Astronomers have made the most accurate gravity experiment outside our solar system. By combining data from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and ESO's Very Large Telescope (the European Southern Observatory in Chile), the researchers show that the gravitational force in this galaxy behaves as Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted. This confirmed the theory's validity on galactic scales
By combining data from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and ESO's Very Large Telescope (the European Southern Observatory in Chile), the researchers show that gravity in this galaxy behaves as Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted. This confirmed the theory's validity on galactic scales.
In 1915, Albert Einstein proposed the General Theory of Relativity (GR) to explain how gravity works. Since then, the theory has undergone a series of high-precision tests within the solar system, but until now no precise measurements of its behavior on large astronomical scales have been made.
Since 1929 it has been known that the universe is expanding, but in 1998 two groups of astronomers showed that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. This surprising discovery - which won the Nobel Prize in 2011 - cannot be explained unless the universe consists mainly of an exotic component called dark energy. However, this interpretation relies on general relativity being correct on cosmological scales, so testing the long-term properties of gravity is important to verify our cosmological model.
A team of astronomers, led by Dr. Thomas Collett of the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation at the University of Portsmouth, used a nearby galaxy as a gravitational lens to make a precise probe of the force of gravity on galaxies at the edge of the universe.
Dr. Colt said: "General relativity predicts that massive objects distort space-time, that is, when light passes by another galaxy, the path of light is deflected. If two galaxies align along our line of sight, this can cause a phenomenon called a strong gravitational front, where we see multiple images of the background galaxy. If we know the mass of the nearby galaxy, then the amount of separation between the multiple images tells us whether general relativity is a theory correctness of gravity on galactic scales".
Several hundred strong gravitational lenses are known, but most are too distant to accurately measure their mass, so they cannot be used to accurately test GR. However, the galaxy ESO325-G004 is among the closest gravitational lenses - 500 million light years from Earth.
Dr. Collett continues: "We used data from the Very Large Telescope in Chile to measure the speed of the stars in E325. This allows us to deduce how much mass E325 must have to keep these stars in orbit. The calculation of the structure of the distant galaxy Shaura has been amplified and distorted, close to the prediction of general relativity, with a difference of 9%. That may sound like a lot, but this is the most accurate external experiment of general relativity to date, from just one galaxy.”
"The universe is an amazing place that provides lenses that we can use as our laboratories," adds team member Prof. Bob Nicholl, director of the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation at the University of Portsmouth. "It's very exciting to use the best telescopes in the world to challenge Einstein, just to find out how his prediction stands up to the test."
The study was published in the journal Science .
to the notice of the researchers
More of the topic in Hayadan:
- Proof of Einstein's theory of general relativity: "The discovery of gravitational waves opens a new window to the universe"
- A planet outside the solar system was discovered using a new method based on Einstein's theory of relativity
- Redshift of light from galaxy clusters - another confirmation of general relativity
296 תגובות
for miracles
Your comment: "Gravitational pollution does not look at all like the pollution we are used to. In normal Idus, the refraction increases as you move away from the lens barrel, so, for example, the lens has a focal length." End quote. This is an interesting comment and I will take it to heart. Up until now I have treated all forms of recycling as equivalent, and apparently this is not the case,
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
We see clusters of galaxies collapsing, so it probably works over vast expanses.
If the cause was gas then we should have seen this gas... Hmmm... could it be... flow with me here!... could it be a gas that doesn't absorb electromagnetic radiation, so you can't see it? Wow - I have an idea! Let's call it "dark matter"!
But, Yehuda, there is still a big problem here: gravitational pollution does not look at all like the pollution we are used to. In a normal lens, the refraction increases as you move away from the lens barrel, so, for example, the lens has a focal length.
In gravitational lensing, the refraction is rather small if you move away from the center of the lens.
This is what they predicted, and this is what we actually observed.
Miracles
We will see the results of the mixing even if we are billions of light years away, but the mixing itself only takes place if the light beam passes close to the mass concentration. It is still a distance of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of light years from the lensing mass. The reflecting beam will then continue to move in a straight line. A light beam that passes at a distance of millions or tens of millions of light years from the lensing mass will not be lensed.
An interesting question is whether dusting in the cosmos is created only in the case of gravitational dusting or are there other possibilities as well, for example a light beam passing through a concentration of gas.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
Gravitational repulsion works at distances of many, many light years.
to June
From the article it seems to understand that this is a confirmation of the theory of relativity to distances, but in fact what is here is a confirmation of the cosmological principle which says that what happens with the known laws here in the vicinity of our galaxy also happens in the distance of the universe with the same laws. It's nice and it's confirmed hundreds of millions of light years away.
Regarding the continuation of your comment, about scientific proof, you must know that something is scientific if it can be repeatedly put to the test. This was said by a philosopher named Popper and it is accepted as a scientific definition. There are no irrefutable proofs in science. Always the tools with which we measure become more accurate, therefore the measurements become more accurate and the measurements are also made for an ever-increasing range and this can cause a change in the Torah we are testing. For example, in the case of the measurements in the galaxy in the article we are dealing with, we received a deviation of 9 percent from the calculated results and the editors of the article claim - perhaps rightly - that this is a small size relative to the uncertainty in the measurements, but it is possible that if more precise measurements are made in a year, a deviation of 9 percent will actually be a reason for killing the idea the cosmological So in science there is no proof "that cannot be challenged" as you say. another example . When Newton published his gravitation formula there was a match with the movement of all the planets (within the uncertainty of the measurements that existed then). Later, more accurate measurements proved that there was a deviation in the movement of the planet Mercury, which required a change that eventually led to the theory of relativity.
I hope I understood
Good day June
Yehuda
Israel
Consider the following experiment:
1) You turn on a laser
2) You place a mirror that blocks the radiation. The result is that the beam is returned directly to the laser
3) You place another double-sided mirror between the laser and the first mirror
The result is that part of the light is trapped between the 2 mirrors, so there is no power on the double-sided mirror.
And if a certain percentage of the light passes through the mirror, we have already seen that it does not change the result.
p=e/c
Pesa particles.
It's hard for me to see why two double-sided mirrors, even with some holes, won't get closer to each other if there are lasers beaming at them from all directions, even if some of the radiation sneaks between them and starts ping-ponging between the mirrors.
Furthermore, broad-spectrum radiation can perhaps solve the central problem in pushing: Feynman friction, the movement of the planets through the particles.
Israel
I think you are right - electromagnetic waves can transfer momentum.
But, it has nothing to do with the particle issue.
Why can't electromagnetic radiation exert power? What about sun sails?
Israel
In the example of the people - they do not collide. Is there any reason not to look at two laser beams as two convoys of people?
I am very careful about talking about radiation (that is - waves), because radiation cannot exert force (classical radiation).
And it works even when there are no collisions between the particles? Also with radiation and mirrors?
Israel
There is already a problem here: "If we have two impermeable sheets facing each other, then we will get an attraction between them even with elastic collisions."
And I will repeat my attitude to this: "True. We will get traction, and the reason is that there are no particles between the sheets. Let's take 2 sheets and two water pipes. If we place the sheets and then direct water on them from the outside - then we will get traction."
"But - if the water is already flowing then we will get water trapped between the sheets which will cancel the attraction."
================================================== ====
Thinking about water is confusing - that's why I presented the idea of a convoy of people a few comments ago - imagine a very long corridor with convoys of people entering from both sides, and each convoy leaving from the other side.
The situation is that everywhere in the corridor there are people walking in both directions.
Now put a barrier in the way - anyone who gets stuck in the barrier gives a push and goes back. Note two points:
1) At every point in the hallway there are people in both directions, so you can tell that there is a barrier on the way.
2) No force is applied to the barrier
Put another roadblock in the way - even let people collide on both sides, so the two points I mentioned are still valid!
People will collide on both sides and change direction. And between the two barriers - a permanent group of people will go back and forth.
And it doesn't matter if some percentage of the people pass the barrier, or not.
You ignore the fact that before inserting the disks/sheets/barriers/bodies there are already particles everywhere. This completely changes the situation. That's why I didn't like the analogy of shooting at sheets.
Well, I got to thinking about the problem a bit and I'm not so sure anymore that we won't get traction with elastic collisions.
To see this, I will repeat what I wrote before:
'But notice what this means: if we have two impermeable sheets facing each other, then we will get an attraction between them even with elastic collisions.
But it is enough to have one tiny hole in them that only one particle can penetrate, the attraction will be canceled, and it doesn't matter how big the sheets are and how small and light the particle is.
Unintuitive for sure, but if that's what the sweetie says then that's probably what's happening.'
So that we don't have to rely on intuition, we'll try to really do the calculation and see if it works in the case of a single particle that managed to penetrate and get trapped between the two sheets and now it passes like a ping-pong ball between them both until it returns them to their original state and thus cancels their original movement because The excess particles that hit each sheet on the outside.
For simplicity let's assume that a sheet weighs a million times a particle. Therefore, in an elastic collision, it will transfer to the sheet the millionth part of its kinetic energy as measured from the reference point of the sheet.
Let's say now that a million particles hit the sheet, so the kinetic energy from the momentum they transferred to it is cumulatively equal to the kinetic energy of one particle.
From the considerations of energy conservation, the particle has to use up all its kinetic energy to push the sheet back to its previous position, and the exhausted particle will reach 0 speed relative to the sheet.
So far everything is working out, but what if only one particle out of 10 million manages to penetrate? In such a case it will not have enough energy to push the sheet back to its previous position, and convergence will take place.
Of course, it can be said that for Lasage gravity to work, the relationship is the opposite - for every particle that is stopped, a million manage to penetrate and not the other way around. I leave it to the sharp-eyed Yoda who single-handedly discovered the problems of conservation of momentum and energy in elastic collisions to show numerically that even in such a case attraction would still exist.
Israel
Right. We will get traction, and the reason is that there are no particles between the sheets. Let's take 2 sheets and two water pipes. If we place the sheets and then direct water on them from the outside - then we will get traction.
But - if the water is already flowing then we will get water trapped between the sheets which will cancel the attraction.
Regarding the friction and heating problems, you may be right.
Really beautiful must be noted.
But notice what this means: if we have two impermeable sheets facing each other, then we will get an attraction between them even with elastic collisions.
But it is enough to have one tiny hole in them that only one particle can penetrate, the attraction will be canceled, and it doesn't matter how big the sheets are and how small and light the particle is.
Unintuitive for sure, but if that's what the sweetie says then that's probably what's happening.
Is this the end of pushing? It seems so, but there is still hope. I believe that broad spectrum radiation can possibly solve the Kelvin friction problem, and Feynman friction as well.
But it doesn't solve the other problem I presented earlier: the enormous pressure that exists on any body if pushing is the cause of attraction.
ZPF? (Not that I know exactly what it is..).
Israel
Maybe I didn't understand you. The explanation also works on the x-axis only.
Israel
In the general case, the particle has velocity components in the x, y, and z axes.
The x-axis legend does not change.
As for the other axes - these velocity components do not change during the time of the particles' flight.
Why prove the theory of relativity again?
They have already proven in the past and proof is something that cannot be challenged, but they doubt the correctness of the proof and want to attack the Torah with another test which is not proof but evidence.
So what does the impact angle have to do with it? It doesn't work well in the x-axis as well?
Israel
I tried to simplify, so I will simplify even more...
Let's mark the particles that came from the left in red and those that came from the right in blue.
1) On the left side, a million reds hit and 10,000 returned. We got 10,000 from the left
2) Now we have an engineering column of reds. 1% of the 99% red that penetrated is returned from the right sheet. This is the first member of the engineering column. The series multiplier is one hundred percent.
First term: 9,900, so the column value is 9,900.990099010 according to my computer
3) We have another engineering column of blues, if it doubles
First term: 990,000, so the column value is 990,099.0099010 according to my computer
4) The total of the blues and reds that hit from the right on the left sheet = 1,000,000.
When you assume small numbers you run into problems. After all, there are no particle parts.
The point is that in small numbers, it is incorrect to conclude from "99% penetrating percentages" that given 100 particles, exactly 99 will penetrate.
Try to write clearly, reading minds is no longer a thing today.
So from the right of the left sheet come 990,000 particles that penetrated the right sheet. Beauty.
99% of them penetrate, 1% returns, we got a power of 9900 din. We lack 100.
Of the 9900 that returned, 9801 penetrate the right sheet and are lost in space. Only 99 return to the left sheet and of them one barely returns and exerts Dean's power with difficulty.
I received 10,000 din on the left side of the left sheet and 9901 on the right side.
10,000 is more than 9,901. The balanced force on the left sheet is about 99 dyn to the right, and the balanced force on the right sheet is about 99 dyn to the left.
It seems to me that the sheets will actually come closer to each other..
Israel
From the right come 990,000 (those that penetrated the right sheet) and another one percent of those that penetrated the left sheet, that is - 999,900 particles. We now have an engineering column, which is the first member, and the multiplier is one hundred percent (because each time one percent is returned, and returned again).
The amount is one million. That means a total of a million parts come from the right, and likewise from the left.
The defense rests its case
Let's try this for a moment.
Let's say for simplicity that one percent of the particles are stopped.
Each sheet has an area of 100 square meters and they are a centimeter apart.
For a second, a million particles hit each sheet with elastic injuries, 990,000 penetrate. Each particle exerts a force of one din, we received that a force of 10,000 din acts on each sheet for a second from the outside.
Please balance the equation so that we get 0 on each side of each sheet.
Yehuda
Notice that you assume there is movement - and in the event that there is indeed movement, you are right.
But pay attention (!) - suppose there is a movement of the sheet towards the right, due to the impact of a particle coming from the left. If another particle hits the right side of the sheet, it will now exert a greater force due to the speed of the sheet.
My claim is that for every particle that hits from the left, there is another particle that hits from the right.
Think we have two identical flashlights pointing at each other. Let's say that the right headlight is blue and the left one is red, but we will ignore the fact that the color has a meaning, and it will simply be "color". We will get a line of light, where at every point we will see blue photons coming from the right and red photons coming from the left at the same rate.
We will take a two-sided mirror and women during the rays (between the headlights). If we look at points along the line of light, what do we see? At each point we will see the same number of photons. But, on the left all will be red and on the right all will be blue. At each point - the number of photons coming from the left will be the same as the number coming from the right.
Now - we will add another two-sided mirror, to the right of the first mirror. Nothing changes from the left to the left mirror. From the right to the right mirror - nothing will change.
But pay attention - blue photons will remain between the mirrors! They will keep jumping between the 2 mirrors. And note: the rate of hitting the mirrors will be the same as before. Therefore - no force will be applied to the mirrors.
Instead of light - think that every second a man comes out from the right and walks to the right, and from the left every second a woman comes out and walks to the left. Now it is easy to imagine what happens when the second mirror is placed. We put her in a track where men go back and forth (to the left of the first mirror. The men on the left will be locked between the mirrors and will always walk between them.
I hope it's now easy to see that the number of people hitting mirrors doesn't change. The tip is one person per second. And it doesn't matter how many mirrors there are.
And moreover - at no point along the line - a person passes once every second on the right, and once every second on the left, that is, for mirrors that have no effect on what happens on the line.
For miracles and Israel
For some reason I couldn't sleep. I wander every year. It's half past three in the morning here, so what's better than entering Idan and reading intelligent comments. Well Nissim, as you know, I made it an honest goal to understand your words.
I came to section 3 of your multi-section response which says as follows:-
"3) If I place a sheet perpendicular to the X axis, any particle that hits the sheet will be returned at the same speed. There will be no force on the sheet." End quote.
Well, it seems to me that you have two mistakes here that change the picture.
The particle that hits the sheet will not be returned as quickly, and will actually exert a force on the sheet!
The calculation is simple from momentum and kinetic energy calculations that are conserved in perfectly elastic collisions.
Below is the calculation:-
Let's say the sheet is at rest at the beginning of the process with speed 0, meaning its momentum is 0. Whereas the speed of the striking particle is V and its mass is M, meaning its momentum is M*V.
The momentum of the system before the collision is M*V (the momentum of the particle only because the momentum of the sheet is 0), while after the collision with the sheet the momentum of the particle will be minus M*V. Since the momentum in an elastic collision is conserved then a momentum of 2*M*V has been transferred to the sheet and the sheet must move in the direction of V. The speed of the sheet will of course be tiny because the mass of the sheet is large.
Since in an elastic collision the kinetic energy is also conserved and since the sheet received a small velocity, it is not possible for the particle to retreat at the same speed and with the same initial kinetic energy it had because part of the kinetic energy was transferred to the sheet. Therefore the speed of the retreating particle is smaller by a small degree and with a minus sign. which will hardly change the momentum calculations.
Do you agree with me miracles?, because that's what they taught in my school,
Now if there is another sheet close enough to the first sheet, to prevent an equivalent impact of particles between the sheets, the sheets will have to come closer to each other.
We have a miraculous debate about this, whether such a situation can exist. And that is what I hope my experiment will answer.
Good night Nissim and Israel
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Israel
Now only the billionth part of the water is stopped by the sheet? My explanation covers this possibility as well. We said that the particles have a velocity component only in the X axis. Let's choose a random Y and Z.
If a particle hits the sheet along this line coming from the X direction, then they will also hit from the minus X direction.
If the second sheet has a hole at this YZ, then particles coming from a distance along minus X will cancel out the effect of particles coming from the left.
And if there is no hole in it, then there will be particles trapped between the two sheets that will eliminate the effect of the particles coming from outside.
I keep giving the same explanation. Can you please tell me what is wrong with it?
What jumps are you talking about exactly Nisimino? One particle in a billion may be stopped by an extremely heavy mass and he talks to me about jumping as if it were frog legs at a French corruption party after the World Cup..
Mass in pushing stops a tiny part of the particles. Most of the particles go through it like neutrinos through the country and the vast majority of them go through the counter mass like an amphibious through the defense of Bulgaria.
Israel
No. The water from the pipe does not meet the conditions of my section 1. Once we place the two sheets, the water trapped between the sheets will fall down.
If the water kept jumping between the sheets, like pushing particles (or roughly gas particles), then my answer would be different.
So you claim that if we place two sheets facing each other and spray them with a hose from each side they will not come close to each other?
Israel
Just because I don't get everything you say doesn't mean I don't read your comments. Maybe, maybe, you're wrong.
Let's set up the following experiment:
1) In all space there are particles that move only along the X axis, at a constant speed.
2) The space is isotropic. That is, if I choose a point I will read in space and follow for a second, the number of particles that crossed from left to right is the same as the number of particles that crossed from right to left. And beyond that, in any environment as small as you want, there are still particles.
3) If I place a sheet perpendicular to the X axis, any particle that hits the sheet will be returned at the same speed. There will be no force on the sheet.
4) Therefore - if I look at any point in space, I will not detect any change in the particles. Still the number of particles per unit of time in the X direction is the same as the number of particles per second in the minus X direction. This means that the sheet does not create a "field", and cannot affect what happens at any distance from it.
