Comprehensive coverage

Free comments

Here you can comment on any topic that is not related to a relevant article.

Albert Einstein. Ten quotes
Albert Einstein. Ten quotes
Avi Blizovsky

Avi Blizovsky

The editor of the knowledge website (editor@hayadan.org.il)
For all the author's articles

1,088 תגובות

  5. For miracles - there is no doubt that it is simpler, but the impulse per unit of energy will be much smaller
    The formula for the momentum of light is: p=E/c, in this denominator is the speed of light.
    In numbers:
    A beam of light (provided it is all thrown in the right direction) gives an impulse of 0.003 micronewtons per kilowatt of power.
    Today's most advanced ion propulsion engine gives about 60 micro-newtons per kilowatt of power (20,000 times).
    The "impossible" engine in question should give 400 micro newtons per kilowatt of power in the first generation. Theoretically, they are also talking about the possibility of a much higher thrust per kilowatt - but first let's build one that works 🙂

  6. Shmulik
    interesting.
    But - what will happen if I take a spaceship, install solar cells on it, and with the help of the electricity I created - turn on an LED. The LED will create a beam of light that will provide an impulse.
    Isn't it simpler? What am I missing here?

  8. albentezo,
    What's new?
    I have a question about the measurement problem and the interpretation of the many worlds.
    I remember you wrote several times that you are not an expert in the various interpretations and yet here is the question:
    Under the many-worlds interpretation, what does the probability we measure in Schrödinger's wave equation mean? After all, the claim is that before the measurement, there is a probability for the electron, for example, to be at one point or another and when we measure, we find the electron at a certain point (the collapse of the wave under a different interpretation). But under the multiplicity of worlds, after the measurement, all the worlds are actually created and we find ourselves in one world out of this multiplicity. What is my probability if everything was created anyway? Does this mean that the physical interpretation of the wave equation under the many worlds is not one of probability? So what, she predicts the number of worlds that will be created?

    Another question is what actually counts as a viewer. From this quote it can be understood that any "classical" structure of atoms is considered an observer. did I understand correctly?
    the microscopic states of the plasma provide an environment that becomes entangled with the large-scale fluctuations of the inflaton, effectively measuring it and collapsing the wave function

  9. Shmulik
    indeed interesting. I don't believe it breaks an existing physical law. Also note where the successes are posted...

  10. Shmulik, this is already the third group that verifies the results, isn't it?
    Maybe time to increase the research budgets a bit..
    Question: Does the impulse stem from some instance of the Casimir effect?

  11. Miracles, Albentezo...
    where are you? I thought you would enjoy reading something like this.
    In the second link I gave there is a link to the article but I can't read it.

    interesting

  14. which city Las Vegas?

    Didn't you miss the cold of the East?

    I was at Mount Wilson this week, FM CENTER. The power from the antennas there is so high, that the scope measures 2V directly from the probe without amplification. Here in AL they barely measure millivolts.

  17. More annoying than me? 🙂

    Prof. Elitzur writes:

    "The answer to the question is therefore that without triangulation or parallax we cannot know the distance of the body emitting radiation if we do not have knowledge of the intensity of the light it emits."

    Which answers my question:

    "The question is about a device that can know the distance to a radio transmitter, and this without any prior knowledge of the transmitter."

    we

    There is no complication, but indeed it is related to the "project".

    It seems as if the distance of broadcast antennas can be roughly calculated by analyzing the waves, but most likely this is a mistake and I am not receiving the correct station.

    That's why I asked. It is forbidden to ask questions on this site anymore?!

    Here is Prof. Granot's answer:

    Electromagnetic waves New Prof. Yonatan Granot 16:54 15/06/15

    Shalom Israel,
    It is relatively easy to find the direction from which the signals are transmitted (a radio telescope can determine the direction from which
    They come quite well) but it is difficult to measure the distance (because at a great distance from the body the wavefront will be close to spherical, and the size of the measuring device is much smaller than the distance to the source, so that the part of the wavefront that falls on the detector is approximately flat, and therefore contains almost no information about the distance to the source ). There is a degeneracy between the distance and the transmission power (the measured radiation flux is proportional to the transmission power divided by the square of the distance, and you need to know one of them to determine the other).

    For an extraterrestrial source that transmits for a long time, it is possible to measure the direction to it at two different times, half a year apart, and take advantage of the fact that the Earth completes half a circle around the Sun during this time, so that its different position will give a different direction to the same source (the parallax method, which was developed originally for an optical telescope). This can only work for close enough objects, for which the angle of parallax is greater than the inaccuracy on the orientation of the source (which depends on the capabilities of the telescope being used). In astronomy it is sometimes a very serious problem to determine the distance to certain objects.

    Best regards,
    יוני

    Vifim says: Slowly, slowly, equal, equal, parallax, parallax.

  18. Israel
    We already agreed that you can't measure distance in a general way, so why are you bothering important people? 🙂

    Distance measurement by the brain is carried out by several methods, obviously the eyes do not measure anything, right?

    One method is accommodation, meaning changing the focus distance. This is the same method used in many cameras.

    A second method is convergence - the angle between the two eyes.

    A third method is by combining knowing the size of the bone and the angle at which the bone is seen.

    Parallax is not related to the matter - it is a method based on changing the viewing location. This method is the origin of the "farsec" unit, one second of parallax, on both sides of the sun.

    On the subject of distance measurement by the brain, I have been busy for years, as part of flight instructors, and I even did research on the subject for some annoying client...

  19. anonymous
    you're an idiot. What does where Galileo was born or live have to do with what I said? Galileo's famous thought experiment is with the ship at sea.
    The experiments with balls on an inclined plane are experiments.

    You really are an idiot…..

  20. Israel
    At first I wanted to write parallax…. But I also wanted to hear an answer from someone qualified 🙂
    In any case, what are the obstacles you face in order to measure light rays from any source coming from outer space? I didn't quite understand where you get into trouble during your project and I'd love to understand. Is it the devices? Or the calculations? Or something else?

  21. First qualified answer:

    Greetings

    Estimating the distance of bodies close to us through sight is done by the difference in the direction of the light rays coming from the body to the two eyes. This is probably the mechanism referred to by the questioner as "triangulation". For more distant bodies the difference becomes negligible and then to estimate the distance we must know in advance the intensity of the light emitted by the body. The same is the case with astronomical objects. The distance of nearby stars can be estimated by the difference in the angle at which the light rays from them reach us with a difference of half a year, at both ends of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. In this context, the phenomenon is called "parallax". The distance of more distant objects, for which the parallax is smaller than the measurement, can only be estimated by knowing the intensity of the light emitted from them by identifying and recognizing the processes that happen in the light source, for example the intensity of light changing at a certain frequency, or some type of explosion. The answer to the question is therefore that without triangulation or parallax we cannot know the distance of the body emitting radiation if we do not have knowledge of the intensity of the light it emits.

    Prof. Shmuel Elitzur
    Rekh Institute of Physics
    The Hebrew University

  22. Miracles
    Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?
    Galileo was born in Pisa, studied in Pisa and conducted experiments, some of them thought experiments. What is not clear to you about the facts I presented, and which you continue to ignore?

  23. Israel

    I doubt it very much but I don't really have a special understanding in the field. It seems to me that as long as the initial propagation is equal in all directions this should not be possible. If you have information about a certain shape and directionality of the propagation then maybe there is something to work with.

  24. Wookie

    I know the usual methods. The question is about a device that can know the distance to a radio transmitter, without any prior knowledge of the transmitter.

  29. anonymous
    Galileo did experiments with an inclined plane, on which he rolled brass balls. He used a water clock to measure times.

    why are you so stupid

  31. Miracles
    As usual you have a mistake..
    "It is also interesting that the experiment that Galileo did that supposedly showed that the speed of the fall is equal - was wrong!"

    He did not perform the experiment at all.
    The experiment was a so-called 'thought exercise'. Galileo wanted to clarify that two bodies falling in a vacuum - even if their weight is different - will reach the ground at the same time.
    Got it, Nissim?

    Spring.

    Why don't you release my comment? What is this here, a conference of leftists?

  32. Israel
    Nice question. It seems to me that in general there is no way.

    This was a big problem at the beginning of the last century - how to measure distances to distant stars. One of the methods was looking at flickering stars called "variable Cepheids". Henrietta Libit discovered the method a century ago.

  33. Nice, I didn't think of that.

    Question: Is there a device that can know the location of a body just by receiving electromagnetic signals that the body emits? For example, is it theoretically possible to know the location of a radio transmitter without prior information about the strength of the transmitter and without triangulation, but only by analyzing the waves coming from the transmitter?

    It is true that we can know the location of any object by estimating distance using sight, but doesn't this require prior knowledge of the size of the object and the conditions of the area?

  34. Shmulik/Israel
    The tower of Pisa is a legend, as far as I know.

    Galileo did experiments on an inclined plane. To avoid friction - he rolled balls on an inclined plane. The problem is that the ball reaches the bottom of the plane when it also has rotational speed. That is, the potential energy was converted to linear speed and also to rotational speed. As far as I know, Galileo did not correct for rotational velocity.

  37. weak
    I can't believe how much nonsense you wrote.
    Let's start by saying that I can't be wrong because I asked a question and got answers.
    We will continue to point out that a physicist writes to you that the speed of light is not an axiom and you say exactly, but exactly, the opposite.
    We'll let you know that you think God is an axiom when you defined an axiom like this: "a premise that does not require proof but is suitable for experimental results." And the question being asked is which experiments God is suitable for exactly or actually which experiments God is not suitable for and how the hell do you get from "God's axiom" to mathematics and physics And why should we actually put God in there? Where exactly does this axiom help?

    My God, how much nonsense you spewed in one post.

  40. Israel
    It is also interesting that the experiment that Galileo did that supposedly showed that the speed of the fall is equal - was wrong! Galileo used an inclined plane on which he rolled various bodies. The problem is that in this situation the fall speed is not the same :).

  41. Despite the synonymy that may exist in the English language between axiom and postulate, in my uneducated opinion there is a fine distinction between the two:

    The axiom is mainly used in mathematics to indicate a premise that is both self-evident (and I am aware that "self-evident" is not included in the definition of the axiom and is not self-evident), and is formulated as concisely as possible. for example:

    Only one straight line passes between two points, which is also the shortest distance between them.

    From basic axioms such as this one can develop and logically prove complex sentences that are not self-evident. for example:

    In a right triangle, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other sides.

    It is of course possible to start from axioms that are not so obvious and reach other conclusions as is customary in linear algebra, but I hope the intention is self-evident.

    Postulate, on the other hand, is based on experimental results and is not necessarily self-evident, like Postulate 2 in relationships. But also from this postulate it can be logically proven that the speed of light is the upper limit in nature for sending information.

    Interestingly, before Galileo, a basic logically provable fact had disappeared from humanity: all bodies fall at the same speed, regardless of their mass.

    Vifim says: One crazy cow in hand is better than two round horses in a vacuum.

  42. albentezo,
    Indeed, I meant the larger sentence you mentioned and you answered and put a stamp on what bothered me a little. It sounds problematic to me to limit physics in advance, unlike mathematics, but I understand the trade-off and the advantage of a well-defined mathematical structure

  43. Shmulik
    In mathematics, they always try to take as axioms simple things that are taken for granted. Euclid found 4 of these, and another one that seemed to many people too complicated - the axiom of parallels. Euclid thought his geometry described the world, but today we know it doesn't. Many have tried to derive the axiom of parallels from the previous four axioms (especially a number of Arab and Persian mathematicians). Lukaszewski and Boulay succeeded in developing a complete mathematics that includes the negation of the axiom of parallels, and showed that no contradiction is reached.

    In number theory the situation is simpler, there are 9 piano axioms, and I don't think anyone is trying to reduce this number.

    In physics it is different, in my opinion. There is no "obvious". There are models that try to describe the world, and these models have basic assumptions, as Israel described. But - these basic assumptions require an explanation. For example - the cosmological principle, which seems very vague, still needs an explanation.

  44. Shmulik,

    I don't quite understand what the problem is with complete sentences of all kinds. If you mean Godel's first incompleteness theorem (that in an axiomatic system that is effective and consistent there will always be truth claims that cannot be proven within the framework of the theory), then it is a bit troubling, but in exactly the same way it is troubling a mathematician. I mean, you're not going to throw differential and integral calculus out the window just because you know there's some claim you'll never be able to prove, right? I think it can still be said that axiomatic physics would have provided us with information with a very high level of certainty, more so than physics based on working assumptions and requirements consistent with experimental results. But of course there is a basis in what you say. It is certainly possible that within the framework of axiomatic field theory there will be basic and important things that can be easily verified in the laboratory but simply cannot be proven on paper. What I'm trying to say is that I just don't think that's a good enough reason to give it up.

    Regarding "postulate" and "axiom". I don't doubt Nissim's words - if he says he probably knows - but you have to be careful with it, because if you read articles in physics today you will come across the word postulate quite a lot, and most of the time it will be in the sense of a certain assumption. Certainly not in the sense of an axiom, because there is no blanket agreement (and sometimes there is not even any clear reason to believe) that these assumptions are necessarily true, or that they are necessarily necessary for the model.

  45. Thanks everyone for the answers...
    Miracles,
    If the meaning is the same, then can axioms be thought of as very limited definitions?

  46. thanks for the answers!
    At first, for some reason, I read "the ball horse" as "Kadori horse" (the name of the horse will be answered), perhaps inspired by Israel's barn, but then I remembered the joke 🙂

    How are axioms different from definitions?
    Why in advance try to produce axiomatic physics, the theorem of perfection for a lurking world, no?

  47. "Miracles" and Shmolon you are wrong, as usual from the new.
    Physics is based on axioms.
    And an axiom is "a basic assumption that does not require proof but is suitable for experimental results." As Israel Shapira explained to you.
    Without the axioms that were laid down before, it was not possible to construct the theories that were laid down afterward.
    In fact it can even be said that the whole (unfortunate) life of the two of you 🙂 , and the lives of other people would not look the way they do without basic assumptions that do not require proof. Apparently it is also impossible to avoid making basic assumptions that do not require proof - and continue to exist as a human being in a mathematical and physical world. (Perhaps for both of you it is possible, but then your twisted mind creates a twisted world detached from reality and makes you live in fantasies).
    The genesis axiom is of course - God.
    And from there to the creation of a world built from mathematics and physics is quite short (in cosmological terms).
    Contrary to what is written here - there are no "two main types of assumptions".
    What there are are axioms on which all other predications are built. Both in physics and mathematics.
    Like for example: the speed of light. The axiom is that the speed of light is constant for an observer in an inertial frame. All kinds of other theories are built from this axiom.

  49. One man decides to bet on a horse race but he wants to get some scientific help before he puts any money into it.

    he asks a statistician. The statistician goes through all the statistics of all the races of all the horses in the race going back 3 years. Pages upon pages of tables of numbers... checking distributions, checking probabilities, doing calculations and finally saying that a certain horse has a 65% probability of winning the race.

    he asks a vet. The veterinarian does a comprehensive examination of all the horses, looks at their teeth, measures their temperature, gives them stress tests, lung capacity and a million more tests and finally bids on a horse that he thinks is the healthiest and fastest.

    he asks a physicist. The physicist asks for a few days to think about it. A day passes, two days pass, a week passes. The date of the race is getting closer and there is still no answer from the physicist. Finally the man came to the physicist to see what was going on with him, why he didn't give an answer. The physicist tells him: "Listen, this turned out to be a more difficult problem than I thought, so far I've only solved it with regard to a ball horse in a vacuum."

  50. Hello Shmulik,

    So. Since all the physics we know describes the world mathematically, of course it rests on certain mathematical axioms. But beyond that, the answer is more or less no.

    In physics we make a lot of assumptions. We need to distinguish between two main types of assumptions: assumptions that are made for the purposes of "solving the question", and assumptions that we believe are true but cannot quantify or prove. The second type is what Israel called postulates, although I don't know that the word postulate is reserved exclusively for such assumptions (it is certainly customary to use it in articles to describe weaker assumptions as well). The first type of assumption is like the ball horse joke, if you know (and if you don't - I ruined a pretty funny joke for you). It is important to understand that assumptions that are verified experimentally (for example, that the speed of light is constant) are not axioms and do not have the same status. There were and still are attempts to write theoretical physics in an axiomatic way, when the most successful (and the most beautiful in my opinion) attempt is exactly what you brought - axiomatic field theory. There are many beautiful things in this field, but as expected - the requirement to formulate physics as axiomatic is very limiting and gets us stuck very early (that is, with such theories it is usually not possible to arrive at a description of real physical systems).

    And finally - yes. All that needs to be done to develop special relativity is to assume that time is an integral part of space (that is, it is a dimension and not a parameter) and that the whole of space-time is a flat pseudo-Riemannian sheet. From there it is directly obtained that all inertial systems are balanced and that there is one constant velocity that is maximal for massive bodies, that massless bodies must move at it and only at it, and that it is invariant to the Lorentz transformation (that is, constant in every frame of reference). It is customary to mark it with c. From here it is no longer necessary to assume that the speed of light is constant, because all one needs to do is go to the laboratory and see that light fulfills all the above-mentioned properties.

  51. That is, the premise is not an axiom.
    By the way, if I'm not mistaken, Albantazo said that the new formalism of relativity does not assume what you wrote, but there is one basic assumption, if I'm not mistaken?

  52. The physical equivalent of an axiom is the postulate, a premise that does not require proof but is suitable for experimental results.

    Private relativity for example rests on two postulates: the equivalence of all inertial systems, and the invariance of the speed of light.

  53. Shmulik
    I don't think physics itself relies on axioms, but the various models do. Aristotle's model assumed that each type of material preferred to be found in a certain place. Ptolemy's model assumed that the planets moved on epicycles and diferents. Galileo's model assumes equivalence of motion systems, and Newton's model assumes that there is uniform time, that mass is constant, and so on. The special theory of relativity assumes that the speed of light is constant for every observer, and the general theory assumes that acceleration is equal to gravity.

    Albanzo will probably correct me 🙂

  56. Thank you Albantezo!
    Around the time I asked you about black holes, I also asked quora (great site for those who don't know).
    Everyone more or less agreed with you and I don't think you will learn anything new from there, but somewhere in the answers someone threw in the terms Gravastar and Dark Star, so I learned something else along the way.
    https://www.quora.com/Can-there-be-a-planet-that-is-heavy-enough-to-capture-light-and-not-allow-it-to-escape-from-it

  57. Well, in the article there is no mention of any axis or any relation to the structure of the universe. The article is just a presentation by two physicists of their research, the results of which are that the structure constant changes *in time* (not in space!), at a dizzying rate of 0.0001 percent in about 10 billion years (close to the age of the universe). Even in the article itself, the authors admit and explain that there are other groups around the world that have reached contradictory conclusions to their own. To date (the article in Scientific American is 10 years old, and the study was carried out about 15 years ago) their results have not been verified using any other method, or any other group as far as I know. This does not mean that they are necessarily wrong, but it does mean that the apparent result that alpha varies with time does not approach the level of certainty that we require in physics. As I wrote in the previous comment, these studies are of enormous importance, but they also require a high level of certainty. Even if they were right, it is possible to debate the meaning of a difference of one millionth of a percent from a practical point of view (although theoretically this is a very interesting opening because it requires an answer to the question: "Why do the constants change at all?", a question that has a possible answer within string theory).

  59. Shmulik,

    It is not the mass that determines whether there will be a black hole, but the density. The mass determines the Schwarzschild radius, and the density must be such that the total size of the body is smaller than this radius. There is no problem losing mass and becoming a black hole - if at the same time as losing mass the volume decreases so that the total mass density (or energy density, actually) increases.

    Regarding models of planet formation - I hate to sound like a broken record, but my answer is that I have no idea. I am so far from the field that to answer would simply be irresponsible on my part. I can say that I would be very surprised to find out if heavy matter can reach the relevant densities to collapse into a black hole.

    Although my fields of activity are mainly black holes and cosmology, it should be understood that these fields can be studied both from the directions of astrophysics, and also from completely different directions of high energy and particle physics. I'm from the second field, so I don't have a deep knowledge of astrophysical topics like planets, for example.

  60. albentezo,
    Thanks as usual.
    I guess the answer to my next question lies in your answer in paragraph number 1 but I can't figure out why before the star collapsed in on itself, it allowed light to escape it?
    After all, the mass of the star was greater before it collapsed

    By the way, do the models that deal with the formation of planets prevent the creation of a planet large enough and dense enough to be a "black hole" that was not created by the collapse of a star?

  62. Hello Shmulik,

    1. The short answer is that what you said is wrong. The more detailed answer requires caution - we must understand what exactly we call a black hole. If we mean some event horizon, that is, a surface in space-time that divides it into two causally disconnected parts (which is just like saying that a light beam cannot cross it in both directions, at most one), then there are horizons without singularities. Simple examples of such are, for example, the horizon created when a body moves at a constant acceleration (after enough time its speed will aspire to infinity, so light rays that come from points far enough late enough will never be able to catch it) called the Rindler horizon, or a cosmological horizon that results from expansion/contraction the universe. It is clear from these examples that this is not exactly the right horizon for a black hole as we understand it. For horizons that fit a black hole (defined using trapped null surfaces), then there is actually a mathematical theorem proved by Penrose that says there must be a singularity hidden by the horizon. So if we understand a black hole as an object that has collapsed from its own gravity until its size is smaller than the Schwarzschild radius, the mathematical formalism of general relativity guarantees that behind the Schwarzschild radius there is a singularity. One has to be careful with phenomenological descriptions of the collapse process itself, because in such a process quantum gravity will probably play an important role, but it is enough to look at the end result of the horizon to know that there must be a singularity. It might be time to point out that the whole idea of ​​a singularity is a mathematical artifact of general relativity, which we hope quantum gravity can clarify or get rid of. But in the existing formalism, a black hole is bound by a singularity.

    2. I might not be the right person to ask him this question. The idea of ​​a space-time foam is an interesting idea but does not commit to quantum mechanics or general relativity. In fact, the most popular theory (and in my opinion also the most successful) for understanding the structure of space-time, is string theory, not the existence of such foam. On the other hand, its leading rival, Loop Quantum Gravity, actually contains such foam, although in a slightly different way from Wheeler's version, called spin networks. I'm not an LQG expert, so I don't want to assure you that it can be calibrated or changed so that the foam is smaller than the barrier they found (or even say that the foam today is larger than the barrier they found. That is, the barrier may be relevant to Wheeler's predictions but not relevant to the predicted size of spin networks) , but I have a strong feeling that this is not a strong blow to LQG. This does not mean that such studies and experiments are not very important, but this is probably not a paradigm shift in the theoretical community. I don't think I can research the subject in depth and provide you with a better answer, so maybe you should find someone who specializes in LQG in one of the forums or try to look for the answer yourself.

    Is it unnecessary to state that it is recommended to ignore the answer of "Leftists go outside"?

  63. Shmul
    1: A black hole is not a singular point.
    A black hole is created roughly according to the description you described.

    2: If we find a way to calculate distances shorter than the Planck length it will solve many problems in quantum mechanics.

  64. albentezo,
    Two questions if possible.
    1. From what I understand, there is no obligation for black to be a singular point. Am I right that a star is big enough that it will eventually collapse into a black hole, preventing light from escaping even before collapsing?

    2. A few comments ago, I brought here an article from Israel that talks about the fact that if such a "space-time foam" exists, the bubbles that make up this "foam" should be smaller than what quantum mechanics predicts. Did this result make waves or was it expected? Does this result give any thought to how to fix quantum mechanics so that these bubbles (if they exist) are smaller?

  65. Thank you Albantezo,
    I'll see if I can get the person who told you about everything, here, to try to explain.

    For those who like MDB, the books fire upon the deep and Gal Mokh talk about such an idea

  66. Shmulik,

    To the best of my knowledge this is a mistake. There is indeed a lot of interest in the question "are the constants of nature really constant" (alpha is simply the electron charge squared divided by Planck's constant times the speed of light). Many modern physical theories, such as string theory, do not require them to be constants and mathematical theories can be explored where the constants vary. Also, there are attempts to experimentally check the size of such and such constants in space and time (using ancient radiation from distant stars). As far as I know, there is no evidence that the constants change (all the results of the studies provide barriers on the rate of change, which is always a very small barrier that contains 0). Although I did not start digging into the articles of experimentalists, I am convinced that if there was experimental evidence for this phenomenon (that the rate of change is certainly not 0 and that there is some special axis to our universe), there would not be a physicist in the world who would not have heard of it, especially if he deals with cosmology.

  67. Hello Albantezo,
    In some forum discussion I saw the following claim:
    "There are studies that come to test the uniformity of the alpha coefficient (which by the way includes both C and the Planck constant) which is the fine structure constant of the universe, throughout the entire universe.
    And it turns out that it is not constant and the same everywhere in the universe, but changes in a way that points to an apparently central axis through which the universe is arranged, in terms of such significant physical constant uniformity."

    Do you have any idea what this is about?

  68. Hello friends,
    Below is an article from Israel describing further confirmation of the general relationship found by Israeli researchers.
    http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/science/.premium-1.2591311

    What is even more fascinating is that the result the researchers reached contradicts the existence of the "space-time foam" invented by John Wheeler. If such a "foam" does exist, the bubbles that make it up should be smaller than what quantum mechanics predicts.

  69. Hi Shmulik,

    The work and the article are progressing very well, thank you very much. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think I'll have anything very interesting to tell you on the subject of the existence of the wave function (I use the word existence to distinguish it from reality in the mathematical sense, meaning that the wave function has no imaginary part). I stumbled upon PBR for the first time about two weeks ago, when a friend of mine told me about his interest in the subject. I looked at the article you just sent as well as the other article, and as I said - although the topic interests me very much on a curiosity level, I never got the chance to work in the field (and probably didn't either because it doesn't coincide with my research interests). The logic presented in the article seems reasonable to me, but in my understanding (which is important to qualify because quantum foundations is not my field of research or expertise, and because I have not studied the articles from cover to cover as is necessary to express a serious opinion about them) the statement here is a little weaker than it first appears.

    PBR shows that the interpretation of the Hegel wave being a non-singular characteristic of actual reality, but some kind of statistical or epistemic projection (that is, which reflects a certain aspect of our knowledge of reality and not necessarily reality itself) is not consistent with quantum measurement results. This does not rule out the interpretation that Hegel's phon is indeed a "there is" that characterizes reality, but it characterizes it as a statistical distribution of measurements. That is, they dismiss the statistical interpretation one step higher (or lower, depending on where you look) than what is usually called the "statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics".

    In conclusion, I will mention that, to the best of my knowledge, no way has yet been found to experimentally differentiate between different interpretations (that is, two interpretations that give different predictions from each other and it is possible to check, at least in theory, if one of them is definitely wrong), therefore with all the interest and beauty in these questions, it is important to understand that they More philosophies than physics because they do not affect the way we study nature, or the results of the experiments we perform, or the models we build, but only our understanding of these models when we draw a picture in our head. This doesn't mean that one day we won't find a way to distinguish interpretations, or maybe there is already progress in this field that I'm not aware of because I'm wasting my time on strings and black holes...

  70. albentezo,
    You can search under the search of the site "free comments"
    I have already suggested to the site manager to add a link on the home page to the free comments.
    I don't put the link again or the response will be blocked again for many hours

  72. Sorry for the jump,
    albentezo,
    Do you know the FBR theorem? (I try not to write in English so as not to be blocked).
    It seems that the article that appears two comments before is quite fascinating

  73. Avi,
    Would you please release my comment in the free comments?
    It's all a question for Albantezo about PBR. What have I already done?

    By the way, it seems right to me that the home page will have a link directly to the free comments. If it exists and I missed it, the forgiveness is with you.

  75. Wookie, in the repetitions of time they try to arrange the good at the top, and sometimes "other" factors are involved, usually your good is that souls do not interfere in your life and this is mysticism and it is erased in the repetitions. Another thing is stories like the Tanach that come to correct things in the future for certain reasons or that were deleted in rehearsals. You will, of course, call a "conspiracy" a bad thing that someone knows will happen and intervenes in it, and despite this, it will be revealed to you even if it is meant to return a time that is better than the best. In short, your goodness is affected by a hidden deletion of repetitions, so you are not aware. Sincerely

  76. Water blowing

    "However sometimes I like the feeling of special knowledge"

    You're on to something here. This is exactly what attracts people to all kinds of occult knowledge (mysticism, religions, various conspiracy theories that claim to hide the real truth from the common people, etc.).

  77. There are many bad things about time returns, whether it's trying to prove that you paid bills after the return, whether it's that sometimes you're not the only one using your ID, and whether it's walking down a street that has been renamed after time returns. However sometimes I like the feeling of special knowledge.
    If anyone wants to open a discussion on the subject, welcome

  84. Israel
    In modern radio systems there is a carrier wave on which information rides. To recognize the beginning of a song - you have to decipher the letter. In the case of satellite radio it is even more complicated, because there is compression (think ZIP) and error correction, and more encryption... All this takes time.

  85. Miracles

    Here is exactly what I need:

    I have a satellite radio receiver. I can hear songs by the Beatles in it, and also by the Beetles.

    There is said to be a moment of silence in the broadcast, followed by the opening of DONT LET ME DOWN. As soon as you hit the opening signal, the scoop pops, right?

    I need the arrival time of this special moment, with nanosecond precision if possible.

    Something simpler is also possible: connect another radio to the second channel of the scope, and display the time difference (if any) between the arrival of the two signals from the two radios.

    Capish?

    And why do I suddenly have a snoozing advertisement from the University of Haifa that covers half my screen without the possibility of getting rid of it?

  86. Israel
    If you mean the signal of a GPS satellite then there is a problem in measuring the arrival time. The signal from the satellites is continuous and coded (PRN) so what exactly do you want to measure? Scope will not be able to measure it like this in any case, without amplification, and amplification adds delay.

    I guess I don't understand what you are trying to measure...

  88. Wookie

    You are right, and skepticism is a candle to my feet. The following experiments are designed in such a way that their result will be a slam dunk - either one way or the other with no intermediate option.

  89. Israel

    It's not really winter, but the kids are on vacation, so they go for a walk in the traffic.

    The length of the antenna can be specially adjusted to the features of the device, but I don't think that when they made the adjustment, they thought about this form of use.

  90. Wookie

    Shaw Winter? Aren't you here in California? Today it did drop to 70, but yesterday it was 80. What miracles are you living in the pole?

    The length of the antenna is specially adapted to the features of the device. As far as I know this is the case with any normal antenna.

  91. Israel
    winter break/psychotic break, familiar? Maybe you can ask the blowing water.

    I don't really know, I don't really understand the field close enough. It just occurred to me that maybe we need to understand the effect of acceleration on different electronic components (if it exists) when doing things like this (fan or non-fan).

    If the box with the magnet is just there to connect to the car, what's the problem with removing it?

    A question that might be worth asking is whether the length of the antenna has any effect.

  92. Walkie, where did you go?

    Exactly for your question I performed the new experiment yesterday with the external antenna. Not only is the device not on the fan, the fan is not used at all, but the antenna is rotated by hand like a lasso.

    There is still a small technical problem, since at the end of the coaxial cable that is the antenna there is a small magnetic box designed to stick to the roof of the car or the belly of the plane. During the rotation, it creates an electromagnetic field that can affect the measurement. I'm trying to overcome the problem without damaging the antenna, which is the only one I got with the original device, but I don't think it will change the results. But everything must be taken into account.

