks the time that has passed between the events. So, it is clear that if I measure a physical distance between two points (as we are used to defining distance), then t is simply zero. If I want to measure the distance between Haifa and Tel Aviv, then I want to know the distance between them at a certain time: the first event in space-time will be Haifa at one time or another, and the second event will be Tel Aviv at exactly that second. Therefore the temporal separation is 0 and the distance is positive. On the other hand, I can measure the distance across the space-time of Haifa at a certain time versus Tel Aviv at a later time. Now the result can be positive, zero or negative, depending on how big the time difference t between the events is. And as I said earlier, if the distance comes out negative (a lot of time has passed between the events) then it means that a particle can be present in both events, i.e. pass from one to the other, if the distance comes out 0 then only a particle moving at the speed of light can pass between the events (that is, it is the path of a light ray ) and if the distance still comes out positive, it means that the time that passed between the events is so small that in order to connect them you have to move faster than light. These three types of intervals have a tremendous meaning in physics.
albenza,
First, thank you very much for the detailed answer.
Secondly, I started reading a little about the signature of the matrika (the first time I've heard of it, so please take that into account) and according to what I saw, the signature is, in fact, 3 different numbers - the number of positives, negatives and zeros that you get when you run the matrika on each The basis vectors of the space. did I understand correctly? When you say our geometry is negative, does that mean you only get negative values when you run the metric on each of the basis vectors? And is time one of the basic vectors? Is it orthogonal to the space vectors?
I understand that the distance mark is not related to the signature of the truck, is that correct? That is, a negative metric can also give positive distances and vice versa? Does the matrix of our universe have a negative signature that only gives positive distances in all these matters that are intuitive to a person (the distance from Haifa to Tel Aviv, etc.)? And how does it happen?
Hope I understood something correctly and didn't make a big salad. The second thing you said about only the levy being reset resonated well with me. Thanks.
Another note - what I presented in the answer to Yossi is a bit simplified. The truth is a bit more complex (actually, the hammer is from the shape
ds^2 = -dt^2 +a^2(t) (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) z
That is, the distance does not reset, but the charge on the space only (without the time) between any two points is the one that resets.
Hello Maya,
Our intuitive understanding of the concept of "distance" meant that at the beginning of research on sheets and topological spaces, a matrix was defined as a positive definite tensor (as you mentioned). Later the concept was expanded (such spaces are sometimes called "pseudo-Riemannian spaces"). The metric has a property called a signature, where a positive signature corresponds to the classical definition of a distance. Precisely the geometry of our universe (and here we cross the line from mathematics to physics) the signature is not positive but negative. When talking about space-time, it is certainly possible (and necessary) to talk about distances that are not necessarily positive, and this even has a very elegant and beautiful interpretation (negative distances connect two points in space-time that can be passed between them by moving at a speed small to the speed of light, distances that reset to zero describe paths of rays light, and positive distances connect points in space-time that require a speed higher than the speed of light to pass between them. These are not physical trajectories of standard particles).
hi albanzo,
A little clarification, if you don't mind. It is true that many years have passed since the topology course and I admit that I do not remember much, but am I wrong when I remember that one of the properties that the matrix must have is:
d(x,y)>=0
When
d(x,y)=0
If and only if x=y?
If I am not mistaken, this condition comes from the fact that if the space is also a normed space (and it seems to me that our space is also one, unless there is something I am missing) then the norm of every point greater than zero is equal to zero if and only if the point is the zero point (the origin of the axes ). Did I miss something here? As mentioned, many years have passed and the memory is not what it used to be. Because if what I remember is correct, then how can the matrix you described create a consistent geometry when all distances are reset?
Water blowing
Parallel universes and time reversals or not, there are those here who try to understand others and their claims, and to explain themselves to others, and there are those who do not try to understand others and do not explain anything, but only make shattered claims, distort the words of others and spread lies. To argue, as it seems to me you did, that there is an equivalence between things requires that you go back and forth a few times in time while passing through several parallel universes, in order to find the universe and time in which you remember what fairness is.
Yossi Simon,
Geometry (non-Euclidean) can be defined by a set of coordinates that have a certain range. But this is not enough - this system should be accompanied by a definition for the distance between any two different points (different points are points with different coordinates, assuming that the geometry is not cyclic). For example, if we look at a plane in Euclidean geometry, it appears that we have two coordinates, x and y, and that the distance between any two points is expressed by
r= \sqrt(dx^2 +dy^2) z
When z is to be ignored, the size dx is the x-coordinate difference between the two points (same as for dy) and the expression \sqrt means square root. In general, the formula for measuring distances is called a metric and of course it has to have certain properties so that we get a consistent geometry.
Now we can look at a system whose triage gives a distance from the shape
r= a^2 (t) f(x,y,z) z
When z is to be ignored at the end of the line and without limiting generality I have taken three dimensional geometry (x, y and z). The function f is not exactly important, what they thought was that everything is multiplied by some kind of phoenix called a (the square in the figure is to remind you that this is a phoenix that is defined as positive, that is, greater than or equal to 0 at any given moment).
Regardless of the explicit form of a(t), this geometry has infinity over infinity over infinity of distinct points (three axes each of which has a continuous infinity of points). But if at some point a=0, then the distance between any two points is 0. Motion loses its meaning, so you can think of this system as if everything is everywhere at the same time, that is - it looks as if the entire universe is compressed into one point. There are quite difficult problems with the definition of this point, which in short in mathematics we call "singularities". Therefore it is a singular point. So at t for which a=0 one can think of the geometry as compressed at one point (even though it contains infinitely many distinct points), and at any other t there is a finite distance between every two points and therefore a classical infinite space is obtained.
It's on one leg (or even a little less).
watching from the sidelines
I assume that there are readers here who are interested in understanding the arguments of both sides. I know there are religious readers who have questions.
I'm sorry, and you're right, that the discussion with Raphael is not at a high level. He actually made an interesting argument, but he doesn't understand his own argument - he just recycles other people's arguments without understanding what he's talking about. Too bad.
Miracles
Why are you arguing with Raphael? He is a complete idiot. You devalue yourself. Do you enjoy Sisyphean labor so much?
I'm not religious, but the way you fight our religion is not nice, nono nono.
And from witnesses you saw in parallel universes that were erased from us in the return of time intelligences and among them I saw or understood that there is also one God.
Just as you do not understand the religious dimension, so he does not understand you. But to speak nicely I would like you to speak, parallel universes in my life. Respectfully blowing water
Raphael
We actually started having an interesting conversation between us, in my opinion. You said there is no way to tell a universe between 5775 years and 13.8 billion years.
So - why do you repeatedly try to challenge the model of an ancient universe? You always bring up "holes" in the scientific explanation, like how time is measured in the first place. You probably agree that science has good reasons to believe in an ancient universe. What do you care about every little nonsense? How does this affect your faith?
Raphael
You have several ways to answer our questions, legitimate questions in our opinion:
1. Insult attempts
2. Reference to an old book
3. Total disregard
4. Putting words in our mouths.
Don't you have any opinion of your own? Why are you having, so to speak, a discussion with us here?
I must point out that you give religious people a bad name. You speak out of arrogance without any basis. You try to repeatedly insult those whose opinion differs from yours.
And you show ignorance both in science and in the religion that is so sacred to you. At least that's how it appears in your comments.
If you want to have a real discussion then please do. If not, then just don't respond.
Hello Albanzato!
Without having anything to do with the physics of the big bang, can you clarify the sentence "…… that the distance between any two points in it is 0" (I assume the points are different).
Was this also written in the context of Euclid's geometry/Nikolai Lubachevsky/Friedrich Riemann?.
In terms of intuitive perception, this is difficult to understand.
It is also possible that the concept of "distance" in this context is different from the concept we are used to. Beyond that, the issue of the order of the points clearly makes no sense for all the consequences that arise from it.
Since mathematics and logic can exist in an abstract form without being dependent on any external factor, I would appreciate it if you could clarify the issue without resorting to physics.
Thanks!
The question that arises is what Raphael is doing here. He is clearly not ready to go where the pencil takes him and says that he has an agenda to convert us and we are not ready to accept things on faith and in life this will not happen either.
It seems to me that masochism is the alternative explanation, maybe he received service work from his Amnon Yitzchak?
withering
Ask Nevra. He will be happy to answer you with sweet lips in humility and in the way of the earth.
Raphael,
What is my despicable behavior? By asking you for explanations for the strange position you represent?
You gave a very illogical explanation in my opinion that also calls into question the fairness of the God in whom you believe, because if I assume for a moment that you are right and that he does exist, then he knowingly deceives me and leads me and many others away from the straight path, because of all the tools he made available to me and all the evidence I obtain through tools These indicate that I have no reason to think it exists. Since I do not believe in God, I do not address this question to him/her/them, but if you believe in him, then it seems legitimate to me to ask you such questions. You can of course ignore or divert the discussion in other directions but the question still stands before us: do you have a convincing explanation why the God you believe in created an "old" world in a way that leads to the great deception of so many people, you are welcome to list it here. I believe that you do not have such an explanation, but faith is not knowledge so you can easily prove me wrong by presenting the explanation.
was Created
I also wish you a happy holiday.
withering
The behavior of you and your friends is despicable.
Raphael,
The facts show that I (and several others here) are indeed in a position to give you grades, and meanwhile you fail both on a scientific level, both on the level of presenting rational thinking, logical capture, and morally. It may be that in certain religious settings it passes, but not here.
Well, even though you tried to avoid giving me an answer to my question, you answered it when you answered the miracles that the universe was created in your opinion when it was already "old".
A. Why do you think the universe was created "old"? It seems a little evil on the part of the God you believe in to behave in such a way, since he knowingly fails the people and in particular the Jews, isn't it despicable behavior in your opinion to mislead an entire public like that? If, on the other hand, you have a reasonable explanation for what seems to me to be simple plagiarism, I would appreciate it if you presented it.
B. What is your evidence for this? (Do you notice that you consistently avoid presenting evidence for your worldview? Why do you think this is so?)
Rafael, you are losing even my little empathy for you. Your bear hug doesn't bring anyone closer to faith. The opposite is true, as a bystander all I can say is that your arguments are discouraging, repulsive and infuriating, simply because they are both empty and come from the heart of their pride. You have no idea what physics is, how physics is done, what its methods are, what its goals are, what its limitations are, what its achievements and strengths are, and with this complete ignorance you try to condescend to professionals like Albenzo. Come on, really?... As if Dardak, one of his generation, would come and spit in the face of the greatest of the generation. For the comfort of your fools, it can be said that most of the bottlers here are like you even if they hold opposite views to yours.
Shmulik,
Yes. In the Big Bang model the universe was infinite at every moment. What changes is only the scaling of the distances. You have to be careful with interpretations of the bang point itself because a general relation stops being true before you actually get to the bang point, but if we were to do a naive extrapolation to the starting point, you would see that it is described by an infinite universe in which the distance between any two points in it is 0, that is, it is possible to compress him to one point.
Shmulik
As I understand it, yes. I don't think there is a way to go from finite to infinite.
albenzato,
I have a question about the infinite universe that the big bang predicts. Was the universe infinite a second after the bang?
Raphael
I explained to you exactly what I was looking for. If the conversation is beyond your capacity then let's leave it at that. Either you respond to the matter or you don't respond at all - you're just making fun of yourself.
And of course Raphael returns to his usual argument, "I don't understand it so it must not be true". But don't forget that he loves and supports science!
albenzato,
Yeshanlim
Miracles
Are you trying to find a way to choose the right opinion between a created world and a world created by itself by chance?
Or are you already convinced that the world was created, but you are not clear which story of creation is true and accurate?
Miracles
According to him, Raphael is responding here only so that the other commenters and readers can "get out of the box" "a box" that he has already admitted in fact does not exist at all. Therefore there is no reason for him to respond here. He lives in a well-defined box and has no intention or desire to move out of it or even peek out of it.
He asks questions when he is not at all interested in the answers to which he only presents them to be a troll. I offered not to get an answer to his question several times and he was not interested in hearing from me at all.
The man is not here to get answers. As far as he is concerned, he has all the answers to all the questions in the world and there is nothing you can say to him that will change that. He listens to nothing, and reads nothing with any attempt to understand what is written. He has no basic honesty and he just makes up for himself what other people have told him, so all the time it seems to you that he is putting things in your mouth that you did not say. For him it is perfectly fine to simply decide that someone said/wrote to him something that was never said/written, because he has no intention or interest in knowing what was really said/written.
If you want to answer it for other readers, just mention these things. This will save a lot of unnecessary swans.
Raphael
All I'm saying is that there are multiple opinions and we're trying to find a way to choose the right one. If it scares you then let's leave it.
I don't accept you trying to put words in my mouth again. I'm trying to listen to you, it's a shame you don't listen to me, and only locked in your faith. In the next step you will return to the derogatory names I understand....
Notice what you are doing: you look for holes in science, to justify your belief, but you deny all the holes in your belief. I showed you many of them - but you deny them.
So what's the point of all this discussion if you're locked out?
Miracles
So I understand that now you accept the principle that the world was created by a creator and now your question is what is the true religion, and as soon as you know will you immediately accept it?
Or, wait, maybe you just want to get into another infinite swan because that's what's doing it for you?
Raphael
Ok. There are other creation stories. different dates. Is there a reason to choose one creation story over another? Try to get out of the box, and think about it from an outside point of view - of someone who does not come from a certain religion.
Miracles
The description is accurate.
Raphael
I mean, the biblical story is not an accurate description of what happened, right? It's a story with deep meanings, but not a literal description of the creation story, I understand right?
Albanzo
To summarize what you said: we measure the cosmic background radiation, from which we know how to deduce the proper time that has passed since the bang and the coordinate time. I hope now everyone understands and is happy.
Miracles
Yes
Raphael
So you are saying that there is no way to distinguish between a world created 5775 years ago and a world 13.8 billion years ago?
This is what happens when a person understands nothing about a certain subject, reads a line on Wikipedia and thinks he is an expert.
Regarding proper time, as I said - this is the time a clock would measure if you put it on a gauge. That doesn't mean you need a watch. Just like if you sit in a cafe and wait two minutes, it doesn't matter if you have a watch or not. If you have a watch, two minutes is the time you measured between the moment you sat down and the moment the person you were waiting for arrived, and if you don't have a watch, two minutes is the time you would measure.
coordinate time is not a measurable thing at all. What is written in Wikipedia is true only for a special case where the universe is asymptotically flat, and that at infinity coordinate time and proper time are the same thing. In general, what is written there is simply not true.
I know that even though you like to say that you love science, you hate it with all your heart and oppose the most basic principle in it - that there are different levels of certainty, and to know something you don't need a grandfather to come from heaven and assure you that it is true. The Big Bang model is of an infinite universe (both in space and time) and it describes our universe in a fantastic way and is suitable for very precise measurements.
Regarding times, these are not measuring methods at all. Asking "how do you measure with these methods" is meaningless. We measure the cosmic background radiation, from which we know how to deduce the proper time that has passed since the bang and the coordinate time. These are absolutely significant values. You don't even understand what you're talking about... In case it's still not clear (and I'm sure it's still not clear to you), this is a rebuttal to your claim that because time is relative it's impossible to say how much time has passed since the big bang. So you can. There are absolute indices that are well defined mathematically and have a solid physical meaning, and all our measurements of them point to about 14 billion years.
Miracles
I answered you. Here take it again: the world was created 5775 years ago as it is. The stars were already millions of light years away in the sky, etc.
Albanzo
You should already know that if you say I'm talking nonsense it doesn't really bother me. So save it from all of us.
You might want to correct the Wikipedia definition:
In relativity, proper time is the elapsed time between two events as measured by a clock that passes through both events.
By contrast, coordinate time is the time between two events as measured by a distant observer using that observer's own method of assigning a time to an event. In the special case of an inertial observer in special relativity, the time is measured using the observer's clock and the observer's definition of simultaneity.
Now that you've said what you said, maybe you can explain how the time between the big bang and today is measured with the help of these two methods. Also take into account that science cannot say whether the universe is finite or infinite, both in space and time.
Raphael
I re-read all your comments. You did not answer me. Directing me to a book is not an answer for me, just as it is not an answer for you.
I'll ask again, so you don't have to search - how do you explain an 11,700-year-old bush?
Miracles
You may not be tired, but I am already tired of answering this question for you. Next time, remember that they answer you.
Raphael
I asked you a simple question, and you didn't answer. I will ask again and again, until you answer.
How do you explain an 11700 year old bush?
Why get involved in complicated things? Please explain just that.
And oh You crossed the line of talking nonsense.
proper time does not require a watch. It is a time that a clock would measure according to the passage of time at a certain point at rest in relation to the gauges, i.e. moving in a straight line. coordinate time is in general a characteristic of the coordinate system in space and is in no way related to clocks.
Try again…
Albanzo
First of all, they both talk about measuring time between two events.
proper time requires a clock to move between the two events it measures.
And coordinate time requires that the watch be held in the hand of the bystander for these two events.
Now explain to me how this can exist in the time measurement between the big bang and now.
Raphael,
Why not rely on proper time or coordinate time? What's wrong with them?
withering
Are you also addicted to Raphael's infinity scales? Arguing with him is not worth the time you spend on it. hear me Find other things to occupy yourself with than arguing with a person who clearly demonstrates his total ignorance on scientific issues. The fact that he can read and write is already an achievement.
camellia
With all the respect I have for you, you are not a function to give me grades. I will answer you why exactly 5775 years when you answer me according to which clock you measured 13.8 billion years. I suggest you not rely on the proper time.
Raphael,
Since you have already shown that your understanding of science tends to zero, it is not surprising that you continue to do so also in the context of Einstein's findings and our ability to accurately measure time. So in your answer to question A you received a fail. But since this is how you answered, another question arises in connection with question B that I asked you and which you ignored (as usual). If in your understanding there is not one fixed clock for the entire universe, then surely there is no reason to think that the age of the universe is actually 5775 years, so why are you sticking to this number that is not only arbitrary, it also contradicts the vast majority of things that we manage to measure around us, both on Earth and outside to him. What is your justification for this arbitrary (and obviously wrong) number?
Albanzo
Yes, it cannot be said that it happened about 14 billion years ago. It cannot be said that it happened at all. You do not agree?
Raphael
Before Albenzo explodes with laughter, listen for a moment...
The time in question is called proper time, and it is well defined. I won't bother to explain to you, because you know everything.
And if not then, as you suggest to me, go read in the book...
Raphael,
Got it, so after you've demonstrated your expertise in parallel universes it's cosmology's turn. So you are actually saying that it is impossible to say that the big bang happened about 14 billion years ago? Because we have no absolute concept of time?
withering
Einstein already discovered that time is not equal for everyone. There is no one constant clock for the whole universe. Each particle and its clock. Time can run fast or pass slowly. So how do you measure time when it comes to the age of the universe? By what time exactly?
And after that Raphael says he has respect for science.