5) Place a second sheet parallel to the first sheet. I claim that we will not see any change. In particular, the number of particles that will hit each side of each sheet per second will not change.
6) Bring the sheets as close as you want - as long as the distance is greater than the size of the particles, the situation will not change.
7) If you think about Newton's Cradle, you will see that there is also no obstacle for the distance to be equal to the size of the particles.
8) Now, you are welcome to release the sheets as you wish, and my explanation will remain valid.
9) If the particles collide with each other, my explanation will remain valid.
"So let's first agree on this: do you accept that when there are collisions between the particles then there are no forces?"
Maybe we are coming together.. there are forces but they cancel each other out. This is why the sheets won't get closer in the air, but they do if there are no collisions.
And that's what Nisimov misses (well, he doesn't read comments except his own). that I am not talking about spherical symmetry but only about the simple case - two large plates facing each other at a very small distance. In this case the collisions on the x-axis are dominant and the other axes are secondary. The plates will come closer and the sweating particles will almost all be ejected without doing much damage.
This is also the reason why, in my opinion, Lesage's theory is inadmissible. If there is pressure from the particles, then it is enormous in magnitude as can be proven near a black hole which in the description of pushing stops all the particles from one side only.
So if the pressure is so great - many billions of bar from every direction - how is it that we don't feel it and get crushed under it?
?
??
??! ??
Dear Nissim
You may be right
So let's wait for the experiment to see or not to see if the boards will get closer and then we will be wiser
In the meantime, I'm looking for a vacuum device
Good night
Yehuda
Yehuda
Think of a cube hollowed out by a gas that is not absorbed by the sides of the cube. At first - we will leave a hole in the cube to balance the pressures and after that we will seal it.
My question is - how is there no decrease in pressure inside the cube? The answer is that the collisions of the molecules on the inside balance the collisions on the outside.
Now, you can pierce the surface of the box as much as you want, and it won't change the situation. Make one hole on one side - and there will be no change. Make so many holes until you get a material that passes 99.99999999% of the particles - nothing will change.
Even - subtract 4 squares so that only two opposites remain - and still nothing has changed.
Israel, as I understand it, claims that a fundamental point here is that the particles collide with each other (I think you also claim this way).
Israel/Judah
So let's first agree on this: do you accept that when there are collisions between the particles then there are no forces?
Miracles
In the meantime, another response has arrived from you
Regarding the lunar atmosphere I did forget geological activity as one of the reasons for the atmosphere
Regarding Titan's atmosphere - a problem but that's what it is, maybe the low temperature that brought it close to Saturn and maybe also an asteroid that brought the gas there caused the stressful atmosphere.
In addition, I see that you explained to Israel about the Atemek and Agiv palladium cube experiment,
In addition, I have the feeling that you are in the deciding phase of the penalties, but you have already gone through 200 penalty kicks and you have not yet reached a decision.... I think you'll have to flip a coin at the end.
I called several companies that sell vacuum machines and they will contact me tomorrow. Maybe in the end redemption will come from the experiment.
Yom Tov Nissim and Israel
Yehuda
Miracles
I have given myself a challenge in life: - to understand your explanations.
Take 6 squares of palladium (which has the ability to absorb hydrogen) in an atmosphere of hydrogen and build a cube from them, because the hydrogen inside the cube will be absorbed by the palladium, the pressure inside the cube will be less than one atmosphere. So far everything is agreed, but what about this and the gravity of Pushing Gravity? What's up with that and the interesting mirror experiment you described before?
Sorry. I didn't go down to the threshold of your mind.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Israel
"You want to believe that the elastic collisions in the gas are not the ones that carry and balance the pressure in the gas"
This is not what I believe in. If I take a gas tank and raise the pressure a certain place, then the collisions will indeed cause the comparison of pressures.
But - we still have no way to discover the existence of a body inside a gas by comparing pressures. And if so - there is no gravity. And in the case of palladium and hydrogen - we will indeed find a low pressure near the palladium (and that too only for a certain time!).
"Isn't this balance the one that prevents the formation of lasage attraction between 2 sheets?" Right! Read the example of the box I gave Judah.
Build a box out of your sheets and shoot projectiles at it from all directions. It is clear that the projectiles will create an inward pressure.
Israel, so maybe you should think in this case David inside the box?
Yehuda
Regarding the moon - I think you are right, especially about the radiation. The Gaussian splitting would cause the fast molecules to escape, but then we would expect to find a cold atmosphere close to the Moon. The full explanation is more complex: there are basically 4 reasons why a celestial body would not have an atmosphere:
1) Low gravity
2) high temperature (close to the sun for example)
3) Combination of radiation (solar, cosmic) and lack of magnetic field
4) lack of geological activity.
Think about Titan - it has an atmospheric pressure greater than ours 🙂
Yehuda
I'm not talking about the trajectory of the particle but about the point where the first particle hit. At this point - the consideration of forces is 0.
You brought up an interesting point - particles that are trapped between the disks for a long time indeed collide with the disks many times.
Let's think about it another way, a way that will explain the issue simply. Let's take 6 squares of opaque material and put them in a gas tank. We will place the squares so that they form a sealed box, and glue them together.
Now - there is gas trapped inside our box.
My argument is simple: the pressure inside the box is equal to the pressure outside the box.
And let's continue the idea, so that Israel will understand why I do accept Le Sage's approach. Let's build the box from palladium, and as a gas we will use hydrogen.
Some of the hydrogen will be absorbed by the palladium, and the pressure inside the box will drop! And if we go back to the disk example - there will indeed be an "attraction" between the disks 🙂
Nissim, Ya brother of Tamsah.
As we have seen, you don't need to hear my arguments from me, you create them out of nothing yourself.
And as you said, you also have no intention of referring to my original arguments.
So why don't you just write down what my arguments are at your convenience and then you can reply to them as you see fit?
Do you want to believe that the elastic collisions in the gas are not the ones that carry and balance the pressure in the gas, and that this balance is not the one that prevents the formation of lasage attraction between 2 sheets? break up
But why do you need me for this horseshoe? Claim on my behalf and answer as you wish.
A simple act of eliminating the middleman.
For miracles and Israel
Regarding the moon's atmosphere, the speed of the gas molecules is on average a few hundred meters per second, but of course there is a Gaussian distribution of the speeds and because of this there are always those who have achieved the escape speed of the moon. And in addition cosmic rays and the solar wind cleaned the moon of its atmosphere.
So far this is my opinion about the moon's atmosphere.
for miracles
I drew the sketch you explained on 15.7 at 22:07. In my case, according to my drawing, the absorbing particle coming from the opposite collided three times with each mirror until it reached the initial impact point of a particle it was supposed to brake (the one that initially hit the left mirror). In this particular case. The shock absorber will play the role of braking for the six-point SA, which also hit the kickers who strive to bring the mirrors closer. That is, according to your opinion, one shock absorber particle will be able to brake 6 particles that press to bring the mirrors together? Does this seem like a balance of power to you??
You're just convincing me that I should do the vacuum experiment.
Yom Tov Nissim and Israel
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Israel
You wrote "How will the molecules of the atmosphere on the moon achieve escape velocity without internal collisions?"
Are you claiming that elastic collisions accelerate the gas particles? Does the gas heat up somehow?
Do you find an error in my explanation, or in some of my assumptions?
Miracles
You are right.. no need to read my explanations or answer my questions. Only your explanations are important, mine is a waste of time.
If you notice in this thread alone, I answered about 10 of your questions, you almost none.
So as someone who fiercely defends science, you may know that questions and answers are a necessary part of the scientific method, otherwise everyone would speak their mind and no one would listen to the other (as you do here).
But there is a problem with your argument, and you would have seen it if you had bothered to answer - or even read - what I wrote. You would have seen that my argument is not physical but logical, and does not require lines or particles.
In any case, I am glad that you are satisfied with your understanding, just as you are satisfied with the fact that the only link you found to the incorrectness of Lesage's theory is Lesage's words.. Lesage says that Lesage's theory is wrong.. as you wrote:
"In my opinion (and in the opinion of others it turns out) the idea is wrong - and it doesn't work, regardless of the energy and drag problems."
Then when I asked you for a link, you linked me to the Lesage theory, to show that it is wrong..
so be it. I guess it was the same clear and sharp logic that brought you to write:
"Now you say "gravity acts on the gas particles"? Funny..." Huh? Has anyone ever claimed otherwise? Moa?
"Now you're saying that I can detect a ball in gas thanks to gravity?" - can you provide a quote of mine in this regard?
In short - you don't really need me for the discussion, you don't read or respond to what I write, and you put things in my mouth that I never said... so shut up.
Israel
What you meant to say is one of the following:
1) I don't feel like reading your explanation.
2) I did read your explanation and didn't understand it, or
3) I read, I understood, but your conclusion does not sit well with me, because it goes against what I want to believe.
But, because I'm really nice, I'll explain again. And this time, even more detailed.
1. As I explained before, the percentage of particles that are exactly parallel to the axes of the discs (perpendicular to the plane of the discs) is zero.
2. Still, let's address this zero percent. Because I assume a continuous and uniform distribution, for every particle moving along the x line, there is another particle moving along the minus x line.
3. This means, as Yehuda said, that for every particle that hits, for example, the left disk on the left, there is another particle, trapped between the plates, that will collide with the left disk on the right.
4. To understand this, let's do the following analysis. Let's first assume there is a single axis, the x-axis. When there is no disk, the weighted flow at each point is 0. That is, for every particle that comes from the left there is another particle that comes from the right. Otherwise, there is a balanced flow through the point (Gauss's law).
That is - I also covered the edge case, where there is a particle that moves exactly along the x-axis.
5. And if you are right, we will accept that the force of gravity does not depend on the range. Unless you have another invention to waste everyone's time.
Again - I answered your question, and you, as usual, will move on, and/or deny what I wrote.
And I say - French, this is not an example. A donkey day, a basket day, the goal, the offside, I'm done with them.
No favors needed.
Nisim, your explanation is lacking in my opinion. You can see this if you bothered to refer to what I wrote in the previous response:
What you need to explain is how the collisions from the other dimensions eliminate - exactly - the push that brings the bodies closer together from the collisions in one dimension, which did not stop even when we added the collisions from the other dimensions.
But you probably won't pay attention this time either (how come I'm not surprised).
Yehuda
Draw two parallel lines on a sheet of paper, so that they are two sides of a square. The one on the left is called L, and the one on the right is called R.. Now use a black pen to draw a line from left to right, at a certain angle. Mark in a circle the point where the line crossed L. The left side of the line marks the trajectory of a particle coming from the right, and according to you exerts a force on L.
Now, start moving from the point along the continuation of the red colored line. If the red line crosses R, change direction, like a ray of light hitting a mirror. Continue like this, meaning every time the red line reaches L, or R, change direction.
Now, let's be a little formal. The "red line" has two speed components. The horizontal component changes direction every time L or R is hit. The vertical component does not change. Therefore - inevitably - finally the red line will no longer harm the lines, and will leave the page.
Now, let's reverse direction. We got a trajectory of a particle that starts at a distance, and hits the point we marked in the circle.
That is, for every particle that hits from the outside, and is blocked, there is another particle that hits "in front of it", and cancels its effect.
I assume here that there are a lot of uniformly distributed particles. I think this assumption is reasonable, because otherwise we would see Brownian motions in small bodies in vacuum. There are such experimental systems today, which are appropriately sensitive: we know how to handle individual atoms today.
And if my assumption is wrong, the explanation is still correct, but, it requires going into probabilities.
Yehuda
Draw two parallel lines on a sheet of paper, so that they are two sides of a square. The one on the left is called L, and the one on the right is called R.. Now use a black pen to draw a line from left to right, at a certain angle. Mark in a circle the point where the line crossed L. The left side of the line marks the trajectory of a particle coming from the right, and according to you exerts a force on L.
Now, start moving from the point along the continuation of the red colored line. If the red line crosses R, change direction, like a ray of light hitting a mirror. Continue like this, meaning every time the red line reaches L, or R, change direction.
Now, let's be a little formal. The "red line" has two speed components. The horizontal component changes direction every time L or R is hit. The vertical component does not change. Therefore - inevitably - finally the red line will no longer harm the lines, and will leave the page.
Now, let's reverse direction. We got a trajectory of a particle that starts at a distance, and hits the point we marked in the circle.
That is, for every particle that hits from the outside, and is blocked, there is another particle that hits "in front of it", and cancels its effect.
I assume here that there are a lot of uniformly distributed particles. I think this assumption is reasonable, because otherwise we would see Brownian motions in small bodies in vacuum. There are such experimental systems today, which are appropriately sensitive: we know how to handle individual atoms today.
And if my assumption is wrong, the explanation is still correct, but, it requires going into probabilities.¿
for miracles
If I understand correctly, you are explaining the elimination of the effect of the obvious attraction that is created in the direction of the X axis by the "sneaking" of particles that come almost from the direction of the X axis, in fact, according to you, there is no need for the other particles because those that come from an angle of one or two degrees from the X axis are They will go on and on and on, maybe even to infinity. And in fact they will even set us a delay between the mirrors/bodies or whatever it may be. What about the other particles coming from all over the sky?? Does it make sense to you that this is what is happening? We even exaggerate and say that if according to your theory only one particle will succeed in penetrating between the mirrors and it will move an infinite number of times between them, is that enough to define repulsion? It doesn't seem like it to me, but I don't have mathematical tools to determine the effect of particles moving back and forth as above.
On second thought we should not forget that my part hits his body not in its center and therefore gives him an angular momentum which again I don't know how to treat.
But what is certain is that the experiments at normal pressure and partial vacuum will put us in front of a decision of mine or yours and come to a savior mark or gravitation. I hope I understood.
Good day miracles
And good luck to France, the World Cup champion
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Israel/Judah
I explained twice, but I will explain again. This time, I'd appreciate it if you didn't underestimate the explanation.
To understand, I will talk about 2 identical round and thin disks, which are on a common axis (there is a single line that passes through the centers of the disks and is perpendicular to each of them).
First assumption - there are a lot of particles that move in all directions at a uniform speed. If you want a more precise wording: I mean that the eigenvalues of the flutter tensor are equal between them.
Second assumption - the dispersion of the directions of the particles is continuous.
Third assumption - the vulnerabilities are completely elastic.
So like this: my claim is that for every impact of a particle on one side of one of the disks, there is an impact of a particle on the opposite side of the same disk, in the opposite direction.
My proof is constructive: for every particle that hits, we will find the opposite particle. And the method is this:
We will choose a random particle that hit one of the disks, and we will continue its path as if it passed through this disk. We will continue this imaginary line until it "goes out to infinity". That is: every time the line hits the puck we will perform a full repetition, until there are no more hits.
This is where the point I already said comes in - no matching particle has been found for those particles whose trajectory is exactly parallel to the axis of the disks.
But, because of the second assumption, there are no such particles (that is, the probability of finding such a particle is 0).
Apologies for the length…
To Israel
There is still about half an hour until the final game and I will try to answer you
And indeed you are right and there would be at least two possibilities to explain my experiment.
First, the gravitational pushing motion of the gas particles cannot do this at normal atmospheric pressure, but it will succeed at lower atmospheric pressure than the wonders of the average free path.
Option two tiny green aliens will propel my business cards in low atmospheric pressure.
There is also a third possibility of an amoeba of the Ambus gravitotus type that will act in favor of the gravitos.
What is the real answer??
Turn on Ockham's Razor, which we haven't invited to our website for a long time, and decide!
The celebrations in Russia begin
Goodbye with the trophy in the hands of the winning team!
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yoda
I admit, as a tool full of words, that I don't understand why your experiment says anything about pushing gravity..
Nissimyahu
From your words:
"1. In elastic collisions, in one dimension, there is a push that brings the bodies closer together.
2. As soon as there are more dimensions, for every particle that hits, there is a particle that will be transported on an opposite trajectory.'
What you need to explain is how the collisions from the other dimensions eliminate - exactly - the push that brings the bodies closer together from the collisions in one dimension, which did not stop even when we added the collisions from the other dimensions.
Miracles
Your question: - "And in the context of your experiment - how do you know that it is precisely elastic collisions?" End quote.
The answer is simple. The air molecules collide with us in a completely elastic collision because we don't burn and get fat just like that from staying in the atmosphere. Therefore, this is also what happens in the collision with the business cards in the experiment - elastic collisions. And if gravitation is created in the experiment (as I hope) then it is clearly created in the course of elastic collisions!. Now all that remains is to show that gravitation is really created...
And this is the dispute between us, can elastic collisions create gravitation??
If the answer is "yes" then you were wrong and Le Sage was also wrong, and if the answer is that we will not see gravity....there are two possibilities:- either we will realize that the experiment may not be suitable for testing the principle of pushing gravity and we will have to look for another experiment, or it may very well prove You and Sage are right!
Even then it would be an achievement for the experiment to prove your and Le Sage's hypothesis and close the controversy once and for all.
Good day miracles
And the peace in the south will continue,
And that the best team will win today in the final.
Yehuda
Israel
I certainly agree that there is meaning to collisions under certain conditions.
For example - if we blow up a gas balloon in space, then the form of expansion of the gas will be different with or without collisions.
But - this has no meaning in our question: can elastic collisions create gravity.
Yehuda
I would also appreciate an explanation of what I did wrong.
And in the context of your experiment - why do you think that these are elastic collisions?
Israel
Lasage's theory contradicts one of the most basic principles of modern physics - the equivalence between gravitational mass and constant mass.
It also contradicts the principle of conservation of energy.
And I also think it is not true.
You are right - these are two different things.
--------------
Israel my friend,
The debate is whether elastic collisions can create something similar to gravity, because that is Yehuda's claim.
The quote I provided claims that Le Sage thought otherwise (in the context of elastic collisions), and I have explained in several ways why I agree with Le Sage.
I understand that you think my explanations are wrong.
So where am I wrong?
Yoda
It's not just Popper who thinks, what's more, I don't understand what your experiment is supposed to disprove..
If Croatia wins tomorrow, it will disprove many predictions.
Miracles
There is a difference between saying "I think Lesage's theory is incorrect" and "it contradicts all known physics".
I also say that I don't think Lesage's theory is correct, but it does not contradict the laws of physics.
Could you please show me where I said that "you can detect a bullet in gas thanks to gravity". It will be really interesting.
"The reason there is no atmosphere on the moon is because there is not enough gravity."
So what? What does it matter to an air molecule whose speed relative to the moon is say 500 m/s and the escape speed from the moon is about 2.5 km/s? The speed of most of the air molecules in Israel is below the lunar escape speed, so how will the molecules of the atmosphere on the moon achieve the escape speed without internal collisions?
"Now you say "gravity acts on the gas particles"? funny guy...'
I did not understand. Does gravity not act on gas particles? Have I ever claimed anything else?
Nissim, are you sure everything is fine today? The arguments are a little more creative than usual..
to Israel and miracles and others
Okay, if you both agree, I'll calculate the data for the vacuum test.