    Does anyone have an idea how to accurately measure the arrival time of a signal? I have an oscilloscope but it's not that simple with it.

  94. Israel

    If you are talking to the company. Did you ask them if the device is built to handle being put on a fan, and how is it expected to react to that?

  96. You will see miracles in the decrease of dimensions, from moving back in time many times,, if you do not see the path and cannot functionally restore, we are talking about a direction where statistics are done to decrease a dimension. This is missing information from a decrease in dimension and its image appears to you to be flattened in a statistically low dimension, it is some kind of mathematical compensation for a change in dimensions that also results from moving backwards and forwards in time many times and stabilizes on the forward and backward movement once which seems normal to you and the only one you know, but there is another, another dimension

  97. Your logic should also operate in parallel universes, in a place where one tells the truth and one tells a lie about the same thing, and it changes what you stand for and with what power. Sincerely

  99. Dear Mr. Nissim, if we describe, for example, the two cracks experiment, and we try to check where the particle went through and which crack it came out of, the test will cause the particle to settle on the test and the image of interference will disappear, the part that means the particle no longer passed through the second crack either, that is, the test caused the information to return back Crack from there to the second crack and the movement was erased backwards in time, that is the particle was affected in the section where the particle went back in time and you see the stabilization, that is, you detect a movement backwards in time, and certainly information that returns. Sincerely

  100. If you accept that measuring the state of one particle immediately affects the state of its entangled sibling, it can be shown that the effect can also be in the past.

    I did not invent, according to the Weiler experiment, Gali's articles, and Shmulik's last link. My role is to give an intuitive illustration, if there is a demand.

  101. Israel
    You're right, I accept the correction - buffering is indeed defined for systems at rest. And in the case of the fusion experiment, the systems are at rest. But - where is the backward effect here?

  102. Why?

    Go to the first chapter of Einstein's original relativity essay:

    https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

    1. Definition of Simultaneity

    He offers a method of how to synchronize clocks between any two points, so that we can talk about simultaneity between 2 points that are at rest relative to each other.

    The experiments today showed unequivocally that the coordinates change even when only the antenna rotates. Yesterday it looked a bit strange, because only the longitude and latitude changed but not the height. A short conversation with the company solved the problem: in this particular GPS there are 2 methods for measuring height: barometric, as you suggested at the time, and satellite. When I switched to satellite only, the observed height also changed accordingly.

  103. Israel
    Simultaneity is only well defined at a point, right? It's true that you can't affect an event outside your light cone, of course, but I don't think you're talking about such a situation.

  104. Confused only at that point?

    If I can influence what happened in Iraq 4000 years ago, even though I have never been to Iraq - wouldn't that make Einstein, a descendant of the Iraqi Abraham after whom he is named - raise an eyebrow?

  106. Nissim, you asked about frequency, wavelength is something completely different!

    Oh, no ..

    We here at Lala Land try to explain everything in a physically understandable way. The fact that an intuitive explanation does not yet exist does not mean that it does not exist. A mathematical explanation without physical logic doesn't really help. That's why gravity wave function is a term, but I'm trying to understand what its physical meaning is. And if it is the one that transfers the properties of the particles intertwined in 0 time, we are still left with the same problem as before.

    Non-locality does not logically contradict relativity, but it puts it to a difficult physical test because it shows that it is possible to influence the past (where is water?). I have a feeling that Einstein would not have been very happy with this interpretation, as expressed in the EPR paper.

  107. Israel
    What is the wavelength, I asked you 🙂 A "physical" explanation is problematic. We can understand what a particle is or what a wave is. I don't think a human being can "physically" understand something that behaves both this way and that way. On the other hand - the properties of light as a wave and as a particle can be seen in simple experiments that are understandable to us.

    Also the shortening of time and length are not understood. That's probably why I'm not a physicist...

  108. In short, the photons sneak up behind and thus transfer negative momentum, eh?

    OK, but what is their wavelength?

    On the topic of interweaving - if the wave function fills the entire universe before the collapse, then it does explain the synchronized state of the particles. But what about the wave function itself? Is it a physical object or just a mathematical probability? Can a mathematical object explain the results of assembly experiments?

  110. Israel, miracles,
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/einstein-big-mistake-0711143#comments
    Read my question that starts with "Albantezo, sorry for the jump" and then the answer

    I then asked a follow-up question that begins with "Albanzo, early in the morning,"
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/daily-modulation-as-a-smoking-gun-of-dark-matter-0812145/comment-page-12/#comments

    At the end of the explanation (which is limited due to my lack of mathematical knowledge) there is a link that might help
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

  111. Dear scientists Nissim and Israel, because photons move backwards and forwards in time and in other dimensions their momentum is from wind, it is clear that Entagal is related to the transfer of information from the movement backwards and forwards in time many times. And regarding Israel's experiment, I already tried to explain to you that at a processor speed of several gigabytes, and at the speed of light of the photons on average because they are positioned on the movement backwards and forwards in time, you cannot test a distance smaller than thirty centimeters, it is not enough to measure, you have no information, the light moves too fast, and you complicates the experiment. Much respect to both of you, blowing water

  112. Miracles

    "Reverse momentum transfer seems to me to contradict what we know, and yet, you don't argue about that"

    Must argue, and everything is related. The GPS experiments are also related to the debate about the reverse momentum transfer. In fact, this is where they were born.

    The results of the experiment today contradict the explanation I received from Rafi, but they are exactly what I expected, even though yesterday when I received the device I gave the experiment a 1% chance of success. I will wait a few days to have clear results and then I will contact him.

  113. Israel
    First feel good!!!
    My claim is that the thing with the simulated photons is that transferring momentum along them, as opposed to the direction of their motion, is no less strange than instantaneous state transfer in the entanglement case. It is even more strange, because interweaving is strange to us, who were brought up on the limit of the speed of light, but on the other hand does not create a contradiction. Reverse momentum transfer seems to me to contradict what we know, and yet, you don't argue about that 🙂

    Regarding the GPS, I understand that this contradicts the explanation you received, which says that the time in the accelerometer slowed down, correct?

  114. Honorable Israel, the photons move backwards and forwards in time many times, therefore they feel an attraction according to the future potential, and we can talk about that they feel as if by virtual photons, meaning a photon that moves backwards and forwards in time many times. And you can identify here another dimension where information about the potential passes. With respect to water we breathe

  115. Miracles

    I posted your question on several blogs a week ago. The only one who has answered so far is Ofer Maged. Here is part of the correspondence:

    "Hi Ofer, some questions for the new year.

    As far as I know, electromagnetic force is carried by photons.

    If there are two magnets or two static electric charges, how does the force they exert on each other work? If by exchanging photons and virtual photons, what is the wavelength of those photons?

    Thanks.

    Reply

    Ofer Magad Monday, January 05, 2015

    The interpretation of the exchange of photons in the interaction comes from the theory of quantum fields and only in this framework it is possible to discuss its meanings. I want to say, the classical description of an electromagnetic wave has almost no meaning in the discussion about the exchange of virtual photons".

    ZA that we still don't have an answer about the wavelength of the photons that carry the power. It also seems a bit strange that attraction would be created by photons carrying momentum whose direction is opposite to the direction of attraction, no? The same problem also exists in explaining gravitational force with gravitons.

    Today I conducted an experiment with a GPS Garmin Montana 600 with an external antenna. Similar results to the previous experiment are also obtained when only the antenna rotates. I'm a little sick so I couldn't do a rigorous enough experiment, I'll try to do it in the next few days.

  121. reader

    Regarding the helium - I guess we both understand what it is about and agree.

    Regarding the pseudo - do you know any forum where Dex readers can freely express their ideas? Also, who exactly does it bother if the same forum is called "free comments"?

    I agree with you that it might be better that the comments are not displayed in "recent comments", because history proves that they irritate many commenters.

    If, on the other hand, someone chooses to come to Lala Land on his own initiative - the responsibility is his alone.

  122. Don't know who it is, we agreed, but certainly not me. In my opinion, there is no place for pseudo-science on this site.

    By the way, if it interests you, the explanation of the "shells" is good for high school level - but not beyond. The full explanation comes from quantum theory. (Molecular orbital theory, Atomic orbital theory)

  123. reader

    getting. I thought you might have meant that helium is a noble gas because its entire shell is full and hence its stability. I didn't notice you referred to a molecule.

    Regarding pseudo-science in "Hidan" - this has been discussed many times, and we agreed that the appropriate place for it is "free comments". Because of the great freedom of the comments here, everyone is allowed to say what's on their mind. For the same reason, whoever does not like it is also free to leave. Free comments.

    But if he stays, he should respect the writers, no matter how delusional he thinks they are.

    jubilee.

    I have no problem with any assumption, as long as it ultimately leads to the answer to my question: constancy of the speed of light in all reference systems, without postulates and without anger.

  125. ^
    Where have you seen wandering hydrogen atoms and stable helium molecules? (under normal conditions, needless to say)

    Yuval, thanks but no, I'm not interested in learning your model. I have enough models to study. Just want to remind you that you are in the real world and not in the Marvel universe, and that (in my opinion) this site is not the place to spew pseudo-science onto the web.

  126. Israel,
    To understand what I'm talking about, you have to go back. Maybe not all the way, but you have to agree on some point of departure.
    You can start, for example, with the particles of the "dark matter". Although it was not in them that the universe began to be built, your understanding of what is not a bad starting point. At this stage the universe spreads over a four-dimensional space (the dimension of time and the three dimensions of space) which is unlimited and full of precise particles ("dark matter") and non-precise particles ("empty space"). The meticulous particles are in constant motion that varies randomly in speed and direction. At any given moment, each precise particle occupies a fixed exclusive volume in space.
    From here the road is long but beautiful. Did you agree to walk in it?

  127. reader

    "Why are hydrogen molecules stable and helium molecules not?"

    Not a bit the other way around?

  128. jubilee:

    From my response from the 19th:

    "If the questions are annoying, point it out and I'll shut up."

    And from yesterday:

    "Let's get off the island of locality right now.

    Just explain how you can get the determination of the speed of light in any frame of reference".

    and also:

    "A physical explanation. Preferably simple and understandable, but long and complicated is also possible. I have patience".

    So the choice is yours. If you want - explain. You won't want to - Zbarbir. Just no yelling.

  130. Israel or anyone else reading, are you interested in learning my model?
    If you are considering answering yes, then before you answer, please pay attention to the following points:
    A) It is a long story, often boring. Short cuts can be made, but then spaces will be created.
    b) Currently, the model is not perfect. There is no reference to the phenomenon of non-locality in quantum entanglement.
    c) Even if a perfect match is found between him and the known physical reality, and even if his predictions are tested and confirmed, he is not physics itself but only an image of it, and should be treated as such.

  131. Yuval, you talk about "your model" a lot, but is it really like that? I mean, what exactly can be described with it? Mathematically, what can I do with these stories? Can you describe how the computer works? Why are hydrogen molecules stable and helium molecules not? Why does CO2 have a high heat capacity compared to neon? Calculate the average energy of a gas at room temperature? Calculate the wavelength emitted by a molecule/atom after irradiating them? describe electric circuits?

  132. Here is what I asked you about the description you gave:

    "Shouldn't we get different speeds of light for bodies with different massiveness or density?"

    And here is what you answered:

    "My meticulous particles are themselves a consequence of something simpler which is also, in turn, a descendant of something even simpler. The whole story is very complex, and to those who don't know it, it certainly seems complicated, but in the end it claims not to leave any question unsolved."

    Which brings me back to:

    "It goes without saying that I cannot comment on what I do not know."

    as Sah? God forbid. We should finish now.

  134. There is nothing wrong. There is also nothing wrong with Ptolemy's explanation of the movement of the heavenly bodies. Why adopt Copernicus? Just because of elegance?

    Until now I have not been able to understand what according to you is the mechanism that produces the phenomenon.

  135. I am ready to repeat the things I brought a few days ago, if necessary. But before I do so, would you agree to go to the explanations given by great Shems more than a century ago? What is wrong, for example, with "ether drag" or Lorentz contraction? From my side, there is nothing preventing you from categorizing my things in the same category with them, but please note a small difference between them and me: unlike them, I also describe a mechanism that produces the phenomenon.

  136. And doesn't it seem much more complicated to you than the assumption that the speed of light is the same in every direction in the small and limited field of the interferometer in the m-m experiment?

  138. "Seeing the speed of light as varying according to the density of the dark matter particles (those in my model are called "accurate particles") explains these phenomena and eliminates the paradoxes."

    varies even in the small and limited field of the interferometer in the m-m experiment? Variable so that all the variables offset themselves exactly to give the illusion that the speed of light is constant in every direction relative to the interferometer?

  139. The absolute determination of the speed of light in any frame of reference only creates more paradoxes than it solves them. For example, the existence of "dark energy". Seeing the speed of light as varying according to the density of the dark matter particles (those in my model are called "accurate particles") explains these phenomena and eliminates the paradoxes. I treat the constancy of the speed of light as a mistake, an "optical illusion", and point to possible factors for its origin. But for that you don't need to talk to me. Proposals for a solution were submitted over a century ago (you also mentioned one: "dragging the site"). Either way, you will not hear from me that the speed of light is constant and the same in any reference system and I have no intention of explaining something that I do not believe in.

  140. jubilee.

    Let's get off the island of locality for now.

    Just explain how you can get the constants of the speed of light in any frame of reference.

    Physical explanation. Preferably simple and understandable, but long and complicated is also possible. I have patience.

    But let it be anchored in reality and logic. No postulates and no metaphysics.

    Because if you are not interested or able - then how can you expect me to respond seriously to your words? Me or anyone else?

  141. It's not like that, Israel. I have what you ask for, but it is not a five-line story but a long scroll with many chapters. In the past I tried to engage people here, but I realized that this is not the right stage.

  143. A long and exhausting day passed on his strength.

    The game is called "Fourths". When the opposing player would ask you for a card that you did not have, you would tell him "go to sleep" (in my family there were also those who said "gay Schlofen"). Then he would take a card from the cash register and the turn would go to you.

    Not just Ramenjuan. With me, in high school, one learned that the solutions to her geometry homework would come to her in a dream. Her name is Miriam Levy. I wonder what solution she is dreaming of now.

    Definately not. I am looking for a way not to expand the discount system. And even if I expand, without a choice, I will look for the basis for the expansion in the existing data.

    Are you asking if there is a connection between the model and reality? That's exactly what I'm trying to show.

  144. Please kill, Mushon?

    Ramanjuan would solve the math problems in a dream.

    But is there a connection between the model and the world beyond dreaming? For example, a physical explanation for the constancy of the speed of light in all reference systems or is it non-local?

    I am aware that you are looking for an extension of the set of assumptions, but an axiom is not just an arbitrary starting point. It should also be self-explanatory. According to the first 4 axioms of Euclid, and in my opinion also the fifth.

  145. Say, do you perhaps remember in which game they say "go to sleep"? 🙂

    Meanwhile, I have not found within my model a satisfactory explanation for the phenomenon of non-locality in the entanglement of photons or electrons. I think to search in two possible directions:
    1) Expanding the discount system (not in the base but somehow along the way *☼)
    2) Continue investigating the geometry of what exists now
    *☼ The basis of my model is the "nothing" ("the primordial negation" that denies itself to the "yes") and no assumptions can be added to it. From here on, the focus is not on "what" but on "how". That is, how the "is", after being created from the "nothing", develops into all known physics. At the beginning of things I recruit a mathematical "creature", corresponding to the "imaginary" number i, which I call the "root of the negative". I found it in the book "Laws of Form" by an English mathematician named Spencer Brown (George Spencer Brown - Laws of Form). The book was published in 1969 and I only started creating the "yes" from the "non" in 1983, so I can't take the crown of originality for myself 🙁
    And why am I telling you all this? Because I came to understand the method of creating the "is" from the "nothing" in a dream and now you offer me a solution to my dream (probably you must have already heard the story).

  146. Well, Schwinn. Go to sleep.

    You say that the story is complex - I guess the hidden is more than the visible.

    It goes without saying that I cannot comment on what I do not know.

    If you can, dream up a solution to the problem of the entangled photons in the picture below.

    (If you can't see them, it's because of the virtuality of the situations).

  147. Israel, it came out on Fox that my previous response is suitable for both of you.
    Although this complication is ugly, the main problem I'm trying to deal with is not the complication, but rather the presentation of the whole of things using simple building blocks.
    My meticulous particles are themselves the offspring of something simpler which, in turn, is the offspring of something even simpler. The whole story is very complex, and to those who are not familiar with it it certainly seems complicated, but in the end it claims not to leave any question unsolved.
    And now really good night. Even in America there are places where the sun has already set.

  149. jubilee

    With all the respect I have (and I have!) for alternative explanations, I do not find any advantage in an explanation that is much more complicated than the existing explanations that give measurable predictions, while the alternative explanation does not give any such predictions.

    The relationship has been tested and found to be adequate on many occasions. So if I quote from the words of my teachers and Rabbi YH: Why complicate unnecessarily? What's wrong with existing?

  150. Yuval, A. Zukun and Y. "The omission of the rest system of the medium forces the search for other explanations" - Albert and Otto already thought about this and called the system where everything is at rest - the zero point energy. And in this system the AM radiation moves at a speed that is constant.

  151. Israel,
    Probability is some real number. I don't know what it is in this particular context, because of the hypothetical hypothesis you mentioned ("dragging the site") and other hypotheses born to overcome the wonder.
    Although the description you provided presents the experiment in greater detail and accuracy than the description I provided, I did not miss it. This is because here, too, a beam of light is involved that travels back and forth before reaching the rest and the desired property in the interferometer.
    Willam vs. Albert - act XNUMX: the omission of the mediator's resting system forces the search for other explanations, some of them even very complicated - such as my explanation.

  152. jubilee

    "The medium's rest system is local. Each galaxy has its own rest system, each star system and even within one planet there can be several media systems that are not coordinated with each other."

    But I believe you will also agree that the probability that the rest system of the medium will be exactly the rest system of the interferometer is quite negligible, right? It is able to measure quite low speeds, a few meters per second. What is this compared to the huge speed differences within the galaxy or even the solar system?

    Unless you accept the premise of "dragging" the site.

    "The speed of light is measured round trip and the value obtained is necessarily the average between the trip and the return".

    It seems to me that you may have missed an important point in the m-m experiment. There is no question of average here. If the speed of an airplane is 500 km/h and it flies a distance of 500 km in each direction without wind, the flight will take two hours. If a wind is now blowing at 100 km/h so that one side has a speed of 600 and the other 400, the flight will take longer even though the average is still 500 km/h.

    "There are many explanations why the MM experiment did not find the rest system. The most accepted explanation is "Lorentz contraction", but it is not the only one.

    And there is also Einstein's explanation: there is no particular rest system to mediate.

    This is the accepted explanation today.

    Very reasonable in my opinion.

  153. Hi Israel, and thank you for your patience ♥
    The resting system of the medium is local. Each galaxy has its rest system, each star system and even within one planet there can be several media systems that are not coordinated with each other.
    The speed of light is measured round and round and the value obtained is necessarily the average between the round trip and the return. The claim I made is that the speed of light in one direction is not the same as the speed in the other direction, and this cannot be put to a rebuttal test that does not separate the directions.
    There are many explanations why the MM experiment did not find the rest system. The most accepted explanation is "Lorentz contraction", but it is not the only one.

  154. Hi R.H. 🙂
    As scientists, we have several criteria for rejecting models. First and foremost, we discard models that fail the refutation tests. Another touchstone for rejecting a model is used in the comparison between two models that have not been refuted: the model that makes more assumptions is rejected ("Ockham's Razor"). Those among us who are not scientists are given a few more yardsticks to disqualify. They, unlike scientists, also have standards to accept. But what people agree on, does not reflect reality but only what they agree on (and that too, if there is any agreement on how they agree). Do you know "A billion Chinese are not wrong - they ate rice"? So not long ago I heard an upgrade: "A trillion flies are not wrong - they ate excrement".
    The Higgs boson deity turns out to be too early. It is not the boson that gives mass to the world. The Higgs boson in its unholy form has a place in my model, within the growing "zoo" of particles. But the main thing is not one model or another. All accepted models, and even those that have passed all the refutation tests, are nothing more than models. They are not the real thing but the image of the real thing that we draw with all our ability and talent.
    In short, my model is nothing more than a story. It's a long story, and from time to time I release short chapters. If you like the story so far, then you will ask for sequels. Don't like it, change the channel.
    And you know what? Even I, his birth father, am not convinced that he will be able to describe all the physics. Here, to explain the issue of non-locality in quantum entanglement I am forced to add an assumption.

  155. But if the speed of light is relative to the medium, what is the rest system of the medium?

    What's wrong with a round-trip measurement experiment?

    If the MM experiment is acceptable, why didn't he find the rest system of the medium?

  156. It's not so much complicated as it is confusing. When I talk about the speed of light I sometimes forget to emphasize relative to what: to your medium (which is a system of rest) or to a body in motion (relative to your medium).
    The confirmation/refutation test I can pull up my sleeve is in retrospect the Michaelson Morley experiment, but it's not wisdom. The best experiment (which is currently not possible) is to measure the speed of light in each direction separately and not as it is done today - back and forth in one measurement.

  157. "The light beam passes through at least three different environments: the environment of the semi-reflective mirror, the environment of the space between the mirrors and the environment of the mirror at the edge. In each of the environments there are different densities of fine particles, and the light beam slows and speeds up accordingly. The velocities are offset and therefore the premise of the experiment, according to which light moves at a different speed in each direction (relative to the components of the system), is wrong."

    Hmmm.. Isn't it a bit complicated for a model that is supposed to be primary and basic?

    Is there any confirmation or disproof test?

  158. jubilee
    really?
    You don't understand that reality is not what Yuval Chaikin thinks it is. Reality will consist of everything we can agree and disagree with. The facts indicate that there is general agreement about the facts.
    This is the reality we live in. The facts you point to exist only in the general agreement between you. This is not what is in the consensus of the scientific community, as for your theory. From your words it can be thought that the imagination exceeds any reality. Look, it's not because Einstein was Jewish and if you're Jewish then you must be smart too, but because there is a general agreement among the people who understand the thing, about the thing itself (which are the facts).
    One of the facts you forget is this: the existence of the God particle (Higgs) was recently confirmed.
    That doesn't mean he was just born. What's more - you can't talk about such topics, and mention the particle of light without referring to the particle of God. To remind you, if it weren't for the particle, you wouldn't be able to write here: photon.
    Look at the world from a slightly more straight angle: the fact is that from a vacuum (energy) particles (virtual) are created, that as a result of some interaction between them and other particles, the possibility arises for a photon to create a whole world.

  159. Really interesting question. Let's look at the components of the MM test system. It is placed on a table in the laboratory. It has a light source, a semi-reflective mirror, two full mirrors and an interferometer. A beam of light leaves the source, splits into two, each half of the beam moves in a back and forth path, they split again and then two quarters of the original beam form an interference image in the interferometer.
    Let's ignore for a moment that the whole system participates in the complex movement of the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, etc., and arbitrarily define the initial state as rest. We'll take the picture of the struggle and start moving things. For example, we will drive the table along some kind of rail and screen the interferometer screen while driving. Let's choose, for example, the movement of the table perpendicular to the direction of the light beam coming from the source. We will examine, without limiting the generality, the situation in which the light diverging from the half-reflecting mirror chases the mirror at the end until it hits it. So he reverses direction and returns to the half mirror. According to Haikin, his speed in the forward direction will not be the same as his speed in the return direction. But here it is possible to make it difficult and say that the density of the medium in both directions is the same, because it is the same medium, and therefore the speed of light should be the same in every direction. But it is not exactly so. The light beam passes through at least three different environments: the environment of the semi-reflective mirror, the environment of the space between the mirrors and the environment of the mirror at the edge. In each of the environments there are different densities of fine particles, and the light beam slows and speeds up accordingly. The velocities are offset and therefore the premise of the experiment, according to which light moves at a different speed in each direction (relative to the components of the system), is wrong.

  160. And what about a body that does not sustain movement? Interferometer for example? Does the speed of light change there too?

  161. When you say "massive" you are surely speaking in terms of physics, which is not so relevant here. "Density", however, is a term used in the current model. However, a distinction must be made between the fields. In my model, the density is not of a body but of an environment.
    A body in motion is between two environments that have different densities. The speed of light in these environments varies from one to the other.

  162. "Since the speed of the baryonic body's movement is dependent on density and since the speed of the photon's movement is inversely dependent on density, the faster the baryonic body moves in the direction of the light source, the slower the light will move towards it. And vice versa - the faster the bully's body runs away from the direction of the light source, the faster the light chasing it will move."

    Shouldn't we get different speeds of light for bodies with different massiveness or density?

  163. I shared and shared, thank you. Please accept my full appreciation for the dedicated treatment of B's ​​difficulties.

    MM experiment: Lorentz proposed (and Einstein accepted) contraction. Haikin says something slightly different. In order to understand Haikin, you need to understand how according to his opinion the two types of motion occur, that of a baryonic body and that of a photon.

    Movement of a baryonic body: The baryonic body is a collection of precise particles that leave the collection and join it randomly so that a dynamic balance is established that determines the size of the collection. The density of the particles in the environment determines the size of the baryon body: high density - large body, low density - small body, very low density - no body, very high density - black hole. If the density on one side of the body is different from the density on the other side, then within a finite period of time, during the departure of particles and the joining of particles, the body will find itself in a new location closer to the dense area*. It was sixty seconds on the movement of a bully body.
    *It is important not to confuse the mobility of the particles with the mobility of the baryonic body composed of them: the movement of the baryonic body is, in fact, not due to the movement of the particles (because they move randomly in any direction) but to the density differences.

    Photon motion: A photon is an indeterminate particle. Being imprecise it has no fixed size. What determines its boundaries are the precise particles that are around it. When a sharp particle located at point A penetrates into a non-sharp particle located at point B, it turns the area of ​​point B into a sharp particle and leaves behind, at point A, a non-sharp particle, and thus it appears as if the non-sharp particle moves from point B to point A. It is easy to liken this to a relay race: the quality of being careless changes location, but in each and every location it is another careless particle. As mentioned, the boundaries of the inattentive particle are determined by the inattentive particles in its vicinity. The greater the density of the scrupulous, the smaller the size of the unscrupulous. In addition, as their density increases, their mobility decreases and therefore the mobility of the inattentive particles also decreases.
    But there were sixty-seven seconds on the motion of a photon.

    Since the speed of the baryonic body's movement is dependent on density and since the speed of the photon's movement is inversely dependent on density, the faster the baryonic body moves in the direction of the light source, the slower the light will move towards it. And vice versa - the faster the bully body escapes from the direction of the light source, the faster the light chasing it will move.

  164. There is indeed a connection between the electrons, but probably not an electromagnetic field whose speed is c, while in the case of entanglement the speed is infinite.
    It is likely that the connection is continuous and not only during the measurement.

    Whatever it is - it will be a local island.

  165. If after the balls have splashed from each other we lower a partition between them. There are two options:
    1) They will continue their movement as usual.
    2) They will be affected by the partition.

    Regarding large balls, it is clear to me that there is no effect on the partition.
    Regarding elementary particles:
    The entanglement of the electron with itself indicates the wavy character of the material. Will it be affected by the partition?
    If it is indeed affected by the partition, it means: there is something connecting the electrons. (electromagnetic field).
    Don't know if anyone has tried it.
    Even if there is a connection between the electrons it does not mean that the information is delivered from one to the other after the measurement.
    The information is constantly updated regardless of measurement.

  166. In Hebrew.

    what are you claiming Hidden variables?

    Because this is surely implied from the sentence: "The position and momentum of the two balls are determined at the moment of their splashing from each other!"

    So if this is what you are claiming - that is, that the electrons or photons do not interact with each other (as in the example of your balls), and that the spin or polarization was determined at the time of interweaving and not at the time of measurement - say it clearly, and prepare yourself for questions from your little daughter Rachel.

    And her mother and grandmother too.

  167. So what's going on here?
    Let's assume that the bar function common to the system consists of the functions bar one of particle A plus bars two of particle B. I don't have the tools to develop it here, but I assume that the commutator of the psi function of the joint system, which describes the uncertainty, is zeroed out, so there is no contradiction to the uncertainty principle.

  168. Instead of dealing with spin, for which I have no intuition, I prefer to talk about the position and momentum of balls because this is where I have intuition.
    Suppose two balls bounce off each other after impact.
    Every ball has the principle of uncertainty about the place and the momentum.
    But if we treat the two balls together as one common system then:
    According to the position of ball A, the position of ball B can be calculated.
    According to the momentum of ball B, the momentum of ball A can be calculated.
    And from this you can know the location and momentum of each of the balls. And this is against the principle of uncertainty.

    After the measurement of ball A, does he send information to ball B and dictate to him the place and speed?
    no and no ! The position and momentum of the two balls are determined at the moment they are thrown from each other!

  169. OK. When you take a peek, the first question you will have to answer is the results of an experiment from M and others. Lorentz contraction?

  171. Why complicate? Isn't it simpler to write: in the middle of the galaxies the MHA is higher than in the center of the galaxy?

  172. Why complicate? The same laws exist everywhere, only the constants change.
    The density is inversely proportional to the speed of light and directly proportional to the speed of movement of the bullion bodies.

  173. What does "each galaxy is an independent puddle with its own density and physics" mean? Is it that in certain galaxies there is no law of conservation of momentum or energy, or the second law of thermodynamics does not hold?

    And where is the speed of light higher: in galaxies with dense matter or in the sparse medium between them?

  174. You got it right. I did not give any thought to the concept of "center of gravity", because it is not interesting in this context. Each galaxy is an independent puddle with its own density and physics.

  175. OK. "Andromeda is a stationary system" and also "we (including Leo) are a stationary system".

    So it follows from your words that the centers of gravity of the galaxies are the rest system of the medium in the region of the galaxy, and the rest system is distributed according to the mass density. I understand it right?

  176. Write whatever you want. you are a good guy I will treat you with patience and I will treat you with forgiveness.

    Why are you stopped in our galaxy, why? The sun automatically leaves Leo. The virgin is already starting to scream. What's wrong with Andromeda?
    And why am I suggesting Andromeda, you must ask, is it because you love her more than all the others? Yes. But also just because it's a different galaxy and also because it's not very far away.
    The intergalactic medium is less dense than the intragalactic medium. Therefore, Andromeda is a stationary system and we (including Leo) are a stationary system, but these two systems are not necessarily (even very likely not) stationary relative to each other.

  177. Let's start with the "intermediate rest system".

    Do you mean that for example the constellation Leo is at rest relative to this preferred rest system, and every other system that moves relative to Leo also moves relative to that rest system? (Inel Drabek, let me write a website, or some other short name).

    Taxes.

  178. Even if you are annoying, your intentions are good. Not to mention the bonosuskinds ☼

    You probably should have taken my head by now. The "matter" of my model predates physics. The official name of the "piston" is "precise particle" and of the "empty space" "non-precise particle". If by "vacuum" you mean "underpressure", then get rid of it. At this level there are no powers. And there is no pressure.