Miracles, tell him about the aborigines
Raphael,
If in your opinion the whole of creation has only existed for 5775 years, how do you explain to yourself the gap between this belief and the many findings for which the scientific explanations (we are talking about all kinds of phenomena independent of each other) all require time periods of tens of thousands of years or more to millions of years and even billions of years, when For some phenomena there are several independent ways to measure the period of time necessary for their formation or their age and do the different methods agree between them? We are talking about the same scientific teachings that were obtained through the same filtering method (the scientific method) whose correctness is confirmed every day through the technologies developed in part based on the same scientific knowledge. I'm trying to understand:
A. How is the contradiction reconciled?
B. What is the justification for the period of time 5775 years? Is there a verse in the Torah that specifically refers to this period of time or the age of creation (I hope we don't start again with skipping letters...)
Raphael
I understand that Anonymous is right. Are you answering me or not? Here is a contradiction to what you said, and you have no response?
Stop the idle arguments with Raphael once and for all. Believe me, you will be able to devote more time to topics that interest you. Raphael is nothing more than a carcass trying to pass himself off as an intellectual. Just a Sisyphean job.
Miracles
I have already explained it to you personally several times. Aren't you tired?
Raphael
So how do you explain a conversation between 11,700 years?
withering
The entire creation has existed for 5775 years.
And I remind you that I didn't think like that all the time, but at some point I got to step out of the box.
I ask this question because it is quite related to other things I have to tell you about "boxes" and the ability to get out of their framework.
Raphael,
In light of your recent comments, it suddenly occurred to me that you may be in a very different place than where I assumed you were, so I just want to check:
What is the age of the earth to the best of your understanding?
Raphael
For some reason you mention the Israelites who built the golden calf and what happened to them afterwards.
Raphael,
First of all who cares about your logic? I don't happen to say this to insult but to explain that reality doesn't care about our logic. What "makes sense" in the two slots experiment? What "makes sense" in quantum mechanics.
The solution is that "logic" is Aristotelian (Greek) logic to which you cling. This "logic" evolved to save us from lions in the savanna and is the "logic" of not too fast, not too small. What Richard Dawkins calls: middle earth.
You must understand that reality does not owe you anything but is the way it is whether you like it or not.
In addition, and this is already a more specific criticism: Kamila addressed this linguistic failure of yours specifically (law drags legislator but legality lao dequa). Why don't you address it? Why aren't you willing to go as far as the pencil takes you?
It's very annoying. Why is it annoying, because it shows that you are not listening but just writing. You accept detailed references but do not consider for a second that the argument could endanger your worldview. Go where the pencil takes you. grow up
Raphael
So are you interested in the answer or not?
Miracles
I'll give you an example. The logic that says it is more likely that laws were created by themselves than created by a legislator is logic in a non-logical interpretation.
Raphael
Do you find an error in my logic? Was I wrong in what I said until now?
Miracles
That's exactly the point. You judge everything according to your logic. You never check whether your logic is "logical".
Raphael
I am open to any idea that makes sense. So far you haven't said a single thing that can be addressed.
You just keep referring me to authority. Is this approach acceptable to you?
Raphael
I understand from your silence that you understood that you told Nissim that your opinion is determined by others, that you agree that there is no need for you to comment here anymore, and that you are actually not interested in an answer to your question.
Raphael
In the count of the crown, you are considered assigned, and Lilit outright rejects the idea that you will sew her up. It makes her feel queasy.
withering
In order to get out of the box, you must first be attentive to new ideas that may contradict your thoughts so far. And not to underestimate these ideas and those who express them. You and our friend Nisim, apparently, have no chance of ever getting out of the box.
Raphael,
You wrote: "Why am I responding here? Because some of the people here are smart and I want to shake them a little from the hegemony they are in to get a little more out of them. Get them out of the box.”
What does it mean to step out of the box for you? (As someone who seems stuck deep in a box, unless you are responding for a fee on behalf of the atheist association that tries, with considerable success it should be noted, to present religion in a ridiculous light).
Raphael
Let's leave it at that. You personally have no answer to give me, and the reason is not important. As you can see, no one is surprised.
You wanted to ask a few more questions. But, we both know you won't be able to answer. It's a waste of time for both of us, isn't it?
On the other hand - I would be happy to try to answer any of your questions, provided it is a fair question. Let's try, okay?
Raphael
"So I wrote on one of the blank cards the question why there are laws of nature in the world. Now you are welcome to face the question."
A) It's nice then that you realize that the box you invented that people are in, and you're supposedly trying to get people out of it, doesn't exist. That basically means you can stop commenting here, because this thing you're supposedly commenting on here isn't necessary at all, is it?
b) If you bothered to read the text, did you happen to notice that it says: "write questions yourself and try to answer them". This means not only presenting questions to others, but also trying to answer them yourself. Are you trying to answer the question or are you just pulling the answer from box A?
c) And are you ready to listen and try to understand the answer to me?
Raphael,
In light of your answers so far, allow me to doubt that there really is an answer in the Torah to this question (I hope you don't mean skipping letters because there have already been given here in the past rather disgraceful examples on the subject that are at most an insult to intelligence). I didn't ask for proof yet, I just asked you to say what you are basing such a far-reaching statement on, which on the face of it seems fundamentally unfounded.
Later on, you bring up the chewy fine tuning argument in which religious people get terribly excited that it turns out that the creation of the universe as we know it depends on how many constants have values that are limited in a relatively narrow range, otherwise a universe could not be created in which galaxies, stars, organic compounds and later life would be created. The excitement stems from an unjustified attribution of this tuning to that unknown intelligent creator. The explanation is much simpler. In a universe where the conditions do not allow the formation of galaxies and stars, organic compounds will not be produced and naturally (literally) poor religious people who mistakenly believe that someone took care to adjust their constants will not be produced either. It probably won't convince you, but the explanation I present here is much simpler than an explanation that involves something as complicated as an intelligent creator that raises tons of additional and unnecessary questions.
Regarding the law needs a legislator and a comment on the science website that needs a commenter. It is indeed very simple and also very unconvincing. I'm trying to understand, do you not understand the logical fallacy you are committing? Or do you understand him but it is more important to you not to give up the (failed) argument?
was Created
Are you even made in God's image? The sentence "and they will miss a little of God" does not include you. There's no way you'll be there either. Return to the cage in Safari. Whenever you want, we will bring you peanuts and bananas.
Raphael
If it is not clear, the answer you gave to Nisim is:
In my opinion, God created the world because you should address this question to the rabbi of your community, or one of the ultra-Orthodox friends you said you have, or search the Internet for the book through the name of Ramchal, where you will find the answer.
You are basically saying that miracles should be asked by other people or checked in a book what is your opinion. From here on Nissim and we must understand that your opinion is determined by what is written in the book or what Nissim's ultra-Orthodox friends said or what the rabbi of Nissim's community said (which may not exist at all, which makes it even more amusing).
You claim here that you do not hold your own opinion, and that your opinion is determined by others. Well, it's not surprising at all.
wd
So I wrote on one of the blank cards the question why there are laws of nature in the world. Now you are welcome to face the question.
Raphael
Bloated nad also smells bad and so does your vanity. I have the impression that you need a proctologist or alternatively a barium enema to try to bring some sense into you. Not sure it will work.
On one side, box A, and on the other, box B.
In box A and B are cards with different questions.
In box A, all the questions have a known answer in advance that cannot be contested.
In box B there is no predetermined answer and there are also blank cards on which it is allowed and even recommended to write questions yourself and try to answer them.
Now one of the two is actually not a box at all. which one
Prizes for correct answers.
Dear Nissim
I know you're a bit sensitive.
What question haven't I answered you yet?
Why did God create the world?
I directed you to the place where the answer is.
What's wrong with that?
Raphael
You don't know Hebrew. You don't know science. You don't know Torah.
Maybe say something useful for the discussion for once?
Raphael - you haven't said anything until now. Maybe try to be a little less arrogant? By the way - this is the spread of a swollen nad...
Do you want to have a conversation with an interest? So answer the question. In the meantime, you present everything that is bad in religion, and only keep open people away from the way of thinking you believe in.
I mean, he has an agenda.
Dishonesty of the first order.
withering
Now I saw your second question. Why am I commenting here? Because some of the people here are smart and I want to shake them a little from the hegemony they are in to get a little more out of them. Get them out of the box.
withering
The answer to the first question is not here for detail. I know this from the Torah. But thanks to the scientists we can see it with our own eyes. Imagine if the amount of dark energy in the universe was only slightly less than it is. What would have happened?
Regarding the law that needs a legislator. Well, listen, it seems simple to me. It's like explaining why a comment on a science website needs a commenter.
Shmulik,
What I saw here was enough for me.
And you are right, Raphael and his ilk do not seek to learn anything here, nor did they come to contribute from their knowledge (simply because they have no relevant knowledge on science issues) nor did they come to contribute from their thinking (since they have difficulty presenting even coherent logical thinking even when they are given assumptions). I don't know for sure what each of them is looking for here, but in my opinion your diagnosis is absolutely reasonable. Another possibility is Zobor syndrome, in which the person who has realized Zobor strives to do the same to others so that he doesn't turn out to be the only sucker. But we really don't know. Maybe just ask?
Raphael, why are you actually responding here?
"The Creator of the world creates the world with his will at every moment."
And you base it on?
Well, maybe after all you won't avoid the question on what basis did you determine that a law needs a legislator?
was Created,
I'm not pretending to be a scientist, far from it. I ask basic questions to those who have devoted their lives to subjects in which I am interested in an amateurish way, but Rebek, I don't stretch my logic just because I can. If Camila bothers and writes a detailed and long answer and Rafael writes an answer like this: "In short, you didn't convince me that legality is something that just happens" without explaining why she wasn't convinced, where was her logical error, he is not an honest person. It's anti-intellectualism (and he must be enjoying being unintellectual, as if that's a curse). He doesn't go where the pencil takes him. He has an agenda and it is completely anti-scientific. What is he looking for on this site?
was Created
Raphael repeatedly asked whether we know why the laws of nature exist, why the world was created and so on. He mocked us and the scientists for not knowing everything.
Then they ask him his opinion, and he scoffs again. They say an indisputable scientific fact and he scoffs.
And in the end it turns out that he doesn't even know Hebrew.
Raphael is the epitome of religious stupidity. What are you even defending him!?!?!?!?!
withering,
I don't know if you follow the threads that Raphael stars in, but in one of them I assumed he was a convert and he confirmed it. His behavior and reactions are characteristic of converts, since for them faith is an elusive thing, unlike religious people who were introduced to religion from a young age and for whom faith is an integral part of their personality. Therefore, the converts are required to mental tricks and shortcuts (Raphael, for example, told us about the concept of "mental proof", as opposed to scientific proof) in order to prove God to themselves. Since everything is so twisted, they do not understand that in their attempt to prove God, they no longer believe. Apparently there are those who always have doubts and for some reason they come to sites such as the science to get it in their head. I don't understand why. Maybe this should strengthen their "faith"?
I can't understand why the person who thinks that God (what the hell is that, what does this concept mean) of his own will creates the world over and over again, and that he consulted the Torah before he created the world and that for him the bat is a bird, and that it is okay to sell 12-year-old girls to men for marriage, comes to such a site and refuses answer the simplest questions. I can't understand why he's wasting his time. What does he get out of it? I didn't see Raphael ask a single question to learn. He couldn't even admit that he was wrong when he claimed that Newton's laws were axioms, and this after it was explained to him repeatedly why an axiom that had been disproved could not be an axiom in principle. It's amazing to me
The nation of Israel lives and is a friend of its people
Your behavior in Rafael is ugly. Raphael does hold beliefs and opinions that are foreign to you, but at least he doesn't pretend to be a scientist like most of those who come down on him here. enough with that! Tello is happening before your eyes.
Raphael
enough. We are torn from your vanity. Leave us alone. We are ashamed of you. Your place is in the leper camp or alternatively in the closed ward.
Raphael
You really don't know Hebrew?
Miracles
Well, if it's not a curse, then I'm allowed to tell you as well that you're bloated!
Raphael
Do you even know what a swollen nad is? is it a curse
You are simply a person without any integrity. Asking, asking, asking, but unable to answer anything.
In short, a swollen nad... check in the dictionary what it is.
albentezo,
Thank you very much for the answer and I hope I will learn from it (at least something).
And what Raphael writes should offend everyone who deals with science. Everything is arbitrary, everything according to the great dictator. Arrogance and bombast without any need: "He creates the world with his will at every moment". nothing less and nothing more.
Fortunately for us, in order to maintain a local reality, the Creator created below the surface a vibrant non-local reality that is teeming with virtual particles. Why? That way, be happy and work for the scientists.
Miracles
What happened? I didn't give you an answer so you start cursing? Do you want to spoil the good name and respectable status you bought here on the site? Well, well, well!
withering
The world is not like a table created by a carpenter and since then it stands on its own. The Creator of the world creates the world by his will at every moment. By his will and for a certain purpose he gives us a certain degree of free choice.
Raphael,
I did not claim "that legality is something that just happens."
That's just not what I claimed.
Would it be worthwhile not to evade this time and justify the assertion that you seem to be relying on to establish faith in God: "Law needs a legislator"? Because at the moment this statement is not at all convincing and if religious people base their faith in the Creator of the world on this it is quite sad.
Suppose I go with you and accept for the sake of discussion that an unknown intelligent creator set the rules of the game somewhere in the distant past about 13.8 billion years ago and then clicked the "switch" and the universe was created. What are the actions of that creator from the moment the big bang began?
Raphael
I didn't expect more. You're just a bloated nad.
Miracles
If you want an answer you should bother and read the book I mentioned. You will not get an answer from me on one leg.
withering
you are so smart Oil like me can't stand up to your wisdom. In short, you didn't convince me that legality is something that just happens. Whoever wants to receive it will be kissed.
Albonzo,
In the morning I asked you a question/s, if you could please answer.
Thanks.
Raphael,
You may continue to dodge as much as you like. It's not decent behavior, but it's your right.
Yes, thinking a little about things requires an investment of time (very little in this case). You have the right not to invest this time. In my response I explained why there is a fundamental difference between law and legality. You neither read carefully what I wrote nor are you convinced... This reminds me of another case where someone said that established physical models did not convince him even though he never bothered to study them seriously. Oh wait, it was you! Case or symptom?
The important point is (and for some reason it does not surprise me that the lady missed my maneuvers when this point came up) that there is no reason to assume that the existence of the "laws" of nature that enable the creation of our universe (and us as a whole) depends on another factor, not in their actual existence, certainly not in their creation. Many religious people try to humanize nature by applying human concepts and thereby create a false (rather evil) representation that this proves God. There was some idiot on here a while ago who tried to prove the existence of God in a similar way with a failed argument involving a self-replicating organic car/robot. The same idiot insisted on pushing the concept of car/robot into the argument for the simple reason that later in the argument he relied on the fact that robot/car are planned objects and from this he concluded that a natural organism must also be planned. You are now trying to commit the very same fallacy by abusing the connection between the word law and the word legislator which only exists in the cultural context of us humans. Since I recognized ahead of time the direction in which your intention was blowing, I came forward to clarify the matter so that you can avoid falling into the trap that religion has buried for you in this foolish argument that I am sure is not your original (because I have already heard it several times in all kinds of versions and from all kinds of religions).
If you really do not understand the fallacy, I would appreciate it if you could explain on what basis you are basing the assertion that a law obligates a legislator. If this claim is based on the fact that a law is, by definition, something made by a legislator, then you are committing a logical fallacy (and even though I mentioned in my previous response what exactly it is), if you are not based on such a definition, then you need to give justification for this link you made, since as far as I am concerned, there is no problem with the law (legality) which was not enacted by an intelligent being but is simply a characteristic of the universe. Doesn't make sense to you? No problem, keep bowing to your idol if it makes you feel good. I will continue to listen to what the professional scientific consensus has to say (and also add a little of my own in the fields of research in which I am involved). I hope for you that you do not base your faith on arguments of this kind (law => legislator, etc.) because it is a rather pathetic attempt to rationalize faith. Pathetic both because it contains a logical fallacy and because belief is by definition an emotional matter and not an intellectual one, just as axioms do not require proof unlike sentences based on them which once proven are knowledge and not faith.
Shmulik,
Unfortunately I can't really answer you. The issue of understanding whether a force is attractive, repulsive, or both in the description of virtual particles is non-trivial and highly technical. In the end everything turns out as it should, but to see it you have to break your teeth a bit. I am attaching a link I found on the subject. I admit that I didn't read every word, but I skimmed and it seems to me that he does summarize the correct answer in relatively simple language. And when I say "relatively simple" I mean simple for people who know the technical side of quantum mechanics. For people who don't master it, the link probably won't have much value.
If in the near future I can think of a simple way to explain this, I will remember your question. But unfortunately I am skeptical. The description of virtual particles greatly simplifies the answers to some questions, but sometimes hides answers to other questions. The question you asked is an excellent example of something that is very intuitive but not at all clear in field theory.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
I don't have the strength for all your nonsense so I didn't read everything but, Nissim's last question, Bara is a bit like bad and the idea is to return time from bad to good and order the world from here Bara, Yom Tov, you can keep rambling
Raphael
What is not clear to you in the question? I ask you - Raphael - why, in your opinion, did God create the world?
You keep throwing this question at us - and you don't have an answer? Or you don't know how to explain the answer?
what is the deal?
Miracles
If you are asking in order to really touch, then search the internet for the book through Hashem for Ramchal there you will find the answer.
I'm not killing any physicist. I'm allowed to disagree with everything they say.
albentezo,
At the beginning of the morning, when the discussion was still interesting, I asked a question that disappeared similar to the quality of the current discussion and I would be happy if you would take a look at it:
At the time you wrote to me, regarding a question I asked, about the attraction mechanism of gravitons or between protons and electrons:
"The virtual particles transferred between the charges are not committed to a classical trajectory and therefore do not have to have momentum pointing from the first particle to the second."
Why then will a proton always attract an electron? Why don't we observe, from time to time, repulsion or attraction at not necessarily right angles from one to the other, precisely because of the lack of commitment of the virtual particles in the direction of momentum? My hypothesis is that the problem is in my question itself since I am surely mixing classical physics with quantum (I can't really know where the electron is...) but what is confusing is that the attraction always exists, despite the (apparent) unruliness of the virtual particles and it does not seem to me that the solution is in the form A statistical solution of a majority of virtual particles emerging from a certain direction versus a minority of particles emerging from another direction.
Raphael
I think I wasn't clear, I'm sorry.
I ask - why do you think God created the world?
Raphael
I did not understand. Can't you explain to me? I thought at least one thing you know...
You kill the greatest physicists in the world with your bare hands, but can't explain to me something of yours is so understandable.
Miracles
Beautiful. I see progress in the quality of the questions and want to know why the Creator of the world created the world. I suggest you address this question to the rabbi of your community. Or you are one of the ultra-Orthodox friends you said you have. Successfully.