Obviously, there could be any outcome and perhaps Miracles and La Sage are right in their negative opinion of the elastic collisions. That's why we will accept with understanding and matter of fact whatever result there may be because it is only science.
I believe that Popper, our late friend, is looking at us from the heights of the parallel universe, smiling and asking himself who will refute and what will be refuted?.
I will plan the experiment according to the vacuum maker tool that I will be able to find in the coming days.
Besides, congratulations to Belgium for winning third place.
And we hope that the raging south calms down.
good week
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Israel
When I say that I "accept La Sage" - I mean that I accept that particles can produce gravity, provided the collisions are inelastic. That doesn't mean I think his theory is correct.
The reason there is no atmosphere on the moon is because there is not enough gravity. Now you're saying I can detect a ball in gas thanks to gravity? Didn't I explain that all you are allowed to measure are properties of the particles?
Now you say "gravity acts on the gas particles"? Funny…
Yehuda
If there is indeed an attraction between the blank cards, then you are definitely on to something interesting.
Yoda
It seems to me that the answer is positive, it's the pressure.
Come on miracles, Reality check.
For years you have been reading aloud that Yehuda's theory, which is based on the Lasage theory, is fundamentally wrong and against all the laws of physics.
And then when you go deep you start stuttering ah ah ah.. I get Lesage but only with plastic collisions.. so what? So pushing, which is the only theory that also physically explains how gravity works, works with plastic collisions? Where is your constant "idea is wrong"? And who do you cite as proof that Lesage's theory is wrong? Are you Lesage?
In my opinion, pushing can also work with elastic collisions, but I don't have the strength to enter into the discussion, that's Yehuda's domain.
"You said that there is a meaning to the free particle trajectory.
I said no."
But when you are shown: without the internal conflicts you could not hear a shot that you cannot see, you are speechless. To remind you, the sound waves are also the carriers of the pressure in the air, which explains why you don't get pushing in the air: the internal pressure balances with the external, and that's because of the collisions.
You made some simple arguments.. but what happens when you are asked questions about those arguments?
Here is an example from yesterday:
"Israel Shapira
July 13, 2018 at 00:55
Miracles
What is this difficulty in answering simple answers to simple questions?
The issue of sound waves is critical, because the waves carry not only sound, but also energy, as anyone who has heard a boom about glass-shattering sounds in range 59 (not 58!) knows.
So try to answer yes or no to the question in my last paragraph:
If there were no collisions between the molecules, the molecules would simply continue on their way until they hit the bone or leave the earth.
getting?"
All you were asked to do was answer: yes or no. And this is in contrast to your encyclopedia questions:
"Suppose there are particles that make an elastic impact on the ball. Is there a way to find out the ball's location from a point that is not adjacent to it? Note that the particles come from all directions in a uniform distribution.'
By the way, the answer to my question is no, gravity would have finally stopped the molecules even without the collisions, but most of them would have changed direction much earlier because of the collisions.
Including miracles, as one who claims that the collisions do not affect the nature of the gas - why does the moon not have an atmosphere?
Well, let's close the discussion, what's more, it's so difficult to write comments in this new and advanced format that you don't see half of the response.. Father, why spoil what worked well?
to Israel and miracles
I have a question for you experts:
If I do an experiment at normal atmospheric pressure and see that there is no attraction between the bodies and then do the same experiment at low air pressure and see that there is an attraction between the bodies, isn't this a clear sign that it is the change in pressure that has an effect?
If not, then there is no point in trying.
Good Day
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Israel
You said that elastic collisions create gravity.
I said it doesn't create gravity.
You said that there is a meaning to the free particle trajectory.
I said no.
You brought unrelated analogies to explain your side.
I brought a number of simple arguments, and the reference that explains the matter.
And now you claim that I am philosophizing.
The topic came up - because Yehuda claims that there is gravity in the case of elastic collisions, and I understand that this is an important part of his argument.
Israel, let's close the discussion.
"I claim not. what are you saying?"
Not.
Knows.
And I don't understand how it is related.
Chalas philosoph. Pushing creates gravitation - Lesage says it, I say it, Yoda says it, and you also say it on even days.
There are problems with the Lesage theory and we both believe that there is a low chance that this is what is really happening, but you cannot say that the theory is fundamentally wrong - it is not.
So does Lesage imply that Lesage's theory doesn't work? Because this is definitely implied by the sentence: "In my opinion (and in the opinion of others, it turns out) the idea is wrong - and it doesn't work, regardless of the energy and drag problems"
Israel
"Le Sage argued that no gravitational force would arise if the matter-particle-collisions are perfectly elastic"
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#Le_Sage's_basic_concept
Couldn't you find it on your own?
Israel
La Sage himself said that elastic collisions do not produce gravity. If you read the quote I copied from Wikipedia, you will find that it is written there.
Regarding the gas. The question is simple. Does a ball inside a gas affect the gas? That is - is it possible to place a sensor that does not touch the ball, and detect the ball? All a sensor senses are the gas particles: think of a bubble chamber.
Let's really go for a bubble cell. Could the trajectories/velocities of the particles we find in such a chamber indicate the invention of a ball nearby?
I claim not. what are you saying?
Another comment disappeared..
Miracles
Can you explain how the following sentences fit together:
"In my opinion (and in the opinion of others it turns out) the idea is wrong - and it doesn't work, regardless of the energy and drag problems."
"I do accept La Sage's theory when the collisions are inelastic."
But Le Sage was talking about inelastic collisions, so why not just say you accept Le Sage's theory?
Regarding your questions - I answered a lot and I don't see answers to my questions. What's more, when you're shown that you're simply wrong, for example that without collisions between the air molecules you wouldn't be able to hear gunshots from a source you can't see, you ignore it.
So please, bring the link to those others who think pushing doesn't work even without the friction problem, maybe I'll be able to figure out what it's all about.
Good night, tired from the drive to Santa Barbara.
Israel
Nothing has changed.
I don't accept La Sage's theory when the collisions are elastic.
I do accept La Sage's theory when the collisions are inelastic.
Will I get an answer to my question?
I forgot the main thing, miracles!
Two days ago (!) I asked you:
Israel Shapira
July 11, 2018 at 04:23
Miracles
Come say once and for all unequivocally:
Lesage theory, without elastic collisions, produces gravitation?
Yes or No?
And your answer was:
Miracles
July 11, 2018 at 05:11
Yes
So what happened these two days?
I almost forgot the main thing, miracles!
Two days ago (!) I asked you:
Israel Shapira
July 11, 2018 at 04:23
Miracles
Come say once and for all unequivocally:
Lesage theory, without elastic collisions, produces gravitation?
Yes or No?
And your answer was:
Miracles
July 11, 2018 at 05:11
Yes
so what happened?
Miracles
Your explanations are a bit creative?
You said that others also deny pushing gravity.
I asked you for a link to those who deny it - not that it is denied on the basis of friction, but on the fact that pushing does not produce gravity.
I'm still waiting for the link, maybe I'll be able to understand what is meant by "does a body in a gas affect the gas?"
or "Is there a way to find out the ball's location from a point that is not adjacent to it?"
or "If a tree falls in the forest and no one heard the fall"
So go ahead, link.
I'm waiting.
I'm waiting.
Also in a month, I expect.
Link miracles, link. Why does pushing not work? How come Newton didn't come up with it?
I'm waiting.
Israel
I explained why (in my opinion) elastic collisions do not produce force.
The reason is that the invention of a body does not affect the particles.
I asked you to try to refute it (and also from Judah).
I brought a link that explains what I said.
What is not clear in my question?? I ask - does a body in gas affect the gas? You don't want to answer that?
I really don't understand - are we having a scientific discussion, or are we selling a used car? This question is crucial. A negative answer rules out pushing gravity. A positive answer negates everything I say.
Yoda
Gravitons work great in a vacuum, warping space - even better.
What does your experiment prove? Is there gravity? It's really simple..
How can you prove that it's from pushing particles, that's the question.
For miracles and Israel
Okay, from all my education teachers,
I sinned, I sinned, I surrendered,
We will wait for the experiment under vacuum conditions.
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda
Miracles
Your question is unclear (what's new?) and you don't answer mine (que nuevo?) so please, a reference to an explanation of why pushing does not produce gravity, and how come Newton didn't figure it out.
Yoda
With the same degree of confidence one can declare that the experiment proved the existence of the graviton.
Yehuda
In science they disprove, not prove. Did we forget Popper again?
I put tomato seeds in the garden and drank whiskey. And you won't believe what happened! I proved that drinking whiskey sprouts tomato plants!
Miracles and Israel
I accept that this still doesn't say anything with confidence about gravity pushing, but if I do the experiment of 10 mm distance in a (partial) vacuum, and if this time there is an attraction and the business cards connect, it will prove that it is gravity pushing.
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Miracles and Israel
I accept that this still doesn't say anything with confidence about gravity pushing, but if I do the experiment of 10 mm distance in a (partial) vacuum, and if an attraction is created and the business cards connect, it will prove that it is gravity pushing.
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Israel
In my opinion (and in the opinion of others it turns out) the idea is wrong - and it doesn't work, regardless of the energy and drag problems. I asked Yehuda a question, and he did not know how to give me a convincing answer, so I will ask you:
Suppose there are particles hitting an elastic impact on the ball. Is there a way to find out the ball's location from a point that is not adjacent to it? Note that the particles come from all directions in a uniform distribution.
That is - has something in the properties of the particles changed because there is a ball around?
Instead of a ball, you can place a simple disk.
You are allowed to assume collisions between the particles, and/or assume there are no collisions. What if you assume that the particles are very, very small.
To refine even more: when there is no body around, I can measure the particle flux at a certain point (perhaps take a video of the particles over time).
Miracles
Regarding your elastically colliding billiard balls - only with balls of size 0 you will not see a difference, otherwise it depends on the angle of collision relative to the viewer.
And secondly - what does poshing have to do with it? In pushing, there are no collisions between the particles themselves, only between the particles and the masses, therefore you will get pushing even in cases of elastic collision, and therefore also gravity.
Did I not mention that if you replace particles with radiation you solve most of the poshing problems? And not that I claim that pushing is the source of gravity (why do I know? You know?).
A moment of Hebrew and media: for years you claim that Yehuda's theory simply doesn't work and that it goes against all the laws of physics. The reader can get the impression that pushing simply does not produce gravity according to your claim, and not that it produces gravity but with friction and heating, which is a different thing.
My car works fine and produces friction and heating, even if I put a steam engine or a spring in it, you can argue like Feynman that pushing cannot be the cause of gravitation because of friction, but not that it does not produce gravity, which is what is implied by "it doesn't work".
If I put a Perpetum leading motor in my car, then you might argue that it doesn't work. The same with pushing - works, but heats up.
Miracles
Once again you managed to avoid answering, even though all you had to say was yes or no..
"Then try to answer yes or no to the question in my last paragraph"
I see this as a confirmation of what I am claiming, which is quite clear from it: if you stand behind a meter-wide pillar in the desert, no bullet from a cruel enemy in front of it will be able to hit you, but you will hear the shots clearly, and this is because of the collisions of the air molecules among themselves.
Regarding your questions - as I mentioned, an infinite number of photons can simultaneously pass through the same point. What does the discussion have to do with it?
And what about that sweaty and industrious particle of yours? After all, he is among the lucky ones who managed to penetrate the canvas, and what about those who did not succeed, on whom the pushing is built?
As I mentioned, there is no point in a discussion where you answer what you want and not what is asked (tight sheets, air molecules that do not hit each other, etc.).
And what about this claim that in both cases the gas always spreads? Scream, and believe me that almost no air molecule will leave the country because of the scream. Everyone around will hear it because of the internal collisions of the air molecules.
Yoda
Nissim is right, the effects of gravity are completely negligible compared to other forces acting on your cards, and even if you did get a force, what did it show? How do you know if it's from pushing or from gravitons or warping space? Is there any way to tell?
Miracles,
Here are your comments:
Nissim:- If it worked - why can't I pin a page to the wall?
Answer: If you hung the page on a 5 meter wire at a distance of XNUMX mm from the wall, maybe it would stick to the cold. Just pinning a page to the wall its weight will knock it down. And if you do it with low air pressure then maybe it would stick!
Nissim:- It is clear to me that gravity is negligible in this case, and you are very right about Cavendish's experiment.
Answer - I weighed 30 business cards and they weighed 60 grams, meaning 2 grams each. That is:-
The gravitational-Newtonian force of attraction between the two cards is zero.
Miracles:- There are other options for withdrawal:
static electricity?
Answer:- It is not static electricity because the two cards are connected therefore they have the same charge and there will be no attraction.
Casimir effect (isn't it just between very close metal plates??)
Bernoulli effect? – No air flow
…..van der Waals forces, and so on?-
Answer:- ... food for thought.
Therefore your assertion that there is only one source of this power is wrong-?
….. Maybe, but it seems to me that in this debate between us we ended up adding the gravitational pushing forces of the gases to the atmosphere ….
It seems to me that if I do the experiment of a 10 mm distance in a (partial) vacuum, and if an attraction is created and the business cards connect, it will prove that it is gravity pushing.
Good day for miracles and everyone
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
If it worked - why can't I attach a page to the wall?
It is clear to me that gravity is negligible in this case, and you are very right about Cavendish's experiment.
But - what I wanted to say is that there are other options for attraction (static electricity, van der Waals forces, Casimir effect, Bernoulli effect and so on). Therefore your assertion that there is only one source of this power is wrong.
Miracles
Tomorrow I will check the magnitude of the Newtonian gravitation between two business cards hanging at a distance of five mm from each other and see if you have anything to talk about. It is clear that if in a vacuum the case of the 10 mm distance would connect then it would certainly not be Newtonian gravitation. I know the Cavendish experiment, it is done with very large weights and done with very fine scales, Mitchell's scales, but you have to agree with me that it is a nice experiment. We will see what our friends Israel will say about that.
Besides, I made sure to close the windows and doors during the experiment. There was no light wind. But then I turned on the air conditioner and it didn't change the results.
The experiment is simple and you can benefit from repeating it. It seems to me already now that this is proof of gravity pushing.
Tomorrow I will try to do the experiments with shorter wires
Good night miracles
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
How do you know that what brought them together is not "normal" Newtonian gravity. Or a light breeze? Is this how you draw conclusions from an experiment?
The experiment is simple and easy to repeat and be impressed. what do you think?
To Israel are miracles and others
Although the persuasion is now wall to wall, I would still like to do my own experiments, to remove doubt.
Below is the business card experiment and its results.
Preparation of the experiment:-
Put on a surface (floor) two thin threads (e.g. sewing threads) about 3 meters each when they are parallel, at a distance of about six cm from each other and attach a cardboard disk the size of a business card to them at two points on each side. We will receive two receiving wires connected to two business cards. card from each side of them.
Course of the experiment:-
We hung the two wires in the center on a rod about eight cm long (a long nail) with a diameter of about three mm. The business cards will hang on wires about one and a half meters long at the same time and at a distance of 3 mm.
The result - the two business cards were connected.
I increased the distance to 5 mm and the business cards connected again
I increased the distance to ten mm, this time the business cards remained far away
There is only one reason for the "desire" of the business cards to connect despite the distance between them of 3 mm and 5 mm and the reason is gravity pushing. Now the experiment must be done under vacuum conditions and see if the situation will change in the case of ten mm.
Please respond gently. I am happy to improve and upgrade the experiment
Good night
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Israel
Even if there are collisions or without - gas spreads without limit.
And in both cases - the speed of the expansion of the gas is the speed of the particles.
Think Newton's Cradle.
And come on - pay attention to what I write. Second, we are not having a discussion. You keep asking me questions, and not paying attention to what I explain.
Miracles
What is this difficulty in answering simple answers to simple questions?
The issue of sound waves is critical, because the waves carry not only sound, but also energy, as anyone who has heard a boom about glass-shattering sounds in range 59 (not 58!) knows.
So try to answer yes or no to the question in my last paragraph:
If there were no collisions between the molecules, the molecules would simply continue on their way until they hit the bone or leave the earth.
getting?
It will be difficult to move forward without agreement here, except that I am going to Santa Barbara now.
Israel
Wikipedia has a GIF - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound#/media/File:Spherical_pressure_waves.gif
Does my explanation not fit this picture? Particles come from outside at a constant speed, and hit the pulsating disc. Therefore - their return speed is modulated. This causes crowding in certain areas, and a certain emptying in other areas.
Israel
Wiki's explanation is, the Wikipedia writers will forgive, not up to par.
What is "therefore you approach and "press" the adjacent molecules in the same direction" - an explanation for children in elementary school?
What is "and at the same time moving away from or attracted to the molecules in the opposite direction" - attracted?
There is a mixing of concepts of particles and gas here. In the language of particles, and this is the language we are interested in here, there is no attraction, no temperature and no pressure. There are particles - and each particle has a position and a speed. that's it.
Israel - I gave a simple explanation why conflicts have no meaning. If it's not wrong, then it's right. If it is wrong - show me, please, please, where the mistake is. Show me from what I wrote, not some anecdote from Wikipedia or Range 58.
Miracles
My explanation.. Your explanation.. Here is Wiki's explanation:
Sound waves are created due to an increase or decrease in pressure at a certain point or region of a material, called a disturbance. This increase or decrease in pressure is created when one or more molecules of the substance are pushed in a certain direction and therefore come closer and "press" against the adjacent molecules in the same direction (which creates a compressed or more stressed area), and at the same time move away from or are attracted to the molecules in the opposite direction (which creates a less stressed/compressed or thinner area). Because each molecule is bound by attractive forces to the molecules around it, a "domino effect" is created: each molecule that is pushed, pushes to and pushes the next molecules in the same direction, they push the next after them and so on. On the other hand, each molecule that is pulled, pulls after it the molecules from which it was pulled, they pull the next ones before them and so on.
Note: you approach and "press" the adjacent molecules in the same direction... because each molecule is bound by attractive forces to the molecules around it.
Or in simple words - collisions.
If there were no collisions between the molecules, the molecules would simply continue on their way until they hit the bone or leave the earth.
getting?
to Israel and miracles
I am working on my experiment and performing everything related to the test under conditions of normal atmospheric pressure, just to check that there is no gravitation at normal pressure, I do this in the Heket rooms in Herzliya, only then will I organize the experiment in a vacuum and give you what is required.
Good Day
Yehuda
Israel
you are welcome. The difference between us is simple. We both agree that there is initially a change in the velocity of the particles near the source of everything. Let's say - increasing their speed outwards.
1)
You claim (and it is true) that the accelerated particles hit the particles in the next layer (imagine a shadow), and transfer the speed to them, and so on.
I claim (and this is possible if the particles are of size 0) that the accelerated particles continue through the layers.
2)
Now - let's go a little deeper. Suppose a surface vibrates at a certain frequency. We both agree on the following description: random particles hit the surface, and their speed changes according to the surface's relaxation speed (for example - if the surface just recedes then the speed of the returned particles is smaller). We both agree that the speed of the particles returned from the surface is modulated by the speed of the surface. Again - but only the particles that hit the surface, the first layer.