    In order to understand the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, it is possible to assume a rest system of the medium. The density of the medium determines the speed of light passing through it. It changes according to the speed of movement of the body (the bully) from which the speed of light is measured. As the body approaches the light source, the density of the medium increases and the speed of light decreases. When the body escapes from the light, the density of the medium decreases and the speed of light increases. In fact, it is a reformulation of Lorentz contraction.
    But for the purpose of understanding nonlocality in quantum entanglement, this simplistic medium is not enough.

    The various constants are calculated in more advanced stages, with building blocks taken from known physics, when forces, mass and charge already exist.

    Three twenty in the morning. Say, aren't you sleeping?!

  179. Glad you liked Suskind. By the way, he was one of Feynman's companions.

    If you would like level lectures on relationships straight from the horse's mouth (kind), see his lectures:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAurgxtOdxY&list=PLCCD6C043FEC59772&index=1&feature=plpp_video

    And regarding your model:

    I didn't understand about the pistons: is it an empty space? Is there a substance like air there? Because in the first case, according to my understanding, there will always be a vacuum, before and after the movement of the piston, and in the second, there is no vacuum before the movement on the front side of the piston, nor after the movement.

    we will continue You say: "The medium is the one that determines the speed of the wave passing through it, and the speed is relative to the medium."

    Does the medium have a certain rest system (like the one the MM experiment tried to find)? How do you accept that "it is accepted as if light moves at a constant speed towards any body regardless of the speed of its movement."?

    And what about electricity, magnetism and their constants? How do they fit together? How is it possible to derive the speed of light from them? And how was Maxwell able to do this using his hydrodynamic model? By chance did he succeed?

    If the questions are annoying, indicate and close.

  180. Thanks, I would have liked it more if the material was new to me. Suskind's lecture takes (and thanks again).

    One of my claims is that the medium is the one that determines the speed of the wave passing through it, and the speed is relative to the medium.
    My other claim is that since the medium (which I insist on not calling it an "ether") transmits waves of two types of matter, photons and photons, it is two different mediums that mutually share one space. There is no reason to limit the number of mediators precisely to two, but for the purpose of understanding the results of an experiment MM are no longer necessary. These mediators are not strangers to each other, but there is a reciprocal relationship between them. In the story of the piston and the empty spaces, which I brought up in my previous response (from 1:44), the piston is a metaphor for the particles that make up the baryonic matter, and the empty spaces are a metaphor for photons. While a baryonic matter particle (for example a proton) consists of a large number of such "pistons" while a photon is only one such "empty space", the movement of light is much faster than the movement of baryonic matter. But there is a direct correlation between the speed of the bullion's movement and the density of the medium (the medium), therefore the speed of light also changes so that it appears as if light moves at a constant speed towards any body regardless of the speed of its movement. From then on the mechanics is no longer Newtonian but Einsteinian.
    As mentioned, two mediums are enough to support Einsteinian physics, but then came Bell's theorem and the experimentalists disproving EPR and raised the need for the existence of a third medium. Therefore, until a more successful explanation is found, I stick to the possibility that this system of two mediums is itself a wave essence riding on a third medium.

  182. Something quantum:
    Let's imagine a piston that moves inside a cylinder. We will focus not on the piston itself but on the empty spaces next to it that are before and after it. At the moment of starting the movement there is only one area of ​​empty space near the piston, located near its front side. During the advance of the piston, a new area of ​​empty space is created behind the piston, which grows larger while the area of ​​empty space that was previously on its front side is getting smaller. At the end of the process there will be an area of ​​empty space behind the piston while in front of the piston there will no longer be an empty space. You can simply say that the piston moves forward and the empty space moves backward, but that would not be accurate. This is because, while the movement of the piston is continuous, the movement of the empty space is quantum, so the space disappeared in one place and appeared in another, but its movement was not continuous.

  183. impersonating Israel Shapira,
    Please be serious. If the things I brought are not clear, I will try to explain better.
    Israel Shapira once came up with a hypothesis according to which the speed of light can be higher than c, even infinite (he likens it to a multi-lane "autostrada"). The possibility of moving parts of the medium fits well with this hypothesis.

  184. "We are looking for gravitational waves and gravitons and presuppose that their speed of movement does not exceed c. On what basis exactly do we assume this?”

    Based on this, if gravitational waves - through which information can be transmitted - were faster than c, it would be possible to reverse the cause and environment and shoot great-great-great-grandfather squarely.

    Running train tracks - as above.

  185. good week,

    A.A. said Spooky action at a distance.
    Y. H. Says Not necessarily spooky.

    We know the properties of various objects to influence from a distance: mass, static electricity, magnet (and brainwashing of all kinds). We are well aware of the property of the magnet as a pole. The change in the spatial position of a magnetic body, or its rotation, may be felt at a great distance - even if it is a small magnet. If so, there is no reason to rule out the possibility that optical polarizers affect the light transmission property in their near and even distant surroundings.

    Transferring information in zero time, the following is a parable and a thought experiment: let's take a long steel ingot, for example a 200 meter long railway track. Hit it with a hammer so that the blow moves it lengthwise. Sensors are placed at the far end of the ingot. One sensor measures motion and one sensor measures sound. The impact of the hammer, in addition to moving the ingot, also creates a sound wave passing through it. We know that the speed of the sound wave in a medium is constant regardless of the volume of the sound. On the other hand, the speed of the ingot's movement is dictated by the strength of the blow and it can be higher than the speed of sound.
    And back to the example: the speed of the electron or photon movement within the medium ("ether", for those who like and the doctors allow) is of the order of c. But we don't have any data on the speed of the medium itself, and who would guess that it is no higher than c, maybe even infinite?
    And in a similar context: we are looking for gravitational waves and gravitons and presuppose that their speed of movement does not exceed c. On what exactly do we assume this?
    If someone lifts a glove, no matter right or left, I will immediately lift the other glove.

  186. Indeed, if you look at the link:

    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98_%D7%91%D7%9C

    You will find there:

    "Therefore, if we measure the spin of one of a pair of electrons in an entangled state in one direction and the spin of the other in another direction, we can apparently know the spin of each of them in two different directions. More correctly, we will be able to know what the spin of the electron was in a direction that was not measured if we had measured it."

    Pay attention to "allegedly".

    If you are interested, continue reading the article. I'm going to sleep, night here. Good night.

  187. Even if we assume information transfer in zero time:
    The uncertainty principle claims that if spin is measured in the x direction then there is uncertainty about the spin in the y direction.
    And this is in contradiction to the possibility of measuring the spin in the x direction in one particle and inferring the spin in the y direction in the same particle by measuring the spin in the y direction in the other particle.

  189. Look back at the explanation I gave Tzvi two months ago about the nature of the photon. The same explanation nicely explains both what is happening here, and the delayed choice experiment (back in time).

  191. At time 0, at infinite speed.
    And in the later experiments, the state of the polarizer was determined only after the photons had already gone their way.
    And if you get to lecture 5 at Susskind's, you will argue that there is actually no need for an experiment, the proof is mathematical.
    And in a little while everyone arrives for Shabbat reception.

  193. jubilee
    Grouped - can also be interpreted as - there is some kind of dependency between the individuals, within the group. The dependency is the group itself, at least (when the individuals are the components of the group). That is, the group is the axiom.

    The very fact that the particles can come together as a group (or in other words: be intertwined), indicates that there is a dependency between the particles.
    (as far as I understand)

  194. This! no Information does not travel at speed 0.
    And for good measure I will bring my hypothesis again:
    The polarizer is not a point but a field. Changing the direction of the polarizer changes the polarization in the whole space.

  195. Here again is the definition of the riddle:

    So let's go back to the riddle, and please pay attention to the exact terminology:

    If a person (or an animal, or a machine, please) at point A can send some information to a person at point B at a speed that exceeds the speed of light (or the speed of zebras if you live in Scotland) - you can go back in time and catch a ball even before you threw it up ( reason and spin).

    The spin information passes from electron to electron faster than light (in 0 time actually).

    Anu - Anna, are we coming?

    And there is no end to the cunning and foxiness of quantum mechanics.

  196. Not true, Israel. You are not presenting the experiment correctly. Changing the polarizer on one side changed the polarization on the other side. The question is not who measured first but why an action in one place caused a change in another.

  198. It's not like I don't have my own hypothesis. On the contrary, and I have already expressed it several times. But you didn't get it, and there's no point in repeating the whole story again. So, please, instead of making me run around like a mouse in a maze again (like you did with the Shatanz cars), just give your solution here and now.

  199. The solution is this, say those in the know.

    True, if information can be sent faster than light, it is possible to go back in time, be present at the birth of a father and other pranks.

    But, note: we cannot actually send any information through quantum entanglement!

    We cannot send even the most basic information - spin up or down. Each measurer on his side measures the spin - or polarization - but he has no way of knowing whether he was the one who measured first and thus caused the wave function to collapse, or whether it collapsed first because of his friend's measurement in Andromeda.

    Do you understand the domain? You caught the bear with the spoon inside the beehive, all smeared with honey, and he smiles and says: What the hell, it's not me at all, I don't understand how all this honey suddenly stuck to my face.

    And by the same token, quantum mechanics claims: Ah, oh, it's not that you sent information - it just passed! What, it's my fault that information just flows to him like that? Try sending information - say 1 or 0 - and you will see that you cannot do it faster than light.

    And I ask: it seems to you that Einstein Podolsky or Rosen did not notice the exact same point? After all, all the data was visible before them, so why did they write that there is a contradiction with relativity?

    ?
    ??
    ??!?

  201. R. H., thanks for the reference to the training article.
    Oron, in his last response there (May 20, 2010 at 12:00) to R.H. Raf.Aim (you?), writes as follows: "At any given time there are photons in the system they are in a superposition that they are both in mode 1 and mode 2 with equal chances (what called braids)".
    If I understood correctly, then the term "entanglement" here means some kind of dependence between particles regardless of whether they are grouped together.

  202. jubilee

    From the link you provided:

    The EPR authors preferred the second explanation according to which that information was encoded in some 'hidden parameters[citation needed]'. The first explanation, that an effect propagated instantly, across a distance, is in conflict with the theory of relativity.

    And later:

    There are many Bell test experiments, eg those of Alain Aspect and others. They
    support the predictions of quantum mechanics rather than the class of hidden variable theories supported by Einstein.[14] According to Karl Popper these experiments showed that the class of "hidden variables" Einstein believed in is erroneous.

    These two explanations - Einstein's and Popper's - contradict each other.

    The solution to the contradiction is both the solution to my riddle, and proof of the insidiousness and inclusivity of quantum mechanics.

    B.

    Do you still stick to the localities, or are you ready for your little daughter Rachel's questions? (and her daughter and granddaughter as well).

  204. B,
    The problem is not as simple as you try to make it out to be. It is not an interference or a transition from a wave to a particle, but spin. This experiment can also be done with pairs of photons, then when you check the polarization of one you find that the test determines the polarization of the other.

  205. If we treat the particle as an electromagnetic wave (the interference of a particle with itself) then the particle really loses its locality. But then we will not recognize it as a particle but as a wave. In any case where the wave is identified as a particle, it is a particle for everything including the property of locality.
    Let's look at the example of the two balls splashing from each other after impact:
    If we treat each sphere as an electromagnetic wave (non-local), then there are two waves here that splash from each other. If one wave is identified by us as a sphere (locally) then the other wave is also identified as a sphere. That is, if we found that the first wave describes a ball that is in a certain place, we can know the location of the second ball immediately. without the need to pass information between the balls after the measurement.

    Another example:
    Suppose two electrons bounce off each other in opposite directions. Each of them grapples with itself and hits a target board after grappling. Each of the target plates will show an electron entanglement pattern with itself.
    It is clear to us that an electron that has become entangled with itself is a wave. That is, each of the electrons reached the target plate as an electromagnetic wave.
    But electron B did not wait until electron A hit the target and only then received the information where it should hit its target.
    The two electrons progressed in the form of electromagnetic waves each to its target.
    There was no need to transfer information between the electrons at a speed higher than the speed of light.
    Let's take the example one step further:
    Suppose that electron B takes a double path than electron A until it hits the target.
    If electron B were to hit the target according to the information sent to it from electron A at speed then it should have hit the board that is halfway through it. But there is no board there. The target board is now twice as far away. What will an electron do in ?
    Conclusion: electron b. Although it is described as an electromagnetic wave lacking locality. does not wait for the measurement results of electron A to determine where it will hit. The impact point is defined for him by the electromagnetic wave function. And this wave does not advance at a speed that exceeds the speed of light.

  206. B,
    You say: "Is the particle 'spread' over the entire space? We know not!"
    On what basis do you say no? If the particle is in the form of a cloud, for example, then it is not in one point.

    Israel,
    Please hint or link to the scientific community and its claim

  207. So what?

    B, seriously, do you really think that all of this is unknown to all quantum mechanics?

    After all, they claim that non-locality also exists. If you read all the way through the link I gave you to Herbert's proof of non-locality, or perhaps you prefer Susskind's lectures, you will see that non-locality is enforced.

    If you claim it doesn't exist, prepare yourself for pointed questions.

  208. To Israel:
    In quantum theory, a particle in motion without acceleration is described by a wave function (bands) over the entire space.
    Is the particle "spread" over the entire space?
    We know not!
    But what about the chance of finding the particle at some point in space?
    This chance is indeed "spread" over the entire space.
    If all the information we have is the wave function only then we will not be able to know the location of the particle.

    On the other hand, if we know the location of the particle. Would it be correct to say that it was the very measurement that caused the particle to be where we found it.
    no and no!
    What happened in measurement is that we moved from a probabilistic description to a deterministic one.
    Before we measured we could not know where the particle was. Once we have measured we know for sure where the particle is. The measurement did not launch the particle into place. The measurement only gave us information that does not appear in the probability function.
    Before making the measurement we had an "a priori" probabilistic description given by the wave function.
    After the measurement is made, we have a "posterior" probabilistic description given by another function.

    Now let's say two balls hit each other and after the impact they splash in opposite directions.
    Here, too, the probability function is "spread" over the entire space.
    but:
    If we measure and find the position of one of the balls we can immediately conclude about the position of the other ball.
    Is there a connection between the balls after they splashed apart?
    After we measured the position of one ball, did the information arrive immediately to determine the position of the second ball?
    No way!
    The measurement for one ball does not dictate the position of the other ball. The second ball does not need information that will reach it at a speed higher than the speed of light in order to reach the place where it is supposed to be. It is in the place where it should be found as a result of a process unrelated to measurement.

  210. Come on mate, really. They said nothing to you. Front, bra, please. It's not me - those wicked Bohr and Einstein!

    B, I already gave you the most relevant link for the non-locality proof. See

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/parallel-universes-130812/comment-page-5/#comment-356572

    Note also that although Bell's inequality theorem proves non-locality mathematically, many experiments have also been done in the last 30 years that have confirmed the amazing phenomenon. According to an aspect experiment. There is no escaping the conclusion: our universe is not local. Intertwined particles communicate with each other even at a distance of billions of light years, and do so in zero time.

    Operator, Alec..

    And nothing else. We have not yet touched on the subject of the influence of the present on the past.

    And there is also no doubt that Einstein claimed that non-locality contradicts relativity, this appears in the link to the EPR paradox. (because information travels at a speed that exceeds that of light).

    My puzzle is: why does the scientific community claim that such a contradiction does not exist?

    And as I mentioned before: what, the scientific community knows relativity better than Einstein?

    ??
    ?

  211. thanks b,
    Without going into details, it seems to me that we can create a common front against Israel Shapira. Like you, I also believe that these are two different areas, and accordingly the tools to deal with them are also different

  212. I tried to write down the operator symbols but it doesn't appear in writing. It looks like the signs greater than or less than.

  215. Small correction (not significant for the purpose of the current discussion)

    denotes the span of x .

  216. In the described experiment there is a mixing of fields.
    On the one hand we are talking about a single pair of one electron and one positron.
    On the other hand, they talk about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in connection with finding the spin.

    But the uncertainty principle speaks only of long-term values ​​and does not belong to the individual couple.

  217. I read (not everything, just the heart of the matter).

    The answer is simple.

    Because from the beginning quantum theory deals only with expectancy values. There is no point in talking about a single electron. And since there is no point in talking about a single electron there is no point in talking about the spin of a single electron.

    Quantum theory does not state anything about a single electron.

    Difference between the size marked x and the size marked x> that the second marks the span value of the first.

  219. Read:
    a quote:
    "Later it was proven that Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen were wrong, and that the properties of the two particles are indeed determined randomly during the measurement despite the correlation between them. "
    The article claims to be proven but does not provide the proof.

    In order to have a serious discussion, there is no other way but to bring the body of proof.
    Please bring the proof!

  222. To whom it may concern,
    An innovative technology was invented. "Poke-Meter".
    It is a digital array of buttons, measuring pokey-meters in pokey-seconds.
    And everything is made by "Pokecom".

  224. I offered rebuttal tests in Cosmo. The problem is that they were complicated and required advanced equipment, which also did not necessarily give an unequivocal result. Luckily I didn't try them, because it was just a waste of time and money. At the moment I have an idea of ​​a not too complicated experiment, but what I lack is equipment to measure the arrival of a signal with a precision of picoseconds. I ask everyone here all the time if they know such equipment, the professors at UCLA, and also the rest of the world in many physics blogs.

    However, I still believe that a simpler experiment can be thought of, something style M-M.

    If there is something in the whole idea, it explains, or at least allows quite a lot: non-locality in quantum entanglement, the delayed choice experiment (influence on the past from the future), gravitation according to Le Sage but without friction, inertia, the irreversibility of entropy, and more.

  225. Israel, you don't have to!
    Go for it and shake up the physics picture.

    We made a bit of a mistake when we said that there is no obligation to explain. You can get an automatic exemption if the model manages to correctly predict phenomena that were not known before. All you have to do for this is to propose a test that will confirm this type of phenomenon. In special cases, it is also possible without such a test, but this is provided that the model explains a phenomenon that there is no doubt about its existence and for which there are no better explanations (for example, those that Ockham gives higher marks to).

    I don't think Arkman has a link. He's just rambling. And in general, this is not a serious article, but an MDB story describing the beginning of the era of space flights. As far as I remember, in the first stage they managed to convert matter into energy and go back and convert into matter. In the second stage, they drove the energy at a speed exceeding the speed of light and converted it back to matter in a new location. Please don't underestimate it, because history shows that MDB stories often become reality.

  226. Arkman,

    All the explanations were given in the article in Cosmo. The uniqueness of the speed of light is a derivative of the active site, just as the speed of sound is a derivative of the speed of air molecules. Absorption of the speed of light only - a necessary result of the ballistic pendulum. Remember the shells that pass through the tunnel in DHA, the slow ones are captured (below the escape velocity, 11.2 km/s, the fast ones escape, above this velocity, and do not leave any stamp in the form of momentum on the bullet). Conservation of energy, infinite energy, - the same problem exists in black body radiation. The solution - quantum mechanics. Your question is applicable to any quantum object that is described as a probabilistic wave function and is spread throughout the universe. There too, the same photon or electron that is in many places at the same time, collapses at one particular point and with a unique and finite energy.

    Axioms - there are none here. All developments of Newtonian and Maxwellian physics. The nature of the medium - Maxwell's model, only open. The moving film - very reminiscent of the freeway model I described in Cosmo. If you can, send a link.

    2. If you are right, and there is a change in the frequency of the photon due to the Doppler, in my opinion it pretty much demonstrates everything I am claiming here. The reason is that if a monochromatic photon is sent in a spacecraft, whose detector is able to respond only along the particular wavelength of the photon, then from the point of view of the observers outside the spacecraft the photon will not collapse when it reaches the detector because of the Doppler, while from the point of view of the observers inside the spacecraft it will collapse because there is no Doppler. If the spacecraft is a cat, and the collapse mechanism is connected to a cyanide capsule, as far as the cat is concerned, it is dead, but as far as the observers outside are concerned, it is alive. Attitude at its best!

  227. 1) There is no logical flaw. This solves the problem but creates several new difficulties:
    ☼ What distinguishes the speed c from the other speeds, that the other speeds we do not pick up even once, but c always.
    ☼ Does conservation of energy hold for all infinite speeds? If so, how is it that only the part of the photon that we perceive at speed c takes up ten cabins and the rest of its infinite parts are only zero?
    ☼ Difficulty of permission (since axioms of models, like jokes, have no explanation): How does the medium allow such behavior? What does it consist of? Not long ago I read a serious article that turns the site into a multi-track moving film in which each track moves at a different speed; The photons "come up" on the film in the slow strip, settle in the strip corresponding to them and go back and forth in the slow strip; The greater the distance the photon has to travel, the faster it settles down. But even in that article I did not find an explanation of how this is possible.

    2) Yes. He will arrive at the second mirror at a different wavelength, but when he returns to the first mirror he will be absorbed by it at the same wavelength as he left it

  228. deer.

    I'm sorry that you had to be dragged into the raging politics of the science site, although we must admit that it is quite entertaining.

    I hope you had time to take a look at the link to Maxwell's model. This model, the highlight of 19th century physics, was abandoned with the acceptance of the theory of relativity. Although Maxwell's equations are used in the study of physics and relativity, the model itself is not mentioned (at least not when I was studying), nor is the way they arrived at those immortal equations. The popular opinion is that the equations are correct, the way they used to arrive at those equations is wrong.

    However, this raises a sharp question: if the way is wrong, how did Maxwell manage to deduce the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism? If you noticed, the model is completely hydrodynamic: we remember Maxwell from the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, and he was an expert in fluid mechanics and thermodynamics. If you noticed when developing the equations, the way he deduced the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism is almost the same as the way you deduce the speed of sound in air or the speed of a wave in water from the hydrodynamic modulus. So what, did he just happen to succeed? Can "one say that he just drew the correct targets around the arrows hitting." As Yuval Harakman claims?

    Maxwell himself claims not. According to him, only when it became clear to him that the speed of the waves at his site is the same as the known speed of light, he concluded that light itself is an electromagnetic phenomenon.

    So I will repeat the question I asked earlier: if using a hydrodynamic model of current and pressure vortices, Maxwell was able to derive the speed of light, how can one so easily give up such a successful model, and only use the equations derived from it?

    Let's go back to our problem. You write: "We both agree that the speed of light is constant relative to each observer, how can this be true without time dilation?"

    Let's go back to Maxwell's time. The governing physics is Newtonian physics, where time is absolute and the same at every point. Any system of equations describing the movement of a body will include 4 variables: x, y, z, t. There is no doubt what t is. Newtonian physics.

    Let's go back to our concentric tubes that move inside each other: the signal coming out of the common starting point of the two tubes, arrives at the ends of both tubes at the same time. We have no doubt that this is the same time, because the clocks we use now are temp clocks, or rather universe clocks, whose time is absolute and universal.

    But how is this possible? After all, there is no doubt that if the signal arrived at a distant point at time 10, for example, then when it was at a closer point, the time shown by the clock must also be earlier, right? On the other hand, according to our assumptions, the signal also arrived at the earlier point at time 10, so how does this happen?

    The answer of relativity is known: the lengthening of time. The time at point A is different from the time at point B. But this contradicts our assumption of universal time. Is there another possible solution to the problem?

    My answer is yes. I am not saying that this is the real solution that actually happens, but only that it is a physical possibility that does not contradict any of our starting assumptions.

    And this is the solution: our signal does not move only at one speed, it actually moves at all speeds, from 0 to infinity. With our devices we are able to measure it only at one speed relative to our devices: the speed of light.

    It is understandable then that such a solution solves our problems. When the signal passed at nearby point A, it was there at time 8, but it was transparent to our devices there. Its slow phase arrived 2 seconds later at point A at time 10. The fast phase arrived at point B at time 10. Since the means of measurement there move faster than at point A, it can be measured there, "collapsing" in quantum terms.

    This. Einstein's simple photon, which comes out of a light source and moves at the speed of light to its target, gives way to the photon we know from quantum mechanics, a wave function without a defined location, which has a probability of being found at any point in the universe before collapsing. The same fuzzy description of a photon that Einstein fought all his life, and lost.

    How does this happen? We can explain this if you are interested when we expand the concept of Maxwell's site to what I call an "active site". But right now I would be interested in answers to 2 questions:

    1. Do you find a logical flaw in my description?

    2. In the well-known description of a "mirror clock" that explains the lengthening of time, a photon skips between 2 mirrors, the distance between which is given in advance. Since we know the speed of light and the distance between the mirrors, we can calculate the time it takes for a photon to get from side to side, so we got a clock. When the clock moves, the speed of light remains constant relative to us, the stationary observers, the photon travels a greater distance, it takes the photon more time to get from mirror to mirror, and that's how we got the lengthening of time.

    However, here I think a problem has arisen: in fact, if the light moves at a constant speed relative to us stationary observers whether the watch is moving or at rest, then it follows that when the photon reaches the distant mirror in the mirror clock when the clock is moving, it will reach it at a different wavelength than when it is at rest, and this is because The doppler, right?

    Thanks for the investment. I know the theory sounds like La Lande, and of course it may be exactly what it is. But in my opinion it can explain the absolute time that comes from the bang theory, explain the results of the M-M experiment, and still leave the 2 postulates of relativity intact and all through Newtonian physics only.

  230. 🙂 Almost. "You are very nice," she said to Marciano and Biton in Seven Eyes (Moshe Dein was there). But outside, the cats of Am Yisrael demonstrated (Shapira and his ilk) and she had to release another version to the air.

  231. R.H.

    Before I go to sleep, please accept my apologies. I really shouldn't have mentioned you after you let go. I forgot that this is not a private email with Yuval. It's really my mistake, and I apologize again.

    jubilee.

    Leave panthers, tigers, kittens, what's cute.

    Good night.

  233. The explanations I require: It is not enough that they give a description (however accurate) of the phenomenon, but also that they show where it stems from and that they do not use circular definitions. For example, the law of persistence and the law of gravity both make use of the concept of "mass", but we do not have a definition for this concept that does not rely on these laws. If you ask what mass is, Newton will answer that mass is mass. If you ask Einstein, he will tell you that mass is a function of energy and that energy is a function of mass. With all due respect to both titans, these are circular definitions.
    Even the concept of time, in which you fumble for who knows how many ages, needs an external definition from which it will be possible to derive a coherent explanation for the unclear phenomena it presents.
    Has it been half a year?

  234. From my response from a few hours ago:

    If I'm wrong, show me where I "grossly ignored a lot of things you said". But if you don't succeed, understand that the problem is mainly your dyslexia, admit it, let it go and try again. Everything is chained. This is your chance to put me in my place. But if you don't do this, it will be difficult for me to take you seriously, just as I don't take seriously what the two RH write.

    And now, either you fulfill my request (for the fifth time) to show me where I "grossly ignored a lot of things you said", or I really have to unilaterally stop this stupid game.

    Good night.

  235. Israel! You are a dirty player.
    "You are not able to admit a mistake (as Yuval did)". I admitted one [colossal] error; But you are asked not to categorize me in the department of the righteous just based on that confession, because I am still hot for you because of other annoying statements.

  236. And I demand that you explain what an explanation is, define what a definition is, and sing something from the Haftar.

    Otherwise it is impossible to continue!

    (Except that it will probably keep you busy for about six months, and free us to work).

  237. Chilaba Source: It doesn't matter if I gave birth to your suggestion or just adopted it. Now she is mine.

    Newton: I also demand from him that he explain which apple fell on his head. It is true that his model described physics in a way that satisfied the people of his time, but about a century ago it became clear that it was not perfect. Like Maxwell, he also adapted a theory to observations, and he played a crazy card.

  238. R.H.

    Thanks for the release. You saved me a lot of restoration work.

    To be fair and for the record, Kindergarten kind of amused me, like everything else. Chilaba is an expression of tributary.

    And the reason I dropped out of the discussion at the time was exactly what I wrote to you: if you fail to substantiate your imaginary accusations through the thread, I will be forced to conclude that you are a prisoner of your ego, that you are unable to admit a mistake (as Yuval did), and that a discussion with you is an idle argument without any physical basis or Logical or a chance to end with one of the parties understanding the other. (Jack rests, Jill rests, I am a follower of intelligent creation).

    jubilee.

    With all due respect to the grammar of poverty, has it occurred to you that maybe you just don't fully understand the Maxwell silver hammer model? The same model that at the time was considered the greatest scientific achievement since Newton's theory?

  239. RH, now I understand. I was in Kindergarten Sarah and Kindergarten Yael. The terms we used were "bruges" and "sholem". We also used pinkies and thumbs.

  240. Waiting and a half. Attempt to release the other half:
    Not only does Hayati demand proof from him, but he also insists that he explain where his ether particles came from, how it is that they fill the entire space, do they also make up non-magnetic bodies (after all, magnetism, as well as X-rays, passes through our body) and much more , Much. pedantry? Maybe. But that's who I am.

  241. Israel,
    As mentioned I released, now you.

    Oh, one last thing. You are terribly offended by the fact that I sent you and Yuval to kindergarten, but what am I going to do that since Kindergarten Tami I don't remember anyone calling anyone else Chilaba? Not least in a discussion that pretends to be scientific.

  242. Below is half of what is waiting:
    Right. With friends like that, who needs chilebots?
    also. I would have demanded proof from Maxwell. Just because his model made predictions that he verified doesn't mean it's necessarily true. From the beginning he built his medium from particles suitable for observations, and we can certainly say that he only drew the correct targets around the arrows' impact.

  243. Right. With friends like that, who needs chilebots?
    also. I would have demanded proof from Maxwell. Just because his model made predictions that he verified doesn't mean it's necessarily true. From the beginning he built his medium from particles suitable for observations, and we can certainly say that he only drew the correct targets around the arrows' impact.
    Not only does Hayati demand proof from him, but he also insists that he explain where his ether particles came from, how it is that they fill the entire space, do they also make up non-magnetic bodies (after all, magnetism, as well as X-rays, passes through our body) and much more , Much. pedantry? Maybe. But that's who I am.

  244. ghosts
    And if I answer you, will you start answering factual responses (Za physics), or will you continue exclusively with your obsession (me), apart from which you don't have even one response? For example, questions about watches and thermometers?

  245. Israel

    The answer to your question (the deer): yes. And this "phenomenon" is called scientific progress - if the next model to replace it is more successful.

    Now look what you are, actually, you asked: Is it possible to replace such a successful version of WIN 98?

    What is your answer to the question? (let's see your answer, don't be shy)

  246. ghosts

    You ask "What do you want from us?"

    is nothing. What comments are free. Everyone writes what is in their head. No one forced you to come here. Free comments. You are also free to leave. I'm sure your presence is urgently needed in other articles. Free comments, ghosts. freedom.

    jubilee.

    We're already old friends, and there's no need for us to be Chilvas again. You are of course welcome to stay, but refrain from any blatant personal reference. I've always stated that if my words are too rough for you, call me to sort it out and I'll stop.

    R.H.

    There is a very serious problem with your argument: the thread. So it is true that now it is more difficult and complicated to reproduce comments because of the new format of the blog, but if you promise to answer matter-of-factly for a change without being evasive, I will find you all the relevant comments that prove everything I said. If you can't commit, maybe you should really keep letting go.

    deer

    Let's start with the following link:

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force

    This is part of Maxwell's site model. In the second part, his differential equations are developed, which Einstein's original article on relativity came to update.

    Question: Is it possible to easily abandon such a successful model, a model by which Maxwell was able to derive the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism? (Equation 136).