As for chimpanzees, of course they have feelings but they don't have a choice. And I'm not talking about choosing whether to eat a banana or an apple.
And here, we heard. God, who was never defined, but just pulled out as a word that means nothing, interferes with everything, except free will.
That is, it is responsible for the neurons in the brain, but not for the will itself.
Wow
It is as if science is a democracy and therefore one has the right to an opinion. what nonsense
It's true that everyone has a right to their wrong opinions, but don't for a second think that your opinion counts on subjects you have no knowledge of. At most, she betrays you.
What does bowing to Kraus have to do with it?
Do you think he is the only one who presents this theory? Look up Sean Carroll, look up Stephen Hawking and you'll see they say similar things.
Their claim is true (perhaps, no one claims it is proven) not because they say it but because of the knowledge they have gained (also because of them). It is the accumulated knowledge that allows them to make these claims that you just dismiss because of the sacred principle of "that's how I feel", without having studied the subject in a millimeter, and you also wrap it in the romanticism of "I don't bow down".
"There are those who claim that an electron exerts a force on a proton. I do not bow to such opinions.' This is the level of discussion you have descended to.
Raphael
Why did God create the world?
And why do you think that a chimpanzee, for example, does not have free choice? Studies show without a doubt that monkeys feel love, jealousy, revenge, hatred, mutual responsibility, morality and so on. Do you think the scientists are wrong?
Miracles
You bombard me with questions. Repeat Helma's question. Only humans have a choice. I appreciate my rabbi.
Raphael
You don't think your rabbi is an expert in his field? Do you not respect his opinion?
withering
I need to take a two week vacation to read your response and to edit my answers to all the questions. I will answer you briefly from what I have skimmed from your response. You say that there is a difference between law and legality and that legality does not need an explanation. Well that didn't convince me. As for Kraus, if you want to bow to everything he says and say Amen, then do it. I did not wink at such material.
Raphael
OK - acceptable. Do you want to answer my question?
And this raises another question - do you think only humans have free will?
But - first, please, an answer to the "why" question.
Miracles
Did I say that the creator of the world created only the good things in our eyes? You imagine!
Shmulik
Yes. Interferes with everything except free choice.
Raphael,
I would like to clarify a point (trivial to me and yet...) and that is that we are talking about legality and not a "law" like Maxwell's equations which are only the mathematical description of that legality. Atoms do not have rule books that they open to know what they are supposed to/can do and how. Therefore, the more accurate wording of your words would probably be: legality requires a legislator.
The reason I mention this is because there are religious people who use arguments that fall under the assumption that requires proof, and this is done, for example, by using an expression that is only used in the context of human beings. For example, the term "law" is only known to us in a human context (including laws written in books and which are attributed to other intelligent beings), that is, only intelligent beings enact laws, therefore if we say "natural law" then the definition implies that there is a lawgiver because we do not know any other law, But as mentioned, this argument contains an error. The correct formulation as mentioned is that in nature there is legality (which can be formulated as a law by an intelligent being). Legality in itself is not necessarily the result of an intelligent being. The legality of the results of tossing a coin or die derives from its form (that is, from the number of its possible occurrences) and the equal chances of the appearance of each occurrence (in the case of a valid coin/die). Of course, one can always do the regression to the same basic legality that enables the creation of dice and coins, etc., but there is still no reason for there to be any intelligent involvement in the existence of such legality, nor is there any reasonable reason to assume that this legality was created at some stage.
Lawrence Krauss is a well-known and respected physicist and the scientific community does not quickly embrace any theory. If you believe that you understand his explanation in depth and that there is a fundamental flaw in it, you are welcome to try to convince the scientific community through the usual channels. It sounds like your review is almost trivial, so it shouldn't be that hard, you don't have to be a professor to publish anything as long as you show that you know the material and have a contribution that doesn't have a serious logical or factual fallacy. As mentioned, you have the right to waive an explanation proposed by scientists and which has broad support among the professional sector in that field, but:
A. It is not particularly wise because these are the scientists who show time and time again that their initially strange ideas are the description that is closer to reality and therefore more useful than other ideas such as "intelligent design"
B. The rejection of the explanation proposed by the physicists, for aesthetic reasons, does not in the slightest strengthen other possible "explanations", such as the existence of God. Especially when the latter cannot be an explanation precisely because it explains everything including one thing and its opposite. In short, you reject the explanation presented by Kraus, while I reject the claim of God's existence, it just seems silly to me, in all honesty. The main difference between us is that you choose to accept the option that raises many more questions that require explanation than the option I chose, and for this reason alone you should choose the "natural" option.
Later, if Kraus's explanation has predictions that can be tested experimentally and it turns out that his explanation can be confirmed, then there is no point in even considering the divine "explanation", because regarding the latter I am not aware of any confirmation experiment. Do you know of such an experiment?
Raphael,
Again, I don't care if you answer or not. You don't need to state that you are answering me as if I had received the prize.
The fact that there are great scientists, a million times smarter than me, does not change my argument: anyone who believes in a religious God, the one who intervenes, who is present, who moves every atom or electron or whatever, the one you never defined for us but expected us to understand what you are talking about ourselves, spits in his face of human. It dwarfs the achievement, it diminishes it. It makes everything arbitrary down to the next prayer.
Anyone who believes in deism, believes in *something* that created the laws of nature and does not interfere since then, then he is not religious according to the accepted definition, because then there is no point in prayer and any religious ritual of one kind or another since it is about a God who does not interfere. You don't hold onto such a God and I, from the second past, have no claim against this *something* because I can never contradict something like that, but only to say that there are people on YouTube who briefly make this *something* redundant.
Shmulik
Raphael doesn't say anything... I asked him a very simple question (the question is simple... I can't talk about the answer).
What's more - Raphael claims that all the good things (in his eyes) were created by God, but he has no answer about the bad things. Maybe polio is good in his eyes? And maybe science is "bad" because it eliminated polio?
I don't know what Raphael thinks... because he just mocks us, and basically doesn't say anything.
And since then, does he intervene or not?
Shmulik
Again I answer you. There are many great scientists who believe in God. There is no spitting on science here.
Miracles
The laws exist because the Creator of the world enacted them.
For those who want to watch:
The lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoM5TjCxjoA
The discussion after her
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcrBDWiWxxk
Raphael
I can't find any answer to my question. For my part, copy again so I can see and understand.
I ask again - why?
be fair…..
Lawrence Krauss said something else. Lawrence Krauss talked about the theory of inflation, which if it is true, and there are many indications that it is true, also predicts a multiverse, of which our universe is a part. The multiverse could be eternal.
has always existed.
Raphael heard the lecture, but ignored the most significant part of it, the part that could crush his worldview.
In addition, if Raphael attributes the laws of nature to the Creator, he speaks against science. A creator who constantly intervenes, changes, moves, responds to prayers is a spit in the eye of science. What is the point of science if there is a creator. Such a creator dwarfs the achievements of man and science. The other possibility that exists is in the form of a creator who created the laws of nature and since then he does not interfere (deism) and then there is no point in prayers and no point in religion anyway. It is clear that it is not the Creator that the penitent is holding, so his claim that he has nothing against science is false
Miracles
I already answered Camila. follow up.
Raphael
By the way, science actually has an explanation for why the laws exist, an explanation that is not accepted by everyone, but an explanation.
In any case - I await your explanation.
You asked so many questions, so please, give answers too.
withering
I have already seen this lecture by Lawrence Krauss. He bases it on the fact that even today there are particles that emerge from nothing and return to nothing. I did not accept his opinion because this phenomenon takes place within the framework of the laws of nature. The beginning of the universe began before there were laws of nature and before there was space and time.
Good. You ask what is the difference between laws of nature that have existed since time immemorial versus a Creator who has existed since time immemorial. The difference is simply that a law needs a legislator. A legislator does not need a law.
One last thing. Again you are trying to claim that I have something against science. Reed Me Lips: I have nothing against science. I think science is important and advances humanity. enough now Stop claiming it.
Raphael
You claim that science cannot explain why the laws exist. You're right.
So I bow my head, and ask you Raphael, why?
I ask in all seriousness - why do you think the laws exist?
It should be "since and forever" and not "never" of course...
Raphael,
Although the accepted opinion in science (and supported by coherent mathematical models and evidence confirming these models) is that most of the laws of nature as we know them appeared with the big bang (and some shortly after as in the case of the separation of the fundamental forces) but there are already possible explanations (logical/mathematically coherent) For the creation of the universe from nothing, see for example the lecture of Lawrence Krauss "A universe created from nothing" or the article that was on this topic here in Science:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/a-universe-out-of-nothing-2901147
Is this proof that this is what happened? No, no one claims that, these are simply possible and elegant explanations. All these explanations are based on some kind of structured legality, albeit theoretical, that made the proposed occurrence possible. There is no reason to think that this inherent legality never existed.
"The assumption that the laws of nature have always existed is not accepted in my opinion"
your right All that the scientists try to do (with great success) is to find explanations for what we do not know/understand, to check the various explanations and to find out from among them those that do not contain a logical contradiction and that are also compatible with previous knowledge and new knowledge that is added. As a result, all of us, secular and religious alike, benefit every day from a multitude of technologies that are based on this knowledge and understanding that were achieved first and foremost thanks to scientists who used the scientific method (the same scientific method that underlies cosmology and evolution). So you prefer not to accept what science offers you as an explanation (even though it doesn't seem to me that you've ever really tried to understand these explanations), that's your right, you're the main loser, although others also lose from this and that's already a problem that those who advocate ignorance will have to give judgment on as soon as possible or later.
But wait, why is it not actually accepted in your opinion that the laws of nature (in one form or another) did not exist? After all, you are willing to accept that God has existed since time immemorial (am I wrong?) So what is the fundamental difference in terms of the programming of the existence of something since time immemorial? It seems a little arbitrary to me to say about one that it is necessarily true and completely exclude the other. Do you have a justification for this preference of yours?
Raphael does not accept the assumption that the laws of nature have always existed. That's it, there's no need to research it. The great professor spoke.
He does not perceive that there is no contradiction in the sentence: the laws began with the big bang and therefore they have existed since time immemorial since only with the big bang did time begin to exist (according to general relativity). In addition, this is what I heard in the lectures of Lawrence Krauss and Shane Carroll, which are on YouTube for all to see, that there are models for the multiverse (yes, there is no proof that it exists, yet) that are eternal. They have always existed but left, Raphael studied, researched and knows better than everyone.
Albanzato, please tear my response to shreds if I was babbling nonsense
Shmulik
Let's recommend Raphael's candidacy for the Ignoble Prize and in it Lezion Goel.
Raphael
A) Do you mean this response of yours?: "I don't understand anything in the formulas you sent. But science has no way of proving the existence of parallel universes. Science has nothing to say about the beginning and size of our universe either. Talk to me one more time and I will respectfully ignore your questions."
Truly a glory of "I say clearly that I don't know the answer"
You say here that you "don't know", as a direct avoidance of admitting that you are talking about things that you understand nothing about. Kudos to you for your fairness and honesty.
b) In order to get this "don't know", elbentzo had to go through several rounds of verbal rants that are full of ignorance and not say I don't know even once?
C) That's it, there aren't that many examples. You've already written hundreds of comments on the site and I appreciate that you didn't write that you don't know even 4 times.
d) Continue to be sure that you possess a lot of knowledge that you must not tell us about because we are strangers who will not understand, and imagine that this knowledge of yours is worth something somewhere outside of your imaginary world. At least elbentzo will have something to amuse himself with in life.
I didn't curse or blaspheme Raphael. It is convenient for him to paint himself as a victim, and to what extent he was "killed in the tent of Torah".
If the man claims that intellectual curiosity brought him back to repentance, then he is not worth considering.
There are many reasons to choose mysticism, and mysticism is not a crime, although many crimes have been committed under its inspiration, but to say that it is a form of researching the truth???.
After all, how did you repent if you don't believe, and if you do believe what should be investigated, when the answers have already been written?
withering
I'm glad I'm entertaining. The assumption that the laws of nature have always existed is not acceptable in my opinion. And as far as my short mind is concerned, it is also not acceptable to science which claims that the laws of nature began to operate shortly after the big bang.
Raphael,
I don't really care if you read it or not and I understand why you don't want to address my comments, then you will have to admit that you were wrong, you and your repentant. There are others who read the nonsense you write and I feel the need to set things straight. For example, you wrote that Hitler was an atheist, I had to intervene.
In addition, the response is not confused but is divided into several parts. The first talks about the lie you wrote that you never spoke against science and the second part showed some nice quotes of yours and I ended by showing that I wrote to you a long time ago that scientists are the first to admit that they don't know how to explain things.
I'll just mention for dessert that admitting you don't know something (which also took a lot of time) is not the same as admitting you were wrong about something factual. Are you willing to admit that you were wrong when you wrote that Newton's laws were axioms and that Hitler was an atheist?
Raphael,
You burst into an open door. Many times it is stated here that we do not know many things and even "deep" things like what was before the big bang or how exactly the first life was created. By definition, the main occupation of science is in the border area between the known and the unknown, therefore your admiration is quite amusing. Note that although there are many things that we do not know how to explain, there are also many things that we actually do know how to explain and even in a very good way, and from this point of view some of your words with Nissim and Alvanzo are not even amusing but quite embarrassing mainly because it is evident that you allow yourself to make assertions on subjects that you clearly do not understand thing, so maybe we should really focus on the metaphysical/philosophical aspect as your answer suggests:
"Wisdom is found in those who enact the laws of nature"
Note that already in this sentence there is a logical fallacy (assumption of the desired). We started from the fact that we can identify a legality in our world that we will call "laws of nature" and then we turned to the legitimate question: where do these laws of nature come from?
This question can have several possible answers and it is legitimate to offer any of them. The wording you chose already assumes a certain answer (which I'm guessing includes some kind of intelligent creator that matches your particular religious belief, right?) Why do you make this assumption and not another, for example that the laws of nature were not created by anyone but have existed since time immemorial, a legitimate assumption that makes the The "need" for some kind of intelligent creator?
Shmulik
I usually screen you. But let me tell you that your response is messed up. Regarding the retard - I didn't want to say harsher words about him. I chalked it up to something he wasn't guilty of and wished him a full recovery. Regarding an infantile reaction - I didn't call him a baby but that the reaction is infantile. If you compare my responses to responses I received from others, you will see that there is nothing to compare at all and I deserve a Nobel prize for using clean language. I do not promise to continue to treat your comments.
wd
When Albenzo asked me if I understood the formula he sent, I told him I had no idea about it and there were many more examples.
Yoav
You will be surprised and you may not be able to understand, but curiosity and the desire to investigate led me to repentance. Regarding the slanders and curses and epithets in your response - I wanted to inform you that I don't mind. I already feel inoculated after a few months of correspondence on this site. I did have other views but it's not important. By the way, you updated me that the big bang is not a central theory. It seems to me that you also do not understand the depth of the matter that I am asking, okay, there are such explanations and there will be other explanations. No one touches on the question of where all this comes from *and why* it works like that! Everyone is only focused on the question of how it works as if everything depends on it.
Raphael
Please please show me the comment where you said you didn't know the answer.
Raphael
The second you write that a creator of the world (the religious one, not Spinoza's) is responsible for everything we see, you write the worst thing that can be said about science. If you don't get it, that's another problem.
Plus, here are some reminders
You wrote: There is one retard who impersonates me. We all wish him a speedy recovery.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/daily-modulation-as-a-smoking-gun-of-dark-matter-0812145/comment-page-9/#comments
You wrote: Albenzo, I can't believe that a famous and important scientist like you has such a childish and petty behavior.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/2011149-hunted-state-46-core-learning/comment-page-15/#comments
Why are you allowed to run your mouth? What is allowed petty stupid?
I wrote:
"...relying on things that work, developing theories about things that have not yet been proven and waiting for an experiment that will confirm or disprove them. What's the problem with that?"
https://www.hayadan.org.il/2011149-hunted-state-46-core-learning/comment-page-14/#comments
What do you think "theory development" means? It means that we don't know how something works and make hypotheses about it that are waiting to be tested. How is it different from what Camila wrote?
And in the following link I wrote:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/2011149-hunted-state-46-core-learning/comment-page-9/#comments
"Those involved in science, on the other hand, are busy disproving nonsense and advancing humanity, and that's what they've been doing successfully for several hundred years. They, based on empirical evidence, try to use it to conclude about the laws of the universe and are the first to say that there are things they cannot explain. What's the problem with that? Why do you immediately fill the lack of knowledge of God?"
Pay attention again to what I wrote: "They are the first to tell that there are things they do not know how to explain".
So why your false bewilderment?
So either you ignore it which is bad or you are a liar which is even worse
Raphael,
Obviously no one has all the answers. But your "you" doesn't really exist. What the "we" have in common is what you have killed inside of you: the curiosity and the desire to explore, and not to rely on some bloated person who claims to be connected to a higher intelligence.
The bang theory is not as central as it seems to you. Rather, religious organizations are enthusiastic about her because she corresponds with the Book of Genesis.
The main preoccupation is with quanta, because today's technology's way of communicating and researching is through electrons and photons, which are the quanta. The problem is that by means of quanta it is possible to study anything larger than a quantum. So the quantum itself is defined only theoretically, the mainstream, or perhaps the more noisy one, claims that the quantum is an elementary particle, that is to say composed only of itself and therefore nothing happens inside it.
So that every quantum entity has unique properties, which are dedicated electromagnetic energies: electrical, optical, or forces such as gravitation, mass, gravity. A solution proposed by Leibniz in his treatise on the monads.
This concept is problematic, and in fact every physicist holds his own version: those who claim, with some justification, that a massless particle is unlikely and that if the particle's entire being is its energy, then it is unnecessary and they prefer to refer to energy without volume, which allows them freedom of mathematical thinking because they have intensities without to be limited in space.
This is how an idea like string theory arose, for example, which is supposed to solve the question of the undulations of quanta, which supposedly have no internal movement. The problem is, it turns the wave into motion, and if the wave is motion, then its speed is greater than c, which is unacceptable for the constant current in quantum physics.
You are right there is no final answer for science, there probably never will be, a final answer is for donkeys, not for thinking humans.
Correction - we *don't* have an answer for them yet.
Let's try some things,
1 You have never heard me say anything condemning science or denying the contribution of science to humanity. And if you have heard, then bring a quote.
2 I never said you were stupid but I said the argument was stupid
3 If I don't have an answer to a question then I clearly say that I don't know the answer. Those who try to avoid and not admit that they don't have an answer - they have a problem. That is why I am really full of admiration and appreciation for Camila who admitted that there are deep questions for which we still have an answer.
withering
Finally someone admits that there are deep questions for which we do not have an answer. Now you deserve me to give you an answer about the snowflakes. Of course the snowflakes themselves have no intelligence. Reason is found in the one who enacted the laws of nature that made possible the creation of such wonderful flakes.