Now - we are back to 1). Your explanation versus mine.
That's why we received a sound wave according to both explanations. In other words, the collisions between the particles have no meaning. If you had referred to my example with the blue pool balls, we could have saved this discussion.
Yoda
Don't be angry with Lesage, he didn't know about mean free path, even about molecules and atoms they didn't know at the time..
And I still don't know what experiment you want to do. To prove that pushing generates attraction? Even Nissimino agrees with that.
The experiment should show that perhaps no friction was created, Kelvin friction (plastic collisions) or Feynman friction (the passage of the planets through the particles), and here I think you will encounter a serious problem, perhaps even unsolvable.
Unless…
Israel
I read your comment from 3:24 and also from 8:13 and my eyes filled with tears of happiness, finally someone understands the importance of the average freeway and explains it well.
This can also be explained in a global way. Let's say Messi kicks a penalty kick from a distance of twenty meters to the goal and does it in an accurate way, the ball will go happily and easily into the goal. But suppose we give permission to the 80,000 spectators in the stadium to kick balls onto the field. Their action will cause the average free path to drop a maximum of one meter and Messi's ball???… Nada! , Nikgada!, Gornisht!, Gol didn't come out of it.
I'm mad at Le Sage for not addressing the average freeway but he was a scientist, not a football player!
But... in science as in science, and our friend Popper already said that everything is refutable, so maybe you can get me a vacuum and I'll show you a simple experiment that will show gravity?
Good Day
Yehuda
Cow Cow, Nisimovich.
It is not my place to defend the Lesage theory - that is Yehudovic's job (today we are all Croats, our oppressors in the past, our friends today, who vote for us and even bought us 20 noses and 16 old ones).
We come to close the question you asked:
"2) Do you think something changes because the particles collide or not? Does their average speed change? their density? The pressure in the tank?'
My answer was yes. getting? If not, then explain sound waves.
Israel
Isn't it true that there is a uniform distribution of the particles in every direction and everywhere? If not - then you would expect a body in space to shake violently.
On the other hand - in the air, where according to you (as I understand it) the free path is relatively short - the pressure is nevertheless not uniform. Even with the eye you see dust particles splashing everywhere due to the movement of the molecules. And the air, again according to you, does not create gravity.
In other words, I expect more uniformity in pushing particles, because we don't see Brownian movement in space.
And we will return to my thought experiment - two molecules that collide in the air and change their trajectory - how is this different from two molecules that passed "through each other"?
If you are between two walls for example, an umbrella will protect you from the rain, however torrential it may be.
But not from the pressure of the water if the entire volume is full of it.
Locality.
If there are no collisions, pressure cannot transfer to isolated areas. This is why a wall will protect you from a shower of bullets but not from air or water pressure in an enclosed space. The wall does not exist for them at all.
Israel
What property of a gas is affected by collisions between particles?
Israel
You asked me if there is gravity between the sheets.
I answered that there is no gravity.
I explained why. I offered you a thought experiment that explains why.
And to explain something very basic - I proposed another thought experiment.
You said you would explain to me why conflicts have meaning. If you are not going to explain, then let's end the discussion now.
I'll try to concentrate, and you try not to get upset.
And also - to answer what you are asked and not what is convenient for you.
For example - I mentioned several times in my question that the sheets are completely sealed, there is no going out and no coming in.
So why do you respond with "Continue the trajectory of the bullet in your imagination, as if it penetrated the canvas." He hits the right wing, then the left, then the right, then the left, then the right, and then the left (get the idea?). At the end - this bullet, sweaty but full of motivation, comes out of the canvases into free space"? Who even broke into anything in my example? Or maybe you don't intend to answer what I ask (as I answered your questions) and just flatten your arguments?
I'm trying to show you - qualitatively - that the collisions between the particles change the properties of the gas (the root of the discussion between us, isn't it?), for this it is not necessary to enter the trajectory of each particle, which most fluid mechanics books try to avoid (references, if there is a demand).
So maybe you will finally answer the question in the previous comment instead of bombarding me with your example? After you answer, I will try to show you why it is not relevant.
Israel
It's a shame you decided to ignore what I explained. So I will explain again and again. I'm sure if you want - you can understand - or find where I'm wrong.
Imagine two parallel sheets, measuring 100 meters each side, 2 cm apart. Take any projectile that hits the left side of the left sail. Now (Israel, please concentrate 🙂 ) - continue the trajectory of the bullet in your imagination, as if it penetrated the canvas. He hits the right wing, then the left, then the right, then the left, then the right, and then the left (get the idea?). At the end - this bullet, sweaty but full of motivation, comes out of the canvases into free space.
And now - explain to me, please, what will happen if a projectile arrives in the exact opposite direction to our sweating projectile? Won't it nullify, with great precision, the effect of the first bullet?
I assume a few things here: there are a huge number of particles, all collisions are elastic and the particles retain their momentum.
Now - maybe you will claim that the probability is very low that a projectile will arrive in exactly the right direction? I think this is not true - because it is exactly the same probability that the first (original) bullet will hit the canvas.
What you don't see maybe is that you are answering to yourself..
True - there will be bullets that will enter between the sheets, but they are very few. If you don't see it, it is important that instead of a distance of a meter, we have a distance of a centimeter between the sheets. How many balls, even very small ones, will then fit between the sheets?
If there are no collisions between the balls, then their only recoil in a large tank is from the walls of the tank and the sheets. Therefore, very few balls will penetrate between the sheets compared to a huge number of balls that will hit the outside, so the pressure is greatest there and the sheets come closer to each other.
If, on the other hand, there are collisions between the balls and their mean free path is small (on the order of nanometers in air molecules) then the pressure is transferred inward through the collisions, so you will not see convergence.
Israel
You wrote "we have shots from all directions". That is - there will be bullets coming from below, above, left and right. Some of them will enter between the sheets and exert force outwards.
More than that - for every projectile that hits one of the sheets from the outside - it is possible to locate a projectile that will hit from the inside and cancel the effect of that projectile. I have already explained twice how to locate this bullet.
And you - you won't answer me about what you said you will answer?
"If the injuries were completely elastic, then there would be no force bringing the sheets together."
Mmm... Did we forget that the sheets are completely sealed? How will the bullets even reach the inner side between the sheets, what will prevent them from getting closer to each other and what is the connection to elasticity? If the balls of the Vulcan are made of rubber and the sheets of iron, does it change anything?
Israel
The answer is yes, because in this case there won't be enough projectiles to hit the inside of the sheets. Projectiles will not bounce between sheets an unlimited number of times.
If the hits were completely elastic, then there would be no force pulling the sheets together.
This is a bad analogy in my opinion. I don't understand why you just don't answer my question. Note my example with the pool balls - is it wrong in your opinion?
You're right, the bullets won't fire, they won't even fire. In the worst case they will hold a grudge against each other.
The question to remind you was:
Will the sails get closer to each other?
And the answer?
Israel
Projectiles will not bounce without a limit between two sheets. It's not the same situation with gas.
I ask again (you said you would answer, didn't you?) - what is the meaning of the collision of particles (as in gas - very small, which do not lose speed over time).
Answer my question, maybe you'll figure it out on your own.
Israel
"If you ask, I will explain to you why the answer to 2 is positive."
Yes, I'm asking.
I heard that Big Ben was arrested in the 107th minute.
The English are good against teams like Morocco and Sweden, not Tito's Yugoslavians who will probably also be the world champions.
Nissim, thank you for the education series. With all due respect, I don't think your education or understanding of physics surpasses mine. So please, get out of the loop.
Let's answer your questions:
1) Describe to you a container that contains gas inside. The pressure on the sides of the tank is caused by the collisions of the particles in the tank, and depends on the average speed of the particles, their size and density.
Do you agree with that?
Positive.
2) Do you think anything changes because the particles collide or not?
Positive.
Does their average speed change? their density? The pressure in the tank?
negative.
If you ask, I will explain why the answer to 2 is positive.
"I will ask another question - for clarification. Suppose there are two identical particles that simultaneously cross a point in space. Is there a way to know that the particles collided elastically or crossed without colliding (let's say - because their size is 0)?'
I have no idea, but believe that at any given moment billions of photons from broadcasting stations and other sources cross points of size 0 without being aware at all of the existence of the other photons.
Regarding your argument about the elastic collisions canceling each other out, in my opinion it is fundamentally wrong and if you ask I will explain why even without physics.
Did I answer everything?
And now you answered question #1.
Imagine you are at the 58 range in a handful, practicing on targets. Your Vulcan fires 100 rounds per second at the targets of the impenetrable sail in front of you, while 101 Squadron (Snipers #1) fire at the sail from the other side. The net force on the sail is 0, so it stays in place.
Now imagine that instead of shots in one dimension, we have shots from all directions. The sail will still remain in place.
And now we will place two penetration-resistant tarpaulin sails measuring 100 x 100 meters facing each other and at a distance of one meter from each other.
Note that we are in 3 dimensions and there is no priority for any dimension or any speed.
a question:
Will the sails get closer to each other?
Yehuda
My boss is French, so…
In any case - I asked Israel earlier a question - what do we care if particles collide with each other or not? I will ask you again, in an even simpler way. Imagine two blue billiard balls crossing a point X on the table at time T (ie - the center of each ball at time T will be at point X. We look at the balls up to one second before the collision, and from one second after the collision. Is there a difference in what we see if the balls collided elastically, or Passed through each other?
I think the answer is no. And if I'm right, then the free distance between the particles has no meaning.
And if I'm wrong - I'd love a numerical example of what I explained earlier.
Of course - if the size of the balls is not negligible, or the collisions are not elastic, then my example is not good, and this is really the difference between an ideal gas and a real gas. Just so you know - on a hot and dry day, our air is very, very close to ideal (a difference of less than one hundred percent).
Miracles
It's a little insulting that you associate me with a bunch of delusional people. You put my ideas on the same level as those who think the world is flat. I believe in good doctors and do not need rabbis and homeopathy. I hope you weren't too serious.
I understand that Israel understands the importance of the mean free path in the act of pushing gravity and hope you do too., and mind your miracles the absolutely genius Sage did not mention this important fact. After all, this is the reason why we do not notice the act of gravitation in the air around us.
I absolutely do not disrespect the scientists around us, but I reserve for them the right to be wrong, yes, I said and I was not wrong - "the right to be wrong" because this is the essence of science to know that what you say and recognize as certain is refutable (our friend Popper). The range of our measurements is increasing day by day (see the article on distant galaxies in which we respond) likewise with the accuracy of our measurements, so what we said in the past may be wrong.
So as I said throughout the current course of responses, Pushing Gravity will bring us a gravitation effect in elastic collisions and... maybe I'm wrong.
Baside that. My heart goes out to England, who lost and will only fight for third place.
Good night Nissim and Israel
Yehuda
Say you don't see the game??
Second half England leads 1:0
Bye
Israel
"Do you accept that if there were no collisions between the gas particles, then two nylon sheets spread across from each other would stick together? And if the answer is yes, do you accept that this is exactly the idea of pushing?”
No. If you would refer to what I asked you - you would understand that I don't think there is any connection between the collisions of gas particles and the properties of gas.
I will ask another question - for clarification. Suppose there are two identical particles that simultaneously cross a point in space. Is there a way to know that the particles collided elastically or crossed without colliding (let's say - because their size is 0)?
Miracles
Of course, a sentence that started with "Budai" should not convince you. Even a sentence that started probably shouldn't convince you. I defend my arguments, which I think are also correct, and what you do with them is your choice.
The problem is that I am not entirely convinced that we understand Lesage's theory in the same way. Because if we were to understand it in the same way, what are all the questions you present about the gas? What is the connection?
Do you accept that if there were no collisions between the gas particles, then two nylon sheets spread across from each other would stick together? And if the answer is yes, do you accept that this is exactly the idea of pushing?
And this - even though the collisions are elastic?
Yehuda
I am not citing scientists to show that I am right. But, let me explain in a slightly different way.
There are many conspiracy theories. Some examples: the world is flat, vaccines don't work, they didn't land on the moon, homeopathy, aliens, religion (in some senses of religion), Bigfoot, the Kennedy assassination, 9/11 and so on and so forth.
Conspiracies, and those who believe in them, have a lot in common. One of the things believers have in common is the Denning-Kruger phenomenon: people who don't understand a certain field, think they understand a lot, and understand much more than the real experts (hint - a physicist who studied 3 degrees probably understands physics, a medical doctor, a pilot/aeronautical engineer in flight, and so on).
For example - let's talk about vaccines. When you need medical attention, who do you turn to? To a specialist doctor (I hope). But why do anti-vaccinators not accept the opinion of doctors? Because they think they understand better. And they also think that the doctors, and/or the drug companies are a bunch of evil fools who just want to make money.
Here is another thing in common - cherry picking. Let's ignore thousands of pieces of evidence that don't fit in our opinion, and concentrate on a few anecdotes that do. "I heard that a friend of a friend of a friend said that he knew someone who said that it happened when a child received a vaccine and the next day he showed signs of autism. Therefore - vaccines cause autism!"
So - Le Sage is a physicist who actually understood gases (he developed a kinetic theory of gases, which was not entirely correct, but is very interesting). Newton developed the physics that brought us to the moon. Einstein developed a number of theories that explain amazing phenomena - theories that are based on a number of simple assumptions that are accepted by everyone (except you, apparently).
So - I don't accept that "it doesn't seem to Judah" as a sufficient reason to reject the opinions of these people. I don't accept that the scientists' explanation for the Pioneer anomaly is a conspiracy, nor do I accept that the satellite world is hiding the fact that satellites in retrograde orbits are constantly slowing down.
Yehuda - neither you nor Israel found a flaw in my claim (and explanation) that elastic collisions do not cause gravity. Nor did you give any explanation that the mean free path has any effect on the forces between bodies.
Try, please, to answer what I asked Israel.
Israel
certainly? You start a sentence of course - and that should convince me?
1) Describe to you a container that contains gas inside. The pressure on the sides of the tank is caused by the collisions of the particles in the tank, and depends on the average speed of the particles, their size and density.
Do you agree with that?
2) Do you think anything changes because the particles collide or not? Does their average speed change? their density? The pressure in the tank?
to Israel and miracles
I am doing the experiment to prove (contrary to what you may think) that even in air an effect of gravity pushing can happen. Israel's sheet experiment will not show this for one reason, the "mean free path" of the particles. What do you mean? It is impossible for gravitation to occur between two bodies whose distance is measured in centimeters when the average free path of the air molecules under normal conditions in the air is approximately one part ten thousand millimeter long!
There is no possible "message" of gravitation that comes from a particle if it collided with another particle on the way and certainly if it had a million such collisions! The "message" if there was one, became random. Only if we manage to increase the free way at least a hundred thousand times will we be able to have a significant experiment. Now I'm stuck. Increasing the mean free path can only be done if we work in a vacuum of at least one hundred thousandth of an atmosphere (one pascal) and I hope that even at this pressure enough momentum will be left for the particles to move light bodies in the experiment.
A second option is to do the experiment on small bodies under a microscope.
This is where I'm stuck. I have no possibility with my meager means to carry out the experiment in one of the options I have determined.
Of course, the above experiment will prove that if there is gravitation, it was done under completely elastic conditions because we do not burn from being in the air.
And now something personal for miracles.
Despite the very precise analyzes you do (and I admit that it is difficult to confront them) you feel the need for your explanations to be in the image of the great scientists. And this is a disadvantage in my opinion. For example, you repeatedly say that La Sage also said something and Einstein said and the theory of relativity determined and Feynman said. FYI, Israel and I don't mind arguing about them and we (I anyway) feel good about it. May you have no doubts about miracles and I greatly appreciate your intuition, and am jealous of your knowledge of Israel, Albanzo, and others, but this need to align yourself with the greatest of the generation, scientists, Sages or whoever, is in my opinion a flaw. But maybe I'm wrong.
For your information, we are arguing here about a theory that all the great scientists disagree on, so what? In my management classes at the college I attended, the teacher said: "If three months have passed and you haven't checked something, then check it again." If I have decided that a certain fabric is not suitable for fashion and three months have passed, check the fabric again. And this is true for everything in science as well. Things need to be checked and checked impartially again and again. The one that Newton came up with a formula 300 years ago, (and it's been a little over three months) check it again. Newton did not know about the existence of the galaxies and the correctness of the formula must be doubted even at distances of billions of times.
So far
good day everybody
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Surely there is a meaning to the collisions between the particles, because if not then why is there no gravitation in air or any other gas? After all, even there we have particles that move in all directions, so if we agreed - and we agreed - that pushing produces gravity with or without heating, then why if we stretch two sheets against each other won't there be an attraction between them? After all, they mask the air molecules just like in pushing.
This means - the collisions also transfer the pressure to the air between the sheets, so there are no pressure differences.
Israel / Judah
By the way - it took more than 100 years to discover atoms.
Israel
Nowhere was there any significance to the collisions between the particles. If a particle now hits my beer glass, what does it matter what its trajectory was before?
Pushing gravity does not explain many phenomena that general relativity does. Pushing gravity is unlikely because (1) there is a very high drag and (2) it will cause tremendous heating. What are some of the reasons physicists dismiss this theory?
Pushing Gravity does not answer Einstein's most basic claim: the constant mass and gravitational mass are the same.
So we haven't discovered the dark matter yet? That's why throw away all physics? We still don't know how life began...that's why there is a God!! Very mature...
Miracles
So if you agree that pushing creates attraction - then why do you need the experiment that Yoda plans to prove to you that it exists? After all, this is the stage where the current discussion started, my question to Al Yoda if the experiment is planned to prove that there is no friction, because everyone agrees that pushing produces gravity.
And what about all this talk about gas? In gas, there are collisions between the particles, so it does not produce gravity.
So we can summarize: Pushing creates gravity, all that remains is to solve the friction problem.
Isn't that what Israel always says?
Elk dryness..
Yes
Israel
Did the dryness of LA cross your mind? Read - please (!!!!!!) the last paragraph I wrote.
Leave it, leave it - I'll quote myself: "And to emphasize: gravity will be created in the case of plastic collisions"
Maybe it's long for you? So here is my answer in two letters, on a separate line. Leave - in a separate comment!
Miracles
Come say once and for all unequivocally:
Lesage theory, without elastic collisions, produces gravitation?
Yes or No?
Israel
My argument is that if the collisions are elastic then gravitation will not occur. That's also what she-sage says. as written:
"Thus if the collisions are fully elastic, the reflected particles between A and B would fully compensate for any shadowing effect. In order to account for a net gravitational force, it must be assumed that the collisions are not fully elastic, or at least that the reflected particles are slowed, so that their momentum is reduced after the impact”
And to emphasize: Yes, gravity will be created in the case of plastic collisions. Drag rules out this theory, but so does transferring energy to bodies.
Vio to France!
It is possible to understand the paragraphs you brought in another way.
In the first paragraph, we are not talking about one dimension - but neither are we talking about more. Lesage bases his claim that for there to be gravitation, the collisions are inelastic and it doesn't matter how many dimensions.