    By the way Yuval, note that Maxwell did not prove anything. Would you also say to him: "The burden of proof is on you"?

  247. Israel,
    You asked to be released, I released. But you keep slandering and misrepresenting so I have to set some things straight.
    The reason I abandoned the argument with you, if you haven't understood by now, is that I realized that the argument between us is just like the argument that I and others have with Xingua. Both of you come with a sharp criticism of the accepted theories and instead offer a pseudo-scientific explanation (which you wash and call "alternative physics"). Both of you have been shown in Urim and Tomim that the problems you point to are not true. Ehud, Yuval Zvi and Anouki argued to you that they fail to see a contradiction. However, you both ignore everything that was said and repeat and claim "I have shown and no one can contradict my words".
    As I already wrote to you before, I have no problem with discussions at the edges of science, on the contrary, it is a refreshing and nice intellectual challenge. The discussion between you and me stopped being nice when I realized that you don't really read my words and fortify your positions regardless of what I write.
    One of the strongest evidences for this is the same story with Yuval. Until today you didn't understand what I meant. Are you claiming that my pride does not allow me to admit that I was wrong?? You really didn't understand. I didn't care at all if you or Yuval were right and if the model Yuval thought was his was Maxwell's, that was not the point at all. The point was that it took you about 10 grumpy messages from Yuval to realize that something was wrong and that you might have hurt someone. You just didn't read his posts and that's the point.
    So as far as I'm concerned I've let go, now I'm asking you to do the same.

  249. Israel,
    Your stage, your script, your direction, the casting under your close supervision. You are on the right track to producing the best show in town. go for it.
    ☼

  250. Zvi Z.,

    Q: Why assume that such an intermediary exists?
    A: Because at the moment this is the only conceivable explanation for a wavy condition

    Q: The problems you raised, which I assume you have an answer to, arise when it is assumed that Tavach exists, if it does not exist, then these problems do not arise.
    A: If there is no mediation, these problems do not arise, but then other problems arise - first of all the erratic behavior. Before I say whether or not I have an answer to them, I would appreciate it if you could explain on what basis you assume this.

    Q: I can't solve a problem I'm not convinced exists.
    A: You spoke well. I, on the other hand, may be able to solve theoretical problems, but I am not always interested in doing so.

    Q: If I'm not mistaken you wrote that relativity conflicts with logic, could you expand on that? By clashing with logic I mean the creation of paradoxes and not clashing with intuition.
    A: I will answer this if I understand what you call intuition, what paradox, and how you distinguish between the two. I'm sorry if I sound blunt. simple, Intuition Mine just sent me a paranoid signal

  251. Israel
    "I do not claim that the rest system of the site is in relation to Israel. I claim it has no rest system. I also explain how. But as mentioned - this is alternative physics."

    So you establish a fact in your (imaginary) territory that there will be a site.
    And you state that it has no rest system.

    Beauty. Well done.

    You say it's alternative physics. And of course you can explain it since you invented the idea.

    Well done.
    What do you want from us?
    If anyone wants to know about it, let them write you an email. This is not the place.

  252. Israel,

    Since the times that cesium clocks show do not lead us to a contradiction, then if temp clocks show the same time we will not get a contradiction (in a certain sense), if so the mechanism of the temp clocks can not allow such a situation. Maybe there is another solution. Of course it would not be justified for me to simply assume that such a solution exists, but if universe clocks contradict the fixed speed of light that we both agree on then we can assume that such a solution does exist. Therefore I will ask you to write your alternative explanation.

    Before you write the explanation, I will draw your attention to the fact that universe clocks, if they exist, could move at a speed that exceeds the speed of light. If a spacecraft with a universe clock in it moves at a high speed relative to me and the clock in it ticks at the same rate as the universe clock standing next to me, that is, the speed of the spacecraft does not affect the ticking rate of the clock relative to me, then the speed of the clock, or rather the hand, can exceed the speed of light relative to me.

  253. deer

    According to your previous answers, you seem to accept that the temp clocks must show the same time as the cc clocks adjacent to them, unless perhaps relativistic doppler effects are taken into account. I understand it right?

    I tried to see if this consideration solves our problem, and that's why I came up with the idea of ​​the "clocks of the universe". Their advantage is that they show the same time as the temperature clocks but their doppler is unidirectional. I ran into the same problem as before.

    My preference is of course a mainstream solution, but so far I haven't been able to see the light.

    "Observer A measures the speed of light relative to him and receives c. Observer B, who is in motion relative to A, also measures velocity c relative to himself, that is, velocity c+v relative to observer A. If absolute time and distance do exist, then how is this possible?"

    There is a solution in my opinion, which also combines known elements from quantum mechanics. But he is not mainstream. I would of course prefer to have an acceptable solution that would put my mind to rest. If you are interested, I will present my idea to you, but I really don't want to bother.

    "Regarding your question regarding the ether, I don't see how the rest system of the ether can be the rest system of the earth, does each observer have his own ether that is at rest relative to him?"

    I do not claim that the rest system of the site is relative to Israel. I claim it has no rest system. I also explain how. But as mentioned - this is alternative physics.

  254. The last comment is for Yuval

    Ghosts, if you want me to take anything you say seriously, answer my technical questions about watches. If not, please release.

  255. Seter is perhaps a good example of your lack of distinction between objective and subjective. Just because you didn't remember doesn't mean it wasn't there.

    Maybe you also didn't remember that for a long time I tried to understand what your model was, but you never specified it but assumed that I knew what it was thanks to my famous telepathic skills. If I'm wrong, show me where I "grossly ignored a lot of things you said". But if you don't succeed, understand that the problem is mainly your dyslexia, admit it, let it go and try again. Everything is chained. This is your chance to put me in my place. But if you don't do this, it will be difficult for me to take you seriously, just as I don't take seriously what the two RH write.

    "I don't give answers to your liking, not because of my model but because your questions are complicated for me" I'm here to explain. You can also say "Sorry Israel, I don't understand" instead of "You have a basic mistake, come learn some real physics".

    "You make some assumption, don't wait for it to be recovered or proven, build on it another assumption that is also unproven and ask about the last one. I get stuck already in the first part, and also explain why (the parable of the grandmother and the mac wheels), and you continue on the path of ignoring. An example from today: you start from the assumption that the universe is infinite and require me to build things on this assumption without taking into account that it might be wrong."

    You did not understand. It has nothing to do with whether the assumption is true or false. I say that this was the picture of the universe during the MM experiment (no?) and that if so, the experiment is not logical. I do not claim that this picture of the universe is correct.

    "When I try to direct your attention to this possibility, you start with those "personal papers" in which you adorn others but not yourself"

    "Yes?
    Yes Yes?
    Yes Yes Yes?
    - - - -
    It doesn't matter how long the list of stands and/or hand gestures is."

    "If [the grandmother had wheels] and we say that [they are like a Mac truck] - why exactly [like a Mac]?"

    Well, if you haven't figured it out by now, there's not much I can do. If you want to talk to (what I call) the matter - you will find a listening ear with me. I don't have the time, strength and desire to get into pointless discussions. True, you were invited to my discussion with Zvi, but it seems as if the pointless discussion with you is taking over everything here. I will always like your entertaining writing style, but I'm looking for something a little more to the point. If you could give a serious answer to my questions about the rest system of the site, about the Tuesday-Thursday hours, about the nature of the extension of time, etc. - great. If not, we will find another opportunity to desex models that do not meet minimum standards of reasonableness.

  256. Israel
    You wrote to Yuval:
    "For example: I still did not receive a factual answer from all your responses to my question "If Michaelson found the rest system of the ether, and it is said to be the same as the rest system of the constellation Leo - why this one? If the universe is infinite, homogeneous and isotropic, then why would it have a certain rest system? What about homogeneity?"
    Well,
    Yuval understood you well, and answered you correctly:
    If grandma had wheels - she would take grandpa for a ride.

    Regarding R.H.,
    He answered your questions, and answered correctly. You're just not ready to get the right answers. Why? Do not know. But your problem - not ours.

    Wikipedia also has answers and claims and facts that contradict everything you say, claim and suggest.

    You ask a question, they answer you, you ask the next question and claim that the previous question was not answered.
    What attitude do you expect?

  257. Israel,

    Meanwhile I do not accept that there is a contradiction between the big bang theory and the lengthening of time. It is much more likely to me that there is a problem in our understanding and the fact that the topic is confusing and non-intuitive only strengthens this opinion. We both agree that if the speed of light is constant relative to each observer, how can this be true without time dilation?

    Observer A measures the speed of light relative to him and receives c. Observer B, who is in motion relative to A, also measures velocity c relative to himself, that is, velocity c+v relative to observer A. If absolute time and distance do exist then how is this possible?

    Regarding your question about the ether, I don't see how the rest system of the ether can be the earth's rest system, does each viewer have their own ether that is at rest relative to them?

    jubilee,

    Why assume that such an intermediary exists? The problems you raised that I assume you have an answer for arise when it is assumed that there is an intermediary, if it does not exist then these problems do not arise. I can't solve a problem I'm not convinced exists. If I'm not mistaken, you wrote that relativity conflicts with logic, could you elaborate on that? By clashing with logic I mean the creation of paradoxes and not clashing with intuition.

  258. Israel, one by one,
    It was the attempt to punch Rafaim that burst the valve which in retrospect turned out to be a misunderstanding, but my anger at you started first. R.H. didn't suck the things out of his thumb but understood exactly what I said. But he understood other things concerning the selective manner of the conversations you conduct - and these were the real causes of my anger. You really completely ignored a lot of things I said.
    As mentioned, I am not qualified to speak on behalf of R.H., but if it weren't for the bloody history that was created between us, I can definitely see myself speaking to you in the same style.
    Aryeh Seter is also fondly remembered. I read his articles and comments and was favorably impressed. I did not remember his correspondence with you.
    I don't give answers to your liking, not because of my model but because your questions are complicated for me. You make some assumption, don't wait for it to be recovered or proven, build on it another assumption that is also not proven and ask about the last one. I get stuck already in the first part, and also explain why (the parable of the grandmother and the Mac wheels), and you continue on the path of ignoring. An example from today: you start from the assumption that the universe is infinite and require me to build things on this assumption without taking into account that it might be wrong. When I try to direct your attention to this possibility, you start with those "personal papers" where you adorn others but not yourself.

    do you enjoy it I do not. Definately not

  259. "I had many reasons to be angry with you, and R.H. knew how to point out exactly them" If I remember correctly, the reason was the claim that I used your model to defeat ghosts. A month later, when it dawned on you and everyone else that this was actually the Maxwell model, it took you a long time to fully admit your mistake. R.H. On the other hand, he continued to claim that he understood the reason for your anger, namely that I used your model, and this from reading the exact same comments that we all read. Furthermore, he tried to use this supposed understanding of his as proof of his claim that I don't read comments or skim. When I asked him several times to show me the specific response from which I was supposed to understand what he understood without difficulty, he avoided condescendingly (kindergarten) instead of admitting that he was clearly wrong as you, the subject of the argument, did.

    He continued and continues this way to this day. See his last response "Both in rational creation and in the theory of relativity, you, like Kshingua, assert mountains of reasoning, with Jack and Jill and such and such clocks against theories that were experimentally based and realized in practice. Why? Because that's your gut feeling." So either he didn't understand what I said about intelligent creation (it looks like there is planning here but it also looks like the earth is flat and the center of the universe), even though I said it 20 times, or about relativity (I have no preference between relativity and the bang) or he is unable to admit a mistake. He is also the one who always goes first to a personal and non-business tone. That's why I decided that it would probably be better if we let go.

    Aryeh - Hide.

    And you, go to the thread. Not from a month ago, but about the days and especially the last few hours. See how you are the one who starts with the personal papers, and ignores any substantive question that is not convenient for you.

    For example: I still did not receive a factual answer from all your responses to my question "If Michaelson found the rest system of the ether, and it is said to be the same as the rest system of the constellation Leo - why this one?" If the universe is infinite, homogeneous and isotropic, then why would it have a certain rest system? What about homogeneity?"

    Why don't you answer? Because the answer might, heaven forbid, contradict your model?

  260. Israel! what is going on with you? Please download tones if you can.
    I am not authorized to speak on behalf of R.H., therefore I will only state that the words of his defense attorney about me contained many correct points. I had many reasons to be angry with you, and R.H knew how to point out exactly them. Although I vented my anger in the wrong places (something I still regret and will probably continue to regret until Alzheimer's comes), but it didn't come out of nowhere.
    It is your right to decide whose judgment to trust and whose not to trust. We do not always have the ability to distinguish correctly and in many cases we are forced to decide "from the hip". Wrong decisions are often made because of this, and these we can only eulogize after the fact as bad luck. Despite the bumps in our relationship, I have learned to appreciate and love you, and I wish you that such luck will not befall you.
    Zvi and Meir are indeed thoughtful and thoughtful interlocutors, and it is clear that choosing them is very convenient (I don't remember Aryeh, sorry). I, on the other hand, am very eccentric and it is difficult for people from the settlement to deal with me. But R.H., even though he sometimes uses harsh language, his criticism is usually spot on (I've used it a lot in another area) and I suggest you don't kick it casually.

  261. That's about the time it took you last time to admit you were wrong and treated me for no reason. Even then you drew all kinds of conclusions without any basis. To your credit, Hadit left and sympathized. Your friend R.H. On the other hand, when asked by me to come up with evidence for his accusations that was supposedly a real reason for your anger, and which can be deduced from reading the comments, he fortified himself in his stubborn pride and has not admitted his mistake to this day, even though your previous admission clearly proves that he was wrong. That's why I've lost faith in his objective judgment, and if you keep up your bullshit, I'll lose faith in yours too. (Not that it matters to anyone but me).

    And for your second question, I need an audience for fair criticism of my ideas. By Zvi, Meir, or Aryeh.

  263. In a month, when you have sinned, go over the thread again. You will see that all your questions have been answered, except for those asked via telepathy. You will also argue that most of the questions I asked you remained unanswered.

    You will also prove that your sacred burden of proof also applies to every other model and theory, starting with Newton's theory, through Maxwell, Mach, Einstein, Bohr and all the way to Chaikin. From each of them you can demand: proven! And no one will be able to fulfill your request. At most they will be able to invent indirect evidence, and the model will change with the discovery of a better model (according to Newton - Einstein). That's why it's called a model, and the request is called garbage.

    If you also go through the thread, you will see that there are factual commenters here, whose interest is facts and physics, and there are those whose interest is personal papers. The difference between the first and the second, that the two always start with personal comments when they finish the physics. The other difference is that they usually have no idea what they are talking about.

    Then maybe you'll understand why your fuse blows every time the facts and logic don't add up with your 40 year old model.

    Bye.

  264. I asked: "Do we have an infinite universe with an infinite number of planets?"
    You answered: "Yes".
    I asked: "Prove it."
    You didn't prove it. You just said "yes" and "yes yes".

    You already explained before... you also showed that... again you also showed that... and you showed why... in the end you think it's quite nice for...
    So why do you need an audience?
    will I overlap? OK. Bye.

  265. What kind of hand waving? Burden of proof why?

    If you go back to being a snooze like your friends, I'll ask you to cuddle again, like I asked them to.

    If you have an idea, whip it up. But let there also be sense in the idea. I already explained in the past that there is one excellent model: Maxwell's site model. All that is needed is to simply open it, and then you get the same speed of light for every measurer, universal absolute time, and half of quantum mechanics. I also showed that such a model explains inertia almost perfectly, and completely solves the friction problem in Le Sage's gravitation model. I also showed that such a model allows for non-locality in quantum entanglement and explains Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, according to which it is apparently possible to influence the past from the future.

    And I also showed why this explanation explains the irreversibility of entropy towards the past.

    Seems pretty nice to me for a tiny change and commits to an existing and accepted successful theory (Maxwell).

  266. I will throw you a bone that, as usual, you will bury with the claim of "alternative physics" and continue to struggle within your favorite "mainstream". Still I hope your sense of smell will not fail you, and when the time comes you will know where to find her.

    See the medium as if it were an endless mesh that is meticulous and completely motionless. Each node (or any cube trapped between the nodes) can be in one of a finite number of alternating states.

  268. In 1887 - yes. Today it probably does too. Also suns of course, not just planets. There is an Olbers reservation, but it is not necessarily related to our case.

    And now from a support "they don't have a preferred speed center". Perhaps you are beginning to understand why I claim that M is not a logic experiment? That Michaelson's very ambition to find that preferred center of speed, namely the rest system of the site, is doomed to failure?

  269. It's not a ghost. It's impersonating. The real ghost wouldn't ask about sugar because he understands coffee.

    Basic mathematics: if we have an infinite universe with an infinite number of planets and they are moving at different and infinite speeds - they do not have a preferred center of speed.

    And now my turn: do we have an infinite universe with an infinite number of planets?

  270. jubilee

    I'm sorry you don't understand the question, but on the other hand I'm glad I was able to amuse you. Think about it this way: every rest system of a wave-carrying medium has a natural common center of velocity for the particles: in the land - the land. In the plane - the plane. On Mars - Mars.

    But if we have an infinite universe with an infinite number of planets and they are moving at different and infinite speeds - why then would they have a preferred center of speeds? Does an infinite line have a midpoint?

    Einstein, by the way, agreed at a later stage in his life to accept the concept of the ether, on the condition that a certain rest system would not be attributed to him (as I asked). But on the other hand, what does he understand? All Einstein.

    See, even ghosts and everything doesn't catch, but on the other hand it's not the only thing that ghosts and everything doesn't catch so it doesn't mean anything.

  274. jubilee

    But this is exactly what Israel is asking! How do you not understand? And why don't you answer him? Obviously the answer is seven.
    By the way, if A was a chicken and grandma was B, everything could be possible

  275. Israel, once again I have to admit that I did not understand your question. Changing parameters is exactly like this: if [the grandmother had wheels] and we say that [they are like a Mac truck] - why exactly [like a Mac]? The continuation of the question no longer connects me to anything. Sorry

  276. deer

    If there is no universal absolute time, Lorentz transformations are required.

    The subject of our discussion is that if the big bang theory is correct, at every point in the universe there is an absolute time that is automatically synchronized with every other point in the universe. Otherwise we would not be able to talk about the age of the universe in terms of absolute time, but at each point there was a different age, or as was accepted in 1905, infinite time. The best we can do according to Einstein is arbitrary synchronization of clocks.

    If you accept that there is a contradiction between the lengthening of time and the big bang theory, in my opinion there is an explanation for the results of the MM experiment that leaves the absolute time intact and also the 2 postulates of relativity. But this is alternative physics. It is better to find an explanation for the C-C problem within the mainstream, or in short: what will the clocks show?

    Could you give your opinion on the question I raised: if Michelson found the rest system of the ether, and it is said to be the same as the rest system of the constellation Leo - why this one? If the universe is infinite, homogeneous and isotropic, then why would it have a certain rest system? What about homogeneity?

    jubilee

    Can you also answer the last question addressed to Tzvi? It's true that I only asked 80 times.

  277. deer,
    Let's arbitrarily assume that there is a stationary universal mediating system. We chose two hypothetical bodies that are at rest relative to this system. The speed of a light beam sent from one body to another is c.
    Now we will move on to Michaelson-Morlay's experiments: we will move the two bodies relative to the medium, but we will keep relative rest between them. If the medium has the same characteristics of the medium from the previous assumption, then a light beam sent from one body to another should move at a speed c relative to the medium system and therefore its speed towards each of the bodies is c less than the speed of the bodies. The results of the experiment are known and frequent, and the probably inevitable conclusion is that the speed of light as it is observed from each of the bodies is always constant and probably equal to c ("probably", because I have already warned that all the exact measurements of the speed of light were made only on movement to and fro and not on movement in the direction one).
    Confusion: Does the medium move together with the bodies? And if so, does each body system have its own private media system that does not "friction" with any of the private media systems of other body systems even though it shares a common space with them? Is there even a mediator?
    Instead of me continuing to mince words, and before we examine the speed of light between two bodies that are in relative motion at a speed different from zero, please offer your own solution. And if not, I will continue to develop my idea.

  278. Israel,

    Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations from his two assumptions. Assuming you agree with the assumptions, where did Einstein go wrong?

    jubilee,

    I'm trying to get to the bottom of your mind, you wrote (from time immemorial): "What I'm saying is that light always moves relative to the observer and/or relative to the light source at speed c. Therefore, the true speed of light relative to the source or observer is c minus the relative speed between them. For example, if the light source and the observer are at rest, relative to each other, then the relative speed between them is zero and then the actual movement of the light relative to them is at a speed c minus zero."
    Here you wrote that light does move relative to the viewer at speed c, then you defined "true speed of light". Maybe the problem is in my understanding but I don't see how the concept you defined conflicts with special relativity. If an observer is in motion relative to a light source, and sees the light moving relative to it at speed c, then he can say that the true speed of light, that is, the speed of light relative to the source is cv. What I don't understand is what is real about this speed compared to the real speed that would be measured by an observer who is in motion relative to a source at a different speed. After all, the two real speeds measured by such observers will be different.

  279. This medium appears in different ways At the same time. The Bosmanism of his performances allows for the dual nature (wave-particle) of light, baryonic matter and dark mass, absolute speed and relative speed, gravitation and inertia, matter and energy, and this is only a partial list. The day we have a serious discussion about "alternative" physics, I will provide details.
    One of the shows of this medium is similar to Maxwell's "hydrodynamic" site - only without the moving wheels.

  280. So what do you suggest, that the rest system be located or replaced? what is it And if, as you say, "there is another medium that is not a site." It's not just a name change. This is the understanding that the structure of the medium is more complex than just gas particles." What is that medium? And how did Maxwell manage to derive the speed of light and its equations from a hydrodynamic model of the ether?

  281. Israel,

    This is not a one-way measurement either. Remer/Kassini calculated the speed of light based on the time differences between the departure and return (the approach of the earth to Jupiter and its departure from it).

    It is assumed that the speed of light is constant relative to the observer. The mind gives many things. But one direct experiment puts in the pocket a thousand opinions that give. Michelson Morley did not find the rest system of the site and concluded that there is none. Furthermore, they concluded that the site itself does not exist. Let's take the last conclusion and try to understand how light can move in waves in the absence of ether. My answer is that there is another medium that is not a site. It's not just a name change. This is the understanding that the structure of the medium is more complex than just gas particles.
    Therefore, it goes without saying that talks about the rest system of the ether are irrelevant, and so is all his reference to the characteristics of the universe.

  282. deer.

    1. Do you accept that the speed of light is constant for every observer? Yes.

    2. Lorentz transformations? The lengthening of time and the shortening of the distance? Relative speed connection? - If there is an explanation that will be accepted in my opinion for the problem I raised in example XNUMX-XNUMX, yes. If there is no suitable explanation then either the answer is yes and then I cannot accept the bang theory, or if I accept the bang theory, the answer is no. (Sorry, this is the least complicated answer I have).

    jubilee.

    The measurements using moons etc. yielded results in a fairly good approximation, with a deviation of more or less a percentage from the speed accepted today. On the other hand, according to relativity, if you do not accept the determination of the speed of light, you will receive deviations of thousands and millions of percent in the calculations (twin encounters, etc.). So it is said that Remer or Cassini missed by a fraction of a percent - so what?

    "MM did not come to determine the speed of light, it was known long before, but the rest system of the ether. The question is: let's say they would have found her. Why this one and not another? The universe is infinite, isn't it? (at least in 1887"

    The speed of a wave is measured relative to a medium with a certain rest system. The speed of a sound wave - relative to the air, which if there is no wind, its rest system is as DHA. Tsunami wave speed - relative to the sea. A sound wave in an airplane - relative to the airplane. Waves in Jupiter - relative to Jupiter.

    So if Michaelson found the rest system of the ether, and it is said to be the same as the rest system of the constellation Leo - why this one? If the universe is infinite, homogeneous and isotropic, then why would it have a certain rest system? What about homogeneity?

  283. Hello Zvi,
    I can quote Einstein who said this, but you can do it too.
    A few comments ago I stated that I am not ready to state in rivets an assumption that has not been confirmed by direct experimentation. However, if such a direct experiment is really carried out and it turns out that the speed of light is indeed c and is constant for every observer regardless of the speed of his movement in space, I already have an explanation for this.

  284. Israel,

    You wrote "Sorry, no. Embodied here is the assumption that I accept the lengthening of time in inertial systems. I don't, not at this point.”
    Okay, so first I suggest we figure out what we do agree on.
    Do you accept that the speed of light is constant for every observer? Lorentz transformations? The lengthening of time and the shortening of the distance? Relative speed connection?

    jubilee,

    I have a similar question to you, is the speed of light constant for every observer? Will every observer agree that relative to him the speed of light is c?

  285. 299,792,458 meters per second, is this what Remer recorded in his diary even before the world knew what a meter was?
    And I didn't understand your question that way either 🙁

  286. Israel,

    Last word: we will meet happily and good luck to you too 🙂

    P.S. I think I suggested it to you once but if not, have you thought about maybe writing a theoretical paper with your ideas and publishing it in a theoretical physics journal (for example: http://www.springer.com/physics/journal/10773) to receive criticism from professional people on the subject whose opinion you would at least value a little more? (without any sarcasm).
    It's a win win because if you don't publish you will be where you are now and if you publish you will strengthen your thesis very much and shut the mouths of snoozing skeptical ignoramuses like me. Think about it.

  287. OK, R.H. You are right, as always.

    When you say "even when you insisted that your gut feeling says that there is an intelligent creation" (where?) when you claim "you are the one who read half and a quarter of the comments, immediately assumes that he knows what the other person wants and answers not to the point" (when?) and especially when you state "in both cases" , both in rational creation and in the theory of relativity you, like Kshingua, assert mountains of reasoning, with Jack and Jill and such and such clocks against theories that are experimentally based and realized in practice. Why? Because it's your gut feeling" (literally).

    Does not matter. We agreed to let go and be free - there is no better place to do this than in the land of free comments.

    Say the last word, and we'll be done.

    Except you know I really appreciated your efforts, and I mean it. I appreciate wisdom, ability to express yourself and breadth of horizons, which no doubt rests in everyone. Good luck, and really, NO HARD FEELINGS.

  288. Israel,
    OK, I accepted and released. If my condescending (?) style bothers you so much then don't hear from me again.

    Riddle, can whoever wrote the following and many others on my understanding complain of condescension?
    "In the particular case of you, me and physics, is there any justification for this?"
    "You also start to mention another commenter who has nothing relevant to say even though he is convinced of his intellectual superiority over the Nemoshut, and whose name also for some reason begins with R.H."
    "But has the thought occurred to you that maybe you just don't fully understand the subject?"

    Have I ever claimed that you don't understand something? Even when you insisted that your gut says there is an intelligent creation? So who is arrogant? After all, you are the one who would read half and a quarter of comments, immediately assume that he knows what the other person wants and answer irrelevantly, so am I the arrogant one?

    As a matter of fact, in both cases, both in rational creation and in the theory of relativity, you, like Kshingua, assert mountains of reasoning, with Jack and Jill and such and such clocks against theories that were experimentally based and realized in practice. Why? Because it's your gut feeling. You have not a shred of observational or experimental evidence. On the contrary, in my understanding (and of course you will argue that it is weak) there is a great deal of evidence that is true for today. Even the neutrino experiment turned out to be wrong. Just like he brings mountains of arguments and calculations why there can't be more than two mutations in a billion years when every day in the lab I see several mutations.
    After all, you yourself claim all the time that you are sure you have a mistake and you are "dying" for someone to tell you what it is (alek). So maybe, I'll quote you "but has it occurred to you that you might just not understand the subject completely?"
    Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with you coming up with revolutionary theses. On the contrary, I found it very interesting at the beginning of our previous discussion. However, when you receive criticism, you start with personal attacks and this is not a discussion I like to participate in, your style is not acceptable to me and as mentioned you will not hear from me again on the above mentioned subject.

  289. "All the measurements to date have been performed on light that goes back and forth"? What? What about Remar and Cassini, the moons of justice, please Araf?

    try again. MM did not come to determine the speed of light, it was known long before, but the rest system of the ether. The question is: let's say they would have found her. Why this one and not another? The universe is infinite, isn't it? (at least in 1887).

  290. May Israel be renewed
    I will tell you exactly what is wrong with Nisoi mm. Actually, why wouldn't he be fine? He tried just fine. It just doesn't measure what we are interested in but something else entirely. It does not measure the speed of light. From the beginning it was designed to find out something completely different, and the conclusion obtained from its results is not the speed of light but a strange characteristic of light. We know the average speed of light between two stationary points ("average", because all measurements to date have been made on light that goes back and forth). However, the speed of light has never been measured between two points in relative motion. And until such a measurement is made, I have no reason to accept the second postulate

  291. Finally an iPad. You can open files. Horhoror's computer is an ancient piece of junk located in Bab al-Wad, with the rest of the silent iron skeletons.

    Meir

    Your reference is interesting, and can perhaps shed light on the problem. If Einstein and Planck gave their opinion on the temperature problem in 1908, even before the big bang theory and even general relativity, then it is almost certain that I am simply not aware of its solution (which from a superficial reading is not as simple and trivial as one might think).

    So the right thing for me now is to stop digging, and try the end of the thread you gave me. Thanks. On occasion I will also read the article on the inverse square law, or whatever you call it.

    jubilee.

    What's wrong with the m-m experiment? Why could a different result be obtained? Why would there be a site-specific rest system? And if so, why exactly this one and not another?

  292. Israel,
    waiting

    "It is difficult for me (very even) to accept the explanation you gave. "
    - I didn't give an explanation. On the contrary, I explained why I cannot know what the explanation is.

    "After all, if another identical train travels at the same speed next to the cold one, but has not completed the long journey of its sister, how is it possible that this happened and it is hot?"
    - Who said it was hot and it happened? The Lorentz transformation for temperature depends on the speed of movement and not on time.

  294. A never – endingsto ry – temper at ureandrel at ivity
    The literature on temperature is confusing. Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli agreed
    on the following result: the temperature T seen by an observer moving with speed v is
    related to the temperature T0 measured by the observer at rest with respect to the heat
    bath via

    T=T0(1-V^2/C^2)^1/2

    A moving observer thus always measures lower values ​​than a resting one.
    In 1908, Max Planck used this expression, together with the corresponding transformation for heat, to deduce that the entropy is invariant under Lorentz transformations.
    Being the discoverer of the Boltzmann constant k, Planck proved in this way that the
    constant is a relativistic invariant.
    Not all researchers agree on the expression. Others maintain that T and T0 should
    be interchanged in the temperature transformation. Also, powers other than the simple
    square root have been proposed. he origin of these discrepancies is simple: temperature
    is only intended for equilibrium situations, ie for baths. But a bath for one observer is not
    a bath for the other. For low speeds, a moving observer sees a situation that is almost a
    heat bath; but at higher speeds the issue becomes tricky. Temperature is deduced from
    the speed of matter particles, such as atoms or molecules. For moving observers, there
    is no good way to measure temperature. he naively measured the temperature value even
    depends on the energy range of matter particles that is measured! In short, thermal equilibrium is not an observer-invariant concept. therefore, no temperature transformation
    formula is correct. (With certain additional assumptions, Planck's expression does seem
    to hold, however.) In fact, there are not even any experimental observations that would allow such a formula to be checked. Realizing such a measurement is a challenge for the future
    experimenters - but not for relativity itself.