Raphael,
No, no one said what you wrote, not only in these words but also not in the (lack of) meaning you are trying to put into our mouths. You have been told explicitly, there is no reason to think that there is such a thing as God because most of the mysteries that exist in the world can already be explained in a much better way that also provides an understanding of things, an understanding that allows us to produce technologies that benefit all human beings. We don't know the (deep) questions for which we don't have an answer yet. This situation may be able to change in the future because experience shows that those who engage in science discover new things and are able to explain more phenomena, including phenomena that were previously attributed to God due to ignorance.
Your question has been answered, will you be able to answer my question or will you choose to dodge again like you did before?
Do you recognize intelligence in snowflakes like this:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/photos/w031224a130.jpg
If so, how is this wisdom expressed (is it, for example, expressed in order and symmetry?)
Raphael
When you don't have an answer to a question, do you consider yourself a fool?
If your answer is no, why do you think we are stupid?
Raphael
These fools tripled man's life expectancy, against the will of the religious.
This is the truth - deal with it.
There is only one person here who sounds stupid
Look how many references and words there are for one simple question I asked. Of course, all this indicates that you do not have an answer. Sometimes in order to understand things you have to simplify them a bit. You say there was a big bang of something. And from it, in a completely accidental way, forces and laws of nature and a form of intelligent life were created, and all this completely by chance and of course with the help of statistics. Tell me, doesn't that sound stupid?
Thank you Albanzo for the detailed answer.
Virtual photons are created by an electron at rest, real photons are radiated
by an accelerating electron. Sounds a bit similar to the behavior of a permanent magnet? One of the differences
It is that in a permanent magnet there is a mechanism in which magnetic dipoles move from the north pole to
the south (outside the magnet) and from the south pole to the north pole (inside the magnet) and indeed when
It starts to move, it creates an electric field around it.
So to the observer the behavior of the permanent magnet and the resting electron are very similar but not
It is clear how the virtual photons are preserved by the electron at rest (which is also explained
in the mechanics of the permanent magnet)?
Shmulik
"By the way, it seems to me that the Hidan website is like the 12th stage of converts and it says this: those who want to repent must appear on the Hidan website for about a year and fulfill all the obligations of a common troll: to tell about the creator of the world, to ask stupid questions that make the eyes roll and never, but never, Not to admit any mistake whatsoever."
I really hope you're right, because then there are probably far fewer converts than I thought, but I don't think so.
Shmulik
accepting the correction. Raphael tried to do a dirty trick - "You admit or you don't admit there is a God"... I tried to make it clear to him that the word "admit" is not appropriate here, but he didn't understand....
Personally, I have no problem saying that I believe in evolution. The concept of "knowledge" has a fairly defined meaning in philosophy, but it does not fit here.
You are right that it might create a symmetry that is out of place. The truth is that I used to not think that evolution was true, because it didn't make sense to me. But you can't say that I believed it was wrong. And so it is really not correct to say that now I "believe" that it is true.
albentezo,
At the time, you wrote to me as follows regarding a question I asked about the attraction mechanism of gravitons or between protons and electrons: "The virtual particles transferred between the charges are not committed to a classical trajectory and therefore do not have to have momentum pointing from the first particle to the second."
Why then will a proton always attract an electron? Why don't we observe, from time to time, repulsion or attraction at not necessarily right angles from one to the other, precisely because of the lack of commitment of the virtual particles? My hypothesis is that the problem is in my question itself since I am surely mixing classical physics with quantum (I can't really know where the electron is...) but the confusing thing is that the attraction always exists, despite the disobedience and it doesn't seem to me that this is a statistical matter of a majority of virtual particles attracting versus a minority that rejects
Miracles,
what is going on with you? 🙂
Sorry in advance for the pretension but:
Why did you have to use the word believer at the end of your words? Raphael and his various clones think that this is the same type of believer as they believe that there is a God (actually Raphaelian converts are not true believers but they are certain...) and then actually evolution is just another religion. You are much better than me, isn't it?
I believe (!!!) that you meant the word *believes* in the sense of something you perceive to be true, and perhaps the sentence that should have been used was: "The theory explains...provides predictions...therefore I choose to accept it"
Here again is the link that the word provided at the time that details a bit about the covenant, faith and other evidence in Shin.
http://sharp-thinking.com/2014/04/19/האמנה-אמונה-ואמון/
By the way, it seems to me that the Hidan website is like the 12th stage of converts and it says this: those who want to repent must appear on the Hidan website for about a year and fulfill all the obligations of a common troll: tell about the creator of the world, ask stupid questions and never, but never, not Admit any mistake.
questionnaire,
There is an answer pending. It is not clear why.
questionnaire,
You may be confusing an electric field with radiation. These are two completely different things. If you just take an electron and place it in a room, it will create an electric field (that is, an electric force - it will attract charges with the opposite charge, repel charges with the same charge) but will not radiate. Only if you accelerate it will it start releasing radiation, since an important and well-known result in physics is that an accelerated charge emits radiation.
In any case, there is no problem of energy conservation: in the case of an electric field - the field stores potential energy within it. When a charge enters the field and starts to feel a force (let's say a positive charge, so it feels a pulling force towards the electron) it gains kinetic energy but the electric field loses potential energy. If you are talking about a charge that accelerates, then it emits radiation in the form of photons, and these photons certainly have energy and the electron loses energy. However, it should be remembered that acceleration means activation of an external force - that is, some element that puts energy into or out of the system (for example, in the previous case there was a positive charge that felt acceleration because an external electric field fed it potential energy that became kinetic). The energy that creates the radiation comes from the same source that provides the addition to the kinetic energy. In fact, one of the biggest problems in building particle accelerators is that when building very powerful accelerators, the particle they accelerate (if it has a charge) radiates strongly and therefore there is a large loss of energy. That is, their efficiency becomes low.
On a slightly more modern and mathematical note, it is about the difference between virtual or real photons. Particles in quantum mechanics can be virtual (particles that are created, live only a very short time, and disappear) or real (ordinary particles that can be observed in the laboratory). Virtual particles definitely break laws such as conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, etc. - but for a very short time. In fact, within the framework of quantum mechanics, it can be seen that there is no problem in breaking these conservation laws if the person who breaks them is a virtual particle that does not become real but appears and immediately disappears (I know that the wording here is a bit vague, but in order to define these things well you have to get into somewhat complicated mathematics, so we will give up ). An electric field, or electric force, is expressed by the exchange of virtual photons between the electron and the charge on which the force acts. That is, the electron "creates" a photon that lives long enough only to run to the other particle and transfer momentum to it, that is, to give it a push (or a pull, depending on the sign of the charge). The virtual particle violates conservation of energy but only for a fraction of a second, which is fine, but the electron and the other particle do not violate conservation of energy. Radiation is described by an electron around which photons are created that become real and do not disappear after a fraction of a second. Because they are real, we can catch them in the laboratory and actually measure the radiation (they are not just mediators of the electric force but real physical particles). On the other hand, they are bound by the law of conservation of energy and therefore in order for them to be created there must be someone to feed energy to the electron. This is, for example, what happens when the electron accelerates.
Raphael
Camilla nicely summed up what I was going to write. There are natural processes that create a feeling of planning.
In particular, in the life forms we see, the process of evolution creates this feeling. This is a process that must take place if (and only if) 4 conditions exist: reproduction, variation, competition and inheritance. All conditions have existed on Earth for more than 3.5 billion years, hence the huge variety of life we see.
Unlike the "God" theory, the theory I described explains both the parasitic wasp and the Siamese twins.
Therefore, I choose to believe this theory.
albenza,
Although I didn't think we would get to electrons, but if we are already here, then you can explain
Please what causes an electron or proton to emit negative electric field radiation or
positive? In other words, what is the mechanics for which an electric charge emits radiation?
And why is this emission not "out of nowhere" and does it not break the law of conservation of energy?
Thanks.
The response is addressed to Raphael of course. For a moment I jumped in time to another discussion (where I'm still waiting for answers to my questions...)
skeptic,
without detracting from Nissim's answer (if he chooses to respond),
Something that appears as if it was created by "intelligence" (for example complex, or adapted to a certain function) can be created by completely natural processes. A simple example of this is the "intelligence" seen in the symmetrical form of snowflakes or in the perfect arrangement of atoms in a salt crystal or innumerable biological adaptations. In all of these the formation of the same pattern/phenomenon can be explained using established natural theories from the fields of physics, chemistry and biology and with a little understanding of basic statistics.
There are phenomena for which we still do not have a good explanation for their formation. In such cases the scientists say: "We don't know" or at least "we are missing significant pieces of the puzzle" and at the same time they look for additional findings and try to offer new explanations that do not contradict the previous findings.
It seems to me that you mean to make the argument that if we recognize "intelligence" in the world then surely an intelligent being is responsible for it? (Is this the direction you want to go?) But first it might be worth checking if we even understand the concept of "intelligence" in the same way. For example, do you think there is intelligence in a snowflake or in the masterful arrangement of atoms in a salt crystal? If so, what is this wisdom expressed in? In the organization of the structure itself or is it "only" in the actual existence of the "laws of nature" that enable/oblige the formation of the flake or crystal under certain conditions?
If there is no creator for the world, then where does the intelligence that you admit to be in nature come from? from where
Raphael
If you didn't understand my response, then I'll say it again, I think there is no God.
So I understand that you are not not admitting…..
Miracles
Your comments are pathetic. If you don't have an answer, it's better not to respond.
Raphael
Do you admit you are stupid or not?
You wanted a look…
Raphael
If you don't know, then what exactly are you arguing about?
Albanzo
What do we know about the elementary particles and the forces except that they exist? Do we know how they were created? What were they made of? What makes them obey the laws?
Miracles
You quibble like Olmert's lawyers. All in all, I asked if you admit that there is intelligence or not? Is it so hard for you to answer such a simple question?
post Scriptum. I don't know what an electron is. The only human in the universe who knows what it is is Albenzo.
Raphael
I was comforted by bringing you into the world. If they put your wits in a spoon there would still be plenty of room left.
Shmulik,
I don't think that's what Yossi was talking about. He explained what he was talking about in a later comment, and gives the impression that he just wanted to see how a simple case of a relatively complicated problem is looked at. I didn't understand from his comments that he was talking about the link you sent or that he was trying to imply something like Raphael, who maintains that we know nothing about the composition of the material.
Regarding the one electron, then this idea is roughly what I tried to explain in my first answer to Yossi's questions. In the last decades we realized that it is not possible to describe individual particles and also get a correct description of reality. The description we moved to is of local fields that come in quantums (small portions). Each such portion is a particle. All electrons in the universe are quanta of the same field, which is very similar to what Wheeler said. This is also the reason why we cannot talk about a single electron - the quantum state undergoes fluctuations and the field can suddenly "bloom" into more electrons, which will appear and disappear.
Within the framework of Feynman's method, in which complicated calculations in quantum mechanics are expressed with the help of drawings (Feynman diagrams), it can be seen that the drawing corresponding to the positron is indeed of an electron moving backwards in time. This does not mean that he actually performs such a movement, but there is definitely a connection. There is no doubt that Wheeler knew what he was talking about.
Raphael,
When I read what you wrote I started looking for professional help. But then I remembered seeing how you talk about physics, and I know what you know about physics. So from this it can be fairly safely concluded that even when you allow yourself to wear the psychologist's hat, you are not much more successful.
Anyway, I know religious people don't tend to believe in coincidences. After all, there is a plan for everything, and there are those who do everything by His word, right? So do you think it's a coincidence that you ignored the factual content of my response and only referred to your deep psychological insights (which I'm sure are based on years of study. God knows you didn't spend a single moment studying physics before becoming an internet commentator on dark matter, dark energy, singularities and parallel universes).
What is missing in our knowledge of the elementary particles that makes you say that we have no green idea about the composition of matter? What about Yossi's questions and the answers he received strengthens your claim?
Raphael
You wrote "It was clear from your words that you do not admit that there is intelligence".
True, I did not say that I do not admit that there is intelligence. You have a twisted way of putting things. In your eyes, God exists, I know it, but do not admit it. Is this how you teach to articulate in the kollel?
for our purposes. What I am saying is that if there is a mind that created the good things, then either it also created the terrible things, or there is another mind that fights the good mind.
I don't know if there are intelligences or not. I do know that there are other explanations for the world I see, without such reasonings.
These explanations make a lot more sense to me than yours.
A few more points. Your explanation is full of holes, and full of tricks to hide the holes. If you want - read Genesis chapter XNUMX, first verse again. Try to explain it to me…
Another point - your explanation dismisses the morality I believe in. Women's equality, the right to die with dignity, the willingness to sacrifice your life for those you love, the acceptance of what is different from you and so on.
And one last point - you invalidated what Albenzo said about the electron. But - you don't even know what an electron is. No thanks for that???
Raphael,
Where do you see wisdom? The universe as we know it is 70% construction debris, and the rest is a repeating pattern of spheres revolving around larger spheres.
Or maybe you see her in the chaotic ball we are doomed to try to survive?
As I explained, he has no option of admitting a mistake. Repentance is a package deal in which you outsource your criticism and accept everything your Amnon Yitzchak says, therefore, Newton's laws are an axiom, Hitler is an atheist and AIDS exists because there are gays and they need to be granted (Raphael didn't say this but another clone of him told me this once )
By the way, it is possible that Yossi or whoever it was who talked about a single electron, talked about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
Albanzo
I think you should get professional advice about your problem. It's not a shame.
Miracles
It was implied from your words that you do not admit that there is intelligence. But if you admit that there is reason, then I repeat myself and ask for your forgiveness, accept with a committee. So you admit that there is intelligence?
Miracles,
Do you think Raphael will admit that you didn't say what he claimed and that he simply lied? Look a few comments back, you will see that he claimed that I was saying that a non-scientist should not ask questions. When I told him I never said that and asked him to retract it, he: 1) accused me of ignoring the real issue.
2) Claim that I can't overcome the ego.
3) He claimed that my request that he admit that I did not say what he attributed to me is "blah blah".
What are the chances that you will be treated differently?
Raphael,
You obviously ignore all my "blah blah". What other option do you have? Admit with a committee that you are a liar, that you put words in and appropriate things that I didn't say and that I don't support at all because it serves your purpose, which is to damage my credibility because I reveal the fact that you don't understand anything about the science you are trying to talk about?
Let's see for a second. We recognize the building blocks. We know all their physical and chemical properties. We know how they behave in nature, and what structures they create. What exactly are you missing? Except that all the scientists will fall in your face and say "Yo, there must be a God according to science! It has to be, it can't be otherwise!"?
Yossi didn't say anything like that. Yossi asked three questions and received three answers. Do you want to claim that the answers imply that we do not understand what an electron is? Please explain and model. I showed that we recognize that it cannot be broken down into smaller building blocks and that we know all of its properties. I think this means that we understand him very well. what is missing? what is the mistake Again, except that all the scientists did not get together and shout that Raphael is right and that there must be God, otherwise nothing makes sense...
Albanzo
I ignore all your blah blah and concentrate on the matter. The point is that apart from saying that these are cornerstones we really have no way of understanding their essence. And that's what Yossi said.
Raphael
I asked you where I said there was no reason.
Show me, or back off.
Raphael
No, it's not the diameter of the electron. This time, try copying from a more reliable source.
What is your next guess?
The question is very important. If you answer correctly, you will understand.
Maybe
But everything is written in the Torah, isn't it?
Unfortunately, the Raphaels of the world tell us about these discoveries, from the Torah, only after science has examined and examined the subject. Or then they jump up and tell us: we told you all along! Recently they did this trick again with the Big Bang and Raphael was the Pope who said that God is not a magician with a magic wand but works through science (and God, where were you two thousand years ago???) and that the Big Bang does not contradict heavenly intervention. The truth is that they are dying for the Big Bang because for some reason it reminds them of the description of Genesis, so for now they are quiet (doing everything, but everything to avoid cognitive dissonance). I wonder how Raphael's next clone will respond to the following article, if it is true (and I have to admit it's totally cool that there are people who are paid to think about these issues):
http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743
Besides, you're wrong. We know what matter is made of. Electrons, quarks, etc. Are these the basic building blocks? Can it be disassembled into smaller pieces? At the moment all the evidence points to them being fundamental building blocks. It is possible that in the future new information will be discovered.
I have already forgotten the long discussion we had in which you demonstrated that you do not know what science is and think that "either they know something 100% or they don't and then there is no certainty". I forgot that you support a dichotomy that disappeared from the world almost 400 years ago... in the presence of which science does not exist. sorry i forgot
Overcoming the ego means allowing you to lie and say I don't agree that people who haven't studied physics will respond? Or maybe it means that you are allowed to decide that "the issue is that we have no green idea what all the matter in the universe is made of" even though so far I personally have not been part of any such discussion. I talked about the fact that you write about parallel universes even though you don't even know what a parallel universe is, and I answered a number of questions asked by Yossi Simon.
Albanzo
I can't with you. Try to overcome the ego a little.
Oh, now that's the issue?
I will mince words this time. I'll just say that you were mean when you put words in my mouth and claimed I said things I never said, and you continue to be mean by trying to portray my attempt to defend myself as evasive.
Now, I will send you to read about a logical fallacy called moving the goal posts.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
Albanzo
Look how many words you are saying instead of treating the subject matter-of-factly. The issue is that we have no green idea what all the matter in the universe is made of. Even if we say that it is made of elementary particles that may contain strings of one kind or another. just don't know.
Raphael,
Any more lies you want to put in?
I never claimed that those who have not studied physics are not allowed to ask questions or contradict my words. There are many commenters here who have no formal education in physics who ask questions and I am always happy to try to answer as best I can. You can search for comments by Nissim, Eyal, Shmulik and more. In addition, you don't always agree with me either - and that's fine too.
What bothers me is when a person who does not understand at all what he is talking about (for the sake of it, imagine a person who does not even know how to recognize parallel spaces or say what their definition is in physics) criticizes them *and refuses to admit that he does not understand*. Personally, I think that any person who criticizes something without learning about it first is a fool (the meaning of the word critique, criticism in the dialect, is to get to the bottom of an issue), but everyone is free to do what they want. But if you criticize in a public forum and don't admit that you are talking about things without understanding them, you are actually lying to an entire public and misleading people who buy your misrepresentation of the scientific work. Want to comment on something you don't understand? have a nice time. Want to mislead people and pretend your criticism is real and scientific when it's actually just ignorance and an outside agenda in disguise? It is my right to try to draw people's attention to the fact that you are not and that you actually do not have the necessary tools to provide scientific criticism.
Troll
Alfonso does not agree to be called Alfonso. Please respect him.
anonymous
What do you suggest? Someone who hasn't studied physics for eighty years won't comment on the science website? My comments on the matter. Albenzo brags about his knowledge and claims that no one is allowed to ask questions and certainly not to contradict his words. This is unacceptable to me and several other commenters here. He has a choice - he does not have to answer.