This can be seen in the sentence that opens the second paragraph:
Since it is assumed that some or all of the gravitational particles are converging on
an object is either absorbed or slowed down by the object
After first establishing the inelasticity, we continue to describe the phenomenon.
It is also possible to show that if you agreed that in one dimension there would be a convergence between the networks even in elastic collisions (unless you changed your mind), then in order for the attraction to be canceled in other dimensions, the vector components in the x-axis of the balls hitting in the other dimensions must cancel exactly those particles that move only in the x-axis that we agreed because they create rapprochement.
You can - but you don't have to.
Because the debate between us is that I claim that according to Lesage gravitation will be created but with friction, while you claim that gravitation will not be created at all.
So please bring me the paragraph where Lesage claims that Lesage's theory of gravitation does not produce gravitation. It could really be considered a slam dunk and the defense will pull its hands off the case.
Israel
From Wikipedia
If the collisions of body A and the gravitic particles are fully elastic, the intensity of the reflected particles would be as strong as of the incoming ones, so no net directional force would arise. The same is true if a second body B is introduced, where B acts as a shield against gravific particles in the direction of A. The gravific particle C which ordinarily would strike on A is blocked by B, but another particle D which ordinarily would not have struck A, is re-directed by the reflection on B, and therefore replaces C. Thus if the collisions are fully elastic, the reflected particles between A and B would fully compensate any shadowing effect. In order to account for a net gravitational force, it must be assumed that the collisions are not fully elastic, or at least that the reflected particles are slowed down, so that their momentum is reduced after the impact. This would result in streams with diminished momentum departing from A, and streams with undiminished momentum arriving at A, so a net directional momentum toward the center of A would arise (P3). Under this assumption, the reflected particles in the two-body case will not fully compensate the shadowing effect, because the reflected flux is weaker than the incident flux.
Where does it say one dimension here?
And later:
Since it is assumed that some or all of the gravitational particles converging on an object are either absorbed or slowed by the object, it follows that the intensity of the flux of gravitational particles emanating from the direction of a massive object is less than the flux converging on the object. We can imagine this imbalance of momentum flow - and therefore of the force exerted on any other body in the vicinity - distributed over a spherical surface centered on the object (P4). The imbalance of momentum flow over an entire spherical surface enclosing the object is independent of the size of the enclosing sphere, whereas the surface area of the sphere increases in proportion to the square of the radius. Therefore, the momentum imbalance per unit area decreases inversely as the square of the distance.
Here it is clearly explained that it is about space. (I'll give you a hint, a sphere is a sphere as D-V-R, a spatial body. It's neither a line nor a circle, it's as D-V-R).
My client asked to mow down the witness - especially when the witness overlaps a bit and writes carelessly and then accuses everyone of being negligent because they didn't read minds..
See yourself transported to Dornir Squadron.
Lesage didn't refer to three dimensions when he talked about elastic collisions - because even in one dimension there would be no attraction with elastic collisions.
But is it possible? Let's say the networks are exactly opposite each other. Every ball that goes through a hole in one also goes through a hole in the other. That's why the balls that don't pass and stop in the wires of the net, and exert a force on it.
Even in the case that the networks are not directly opposite each other, it is difficult for me to get to the root of the argument.
Come on, let's go to bed so we can stay awake for the France-Belgium game.
Israel
Yeah, it's really a bit confusing. When you have to repeat yourself over and over again, sometimes it comes out unclear.
So I will repeat myself again.
1. If we have 2 mirrors on an axis and particles only along the axis, then a force will be created that tends to bring the mirrors together. This force does not depend on the distance between the mirrors.
2. In the spatial case, as La Sage said, no force will be created if the collisions are elastic. It can be understood this way (and I repeat it again...): think of two discs placed on a left-right axis. Let's take a case of a particle that comes from the right side and a little above and does not hit the left disk, because it is blocked by the right disk. There is another particle - coming from the upper left side that will hit the left part of the right disk - and it will hit the left disk,
Now - read about it on Wikipedia, and stop playing lawyer. It's disrespectful that you try to catch me at my word, and don't bother trying to understand what I'm writing.
How did I not realize on my own that you meant the space..
And what did you mean by this response:
Miracles
July 9, 2018 at 21:32
Something strange is happening here in the messages...
In the one-dimensional case, the force is independent of range. In the two-dimensional case, the force depends on the distance, and in the three-dimensional case, the force depends on the square of the distance.
But - the force will only be created when the bodies absorb some of the particles...
After all, in an elastic collision no particle is absorbed..
And why don't you answer my question in the previous reply? How do collision components in other axes exactly cancel out the force in the x axis?
Israel
Wow, you are awesome. I was talking about the space. I'll say it again, and for the last time:
1. In elastic collisions, in one dimension, there is a push that brings the bodies closer together.
2. As soon as there are more dimensions, for every particle that hits, there is a particle that will be transported on an opposite trajectory, as I have explained several times. Read the explanations, please!
3. In Wikipedia it is explained that Sage understood this, and therefore determined that the collisions must be plastic in order for forces to be generated.
Please Eraf, some impostor used your name and wrote:
Miracles
July 10, 2018 at 00:08
Israel
So far do you agree with what I said? I'll say it again:
1) In perfectly elastic collisions no forces are created.
By the way, to show you that I mean big when I talk about networks, here is from the Lesage Wiki article:
At the end Fatio also removed the balls and only left the lines or the net.
Ok. So if we have accepted that the nets approach each other when there are spheres in the x-axis only - then what causes spheres with components in the other axes to exactly cancel the convergence of the networks?
Israel
I wrote again and again and again that I agree
https://www.hayadan.org.il/einstein-proved-right-in-another-galaxy-2406187/comment-page-5#comment-726212
Vizta depends.
So it is possible to write in the small notebook in the borderline cases column: "Miracles confirm that in one dimension the networks will approach each other *even* when all the collisions are completely elastic"?
Israel
There will be a push of the two bodies towards each other.
It's not like gravity because it doesn't depend on range.
Positive, one dimension.
If you claim an offset due to the returns from the opposite network, tell me what percentage of the returns the offset is made, because we both agree that if all the balls are returned there will be gravity. So in what percentage of repetitions does it disappear?
Israel
How many dimensions are we talking about? That is - do all the balls move at the same time?
It is difficult for me to see the relevance of your explanations to the case in question.
Let's say the nets stop 10% of the balls. So we didn't accept that 10% fewer balls hit the inside of each net than the outside?
Israel
Regarding the net and the balls - if the collisions are not elastic then I agree. If they are elastic then there are no forces on the nets. As I already explained, and no one (so far) has found a mistake in the explanation.
Even with elastic collisions?
Israel
For the 32nd time - I agree that in the case of a single axis there will be forces that will bring the two bodies closer together.
Back to why?
I just don't understand why in the example I gave with the nets you claim that the nets will not move towards each other in elastic collisions.
After all, more balls hit the outside of each net than the inside. So why aren't forces created?
Israel
If rubber balls hit both sides - no forces are created. And in elastic collisions - this will always happen.
You are absolutely right that particles along the X axis exert a force - in the one-dimensional case.. this force does not depend on the distance between the bodies.
Why do you keep coming back to this point?
Miracles
I want to make sure we're both on the same page about how pushing works.
As far as I understand, in pushing the masses are nets with huge holes that small balls hit. Most of the balls go through the holes, but a tiny fraction hits the net wires and is bounced back or slowed down, thus transferring momentum to the net.
Note that it does not matter if the collision in the network is elastic or plastic - momentum is transferred in every collision.
Now, if balls come from both sides of the net - say Messi's from the right and Ronaldo from the left - then the hits balance each other and the net stays in place.
If, on the other hand, we spread two nets at a certain distance from each other, then the nets will trap some of the balls and they will not reach the other side. Therefore, the number of hits on the outside of the nets will be greater than on the inside, a force will be applied to each net, and they will move towards each other.
Agree?
Israel
Fingers crossed for you in the quality confrontation you do with Nisem. I hope we will all agree in the end that an elastic collision creates gravity!, in the World Cup we saw some who caught a completely elastic ball and this and this must have affected them!
The good thing is that in a few hours we return to the semi-finals between France and Belgium at 21:00. Interesting game
Good Day
Yehuda
1) In perfectly elastic collisions no forces are created.
Why? If a rubber ball is returned from a net - an elastic collision - then does it not exert a force on it?
The other axes are important. I will explain again (what is happening to you???):
1) In a single axis the force is constant and does not depend on the distance
2) In the plane the force depends on the distance (one divided by...)
3) In space the force depends on one part of the square of the distance.
The X-axis is the axis passing through the two masses. If we assume that the components in the other axes cancel each other out, then the component in the X axis is unbalanced, and a net force is created in the direction of the other mass.
This is the first chapter in Yoda's favorite book by Sears Zymanski - Vectors.
Israel
So far do you agree with what I said? I'll say it again:
1) In perfectly elastic collisions no forces are created.
2) In the case of a plastic collision - forces are indeed created. And in this case - there is warming and drag.
The other axes are important. I will explain again (what is happening to you???):
1) In a single axis the force is constant and does not depend on the distance
2) In the plane the force depends on the distance (one divided by...)
3) In space the force depends on one part of the square of the distance.
The meaning "in space" - particles can have velocity components in each of the three axes.
Consider also the case that particles do not pass, so surely gravitation will be created, right? If you claim otherwise, prepare money, for intervention, or just do an experiment with nets and a water pipe..
And what about the other axles? But are they related?
Who said no? But will gravitation be formed *despite* the drag and warming, that is the question.
Israel
La Sage also writes that plastic collisions are required to create gravity. Otherwise - for every collision on one side - there is a balanced collision that cancels it.
And that means there is drag, plus warming.
And what about the photons - or particles - that do not pass? Isn't that the basic idea of pushing that some particles don't pass?
Something strange is happening here in the messages...
In the one-dimensional case, the force is independent of range. In the two-dimensional case, the force depends on the distance, and in the three-dimensional case, the force depends on the square of the distance.
But - the force will only be created when the bodies absorb some of the particles...
Judah/Israel
So here's the explanation again... the explanation is based on repulsion, and completely elastic collisions - think of mirrors and photons.
Let's start with the case of a single axis. True, we will get a push of the two bodies on each other. But, this force is constant and does not depend on the square of the distance.
Let's take the general case, but simplify. Let's put two parallel circular mirrors on one axis. Let's take a random photon that hits the left side of the left mirror. I claim that there is another photon that hits exactly "opposite" this photon - on the right side of the left mirror. Let's find the trajectory of that photon.
We will imagine that the photon that hit from the left passed through the mirror, and we will look at the continuation of its trajectory. As long as the photon is not perfectly parallel to the axis of the mirrors, the photon will (perhaps) collide with the mirrors again and again, and eventually continue into space. Now - reverse direction: and you will receive a photon that comes from space and collides with the left mirror, canceling the effect of the first photon.
After we've concluded it (I hope) - we'll think about what will happen when the mirrors are full of guys. Guys are so full they are almost transparent. The same explanation I gave earlier still applies! And so - as La Sage and others understood, in elastic collisions something similar to gravity will not be created.
Judah/Israel
So here's the explanation again... the explanation is based on repulsion, and completely elastic collisions - think of mirrors and photons.
Let's start with the case of a single axis. True, we will get a push of the two bodies on each other. But, this force is constant and does not depend on the square of the distance.
Let's take the general case, but simplify. Let's put two parallel circular mirrors on one axis. Let's take a random photon that hits the left side of the left mirror. I claim that there is another photon that hits exactly "opposite" this photon - on the right side of the left mirror. Let's find the trajectory of that photon.
We will imagine that the photon that hit from the left passed through the mirror, and we will look at the continuation of its trajectory. As long as the photon is not perfectly parallel to the axis of the mirrors, the photon will (perhaps) collide with the mirrors again and again, and eventually continue into space. Now - reverse direction: and you will receive a photon that comes from space and collides with the left mirror, canceling the effect of the first photon.
After we've concluded it (I hope) - we'll think about what will happen when the mirrors are full of guys. Guys are so full they are almost transparent. The same explanation I gave earlier still applies! And so - as La Sage and others understood, in elastic collisions something similar to gravity will not be created.
??
Israel
I have a feeling that we are now in the penalty kick phase. Maybe the guy is looking for an answer. I don't understand Turkish. But maybe in the Ladino language I'm fluent in.
We will wait patiently Israel. Sometimes miracles happen.
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yoda
You are not missing anything, unless the miracles have some rabbit in the hat that will explain why particles moving in the y-axis should affect movement in the x-axis.
We will wait and see.
Miracles
It is the third time that you say that you have already said and that you explained and saw a response to Yehuda, but you do not provide the explanation.
You expect me to guess which of the dozens of comments here you mean? Just make a copy paste, refer, or explain yourself: why in 3 dimensions with radiation from all sides two bodies that screen each other will not move towards each other.
You can explain in Hebrew, English, Spanish, or Turkish for Yoda.
Just don't say you already said and already explained - just bring the response as it is.
for miracles
The truth is that I looked for your explanation of Israel and did not find it. But now you explained that you added a Y axis. We'll see what happens now. As far as I understand the action of the vector in the Y direction can only have an effect in the direction of the Y axis and not interfere with the action of the vector in the direction of the X axis, which means adding the Y axis will not change the gravity but perhaps its strength, I don't understand why it should cancel what is received in the direction of the X axis. By the way Adding a Z axis won't affect either.
So why is there no gravity according to you, what am I missing/omitting?
Yehuda
Yehuda
Israel has already asked me this, and I answered - twice! There will be a force that will strive to bring the two bodies together.
But, if we add the y-axis, we will get that any particle that has any velocity component in the y-axis, will not exert a force, because there will always be another particle that will cancel the force of this particle.
May I ask a question? Why do I have to repeat the explanation over and over again? Try to understand him - maybe I'm wrong. And if you don't find a mistake, then thank you for being wrong.
for miracles
Ok. Let's keep it simple. Two balls, A and B stand on the X axis and a particle comes moving along the X axis and collides with ball A and another comes along the axis and collides with ball B. Result - gravitation. The bodies move towards each other! . An experiment without complicated permeability calculations and without calculations of the average free path.
Where is the mistake? Or maybe there is no mistake??
Yehuda
Yehuda
In the explanation I gave, there are no collisions between the particles.
Like Israel - let's start with the simple case. Full return of every particle that hits. Read my explanation again - you have to accept it, or explain where I'm wrong.
Israel
First try to understand stationary plenums. If you didn't understand my explanation, then read Le Sage's explanation.
It is also explained in Wikipedia.
Israel, try to understand the simple case...
Note the miracles (and others) that when the two particles pass through body A towards body B, the important effect of the "mean free path" of the particles begins, a thing that Sage himself, Petia, and others, did not give their opinion on completely!.
What are things supposed to be?
If the distance between bodies A and B is large relative to the "mean free path", there is a high chance that they will collide with a foreign and random pushing particle. Sail them out of their way and all their gravitational influence will fade away forever and ever in the vastness of the dark universe (just, I feel like singing...). And not only that, but even if one particle moves backwards from B towards A, it will still have to go all the way back with the "mean free path" obstacle standing in its way.
As I said Sage Pettier et al did not overstate the importance of the mean free path in the pushing gravity story and this is the main difference between their pushing gravity and my simple universe theory.
Just for your attention.
And maybe I'm wrong
Please respond gently - thank you.
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
for miracles
You said: "Without the Coriolis phenomenon - there is no rotation." End quote. So I won't talk about the quality of the school you went to because I'm sure it's excellent, but I assure you that the water in the sink in my bathroom rotates due to a disturbance in the flow in a certain direction and not because of the Coriolis force. Depending on the disturbance I can decide in the sink which direction they will turn.
Quote: "The shape of the sink, the location of the water outlet, the depth of the sink, the speed of the water flow and the location of the faucet all have a much greater effect and make the Coriolis effect null by sixty." (Davidson Institute)
And by the way, it is true that the Coriolis force is what rotates the Torgado in a preferred direction, but sometimes (rarely) there is a deviation from the direction when there is a disturbance to the rotation.
So the fact that you come down on me and state firmly :- " Simple physics, Yehuda. I'm shocked that you bring an alternative hypothesis to something you have no idea about, at the level of a high school graduate." End quote. This is a defensive behavior of a person who is not ready to face facts. I may be wrong, like for example you were wrong about the Coriolis force, but that does not give me or you permission to descend to the level of slander. Too bad. Such behavior does not add to the interesting debate going on here.
And as for the elastic collision, I still believe that the particles will gravitate
Let's not forget that the particles that hit the other body and recoil back are dispersed in a hemisphere and only a few come back and hit the body they passed and arrived from its side so that the dominant effect is only of the particles that are stopped immediately at the beginning.
Let me explain again: - Suppose we have two identical spherical bodies A, B, which absorb half of the pushing particles that pass through them.
We will follow four gravitational pushing particles moving on the line connecting the two bodies from the direction of ball A. They pass through ball A and half of them are braked, they exert momentum on body A towards body B. Now the two particles that passed from body A are left and reach body B. One of them will recoil back but can actually move in half a sphere and the chance that it will come back and hit body A is slim. Therefore what remains is the momentum of the first two particles that hit in the first place and cause gravitation.
So here is my explanation. And maybe I'm wrong. But please, don't go down on me or the mother of the bird or the kindergarten where I studied because it will only devalue you. I respectfully argue with you and that's the least I ask of you, even if I'm wrong.
So… please respond gently.
Good week miracles!
Yehuda
I'm not sure what explanation you mean.. Photons are also waves and unlike other particles, their speed is always the same relative to any body.
So if you could, explain why we wouldn't get gravitation with radiation from all directions on mirror balls that transmit some of the radiation.
Israel
I did not specify the type of particles. They can be photons or mantos.
Do you think the zebra is wrong?
A second explanation, this time with lasers.
Israel
I already agreed that in this case we will accept that a force will be applied to bring the mirrors closer together.
And I also explained that I think this is only in the case of a single axis. And I also explained why I think so.
Is my explanation wrong?
Miracles
Let's get off the rails for a moment, in the example I gave you with the lasers, will the mirrors move towards each other?
Because if the answer is yes, you got Pushing Gravity.
If you claim not, prepare money for intervention.
Messi did not go to the wall and now he is at home, drinking coffee from Brazil with Neymar.
Prince William planted a note in the Western Wall (I wonder what) and now England is in the semi-finals.
But the conclusion from the madness of the semi-finals in London is that the English people need to learn some restraint and self-control from a little calmer nations like the Moroccans and Tunisians who don't make such a big deal out of football, and go home quietly when their team loses.
Israel
I already explained to Yehuda, but I will explain again.
Take a sheet of paper and draw two bodies on it. Now, draw a line that crosses the left body. Let's imagine that the line indicates a trajectory of a particle, moving from left to right. On the left side, the line shows the trajectory of the striking particle (we will mark it in blue), and the right part of the line shows the continuation of the trajectory of the particle if it had not hit the left body (we will mark it in red). We will accept that the particle along the blue part transferred momentum to the left body.