    Cited from Motion Mountain – The Free Physics Textbook for Download
    http://motionmountain.net/

    http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/PDFdosya/SpecialRelativity-2.pdf
    318 page

  295. Meir

    I could not open. Maybe it's this particular computer at my parents' house. All the time it flashes "open tab". Go find out what it is.

    It's hard for me (very even) to accept the explanation you gave. Note: we can increase the time gap as we wish, and hence the temperature difference, and decrease the relative speed to the same extent. In fact to reach a situation where there is almost no speed difference between the trains and they are standing almost on the platform in Jerusalem. After all, if another identical train travels at the same speed next to the cold one, but has not completed the long journey of its sister, how is it possible that this happened and it is hot?

    Ockham believes: either we analyzed incorrectly, or there is no time dilation in the system in question, or the bang theory is wrong.

  297. Israel,

    "Will this happen even if the time difference is 2 million years and the relative speed between the clocks is 0.6 m/s? Can you see how two trains travel at a relatively slow speed relative to each other, their passengers wave goodbye and even shake hands with the passengers of the opposite train, but in train A the air conditioner is on because of the heat and in train B the heating because it is so cold, and all this because of some distant clocks that have passed the trains in the past?”

    You present another paradox, and I don't feel the need to excuse the absurdities and paradoxes that relativity produces. Temperature is a tricky thing, because it depends on quite a number of factors that need to be known how to weigh them in relative systems, before deciding which train passengers will feel unusually hot and which train passengers will feel unusually cold, if at all. For example:

    Since time flows more slowly on Jill's train (from Jack's point of view), the rate of oscillation of the atoms and molecules in this train, in the air conditioner gas in it, and in the irons of which its temperature clock is made, is lower (Lorentz transformation of velocities), meaning that they colder. If I remember correctly, then in gas the temperature is proportional to the square of the speed of the molecules, and this means that the gas in the Jill train air conditioners does not have to work hard to cool, and rather they should be used for heating if the gas has not yet frozen. The stars from Jill's point of view and the sun as a whole (if it is relevant to the Jack-Jill meeting that takes place somewhere in the vastness of infinity), emit less energy per unit of time, but the universe is more compressed (the length contraction, we already mentioned). In short, I don't pretend to know how to weigh all the relevant factors in a relative sense, in order to come up with the right solution to the paradox. One thing I can guarantee: the adherents of the theory of relativity will always be able to find the explanation that will satisfy him, and they will do it each in a different way (which contradicts the other ways), which will prove that they themselves are not able to know how to weigh all the factors, and what is the Lorentz transformation for relativistic temperature .

    In this regard, please read the instructive section on page 318 in the attached link, and I hope that following this we will agree that we will not be able to convince or convince regarding the explanation of the paradox, and that you will not be able to convince the fans of relativity that a temperature clock can prove that in inertial systems there is no relative time dilation:
    http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/PDFdosya/SpecialRelativity-2.pdf

    If you have a problem opening PDF files, write to me and I will send it as a message.

  298. jubilee

    I have to make sure. When you say "the first fundamental theorem of special relativity" do you mean postulate 2? (constant speed of light in any reference system).

  299. Israel,
    I learned my lesson the hard and painful way. Please let's not return to personal squabbles that do not contribute positively to the main issue.
    The questions you raise are weighty and it is important to clarify them. The grand theories are full of holes. This is expressed, among other things, in the contradiction between relativity and metaphysics that you explore with inexhaustible energy, but not only in this. The first fundamental theorem of special relativity is very infuriating even without the bang, and even the way we understand the bang is not free of confusion. The history of scientific theories is full of "tragedies" in which great models do not agree with each other, and you probably put your finger on exactly one of them. Unlike the one-time and inexorable big bang, relativity can be re-examined at any moment. You have to go back and check the phenomena that led to the strange conclusions, and plan new experiments for that. Today we have technologies at a level of precision that was not there a century ago. I believe that one should not adhere to the conclusions of Michaelson Morley's experiments, because it is possible to design experiments to directly measure the speed of light between two bodies in motion.

  300. jubilee

    Let's check your assumptions for a moment.

    "Israel, why insult?"

    Who like you knows that there is a difference between insulting and reacting. between attacking and defending. between action and reaction. Go over R.H.'s patronizing and condescending personal style, about statements such as "Lords Yehuda Israel and Yuval", see his previous comments "And you know what is most interesting? All of these work perfectly without any strange malfunctions that result from the changing speed of light, as you would very much like." "Don't dig", etc. Compare them to Meir's firm but matter-of-fact style, or to Zvi's polite style of expression.

    Someone like you also knows that the trouble between you and me was your responsibility, and you were guilty of sin, grateful and compassionate. R.H. On the other hand, he continued to send us both to kindergarten, and when asked to provide evidence for his various accusations, he arrogantly avoided it.

    "R.H. invested a great deal of his time to help you when others, including me, said we were desperate. His thinking is analytical and profound, and usually, if not always, he understands what he is talking about"

    I thanked R.H. Several times on the discussion that brought up interesting points, but was quite useless for me because of the failure of R.H. To understand the subject of the inertial system, which was expressed in his insistence that "Jack is stationary" and "Jill is moving", and this without reference to the radiation system. I do not believe that he still understands the subject to his satisfaction as expressed in his last statement: "One last point, Israel. You keep claiming that there is no lengthening of time in non-accelerated systems, but gravity also causes time to slow down (and this is even measured in towers), so in this case it is about systems that are inferior to each other."

    If I were as naive as a few months ago, I would have tried to explain to him that a system in gravity is not inertial according to the principle of equivalence. The sad experience of the past taught me that it is better to avoid this.

    I believe that R.H. He benefited from the discussion with me at least as much as I did. According to him, he enjoys almost every moment.

    "Even with the ghost, by the way, I often found interesting things." I have never looked for faults with ghosts, or any other responder. It is he who will always take care of me, and kidnap accordingly.

    R.H. Expensive.

    "First of all, calm down, no one thinks you're a moron or that I have any intellectual superiority over you.

    In my opinion, your general style towards many commenters is condescending. Not as blatant as Michael, but still looking down. With a hand on the heart: in the particular case of you and me and physics, is there any justification for this?

    "What I said (and here Yuval also answers your question) is that without going into details it is clear from the application of technology that the theory of relativity works."

    Newton's theory also works. It has many successful applications in technology. The cheeky Mr. Einstein should have taken this fact into account when he challenged her.

    "The GPS system is based on the fact that the time when an electromagnetic signal is received from the satellites is proportional to the speed of the signal which travels at the speed of light. Therefore, if the speed of light were to change, the satellites would not be able to coordinate with each other, and the GPS devices on the ground would accumulate errors that would accumulate more and more."

    I don't understand what you mean by "if the speed of light were to change". The speed of light is always the same for any measurer, even if it is a satellite. She is C.

    "You keep claiming that there is no lengthening of time in non-accelerated systems, but gravity also causes time to slow down (and this is even measured in towers) so in this case we are talking about inferior systems in relation to each other." Of course gravity causes time to slow down. Gravity is acceleration.

    And in general R.H., your very claim that there is no problem at all with the argument I made is puzzling. See how much it can complicate even a person who no doubt understands the subject like Zvi, who needs a relativistic doppler to try to solve a dilemma that you easily wave as simply non-existent. I'm really not trying to offend or be condescending, but has it occurred to you that you may simply not understand the subject at all? What I fought with you about for two months, Meir immediately said: "There is no priority for Jack over Jill. Both are resting." Do you really understand that an inertial system, the subject of our discussion, is a system at rest? That even if Jill flies at a speed of 0.9999C, according to Einstein in 1905 she is at rest at all?

    And most importantly: do you really understand that I am not speaking against relativity at all, but only claiming that the lengthening of time in inertial systems seemingly contradicts the absolute time of the Big Bang? For some reason you never bring evidence to support the bang theory, only relationships.

    In my opinion, if you have something relevant about the discussion itself, we would be happy to hear your opinion. If, on the other hand, all you have to say is that we should stop digging and talking because it is a fact, relativity works (as if Newton's theory doesn't) then maybe it's better if you let it go.

  301. R.H., after reading the article.
    The acceleration of clocks in satellites is due to differences in the acceleration of gravity. These are taken care of by the general tehai, but the discussion with Israel concerns the private tehai.

  302. RH, I understood the root of the misunderstanding. As usual, my unsuccessful formulations.
    The relative speed of light is always constant. All calculations are based on this, and currently the GPS system still navigates well with an accuracy of a few centimeters.
    What I did, and I explained this not long ago but maybe I didn't make it clear enough, is to use the term "absolute speed" (calculated as the difference between the constant speed c and the speed of the body relative to which this speed is measured). When I said that T is not included in the calculations, I meant exactly that the speed of light that is used is always c and not the absolute speed. And since c already contains the formulas of Tahi, there is no need to enter them into the computers of the navigation devices.
    Thanks for the reference to the article.

  303. Israel,
    First of all, relax, no one thinks you're a moron or that I have any intellectual superiority over you.
    What I said (and here Yuval also answers your question) is that without going into details it is clear from the application of technology that the theory of relativity works.
    The GPS system is based on the fact that the time in which an electromagnetic signal is received from the satellites is proportional to the speed of the signal which travels at the speed of light. Therefore, if the speed of light were to change, the satellites would not be able to coordinate with each other and the ground GPS devices would accumulate errors that would keep on accumulating.

    And related to your question, of course the theory of relativity must be included in GPS calculations. See for example: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

    One last point, Israel. You keep claiming that there is no lengthening of time in non-accelerated systems, but gravity also causes time to slow down (and this is even measured in towers) so in this case it is about systems that are inferior to each other.

  304. Israel, why insult?
    R.H. invested a great deal of his time to help you when others, including me, said we were desperate. His thinking is analytical and deep, and usually, if not always, he understands what he is talking about. Maybe he had a slight stumble now, and maybe it wasn't him at all but an impostor.
    Even with the ghost, by the way, I often found interesting things. I bet it was he who hosted us in his home and served us Turkish coffee

  305. deer
    You write: "I agree with the things you say but how does that make the watch universal? A universal clock should show the same time everywhere in every system"

    Indeed, if my calculations are correct, that is what he does. I really hoped that the relativistic doppler would show me the contradiction and the enlightenment, but I failed to see it. If you can, expand.

    "In the example of Jack and Jill, at the moment of the meeting Jack sees that at station 1 the clock shows 10 and Jill sees that it shows 6.4, we agree on that right?"

    sorry, no Embodied here is the assumption that I accept the lengthening of time in inertial systems. I don't, not at this point.

    "Therefore, assuming that the universal clock is ticking, it will also show different times in the photographs."

    A universal clock works as follows:

    1. He perceives the time in seconds that the transmitter broadcasts on KDA.

    2. Measures the signal strength and Doppler. I thus arrive at the absolute time that a universal clock face adjacent to it would show at that point if it were there, regardless of their relative speed.

    If it seems to you that it is possible that two such clocks at the same point but different speed can show different time in a joint photo, please explain why.

    If you agree that they will always see the same time, then we have got universal time. Note that this has nothing to do with cosmic radiation, and that if we take another transmitter in motion relative to the transmitter on KDA but synchronized with it and use signals from it instead of the original transmitter, we will get the same time as we received from the original transmitter. An infinite or even finite number of such transmitters can constitute an alternative system to radiation, but for the purpose of time calculations only one transmitter can be thought of.

  306. RH, I did not understand the comparison with xingua
    I said "There is no debate between us about the fact that the relative speed of light is constant. The debate is about the absolute speed"
    And you answered, "So you also agree with Israel that the speed of light is constant relative to the viewer?" Do you believe it would be possible to build such a complex GPS system that would work without deviations and disruptions if that were the case? Even if the speed of the satellites is relatively low?"
    As far as I know, the constancy of the speed of light relative to the observer is the cornerstone of T.H.I.
    Also, as far as I know, in the current technology of Navit Lavein, you don't include the THI in the calculations.
    Please clarify.

  309. R.H.
    waiting

    Meir.

    "Israel,
    If you insist on a single photon, it can't reach two temperature clocks anyway.
    But I was talking about a pulse of light that is activated in half the length of the tubes and makes its way to their four ends. The pulse contains enough photons for some of them to be absorbed by the photocells installed in the four temperature clocks."

    If we finish the Jack-Jill example with the agreement that time dilation cannot occur in an inertial system, it seems that there may be another possibility that has not been discussed yet, and is suitable for what we know from quantum mechanics.

    "What is stationary, please? There is no preference for Jack over Jill. Both are resting"

    Try to explain this to R.H. He claims that Jack rests and Jill moves.

    Jill's clock will show 8.

    Notice what it means. Jack's temp clock shows 10, Jill's temp clock shows 8. A difference of 2 seconds between clocks that are at a speed of 0.6C relative to each other, and what they actually do is measure a temperature and turn it into a calculable time.

    Will this happen even if the time difference is 2 million years and the relative speed between the clocks is 0.6 m/s? Can you see how two trains travel at a relatively slow speed relative to each other, their passengers wave goodbye and even shake hands with the passengers of the opposite train, but in train A the air conditioner is on because of the heat and in train B the heating because it is so cold, and all this because of some distant clocks that have passed the trains in the past?

  310. R.H.

    "If you were aware, you wouldn't continue arguing with someone who floats foam on things that have been scientifically proven and technologies based on them."

    Could you enlighten us where the lengthening of time in inertial systems has been proven by research, and which technologies are based on such lengthening?

    "If it were true, there would be a contradiction between the viewers. For example, the various GPS satellites." interesting. can you expand

    "You received answers about my situation (which, by the way, were quite similar to what I wrote to you at the time)"

    If I remember correctly, your main argument was that between Jack's temp and hr clocks there won't be a gap because it's a "relaxed" system, while between Jill's clocks there will be a huge gap (1000000000:1 rotation ratio) because it's a system "Moving". This was even before the cosmic radiation system was even mentioned.

    Zvi, on the other hand, says b

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/comment-page-29/#comment-345903

    Israel,
    No matter how I try to arrange the temperature clocks I reach contradictions. The only way that does not lead to contradictions if the theory of relativity is when temperature clocks show the same time as a cesium clock next to them. Then I remembered that in the relativistic Doppler effect, in contrast to the normal Doppler effect, there is a general shift to the blue due to the narrowing of space. If the temperature clock calculates the time according to the temperature of the blue deflected radiation it will show a shorter time. Doesn't that solve our problem?

    ZA that according to his words the CZ and Temp clocks must show the same time. Maybe you also mentioned relativistic doppler effect and I just didn't read, as always.

    Perhaps Zvi also claims that the ratio of 1:1 between Jack's watches is measured by a drop of a degree per hour, and that for Jill it is a degree per minute. 1:1 is 1:1.

    "You're starting to remind me of xingua Zakor Latov who argues against facts proven in the laboratory or B who claims that there is no twin paradox despite the airplane experiment."

    You also start to mention another commenter who has nothing relevant to say even though he is convinced of his intellectual superiority over the Nemoshut, and whose name also for some reason begins with R.H.

  311. Israel,
    "Thanks for the enlightenment, R.H., we really weren't aware of that." — You probably weren't really aware. If you were aware, you would not continue to argue with someone who floats foam on things that have been proven by research and technologies based on them.

    "The conclusion is that the speed of light is constant, but only relative to the measurer, or the observer." —- If this were true, a contradiction would arise between the viewers. For example the various GPS satellites.

    "I would be very happy if I received a suitable answer, but so far I have not received from anyone." — You received answers about my situation (which, by the way, were quite similar to what I wrote to you at the time).

    jubilee,
    "There is no debate between us that the relative speed of light is constant. The argument is about absolute speed. "— Does that mean you also agree with Israel that the speed of light is constant relative to the viewer? Do you believe it would be possible to build such a complex GPS system that would work without deviations and disruptions if that were the case? Even if the speed of the satellites is relatively low?

    You're starting to remind me of xingua, remember the good who argues against facts proven in the laboratory or B who claims that there is no twin paradox despite the airplane experiment.

  312. Israel,
    If you insist on a single photon, it can't reach two temperature clocks anyway.
    But I was talking about a pulse of light that is activated in half the length of the tubes and makes its way to their four ends. The pulse contains enough photons for some of them to be absorbed by the photocells installed in the four temperature clocks.

    What is stationary please? There is no preference for Jack over Jill. Both are resting.
    Jill's clock will show 8.

  313. Meir

    A photon's wave function cannot collapse twice. If there is a time difference between the temp clocks in the example you gave, the function will crash on the first clock and will not reach the second at all.

    So we agreed: 10:8 p.m. Jack 10, Jill XNUMX. Nice. Jack's temp clock also shows XNUMX (stationary, please check). What does a Temp Jill watch show?

  314. Israel,
    The simplest solution to read files that do not open is to upload them to google docs and view them online.

  315. Israel,
    "So that's it, at this point I don't accept that the cesium clocks won't tick at the same rate. All the experiments that confirm the lengthening of times are in accelerated systems. I only deal with inertial systems.”

    So what do you want from Albert? He did not think, like you, that light has many speeds, only one of which is relevant to the viewer, and therefore he had no choice but to conclude that time lengthens in inertial systems.

  316. A pulse of light. Why won't he come? Because the pipes are made of iron? I was actually thinking of plexiglass. If you insist on iron, you will send the pulse from the middle of the gap between the inner and outer tube.

    According to the example in Blink, yes, and we also agreed that from that historical meeting onwards in which they pass in front of each other, the watches next to them will not get to pass in front of each other one more time.

  317. Meir

    I sent Kofi Annan to my father to negotiate the release of the response.

    "A light pulse emanating from the center of one tube reaches the constant temperature clocks at both ends at the same time.
    We will arrange so that the same light pulse also leaves the center of the second tube and reaches the fixed temperature clocks at both ends at the same time.
    From this it follows that the time in the temperature clocks of pipe A is not agreed on pipe B, and vice versa."

    If it's the same pulse, it won't reach the other tube. quanta. The wave function will collapse and inflate its soul at the first edge it reaches.

    Let's finish Jack and Jill. Did we agree that, according to the example in the link, both see and take pictures of czech jack 10 czech jill 8?

  319. Meir and Yuval

    The answers to your questions were given in an article in Cosmo, on the example of the ballistic pendulum (Meir, remember the shell that was captured by the earth's gravity at speeds lower than the escape velocity but not at the escape velocity and above?).

    I'm trying to organize a computer here that will be able to open your article. I'm already jetlagged and I intend to make it to the pool above the five, so I might be able to do it with the iPad.

    In the meantime, regarding your question: "After all, it all started with a disagreement between them about the ticking rate of the cesium clock, that is, about the ticking rate of the enzymes in their body cells, that is, about the lifespan of elementary particles in their particle accelerators. Will the cosmic clock solve their problem?"

    So that's it, at this point I don't accept that the cesium clocks won't tick at the same rate. All the experiments that confirm the lengthening of times are in accelerated systems. I only deal with inertial systems.

  320. Israel, apologizes again. For a moment I forgot what you are actually trying to test.
    When I start from the premise that light can move at speeds higher or lower than c, the first question that pops up for me is why we only perceive the finite light beams whose speed is exactly c and not any other?

  322. Israel,

    "However, if we had used temperature clocks, the photon would have left and arrived at the absolute times agreed upon on the 2 tubes. "

    Why would they agree?

    A light pulse emanating from the center of one tube reaches the fixed temperature clocks at both ends at the same time.
    We will arrange so that the same light pulse also leaves the center of the second tube and reaches the fixed temperature clocks at both ends at the same time.
    From this it follows that the time in the temperature clocks of pipe A is not agreed on pipe B, and vice versa.

  323. jubilee
    The signal does not arrive at the same time. The experimenter is able to receive the early signal only at the speed of light, therefore the rotating antenna. Its tangential speed makes it possible to receive the faster signal, if it does exist. Therefore, the problem is to find equipment that measures the arrival of a signal with a precision of picoseconds. This is a purely technical problem, not a conceptual one. This must be done correctly and accurately for the experiment to have any value.

  324. R. H.,
    There is no debate between us that the relative speed of light is constant. The argument is about absolute speed. Since the Earth and its many satellites form one closed inertial system, only the relative velocity is relevant to the GPS calculations and there is no need to introduce the Einstein corrections. The fluctuations in the distances of the satellites (which result from the fact that the orbits are elliptical) are also exempt from these calculations, because their speed relative to the speed of light is zero.

  325. Ugh! Ugh! Ugh! What nonsense. Only four months have passed since then, and to me it seems like an eternity. OK. OK. It started with a misunderstanding, impatience, frustration and other excuses. But the stain remains on the wall (Naomi Hana Shahar Leslau reads from David Avidan's poems in chapter 43 of Tannochi). In short, I deserve it!

    "A radio transmitter, sending a targeted signal to a point 300 km away from it. There are two receivers at the point: the first has a normal antenna, and the second has a disc-shaped antenna that is parallel to the ground and rotates at enormous speed. What came out is that, in terms of the signal hitting transmitter B, the tangential speed of the disk is the same for it as an antenna flying at the same speed:
    It is not clear to me why the distance between the transmitter and the receivers must be so great if the signal reaches both at the same time anyway. In addition, the speed of the disk, as great as it may be, within the limits of current technology is a negligible fraction of the speed of light, so it is not certain that this experiment will yield significant results.

  326. Thanks for the enlightenment, RH, we really weren't aware of that.

    What you said about GPS and rangefinders does not contradict anything I wrote. You are the first to know that if the possibility I am raising is correct, the conclusion is that the speed of light is constant, but only relative to the measurer, or the observer.

    What I'm trying to do here is see how the dilation of time and the relative time of relativity line up with the absolute time of the big bang. I have no preference one way or the other. I would be very happy if I received a suitable answer, but so far I have not received from anyone.

    That's what's most interesting, at least to me.

  327. Israel and Yuval,
    Don't forget in your enthusiasm that it is very important to state that the speed of light is not constant, that the entire GPS system, all the laser rangefinders used by all the surveyors in the world, all the satellites and even those spacecraft that have landed on the moon and Mars, are all based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant. And you know what's most interesting? All of these work perfectly without any strange glitches that result from the changing speed of light, as you would very much like. But what can be done, that to this day no MTL (laser range finder) in any tank and in any distomat has not measured the wrong distance because suddenly the light moves faster or slower than ever.

  329. Hey! I slipped again. I didn't mean Maxwell's c, but Einstein's c. We need an experiment that would give a direct measurement of the speed of light relative to a body in motion. If such an experiment confirms the conclusion of the MM experiment, I will surrender myself to the first "Metzadik" and will no longer refuse orders. the commander!

  330. Yuval, you are called to order. You are not following orders.

    The definition of the task was clear and unequivocal: "Is it possible to find a solution that preserves the absolute time and postulate 2. But since you mentioned mm - we will go with you." A solution that will also explain the results of experiment M-M".

    Since you did not carry out the instruction - you are fired!!

    Oh well. What's wrong with Mm? Or in Maxwell's equations, after all, C can also be derived from them regardless of the medium.

    Ok, I'll send you an email, I'll answer you don't have mine. Just today you sent me 5 emails, DD.

  331. Israel, why riot?
    And maybe the conclusion from his experience is not correct at all? After all, his goal was not to find the speed of light, but something else. The strange conclusion is a product of luck. Chutsamza, it was conducted under very specific conditions that are not the same as the conditions in your pipe experiment. Instead of continuing to think endlessly, you should plan an experiment to directly calculate the speed of light. In the event I prepared one, but I have no way to upload drawings here. You send me an email and I can forward it to you:
    ivrit.yuval00@googlemail.com

  332. jubilee

    Also in my description you can launch 2 photons at the same time. The question is whether it is possible to find a solution that preserves the absolute time and postulate 2. But since you mentioned mm - we will go with you. A solution that will also explain the results of an experiment from M.

  333. Israel,
    The example of the telescopic tubes nicely illustrates the problematic nature of relativity. The axiom of constant velocity was accepted as a conclusion from Michaelson-Morlay's experiments, but that experiment did not involve a tube within a tube. If instead of a common central axis you launch them side by side and instead of one photon you shoot two photons at the same time, you may get a different result. But as long as we do not know for sure what the mechanics are that cause light to always move at the same speed relative to the body regardless of its speed, or until we actually perform such an experiment, we will not be able to know.

  334. Meir, Zvi, Yuval, everyone who reads.

    What I claim is this: it is not possible that relativity in its entirety is also correct, that the big bang theory is also correct, and that my understanding of them is also correct. The highest probability of course is that my understanding is wrong. If I understood correctly on the other hand, I have no preference between relativity and bang, but it is impossible for both to be true.

    To see this, let's go straight to the source, Einstein's 1905 paper known as "Special Relativity". Go straight to the first chapter, "Simultaneity of events".

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/#SECTION11

    According to the text, Einstein tries to synchronize 2 remote clocks. Note how legitimate this problem is in 1905, when the picture of the world is of an infinite and eternal universe. After all, there is no beginning to time, so how can we know what time it really is? The best we can do is to agree on some reset of our clocks, as two observers on an infinite straight line can only arbitrarily decide what the 0 point is.

    On the other hand, according to the bang theory, there is and is a starting point for time. We don't know it for sure at the moment, but there is no doubt that it exists. In 1905 it is natural to think of 30 billion years back, or 30 billion to the power of 30 billion. Today it is impossible. It is estimated that before the Big Bang, about 13.7 billion years ago, there was simply no time. Since then, the natural clock has been ticking, and today at every point in the universe there is a certain time, which is expressed in various physical factors, among them temperature, the relationship between which and the time that has passed since the bang is a continuous function called the Friedman formula.

    If I had been in his place in 1905 and believed in the bang, I would have said: instead of synchronizing with light rays, measure the temperature. A thermometer instead of a flashlight. Friedman's formula, a computer, and here we have synchronized the events for every meter in the universe. The line is not infinite. It has a true 0 point, from which any measurement on the line must start, or at a fixed distance from it.

    we will continue After Einstein succeeded in synchronizing the clocks using light rays whose speed is the same for each measurer, he asks: what will happen if the clocks are in motion relative to each other?

    The way I prefer to think about it is this: we have a long pipe, 300,000 km long, 10 cm in diameter. Inside it moves an identical tube, only with a diameter of 5 cm. The relative speed between them is said to be 1000 m/s.

    When the backs of the tubes come together, a single photon is launched along the common center. According to postulate 2 of relativity, the photon moves at the same speed relative to the 2 pipes. Since it takes exactly one second to get from end to end of each tube, and since when it reached the end of the wide tube the thin tube already protrudes 1000 meters out, it is clear that when the photon reached the end of the wide tube (exactly one second after it was launched from the common source of the 2 tubes) it was not yet reached the other end. And since it takes a second to even reach the end of the thin tube, as far as the thin tube is concerned, not a full second has yet passed when the photon has reached the end of the wide tube. For him, the pace of time is slower compared to the long tube.

    However, if we used temp clocks, the photon would leave and arrive at absolute times agreed on the 2 tubes. What's going on here? Is postulate 2 false? Do the temp clocks not measure absolute time? Or maybe there is another possibility that we haven't thought of, which allows us to leave the absolute cosmic time intact, as well as Postulate 2?

    We will take a break from digesting ideas and criticizing what I said.

  335. Israel,

    I agree with the things you say but how does that make the watch universal? A universal clock should show the same time everywhere in any system, but because different observers can disagree on the simultaneity of events this cannot happen. In the example of Jack and Jill, at the moment of the meeting Jack sees that at station 1 the clock shows 10 and Jill sees that it shows 6.4, on that we agree right? So how can there be some sort of universal clock? After all, when the question is asked what the universal clock shows at station 1 at the moment of the encounter, each viewer will pull out a different photograph, one of the cesium with 10 and the other with the cesium of 6.4, therefore assuming that the universal clock is ticking, he will also see different times in the photographs.

  337. Israel, I believe that you miss something in your statement "Physically - there was no universe or time before the bang". This is because the physical universe after the big bang behaves according to the laws of mathematics that existed even before.
    Measuring time according to the bang requires a calculation according to a logarithmic decay which gradually loses its accuracy with progress, while the stock of clock ticks maintains a constant accuracy in any given range. This may not be proof, but I wonder what William the Elder would say about it

  338. I agree. Both will agree that their personal clocks are out of sync, and there is no telling which of them is right.

    Now you have to convince them using an external clock (cosmic clock, temperature clock) that one of them's cesium clock is broken. The one whose cesium watch is broken will be honored to purchase a new cesium watch, and will honor his colleague with ice cream.

    But you are not an agent of cesium clocks, but of universe clocks. Since you are a successful agent, you managed to convince both of them to give up the cesium clocks and give up the "what time" debate and buy two universal wristwatches, and also two universal wall clocks for the kitchen.

    Did that solve the problems? After all, it all started with the fact that there was a disagreement between them about the ticking rate of the cesium clock, that is, about the ticking rate of the enzymes in their body cells, that is, about the lifetime of elementary particles in their particle accelerators. Will the cosmic clock solve their problem?

  339. Meir

    Comparing with remote clocks is a tricky thing. What about the instants: do you accept that according to the link experiment both will agree that his watch shows 10 and the season is 8? And the photographs will also show this, both from his camera and from her camera?

  340. Israel,
    You are correct in your claim, because in the above experiment the clocks that were reset at the beginning of the experiment were a clock close to Jill in the Jill system and a clock 1.8 million km away from Jack in the Jack system (the clock next to Jack was not reset at the beginning of the experiment with clock C 8). This allows Jack and Jill to meet at one point after 10 seconds according to the adjoined season and after XNUMX seconds according to the adjoined clock.
    The comparison is between the above clock next to Jill and the C2 clock next to Jack (which is 1 million km away from the C1.8 Jack clock in the Jack system).

    It fits exactly with what I wrote.

  342. Oh, math is a whole other matter. Mathematically, not only did the universe exist before the big bang - its root also existed. There were also negative universes, imaginary universes, multiple universes, a squared universe, and a logarithmic universe according to which the universe would rise or fall.

    Physically - there was no universe or time before the bang.

  343. Israel,
    What tributary are you talking about? moi? So by analogy, Yuval was not a hundred years ago but physics was and was - physics was not before the big bang but mathematics was never and will always be. The dimensions of space and time preceded the physical universe. And following the analogy: Yuval will not live forever - is the universe also a passing episode?

  344. Meir

    From the link b

    http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html

    Thus if both Jack and Jill are at C2 as Jill and her clock C' pass C2, both will agree that the clocks look like:

    From what I understand, they are undoubtedly next to each other at zero distance. His watch says 10, hers 8. They also agree on that. My claim is that if they film the moment of meeting, both the photo from his camera and from her camera will look the same: Jack 10, Jill 8.

  345. Israel

    "When Jill passes Jack at a speed of 0.6C she will see his watch behind by 2 seconds and he will see his watch behind by 2 seconds. The photographs from each side will also show this. I understand it right?"