There is one retard impersonating me. We all wish him a speedy recovery.
Rafael, Alfonso says "it has no internal structure" it sounds more educated in your eyes Yaani is Nahir. more than before. No? I'm sure you understand more now. You can be calm and there is no need for faith at all because the world has no internal structure. You understand they will answer
she asked Rafael
What's the point of arguing with a physicist about physics?
Would you step into a boxing ring against a professional boxer (assuming you have no boxing training)?
I'm not asking to bash and my question has nothing to do with religion or politics or anything like that, it's just very strange behavior to me and I'm trying to understand what your motive is?
Before it was around the topic of evolution, now it's about dark matter.
In both cases you are confronting professionals who clearly have a significant advantage of knowledge and understanding over you, so in both cases it didn't go so well for you (to say the least. At least that's how it looks from the side).
The question is why do you do it? What do you gain from it?
Isn't it better to read and study the subject, then respond from a more grounded and serious position?
If you decide to answer - thanks in advance
I would really like to have a tail between my legs. I can be like King Solomon and talk to animals too.
withering
I see that Yossi answered you. But in my opinion your comments are too emotional and therefore missed.
Alphonso
I didn't run away with my tail between my legs. I happen to have no tail. Your language is not suitable for a senior researcher. Maybe challenge the market. What's the problem with the name? I didn't write it in English, and in Hebrew it sounds the same. Besides, it's not your name, just a nickname. And don't forget who is funding your "research". Good?
Albentezo!
If I understood deeply (not in the sense of knowing and solving equations).
I was at least to myself, trying to describe a world with one elementary item like an electron. In this situation I assume that many of its properties do not manifest themselves such as the amount of mass or nuclear gravity.
Then describes a world containing 2 electrons and thus progresses in stages: one neutron, two protons, a neutron
In this way, will I be able to better understand the wonders of the universe? I'm not sure but it's worth a try.
As I tackle complex math problems, just start with zeroing variables.
withering!
There is an ancient game called "Nim". An unknown person brilliantly defined a strategic victory. I know the process and am full of admiration for the insight inherent in the process, what is the connection between this and the tsunami disaster?
Raphael,
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong. Both regarding explanations in physics (I haven't forgotten how you ran away with your tail between your legs when you had to admit that you write comments about dark matter, dark energy, singularities, parallel universes, etc. but you don't even know what the definition of these things is, let alone what the studies done on them say) , and regarding simple Hebrew - the meaning in the sentence "the electron is elementary and therefore does not consist of anything" does not mean that it is made of nothing but that it has no internal structure, as is explained in quite detail in the other parts of the response that you chose to ignore.
And Alfonso call your mother, please.
Shmulik,
Yes and no. In string theory, the elementary particles are modes of vibration of the string. This also includes electrons. But it is still possible to distinguish between a mode of oscillation of the string and a complex particle which is actually a number of strings attached to each other, like a proton that is composed of three quarks, each of which according to our understanding should be a mode of oscillation in the string.
Raphael,
Do you understand the question in the context of what Yossi Simon wrote: "When I look at a plant, I think about the great intelligence that lies (in the "operating system" of the plant) that knows how to control all the growth processes, and monitor, for example, the different sizes, the color, reaching to nourish each and every cell "?
When you look at the pictures of children born with Treacher Collins syndrome, do you marvel at the wisdom of this work? I assume that for you an intelligent creator is responsible for this, am I wrong? If you had the opportunity to choose between the two options - a healthy baby that does not suffer from special defects or a baby with the above syndrome, which option would you choose and why would you choose that?
Nissim, are you up yet or haven't you gone to bed yet? The diameter is
0.000000000000001 millimeter. So what?
Raphael
What is the radius of an electron?
Raphael
Did I say there is no reason? Are you putting words in people's mouths again?
Shmulik
Alfonso will explain to you that the electron is made up of strings. Beautiful!
Nissim and Camila
There is no reason in the phenomena you described? Or are you confusing reason with your Soviet definition of what is good and what is bad?
albentezo,
The Torah you are studying goes a little further in explaining what an electron is, doesn't it? (It is clear to me that the Torah is completely theoretical at this point)
Regarding Raphael, leave him, he has explanations for everything. Ask our duty convert what he was taught about the origin of AIDS (hint, it's about gays and God and punishment and promiscuity. You know, real explanation)
"An electron is elementary and therefore it is not composed of anything." What a mind-blowing explanation! Now we know exactly what an electron is!
Yossi Simon,
1. An elementary particle, by its very definition, is not composed of anything. elementary = elementary. There is a lot of very strong evidence that the electron is elementary - both experimental (we have ways to try to study the internal structure of a particle, either by trying to break it into pieces in a collision or in other ways) and theoretical (the model that says it is elementary corresponds to reality to an unimaginable precision ). Could it be that we are wrong and that the electron has an internal structure? Obviously. But all the evidence we have today indicates that it is fundamental, that is, it is not composed of anything.
2. I don't understand the question. First, in modern physics there is no such thing as "only one electron". All particles are, to our understanding, quanta of local fields. Therefore the number of particles is only a characteristic of the quantum state and as we know, a quantum state oscillates. That is, the number of particles is not a fixed thing and particles can be created and disappear spontaneously. But if you still want to describe only one electron, contrary to what is found in nature, you can turn to quantum mechanics, which describes exactly such situations and is itself a good approximation of reality (as mentioned, not accurate. Among other things, because in reality it is incorrect to treat the number of particles in the system as constant). Do you have a specific question about the description? Because I don't think it's interesting for us to start describing quantum mechanics here.
3. Electrons are not distinct beings. I mean, they don't have a name sticker. I look at an electron for a moment, look away, and look at the same point again. If I find an electron there, I have no way of knowing if it is the same electron from before or if that one has gone and replaced it.
Yossi Simon,
Please explain to me the great intelligence that you think exists in Treacher Collins syndrome.
And if you can't explain this, then I'd love to get clarification on why you attribute reason to some cases but not reason to other cases, and how do you differentiate between the cases, especially when they are expressed in one subordination as in the example of miracles about the parasitic wasp and the caterpillar that was eaten while it was alive?
Yossi Simon
If you marvel at the intelligence of a plant, do you also marvel at the intelligence of a wasp that lays eggs inside a living larva, when the wasp larvae hatch and eat the larva from the inside while it is alive? Do you also marvel at the intelligence of Siamese twins? Or of a baby with Down syndrome?
This is the same reasoning…….
Ofer!
I am not claiming anything about dark matter.
I only believe that the electron as an example contains an undeciphered "secret" that gives it the properties of an electron.
Scientists have indeed managed to decipher many of its properties, but it is a mystery like everything else related to the universe.
When I look at a plant, I think of the great intelligence that lies ("in the operating system" of the plant) that knows how to control all growth processes, and monitor, for example, the different sizes, the color, reaching to nourish each and every cell.
Yossi Simon,
1) How do you know that dark matter is also elemental? The observed universe - in contrast - consists mostly of baryonic matter of bound states and not of elementary particles.
2) And yet, it is quite possible that dark matter is elementary. Still, there is a great deal to be said for elemental matter. For example: which reactions produce it? Why is he fading? What related situations does it create? What symmetries does it participate in? more and more…
Strong question!!
"But it has never been proven what dark matter and dark energy consist of"
Yael!
1. Is it possible to say what an electron or other elementary particle consists of (not properties)?
2. Suppose the universe contains only one electron - how could this electron be described?
3. To what extent can it be said that electron 1 is equal to electron 2 (since there are differences such as the topographic space location of each of them?
I can give you an example of how I pursued the vulnerability of the missiles in the Second Lebanon War with Olmert and now he is in court, in the end we will laugh
Goes, sometimes I try to revive more and more things derived from politicians like you, they gamble high and high to justify their mistakes, we both run, with respect
Chronology is such a fasa
Water blowing
Obviously this is all happening again on purpose. I didn't want to make you feel bad and bring back the time when you made another mistake. It still sometimes confuses all the time returns and the directions in which it moves, and sometimes they get confused. You don't have to mention it at all and say I said so, it's self-evident to those who understand.
Here, for those who did not understand, I will clarify, where I wrote I knew in the previous response:
Water blowingים
It was said about it as a fallacyדand f. At least in one of my time returns. Here it is a little fromעAnd, because of the returnת A time of those who do not know what they are doing properly, and return with a fightיand are incorrect.
Want to try again?
Look, I said a few sentences ago that you would say "I knew", you can quote and I'm sorry that the quote is wrong, I don't know, with respect
Water blowing
This is called a pursuit fallacy. At least in one of my time returns. Here it is a bit distorted, because of time returns by those who do not know what they are doing properly, and return with incorrect interest rates.
Want to try again?
Miracles
You did not provide facts. You brought grandma's stories. Let's start with Etzion Geber. What is your evidence that was built later? I have no doubt that you can talk about it a lot, just don't talk about the actual things. Science has no way of even discussing how it all began. And he has no idea and by definition he will never have any idea what the true size of the universe is. So how can we talk about parallel universes when we don't have the elementary knowledge about our universe?????
Shmulik
The funniest thing is that Raphael is the one who tried to show us a mirror...
Dear Mr. Shalon, there is a problem with your calculation because the void has no volume at all, the volume or dimension depends on the movement of the particles, and of course also forward and backward in time many times which is another dimension to the calculation, with respect
Miracles,
Do you think he will answer seriously? Do you think he will really bring archeological evidence for the Exodus?
As I wrote, for those who repent and Raphael is one such, faith is an elusive thing and therefore he has to hold on to nonsense that he was told and explained to him that are mental proofs, as opposed to scientific powers. He cannot allow any stone in the logical structure he built for himself to crack because then everything will collapse on him and therefore he cannot admit that any of what he was told is wrong and therefore everything that was in the Torah is true even though there is no evidence for anything from the books of the Torah, all the nonsense that Amnon Yitzchak told him He is right, therefore Newton's laws are an axiom and Hitler is an atheist and it does not matter at all that Newton's laws were disproved (and therefore by definition are not an axiom) and Hitler was not an atheist. Everything he was told must be true, and that means a bat is a bird. Sorry Nissim.
A little something about the Exodus:
http://www.taupress.tau.ac.il/index.php?cat=3&name=all&book=1003&nav=1
Thank you Albanzo for the explanation.
An informative question that I can't find the answer to is that they always present the
Baryonic matter about 5%, dark matter 27% and dark energy 68%. So does it exist?
Rick - without any of these? And if it exists and it is added to the percentage count, then how
Is the distribution visible?
Thanks.
You live in a world synthesized by time repetitions, and it is not exactly that the "truth" is being hidden from you, because you are cut off from a parallel world where this is your truth, Nissim wanted testimony - he accepted that it is possible to change the direction of water in the Red Sea as well. A walker wanted a testimony, he didn't exactly understand but he said "I knew", like children living in their own world, with respect
Raphael
Which of the facts I gave you does not contradict the story of the Exodus? enough, enough dodging Raphael, take responsibility for what you say.
It was supposed to be really, really easy. I don't understand how you didn't time it back properly to answer this correctly. It was really not a problem for me.
Water blowing
The correct answer was:
Water blowing
The correct answer was:
Water blowing
The correct answer was:
Water blowing
The correct answer was:
(And so on)
Raphael
Yes, let's go into the history of Etzion Geber. Do you have a source?
Raphael
exactly. I'm interested in evidence, not stories. Certainly not stories that don't match the evidence.
It's called integrity, a concept that is probably foreign to you.
water
The next time you comment, do not click the "add comment" button.
This will be your biggest contribution to the discussion.
Yehuda
Are you done with him? You are funny! Only he won't end up with you. I wish you health and longevity until 120.
Miracles
You have not provided any contradictory evidence. Do you want us to get into the topic of when was Etzion a man? Is that what will convince you? leave
First of all, from what I have seen of parallel positions that were deleted in the rehearsals, the human race does not always rule at the top of the hierarchy, and in terms of justice, now you are slaughtering many other species that you are not at all aware of that they are filtered according to intelligence, this is the first thing about the Holocaust and the second thing is because one hemisphere was involved in the war, this is a big change if We are passing the time, what's more, I don't have room to push another six if Israel arose as a line of thought after the Holocaust. Respectfully, try not to laugh
And a topic related to the book and the exodus - one in the repetitions or deleted universes I saw animals that spoke and there is a connection to heaven in the scriptures and two in connection with the Exodus I saw that it is possible to play with the direction of gravity. Respectfully try not to laugh again
questionnaire,
This is exactly the question that Eyal asked at the beginning of the thread and I wrote him a quite detailed answer about the reasons why it is not possible. In short - there are several reasons that baryonic matter (and it does not matter at all whether we discovered it or not) cannot be a candidate for all dark matter. These reasons include cosmological observations (you can read in the background radiation how much baryonic matter was in the early universe), indirect light evidence in space (if the density of baryonic matter was that high, then we could detect significant statistics of scattered light in the radiation of the stars, which simply does not happen), and reasons relating to the composition of matter (there are not so many heavy elements in the universe compared to the light elements). I mean, there are many reasons that indicate quite unequivocally that dark matter cannot be baryonic simply because of the properties of baryonic matter, and it's not at all a question of whether or not we've been able to see all the baryonic matter there is. A model in which there is another 4-5 times the amount of matter known to us as baryonic matter is simply hidden by the observations.
questionnaire
The only thing that does not emit any radiation is a body at 0 degrees Kelvin. I think that if such bodies were very common and very large, then they would hide radiation behind them, like the cosmic background radiation. Therefore - we could see them.
It seems to me ….
albanzo,
I brought the 1000 planets as an example of bodies that reflect electromagnetic radiation
which are not captured by the existing means of observation. My question is also addressed to different configurations
of baryonic material which are not known to us. Assuming there are "raw bodies" (sphere, belt, cloud
or a shape that is not symmetrical) have a mass of 100 suns (like ours), which do not emit
Electromagnetic radiation, can theoretically be considered as dark matter?
questionnaire,
I don't think I got to the bottom of your mind. If you are trying to imply what Eyal was talking about earlier - the possibility of planets, asteroids, lumps of rock, etc. as candidates for dark matter - then first of all, read the response I wrote to him. There is strong observational evidence that this is not the case. Second, you must understand that the mass of a planet seems large to you and me, but in relation to the scales we are talking about, 1000 planets is nothing. Our sun, which is relatively small, contains a million times more mass than the Earth. Meaning, even if every solar system in the universe had a million planets of the order of 4, all this together would only double the amount of matter in the universe (actually, less, because we didn't count black holes, nebulae, etc.). The dark matter is expected to be 5-XNUMX times more massive than the baryonic matter. And again, I mention that there are completely other reasons why this possibility is unlikely, as explained in previous comments.
In the hope that the question will not be drowned in the storms of arguments here.
So far, let's say 1000 planets have been discovered in the universe and they are made of baryonic matter
which reflects electromagnetic waves and it is not dust crumbs but significant masses.
So how can one expect to discover baryonic matter of any size in distant galaxies?
To Raphael
You suggested me not to trust my strength and might? Well I don't accept your offer. Because what is the alternative? To believe in someone who has been allowing us to be crushed for two thousand years? Why, what have we done to him? Millions of Jews were murdered in his name for two thousand years and now 70 years ago he finished with an encore of six million! Backed by a million and a half children?
Why? Is it because they said Shema Yisrael instead of Shema Yisrael that it was impossible to forgive them?
And Raphael tells me that we need to repent so that Christ will tell us why we ate from the tree of knowledge??
Come out of it, Mr. Raphael, smile still in front of you, hold on to your cock and protect yourself and your family and people! God is busy with other things, he has no time for us. For my part, he can exist or not, I'm done with him.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Raphael
you lost me…. Who is trying to convince whom?
You gave the example of the Exodus, and I showed you, with evidence, that the story is not true. You have not provided any counter evidence that contradicts what I said.
I'm not talking about God, or faith, or the creation of the world. You - Raphael - set an example. The example does not match reality.
What is the point of this conversation at all, if you are fixed in your faith and not willing to listen?
Miracles
I am not disrespecting anyone, I just gave one example of a world power that forgot the weapon was not up to it. As we know there are many more examples. The point is that weapons are not everything.
Miracles
I didn't promise it would convince you. It convinced me. If you search on YouTube you will see that not everyone thinks like you and in fact there is historical evidence of the exodus from Egypt. I don't need this evidence. As mentioned after studying Torah seriously, things become clear. Also, you are right that the text of the Haggadah was written at a later stage, but the subject of the Exodus from Egypt and the mitzvah and the Haggadah for your son is found in the Torah and Passover has been celebrated since time immemorial.
Raphael
Don't underestimate others. The Western world is based on the values of the Greeks and Romans.
Yehuda
The matter of the six million who perished in the Holocaust is not a simple matter. But in the synagogue where I pray there are still many people who experienced the Holocaust first hand and were in the extermination camps and were saved and they come to the synagogue every day and pray to the Creator of the world knowing that he is the one who made it possible. There were many of them. There were also many whom the Holocaust caused them to leave religion.
I have just a little advice for you. Do not rely on your strength and the strength of your hand. See what happened to the Greeks who were a great power and fell before a handful of priests who did not know what war was. There are many more examples. This does not mean that the weapon should be put down, but in no way should it be trusted.
Raphael
Yes but …. The Exodus, for example, has no historical evidence.
On the contrary, because the Egyptians recorded every grain of wheat, we are very sure that there was not a large population of Israelites in Egypt. Think about it for a moment - the number of Israelites was about 2 million people, which is about 60% of the total population of Egypt. Do you really think we wouldn't find evidence of that?
There is other evidence that contradicts the Exodus story. For example - a number of settlements that are described in the biblical story, such as Etzion Geber and Kadesh Barnea did not exist in this period, but only about 1000 years later.
And finally - the Haggadah itself is only 1000 years old, so to say that it has been passed continuously since the "Exodus" is not true at all.
Please - do what you say and concentrate on one point - do not introduce metaphysics topics now.
Miracles
I wouldn't believe it but I agree with what you said in your last two comments.
In short, regarding the truths of the Torah book, we have historical evidence and evidence of testimony from father to son that has not stopped for thousands of years. And I'm not talking about the testimony of one father to one son but of thousands and millions of fathers to their sons. I think that even you at least once in your life sat with the members of your household on Seder night and said that we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt.
Well after all I don't think it will convince you one hundred percent but equally nothing else will convince you more strongly that those Greek philosophers did exist.
It convinced me anyway. But most of all I was convinced after I started studying Torah seriously. All parts of the Torah. It is clear to me that this is not a creation of the human brain. These are most sublime things.
You want to disagree with me - that's fine, but don't spoil the good streaks we've been on. I ask that you continue to observe the rules of decent debate.
One last thing about the world that was created two weeks ago - we believe that the world is created anew every moment. The world always has an aspiration to become nothing and the Creator of the world holds it in His will. Now thanks to science it is easier to understand. Imagine what would happen if all the electrons in the universe suddenly stopped spinning wildly around their nucleus...
to Albenzo
I respect your wish and I really don't care what your real name is.