Let's assume that the right (red) line does not hit the right body. So - it is easy to understand that another particle could have moved on the right line, from right to left, canceling the influence of the first particle.
If the red line does hit the right body, then we will follow the return. If we hit one of the bodies we will continue, more and more. In the end - the line went off the page. Now - a particle that will move outside the page along the line, will follow the red line - and will finally collide with the left body. And again - the force exerted by the particle will be canceled.
La Sage also understood that full return has no gravity.
Miracles
"But... in the three-dimensional (and two-dimensional) case - the situation is different. In the case of a full return, we will certainly not receive any powers. And I think that even in the case of a partial return, we will not get forces."
Why not? You saw in the example of the mirrors that as soon as they mask each other they move towards each other, and there is a force acting on them from the laser radiation.
"I think if the mirrors shift a little then we will get - a push (it's different from a pull)".
Right. That's why it's called Pushing Gravity and that's also the name of one of the chapters in the book "Pushing" - push or pull?
Yehuda
I don't know where you studied physics, but you are wrong. The Coriolis effect is the cause of rotation. Without the Coriolis effect - there is no rotation.
And in elastic collisions there is no gravity.
Simple physics, Yehuda. I'm shocked that you bring an alternative hypothesis to something you have no idea about, at the level of a high school graduate.
Miracles
The Coriolis force gives the direction of rotation only. The intensity of the hurricane is determined by the pressure difference. And it determines the rotation speed.
The gravitational pushing particles are not defined as plasma and in their behavior they are more similar to netrins but smaller than them.
Good week miracles
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Miracles
The Coriolis force gives the direction of rotation only. The intensity of the hurricane is determined by the pressure difference. And it determines the rotation speed.
The gravitational pushing particles are not defined as plasma and in their behavior they are more similar to netrins but smaller than them.
Good week miracles
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
Your answer to Gal contains physical inaccuracies:
The universe is not full of gas, but of plasma. These are very different things.
I have explained to you several times that the reason for the rotation of cyclones is not the pressure difference, but the Coriolis effect.
Israel
But... in the three-dimensional (and two-dimensional) case - the situation is different. In the case of a full return, we will certainly not receive any powers. And I think that even in the case of a partial return we will not get forces.
But first - do you agree that a full return has no forces in space?
Israel
I think if the mirrors shift a little then we will get - a push (it's different from a pull).
Yehuda
There are lizards that don't need a male to reproduce, so beware of unrelated analogies.
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
to wave,
I just now came across your comment. Below are my explanations:-
The observations and data about Andromeda and its distance are facts
The galaxies move to "meet" in a low pressure area that is between them or at one of them
The source of the particles is apparently the big bang and/or also formed inside the stars. Israel's proposal that needs to be checked.
There is always a pressure difference in the gas, and since the space of the universe with all its parts is actually a gaseous space, it has everything that characterizes a gas, namely pressure differences, winds, and more.
You asked:- How does it happen that the pressure difference is such that it allows for a speed and an acceleration derivative exactly as measured?
Answer:- I checked in weather books how winds and pressure differences are created and I realized that this could be an explanation without the need for dark matter.
Question:- The pushing of the galaxies would cause the galaxies to deform because they are not rigid,
And also because of the force that the pressure difference exerts on them, there is pressure on the outer side of the galaxies
high, and on the inside low pressure, yes/no?
Answer:- Very true, but this should also happen in the conventional gravitational explanation
Question:- The outer part of the disks of the galaxies is thin, therefore the effect of an external force acting on the galaxies will cause the outer part to disperse yes/no
Answer:- If there is any disturbance to the galaxy it will of course interfere.
Is the size of the pressure difference in the Milky Way/Andromeda galaxies coincidental, so that any velocity is obtained according to the difference?
Her answer: - The pressure difference is not accidental. It is interesting that the graph of the pressure difference of all the galaxies lines up more or less on one diagonal line. Details on my blog.
According to your theory the speeds of the galaxies could be any speed
Or not exist at all?
Answer:- True, and this is the situation that really happens in constellations, but contrary to the gravitational explanation, I do not need dark matter to justify the speed of movement.
Question:- According to your theory, the galaxies slow down their rotational speed because of the force
The one that pushes the galaxies, and the pressure difference between the outer part and the movement of the galaxy and between their inner side, yes/no?
Answer: - I did not understand. As long as there is a pressure difference and as long as particles enter the galaxy system it will move
Hope I answered your questions
Have a good week Gal
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Miracles
A couple can have children, a single person cannot. I learned this already in kindergarten.
Same with gravity.
Good Day
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Mmmm... and if the mirrors transmit only a third of the light? or a quarter? Will we get traction?
Israel
In the case of full maracas, we will not get an attraction between the mirrors, but we will get a push in each other's direction. The difference is important - think about tides.
Let's look at the case of semi-transparent mirrors in one dimension. Let's focus on the left mirror.
1/2 of the radiation exerts a force on the left side of the left mirror.
1/2 of the radiation passes and 1/2 of it (1/4 of the source) returns from the right mirror. 1/8 exerts a force on the left mirror - from the right side of the mirror, and 1/8 returns to the right, and so on. If we add up, we get that 1/6 of the radiation that passed through the left mirror at the end is reflected from it to the right (engineering column, first term - 1/8, multiplier - 1/4).
Next - we have another radiation coming from the right. Its strength is 1/2. 1/4 goes through the left mirror and 1/4 is returned. Here too we will have an engineering column. The first term is 1/4 and the multiple again is 1/4 and the column sum is 1/3.
And here's a surprise - 1/6 + 1/3 = 1/2. Voila is exactly equal to the radiation that exerts a force on the left.
The same explanation applies to any number of dimensions.
Miracles
Let's demonstrate this in one dimension.
You take a mirror and shine a laser on it. You get boost, like in NASA's solar sails:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/tdm/solarsail/index.html
Now take a double-sided mirror, and put it in the center between two lasers. The equivalent force on it will be 0, and even if you move it along the line connecting the two laser beams, at every point the equivalent force will be 0, at least in theory.
Now take another two-sided mirror and put it on the same line. The mirrors will destroy each other, and you will have an attraction between them.
I leave it as an exercise to show that in XNUMXD with lasers from all directions with semitransparent mirrors, gravitation will be obtained in a ratio proportional to the area of the mirror (hereafter mass) and inversely proportional to the distance between two mirrors.
And what is important and surprising, if the spectrum of the lasers is wide enough - without Feynman friction.
And for Yoda Special - if the radiation comes from the mirrors themselves, which is clear from the fact that the mirrors reflect the light of the lasers like the moon reflects the light of the sun, then in a galactic structure we will get different laws of gravity at the edges of the galaxies because most of the illumination comes from the center of the galaxy.
All Russian team for hearing in Putin's office at 7 am.
Just... it's to hand out medals to them.
Have you noticed that Germans always don't go in Russia? Start with a blitz, get stuck in the mud, end up in a bunker.
Israel
I do not understand what you are saying. What radiation will gravity create?
Yehuda
If I can't detect that there is a body in space, then it can't create gravity. First grade logic.
Miracles
What is not clear ? In an elastic collision with one body we will not be able to find out if there will be two bodies close by. It will be possible to discover that they will appear to approach each other even in an elastic collision.
This is my opinion and I know your opinion is different
The main thing was an interesting game and Croatia beat Russia in penalty kicks.
Have a good week!
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
No one said that's what happens, just that radiation can create gravitation.
The Russians lost, but they are not going home.
(maybe to Siberia).
Where will Yashin be when you need him?
Yehuda
I am qouting
"Your question: "Imagine some body placed in a gas - do you think it is possible to discover this body by some property of the gas?" Very interesting. My opinion: - If the collisions of the gas particles with the body are plastic collisions, we will be able to detect heating of the body, but if the collisions are completely elastic, we will not be able to detect it."
You wrote "...we won't be able to find out". Now you say yes it is possible to find out? you lost me…
Israel
Wave radiation? particle radiation? Can this radiation be detected? measure her?
For miracles and Israel
Wait, wait,,, I did not agree that with an elastic collision there is no attraction!
What's more, I agree that there won't be Sweden in the semi-finals
Another 50 minutes Russia Croatia
good evening
Yehuda
I hope it can be concluded that elastic collisions do not create gravity. And as Yehuda rightly said, plastic collisions create heat. So - we can measure this heat. In particular, it should be colder between large bodies. Planets were supposed to feel this heat
And radiation?
"I hope it can be concluded that elastic collisions do not create gravity. And as Yehuda rightly said, plastic collisions create heat. So - we can measure this heat. In particular, it should be colder between large bodies. Planets were supposed to feel this heat"
What about radiation?
Yehuda
I agree with the first part. There is another way to find out, even if the collisions are elastic; Color one side of the body black and the other side white. The black side will heat the gas, and the hotter gas particles will exert more force throughout the body. I have a toy on the table that works exactly like that (a radiometer).
But, without this trick, you agree there is no way to discover the body. But... then you contradict yourself and say there is a way - we'll put on another body and we'll see attraction.
Israel
I hope it can be concluded that elastic collisions do not create gravity. And as Yehuda rightly said, plastic collisions create heat. So - we can measure this heat. In particular, it should be colder between large bodies. Planets were supposed to feel this heat...
Speaking of which - even elastic collisions will generate heat, after all at the atomic level - every collision is elastic.
Miracles
well, well, and??
Yoda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXJ1AfpmzdM&feature=youtu.be
In the meantime they are happy.
What will happen in seven hours?
For miracles and Israel
In the debate between you, my opinion is close to Israel's opinion
Miracles
Your question: "Imagine some body placed in a gas - do you think it is possible to discover this body by some property of the gas?" Very interesting. My opinion:- If the collisions of the gas particles with the body are plastic collisions, we will be able to detect heating of the body, but if the collisions are completely elastic, we will not be able to detect.
But my question is slightly different :- What will happen if we place another body next to the previous body. Can we now discover the bodies despite the elastic collisions of the particles with the bodies? I think we can find out.
good day everybody
And hopefully for interesting games today in the World Cup.
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda Shalom,
What is not clear here?
I will try to understand the collision of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies in the light of your theory
1. The distance between them is 2.5 million light years, and they move towards each other at a speed of about 400 thousand km/h. In light of these observations, they work!
2. According to your theory, the galaxies are pushed towards each other by a high pressure of particles that is on both sides opposite to the direction of movement when in the middle there is a low pressure.
Questions for section 2
2.0 What is the source of the particles?, and what are their properties?
2.1 How exactly is the pressure difference between the two galaxies created, is it a coincidence?
2.2 How does it happen that the pressure difference is such that it allows velocity and acceleration to be derived exactly as measured
by astronomers. That is, how exactly does the pressure difference correspond to the measured speed/acceleration.
2.3 The pushing of the galaxies would cause the galaxies to deform because they are not rigid,
And also because of the force that the pressure difference exerts on them, there is pressure on the outer side of the galaxies
high, and on the inside low pressure, yes/no?
The outer part of the disks of the galaxies is sparse, therefore the effect of an external force acting on the galaxies will cause the outer part to disperse yes/no?
2.4 Is the size of the pressure difference in the Milky Way/Andromeda galaxies accidental, so that any velocity is obtained according to the difference?
According to your theory the speeds of the galaxies could be any speed
or not exist at all,
Because, the source of the pressure difference is not known in this case, or at all.
Contrary to the theory of gravity, which allows us to know speed, acceleration,
Distance, time, yes/no?
2.5 According to your theory, the galaxies slow down their rotational speed because of the force
The one that pushes the galaxies, and the pressure difference between the outer part and the movement of the galaxy and between their inner side, yes/no?
Thanks
Israel
You are looking at a particle in a gas. Is there something different about it because it collided with other particles?
Think of a gas where the molecules are very small so that in practice there are no collisions. Is something in its properties different from normal gas? It has pressure, temperature and so on. Gas for the glory of the State of Israel!
But there is no gravitation in a gas, and all the experts claim that there would be if there were no collisions between the particles.
Israel
I don't think there is any significance to the conflicts. Take a gas and reduce its particles - it will still have temperature and pressure.
La Sage also realized that with elastic collisions gravity would not be created.
Yoda
Both the Brazilians and the Belgians - most of them are dark.
Europeans..
All the action with the niggers. Just don't bring the boring games of Russia and Sweden again.
Ambepa - Amblev.
Miracles
Before I answer, do you remember that in Pushing Original the particles do not constitute a gas because there are no collisions between them? With Yoda it is different and they collide every light year or two.
So you see that in the original there is gravitation but there is a friction problem?
Israel
Imagine some body placed in a gas - do you think it is possible to discover this body by some property of the gas?
Imagine you are in a huge gas tank - do you think the local properties of the gas are different near the sides? Is there less gas there? More? Is the gas hotter or colder?
Gal I did not understand your words. I would appreciate it if you could elaborate
and to Israel
I have a feeling that the height element of the players is starting to become dominant and affect the results, for example Belgium players are taller than Brazil
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda
Gal I did not understand your words. I would appreciate it if you could elaborate
and to Israel
I have a feeling that the height element of the players is starting to become dominant and affect the results, for example Belgium players are taller than Brazil
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda
Yehuda,
Section 2.5 According to your theory, the speed until the collision could have been any speed,
Or not exist at all, contrary to the theory of gravity which allows us to know speed, acceleration,
Distance, time, yes/no?
Section 2.5 According to your theory, the speed until the collision could have been any speed,
Or not exist at all, contrary to the theory of gravity which allows us to know speed, acceleration,
Distance, time, yes/no?
Bye bye South America, we are left with only Europe..
Miracles, why does pushing not produce gravitation? There are problems, first of all friction, but who claims that there won't be gravitation? Feynman certainly does not claim this.
Yehuda
Yes - I think so (and probably many others).
Here is an interesting article, which gives confirmation to another prediction of Einstein:
https://newatlas.com/general-relativity-tested-space/55338/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2018-07-06%20143646%20USA%20Daily%20Basic%202018-07-06%20144506%20AI%20algorithm%20teaches%20a%20car%20to%20drive%20from%20scratch%20in%2020%20minutes&utm_content=2018-07-06%20143646%20USA%20Daily%20Basic%202018-07-06%20144506%20AI%20algorithm%20teaches%20a%20car%20to%20drive%20from%20scratch%20in%2020%20minutes+CID_a994fcaa817b6cfafe1ab753125b91ac&utm_source=Campaign%20Monitor&utm_term=Read%20more
to Israel and miracles
Nissim doubts the gravity created by pushing. He claims that the collisions must be plastic and since heat must be generated in this case, and since heat is not generated, then this proves (according to miracles) that gravitational pushing does not create gravitation!. Am I right miracles?
That's why I'm thinking of doing an experiment that will first show the correctness of the gravity pushing idea, then we'll move on
Yom Tov Israel and miracles
Yehuda
Why are comments disappearing?
"If pushing particles have mass, then they cannot explain the mass".
But Higgs bosons also have mass and they explain it..
Why do we even need a mechanism to explain inertia? Can there be a universe without inertia? Because if so, to what extent will a tennis ball that hits Israel and the country be deterred?
Israel
How is Higgs related? I thought the universe was supposed to be... simple.
If pushing particles have mass, then they cannot explain the mass. They can explain gravity (ignoring the rest of the laws of physics), but they cannot explain persistence.
Miracles
What's wrong with Higgs?
Yoda what are you trying to prove? Pushing creates gravity? Has anyone ever questioned this?
The problem has always been first and foremost the friction. Are you planning an experiment to show it doesn't exist?
Israel
How does pushing explain persistence? According to what I understand, pushing will actually slow down bodies, in a significant way.
You are right that Einstein assumed equivalence between the two types of mass, but he gave it a lot of intuition.
Yehuda
You don't get that there is conservation of angular momentum. This is why almost every body formed by the coalescence of particles with random momentum rotates around an axis.
Where am I wrong?
And Shabin - you do get the "weighing" of the mass in the universe when the numbers match your idea, but you don't get the weighing of the universe when it doesn't suit you.
And for the millionth time - please stop saying "Newton's formula". Newton had an observational formula, right? Einstein's formula is not the result of observations, but of mathematical development from a very small number of assumptions. So - either you don't accept his assumptions, or you claim that he has a mistake in his calculations.
I assume you are willing to accept that Einstein knew arithmetic - so, please, which of his assumptions do you not accept?
To Israel
I'm too lazy to do all these calculations. I leave the respect for the calculation which according to your words is "not that complicated" to you, I continue planning my experiment to prove the gravity pushing principle.
Yehuda
Yehuda Shalom,
I will try to understand the collision of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies in the light of your theory
1. The distance between them is 2.5 million light years, and they move towards each other at a speed of about 400 thousand km/h.
2. According to your theory, particles are pushed towards each other by a high pressure that is on both sides opposite to the direction of movement when in the middle there is a low pressure.
Questions for section 2
2.0 What is the source of the particles?, and what are their properties?
2.1 How exactly is the pressure difference between the two galaxies created, is it a coincidence?
2.2 How does it happen that the pressure difference is such that it allows an acceleration speed exactly as measured
by astronomers.
2.3 The pushing of the galaxies would cause the galaxies to deform because they are not rigid,
And also because of the force that the pressure difference exerts on them, there is pressure on the outer side of the galaxies
high, and on the inside low pressure, yes/no?
The outer part of the disks of the galaxies is sparse, therefore the effect of an external force acting on the galaxies will cause the outer part to disperse yes/no?
2.4 Is any pressure difference possible, so that any velocities are obtained according to the difference?
According to your theory the collision speed could have been any speed
Or not exist at all, contrary to the theory of gravity which allows us to know speed, acceleration,
Distance, time yes/no?
2.5 According to your theory the collision speed could have been any speed
Or not exist at all, contrary to the theory of gravity which allows us to know speed, acceleration,
Distance, time, yes/no?
Thanks
Yoda
"The particle emitting mass is supposed to exert a repulsion on its companions, isn't it?"
Yes.. by Pushing Gravity.
And it's nice that you mentioned Karina. Radiation instead of particles solves many of the pushing problems (friction for example) and is also more reasonable.
As we have seen, gravitation and inertia are equal. Einstein stated this as the central principle of general relativity, but did not explain why, just as Newton did not explain the origin of gravitation.
Pushing does explain, and if we see the masses as the source of the radiation as required by Mach's principle (the unproven one should note), then we see that there must be an anomaly at the edges of the galaxies, because most of the pushing comes from inside the galaxy. Sahabak is busy, tired, old and too lazy to do the math - it's not that complicated by the way - and leaves it to the young, Nisim and you.
To Israel
The idea that the pushing gravity particles are legitimate products of stars and galaxies will be defined as "interesting plus" until now I have not paid attention to the origin of the particles, but there is something in your idea that disturbs me, because in this case the mass radiating particles is supposed to exert a repulsion on its companions, right? In short, food for thought. At the moment I continue to work on proving the principle of attraction of pushing gravity" only then will I turn to interesting ideas like yours.