    This is not true. The Jill and Jack experiment begins at the moment of synchronization. The moment of synchronization is the moment when a clock in Jill's system and a clock in Jack's system are reset. Since each of them can have many clocks in the system (let's say a clock in each wagon, or let's say one clock every 150,000 kilometers), first of all it is necessary to define which of the row of clocks in each system is reset in both systems at the moment of starting the experiment. From this point on, only with regard to this single clock in the entire line of clocks in each system, the above claim will be true. The problem is that this special clock in each system meets its friend at the moment the experiment begins, and from then on they move away from each other at a speed of 0.6C, so Jill can no longer pass Jack as you wrote above, since she already passed him at the moment the experiment began .
    So it is correct to say that if this special clock that is reset in each system at the start of the experiment is the clock attached to Jill and Jack, respectively, and if each of them is equipped with a telescope that allows them to see the clock attached to their friend, then both of them will see as if the telescope clock is slower than their personal clock, After they take into account how long it took the light to get from the friend's watch to the personal telescope.

  346. jubilee

    It's a bit hard to digest, but according to the big bang theory there is no such thing as "limited to the time span that begins with the big bang". According to the theory, time did not exist before the big bang. You can talk about what Yuval did a year, ten or 30 years ago. There is no meaning in asking what Yuval did 100 years ago, or where he was. he was not.

  347. Israel,
    Please refer to the distinction between physics and mathematics. Although the temperature clock is universal, it is limited to the time span that begins with the Big Bang. Other watches may not be universal, but they are not limited to this range.

  348. jubilee
    For Einstein in 1905 there is no beginning and no end. Always was and always will be. The only thing we can do is synchronize clocks, and arbitrarily set the 0 point. According to the bang the situation is different: you cannot decide that the time now is plus or minus 30 billion years. In 1905 yes.

    Furthermore: according to the bang theory, there is no meaning in saying what was before the bang. Time did not exist before, the bang created it. In 1905, time always existed. This is also why Poincaré at the end of the 19th century was able to prove that the cosmic entropy is reversible, while according to the well-founded claim of a Technion student, even the entropy of a system that includes a number of particles much smaller than Avogadro's number is not reversible in the universe's lifetime.

  349. Something about the age of the universe
    We neglect an important distinction we must make between mathematics and physics. In mathematics, the dimensions are infinite with no beginning or end. In physics, we start from a defining event, also known as the "big bang", which occurred at some point in the space bounded within three dimensions and in the limited time within one dimension, which many signs indicate is also unidirectional. Although our existence exists in this limited physical universe, we recognize many other metaphysical dimensions. Therefore, the big bang (if indeed the assumption of its occurrence is correct) is indeed the beginning of physical space-time, but not the mathematical one and for that reason one should not look for the beginning of absolute time in it.

  350. deer

    If the two twins separated when their clocks showed 2012 and when they returned for the twin who stayed this year 2092 and for his tourist brother 2032, technically for the home twin a time later. If there are 20 twins, no one can exceed 2092. That's the upper limit.

    Technically it is also impossible to pass the age of the universe, or go back to a time less than 0. This is the heart of my argument.

  351. Israel,

    What does that mean from a technical point of view versus a point of view? The twin who went on the journey will return and is 21 years old and the twin who remains on Earth is 60 years old, how can this be interpreted in different ways? It's just like the atomic clock on the plane that was synchronized with an atomic clock on Earth and when it came back it showed that a shorter time had passed than the clock left here. This is not a matter open to interpretation. When two twins meet, not just pass each other but actually meet and are at rest in relation to each other there must be one answer to the question of how old they are.

    What do you mean by going beyond the big bang? It is true that the twin who will remain on Earth will feel that a longer time has passed than the twins who set out on a journey and returned, but if you put yourself in the shoes of one of the twins who set out, when he set out on his journey, 14 billion years have passed since the Big Bang relative to the resting system of all the twins. Then he went on a journey equipped with a watch and returned to Earth, and in all that time he measured that one more year had passed, that is, 14 billion and one years had passed since the Big Bang. From his point of view, the twin left on Earth exceeds the age of this universe because, from his point of view, 14 billion and 50 years have passed.

    The point is that everything depends on perspective, and time since the Big Bang is a poorly defined concept. If you say that time has passed in reference to the radiation system, then it is no longer something absolute because in a different reference system, a different time has passed.

    "So how do we photograph them if they are in different places?" - With the help of a telescope, then taking into account the distance the light had to travel, we will deduce when the picture was taken. Of course, this inference will bring different viewers to different conclusions. Just like what happened with Jack and Jill, she sees that the temp clock at station 1 shows 6.4 and at the same time Jack sees that it shows 10.

    I understand that it is natural to say that the age of the universe should be measured according to the radiation rest system but I don't think it is justified.

  352. Meir

    If I understood your argument correctly, when Jill passes Jack at a speed of 0.6C she will see his watch behind by 2 seconds and he will see his watch behind by 2 seconds. The photographs from each side will also show this. I understand it right?

    deer

    "After all, the twin that leaves Earth and returns is actually making a journey to the future."

    From his point of view, yes. From a technical point of view, his time is earlier than the twin remaining in the spacecraft. If there are 1000 twins, each of them will show a time earlier than the remaining twin. There is no shortening of times, only lengthening. As long as the stationary twin does not exceed the time elapsed by the bang, no twin will be able to exceed.

    The universe clock can be adjacent to the clock, but then there are no limitations on the time it shows, which can extend from minus infinity to infinity, as Einstein claimed in 1905. The heart of my argument is that this does not fit with the big bang theory, where time has a beginning and a precise current time in seconds at every point in the universe.

    "Two universe clocks in different places will be able to show different time in a system that is not the rest system of the radiation source."

    So how do we photograph them if they are in different places?

    A universe clock that adjusts to a transmitter whose speed is 0 relative to radiation, will show the same time as a temp clock (no?), but is more convenient to work with.

  353. Israel,

    The clock will not be able to show a negative time, but it will be able to tick back as long as the time remains positive, in any case, in my opinion, this is a necessary conclusion if the radiation is indeed red. You ask if the clock can show 16 billion years into the future. Why not? After all, the twin that leaves Earth and returns is actually making a journey to the future.

    Regarding the universe clock. First of all, I don't understand what is absolute about it, after all, such a clock can be built for any system (not attached to a temp clock, but to a cesium clock in a certain system), which means that there is no special system, which is exactly what Einstein said. In the meantime, I don't see a way in which such clocks will show different things when they pass each other, but two universe clocks in different places will be able to show different time in a system that is not the rest system of the radiation source.

  356. Meir.

    You are right, of course, if you assume that there is no cumulative gap between Jill's cc and temp clocks as has been claimed here before, and both of her clocks always show the same time. If you agree on this point, and say you will somehow be convinced that a photo of 2 temp clocks shows the same time on both, are we able to agree that there is no time dilation in the Jack and Jill example?

  357. deer

    A temp clock measures the temperature of the universe and converts it to time according to Friedman's formula:
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3

    Time 0 means infinite temperature. A time of minus a billion years means a billion years before the big bang. A time of 30 billion years means over 16 billion years in the future. Do you think it is possible within the limits of our discussions?

    A universe clock works in the following way: it receives a signal with a certain number of seconds. (This is the signal sent by the transmitter on KDA, assuming that the transmitter is stationary relative to the radiation. The number is the number of seconds from the bang according to the temperature clock in KDA, which as mentioned is stationary relative to radiation}. According to the strength of the signal, it calculates the distance to the source (KDA). If the signal is biased to blue or red (all data in the clock computer) it weighs everything necessary to arrive at a single output: a number expressing the number of seconds that have passed since the bang in the clock system.

    Its advantage: unidirectional doppler (only from the direction of the east) and computational convenience for our discussions.

    If it seems to you that two universe clocks passing each other can show different time in a photograph, give an example.

  358. Israel,

    If the two trains are traveling at the same speed, there is no way that their clocks are out of sync. It is possible that on train A they will call the first hour on the timetable 0, and on train B they will read the same hour XNUMX, but the clocks of these two trains tick at the same rate, so the discrepancy between their readings requires at most a conversion calculator.

    Since Jack and Jill are not arguing about who is right and each of them knows that the cosmic time is the one shown by the cesium clock next to him, and also knows that his friend's time measurements show as if his own clock is lagging behind, what will a cosmic clock add to the pastoralism that prevails between them? Will the knowledge of a cosmic clock cause short-lived particles that exhibit relativistic time dilation in particle accelerators to change the show?

  359. Israel,

    First, in my opinion, there are no logical contradictions in "negative time" or "stasis-evaporation". Regarding the negative time, a temp clock does not necessarily measure the elapsed time in the system it is in, at least not when the system is in acceleration. Let's say you get a year older and the clock shows minus half a year, so what? You can build a clock that under certain conditions will tick back, only then it won't be a clock anymore, so there won't be a contradiction, because it's not like you went back in time.

    Regarding the stagnation and evaporation of the spaceship. I don't see a contradiction here either. So the spacecraft will heat up on one side and cool down on the other, so what? That's also considering that in any case her temperature is close to zero, yes she doesn't have much to cool down, but to warm up? There is no limit. The point is that there is no linearity here, a deviation to the blue will heat much more than a deviation to the red will cool and then on average the spacecraft will heat up and evaporate.

    It is difficult for me to direct you to a specific source about radiation, I found quite a few discussions and forums on Google that dealt with it, but they did not delve into the subject, also you have the Doppler formulas that show that there is a multiplication by a factor smaller than 1 of the new frequency, that is, the frequency is small and therefore the wavelength increases And there is a general redshift.

    I didn't really understand how the clock in your Absolute works. After all, each observer will measure a different distance between him and the Earth and will therefore conclude about a different time from the other when the signal was actually transmitted, and will therefore conclude about a different time shown by the absolute clock at the moment of the encounter, and hence the clock is not really absolute. You talk as if Jill has to take into account relativistic effects when she measures the distance between herself and the Earth and tell herself that the real distance is different, but the whole point is that there is no real distance, and any experiment that Jill performs will show a different distance than any experiment that Jack will perform

  360. , Meir

    Because of this, Jill's scrap clock will show the same time as the temp clock that accompanies her from the start of the experiment.

    It is said that another train, a different joke altogether, is traveling close to Jill at the same speed. As far as the 2 trains are concerned, they are generally at rest. Their passengers move from train to train without problems. The problem is that the clocks of the second train are not at all synchronized with the first, and show a completely different time. According to you, the two temp clocks, the one on train A and the one on train B, show different times even though they are on one big ramp.

    Therefore, if according to you the scrap clock shows the same time as the temp clock next to it, when it is assembled it is faced with a dilemma: should it show the time of train A or train B? Note that this has nothing to do with synchronization, because train B is not related to A at all.

    "If you can tolerate the idea that system A ages faster than system B, even though they both agree on the time that has passed since the bang, at the beginning and at the end of the experiment, why is this intolerable for you in an inertial system?"

    Surprisingly, the answer is found in your next response: "the energy density per unit of space is higher". We will get to this after we solve the problem of times in inertial systems.

    "Cosmic radiation comes from all directions. Therefore, to the extent that the temperature clock measures a deviation to the blue in the 180 degree sector, it will measure a deviation to the red in the opposite sector."

    At this point I got off temp watches. We have something better: universe clocks. The time in temp clocks is the same as that of universe clocks which are stationary with respect to radiation, and the doppler in universes is unidirectional.

  361. Israel and Zvi,

    I'm not really in the discussion about the doppler, but have you considered these points:

    1) The cosmic radiation comes from all directions. Therefore, as the temperature clock measures a blue shift in the 180 degree sector, it will measure a red shift in the opposite sector.

    2) A temperature clock measures not only wavelengths but also energy density (amount of photons in the relevant wavelength distribution, per unit of space). Since the universe is in motion relative to a temperature clock that measures anisotropic background radiation, a Lorentz contraction applies to the universe, meaning the energy density per unit space is higher.

  362. Israel,
    "Option 2 is the correct one."
    - So in the elaborate experiment you suggested, the temperature clock next to Jill is two million years behind Jack's.

    "Shortly before Jill meets Jack, she assembles another temp clock from scraps. This clock will automatically adjust to the time of its brother, the temp clock next to it. agree? Yes No."
    – Yes, the scrap clock will indicate the time interval between the bang event and the temperature sampling event, two events that are local for Jill, but not local for Jack since the temp sampling by Jill's clock is done at a different location From the position where Jill was at the beginning of the experiment. Because of this, Jill's scrap watch will show the same time as the temp watch accompanying her from the start of the experiment.

    "How is it possible that in the Boeing experiment one cesium clock aged more than the other, if both agree on the temperature of the CBR at the beginning and end of the experiment?"

    "The Boeing experiment is in accelerated systems. Right now we are in inertial systems."
    If you can tolerate the idea that system A ages faster than system B even though they both agree on the time that has passed since the bang, at the beginning and at the end of the experiment, why is this intolerable for you in an inertial system? After all, the theory of relativity does not claim that the slowing down of time causes a physical change, but only a difference in the results between measurements made from systems that are in relative motion. If so, as long as the experiment amounts to measurements and not a meeting over a cup of coffee to compare results, what's the big deal?
    And even if it is a meeting over a cup of coffee, what is good and what is pleasant. After all, symmetry requires agreement in the end.

  363. On second thought (quick, eh?) I realized why he might have dismissed the idea: the limits of universe clocks when considering the big bang theory are 0 to 13.7 billion years. According to knowledge in 1905 - minus infinity to infinity. Maybe the integral just won't converge in 1905.

  364. A small addition to the argument above: unlike the big bang theory and the temperature of the universe that Einstein could not have known about in 1905, all the data of universe clocks were visible to him then, and the chances that he did not think of a similar argument are zero. I have a mistake, just need to find where.

  365. deer

    "If you move relative to the radiation, then you will see it red-shifted, which means it indicates a lower temperature, which means a later time. If you slow down to a stop in relation to the radiation, you will see radiation with a lower wavelength, which means a higher temperature, which means the temperature clock will tick back."

    It's hard for me to understand why. I think the opposite is true. According to the logic above, if we move relative to the radiation we measure lower temperatures, za future. Also collides with vaporizing spaceships that can each be seen as a collection of points. If each point heats up individually, so does their total.

    It seems to me that I do not know enough about the subject of radiation, and especially movement relative to it, even though I searched a lot. Can I have a link?

    ", regarding the absolute clock. Does he take into account that different observers will measure a different distance between them and the Earth even if they are in exactly the same place?"

    I try to stay away from measurements that are not immediate. The absolute clock only measures the strength of the signal, the Doppler (one-sided in the case in question) and what is the signal carried with the signal (number of seconds that have passed since the clock started ticking). It is clear in my opinion that if the clock is at rest relative to the source of the signal (as in DHA), the Doppler is equal to 0. Therefore, this case is reduced to the example of the attack in Tizenbi, and two observers, let's say twins, can agree on a certain time and even coordinate an attack. This is in contrast to the conclusions of relativity, where each twin has its own completely valid time and no twin has a superior time. Here time is absolute.

    If the clocks are in relative motion and on the same line connecting them with the Earth, in my opinion it is possible to deduce the time of a stationary clock at that point using Doppler, and therefore both clocks will show the same time. Definitely possible if the relative distance needs to be weighted. No?

    To avoid logical contradictions (a time of 30 billion years, negative time) we can at this stage calibrate this cosmic Greenwich time to the time that has passed since the bang, and replace the temperature clocks with universe clocks. This will make the calculations easier, avoid contradictions (frozen and steamed spaceships), and will not detract from the essence of the argument. Since universe clocks will always show the same time as the old temp clocks, the latter can be dispensed with. It's possible that as I develop the idea, I'll find some problem, but for now I think it's better to switch to universe clocks.

    The other advantage is that we touch the heart of the problem: synchronization by electromagnetic means only. After all, the whole relationship started from there. It seems to me a promising direction, I just hope that it will also be fulfilled.

  366. And the Boeing experiment:
    When the clocks went back and met it became clear that a mistake had been made. The two clocks should have lagged one relative to the other, but in reality it turned out that only one lagged relative to the other while the other advanced relative to the first.
    We have a great country

  367. It's that simple! How did I not think of this before?
    Say, a token falls. He falls and falls. Inside his hole sits Jake with a camera and a watch and all the kidback...
    abandoned. I got into trouble.

    The speed of light does not depend on the movement of the cannon that shoots it or of the target that hits it in the face. The momentum of the photons is not calculated by mass, because they do not carry such a thing in their wallet. The photons move according to what the medium determines. That is, not the source, not the target, not even the photons themselves determine the speed, but the medium is the one that decides.
    Let's start a thin taboula (there is also such a salad, with dietary semolina), as if we haven't heard of Yuval's model and we don't know how the tavech works (the strict ones will also add that we don't know if there is a tavech at all, but come on, really...). We will define a factor that determines the speed that is mediated from edge to wave. We will have a moment of comparison with another well-known medium, the bird of heaven (the one who conducts the voice). The name of the factor is known - "density". We will cast it on our mysterious medium and arbitrarily decide, for now, that the speed of light is determined by the density of the medium. Light travels at a constant speed as long as the density of the medium is constant. Now we will examine what happens to the density of the medium in the vicinity of a body in motion. Since the speed of light changes and since we do not know of any other factor for the speed changes other than the changes in the density of the medium, then the changes in the speed of the body resulted in the changes in the density of the medium.
    As mentioned, the assumption that this is the density of the medium (if there is a medium at all) is arbitrary. But since she hunted Ockham's two birds with one assumption, I would say with all due modesty that you should look for the coin under that lantern.

  368. Israel,

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop2.html
    In the above link you can see the difference between relativistic and normal Doppler. What happens when the person moving relative to the radiation looks to the left? That is, in a direction perpendicular to the movement? In my opinion it will see the original redshifted radiation, i.e. just the general effect of relativistic doppler. If the person calculates the time according to this temperature, then in my opinion the problem will be solved.

    If you are moving relative to the radiation then you will see it shifted to the red, meaning it indicates a lower temp, meaning a later time. If you slow down to a stop in relation to the radiation, you will see radiation with a lower wavelength, which means a higher temperature, which means the temperature clock will tick back.

    The problem with a simple Kelvin thermometer is what exactly is it supposed to measure? If in front of you the radiation is deflected to blue and behind you to red then what exactly is measured at the point in the middle? average? In such a case, a Kelvin thermometer will satisfy us and will indeed measure a different temperature in each system (it will measure a lower temperature in the propulsion system in relation to radiation). This does not contradict what you wrote in the past about the spacecraft evaporating because that is in total what was measured in a point spacecraft and not in a real spacecraft.

    Regarding the absolute watch. Does he take into account that different observers will measure a different distance between them and the Earth even if they are in exactly the same place?

  370. Light moves at the same speed relative to each system, however each meter will measure a different wavelength for the exact same photon. Herein lies the key to the solution
    How long does it take for a token to fall?

  372. Meir

    "Now, one of the two, either Jack and Jill have agreed in advance how often a temperature sampling will take place and display it as the time elapsed since the bang, or the temperature clocks themselves perform a temperature sampling and display at the fastest rate they are capable of."

    Option 2 is correct.

    It is true that you asked me to answer you, but it seems to me that perhaps the improvement in the experiment below will clarify my idea easily.

    Let's refine the experiment so that instead of 2 years, the time difference between the clocks of the 2rd Jack and Jill clocks is XNUMX million years. Do you think it is possible? Yes No.

    Shortly before Jill meets Jack, she scraps together another temp watch. This clock will automatically adjust to the time of its brother, the temp clock next to it. agree? Yes No.

    If we agree here, we can continue.

    "How is it possible that in the Boeing experiment one cesium clock aged more than the other, if both agree on the temperature of the CBR at the beginning and end of the experiment?"

    The Boeing experiment is in accelerated systems. We are currently in inertial systems. I believe I have an explanation, but this is alternative physics. Cow cow, if we prove that there is no time dilation in inertial systems, or if I am convinced that it exists, we will be sued.

  373. deer

    "A person who is in motion relative to the radiation and slows his speed relative to it will see the temperature rise"

    According to my understanding, only with acceleration relative to radiation will the temperature rise. She will go down slowly. At 0 the lowest temperature. Just like in motion relative to water.

    Don't forget that temp clocks include a doppler meter and a computer that weights the doppler into the output of a close-to-watch clock relative to the radiation. As the stationary clock is always ticking forward, so are temp clocks.

    I still haven't received an unequivocal answer what will happen if we measure with a simple Kelvin thermometer. If he measures
    The same temperature as the radiation, we can dispense with the doppler meter altogether.

    According to your suggestion, I am now trying to calculate what would happen if we built an alternative system to radiation that measures absolute time. In my opinion, this can be done using the system I described in:

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/comment-page-41/#comment-332764

    See the letter in English to Gil Traybitsch from the Particle Accelerator Laboratory at UCLA

    I have no doubt that the Doppler is a critical point. In Einstein's original article, he starts from the assumption that light moves at the same speed relative to each system, but does not address the fact that each meter will measure a different wavelength for the exact same photon. Maybe here is the solution.

  374. deer,

    All the slowing down of time according to the theory of relativity is based on the fact that clocks are synchronized at the beginning of the experiment and from then on everyone lives with their own clocks.

    Therefore, if you offer to photograph the radiation, and to meet with the photographs at the end, then there are only two options:

    Option A:
    Jack and Jill agree in advance to photograph the radiation every 10 seconds according to the cesium clock attached to each of them, or will the symmetry between them be preserved at the moment of the meeting, and we ask if it is possible? After all, each of them constantly saw his friend's watch lagging behind for the entire time from the beginning of the flight to the end, and also saw his friend's photos taken at a slower rate than his own photography rate (the twin paradox, and the temperature clocks do not increase or decrease the size of the paradox)

    Option B:
    Jack and Jill decide on a trick: a row of cams is installed on each train so that every moment two parallel cams touch each other, a local camera is activated that captures the cosmic radiation.
    According to this option, the theory of relativity maintains its dignity because it is not a question of synchronization at the beginning of the experiment, following which a gradually increasing relative slowing of the clocks of the friend is expected, but of synchronization at every moment. Every time the movers activate the camera, the experiment starts over.

  375. Meyer,

    What will happen if we replace the temperature clocks with photographs of the radiation? That is, instead of a clock that will calculate the time based on the radiation it picks up, Jack and Jill will simply "photograph" the radiation at the moment of their encounter. After that they will meet again and compare the photographs, what will they see? If they see the same photo then they will have to agree on the time that has passed since the big bang at the moment of meeting. Therefore I argue that the only way there would not be a contradiction is if the photographs of the radiation were different, even after taking into account the blue and red shifts in the directions parallel to the motion.

  376. Israel,
    If you start from the premise that the twin paradox has a solution within the theory of relativity, which allows for age differences between twins, and on this you ask how it is possible for one twin to have aged more than the other while they both agree on the age of the universe at the beginning and end of the experiment,
    Perhaps we will first answer the question of how it is possible that in the Boeing experiment one cesium clock aged more than its friend, if both agree on the temperature of the CBR at the beginning and at the end of the experiment?

  377. Israel,

    In the Jack and Jill experiment, clock c is attached to Jill and measures local time differences for Jill, and clock c2 is attached to Jack and measures local time differences for Jack.

    We will attach to these clocks temperature clocks that measure local time differences respectively. Clock 'tm will measure a local time difference (time from the bang to the moment of measurement) for Jill, and clock tm2 will measure a local time difference (time from the bang to the moment of measurement) for Jack. As in the original Jack and Jill experiment, the temperature clocks of Jack and Jill managed to synchronize 10 seconds according to Jack's clock and 8 seconds according to Jill's clock before the two pairs of clocks met at the same point in space.

    Now, one of the two, either Jack and Jill agreed in advance how often a temperature sample would be taken and displayed as elapsed time since the bang, or the temperature clocks themselves sample and display temperature at the fastest rate they can.

    I argue that in both cases, since the fast processor in Jack's temperature clock operates at 4Ghz in Jack's system, then in Jack's system Jill's processor operates at a rate of 3.2Ghz, and therefore at the square meeting point between the two pairs of clocks a 'tm clock of Jill will display the time corresponding to the temperature sampled 2 seconds before the temperature whose corresponding time is now displayed by Jack's tm2 clock is sampled. This would be true either because Jack's temperature clock samples the temperature once per second as agreed, but Jack only receives samples from Jill once every 1.25 seconds because she is running on the cesium clock she has (which is retarded for Jack), or because That Jill's temperature clock is not fast enough for Jack's taste and therefore lags in displaying the samples even though he performs the temperature samples and displaying the time for them at the fastest possible rate, which is only 3.2Ghz for a Gel clock in Jack's system.

    And now, before you send me off for more experiments, please explain to me what I'm doing wrong with regard to the original Jack and Jill experiment plus the aforementioned temperature clocks.

  378. Israel,

    Take into account that if the radiation temp does change when you move relative to it then situations will be created where temp clocks tick back. For example, in the case where a person who is in motion relative to the radiation and slows down his speed relative to it, he will see the temperature rise, or am I confused?

  379. Meir

    "I didn't understand what you wanted to prove from a long drive at low speed. If at the end of the journey there is a meeting, then we are in the twin paradox."

    A temp clock is just a thermometer connected to a computer. Therefore, it has nothing to do with how long the train traveled, the only question is what the temperature was at the time of the meeting.

    The assumption is (correct me if I'm wrong) that when the two clocks meet the temperature is almost the same, so the time shown by the clocks is also almost the same time. Otherwise we will reach the absurd. The train rattles its wheels into the station at a speed of 5 km/h, the spectators on the platform are wrapped in coats, but the passengers on the train are sweating from the heat, because the train actually traveled for 12 billion years and there is a huge gap between its clocks and the clocks on the platform, and because according to your claim, the clocks on the train show the At the same time, the temp clock shows the time from 7 billion years ago when the universe was much warmer.

    The twin paradox also has a problem if temp clocks are used, because there is no doubt that when the twins are together, their temp clocks show the same time, unlike the clocks. This is also true in the case of 1000 different twins, each of whom traveled at different speeds and experienced different accelerations: when they all meet at Mama Lachmin's on Shabbat, each of them will have a different time on their clocks, but they will all see the same time on their temp clocks (after all, they all measure the the same temperature, and the system is stationary). This point alone proves that the time between the temp and hr clocks are different. It also proves that the time of the temp clocks is absolute, while the clock time is relative.

  381. Israel,

    I didn't understand what you wanted to prove from a long drive at low speed. If at the end of the trip there is a meeting, then we are in the twin paradox.

    But instead of examples let's go back to the principles for a moment. The theory of relativity is based on certain measurement principles. You can't prove anything for or against relativity before you've defined what measurement principles each component in your experimental system answers to.

    The slowing down of time according to the theory of relativity concerns time measurements that are in situ for observer A and therefore necessarily not in situ for observer B if both observers are in relative motion.

    Local time measurement is the measurement of the time difference between two local events. Non-local time measurement is the measurement of time difference between two events using two synchronized clocks that are far apart. A local time measurement between two world events will show a lower reading than a non-local time measurement for the same two events.

    In light of this brief introduction, if you want to claim a flaw in the theory of relativity or its incompatibility with another theory, you must show how a temperature clock makes it possible to break the above assumptions of the theory of relativity. For this purpose, you must propose a system in which the temperature clock measures a local time difference between two events in system A, two other temperature clocks measure a non-local time difference for the same two events in system B, and despite this there is no difference in the time difference measured in the two systems.

    Alternatively, you must show that for two observers in relative motion the measurement of the time difference between two events using a temperature clock is always local.

    In order to prove one of these two, you cannot avoid the need to define what your temperature clock does and when, between which two events it measures a time difference in each of the systems, does the measurement of the time difference between these two events occur in one place in space and then can be done with a single temperature clock , or it occurs in two separate places in space and in this case there is no choice but to perform it using two remote and synchronized temperature clocks.

    Now for a slightly different matter:
    Is it clear to you that according to the theory of relativity two observers in relative motion do not agree on the simultaneity of events? For example: suppose that two synchronized clocks in system A at a distance of one meter from each other emit a light pulse at the same time, and suppose that system B is equipped with a strip along which a line of photodetectors is installed in such a way that the detectors are at a micrometer distance above the light source in the clocks of system A that emit the light pulses. Is it clear to you that according to the theory of relativity, even though the light pulses are emitted simultaneously according to system A clocks, they will be received by system B detectors with a time difference? That is, two simultaneous events for an observer in system A are not simultaneous for an observer in system B, even when they are measured by detectors located in system B at zero distance from the event in system A?

    I don't see how it is possible to discuss the experiment before it was defined according to the above principles.

  382. Thank you, Zvi.

    The relativistic Doppler undoubtedly sheds new light on the problem of light. Let me study the subject a bit, I want to see how it works out with everything else, and my time is a bit short because of the pace of events in Israel (relationships are reversed at their best). This may very well be the solution to the problem.

  384. Israel,
    No matter how I try to arrange the temperature clocks I reach contradictions. The only way that does not lead to contradictions if the theory of relativity is when temperature clocks show the same time as a cesium clock next to them. Then I remembered that in the relativistic Doppler effect, in contrast to the normal Doppler effect, there is a general shift to the blue due to the narrowing of space. If the temperature clock calculates the time according to the temperature of the blue deflected radiation it will show a shorter time. Doesn't that solve our problem?

  386. Understands the theory, but is looking for a real and existing device, including an accurate presentation.

  387. Probably an excellent bird. Add to that KLB and local patriotism, and the result is inevitable.

    I will try to perfect the device I suggested and expand on the explanation:
    Place two light sources next to each other. At some distance from them place a target. At another distance put another goal (the other goal is refinement). One of the light sources will give a constant stable signal. The second will give signals at different frequencies according to the experimenter's choice. The image that will be obtained in the goals is a struggle. Since the targets are not equidistant from the light sources, the interference will be different. This will be expressed in different illuminance intensities. Since the frequency of the carrier wave (the constant light) is known, as well as the frequency of the modulating waves, a device must be tested to know how much time has passed between the moment the light hits the first target and the moment it hits the second target.

  389. Neither the timid learn nor the diligent teach. I retire for a light siesta. Along the way I will try to dream up a simpler explanation.

    What I suggested is studied in every vocational high school. What high school did you go to?

  390. I did not understand anything. Ghost is right. Not how the light travels, not how its speed is the same for every meter, not how its speed results from the constants of electricity and magnetism, not what equipment to use in the experiment.

    After all, how will you build the facility? Where do you get the equipment? How will you measure the modulation? It doesn't move along with the beam at the speed of light? Why would he tune in at this particular point?

    Better already with an oscilloscope, but they are too slow for what I want.

  391. Leave the "average particle speed". The particles in my model are not moving anywhere. They merely oscillate in place, vibrate, at most move a distance on the order of a particle's diameter. Practically, they are completely static and therefore the entire universe is a stationary system.
    Those who travel great distances are not the particles. The baryonic matter is not the particles themselves but their spatial arrangement. Also photons are not particles but bits of space empty of particles.
    The density in which the particles are arranged dictates the speed of light and the speed of movement of baryonic matter. Therefore, from the point of view of a baryonic body, the movement of light towards or away from it is always at a constant speed. But from the point of view of the particles, the movement of light is at different speeds.

    Get from me for free a sweeping agreement to the claim that there is no extension of time.

    My idea for testing the arrival time of an electromagnetic signal is based on interference. Transmit a fixed beam to some point and send to that point several signals at different frequencies. Measure the amplitude of the modulated signals at the meeting point and make appropriate calculations on the results.

  392. Maxwell's equations simply yield C without any specific frame of reference. The way he arrived at them is through hydrodynamic calculations, fluids, vortices, zebras, literally La Sage and the particles.