Also, I managed to take a look at the article, indeed it is not for scientists to say the least (:))
Good luck with your research
Yehuda
She was conceived at the age of 198 weeks... is there a problem with that? 🙂
Miracles
How do you say that maybe the universe was created two weeks ago and I have a two hundred week old granddaughter???
You mean to tell me she was born 198 weeks before the big bang??
come back
Yehuda
Yehuda,
I'm sorry, I don't want to give out personal details. Several years ago I was in a very similar situation (the issue was completely different, but there was also a debate about science that degenerated into personal lines) in a forum where I disclosed the details of the stocks. I then suffered harassment from the person I argued with.
Despite the differences of opinion between us - professional and personal - I do not wish for anyone to ever bother you. Therefore I refrain from providing any information. If you understand and accept my preferences - I thank you. If not, there is nothing to do. You have every right to doubt me and my skills as long as I don't provide them with proof, and I will have to live with my choice.
Either way, I hope you will understand and respect my wishes despite everything.
Mr. Albanzo
I got confused again and called you by name
I absolutely do not think you are lying and I am sure you are a scientist and that you are doing exactly what you told me. point.
And besides, I'm sure that in some parallel universe we could be really friends like a pair of doves.
Check Mr. Albanzo in your math and formulas if it is possible for this kind of twin universe to exist.
On second thought, the term "like a pair of pigeons" may not be appropriate because you will know if in the parallel universe they are not monsters/predators/cannibals. But let's be optimistic.
Even if the material you're dealing with is complicated, at least give us the gist of it. You'd be surprised how friendly science responders can be.
On an optimistic note, I will go to the link you sent
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Raphael
Have you asked: what do I do with my knowledge of religion and science?
Well, for me the matter with God is relatively simple.
Regarding God there are only two possibilities: either he does not exist, or he exists but sat quietly in the holocaust. There is no other option!
Well, of these two options I prefer the first option: he doesn't exist. point. So in a world where they are trying to kill me, I will not go pray to an imaginary friend who does not exist, but I will go hold a weapon and I will never have the concept of "Psalms against missiles".
That's why I'm a big follower of the science that can only help me protect myself and my family and my people.
Did you understand that, Rafael? It is very unfortunate that this is the case, but it is what it is. With six million proofs I do not argue.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Raphael
There will always be poor liars. The thing is that there is a huge amount of evidence for the Holocaust.
I don't know what will happen in 1000 years, but I can look, for example, at the Greek philosophers. Some of them are historical figures, that we have documents that they wrote, and documents of other people that describe them. Some of them are almost a legend, and we are not at all sure that they lived. For example, the famous author Homer - although we have books that "he" wrote - we do not have enough evidence for the existence of the man, and many think that the books were written by several people.
As I say again and again - there are no facts. There is only evidence (seemingly) that raises the likelihood that something is true. It is always possible that the world was created two weeks ago and we have no way to disprove it.
My research is not suitable for the science site. I deal in mathematical physics, meaning, my work is in an advanced mathematical framework (as in fact almost all theoretical research in high energy physics today), formulated in mathematics mainly and not necessarily ideas that are easy to write in a text, and requires extensive prior mathematical knowledge. At the end of the response I will link an article from my field (which I emphasize in the strongest way: I did not write it! I do not take credit for someone else's work), so that you can see and understand for yourself that it is not so possible to publish it here on the site.
If you prefer not to believe me, to think that I am a liar and that in fact I am not a physicist at all or a physicist who has no original ideas - enjoy. Really, really, I don't care. In addition, it is clear to me that your reference to my identity and my research work in the last comments is again a desperate attempt at delegitimization. You are unable to deal with the factual arguments (which, as mentioned, do not depend on my identity or my research at all. What does it matter who sent you the link to the scientific article that describes observational evidence that does not match your theory? As long as the observations exist...), so you try to drag the The discussion is about my identity or trying to prove to yourself and the other readers that I'm actually not a physicist or a bad physicist.
Let me save you… it doesn't matter. Anyone here can enter the links I provide and read the articles. Who I am and how good I am at my job has nothing to do with it. Do you really not see how childish this is?
Below is the link, again emphasizing - not my work, but of people much smarter than me. This is a very famous and groundbreaking work in the field and I do not pretend to be a physicist on the same level as the authors. I'm attaching a link just for those who wonder what my interests are and what an article in this field looks like:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0005183v1.pdf
Miracles
Testimonies of many people who had the same experience can also be verified. Why do you think there are people who don't believe there was a holocaust and even did a doctorate on it?
Why didn't the historical evidence make an impression on them?
What do you think will happen in a thousand years? Will the validity of the historical evidence decrease or increase?
Yehuda
The answer does suit me. The question is what do you do with it? I'm also interested in knowing what your chileba thinks about your answer.
Raphael
Historical evidence, photographs, documentation - things that others can also verify.
Yehuda,
Come on, start reading articles about Strings and maybe you'll find out who I am. If it gets you to read scientific papers I'm in your hands! Come on, good luck.
Sahtain on the thread "...Hawking who claims (like me)..." You and Hawking, literally two peas in a pod. You taught him everything he knows, right? 🙂
Relative to a man who constantly says that he loves science, you notice that you have 0 proofs and evidence on the one hand, but you are quick to depend on authority on the other hand?
to Albenzo
Here I addressed the name
I wonder why they stopped your response to me, maybe you exaggerated your personal injury?
And regarding your research, maybe you will tell about them here on the science website and maybe you will also express your opinion about black holes while contradicting Hawking's words, who recently claimed (like me) that there are no black holes?
And as for the research on string theory, there aren't many of them, and maybe we'll be able to get to Albanzo's real name. Although I can survive without it.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I still can't believe you didn't come here to return someone in your answer, but maybe.
And regarding your question: "It bothers me that they say that the subject of the beginning of the universe is something that is outside the boundaries of science because then the laws of nature known to us were not in force. So what? Is that why the question can be ignored?" End quote.
Well the question is good. And I even agree with you that there is room to ask her. And it should not even be ignored, but the reason is that the laws of nature known to us were not tested in the extreme conditions of the beginning of the universe, therefore their use is done with an accepted guarantee and the conclusions can actually have a large margin of error. Does such an answer suit you? Or maybe you raised the question just to show that for you things are clear and God created the world, with goals and trees of thought and trees of life. And all good?
Actually I'm sure that's the story. I was already in this movie.
Try again
Yehuda
Yehuda,
I have a response waiting for you. Until then, two notes:
1. What is the connection between examining evidence and my personality? I'm not tied to evidence at all. You were asked a question - did you compare your ideas against the observational evidence? Yes or No.
2. As usual, you accuse me of ego games because this is your only way to deal with the feelings of inferiority that overwhelm you. There is no ego here. I don't depend on your approval because (unlike you) I provide evidence for everything I say. I am an active member of the scientific community, write articles, publish, and receive citations. For personal reasons I prefer not to reveal my name. I need some unsettled person like you to know after this who I am and where I work?
If you want to hear about new research I've done, I'll be happy to tell you. I work in the field of quantum gravity - specifically, string theory. My research concerns black holes (mainly though not only).
Miracles
Which testimony is stronger in your eyes? The stories of your mother-in-law and people you knew who went through the Holocaust and told you? Or various historical evidences such as photographs, documents and extermination camp sites?
Shmulik,
Note that under the cover of brain swans, Yehuda's answer is simply "no". You are of course also welcome to go to previous articles on the topic of dark matter and see him explicitly say himself that he did not do it and will not do it, and that even if he did he would not understand anything and therefore there is no point.
Yehuda,
Your analytical skills are so bad that you think you can annoy me with such statements, and you don't realize that you are only digging deeper and deeper into the huge hole at the entrance of which there is a glowing neon sign, "Hello, my name is Sabdarmish Yehuda and I don't understand anything about anything, but I I am certain that I know things that people smarter than me who have actually bothered to research the subject for different periods of time do not know. Why? So. Evidence? does not interest me. Basic knowledge of the concepts and theories? I don't need such things."
It's so pathetic what's going on here. Look, your helplessness has reached such a level that you can't bring yourself to write my name. Already several comments you find devious ways to contact me without writing it. If you weren't so stubborn about your stupidity, I'd really feel sorry for you. Identifies as grandpa but acts like a 3 year old.
Wait, sorry. I got confused. What I meant to say is: you are much smarter than me, how did I not see until today that there is no dark matter and that all the observational and theoretical work that supports its existence and stands in complete contradiction to your childish solution, is actually wrong and you are the right one. Why? So. Because you're so cute!
Superman for the poor. Good luck later.
Raphael
I know there was a holocaust from several sources. One of the sources is my mother-in-law's stories. Another source is people I know with a number tattooed on their arm. I saw movies. The gas chambers exist and can be visited. There are many historical testimonies to the Holocaust. And beyond that - I don't have any shred of reliable information that says there was no holocaust.
to Shmulik
If that is what you mean, I tested my ideas even before the aforementioned personality and his ideas were known and I do not need the approval of the aforementioned personality, his exams and the reading of the articles (eight or twenty-eight) that he will address to his poor students.
I prefer smart people who exist in the scientific system and talk with them with pleasure, contradict or promote and improve my ideas with fun!
Besides that, I haven't heard anything original from his name that might exist, and apart from quotes about the well-known in the scientific system in Romo Shel Olam, I didn't know.
Sorry I'm not boosting his ego
That's what it is
Yehuda
Miracles
To answer your question I will ask you a question. How do you know there was a holocaust?
I actually enter the site to learn about scientific innovations. It interests me very much. I don't think there is a chance to convert anyone here and that is not the goal. But sometimes I feel like challenging the hegemony that everything can be explained through science. It bothers me that they say that the subject of the beginning of the universe is something that is outside the boundaries of science because then the laws of nature known to us were not in force. So what? Is that why the question can be ignored?
to that of the parallel universes
It won't help you, but no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to reach the ankles of my analytical ability in various subjects!
But keep trying,
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Woe. I wasn't talking about repentance, but did you conduct the tests you require from Raphael regarding the theory you are promoting, for example, against the 8 articles that Albentzo brought as an example that there are a number of different motivations for dark matter.
to Shmulik
Raphael and his ilk did not come to learn and add to your and my knowledge of the scientific issues here on the site
They actually came to destroy any scientific approach because it jeopardizes the control they have over the common people. It is not defined by me as one whose purpose is to save the site and its goals. He came here to destroy and look for lost souls precisely on the scientific sites.
Reminds me of those converts who would stand at the entrance of the air force bases and try to convert pilots. Because in this they see victory. To this day, in arguments with them, they always remind me of Uri Zohar, whom they converted.
And to your second question if I checked the other options the answer is yes and much more than you think. I even looked into the possibility of repentance, but all this repentance is utter nonsense. And as I said it is only a means of controlling the souls of the common people.
And see they manage time and time again to divert the pure scientific debate in the directions of the destruction of science.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sorry I didn't word it right. My intention was not to all the commenters in all the articles, but to what was created here in the last day. highlights in the last day
guest,
I am a proud dwarf who enjoys reading articles and learning from the comments, and I hope that Albentzo and some other scientists who comment, will continue to comment.
Your suggestion is bad. It is bad because we are in the days when science is so advanced and precisely because of this it is incomprehensible. When things are incomprehensible, the dwarves look for magic solutions that the celebrity sent them, such as ignoring scientific articles, homeopathy, reading in a cup of coffee or religion.
You suggest that the scientists distance themselves from the public, good luck raising grants in a few years.
And what's more, after the time repetitions the idea is to arrange the best at the top
Look, the Garden of Eden is related to time going back and the tree of knowledge is probably related to seeing the future of some kind, look, whoever wrote the book had knowledge and interests, what's more, time played back and forth many times I have seen trees with intelligence, go explain to those who don't know where they live at all in the context of Returning time and parallel universes, with respect
Yehuda
From grandfather to grandfather... I see no basis for thinking that the tree of knowledge is related to knowledge in the sense that we use it. The issue of nudity is culturally dependent and not related to this or that knowledge. Sex, on the other hand, is a tremendous abomination, in almost every religion.
Note that in chapter XNUMX the serpent is the truth teller, and God is a liar...
Yehuda,
Say, when you said "the one from the parallel universes with his functions" you meant a "physicist who, unlike Sabdarmish Yehuda, only talks about things if he sat down and studied them beforehand, does not arbitrarily choose which facts he refers to and which he ignores, and bases all his words on scientific research including references "?
I understand that seeing mathematical equations reminded you that no matter how much you write on the science site, the gap between you and real physics is infinite. But really, maybe you'll grow up?
guest,
For every dwarf based here there is also a curious person who is interested in science, wants to learn about it, and wants a forum where he can read about science and sometimes hear the opinion of scientists in the relevant fields or get help from them in understanding the ideas. I also learn a lot of things here when I read articles in the fields of biology, chemistry, history, etc.
Call me an optimist, but I think the number of curious people here is not less than the number of dwarves. The dwarves just make more noise.
Besides, I have a bit of an obsession problem. It's hard for me to let go. I am aware of that. What to do…?
elbentzo
I don't understand why you continue to bask with the dwarves in the void waters that have formed here
Yehuda,
God forbid expel them or anyone else who does not violate the site rules.
Gagging is the worst. As Nissim writes, we are not afraid of anything and trust ourselves so that censorship (to prevent yourself from getting angry) is not something we need. You don't feel like it, don't read his answers, but you are the one who asked to argue with him.
In addition, you wrote:
"For your information, here at Science we check all the possibilities. So I asked for now:
Have you ever checked this possibility and tried to contradict it? Or you ignored her!”
Nice demands nice fulfills, therefore, have you read the articles that Albenzo provided a reference to here on the site? Have you checked their meanings regarding the theory you seek to promote?
Miracles
Are you telling me that the tree of knowledge is not related to knowledge??????
And besides, I understand that you think that Grandpa doesn't know how to have children???
But what is troubling is that converts make an attack on our science site and one of their goals is to destroy and tell us stories about our Messiah. I hope my father will do something and drive them out of here. Believe me, that one is already better than the parallel universes with its functions.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
You are so innocent... the tree of knowledge is not related to knowledge. I suggest you read Genesis, chapter XNUMX, the first verse.
And besides, how do you say: that the first man had a wonderful wisdom that is indescribable even before he ate from the tree of knowledge, when the stupid man did not even know how to be ashamed of the fact that he was naked just like those monkeys in the jungle and unfortunately they did not have the tree of knowledge?
Yehuda
To Raphael
Disappointing me!
What does it mean??, we received an instruction and did not fulfill it and to understand the act you are sending me to the days of Messiah???
Do you require me to be an idiot until the Messiah comes??
Perhaps what is happening here is that people who wanted to control the souls of the common people gave them a message in which God wants them to be stupid and only if they are like that maybe God will return them to the Garden of Eden so no core studies or anything just be stupid and vote for who we are the rabbis and their messengers the Raphaels of sorts say And everything will be good and beautiful?
What do you say Raphael?, you don't think that is a possibility?
For your information, here at Science we check all the possibilities. So I asked for now:
Have you ever checked this possibility and tried to contradict it? Or you ignored her!
Good Day
Yehuda
Raphael
I asked you a question. I'm not trying to trash you. I'm trying to show you, gently, which of us is fixed.
I will ask you a question based on what you said. The only source we have for man is the Torah. am I wrong?
And that raises another question. How do we know that the book of the Torah is different from any other book, written at that time? Please note - the source of the book cannot be part of the content of that book. How do we know that this book is special, as opposed to, for example, Hanuma Elish, or the Bhagavad Gita?
Rafael, I really don't want to hurt you, and I want to hear your reactions. Unlike you, I'm not afraid to ask questions whose answers might undermine what I believe.
To Judah
The answer is no. The first man had a wonderful wisdom that cannot be described even before he ate from the tree of knowledge. Everything I say has a reference. If you want I will mention them. The sin of the first Adam was that he did not fulfill the commandments of the Creator and the result of this sin we are trying to correct to this day. The correction will be completed at the coming of the Messiah.
Yehuda,
We understand, we understand. The insecurity has gotten to your head and now any display of knowledge makes you feel so stupid that your only way to cope is to attack me and try to convince everyone to ignore me. It will not help.
I studied and I know. You didn't study and you don't know. cope
Also, you are obviously (as always) lying. First, I never set conditions for "receiving comments" or for me to answer him. I challenged a man who voiced criticism. If his review is valid, he will be able to handle my questions. If he can't handle it, the criticism is probably unfounded. It doesn't surprise me that you haven't heard of such a thing in your life - because this thing is called science. And you have already proven that the connection between you and science is null at best. Newton was not an official in any patent office, you probably meant Einstein. In any case - Einstein's job is not important at all. My criticism of Raphael is not related to his occupation. At no point did I ask him what his livelihood was. I placed a criticism that required him to prove that the things he says stem from information and not from outside interests fueled by scientific ignorance. Just as Einstein was asked to prove his claims with reasoned scientific publications. And before he did, no one listened to him. By the way, Einstein worked as a clerk - but after finishing his doctorate in physics. That is, an official or not an official - he did not speak out of ignorance. He knew the material, he knew the models and their problems, and his ideas came from understanding and not from ignorance. When he presented them, he was required to prove, and even if you say 1000 times that no one in the academy demands proof of the claims, it will not change the reality. But denying reality is your specialty, isn't it?
You called me "wretched". Poor, poor, but everything I say is backed by evidence and knowledge. You have been commenting here for years and are known to everyone as a fantasist whose connection to reality is accidental. Remind me how you are different from blowing water?
And finally - remind me what your business is, what conversations are taking place between me and Rafael? The forum is open and you are welcome to read and comment, but apart from the reasons mentioned above (your inability to deal with the knowledge that you do not understand at all what you are talking about when there are people who spend days and nights studying the subject and researching it, and really understand all your things seem like magic), what is the interest Is it yours to interrupt a discussion between me and Rafael when it is clear, in black and white, that we are both interested in him? Who are you to dissuade Rafael from having a dialogue?
To Raphael
God forbid I treat you disrespectfully and I apologize if I was understood that way. On the contrary. Already in the first question I referred to the fact that you show opinion (Raphael shows opinion) and it was out of appreciation, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered arguing with you at all!.. So I will only ask this question this time: do you agree that the fact that you show opinion is wisdom and knowledge and furthermore, does it originate in sin Ancient, that is, in the sin of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge that we were forbidden to do when we were admitted to heaven? Just understanding what is being read from Genesis chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX.
Appreciate your reply
Yehuda
Raphael,
Do not threaten. If you want to answer - great, I'm listening. If not - you don't have to.