Yom Tok Yisrael
Yehuda
Miracles
It is true that what is written in Israel's link defines poaching as a "failed theory". Unfortunately it is true, not that it is not true, it just failed to push itself as an accepted theory. But in addition what is written in the link rules out an easy approach with the dark matter and energy and the explanation of the Pioneer anomaly.
What bothers me is that you reach conclusions about which are really unacceptable. For example, where did you see that I don't accept Newton's laws??, why do I have to apologize every time for your misunderstanding?, I don't just accept the formula of gravitation for large distances. point. And if it's not clear after months of me saying it, then it's a shame.
You ask me: "Would you please give me the name of one scientist who changed the results of a measurement," end quote. It's a shame you didn't understand until today that the inclusion of dark matter in the calculations is an arbitrary change of the mass amounts in the measurements just to fit the formula, every galaxy and its dark matter, starting from 0 dark matter (for example M94) up to hundreds and thousands in the dwarf galaxies that surround the Milky Way. How ridiculous!! And you are proud of the dark matter and "the precision with which it brings results"???
There is a problem with a religious person who has lived his whole life with the existence of a higher power and suddenly someone comes and tries to change his belief. He will not accept it because his entire essence is built on the reality of that imaginary friend, why am I telling you this?, because this is exactly what happens to me when I come to people, ordinary people and scientists, and claim to them that there is no gravitation at a distance. They look at me as if I have come to confuse them. So it's not that I'm devaluing the scientist I'm talking to, on the contrary, I understand that this will be his reaction. But sometimes it seeps in a bit when people realize that there is actually no proof of the correctness of Newton's gravitation formula beyond fifty astronomical units = less than a thousand light years. When I told this to a great scientist, his immediate response was "Not true!", so I told him - ok, give an example to prove it, and he thought quietly for about twenty seconds and couldn't find one. Because there simply isn't. I sent an idea for confirming Newton's gravitation formula to a distance of 10,000 astronomical units (about six light years) using the double-double epsilon lira to the researchers of the "Gaia" space telescope, their answer, and I quote:
"Hello, the idea is nice, but it is impossible to measure exactly because of the very long cycle time" end of quote. We will have to wait until the space telescope "Gaia 2".
Well then please respond gently and don't put words in my mouth.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Israel
Many (very... ) years ago I had the opportunity to ask Edward Teller your question: in relation to what does Jero keep his axis of rotation? He answered me that the stars actually define a reference system. To see it look at the stars. If they were not a frame of reference, then we should see them moving around us.
Yoda
Maybe try to solve the rotation speed anomaly in galaxies by using pushing in gravitational pushing.
The particles don't just fly at everyone and themselves from all directions, they have a source, and that source is the masses.
We can see this in the relationship that exists between gravitation and inertia. You can develop the relationship mathematically as Denis Shima did (a very nice development by the way, if someone asks I will try to bring it), or do a simple experiment: sit dizzy in an amusement park and look at the distant stars. If your head spins, so do the stars.
So who decided that you are spinning relative to the stars so you are really spinning? Why is it not said that the vertigo is stationary and that it is he who spins?
Therefore the inertia is somehow related to the distant stars (Mach's principle). And if the stars are able to send messengers all the way to you (we can call them particles) then they are also the source of the pushing particles (connects nicely to Einstein's principle of equivalence).
And so the laws of gravitation at the edges of galaxies change - after all, the pushing comes more from inside the galaxy, where the stars are concentrated, and less outside it, where they consolidate due to Gauss's law of divergence to the outer shell.
What do you think?
Yehuda
And by the way - all the answers in Israel's link rule out pushing gravity. Are you sure you read them? (One of them really rules out dark matter, but he proposes a completely different theory than yours).
Yehuda
"My" explanation is an explanation within Newton's laws. I don't understand - you don't accept Newton's laws either?
And here - the arrow is out of the bag again:
"It's really unnecessary because there's no need to explain something that doesn't exist..." - the phenomena that dark matter explains don't exist??? The rotation of the galaxies needs no explanation?
"When will they realize that dark matter was invented by sin, the sin of changing the measured results to fit the holy formula, Newton's holy gravitation formula." - Will you please give me the name of one scientist who changed the results of a measurement, or retract this embarrassing sentence?!?
"When will they realize that dark matter and energy are the biggest scientific mistake (!!) of the twentieth century??" - Are they all lovers and only Yehuda is smart? Allow me to laugh out loud... I'm alone in the room...
Yehuda - I explained to you why your theory cannot work - but you are very silent about it. Interesting, isn't it?
Israel, my dear friend, from across the sea,
Thank you very much for the link. My heart is filled with happiness and my eyes tear. It's good to see that I'm not alone in the dilemmas I raise.
And miracles - no less my friend,
You understand from the link that the dark matter problem is very troubling, that many do not exactly understand what dark matter is and why, for example, it does not circulate together with the normal baryonic matter?? And also at the same time "celebrants wonder about the "Pioneer anomaly" and sneer at NASA's explanation:-
the same error used in explaining the Pioneer 10 and 11 anomalies, as if heat radiation towards a travel direction is going to cause excessive slowing of an object...more humor and science-fi.
Of course the question:
Could dark matter be explained by push gravity?
It is really unnecessary because there is no need to explain something that does not exist...
When will they realize that dark matter was invented by sin, the sin of changing the measured results to fit the holy formula, Newton's holy gravitation formula.
When will they realize that dark matter and energy are the biggest scientific mistake (!!) of the twentieth century??
In this context, I already have a template for an experiment I'm planning, to prove the principles of gravity pushing, but it must be done in a vacuum and I'm trying to get such a tool and then things will flow one way or the other. I would appreciate it if someone could help me with the vacuum issue.
Yom Tov Nissim, Israel, and everyone in general
Please respond gently
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
https://www.quora.com/Could-dark-matter-be-explained-by-push-gravity
for miracles
Now understood. I also do not believe in a completely symmetrical universe and rather believe in a universe with certain deviations.
I did not express my opinion on the nature of your explanation, but then the question I asked two comments ago is asked. Why do you think that this explanation, (if it is true) does not also fit my universe full of particles?? If it's good for you and it's true, then it's good for me too!
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
Your question is excellent, and I think you answered it yourself.
I believe the answer is in the randomness built into our universe. If there was no randomness then the universe would be completely uniform. Just as the sky would not turn into ice or steam by itself, without a symmetry-breaking factor, particles would not be formed in the universe without a similar factor. This factor is, in my opinion, the randomness.
So, I believe that the general momentum of the universe is very, very close to zero, but in limited regions the situation is different.
Describe to you a situation where the rotational momentum in a certain area is indeed zero. What will happen? All the particles will be attracted to their center of mass - and a neutron star, a black hole, or just a completely symmetrical sphere will be formed.
Maybe it happens sometimes?
Miracles
I understood your answer, just tell me why the rotational momentum of the collection of all particles is not zero?? It seems very strange to me to say that the galaxy rotates in a certain direction because all its particles rotate in the same direction. Listen, maybe you will invent a rotating dark matter that causes the galaxy to rotate? And by the way, the water in my sink also rotates in an exaggerated direction, but this is due to asymmetry in my sink, which is not perfectly round, but for the sake of Science I will do some experiments tomorrow morning in emptying the sinks.
Besides, I presented the ideas to disprove my theory and it was not disproved, but again we disagree on this issue.
And besides, you'll probably be happy to know that I "found" a booklet about our friend Popper's Mishnah and his ideas. It was just lying in the waiting room in a certain place and I decided to read it, and somehow it went "on hold" in my bag. In about two weeks I will return it (or another book in its place) if I don't forget.
I'm going to continue reading it for fun
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
What I meant is that you should look for things that will disprove your idea, and not look for reinforcements. If your attitude is that every explanation strengthens your explanation, then we have a problem.
I will try to elaborate my explanation more. Every collection of particles in a certain volume has a certain angular momentum. This momentum is the sum of the momentum components of each particle. The angular momentum is conserved, in particular when the particles coalesce, due to the gravitation to the bodies. Again - it's no different from water coming out of a sink. And again - this is very different from cyclones.
Yehuda
I answered your question. Do you really not understand the answer? Didn't they give you the example of the dancer in high school?
Miracles
The astonishment is on both sides
I will ask a question, what do you think causes the galaxy to rotate around an axis? Depending on your answer I tell you what makes the galaxy rotate in my opinion?
waiting for your reply
Yehuda
Yehuda
You amaze me every time 🙂 You should look for refutations of your idea, not reinforcements. This is exactly the difference between science and religion!
Beyond the philosophical problem of the rotation of the universe, we should have seen it, at least in the cosmic background radiation.
What causes galaxies to rotate? Exactly what causes the water to spin when leaving the sink - the principle of conservation of angular momentum. And it is completely different from the rotation party of cyclones (Coriolis force).
Miracles
I once presented the question to Professor Yuval Naman, who was a member of the Israeli Astronomical Society, like me. I explained that in my opinion the solar systems rotate due to angular momentum in the primordial cloud that created them, but why do the galaxies rotate?? He thought for a second and answered me with a smile: - Maybe the whole universe rotates?, interesting.
Treat the answer as you wish, but apart from that I would appreciate it if you could answer me:- What is the cause in the accepted theories for the rotation of the galaxies?? . I'm almost certain that the reason you find will be good for my theory as well.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
What causes rotation in your particles? Do your particles even have (permanent) mass?
to wave
Regarding section 1, whether there will be a future conflict or not, we will wait and see and then we will decide who is right.
Regarding distortion, it doesn't seem to me that it is significant, you say that in the NASA images you don't see distortions??, how do you explain the undulations that appear at the speed of the rotational movement of galaxies N891 and the like?, no gravitational force that acts according to the square of the distance can explain this, the pressure difference is proportional to the radius Bivid and therefore it is explained. See my blog.
In section 2, it is mainly the horizontal vector that pushes Andromeda towards the Milky Way and should not affect the rotation of the galaxies when they are far away.
Regarding the prediction, as with the weather, it is limited in time. I estimate that several tens of millions of years can be predicted.
In section four you decide that there will be no distortion and in section 1 you decide that there will be distortion, so decide.
In addition, galaxies located next to each other such as M51 influence each other. You state that the effect is gravity and also justify in the process a huge amount of dark matter, but not in my opinion.
Good night Gal
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda Shalom,
As part of the simulation software project, thousands of photographs of galaxies were examined, so that movement, speed, and time can be accurately predicted before and after the collision.
Following on from the questions from the previous post, questions about your particle theory
1 If low pressure pushes the galaxies towards a collision then they should warp
On one side of the galaxy there is high pressure and on the other side low pressure.
In the NASA images, you don't see distortions in the Andromeda images.
2 The vertical vector that pushes Andromeda, and the Milky Way should slow down the rotational motion
(see section 1) according to your theory.
3 The movement of both galaxies depends on the space weather.
That is, if the low pressure between them becomes high after some time, then it is possible that the two galaxies
They will stop and change the direction by 180 degrees, in other words the speed of the galaxies is unpredictable.
4 When the galaxies get relatively close to each other, a distortion is created in the shape of the galaxies that results from the mutual gravitation force according to the laws of gravity, according to your Torah there will be no distortion because there are only
Low pressure and no force could deform
According to NASA images, all galaxies that are relatively close to each other are warped relative to gravity.
How do you explain the differences between the observations and your theory?
Thanks
Yehuda Shalom,
As part of the simulation software project, thousands of photographs of galaxies were examined, so that movement, speed, and time can be accurately predicted before and after the collision.
Following on from the questions from the previous post, questions about your particle theory
1 If low pressure pushes the galaxies towards a collision then they should warp
On one side of the galaxy there is high pressure and on the other side low pressure.
In the NASA images, you don't see distortions in the Andromeda images.
2 The vertical vector that pushes Andromeda, and the Milky Way should slow down the rotational motion
(see section 1) according to your theory.
3 The movement of both galaxies depends on the space weather.
That is, if the low pressure between them becomes high after some time, then it is possible that the two galaxies
They will stop and change the direction by 180 degrees, in other words the speed of the galaxies is unpredictable.
4 When the galaxies get relatively close to each other, a distortion is created in the shape of the galaxies that results from the mutual gravitation force according to the laws of gravity, according to your Torah there will be no distortion because there are only
Low pressure and no force could deform
According to the NASA images, all galaxies that are relatively close to each other are warped relative to gravity.
How do you explain the differences between the observations and your theory?
Thanks
Yehuda
The difference is that the boy was right. He described reality, did not ignore any observation, and did not give an explanation that contradicted the most basic principles of physics.
Israel
I read that fast neutrinos create a problem with mass distribution in the universe. Apparently the dark matter is not gravity pushing particles...
Israel and others
It's not fair that you don't also tell everyone about the successful use of the dark matter that was made a long time ago in one of the royal courts in Europe. I will bring the story from memory and the readers of science will forgive me if I made a mistake here and there, so the event was like this:-
Many years ago there lived a dear and beloved king, and the king wanted clothes that had never been seen before. Two tailors came to the king and told the king that we have a substance that has never been seen before, but it is beautiful like no other, even the sky was sewn from it, but only wise people can see how beautiful it is, stupid people do not see the beauty inherent in it at all. Indeed, everyone who was shown the garment said with joy and happiness:
Oh how beautiful the garment is, and it is so wonderful and full of energy!
In short, the day came, and the king walked through the streets of his royal city wearing the new lovely garment and the whole crowd, from small to large, from the common people to the great scientists, chanted in chorus: Oh, how wonderful the garment is!!
Only one such Sabdarmishi baby shouted:
Look, the king is naked!!
I don't remember the rest that well, I only know that every day they want to hang this Sabdarmish, who insulted the dignity of royalty.
Please respond gently, it's not every day Hans Christian Andersen gets to respond with knowledge.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Once again my response disappeared and became part of the dark matter, it exists but you can't find it!
Israel and others
It's not fair that you don't also tell everyone about the successful use of the dark matter that was made a long time ago in one of the royal courts in Europe. I will bring the story from memory and the readers of science will forgive me if I made a mistake here and there, so the event was like this:-
Many years ago there lived a dear and beloved king, and the king wanted clothes that had never been seen before. Two tailors came to the king and told the king that we have a substance that has never been seen before, but it is beautiful like no other, even the sky was sewn from it, but only wise people can see how beautiful it is, stupid people do not see the beauty inherent in it at all. Indeed, everyone who was shown the garment said with joy and happiness:
Oh how beautiful the garment is, and it is so wonderful and full of energy!
In short, the day came, and the king walked through the streets of his royal city wearing the new lovely garment and the whole crowd, from small to large, from the common people to the great scientists, chanted in chorus: Oh, how wonderful the garment is!!
Just one baby from such a sebdarmishi maniac, shouted:
Look, the king is naked!!
I don't remember the rest that well, I only know that every day they want to hang this Sabdarmish, who insulted the dignity of royalty.
Please respond gently, it's not every day Hans Christian Andersen gets to respond with knowledge.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Miracles
I don't understand dark matter either, but I believe that a building made of bricks of dark matter is a spectacular sight - you don't see anything.
The neutrino has similar properties, it has mass but hardly reacts to anything. Dark matter may simply be very fast mass.
And the "yes" was for a theory different from relativity but with the same postulates.
Israel
The existence of phlogiston was disproved (increase in weight of metal after burning). This is different from "they didn't find him".
Caloric is more complex, and to my understanding the problem is conservation laws (heat is not conserved, caloric is).
Israel/Judah
I'm not here to defend dark matter. I really don't get it. I do understand enough of Newtonian mechanics, I think, that I can see that Judah's idea can't work.
Yehuda - again, physics is not a matter of opinion, or "I don't think so". In a situation of elastic collisions, no force can be created between bodies. Otherwise - an egg full of gas would have become a leading perpetuum...
Yes..
You're right, they didn't find phlogiston either, nor caloric, nor for freaks, and it's true, it didn't disprove their existence - but it certainly didn't strengthen the training in them.
That's why I said a constructive training step. If most of the universe is dark matter, show me an ounce of it.
Israel
Maybe. I don't know of a different development that describes reality like Einstein's development. You know?
And when does not finding something negate its existence?
Miracles
You can start from the same postulates of Einstein and get different schemes of his own.
And regarding the dark matter, a trust-building step would be a weight on which an invisible body is standing and the weight shows 80 kg (Dunedin?)
A reasonable request given that dark matter makes up most of the matter in the universe (so where is it? Where is it?).
for miracles
I came up with an idea for an experiment that might solve a lot of the misunderstandings between us. I'll check it out this week. It's a pretty simple experiment that will prove my point - or not.
Another thing, I started reading the link on Le Sage and activated the formulas related to momentum and energy that are conserved in a completely elastic collision and it doesn't seem to me that there is a problem. The experiment I am planning will resolve the doubts.
On the back of the comments I respond to, I have a folder for each article in science where I respond, so I don't lose a single response and also check and improve it. Only then do I copy it to Idan. Like this response for example.
Good week miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
Popper said that what scientists have to do is to think of a hypothesis, and after that invest enormous efforts in disproving it.
And you say "2. Question: If so, do you accept the simulation of the collision?
Answer - not if I believe in my theory"
You also dismiss the explanation for the Pioneer anomaly - because it goes against your belief in the correctness of your hypothesis.
When you are told that the principle of conservation of energy invalidates your theory - you ignore it.
When you are told that space does not contain gas, but plasma - you ignore it.
When you are told that the reason for the rotation of a hurricane does not exist in space - you ignore it.
It's hard to have a productive discussion like that.
From the wonders of the spam prevention plugin.
I saw that these were legitimate comments and approved
Yehuda
The exact same thing happened to me! I had to write some comments again.
I sent comments and they are not displayed, what is happening?
to wave
Shabbat Shalom
Each galaxy moves on three axes. Let's define the X-axis as the axis connecting Andromeda to the Milky Way. The speed in the X-axis is 400,000 km/h and it was measured, but has the movement in the other axes been calculated? Would it be correct to assume that the movement will only be on the X axis?
Secondly, the size of the two galaxies is about 100,000 light years each and their distance is about two and a half million light years. They may pass by each other
Third thing, in my universe, the particles fill it and gravity is not defined at such distances, the movement does not come from gravity but from the pressure-wind difference, therefore there is a low pressure area towards which the two galaxies race.
The fourth thing is a phenomenon called the "Magnus effect" = a rotating body moving in gas in a straight line will deviate from its orbit (see problems of rotating balls in the World Cup) and the galaxies will turn and deviate to the side.
Your questions:-
1. Do you agree with the scientists' view that there will be a collision?
Answer - I don't know, apparently they will meet anyway.
2. Question: If yes, do you accept the simulation of the collision?
Answer - not if I believe in my theory. In the calculation of the simulation, gravitation was introduced, which I do not believe in, and the pressure difference and the Magnus effect, which I believe in, were not introduced.