    Everyone including Maxwell assumed that C is relative to the site. However, this is not required by the equations, and Einstein developed relativity through the extension of Maxwell's equations to a restless system.

    Your model implies a rest system: the average speed of the particles. That's why I don't see how you can derive from it the same speed of light for every meter.

    In my experiment I am trying to send a targeted radio signal and measure its arrival time with great accuracy. Let's go into the details if we come to an agreement that there is no time dilation in an inertial system. Better convince me she exists, no?

  393. Wonderfully beautiful 🙂

    The solution to your first question requires a graphical description: baryonic matter is not a solid unit but a "colony" of mobile particles. Particles join and particles leave non-stop. Only a central area within the colony is dense enough to be seen as a solid body and gain recognition as a thuggish body. But the environment outside it is also dense enough to create its mass and the gravity around it. The motion of a bully body is simulated motion. The amount of particles joining it on one side is greater than the amount of particles joining it on the other side and then it disintegrates in the sparse area and is rebuilt in the dense area. The speed of its progress is characteristic of the density of the particles that make it up and its environment. This density is inversely proportional to the speed of light passing through them. If, by analogy, the particles are so dense that it is impossible to thread a photon between them, let's imagine the speed of light is zero, then the progress of the baryonic body is maximum. On the other hand, the lower the density, let's say the speed of the chasing light is higher, the speed of the bully's escape also increases.

    I don't remember how it was deduced from Maxwell's model that the speed of light is constant and the same for every measurer. I thought this was a conclusion they reached only following their experiments. Maybe I didn't understand your question. The speed of light was already known in Maxwell's time. He just found that it is also the speed of the magnetic wave, and this is one of the things that led to the conclusion that the two radiations are actually two faces of the same radiation. I'm not very strong in history. Please help me get things straight.

    A certain rest system? Each partial volume of physical space is one rest system. You can also define the entire universe as a single rest system if you want to perform an experiment that requires it. I'm not sure what you're after. Maybe my private jetlag also plays some role here...

    PS, you didn't tell me about the experiment for which you need a time measurement on the order of Picoshania. I have some ideas, but I can't tell how relevant they are

  394. A great deal in Israel for those on a budget. Everything is open all night, everyone is out, kibbutz, action, the pool of the Ma'aleh Ha'amish, nibbling at the roots, not like sleepy Los Angeles.

    Well, we'll see how we talk in two weeks..

    Meir Your article is undoubtedly enlightening. Fact: I tried several times to open the PDF and the whole computer started flashing: open tab, open tab. Maybe I can do it on another computer.

    Physics.

    Yuval, how do you manage to get the same speed of light for every meter in your model? Because if not, what's wrong with the Maxwell model? Is it possible for you to derive the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism as with him?

    And what does "there is no specific rest system" mean? If, as you say, "take the average of the movement of all the particles", then this average gives you a defined rest system: the earth in the case of a calm ocean or windless air, the plane in the case of an airplane. But light moves at one speed relative to each meter, so how does it work in your model?

    Meir, you write "both the temperature clocks and the conventional clocks in the opposite train will advance at the same rate" I will try to show you why this is impossible. Put a temp clock next to a XNUMX hour clock on the light rail in Jerusalem and let them travel the amount of time it took to approve and build the light rail. We'll call them Jill's system. There is no fundamental difference here. Although the speed is much lower than the speed of the original Jill, the duration of the trip is much longer, so when the train reaches the patient Jack who is waiting for her, the difference between his and her clocks can reach several minutes.

    Since Jack's temp and temp clocks always show the same time, there is a gap of a few minutes between Jack's temp clock and Jill's temp clock. If, as you say, the time of Jill's temp clock was equal to that of Jill's XNUMX's clock, then there would have been a difference of a few minutes between Jack's temp clock and Jill's temp clock even at this low speed. However, at the moment of the meeting, the two clocks measure the same temperature, and the speed between them is so low that there is almost no Doppler. So it turns out that both show almost the same time, maybe a few picoseconds difference, and that's without even considering the Doppler that brings them to the exact same time.

    The conclusion is that, as Tzvi said, the only system in which there is no cumulative difference between temp clocks and clocks is the "resting" system of radiation.

    R.H. He proposed to place a transmitter that would transmit the time to the entire universe, thus creating an alternative absolute time system to the radiation temperature. According to David Israel's calculations, this is exactly what will happen: if we build such a cosmic clock that will weigh the strength of the signal with the Doppler, and place it next to the CZ clock, then in a system that is at rest relative to the transmitter (equivalent to Jack at rest relative to radiation) there will be no Doppler at all, And both watches will always show the same time.

    In a system that moves relative to the transmitter, there will be a difference between the clocks, and this is of course provided that there is at all a lengthening of times in non-accelerated systems.

    Be that as it may, two such "universal clocks" will see the same time in a common photograph, and it does not matter what their relative speed is.

    So is it possible to give up the temp clocks and replace them with YK clocks? The answer is negative, and an explanation will be provided if requested.

    3.33 – a good time to finish.

  395. Israel,

    I claim that both the temperature clocks and the conventional clocks on the opposing train will advance at the same rate, and therefore the photographic film will show the same reading in each frame, which according to the theory of relativity will lag behind an increasing lag from frame to frame compared to the clocks of the train in which the camera is installed.
    Comparing the photographic films we will get identical and opposite results. As we know, in order to allow a comparison, it is necessary to first solve the twin paradox (or other paradoxes arising from the theory of relativity). According to the twin paradox, symmetry requires that the photographic films be identical in reverse. Therefore, the paradox must be resolved in one of two ways: either by a calculation that contradicts the prediction of the slowing down of time arising from the theory of repulsion (to date this prediction has not been tested under symmetry conditions), or by a calculation that shows that stopping the trains for the purpose of comparison causes the opposite train to travel into the future.
    I can suggest a thought experiment where symmetry is maintained by having the trains travel in opposite directions on a circular track. In each stop, each train leaves a copy of the photographic film on a shelf placed between the rails, and collects from the shelf the copy left by the other train.
    Comparing the photo films on each train will show symmetry. The pair of self-clocks ticks at a uniform rate, and the pair of counter-clocks ticks at a slow rate. To the question of how it is possible that two different temperatures are apparently measured at the same point in space, my answer is that from the point of view of an observer of one train, the other train is backward in time, and therefore the temperature samples performed there are from an earlier time. As for the question of how it is possible to replace the entire coffee film, with an opposing train that is in the past, my answer is that since the track is in relative motion from the perspective of the second train, the second train sees its scope as if it is shorter, and therefore it is sufficient to complete a round in synchronization with the opposing train despite the slowing down of times .
    In short, my claim is that all the claims should be directed to the theory of relativity and the paradoxes it produces, but regarding the temperature clocks I claim that they are no different from a conventional clock for the reason that they do not measure proper-time, which by definition is a local measurement. As soon as, from the observer's point of view, the temperature sampling and the display of the time on the opposite train do not occur at the same point in space, it is no longer a local time measurement.

    The article about the square of the distances is actually about the Inverse square ROOT law
    http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0066
    And he closes a circle with the article about inertia.

  396. Something in the style of the ocean or the air ocean?
    Well, so be it

    Doesn't this require a preferred rest system in an infinite universe?
    It requires a rest system. But if we stick to the ocean analogy, then the universe is not infinite. I make a distinction between physical space and mathematical space. There is infinity in mathematics, but not sure in physics either. Instead of "infinite" I prefer the term "unlimited", to say that at any given moment it is finite but can expand. Coincidentally or not, this fits the description of the physical universe as indicated by the big bang theory.

    Why exactly this?
    There is no specific one. We define the limits of the space in which we conduct the experiments, and treat everything within it as the rest system (the unit).

  397. Something like the ocean or the air ocean?

    Doesn't that require a preferred rest system in an infinite universe? Why this one?

  398. Israel! What is this retreat? No more relationships.
    But if you insist on being relative to something, then take the average movement of all the particles (in the entire universe or in a limited area - it doesn't matter) as a stationary system to which everything is related.

  399. R. H.,
    I'm bad at mixing jokes.
    There was an incalculable love. His teacher would tell him you're a loser, you have no future. After many years the teacher meets the lover and he is so-so rich.
    - How do you become rich, you love?
    - I take ten percent
    - What is ten percent? You don't know arithmetic
    - I will tell you. I buy goods for ten shekels and sell for twenty. I have ten percent left in my hand

  402. "Measurement equipment of signal arrival in picoseconds". If I understood correctly, then I think I found a way to measure such a thing. But so that I know if I understood correctly, remind me, please, what experiment you are planning.

  403. R.H. Come on! Did they take off 20 percent from Zatumar? Gold only 4 instead of 24?

    Israel, thank you ♥ finally 🙂 Avira de Corridor Jerusalem from Kinisa to Proproportion 😛

    Simply, the medium that transmits the light needs to be well defined. The mediator in my vision consists of two different entities that are integrated with each other. I avoid the use of the name "Ether", because it refers to only one entity. One component is made of solid particles that are in random self-motion. The second component is empty bits of space. All physics is the interplay between these two elements. The story is long, and I have already tried to present it here before without much success. In essence, the particles are responsible for what we call "mass" and the empty space between them is responsible for "energy". At a low density of particles what we know as "dark matter" is obtained and at a high density the baryonic matter. The movement of particles from place to place is simultaneously a counter movement of pieces of empty space. The higher the density of the particles, the more limited their random movement and therefore the movement of pieces of empty space is also limited. Without going into exhaustive explanations at the moment, the pieces of empty space are identified with photons, and from this it can already be understood that an increase in the density of particles slows down the speed of light. When baryonic matter (eg a proton) is in motion, the density of particles in the region to which it is moving is higher than the density of particles in the opposite direction. Because of this, light moving towards it will slow down and light chasing after it will speed up.
    It was on the tip of the fork. To understand how to arrive at this model, you have to start from absolute "nothing" and develop things mathematically. Anyone interested?

  405. Israel,
    True, each ship has its own time, but they can coordinate an attack according to a third system which could be radiation, an external clock or anything physical that measures time and is not related to spacecraft.

    This is similar to two people with broken watches who change their pace according to the pace of the people walking. Despite this, the two people can schedule a meeting according to the clock in the city hall tower.

    So I still don't understand where the contradiction is.

    A Nobel is no longer worth it. Take off 20% of the prize.

  406. I think it's more for the Israeli villains (loosely).

    Why don't you find equipment to measure the arrival of a signal in picoseconds?

    Or alternatively, explain what is the problem with Einstein's definition of instantaneousness? What is the explanation for the results of the m-m experiment? Can it be explained through the site? how?

    PA (alternative physics) is allowed.

  407. there is,
    Despite how I may sound, know that I have a lot of respect for you and the effort you put in.
    Thanks to Einstein and his genius we have come a long way. His genius is not in the calculations, because Lorenz had already done them, but in a very simple step. Instead of trying to understand how a certain strange phenomenon reconciles with common sense, he decided to bypass the hurdle and move on. So it is true that we got Paradoxchick, who has since been joined by several others, but thanks to that detour we have come a long way. Now all that remains is to add one more parameter to the formulas, one that will preserve the achievements and also solve the paradoxes. This is not a new patent. After all, relativity is also just adding a parameter to a previous physical theory. Who knows, maybe thanks to your tireless efforts you will be able to add a line to the list of Israeli novelists?

  408. R.H.

    Get a fix. In the event that you described the attack will be simultaneous. I am not saying that radiation is the only synchronized system. Anyway, according to Tizenby's definition, there are no radio signals there. And according to relativity, each ship has its own private time which is absolutely acceptable, which I do not agree with (in fact, it seems to me that neither do you. If you don't believe it, try to answer my previous question: Why does Aliba d'Einstein time dilation exist?).

  409. Meir

    Even at relativistic speed, the photographs will still show a clear picture. The question is of course what. But it seems to me that we should synchronize positions.

    Your argument, as I understood it, is that the seven times of the meeting, the temp clocks will show different times. This will be reflected in the photos. Can you clarify what you mean? If for example the photo from Jack's spaceship shows: Temp Jack 10, what will he see as Temp Jill? And what will the photo of the two watches from Jill's space show?

    Could you also send me a link to the square of distances article?

    jubilee

    It's not entirely clear to me that I'm right, so I'm just asking questions. It is quite possible that I have a mistake, this is the reason for the discussion.

    The weighted damage of the annual trip to Israel is estimated at $15,000.

  410. B,
    What you write is one of the well-known attempts to solve the paradox, claiming the lack of symmetry because one twin (the one that feels accelerations going back and forth) is really flying while the other is not really flying.

    Your suggestion that the two twins fly in opposite directions and with equal accelerations restores the symmetry and in any case restores the paradox.

    The father who remains in the middle does not resolve the contradiction between the arguments, because he does not explain how it is possible for each twin to see time for his friend as crawling according to the assumptions of the theory of relativity, and how when they meet the cumulative creep (which, as mentioned, is bound by the assumptions of the theory of relativity) disappears.

    In conclusion, there is a paradox.

  411. The twin paradox that I know and to which I referred is a situation where a twin who left the earth will be younger than the twin who remained.

  412. This is a restrained statement, addressing only one point in a broad field that I accept in its entirety. You are obviously right, but the lengthening of time in relationships contradicts not only the absolute time of the big bang theory but many other things in logic and basic calculation in general.
    Your treatment is spot on. The problem with the specific point you've chosen is that it sits between two theories, neither of which are completely clean of content. When you examine relativity against simple mathematics, the twin paradox immediately emerges. When trying to confirm the Big Bang, we stumble upon the mystery of the CMBR (shall I remind you what it is?). I am of the opinion that each theory should be examined separately.
    $2000 per head? And a dog sitter for my dog? Allah will be hidden! You probably had a good reason...

  413. Israel,
    If what you wrote is true for a non-relativistic speed, it will obviously change when they are at a relative speed to each other.

  414. B,
    But what you wrote is exactly the twin paradox. The paradox is that although each twin sees the other twin's clock lagging behind his own clock during the entire flight, when they meet their clocks should show the same time due to symmetry.

  415. R.H.

    I did not clarify until the end. The time of 1000 cz for spacecraft A is equal to 2000 cz for B, when they are at rest on both sides of the sphere. If, for example, before the opening fire they had confirmed the times by radio (which is not allowed because of the listening unit of the ball), they would have discovered that they are not synchronized and that several good years separate them. This problem does not exist with temp clocks. Radio or not, they are always in sync.

  416. B.

    "The father's clock will always show each of the twins a time that is between the twin's own time and the time that the twin measures in the other twin."

    how? Why? How will the measurement be carried out?

  417. R.H.

    The difference is that with the CZ clocks, the attack will not be simultaneous. The time of 1000 CZ is private time, while the time of the temp clocks is absolute time. If, for example, the bullet defenders can withstand a fire rate of 500 shells per hour but not 800, and the fire rate of each spaceship is 600 shells per hour, the attack will fail in the case of the CZ clocks but not in the case of the temp clocks. If the inventory of shells is limited to 2000 per spacecraft, they will lose the battle with CZ and win with Temp.

    No?

    Meir.

    Okay, so we got that every cat and dog comes with a unique time stamp. Now, if besides the pet pictures there is also a clock on it. Do you agree that in terms of the photos you will receive, in each photo will appear: your private time (say 123453), Mitzi, and the specific time of the car in front of you (say 043523)? Will it change if the train moves at 0.9C? Remember, the cameras are sharp resolution.

    jubilee.

    I did not come with an unequivocal statement that the relationship is wrong because that is not what I think. Nor did I come with a statement that relativity is in conflict with quanta. I came with a statement that the lengthening of time in relationships contradicts the absolute time of the big bang theory, or I don't understand something. I also mentioned the infinitely high probability of B compared to A. According to our discussions.

  418. Lemair:
    Assume motion without acceleration and without gravity:
    Let's say the father is in the spaceship and the two twins are moving in opposite directions.
    Each of the twins measures the time of the father and the time of the other twin.
    It is clear that the father's time is between twin time A and twin time B.
    Let's say the twins return to the father's spaceship.
    Because of the symmetry their times are the same.
    The father's time was always between the times of the two twins and therefore it is also the same.

    acceleration:
    Even in the state of acceleration, the two twins are symmetrical, so after returning to the father's spaceship, their times are the same.
    Are they also the same as father time?
    When the two twins are in acceleration then they are in acceleration relative to each other and also in acceleration relative to the father's spaceship.
    With the change in speed between the twins, deviations between the twins' clocks are revealed. But their speed relative to the father is always smaller than the mutual speed of one twin compared to another. That is, the deviation they will measure on the father's clock will always be smaller than the deviation they will measure with each other.
    conclusion:
    The father's watch will always show each of the twins a time that is between the twin's own time and the time that the twin measures in the other twin.
    After the father's return to the spaceship, the difference in reading between the twins is zero. (as mentioned because of the symmetry).

    The general conclusion:
    The times for the twins after the father's return to the spaceship are identical to each other and also identical to the father's time.

  419. Israel,
    In the description you described, each image will indeed have one time stamp, that of the clock placed on my window.
    How does this relate to our discussion?

  420. B,
    You write:

    "2) Because of the symmetry, it is not possible that at the time of the reunion on Earth one of the twins will be of a different age than the other twin."

    And from this he concludes: "In other words, the real time is the father's time."

    I did not understand the connection between the claim and the conclusion. The age of the twins at the moment of the meeting will be the same as you said (and let's assume for the purpose that it will be one year older according to their clocks than the age when they set out on the journey), and still according to the theory of relativity the meeting can take place on Earth 500 years after the father moved to a universe without gravity according to Earth clock.

  421. Israel! It's all your fault.
    If you came in advance (a few months ago) with an unequivocal statement that the relationship is wrong, you would immediately declare that you are right and also show the world how and by how much. But you chose a winding and dim path, and got involved with a bunch of watches (by the way, was it you who robbed the Museum of Islam?), the Aspect-Bel-Aprre experiment, Le Sage, and a long list of discus with Sabdarmish Yehuda ztzal var. H Shalita When I tried to flow with you with the motorcycle wheel in the water, you laughed out loud. When I tried to present my model, you dismissed it with "this is alternative physics". So now you come to me with complaints? To him?!?
    It is true that the Chilbay movement was fueled by the warmth of my mind, and for that I take full responsibility. But It takes two to tangle or Tango or V'Votaber.
    Are you asking about photos? Tell me: aren't you ashamed of yourself? Are you in the Holy Land and want me to send you photos?! Before I receive from you a set of at least a dozen photos from our beloved country, you have nothing to mess with my camera!! Come on, to work. And greetings to our common neighbors

  423. B, you are not precise in your conclusion "there should be a plausible mathematical explanation". The correct wording is: "There should be a plausible physical explanation".
    At the time, more than a hundred years ago, such explanations were given. The most famous of them is the Lorentz transformations, which was also accepted by the majority and became the computational basis of T.H.I. However, the mechanism that activates these transformations is still unknown. A few comments ago I made a claim that the absolute speed of light is not constant. I guess I'm not the first to make this claim, but I also have a model that shows a possible mechanism that causes the absolute speed of light to be controlled so that its relative speed is constant. In due course I will present it.
    Not determining the speed of light solves the twin paradox. One of his hoped-for products is solving the mystery of dark energy.

  424. Israel,
    To the same extent that the spaceships can synchronize an attack in Tizenby by a temp clock, they can:

    1) At the moment of the first meeting, take out a stopwatch that projects the time into space. The clock is reset to time 0.

    2) Go out, travel, go crazy

    3) Meet at the clock when the clock shows 1000. The cesium clocks that were in the spacecraft will show a difference, but for both of them the radiating clock will show 1000. Just like the determination to meet when the radiation shows 4 degrees.

    I mean, what I want to say is that your temp is just another reference system like any other reference system. A system where time 0 is the big bang like in a stopwatch time 0 is the reset moment. Where is the contradiction?

  425. deer

    It is a bit difficult for me to understand from your words what you mean when you write: "Jack sees" and "Jill sees". Do you mean that when they pass each other they see different things? After all, our first agreement was that his and her photographs would be identical. If that's not what you meant, correct me.

    Regarding the attack on the ships. Even if we start from the assumption that temp clocks in motion relative to each other show different times, then the ships can adjust themselves to the speed of the ball and therefore be at the same speed relative to it and relative to each other. Will their clocks not be synchronized even then? why?

    "Note that if temp clocks are always synchronized then they cannot be equivalent to cesium clocks in Jack's system" Why? After all, the principle is that the temperature clocks always show the time that has passed since the bang. Jack's time clock is calibrated to the same time, and since then it shows the same time as the temp clock, doesn't it? The numbers 0, 8, and 10 are just symbols so we can work with Jill's system. In practice it's something like 2345676800098976543,4,5,6...

    But the main question is why do you think two temps won't show the same time when they pass each other. Let's break the argument into sub-arguments:

    1. A clock that is stationary relative to radiation shows the time in seconds that has passed since the bang. Yes No.

    2. A clock in motion relative to radiation can know its speed by measuring the Doppler in both directions. Yes No.

    3. A computer will be able to process the data and give the output as the number of seconds from the bang shown by the stationary clock. Yes No.

    If you answered yes to everything, my conclusion is that two temp clocks will always show the same time in a joint photo. If not, please explain to me why not.

    Meir.

    Let's say that in front of your window there is a train passing a centimeter away from the window. On a trailer, which is the size of the window, a different picture. You take a picture with a high resolution camera of the window above the clock from a millimeter away. The output is of time-stamped images.
    Can you describe to me a mechanism in which you will see the same image with different time stamps? And if so, how long will the difference be?

    B.

    I have no problem with a supposed contradiction between relativity and quanta. Only with the lengthening of times.

    I believe I understood Einstein's explanation, but it seems to me that this explanation is at odds with the absolute time derived from the big bang theory. I also believe that this is not the only explanation, but other explanations are not mainstream. First we will see if I can be convinced that maybe I have a mistake in my understanding, hence our discussions. It hasn't happened yet.

    jubilee.

    Berakaka D'Hantrisha HaKishkoshidda.

    $1200? What is this, the shortening of prices? $2000 dollars per head, ya shabbi.

    Maybe I will finally be able to get a simple answer from you to my simple question: what about the photographs?

    You claim they will show the same time on all watches. Relativity, as expressed in the example of Jack and Jill, claims that there will be differences. So either the relationship is wrong or you are, aren't you? And if relativity is wrong, why are you trying so hard to show me I'm wrong and wasting your time and everyone else's time?

    Or as Rabbi Daniel Sanderson's article, the author of the story Pogi, in the tractate Containers: Gib mi de mani and enough with the regret, you have no money, so go home.

  426. B.
    Everything you wrote is very beautiful. There are only 2 problems:

    1) The twin paradox has been experimentally proven by clocks that have been flown so that all your logical deduction is necessarily wrong -
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/atomic-clocks-reveal-relativity-at-a-personal-scale-2609101/

    2) The contradiction between quantum mechanics and general relativity is a basic and well-known thing and this is the motivation of the physicists to create the so-called "theory of everything" when among the proposals are the theories of strings:

    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D

  427. A small addition:
    The same claims exist even if the experiment is carried out in empty space (an area without gravity) and also if the experiment is carried out from Earth (an area with gravity).

  428. The Twin Paradox:
    1) Father who is on Earth sends the twins in two separate spaceships in opposite directions.
    Both spacecraft are symmetrical with respect to the father.
    2) Because of the symmetry, it is not possible that at the moment of the reunion on Earth, one of the twins will be of a different age than the other twin. That is, the real time is the father's time.
    For reasons of symmetry: this also includes the case where the two spacecraft went through some series of symmetrical accelerations with respect to the father. That is, the claim is not limited to inertial systems only, but is also valid for systems that have acceleration. Provided that the symmetry in relation to the father is preserved.
    Conclusion: at the moment of the meeting the two twins will be the same age as they should have been according to the father's clock. And this includes even if they had accelerations on the way, provided that their accelerations were symmetrical with respect to the father.
    All this follows from symmetry alone without the need for any additional claims.

    3) trick:
    We will break the symmetry and send only one twin. This twin will do exactly the same trip he did earlier in the process where he had symmetry with the other twin.
    what will happen now
    Is it because the other twin didn't start, so the clock of the twin that did start will show a different time than the father's time?

    And what will happen if we take ten twins and then nine and then eight and so on?

    It is not possible that the clock of one of the twins depends on the other twins.

    We are faced with two facts:
    1) As long as the symmetry is maintained: all the clocks will show the time according to the father's clock at the moment of the reunion.
    2) There is no dependency between the clocks.

    conclusion:
    Each watch on its own must show at the moment of the reunion exactly the time according to the father's watch.

    conclusion:
    The twin paradox does not exist! It is only a figment of the imagination.
    One must continue to study the conclusions from the theory of relativity.
    There should be a plausible mathematical explanation.

  429. B, you are wrong. A camera in one system will photograph some of the events occurring in another system moving at relative speed, in a different order than the order in which they would be photographed by a camera in the same system.

    This is due to the fact that events that are not local in a propulsion system can (according to the assumptions of relativity) be compressed to be local in an assumption system. From this it follows that the time interval that will be measured between them in an assumption system will be shorter than the time interval that will be measured between them in a propulsion system, and from this it follows that from the point of view of a resting observer they will end before local events in the propulsion system, for which the resting observer measures a lengthening of times.

    A simple example of this is a pulse of light emanating from a source in the center of a train car. According to the measurements of the passenger in the car, the pulse will reach the front wall of the car and the back wall of the car at the same time.

    From the point of view of an observer standing on the platform, the pulse will first reach the back wall and only then the front wall.

    Here is a basic disagreement about the order of events. Observer A's panoramic camera records both events in one image, while Observer B's panoramic camera records them in two separate images.

  430. Fix:
    The order of things will not change!
    Events 1, 2, 3, 4 will appear in the same order in terms of time in any inertial system.
    Only the time intervals between the events will change.
    And of course the distance intervals will also change along with them.

  431. Small correction:
    "My result #2 and the neighbor's result #2 will appear on frames that are 0.67 seconds apart and so on, while the lag is increasing."

  432. Israel,
    "Meir - put a clock above the window and ask one of the grandchildren to pass pictures in front of it every minute."
    - Which grandson? The one on my train, or the one on the other train? Because if it means the grandson on the second train, then when he transfers drawings every minute for him, it will happen for me every 100 seconds (assuming that the speed between trains is 240M/s).

    "What does the speed of the camera have to do with it?"
    - The connection is that the camera on my train is now taking pictures in front of the clock above the time measurement windows that are conducted on the other train when there is a relative speed between the trains.

    "Could you take the cat out of 114326 and put the dog in it from 132147?" Can you describe a mechanism that does this? And if you can, I'll ask the child to pull out random pictures that even he doesn't know about before the exposure, even then will the camera be able to switch between the times?"
    - I didn't understand what your interest is in being able to exchange content between images. If we have come to this, then the camera really switches between times. According to the theory of relativity, the slowing down of the neighbor's proper-time leads to a disagreement between systems in relative motion on the order of events. A series of events that occur in one system in the order 1, 2, 3, 4 can appear to an observer (camera) in the other system as if it occurs in the order 1, 3, 2, 4. A series of clocks that are considered synchronized in one system will be considered unsynchronized to an observer from the other system.

    "In the same way, it is not possible to separate the photographs of two temperature clocks that pass in front of each other. This has nothing to do with the mechanism." – – – The connection to the mechanism is that, except at the moment of synchronization, the observer in one system photographs events that occurred according to the other system in an ancient time. That is, if the time that takes between a temperature sample and the display of the number of seconds from the moment of the bang is 6 nanoseconds, then when the camera on my train takes the first reading of my temperature clock, a result will not yet appear on the display of the temperature clock on the second train. In order to compare results, I will have to wait for another frame that will be taken in 4 seconds, in which the result of the temperature clock of the second train will appear, which will be the same as the one displayed by the temperature clock next to me in the first frame. If the clocks sample the temperature one per second, I will have to wait 1.67 seconds to make comparison #2, meaning my #2 result and the neighbor's #2 result will appear on frames 1.67 seconds apart, and so on, while the lag is increasing.

    And also a footnote: I saw that "the rest system of the cosmic radiation" was mentioned here in the messages (I don't remember by whom). According to the theory of relativity, electromagnetic radiation has no rest system. I assume that when someone uses this expression they mean "a system in which the cosmic radiation is isotropic".

  433. 1)
    To Israel:
    What is the contradiction between the theory of relativity and the quantum theory?

    2)
    For Jubilee:
    What are the internal contradictions in the theory of relativity?

    To date it has not been found that the speed of light is not constant. Michelson and Morley's experiment has been performed many times.
    The level of accuracy was found to be appropriate. Nevertheless, the results of the experiment did not change.

    Is there today another theory that explains better?

  434. B,
    You can ask Israel about the contradiction between Tahiti and quantum mechanics. It's his baby.
    By "holes" I meant internal contradictions.
    By "explanation" (for the paradox) I meant to say "solution". thanks for the correction.
    What is the difference between Torah and theory?
    And how do you prove a physical theory? (refute I know).
    In order to disprove the theory, an experiment is needed to show that the speed of light is not constant. For this purpose, the Michaelson-Morlay experiments can be repeated under other conditions and with more accurate optical equipment. But you don't always have to disprove a theory to reject it. It is enough if another theory is found that assumes less and is more explanatory.

  435. Overall :
    In science there is no "Torah" in science there is only theory.
    Every theory will either be proven or disproved.

    Until the theory of relativity is disproved, unfortunately we have nothing better.
    Furthermore:
    Even if the theory of relativity is disproved we will not be able to return to the situation we were in before.
    A comprehensive explanation is needed which will both disprove the theory of relativity and give another explanation for the phenomena it explains.

  436. 1) I am not aware of a contradiction between the quantum theory and the theory of relativity.
    Please detail!
    2) "holes" do not rule out the whole theory.
    A "paradox" is something that has yet to be explained. That doesn't mean there isn't an explanation.

  437. B,
    Einstein's explanation is beautiful, and it is also quite simple, but there are holes in it. And that, even without showing that it is hidden by quantum mechanics. All attempts to rationalize the twins' paradox (and no matter how many pairs of watches they wear on each hand and each foot) do not hold water.

  438. BSD Netavg, welcome ☼

    1200 hours of flying between screaming zeitgeists, and all this to get more responses from the U.S.A.? After all, you could save XNUMX US dollars and do it from the unsurpassed Californian convenience. Obviously not to fulfill my humble request (probably because there is no bare ground in the terminal, we forgive you). And besides, you promised us silence for the purposes of alternative physics...

    What trouble and what immigration? I am a loyal subject of Yerom Hoda, May d'he quin lib forever (may God protect the queen forever).

    Tell me when you want a lesson in real physics. You don't have to wait until the moon is full ☺

  439. "So come on, explain: why the lengthening of times. But some consistency. Until now, I have heard more than 10 different explanations from the defense, ..."

    What is wrong with Einstein's explanation?
    Did you refer to him?
    Did you understand him?

    The explanation is simple!

  440. Israel,

    To remind you, I wrote:
    Jill Rua - at her place: 8 p.m., 6.4 temp. At his place: 10,10
    Jack sees - at her place: 10 p.m., temp. 8. At his place: 8,8.

    If you want I can detail exactly how I arrived at these numbers. As I said before, they contradict the claim that all two temp clocks always show the same time. A claim that I think is incorrect.