The equations I wrote describe different types of parallel universes. You agree to admit that you do not have the necessary knowledge to understand this (and I emphasize again - acquiring this knowledge requires many hours of diligence and reading, so the fact that this or that person does not have the knowledge does not mean that he is stupid or something like that). If you do not understand what parallel universes are within the framework of physical theories, do not understand that there are different types of such, do not understand that there may be parallel universes that exchange information between them, then are you really in a position that allows you to criticize these theories? Can you call them "semi-scientific titles" if you don't even understand what they say? And I ask again, if I were to write a comment here explaining that the interpretation of one or another judge, a wise man who spent his whole life studying the Scriptures, is complete nonsense and I would do so without studying Torah at all, would that be a serious criticism? Is a person who shows you that he does not even know who Moses is, does not know the covenant between Israel and God, has never heard in his life about the commandments and duties of the Israelites, is such a person in a reasonable position to pass biblical criticism? Are his claims that Rambam is talking nonsense and that Obadiah Yosef is just making things up and that Sages are hiding their misunderstanding with complicated words worth anything? Or are they just swans because they are not supported by evidence, reasoning, and understanding of the material?
Albanzo
I don't understand anything in the formulas you sent. But science has no way of proving the existence of parallel universes. Science has nothing to say about the beginning and size of our universe either. Talk to me one more time, I will ignore your questions out of respect.
Yehuda
We only agreed on one question and agreed to speak respectfully. The first question is not clear to me and the second question is not worded respectfully, but I will answer it anyway in the hope that there will be an improvement in the next questions.
God doesn't want me to be stupid. On the contrary. There are explicit verses on the subject. If necessary I will send you.
I saw that there was a flood of other comments. I still haven't read them all.
Response 100 to be mine that's it!
Good Day
Yehuda
Raphael
I suggest that you do not agree to take the exam so that someone will be willing to kindly answer you. This is not customary and respondents have never been asked to take the test before their responses are accepted. In general, his name is not interested in news, but only in news that matches his own. I am in conversations right now with people in academia about my views and I have never been asked to show credentials nor has anyone in the scientific world ever been required to show any when expressing their views. Newton was a clerk in the patent office when he expressed his theory of relativity.
Don't let any wretch pester you with questions that will once again only show how "smart" he is
Waiting for your answer or your response about the time you want to answer me.
I will respect your wish if you would like to answer the answers to second derivative questions in parallel universes.
Please stop dancing about two universes/weddings and let me know if you are getting ready to answer my simple question. , and when
Thanks
Yehuda
to "Albanzo",
I didn't understand how I embed the code in the scientist's response. It is clear that the equations can be presented in a more readable and beautiful way (after all, when you write an article you don't write in a messy way like I wrote), I just don't know how to do it here. The comments don't know how to read Latache's code.
Besides, Judah (for a change) said something very true. 99% of people really didn't know the answers to the questions. To answer the questions I asked you need to sit down and study science seriously. This does not mean that 99% of the population are stupid or anything like that, but it does mean that they do not have the necessary technical tools to criticize one or another scientific theory. And really, 99% of people won't dare to tell you that there is no dark matter without sitting down and studying the subject first.
Yehuda, don't interfere. I'm not interfering in the conversation you're trying to have with Rafael, don't interfere in mine.
Raphael,
You have made claims on many physical topics such as dark matter, dark energy, parallel universes, etc. You have expressly agreed to my request to answer several questions on these topics as long as one topic is chosen at a time and that the questions are relevant. I chose one topic and asked relevant questions. are you ready to answer If so, I look forward to it. If not, I would ask you (and other readers) to consider the possibility that you do not have extensive knowledge of the subjects you commented on, and if you do not have knowledge of them then it is likely that your criticism of them is incorrect. My name is very basic knowledge of the Torah, so it would be ridiculous if I now try to claim that one or another commentator is talking nonsense. Passing a review requires an understanding of the material.
Unlike Judah's lies, there is no ego involved here. Just a matter of honesty. Does your criticism stem from understanding the subject and identifying a flaw in the theories you spoke about, or do you not understand the subjects and then your criticism comes from another source (so-called, external interest)?
Tell me Raphael, what are you stupid?, you have nothing to do but answer someone's ego questions. Don't answer him and you don't have to be an expert in math just like he doesn't have to be an expert in Baba Mitzaya, leave him and answer me. For me it is related to the topic and corresponds exactly to your knowledge of the Bible.
Waiting for your answer, I have to go, I don't have much time. Or decide who you answer for. I have no problem with that, know that 99 percent of the people you meet won't know how to answer the ego questions of what's their name.
Tell me when you are getting ready to answer my question
Good Day
Yehuda
The equations can be presented a little more conveniently, for example:
http://www.hostmath.com/Show.aspx?Code=ds%5E2%20%3D%201%2Fy%5E2%20(-dt%5E2%20%2Bdy%5E2%20%2Bdz%5E2)%20
Note, the letter q at the end of each line is not important. I just put it in to fix the English. Ignore please.
Raphael,
1. I will not call my friends stupid and liars. you know why? Because they are neither stupid nor liars. A liar is a person who talks about things he does not understand at all under the pretense that he knows what he is talking about, and flatly refuses to admit that he does not understand. A fool is a person who talks about things he doesn't understand at all, period. You meet both of these definitions. That is of course, unless you prove to me that you do know what you are talking about.
2. Ok, let's get started. Let's take one topic you commented on and focus on it. With your permission we will start with parallel universes. First question: Which of the following geometries contain parallel universes? In what sense are these universes parallel (in each case): do they interact or not? If so, is the interaction causal? If so, what are they parallel to?
ds^2 = 1/y^2 (-dt^2 +dy^2 +dz^2) q
ds^2 = -f(r) dt^2 + 1/f(r) dr^2 , where f(r) = 2M/r +Q^2 / r^2 q
ds^2 = -(1+2 \phi(r) dt^2 +(1-2 \phi(r)) dr^2 -(1+2\phi*(x)) dy^2 +(1- 2\phi*(x)) dx^2 q
Let's start with these questions, which are really very basic and only require an understanding of what space is in physics and what parallel space is. If you know the answer, I would appreciate it if you could help me with much more difficult issues.
To Raphael
Let's decide to start where it all started.
Do you agree that the fact that you show opinion originates from original sin?
Second question:
Today, when you already have the right to choose, why don't you fulfill the first will of the blessed God, who wanted you to remain dumb, mindless? .
waiting for your reply
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sorry, it was Yehuda. You can also start. The problem is that you and Albenzo don't always agree and that's putting it mildly.
Albanzo
Let's start with what you want. Ask a first question.
Raphael
I'm really fascinated how you manage to take control of the debate and move it in your direction. I am ready to confront a convert like you and show you the difference between the scientific approach and your religious approach. I'll just warn you that I've already turned back four people on the question. And I influenced many by arguing with them. The change they effected on me was minimal although it was there. So do you want to start?, please.
For the sake of good order, let's ignore commenters who only slander such as …….. we'll just ignore! Arguing with them leads to nothing and only raises their egos and makes the atmosphere cloudy.
Another thing, I accept your suggestion to deal with one issue at a time and it is desirable that we first look for the things we agree on. You will be surprised to find out that they are many.
So where do you want to start? Maybe we'll start with the agreements between us?
So let's start with the fact that I also do not agree with the idea of the dark mass?, and I also agree that sometimes giving a name to something does not make it the same something. There is a lack of gravitation, so they added gravitation with the help of additional (dark) mass, but we will agree that this does not make it exist. Do you agree with what?, do you want us to expand.?,
Do you want us to start with a different topic?, maybe we start with the fact that we were in heaven and violated the prohibition of tasting from the tree of knowledge?, do you understand that even according to your belief your very argument here on the site originates from Adam's first original sin? In Genesis, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX, Jehovah God commanded the man to say: Of every tree of the garden, you may eat it. XNUMX And the tree, the knowledge of good and evil - you shall not eat from it: because, on the day you eat from it - you will die.
Raphael's permission to speak.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Raphael,
Because there is no reason in science. When you assume there is a why, you pre-assume the solution.
The only question that can be asked is how, and for that the scientists, researchers and basically everyone involved in science, are doing quite well.
I ask why you didn't tell me whether you will no longer call Hitler an atheist.
I'm asking why you don't understand that Newton's laws are not an axiom.
Albanzo
Stupid and liar call your friends. And also electric charge and hydrogen atom are titles as if scientific. You know how to describe and explain what is happening, and not always, but you do not touch the question of why it is happening. Why are there laws of nature? How does the hydrogen electron know that it has to go around the nucleus, who forces all the particles in the universe without exception to behave according to predetermined laws. Another example you say there was a big bang but completely ignore who made it happen, where it happened. There are many more examples. I am ready to answer all your questions under two conditions. The first time we will discuss only one question and we will not move on until we have exhausted it. The second condition is that it be respectful without nicknames and curses and slander. Suitable for you then please ask. It doesn't suit you, so you don't have to.
elbentzo
Exactly 🙂 earlier he made me throw up … now I'm laughing 🙂
And by the way, you already made it fantastically clear in a previous article that you simply don't know what the word science means. But for the benefit of readers who are not necessarily well versed in science but (unlike Raphael) are willing to listen and do not seek to impose their ignorance on the entire population, I will remind you that there is no such thing as a "scientific explanation". There is an explanation. Science is a method of finding explanations and testing how likely they are to be the true explanation. Science as we know it has only existed for about 350 years. Were there no explanations before this? There was no evidence or testimony? Of course it is.
Raphael accuses the scientists of being fixated and closed minded and this is definitely one of the ironic things I've read recently.
As usual, you do the work for me. If I may quote, "...they give it a title as if it were scientific". Meaning, you claim that dark matter, uncertainty, and all the other things you mentioned are quasi-science. You reject the possibility that we actually have an understanding of these things, that we have evidentiary support for the theories. You have said, already several times and explicitly, that when you come to a phenomenon that you do not know how to explain, you give it a name that has a scientific appearance but without an explanation.
I have a question. Is "electric charger" also a quasi-scientific title? Is "hydrogen atom" a quasi-scientific title? Or do you think that these objects are really understood and explained by science? Assuming you don't think these are quasi-scientific titles, I want you to explain to me the difference between an electron or a hydrogen atom and our understanding of the phenomenon and between dark matter and our understanding of the phenomenon.
You don't owe me anything. Obviously. But if you speak in condemnation of things that you don't even understand the title of, then there are two options: either admit it and come off as stupid but yes, or evade and hide it (as you are trying to do) and be exposed as a stupid liar. The choice is yours. Of course I could be wrong and you understand all these complicated issues very well. If that's the case, I want you to explain a few things to me. Are you ready to answer a series of questions on the topics you talked about?
Raphael
Are you claiming to be unfixed? Want to do an experiment with me?
Miracles
Beauty. So it has another blown name.
Albanzo
First of all, let's start with the fact that I don't owe you anything. I am not claiming that dark matter is a cover for the comings of the scientists. I don't think scientists are ignorant. And I also think their research is essential. The problem begins with the mental fixation that everything must have a scientific explanation, that is, within and within the framework of the box called science. They don't dare to get out of their comfortable and warm box, so when they reach a dead end, they give it a scientific title and move on.
Raphael,
1. I'm really not the only one who knows these things. There are many who know, and many who know better than me. There are also many who do not know. Which group do you belong to? If on the first one, prove it. As for the second - fairness requires that when you accuse scientists of a cover-up and that they just make up confusing names to hide their nakedness, you announce loudly and clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you don't even know what the words and terms you use mean.
2. You continue to claim that dark matter is just a cover for the ignorance and inability of scientists to deal with reality. Can you prove your claims?
3. And of course you prove my point fantastically by using the term "uncertainty" in a ridiculous way that has nothing to do with its true meaning. Uncertainties are of course not uncertainties of the physicists, but a standard deviation of measurement...
It's been a few days since I read your comments, I forgot how much fun it is. You make the most retarded claims and then save me the work of explaining to you and especially to the other readers how retarded they are, by demonstrating your ignorance and making sure that everyone knows how ignorant you are... a pleasure. I wish Judah was like you.
Raphael
What you said about the world of computers is nonsense.
Dark matter - today we don't really know what it is, but there is much more evidence for its existence than for the existence of an imaginary friend...
The principle of non-recognition is a bad name... a limitation of the language. In any case, he is not talking about uncertainty at all, but about something more complex, called indeterminacy in English.
In the world of computers, when you don't know how to solve a bug, then you claim it's a feature. In the world of science, when you don't know how to explain a phenomenon, then you give it a scientific name like "dark matter" and when there is uncertainty, you turn it into the "uncertainty principle".
Yehuda
I'm not a physicist, so I'm not the one who has to look for a way to refute. What's more, I'm sure that the idea of dark matter forms the basis for many predictions and many experiments - so those in the know have something to do...
When a high percentage of a group of people whose opinions I value think something - I need a very good reason to think otherwise. If I think otherwise, then I try to study the subject. From experience... the "wisdom of the wise" works quite well.
Miracles
Hahaha
Hits below the belt indeed. I was just trying to give the dark mass a certain boost in an attempt to refute through the elevator, but it's working against my duty. We will not be in a hurry to upgrade Popper's rule and include Sabdarmish in it as well. This will greatly anger Albanzo and others. But it may be that we are onto something and what for me is not refutable, it may be that for Nisim it is refutable... This will resolve some of the disagreements.
There is food for thought
Good night
Yehuda
Yehuda
Your idea doesn't disprove anything. It strengthens, or weakens, my argument, that's all.
You wrote "Dark mass is an unscientific idea. I didn't find an idea for a refutation" ... I probably misunderstood Popper, I didn't understand that "refutable" means "Yehuda Sabradesh cannot currently think of a refutation experiment". mea culpa…
Raphael
What are you talking about?
for miracles
Excellent!
You claim: "I have a photo of an orange streak in the sky on my phone. I'm trying to think what I photographed there (the senility...). And then I think - maybe it's the Delta missile? Here's a theory. But, you claim that it is not scientific - because it cannot be disproved." End quote.
And I have another idea: what you see there is the messianic spirit of the Rebbe of Lubovitz!
Two theories. Who is scientific and who is not??, well, mine is not scientific, you will never be able to prove the correctness of the Messianic spirit of Rebbe Malovitz. The righteous spirit of the righteous rabbi will always avoid failed attempts at refutation. On the other hand, the theory of miracles can be thought of as an idea to disprove, for example, we will send an anti-delta ground-based missile and photograph it and test it and then either yes or no. So your idea is scientific.
I really like Popper's approach and it seems to me that his definition of a scientific idea as such that you can think of a way to disprove it is excellent. Dark mass is an unscientific idea. I did not find an idea to refute. But maybe it exists and then, as I suggested, we will place the measuring devices in an elevator with a technician who will oversee the measurements (we will find someone and I have a candidate or two) and we will wait for the sonic light show that you will do for us.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Miracles
And I am sickened by the fall of freckles.
Albanzo
Only you know what it is. You are one of a kind genius. No one even comes close to standing in your shadow. Everyone join me in clapping for Albenzo.
Raphael,
In your response you talked about "...dark matter, dark energy, uncertainty principle, parallel universes, wormholes, singularity, infinite universe and many other terms that are supposed to cover our ignorance."
Do you know anything about even one of these concepts? Pay attention, if the answer is "no" then at least have the courage and honesty to announce in Rish Gali that you are talking about things that you don't even understand the meaning of their names. If your answer is "yes", I'm going to test you because in the past you've demonstrated astronomical ignorance on much simpler subjects, so I'm not going to accept without proof the claim that you know what wormholes or singularities are.
Yehuda
I understand what you are saying. I'll put it another way. I have a photo of an orange streak in the sky on my phone. I'm trying to think what I photographed there (the senility...). And then I think - maybe it's the Delta missile? Here's a theory. But, you claim that it is not scientific - because it cannot be disproved.
I personally do not accept the term "scientific theory", as Popper formulated it. I look at it this way: there is a phenomenon, and there are several possible explanations for the phenomenon. I choose the most likely explanation, based on several parameters. I agree that an important parameter is the ability to refute. But I won't dismiss a theory just because I don't see how to disprove it.
Raphael
That's exactly the problem. The thought of someone who knows something bad is going to happen and doesn't try to prevent it makes me sick, but for you it's nothing. Of course you have an in-depth explanation for this, which I will never understand.
Nissim asked:
"Here's a theory - a week ago there was a launch of the "Orion" spacecraft.
Is it scientific in your eyes? Can you disprove it?” End quote.
You won't believe miracles, but your question is really challenging. And I had heated debates about whether a friend was on the subject.
I will add another parallel question to your question:
About three thousand years ago the prophet Elijah ascended in a chariot of fire from heaven, is this theory/idea scientific?
The question I would ask is whether an action that someone or something did is an idea at all?
Only after that would I ask if it is a scientific idea.
The truth is miracles, I really don't think that sending something into space is even a theory or an idea, something bothers me here.
Food for thought
Sabdarmish Yehuda
As things go on, I feel like this is a hook and I have a kind of feeling that everything is written backwards on the site, and sometimes when people argue with me I have the feeling that what they want to say is "I knew", and sometimes by miracles you fix things here you screw up there, because anyway if we fix all the traffic accidents in the next world , what will happen is that the company will simply increase the speed elsewhere, you know - you don't want an accident - sit quietly at home
Miracles
If you hadn't said the last sentence, I would have answered you on the matter. But apparently you couldn't resist.
Raphael
I understand. The Creator of the world knows that a six-month-old baby is going to be killed in a horrific accident caused by a stone that fell from the mountain, and he stands by and watches.
And you, Raphael, think that God is good. I want to puke….
The Creator of the world knows everything that will happen and still has free choice. What is the problem? The choice depends on the time it is a created thing also according to science. The Creator of the world is above time.
Water blowing
What's the next comment I'm going to make in this thread?
Raphael
Don't be defensive all the time. If Einstein is right in this statement (and most physicists think he was wrong, as I understand it) then the world is deterministic. That is - if you know the state of the world today, you can know exactly what will happen tomorrow.
Among other things - this means, necessarily, that there is no free will. I didn't know you thought so.
Gentlemen, Einstein was right. The creator of the world does not play with dice. Indeed, everything is planned perfectly. But what, we don't understand everything and we will never understand everything, so we use concepts like dark matter, dark energy, uncertainty principle, parallel universes, wormholes, singularity, infinite universe and many other terms that are supposed to cover our ignorance.
Now you can start the barrage of personal attacks as usual. Run to places!
In the past in the previous world I waited for your answers but sometimes because of your style this time I just don't have the patience to wait for your nonsense so I will agree: one when a large mass is arranged at the edge of a circle, inside it is not attractive, something in Freddie's style. Two, I don't think she's smart. And the three biggest mistake probably about me. N. B . Flap to the Albenzo
Eyal, in addition, if you want, I can go over your mistakes with you. Good Day
Ayal, you have two mistakes, maybe even more, and one of them is big, dust cannot cause matter outside of it and at the end to accelerate outward if gravity only pulls. Sincerely
Interesting, thanks.