3. If so, do you agree with the theory of gravity even at these distances which is accepted by the majority of the scientific community?
Answer - No, I do not agree with gravity in these spaces.
4. If not, can you give a qualitative explanation of the process of the convergence between the two galaxies according to your particle theory?
Answer: As I said, the expanses of my universe have gaseous properties with pressure, and the pressure difference and winds, which move the bodies and possibly the future collision.
Note: my theory is far from being proven, so if you are asked in the exam, carefully answer the accepted one, just to be safe. I used to do the same.
Good day Gal
Yehuda
to wave
Shabbat Shalom
Each galaxy moves on three axes. Let's define the X-axis as the axis connecting Andromeda to the Milky Way. The speed in the X-axis is 400,000 km/h and it was measured, but has the movement in the other axes been calculated? Would it be correct to assume that the movement will only be on the X axis?
Secondly, the size of the two galaxies is about 100,000 light years each and their distance is about two and a half million light years. They may pass by each other
Third thing, in my universe, the particles fill it and gravity is not defined at such distances, the movement does not come from gravity but from the pressure-wind difference, therefore there is a low pressure area towards which the two galaxies race.
The fourth thing is a phenomenon called the "Magnus effect" = a rotating body moving in gas in a straight line will deviate from its orbit (see problems of rotating balls in the World Cup) and the galaxies will turn and deviate to the side.
Your questions:-
1. Do you agree with the scientists' view that there will be a collision?
Answer - I don't know, apparently they will meet anyway.
2. Question: If yes, do you accept the simulation of the collision?
Answer - not if I believe in my theory. In the calculation of the simulation, gravitation was introduced, which I do not believe in, and the pressure difference and the Magnus effect, which I believe in, were not introduced.
3. If so, do you agree with the theory of gravity even at these distances which is accepted by the majority of the scientific community?
Answer - No, I do not agree with gravity in these spaces.
4. If not, can you give a qualitative explanation of the process of the convergence between the two galaxies according to your particle theory?
Answer: As I said, the expanses of my universe have gaseous properties with pressure, and the pressure difference and winds, which move the bodies and possibly the future collision.
Note: my theory is far from being proven, so if you are asked in the exam, carefully answer the accepted one, just to be safe. I used to do the same.
Good day Gal
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Israel
If you accept Einstein's postulates - then the order is clear: space has properties. And the conclusions (1) are very illogical and (2) exactly even less logical - exactly what we actually observe.
Therefore, in my opinion, the fact that we still haven't managed to isolate the same particle that creates the dark mass is not a good enough reason to deny the rest of the theory.
And certainly not to replace it with a theory that doesn't work...
Miracles
Indeed, but it seems to me that the reason and the context are a bit reversed: this is the proof that it is not possible to exceed the speed of light. Sahbak brought her exactly a year ago at a presentation in Santa Monica.
But is she whole? Is there no other option? Which leads to another equally important question that you are the answer to which we will know exactly in six hours:
Argentina or France?
(Messi, Beitar's striker
not afraid of anything).
pen==> now
to wave
Each galaxy moves on three axes. Let's define the X-axis as the axis connecting Andromeda to the Milky Way. The speed in the X-axis is 400,000 km/h and it was measured, but has the movement in the other axes been calculated? Would it be correct to assume that the movement will only be on the X axis?
Secondly, the size of the two galaxies is about 100,000 light years each and their distance is about two and a half million light years. They may pass by each other
Third thing, in my universe, the particles fill it and gravity is not defined at such distances, the movement is not due to gravity but to a pressure difference, therefore there is a low pressure area to which the two galaxies are racing
The fourth thing is a phenomenon called the "Magnus effect" = a rotating body moving in gas in a straight line will deviate from its orbit and the galaxies will turn and deviate to the side.
Your questions:-
1. Do you agree with the scientists' opinion that there will be a collision? Answer: I don't know, apparently they will meet anyway.
2. If and yes, do you accept the simulation of the collision? - Answer, no if I believe in my theory. In the calculation of the simulation, gravitation was introduced, which I do not believe in, and the pressure difference and the Magnus effect, which I believe in, were not introduced.
3. If so, do you agree with the theory of gravity even at these distances which is accepted by
On most of the scientific community? Answer: No, I do not agree with gravity in these spaces.
4. If not, can you give a qualitative explanation of the process of rapprochement between the two
The galaxies according to your particle theory? Answer: As I said, my universe has gaseous properties with pressure, and the pressure difference in the spaces of the universe that drives the bodies and possibly also the future collision.
Note: my theory is far from being proven, so if you are asked in the exam, carefully answer the accepted one, just to be safe. I used to do the same.
Good day Gal
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Israel
The light speed limit is relative to space. You can't fly by Mars faster than that.
Yehuda
Energy considerations rule out the attraction.
Think about my disks (and for my part they will be very perforated). Let's say they are close and indeed there is an attraction between them. I move one of them a meter away. Force times distance equals work. How much energy is needed for this work?
Yehuda Shalom,
It is known and proven by scientists that the Milky Way galaxy and Andromeda are on a collision course.
Their mutual speed is approximately 400 thousand km/h
There is also a NASA simulation that describes the entire collision process.
The simulation was done using supercomputers.
I have questions for you, and I will be happy if you answer them.
1. Do you agree with the scientists' opinion that there will be a collision?
2. To what extent and whether the simulation of the collision is acceptable to you.
3. If so, do you agree with the theory of gravity even at these distances which is accepted by
on most of the scientific community.
4. If not, can you give a qualitative explanation of the process of rapprochement between the two
The galaxies according to your particle theory.
Thanks
Miracles
So let's say that spaceships at different speeds turn on a flashlight when they pass by Mars in the opposite direction from Earth at time 0 in Earth and Mars clocks. The signal will arrive in Israel in an hour it is said.
Logic says that even in the case of a spacecraft faster than light, the signal will arrive in one hour - a light hour is the distance from the Earth to Mars in the example - but equally we can say that the Earth is moving away from the spacecraft faster than light and then it will not actually arrive..
So will he make it or not make it (to the finals)?
Or in simple words - football is played for 90 minutes and at the end the Germans go home, Raus, Kaput.
for miracles
And now I read that he assumed that the speed of the particles must be a hundred thousand times the speed of light??. I don't understand that at all. I have something to read this weekend….
Good Day
Yehuda
for miracles
Thanks for the link. I am looking at the link you gave me about Le Sage and indeed this was his opinion:-
Le Sage argued that no gravitational force would arise if the matter-particle-collisions are perfectly elastic.
That is (in a free translation) Le Sage assumed that no gravitational force would appear if the collisions between the matter and the particles were perfectly elastic.
I'm just trying to understand where he came to this conclusion from, and with my English, and between game to game in the World Cup, it will take some time.
be patient
Good Day
Yehuda
Israel
right! If we are stationary, then we hear a plane, and its speed or direction of flight is not important. If we ourselves are in motion, the story is different.
As for galaxies faster than the speed of light, then I think we'll never really see them. Two things suggest this. The first is that what is "moving away" from us is space itself, therefore photons will not reach us, because their relative speed is negative. The second reason is the Doppler phenomenon - in this situation we will get an unrealistic wavelength.
Israel
right! Even a plane on my voice will be heard! If the viewer (listener) moves away quickly on a ultrasonic wave, only then will he not hear the plane (and the speed of the plane, or even the direction of its flight, is not important.
As for a very fast celestial body, I think we will never really see it. The reason is that beta is then greater than 1, and gamma (which appears in the Doppler effect formula) is not real.
Miracles
Why is it that if a plane moves faster than sound we don't hear it? Or will we not see galaxies faster than light?
Yehuda
I hope you are aware that the reason for the rotation of hurricanes is quite different from the rotation array of galaxies, the solar system, the earth and even the water going down the sink.
Yav Benion
Imagine you are standing next to a large plane taking off. You hear it take off and you hear it going away too. And as long as the speed of the plane is lower than the speed of sound - you will continue to hear it.
This is how it is with distant galaxies - as long as they are below the speed of light, and still produce light of course, we will still see them.
That is, for us to stop seeing something - either it will stop emitting light, or something will hide the light, or its speed will be above the speed of light (something that surprisingly is absolutely possible).
Yehuda
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
To Yoav Banyon
At the time of the big bang, these galaxies did not exist, they were formed a few hundred million years or even billions of years after the bang. We are currently seeing the light that came out of the distant galaxy about 13 billion years ago, and it may be even further away.
for miracles-
Send me a link, I can't find it
Yehuda
Yehuda
It's a shame you didn't read, even on Wikipedia, about Le Sage's idea...
La Sage himself says "elastic collisions are not capable of generating force between bodies. For that - we need plastic collisions".
I want to take advantage of the participation of amateur astronomers here and ask: if at the time of the big bang all matter was concentrated in one place, how is it that the light from distant galaxies (which were our neighbors) is only now reaching us?
Please do not see in this question what is not in it (and what is not in it is a doubt that the problem in understanding is with me and not with the astrophysicists). Thanks.
A Ben Ner Avner Kol
After all, that's what we're arguing about. In the big universe is the dominant force the gravitation or the pressure difference? I accept that the force in solar systems for tiny distances of about a thousand light years (several tens of astronomical units) is the force of gravity, but I am not ready to accept that in galaxies that grow millions and billions of times, it is a dominant force of gravity. You too will admit that for the purpose of your decision on the dominance of gravity you will have to add dark matter to the universe in an enormous amount just to justify your gravitational dominance. The pressure difference does not need any dark matter and it can very well explain the behavior of the galaxies with the material that is present in the galaxies. An example from another world is the behavior of surrounding hurricanes due to a pressure difference that is somewhat similar to what I am describing. The explanation of the pressure difference explains certain difficulties in the movement of galaxies that absolutely cannot be explained by gravitation. By the way, there is no need for massive black holes and there is no problem at the edge of the universe and the accelerated expansion of our universe. You will understand that gravity requires the invention of dark energy to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe, but if on the large scales gravity does not exist, then this eliminates the need for dark energy.
Things are explained nicely on my blog and if you get a chance, go there and be impressed,
Good Day
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
for miracles
First of all, the idea of gravity of pushing gravity is not mine anymore and was previously invented by Georges Louis Le Sage Pettier and others. It's common to oppose the idea because of friction problems but I've never heard that energy considerations or a completely elastic collision rule it out.
Richard Feynman explains this nicely in a lecture he gave at Cornell University, and later, refutes the idea that pushing graffiti can be an explanation for gravitation (minutes 8-11 in the lecture. ) See link at the end of the comment.
Go in there and you'll see that it completely ignores the issues of energy and perfectly elastic collision.
I don't want to dismiss your opinion outright, but please explain your opinion to me in more detail like a high school student. I did not find any material about your opinion on this matter.
What's more, my simple universe takes into account the original free path of the particles and makes all the difference in the theory and formula of gravitation.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ZYEb0Vf8U
Yehuda, my friend
First a footnote:
Unfortunately, you did not address in your words the questions I addressed to you in my words of June 27, 2018 at 17:05 p.m.
Secondly, I will try to explain to you again and convince you, why the laws of gases are not significant in the astronomical and cosmological spaces.
Well:
1]. According to the laws of gases, the movement of gas particles is always(!) from a place of high pressure to a place of low pressure.
2]. In the astronomical space (stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc.) the direction of the movement of matter is reversed (!!), the matter flows and is compressed into areas of high pressure (the centers of the galaxies) from areas of low pressure (the circumference of the galaxies).
3]. The reason for this is the force of gravity (!!)
Gravitational force is the "main player" at astronomical distances. It works in the opposite direction from what the gas laws imply. That is, the movement of matter is from low pressure areas to high pressure areas.
Consequently, also in physics that operates in astronomical spaces, the laws of gases are a secondary player, while the main players are the laws of gravity, the laws of quantum mechanics, and the laws of physics that are not really known in their entirety (yet) of the high energies - in exotic areas such as black holes and the edges of the universe.
Now I think you are convinced. Right ?
Yehuda
This is simply not true. And as I've said several times, elastic collisions cannot create anything resembling gravity.
Yehuda - Is the principle of energy conservation acceptable to you? If so, then there can be no gravity according to your idea.
Miracles
First time I hear that a thin gas like the one found at an altitude of 50 km is not gas? And in general I'm not talking about an ideal gas and as far as I know an ideal gas does not exist at all. The particles that make up the gas are far from each other, the attraction between them is low, and they move freely according to the shape of the vessel in which they are located. This corresponds to the situation in space and also at an altitude of 50 km.
That's my opinion.
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
The "gas" in space is not gas, but plasma. And plasma - different properties.
Calculating the speed of sound in air relies on the air being close to an ideal gas.
Even our air sometimes does not heat up like a gas. Above 50 km, the ionosphere is not a gas. So surely there is no gas in space.
In addition, fast air is far from an ideal gas. Just one example: if you flow slow air through a tube that gets narrower and narrower, then its speed will increase, but if it is fast air, its speed will decrease.
A. Ben Ner
I will take advantage of the end of the World Cup broadcasts until 20:XNUMX to answer the commenters
Below is a quote from article 30 on my blog explaining where the mechanisms of the "pressure difference" come from:-
A. A gas is defined as a collection of particles that move from place to place.
B. The atmosphere is an example of a gas.
third. The universe contains particles that move from place to place
Such as: neutrinos, cosmic rays of various kinds, photons, Higgs bosons and maybe also gravitons or gravity pushing particles and more.
d. Hence: the vastness of the universe is a gas (mixture) that also contains stars.
God. Gas in the universe has all the properties of gas, for example:
Volume, temperature, pressure, pressure difference, winds, gas laws, waves, and more.
Therefore, the movement of bodies is not required to be done only by gravitation, it can be done by winds created from pressure differences. If, for example, we observe galaxies moving to a region called the "Great Attractor", it does not have to be a region of enormous mass (normal or dark), it can be a region of low pressure in the cosmos.
In addition, it is possible to draw conclusions about the speed of the waves in the gas, the resulting friction, and also the expansion of the universe without the need for dark energy, and more.
Hope I answered your question.
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
It is not clear how you think the mechanism you call "pressure difference" works and what is that "pressure difference"? Pressures of what? of gas? of radiation? Where is the high pressure concentrated? And where is the low pressure?
Seemingly, if there is indeed a matter of pressure difference here, then in order to explain the movement of mass from the periphery of the galaxy to its center, then the low, attractive pressure should be concentrated in the center of the galaxy, while the high pressure in the periphery.
In reality the situation is reversed, the high pressure is in the interior of the galaxy while the low pressure is in the periphery.
According to the theory you put forward, of the "pressure differences", the movement of matter should have been from the inside of the galaxy to the outside. from high to low pressure.
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by the term "pressure" in the astronomical context? And what are the factors that cause stress?
A. Ben Ner
You said it right and therefore [any other solution we accept must solve at least two things: the rotation speed of the galaxy and the dusting it performs. The pressure difference does this and also explains a number of strange changes that appear in the rotational motion of galaxies, which cannot be explained by dark matter or energy darkness.
For example the galaxy N891 whose velocity graph shows a wavy motion.
Yom Tov A Ben Ner
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
(Continued)
So the continued existence of the dark matter is reinforced by two independent measurements. One - measuring the speed of movement of the stars in the galaxy. The second - measuring the dimness of the light from the distant galaxy. And it turns out, according to what is reported in the article, that both measurements yield matching results.
To Judah
The results of the experiment can be interpreted in a slightly different way than presented in the article, that is, that the results of the measurement of the dusting rate, strengthen the assumption regarding the existence of the dark matter, that if the dark matter did not exist there, no other known reason that causes dusting is seen.
Yehuda
Heat does not cause aging. What causes the (normal) cooling is the change in the speed of light in the medium due to a change in density, and the change in density does depend on temperature.
But - you need a mediator, right? A medium is made of material, and (normal) material absorbs electromagnetic radiation. So where is this material, in the case of gravitational pollution?
And how can gravity cause congestion? (1) What is the source of gravity? (2) How does gravity change the direction of light? After all, according to you there is no such thing as a "gravitational field".
for miracles
Idush is from the word "lens" as a lens bends light rays, also temperature differences from lenses for example "fata-morgana" known in the desert and also the hot road that causes the reflection of the cars on a hot day and it is true that gravity is also a lens therefore we must not be in a hurry to define every untidiness in the cosmos as gravitational and it is possible that more than a phenomenon is involved in the untidiness One, for example: I believe that all three that I have just brought up participate in the turbulence seen in the sun and during a solar eclipse: gravitation of the sun. Matter and particles, and heat.
So I hope that the aging phenomenon will join what we agree between us, and come to Zion Goel.
Happy Yom Nissim, Neta and in general everyone here on the site!
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
I agree with you on a lot of what you said - except "Idush doesn't have to do it by gravity, he can do it by... Material lens". That's exactly the point! The emission is caused by something that does not absorb electromagnetic radiation, and that is why this substance is called "dark matter".
Lante and others
Quote from the article:
"Gravity in this galaxy (E325) behaves as predicted by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. This confirmed the validity of the theory on galactic standards". End quote.
I don't see anything new here other than the fact that they checked and studied a very distant galaxy with the help of a gravitational lens. These are all data that there is no reason to assume that they are incorrect (the cosmological principle). It's like saying "Even a class in a very far away country contains... Pupils! Would we all be upset by the discovery?
Let's see what they discovered there in addition. Let's look at the words of the researcher Dr. Kolt as it appears in the article:-
"We used data from the Very Large Telescope in Chile to measure the speed of the stars in E325. This allows us to deduce how much mass E325 must have to keep these stars in orbit. The calculation of the structure of the distant galaxy Shaura has been amplified and distorted, close to the prediction of general relativity, with a difference of 9%. End quote.
We will analyze the scriptures and see if it changed anything from what we know until today
A. There is dust, but the assumption that the dust in the galaxy is due to gravity is a presumptuous assumption that requires a huge change in the amount of matter in the galaxy - dark matter. But composting does not have to be done by gravity, it can be done by... A material lens, in the above cosmological case, is a concentration of particles around the lens galaxy that will distort the movement of light,
B. Again, gravity is considered as the cause of the rotation of the distant galaxy E325 and the mass of the galaxy is deduced from this. But, gravitation has not been proven to work in these ranges of tens of thousands of light years. The gravitation formula has only been proven in the solar system at ranges of a few tens of astronomical units - only about a thousand light years. To come and conclude from this that the formula is true even at distances greater than millions or billions and to justify the lack of gravity with the addition of a huge amount of strange/illusory/dark matter?... I don't see it!
third. It should be understood that they did not prove the theory of relativity at a distance of a billion light years but at a distance of billions of light years. That is, in the region where the galaxy under study is located, the laws of physics work and with them also the theory of relativity. In other words, they proved the cosmological principle there as well, but not to the extent that it is a completely different matter. The proof of the cosmological principle there is a great achievement and I would not underestimate it.
d. I hope I satisfied your desire for a response, Miss Neta.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Please respond gently.
Yehuda, Yehuda, moan?
Yehuda? Yehuda???