Hello Eyal,
In short - the answer is probably not. In principle this possibility was considered (and is still being considered) under the name MACHO, but most of the evidence indicates that it is not possible. The three strongest pieces of evidence against dark matter being simply an accumulation of non-radiative baryonic matter are:
1. Cosmological evidence. The density of baryonic matter had a critical effect on the early universe, and we can read these effects by making measurements of the cosmic background radiation. These measurements show that if all dark matter is baryonic, then the distribution of matter in our universe should be certain (different isotopes of different elements should survive less than they did), contrary to measurements.
2. Lack of observational evidence. Non-radiative baryonic matter, such as dust, still interacts electromagnetically. Therefore, if there were such large amounts of dust in space, we would expect to see their effect on the movement of light rays (because the light rays would hit the dust and scatter from it, unlike non-baryonic dark matter which is transparent to light). Again, all the measurements we make indicate a very low dust density that does not correspond to the amount of dark matter in the universe.
3. Composition of the material. Dust, stone, etc. are composed of heavy elements (simply because light elements do not create these structures gravitationally, but collapse into stars and the like, which are known to emit a lot of light). We know how to estimate the amount of heavy elements present in the universe and it does not correspond to the large amount of dark matter that we lack.
Patrick, I think you got confused, Steinzo was referring to my question, and not to blowing water (which does not stop talking nonsense).
Steinzo, what you said does not contradict my question at all, as you said (and so do I) it is possible that dark matter is simply dust and matter that simply does not emit light (that is, it is not the sun and not a single celestial body that emits light) and therefore we only notice its effect but do not see it Directly. If that's the case then I don't see anything mysterious here, or I'm missing something in this whole issue.
Yehuda
Here is a theory - a week ago there was a launch of the "Orion" spacecraft.
Is it scientific in your eyes? Can you disprove it?
Steinzo
There is no point in referring to the vanity of gushing water. Really cool. He is persona non grata
Eyal
No. It is not possible.
"Dark matter" is an observable phenomenon.
When you observe a skygram and detect gravitational distortion (light does not move in a straight line, but bends) it is assumed that it bends due to a substance affecting it. Since the material cannot be seen or recognized using any device, it is defined as "dark" material.
There is still no evidence as to whether the substance is a real (bullying) substance or if it is a different phenomenon altogether. No evidence yet. It could be an exotic substance, one that has not yet been discovered. And it can be a pressure difference - like that of Yehuda Sabdarmish and also God who plays with dice.
There is, for example, Bell's experiment or Bell's equation, where a lot is lost in the equations, but you see that there is a transfer of information faster than the speed of light. And there is a relatively simple experiment, but again those who don't get the repetition in time also lose their name, and it's the two-slit experiment where a particle that passes through one slit returns and also passes through the other, and there are things that are a little more advanced for us, it's reviving people after the repetition, something in the style of Schrödinger's cat only here, and excuse me Those who are not willing to accept or know. Sincerely
Blowing water, "Returning time is an experimental and scientific thing that is expressed in the experiment", can you list experiments in which turning back time to the past was demonstrated?
Something about the dark matter, the universe is cyclical in time and first of all the return in time is an experimental and scientific thing that is manifested in the experiment and therefore there is programming and consequences, moreover, if you give a point from which things move away and there are parallel universes and return in time, at this point the direction of time apparently reverses and creates a number of parallel universes , if you try to close the circle of repetition, it can be assumed that this happens far away, and indeed we see gravity acting in reverse and things speed up, which again shows the reversal of the direction of time, it is possible to additionally identify out of nowhere a grid from the starting point of the parallel universes but on a large scale and identify forces that act In the lattice between particles only on a large scale such as friction and acceleration, in short first you will find that repetitions are possible here as well and then you will throw on particles, astronomy and phenomena like superposition and this is it. Sincerely
Asking again (probably a question that has already been asked here, I'm quite ignorant on the subject) isn't it possible that the dark matter is just dust and rock blocks that don't emit light and therefore can't be seen? (but they still have gravity that affects their environment, and this is the effect you see)
And here, wonder of wonders, we are back again to Yehuda declaring a theory as non-scientific even though he has no idea what they say, and whether or not it is possible to test them. As usual, proves to all of us that to do science you don't need to study, listen, or research - just be stubborn, close your eyes, repeat the same claims over and over again and don't let reality confuse you.
Miracles
You said: "If this mass is outside the visible universe then this mass has no effect on me. ” end quote.
I think you are right. If there is an effect of a "distant" universe on us then it is actually one (our) universe. If information passes between two universes then they are actually one universe. All attempts to throw some of the gravitational problems in our universe to another universe are scientifically unacceptable and are done in a method that is actually unscientific. An idea is only scientific if it is possible to show a way to put it to the test of refutation. If there is no such way then the idea is not scientific. With a parallel universe you will never find such a way because any information transfer between the two universes automatically turns them into one universe. And if, after all, we are willing to use non-scientific ideas, then why get involved, there are simpler non-scientific ideas, for example: God, angels, etc.
So far
Good Morning
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Honor to Isaac!
Newton proved the theorem 100 years before Gauss was born... some respect 🙂
Gauss also includes electricity and magnetism, divergence elec..
I know it as Newton's shell theorem. Sentence 31…
Gauss..
Joseph
Sorry, I should have recognized that this was your response.. You have a unique arrogance.
In any case - if I am inside a uniform space of mass then I will not feel the existence of the mass around me at all.
This is a theorem proved by Newton.
And now - I will act even more. Let's assume that there is a huge mass in only one direction, so there is no symmetry. If this mass is outside the visible universe then this mass has no effect on me. Let's assume that there are two distant universes, so there will be no attraction between them.
This is how I understand the situation, and it is very possible that I am wrong.
The obsolescence that Yehuda speaks of exists in the theory of entropic gravity. Gravity weakens logarithmically with distance or grows exponentially with proximity. The source of entropy is entropy: in the image of a mass of gas, the density of the gas determines mass. That is, if statistically a certain mass is in a certain place, another mass cannot be there, which is equivalent to saying that the mass there is large. How does it stack up with the Higgs boson, the father of mass? Still does not work out, but in the sense that the theories have not been unified and that there is necessarily a flaw in the entropic theory of gravity.
We don't have to leave physics to the tensor champions. So there is a chance that science will forever remain in a certain conception.
All avenues of thought are open.
Miracles:
Either you don't understand or you're faking it. Let's say you don't understand.
If the universe is much larger than it appears, the influence of galaxies outside your line of sight may explain the discrepancy between the mass in the line of sight and the gravitational forces. Imagine you are inside a series of universes in one universe.
Will your sense of gravity be that of a single universe inhabitant or of a chain of masses? It turns out that you will feel like a different mass chain.
The second type of theory that explains gravity without the need to postulate dark matter which is not found. These are called variable gravity and there the gravity is weakened when the distance increases 10 times, even more when the distance X100, and so on.
This theory has the basis of a physical explanation if it is assumed that there is an accumulation of masses, and the changing density of matter, even without assuming that they have weight, enforces a concept of weight. The physical explanation is called entropic gravity.
The science of dark matter research cannot afford to throw away the entropic theory of gravity today, because it might be left with nothing. That's why science also invests in this research channel.
Miracles
This is also what I concluded.
So as Tovia Tzafir says in Givat Halfon: to work, friend, to work.
Miracles
Indeed the refractive index depends on the frequency but the refraction is very small and the business is not so sharp that we can distinguish the frequency like a rainbow. There is no doubt and I also agree that part of the cleaning is also done from the visible mass
But you're right Nissim, it needs to be checked and if there really is a contradiction, then really my whole idea will go. But in the meantime, it doesn't seem to me that there is a contradiction and it seems that there is a lot of gas and to a sufficient extent for refueling. It also always amazed me that in the gravitational simulations made by Eddington and others, they did not take into account the gases of the sun's atmosphere, which were also supposed to partially lens the rays of starlight behind.
In any case, there is a possibility of rebuttal. Successfully.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel
The satellites are scattered in the sky, and the receiver calculates a position according to the range from the satellites (cut counts). If the satellites are low in the sky then, I think, the direction of the error can be quite random. I agree, that to a first approximation, the time of the receiver is slower, the satellites will look further away, and then you should get a lower altitude. But it is possible that one of the receiver's corrections (for example - the signal from a lower satellite stays longer in the atmosphere and is therefore slower) has an effect in the other direction.
Miracles
Rafi's explanation is gaining momentum.
There is only one problem: if the reason is the slowed time flow in the high gravity/acceleration field, then why when the fan rotates we sometimes get an increased height like in YouTube and sometimes a reduced one?
Yehuda
Again - the refractive index in the cases you describe depend on the frequency. I think that gravitational priming is frequency independent.
Am I doing something wrong?
Yehuda,
Obviously you don't deserve to answer. If you try to answer, you will really have to try to read a scientific article, refer to data and observations, understand what a model says before you dismiss it. These are all things that are 25 levels above you. You are better suited to read popular science books for children, to come up with theories that do not fit the data (because you refuse to consider the whole of the data because it is too complicated for you, you prefer to consider only one piece of data that is of negligible importance in relation to the whole), and to dismiss other people's ideas without understanding a single thing And not even giving them the proper respect of reading them (to remind you when you are asked to explain what Milgrom's theory is that you reject, all you managed to do was copy/paste from Weizmann's website and openly admit that you know nothing about the physics of parallel universes, but that you don't need to know nothing to disqualify such theories).
Miracles
I'm talking about pollution just like the sun's rays that bend in the passage through the atmosphere, just like those that also bend in the mirage phenomenon. Beyond that, think, or in some way I would be happy to explain to you even with my own eyes.
Good night
Yehuda.
to a passerby
You asked: "Regarding dark energy, how do you know there is emptiness around the universe?" End quote.
Answer: "How do you know that there is no emptiness around the universe? Do you have to prove that there is not or that there is? Perhaps the outward motion is what proves that there is nothing around the universe or that it is at least thinner all around
to Albenzo
Not worth responding to you at all!
Good night everyone
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
The refractive index depends on the frequency... there is a debate about this?
And regarding the acceleration - I don't understand why the acceleration needs to increase. The gas molecules have an initial speed (for whatever reason), and from that moment the speed only decreases. The universe doesn't work that way.
Israel
I didn't forget the bag... if it's 12 minutes then we have an explanation for the phenomenon - the shelter "forgot" where it is.
for miracles
You write: "If the turbulence was created from gas then we would see the gas - if it was gas then the change in speed would depend on frequency. I understand that this is not the case." End quote.
Answer: Isn't that the case, why would there be a speed change? What is a frequency change? I didn't assume that and the bending of the light rays could be from gas inventions throughout the cosmos.
You write:
"Regarding the acceleration of a body in a gas - a body in a gas that slows down must also speed up. The pressure results from the movement of the gas particles, the pressure decreases with the expansion, so the acceleration is akin to the ketone." End quote.
Answer: Indeed it is. You describe the situation exactly as it should be. The acceleration at the beginning is increasing and then later on the expansion will decrease. Here is a method to verify the idea. Right now they are just talking about the universe expanding at an acceleration, but this acceleration is supposed to change exactly as you understood.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Miracles
Did you forget that I put the GPS in the bag and clicked and he just threw up?
12 minutes is quite appropriate.
Albanzo
The senility...
Did you read the experiment that Israel did with GPS?
Israel
It sounds like there is a filter for the GPS calculations which is quite strange. Inside the receiver there is a Kalman filter, but it works at a high frequency. Your description further convinces me that there is a barometric sensor in your GPS receiver. You don't have a pressure chamber or a vacuum chamber? 🙂
As I recall, a GPS receiver receives the entire almanac every 12.5 minutes, so that's the problem.
So the experiment you showed on youtube showed that the device returned to the correct value quite quickly. Again - a hint for a pressure sensor...
Oh, yes, and that parallel universes do not need to be learned from in order to invalidate a physical theory that speaks of them as "non-physical".
Miracles... come on. Have you forgotten all the long arguments in which Yehuda was provided with links to scientific articles that explain the evidence and why it supports dark matter, and he refused to read? Did you forget that he claims he doesn't have to study general relativity or quantum mechanics to talk about dark matter and expanding universe models? Have you really forgotten who you are dealing with?
Bystander,
Go ahead, don't waste a shred of energy on Judah. He doesn't understand anything, just talks to the air to feel important. In the many correspondences we had on the subject, he openly admitted that he did not know what the evidence was for and against the existence of dark matter, and when he was provided with links to the evidence, he said that he did not have the strength to read them because they were long and in English, and that even if he had read, he would not have understood anything.
So the obvious question is, how much energy should be invested in the physical models conceived by a person who steadfastly refuses to look at the totality of the evidence and derives all his knowledge from a high school science book? The correct answer: zero.
Aryeh Seter,
You are very right. Dark matter has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe or the acceleration of this process.
Yehuda
If the turbulence was created from gas then we would see the gas - if it was gas then the change in speed would depend on frequency. I understand that this is not the case.
Regarding the acceleration of a body in a gas - a body in a gas that slows down must also speed up. The pressure is due to the movement of the gas particles, the pressure decreases with the expansion, so the acceleration tends to decrease. What you describe completely contradicts the observations - if you think the observations are wrong (ie - what follows from the observations) then I would love to understand why.
Miracles
It's not pressure. I compared
The procedure is as follows: turn on the GPS and put it in the safe. The blue tooth manages to penetrate the cage, the satellite does not.
After two hours, take the GPS out of the safe and check. After a few minutes outside, it connects to the satellite, but the observed height is approximately 300 meters lower than normal. After another half hour or so, it slowly returns to its normal height.
A possible explanation: due to the loss of contact with the satellites outside, the internal clock goes wrong.
What do you think?
The reason for the safe: I'm trying to see what happens if only the external antenna is rotated, while the GPS itself is isolated by the Freddie cage and connected to the antenna via a cable.
Yehuda
If you throw out the formula then all the books and youtube videos describing the big bang will be thrown out along with it. not nice.
Regarding dark energy, how do you know there is emptiness around the universe?
Yehuda
Nissim can also be put in the elevator, together with the devices. measurement
Miracles
Gas is also able to show futility and you don't need gravitation for that.
On the other hand, a body inside a gas will speed up and increase outward because there is always a greater pressure outward from its inside than from its outside, hence the acceleration is also explained and there is no need for any dark energy for this purpose
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
Your comparison to gas is strange to me. A gas spreading in empty space will slow down its rate of expansion, contrary to what we see (think we see). This is exactly what dark energy solves.
In addition, the dark matter explains, in my understanding, other things, such as pollution.
to a passerby
Assuming that you were not here during the confrontations of the scientific intifada held here in some of the previous articles, I will explain it to you briefly.
We see that the data measured in the field do not match what is obtained from Newton's gravitation formula, so we have to give up one of the two:
Either we will throw away the formula or we will decide that the formula is sacred and must not be thrown away and then we will throw away the precious data we measured. You decide who to throw away. I prefer to consecrate the data I measured with most effort and throw away/correct the formula. I think that after about eighty years of tireless searches for the dark mass and its particles I have the right to do so.
And regarding the dark energy that causes the universe to expand, would you believe that there is no need for it and every gaseous body that expands into the emptiness around it without consuming energy and even, does so with acceleration!
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
"The dark matter and dark energy which make up a significant part of the universe, and attract the matter in the universe to expand at an accelerated speed." If I am not mistaken, it is only the dark energy (and not the dark matter) which accelerates the expansion of the universe.
Yehuda, are you claiming that there is no dark mass? How do you explain the non-escape of the stars that are at the edge of the galaxy?
What about dark energy causing the galaxies to move away? How would you explain it?
Israel
It again sounds like a pressure sensor to me... After a few hours the pressure can change. Do you have two GPS receivers that you can compare? That would disprove my hypothesis.
In any case - it's hard for me to see how the receiver can even receive anything inside a safe. The GPS on my phone does not pick up in my house made of wood and plaster...
apple matter is green and not blue
Miracles
The simulated height phenomenon in GPS also happens when I put it in the Farday cage (the safe at home) for a few hours.
According to Rafi's explanation, the time in the internal clock of the GPS is messed up because of the acceleration in the rotation. Maybe in this case too? Why?
Thanks.
To anonymous
I don't understand what you're talking about.
for miracles:
A body in a lattice of masses feels an effective mass different from that of a single universe mass. Similarly, an electron moving in a lattice of atoms feels a different effective mass than the mass of the net electron in a vacuum. Although the image is not perfect because the electric force is the main one in the grid. The equivalent is a charge. The effective charge felt by the electron is not the charge of the ion and the effective charge of the electron is not the charge of the electron in a vacuum.
Regarding your second question, there are modified gravity theories and there is a theory in particular of entropy that determines gravity.
That is, one that derives the laws of gravity from inhomogeneous density in space.
Scientific integrity obliges me to say: a. Most scientists support dark matter. B. The theories of variable gravity in space are taken seriously by the European Union and given a significant budget. Those who will look for evidence of dark matter, must also think about whether their evidence is consistent with the theory even in the absence of dark matter. Gravity differences, etc.
The proposal is based on the assumption that the dark matter (so called because it has never been observed by electromagnetic means) is actually not completely dark, meaning that it can be observed by such means.
To build a huge and expensive detector and sit and wait for "something to happen" without any theoretical reasoning - makes even less sense than sitting by the phone and waiting for the dark matter to call you.
These are scientists from southern Denmark and I am a scientist from northern Herzliya who comes up with an idea. (All rights reserved!) I understand that the problem is at what depth to put the devices, is it very deep in the ground or at all on the surface or maybe in the middle, so what do you think about putting the devices that are supposed to discover the "no dark mass" in the elevator? Every month on a different floor and come to Zion Goel. This way we can prove that Herzliya is on the map and it was also known.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I really like these simple and elegant solutions that no one has thought of before.
A perfect question that has probably already been asked (I'm pretty ignorant on the subject) isn't it possible that dark matter is just dust and rock blocks that simply don't emit light and therefore can't be seen? (but they still have gravity that affects their surroundings)
Very interesting.
Joseph
I don't think anyone thinks the universe is the size of the visible universe. It is very possible that the universe is infinite. And in any case - I don't understand how it has to do with dark matter.
There is no theoretical basis that gravity does not depend exactly on the square of the distance. There are some theories that do suggest otherwise, but they have no basis in observations.
Apart from the issue of the missing mass, there is additional evidence for dark matter, which is not explained by the other theories.
Therefore, the dark matter theory is not really "equal".
There are other explanations instead of dark matter: 1. The universe is bigger than the visible universe and is a lattice in which our universe is only a point. 2. Gravity changes depending on distance scales, and the explanation for this is according to the entropy laws of matter. The variation of gravity is then consistent with the difference in the amount of matter observed compared to what is required to maintain Newtonian gravity.
The dark matter theory is, in my opinion, therefore equal among equals and not first among equals. To date no dark matter has been found. It may be found and it may not be found.