    These numbers also allow each of the viewers to explain the photographs they see without reaching contradictions.

    I cannot support the opposing argument you brought because Jill will see that Jack's cesium clock's diameter shows 6.4 and therefore the temp clock also shows 6.4 and hence her temp clock that is synchronized with these clocks will not be able to show 10, this is why in my calculation I wrote that her clock shows 6.4 . Jill did not sync with the first car so there is no reason for the two temp clocks in this session to show the same, however her temp clock must always show what Jack's locomotive temp clock shows.

    Regarding your questions, I think the answer is negative in both cases, unless the ships synchronized their temp clocks sometime in the past, in which case the answer to the second question would be positive. All this when I don't assume that temp clocks are always synchronized.

    Note that if temp clocks are always synchronized then they cannot be equal to cesium clocks in Jack's system, and vice versa. Otherwise Jill would have to conclude that Jack's locomotive temp clock reads 10 next to a cesium clock reading 6.4, contradicting that they are equal. That is, there are problems with our assumptions, so I suggest that we reexamine them.

  441. my father

    The problem is that when you start writing a comment and go back, the comment is deleted. 50 comments will load in 2 seconds instead of a single second, a reasonable price considering the benefits. asked the friend. Thanks.

  442. jubilee

    Why can't you come to Israel? The old story of absenteeism from the BHA? Is immigration chasing you once again? It's okay, Mapai is no longer in power.

    R.H.

    You write: "The point is that the egg/universe is not uniform. Analogous to your egg. There are areas in the swamp where the temperature will be different from other areas."

    A bit of an argument, isn't it? "Israel, you don't understand, the conditions you describe do not exist in reality because of borderline quantum effects." So what? Do Newton's equations not work because in reality there is friction? The equations of thermodynamics because of non-uniformity in the gas? Euclid's theory because there is no perfect triangle in reality?

    In the first year you are already taught that all physics is an idealization of a reality that does not exist. But special for you - the experimental field in Tizenby has your favorite ideal conditions. Will the temperature clocks work there and there will be no time extension? After all, one example is enough to collapse the theory.

    And in general, to you and to all the defenders of time extension who are so convinced of her innocence only because she is a good daughter: can you or someone explain why time extension exists at all? And if physics and music don't interest you, Albert simply said this: Newton, not exactly homeless, argued for absolute time. Lorenz, Morelli, many other scientists, who read and understood relativity, strongly opposed it until the day they died. Are they also just dozing out of their minds?

    So come on, explain: why the lengthening of times. But some consistency. So far, I have heard more than 10 different explanations from the defense, who is so determined to get her client out, that she doesn't even consider the possibility that he was even there.

    And the natives here do not say "don't dig". It's so 2011. Here they say "I eat thrash".

  444. Anonymous - me.

    Father, isn't it better to leave 50 comments together so that you can see what the previous comments are?

  445. In Siyaita Dashmia, we landed in Kiryat

    Did you enjoy your vacation? Come on, to work.

    Meir - put a clock above the window and ask one of the grandchildren to pass pictures in front of it every minute. Every time a picture comes by, take a picture of the event. This way you will get a sequence of pictures, each of which shows a certain time and a certain picture.

    How can you separate the one-time time in the photograph and the image attached to it? What does the camera speed have to do with it? Can you take out the cat from 114326 and put the dog in it from 132147? Can you describe a mechanism that does this? And if you can, I'll ask the child to pull out random pictures that even he doesn't know about before the exposure, even then will the camera be able to switch between the times?

    It is also not possible to separate the photographs of two temperature clocks that pass in front of each other. This has nothing to do with the mechanism.

    Hope to have a chance to read the article.

    Zvi - Temp watches weigh the doppler and deduce from it what their speed is relative to radiation. Why would it be difficult for them to deduce what the temp would be if they were stationary? Like the frogs in the swamp that reach the absolute swampy time by weighting their speed relative to the water.

    To see the problematic nature of your argument, here's a question: If, as you say, a joint photograph of Jack and Jill's temp clock shows 10 for her and 8 for him, what would the photograph look like if the doppler was not weighed? Surely the result would have been different, wouldn't it?

    I believe the argument against my idea could be this: when Jill's car passes in front of Car A at Jack's, the photo will show: Temp Jack 10, CZ Jack 10, Temp Jill 10, CZ Jill 8. On the other hand, when Jack's jet passes in front of Krone A. Jill, the photo will show: Temp. Jack 8, CZ Jack 8, Temp. Jill 8 and CZ III Year 10.

    There is no logical problem with such a combination (which you brought up earlier and for that thank you) and it does not contradict any of our previous assumptions. Jill's hr clock is indeed ahead of her temp clock, but we don't know anything about its previous state and it is very possible that at the meeting with Jack's trolley it showed 2, 2-, so everything works out. The problem is different, if you ask, I will explain.

    To see the clear difference between Einstein's original theory and the idea of ​​absolute time, I will describe to you a place that R.H. Known as the "experimental field in Tizenbi".

    It is a vast space that stretches at the edge of the universe, in the twilight zone between the finite and the infinite. Uniqueness - that there is nothing there. No stars, no ships, no zebras, just nothing, nada, nicht. Darkness over an abyss.

    We place a ball there, and send 2 ships to the area that arrive in different ways and at crazy speeds that throw their CZ clocks out of sync. There is no computer.

    Questions:

    1. Will the ships be able to synchronize a simultaneous attack on the ball according to relativity in 1905?

    2. Would you be able to do this if they had temp clocks?

  446. B,
    Let's flow according to your understanding because this is the beginning of the time of the universe.
    But first, with your permission, we will make a distinction between two concepts: physical space and mathematical space.
    By the term "physical" I meant the space that contains the matter of the universe. We do not see its end but we do not know if it is limited. By the term "mathematical" I meant something abstract and infinite.
    That is, the point of time and the point of space where the universe began are the zero of the physical space, but not the mathematical one.
    There is a point in mathematical space where the big bang occurred. This point contains all the matter in the universe. This substance spreads continuously, and creates the physical space.
    And if so, you say, and I agree:
    "There is one reference system that is special from all other reference systems. It is special in that the coordinates of the big bang are all zero." But I do not accept the continuation of your words: "And this is in contradiction to the theory of relativity. Because the theory of relativity claims that there is no single system that is more special than all of them." My agreement only concerns the mathematical space, but for calculations in the physical space parameters must be added.

  447. Zvi Z.,
    The implications are for Lorentz transformations. According to my claim, they are not real. You don't need to ask me for a trial; All the watches and cameras you analyze will fit. If my claim is correct, then the clocks will always be coordinated.

  448. jubilee,

    How is what you say different from what relativity says? I mean in the sense of consequences. Do you have an idea for an experiment that could differentiate between the two theories? Will calculations with clocks like Israel and I did bring different results if your theory is correct?

    B,

    The Big Bang did not occur at any point in space. The cosmic radiation comes from every direction. In any case, why is the rest system of cosmic radiation a special system?

  449. Israel,

    "After all, time is absolute and automatically synchronized. Like an egg that cools down slowly."
    The thing that the egg/universe is not uniform. Analogous to your egg. There are areas in the swamp where the temperature will be different from other areas. For example, at depth it will be colder than the egg. There may also be local areas where the temperature is hotter/colder due to currents for example. Can you talk about the "real" temperature of the egg?

    As above in the universe, in large gravitational bodies and in elements moving at close to light speed, time behaves differently from other places and therefore you cannot talk about the "real" time of the universe even referring to point 0 like the big bang.

    Have a good trip and don't dig into the flight attendants too much.

  450. A note on the "Big Bang" matter.
    According to my understanding, this is the beginning of the time of the universe.
    That is, it is the zero point of time and also the zero point of space.
    That is :
    There is a point in space where the "Big Bang" took place.
    And if so :
    There is one reference system that is special from all other reference systems. It is special in that the coordinates of the "Big Bang" are all zero.
    And this is in contradiction to the theory of relativity. Because the theory of relativity claims that there is no one system that is more special than all of them.

  451. Zvi Z.,
    The claim that there is an absolute speed contains the assumption that there is a stationary medium that transmits the light.
    The claim that this stationary medium allows for a variety of speeds adds an assumption that it is flexible.
    By the term "relative speed of light" I meant the constant size c.
    By the term "actual speed of light" I mean, for example, the speed of light between point A and point B as measured from an external point C.

  452. Now you have managed to confuse me:
    If a "temperature clock" is not a clock in the sense of measuring time, then why even include it in the discussion of the theory of relativity?
    The theory of relativity talks about time and not about the measurement tools. Certainly not on measuring tools that do not measure time at all.

    And if, after all, the temperature clock measures time, then we will take the measurement and display it on a television screen in the form of an electronic clock.
    We will get an electronic temperature clock.
    If we do this in the same way in two inertial systems and reset the clocks then we will get two systems with identical clocks which are on the one hand temperature clocks and on the other hand electronic clocks for everything.
    After we do this, the discussion will return to the topic of time and not the mechanism of the clock.

  453. Hi Israel,
    I hope you remembered to kiss the earth in my name, because I will only see from the other side and will not come to it.
    Thanks for the instructive lesson in Roman law.
    It takes two for a mango, and when I say you're dragging me, it's only half the truth because I'm spending my share of the deal. What will I do, and you are so tempting to answer and try to prove to you that you are wrong. And suddenly a surprise, now I'm on your side in your rightful struggle to give light freedom of speed, to say: the relative speed of light is indeed always c, but its absolute speed is c plasminus something. The claim that "the absolute speed of light is always equal to its relative speed" is indeed the accepted one today, but I predict that it will soon give way in favor of the claim I made.
    Go to peace and come back to peace and please send a sign of life from time to time.
    Goodbye

  454. Israel,

    A photograph will not necessarily show the same time, as in the numbers I calculated earlier.

    jubilee,

    What is "real/actual speed of light"? It also depends on the point of view.

  455. Israel,
    There is no problem with my argument. The camera will give exactly the same result that it would give according to the theory of relativity following a photo of cesium clocks spread on the embossing films. The result depends on the system in which the camera is placed, and the footage will never show the same between the clock readings on the two films, except at the moment of starting the experiment. All I added is that other people's temperature clocks are subject to relative time dilation just like other people's cesium clocks are, because they, like the cesium clocks, produce time measurements that are only local to the system in which they are located.
    Have a good trip, and if you haven't read the article on the inverse square root law of gravitation (published on May 15th), I recommend you use some of your flight time to do so. I believe Newton was willing to pay a lot to get it in the mail before the Principia went to print.

  456. Meir

    I believe you can see the problem with your argument if you think about the following example: a sequence of bumps in a long row, each of which has a number written on it. A similar ribbon of protrusions runs next to them. A camera located at a certain point takes a picture whenever two bumps from the two films are below it. The camera is only able to photograph these 2 bumps together.

    The output of the camera is an image of 2 bumps on each of which a number is written. Now, if your claim about the delay due to the length of time was correct, we would have received a picture of Balta from movie A with Balta from movie B, but from an earlier time. The problem is that we haven't defined what the numbers on the reliefs are, and they could be for example duplicates of 1777 or even Mickymus paintings. How can the unambiguous image output give us a different image? What number exactly will it have? After all, the delay is not synchronized with the exact multiple, so how can it give an accurate output?

    Yuval - I hope that your alternative physics arguments are a little more grounded than the argument "you are dragging us all into an academic discussion about incorrect facts and incorrect conclusions". No one is dragging you or anyone into anything, certainly not me.

    Lycaniolea - Ley, a Roman law, is a law that allowed senators to marry the plebeians.

    Therefore, when a senator passed a plebeian and tried to evade his duty under the pretext of the prohibition that was in force before, and said to her: I rily wont to meri yo bat i cant, de lao, yo understand. She would answer him: Oh yes, you can, you lia(r)!.

    (In English it sounds better).

    What about the photos?

    deer

    Photographs from distant cameras involve the shortening of distances, etc. My question is simple: according to you (still) will a photo of 2 sophisticated temp clocks attached, which include doppler scales, show the same or different time? Only it.

    R.H.

    Defining simultaneity is the first chapter in relations. He came to answer a simple question: How do we know what the exact time is in an empty piece of space?

    If the universe is eternal, the answer is that there is no such thing as absolute time, everyone has their own timekeeper and we can only synchronize clocks. By an egg with a constant temperature.

    But if the universe had a beginning and that empty piece of space has a density and temperature that varies as a continuous function of time, then time is absolute and automatically synchronized. By an egg that cools down slowly.

    This is a company, the flight is in 5 hours. You have 24 hours to play without interruption.

    Yuval, it's time for alternative physics!

    (What about the photos?).

    Israel the tourist.

  457. Zvi Z., to your question: "Are you saying that a person who is at rest with respect to a light source and sees a spacecraft moving away from him will see the light moving more slowly, at speed cv?"
    I'm not sure I understood your question, probably because I didn't explain myself well. What I'm saying is that light always moves relative to the observer and/or relative to the light source at speed c. Therefore, the true speed of light relative to the source or observer is c minus the relative speed between them. For example, if the light source and the observer are at rest, relative to each other, then the relative speed between them is zero and then the actual motion of the light relative to them is at a speed c minus zero.

  458. Israel,
    13.7 billion according to our measurement of the distance of galaxies. If there was some spaceship running back and forth at a speed close to light from then until today it would measure a shorter time. Everything seemed faster with her.
    Your insistence on "the universe in 1905" is also not clear. What is the connection if Einstein did not know about the big bang? There is still no contradiction to what he claimed and relativity has not changed as a result of the discovery of the evidence for the Big Bang.

  460. jubilee,

    "Not the speed of light alone is always constant, but the sum of the speeds, of the light and the spacecraft, is always constant (and equal to c)"

    Are you saying that a person who is at rest relative to a light source and sees a spacecraft moving away from it will see the light moving slower, at speed cv?

  461. Israel,

    When I say "point of view" I don't mean something subjective. You can replace "point of view regarding station number 1" with "looking through the telescope at point number 1" or "photograph of station number 1 at this moment".

    When Jack is at station number 2 and his watch shows 10 and he looks through the telescope to station number 1, he sees 4. Light takes 6 seconds to travel the distance between the stations and from this he concludes that the watch there also shows 10.
    When Jill is at station number 2 and looks through the telescope to station number 1, she also sees 4, only her calculations show that the light took 3 seconds to reach her from the time of the photo. She also knows that while these 3 seconds passed for Jack, 2.4 seconds passed. And hence comes to the conclusion that the clock at one station shows 6.4=2.4+4.

    At the same time she sees that Jack's watch at station 2 shows 10 seconds. Both clocks are ticking at the same rate, so she concludes that the clock next to Jack is speeding up by 3.6 seconds. Jack, on the other hand, sees that there is no difference between the time shown by the clocks. That is, for him both clocks showed 0 at the same time and for Jill there was a difference of 3.6 seconds between the events.

    We agreed that temp clocks are equivalent to cesium clocks in Jack's system, therefore two observers can also disagree about the simultaneity of their reset.

    So far I have only used the principles of special relativity and the assumption that a temp clock is equivalent to a cesium clock in Jack's system, things that I understand we both agree on. Relying on the same things, we arrive at the photos I described earlier.

    The other assumption you make, we do not agree on, and it is the one that leads us to contradictions.

  462. Hey! Israel! you are still here A pleasant surprise 🙂
    You're turning the creator a bit (though not through your fault). Precisely the problem of the watches is the alternative physics, and the cameras are completely irrelevant. You drag us all into an academic discussion about incorrect facts and wrong conclusions. If and when you want to hear other things, I will come to lecture.
    A good trip. Take care and come back safely.
    P.S. What is Licheniolea?

  463. Israel,

    There is no flaw in my argument, which is exactly what the theory of relativity claims (which I am not one of its followers, but I have no objections to this specific argument of its). The slowing down of time is symmetrical when observers of relative motion compare clocks that measure time that is local in their own system (and anyway not local in the system of others).

    All I have done is to show that a temperature clock is a clock that measures local time in the self-system but from the perspective of an observer in the local system the other's temperature clock measures non-local time. This is because it takes time from the moment the temperature is sampled to the moment the result is displayed. If in the local clock one has to wait 18 microseconds for the result, then given a relative speed of 240M/s an observer in the local system will have to wait 30 microseconds for the result in the drive system. Therefore, from the moment the clocks are synchronized at the beginning of the experiment and onward, the viewer in one system will see as if his friend in the other system is watching the movie "The Big Bang" in slow motion.

  464. R.H.

    Regarding your words: "You constantly, both now in an argument with Zvi and then in an argument with me, insist that "there is an absolute time in the universe, the time that has passed since the Big Bang. This is what the bang theory claims."

    Isn't our universe about 13.7 billion years old? Isn't this time, after we specify it to the level of seconds for example, absolute? Isn't it expressed in temperature with a continuous function, the Friedman formula? Is a second that passes by it different from a second that passes by us (assuming our speed is 0 relative to radiation)? Isn't time the same at every point in the universe? Can you show me the point where the universe is 30 billion years old? If not, why?

    Isn't there a point of departure for me and Zvi, and also yours at the time, that it is possible to build "temp clocks"? That these clocks will automatically synchronize to the time that has passed since the bang? that if we synchronize a clock and place it next to a temp clock, a shared photo will always show the same time on both? How does all this happen if there is no absolute time for the universe?

    And isn't this picture different from the picture of the universe in 1905? of an infinite and eternal universe without beginning and end where there is no absolute time simply because of the basic mathematical fact that infinity plus a constant = infinity? Where even entropy must eventually reverse itself, and evolution is not only a possibility but a certainty?

  465. waiting

    And Yuval, if you "see in all the words that are poured out here empty words and poor grammar about irrelevant things", why do you stay here? Politely invited, but not obliged to stay. These responses are therefore: free.

    What about the photos?

  466. deer

    You write:

    "Do you agree that two observers will not necessarily agree on the simultaneity of events?"

    I will agree to this if you can convince me that a photo of two devices that I call "temperature clocks" located at the same place and moment, will show a different number in their output.

    "Also all the other clocks in his train reset at this moment, both cesium and temp.
    Jill, on the other hand, doesn't have to agree that all his clocks reset at the same moment. We already agreed (?) that this is true for cesium clocks, so why shouldn't it be true for temp clocks?"

    If my description is correct, there is no need to reset temperature clocks. They automatically adjust to absolute cosmic time.

    "I wrote that she would see 6.4 because that's what, from her point of view, Jack's cesium clock on the locomotive is showing right now"

    Perspectives interest me much less than photographs. The only question I keep asking is: what will the photographs show?

    If we agree on objective and unequivocal photographs, and not on subjective and vague "points of view", it will be much easier to move forward.

    R.H.

    Your question is not entirely clear. You write "accelerating". I only deal with inertial systems. You are talking about the temperature of an isolated system, a spaceship, I am talking about an external measurement with which time can be tapped, as in the case of the frogs (they will not be able to tell what time it is by measuring the temperature inside the submarine, only the external temperature). In the discussion with you, I defined the necessary conditions and even named it: the experimental field in Tizenbi.

    Also remember that one example where there is no time dilation is enough to collapse the whole theory. At least that's what Einstein claimed.

    jubilee

    "The claim that the speed of light is an absolutely constant quantity has nothing to rely on" - this is alternative physics. We are currently in Jesters. What about the photos?

  467. Zvi Z,
    Due to the delay policy, some of the past tense responses have not yet been published. From my last comments you can understand that I see things completely differently from the "mainstream". I agreed to participate in the discussion only because I was politely invited, but the truth is that I have long since left my philanthropic pursuits. Whether the clocks are equal or not, I see in all the words that are poured out here empty things and poor grammar about irrelevant things.
    Please accept my apologies.

  470. B,
    With your permission, we'll start with the Michelson-Morlay experiment. We know that the system of the light source and detectors changed its direction, so it is clear that every component in it changed its speed, and yet the speed of light relative to the system remained constant in every situation.
    My assumption is not the same assumption in changing words, as you say, but a different assumption. Because they couldn't find the medium that conducts the light ("ether"), they decided to simply give up on it. This concession only added to the mystery, since light has a distinct wave behavior and therefore a conducting medium must exist. However, thanks to the correct predictions that this Torah foresaw, they decided to stay with the mystery. The assumption I made and the accepted assumption are indeed not the same assumption, but both ultimately lead to the same conclusions and predict the same results. Now we have to choose between two "imaginary" options. One is unmediated wave motion but with a twin/clock paradox. The second is the medium "equipped" with a mysterious mechanism that controls the speed of light but also solves the mystery of "dark energy". I have a nice model that shows how my assumption is possible, but in this I am stepping outside of what Israel Shapira calls "mainstream", so I will rest with him. We can come back to it anytime.
    All your other questions are derived from the first question. If you accept the assumption I made, they will all be solved.

  471. jubilee:
    Fix:
    I understood that the speed of the spacecraft is relative to the light source.
    Why does light change its speed according to the speed of the spacecraft?
    Is this a better assumption than the assumption that the speed of light is constant in all inertial systems?

    Isn't this the exact same assumption just changing the words?
    And if the reference system is not on a spacecraft?
    Assume a frame of reference moving in space without any relation to any material body.
    Will the light also then change its speed according to the speed of the reference system?
    And if so, isn't it the same as saying that the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference (inertial)?

  472. jubilee:

    1)
    In relation to what is the speed of the spaceship measured?

    2)
    The claim that the speed of light is constant in all inertial systems. She has nothing to rely on.
    This is a discount! The basic premise of the theory of relativity.
    If the experiment shows that this assumption is wrong then the theory of relativity will not be correct.
    To date, to the best of my knowledge, no one has been able to prove that this assumption is wrong.
    On the other hand, with the acceptance of this assumption, the theory of relativity developed and we got an explanation for phenomena that cannot be explained without the theory of relativity.

  473. The claim that the speed of light is an absolutely constant quantity has nothing to rely on. Since the speed of light seems constant relative to the receiving system, regardless of the speed of the system relative to any point in space, it is clear that the speed of light alone cannot be globally constant. Not the speed of light alone is always constant, but the sum of the speeds, of the light and the spacecraft, is always constant (equal to c). If the spacecraft is approaching the light source at speed v, then the speed of light is c minus v. And if she moves away from him, then the light is on after her at speed c and another v. Without currently going into additional calculations and the resulting consequences, this explains many phenomena. For example, why is the color of the light reaching us from the distant galaxies redshifted (which led to the wrong conclusion that "dark" energy exists). It also removes the paradox from the watches.
    Maybe it's not "soda-stream" enough for your taste? so no. Come on! grow up! Get out of the frame already. Follow the sun and you'll be back exactly the day after the independence celebrations, patriot!
    And no! I don't know what Licheniolea is, but thanks for the title ☼

  474. Israel,
    You constantly, both now in an argument with Zvi and then in an argument with me, insist that "there is an absolute time in the universe, the time that has passed since the Big Bang." This is what the bang theory claims."

    But I think you are wrong. Would a temp clock inside a spaceship, meaning the cosmic radiation cooling inside the accelerating spaceship, look exactly the same as a clock left outside?

    I don't think so. As the pilot ages less, the cesium clock inside the spacecraft will show less time and the temperature of the radiation inside the spacecraft (assuming it can be measured of course and ignore any effect of engine heat and the like) will be higher than outside.

    That is, as Einstein claims, there is no absolute time, but relative time, and cosmic radiation also obeys this law.

  475. Israel,
    Do you agree that two observers will not necessarily agree on the simultaneity of events?
    In our example context: when the locomotives pass this past all the clocks on the locomotives are reset. As far as Jack is concerned, all the other clocks on his train also reset at this moment, both cesium and temp.
    Jill, on the other hand, doesn't have to agree that all his clocks reset at the same moment. We already agreed (?) that this is true for cesium clocks so why wouldn't it be true for temp clocks?

    I wrote that she would see 6.4 because that's what from her point of view the cesium clock in Jack's engine is showing at this moment, the temp clock at Jack's is equal to cesium and therefore also shows 6.4. As far as Jill is concerned, she only synchronized with the clock in the locomotive and since temp clocks tick at the same rate, hers will also show 6.4.

    jubilee,
    Awaiting confirmation.

  476. deer

    The only thing I get right now is the photos. The reasoning I gave about the Doppler weighting ensures that in a photograph of two temp clocks we will see both showing the same time.

    This does not agree with your words b
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/comment-page-24/#comment-344858

    "Regarding our example, this means that at the moments when the locomotives meet the first cars:
    Jill Rua - at her place: 8 p.m., 6.4 temp. At his place: 10,10

    If we can resolve this disagreement between us, we can proceed.

    Keto the tributary.

    Before you storm Carthage with a large force, explain to me how your claim about the photographs is compatible with the claim of relativity.

    And as the elder of the senators, do you know what Lycaniolea is?

  477. jubilee,

    The clocks are not equivalent to each other because the tick rate of temp clocks varies from one system to another (this is what we assumed about them), while the tick rate of a cesium clock does not change. Temp clocks are actually not really clocks because if you put such a clock by your side you will not necessarily measure the time that has passed from your point of view, but time that has passed in the radiation rest system from the point of view of an observer in this system.

    In any case, I am still not convinced that there is some kind of contradiction between the two models or that the twin paradox is really a paradox.

  478. Zvi (MM Israel until it returns to its narcissus and frogs),
    A pendulum clock counts ticks while a temperature clock samples the number of ticks counted by the substance (usually dark, probably) at the point where the clock's thermometer is located. If we assume for any reason that the ticks of the cesium clock do not correlate with the ticks of absolute time, then we also have no reason to assume that the ticks at the point where the temperature is measured correlate with absolute time. Thus, the temperature clock and the cesium clock are equivalent to each other.
    But an even more important question is whether there is such a thing as absolute time. If we accept the speed of light as an absolute quantity, we can derive time from it in exactly the same way that in Newtonian physics we derive speed from time. For this we must define a reliable unit of distance whose size does not change due to the passage of light through it (we call it, for example, "pico-second of light", because that is what Israel is looking for), and we define the basic unit of time according to it and according to the speed of light. However, unfortunately, such a reliable unit of distance does not exist, because distances, like time, are not fixed but relative.
    The entire uproar that Israel has created is a question of two physical models which are both acceptable but both apparently contradict each other. As I presented earlier (and Narcissus graciously ignored) the twins/clocks paradox didn't get its nickname for nothing either. In such cases at least one of the models is wrong unless a way is found to justify the contradiction.
    Likewise, I also believe that the debate about the type of clock desired is a waste of time [Kato Y. the old man].

  479. Israel,

    If you accept my words then theory A does agree with theory B, if you don't accept my words then you actually don't accept theory B by itself, and that's a completely different matter.

  480. waiting for me

    Avi - if possible, try to leave at least 50 recent comments attached. It hardly delays the loading time, and allows you to read all the relevant comments.

  481. To all the detractors and slanderers, the temperature clocks are bad.

    It is technically possible to explain why two temp clocks at the same place and moment must show the exact same time, but due to the shortness of time (...) I will try to mention again what temp clocks are.

    Temp clocks show the number of seconds that have passed since the big bang that a temp clock next to them would show if this clock was at rest relative to cosmic radiation.

    The obvious comparison is the well-known story about Narcissus the prince, whose frogs in his marsh often complained about the mean-hearted and sharp-beaked Hasidic women who devoured them with appetite.

    Narcissus, a lover and lover of frogs by birth, planned a simultaneous night attack on the nests of the Hasids, which was supposed to be carried out by elite commando units of frogs who planned to attack all the nests at the same time, in order to prevent the Hasids from sending ripples from nest to nest and thus warn the other Hasids. The synchronization was carried out by measuring the temperature of the egg that cools down slowly at night and a formula that converted the temperature into time.

    Everything was ready for the big attack, but 12 hours before the departure, Rabbi Kermit the Toad showed up in front of Narcissus, all green with shame.

    "There's a flaw in the plan," Kermit cracked. "The tadpole fleet that is supposed to give the opening signal claims that the temperature they are measuring is higher than normal, and this is because of the great speed of the tadpoles moving relative to the water. It is impossible to synchronize the attack, because the clocks are not synchronized. Our plans are doomed to failure, and Hasidism will continue to devour frogs and deliver babies."

    "Don't worry" Narcissus reassured him. "An additional factor can be introduced into the formula that will weigh the relative movement speed of a toad and a toad, and the output will be the time of the temperature clock if it were at rest relative to the water"

    This is how the frogs took advantage of a large pasture.

    The example I hope, obviously.

    There is absolute time in the universe, the time that has passed since the Big Bang. This is what the bang theory claims. It can be measured. Temp clocks are one suggestion - density clocks or receding galaxy clocks are also possible as suggested by R.H.

    But according to relativity in 1905, the universe is eternal, never began and will never end. Therefore absolute time has no meaning.

    And theory A does not agree with B. This is the gist of my argument.

    Yuval - I don't know what you will do with the free time you will have. Maybe spend in free comments?

    R.H. - I don't know what Science claims, but the #1 problem in physics on Suskind's blog is: What is time?

    Meir - The main problem with your argument is that you can't say where time slows down in the two clocks that pass each other: Jack's time or Jill's? Don't forget, this is a relative slowdown of a system of clocks, not of a single clock. If we had changed the system, the slowdowns would have switched sides. And yes, it is confusing.

    Zvi - Your words are correct if I accept the lengthening of time in inertial systems. At this point I am very skeptical. (Where is the experiment style the airplane experiment that will prove the lengthening of times in non-accelerated systems?)

    This. Running to Leon's wedding.

  483. ב

    We dealt with cesium clocks and temperature clocks because while a cesium clock is a normal clock and equal to a pendulum clock or an hourglass, a temperature clock is not equal to them for the reason that it does not measure time. Our assumption was that two such clocks tick at the same rate relative to each other in different reference systems and we tried to see if this brings us to a contradiction.

  484. To all distinguished debaters,
    I recommend the latest issue of Science magazine which devoted a considerable part to today's burning problems in physics.

  485. deer:
    If the clocks were synchronized at the second station it means that they were not synchronized at any other station (station zero, station one) they can only be synchronized at one point.
    If the clocks were indeed synchronized at the zero point. Then an asynchronous call will be received at any other point. The difference in reading will increase with each station.

    From Jel's point of view. The cooling she sees in the binoculars did not start at zero time. The start of cooling was at a different time. And this is because her temperature clock is synchronized with a clock of another station and not of the zero station. Therefore there is no problem with a different reading of the two temperature clocks that she watches.

  486. It is not clear why you delved into messing with different examples of watches.
    There is no point in that.
    According to the theory of special relativity:
    The measurement difference between the time measured in the self system and the time measured in the drive system depends on the speed.
    What does this have to do with the type of watch?
    Does it matter if someone measures length with a yardstick or with a laser beam? After all, in his own system, the same result will always be obtained.
    The device used for measurement is irrelevant.
    And those who want to know the time differences should be respectful and perform the Lorentz transformation (the translation from system to system).
    There is no reason that during a photo the same reading will be obtained on the clocks. On the contrary, according to the theory, a different reading should be obtained except for one time point (eg the starting point) where it is possible to equalize the reading of the clocks.
    A cesium clock, a temperature clock, a pendulum clock and any other type of clock are nothing more than a measuring tool. If they do measure time then they will measure in their own system the own time and in another system the time according to the transformation (translation).

  487. Israel,
    Congratulations, have a good trip, goodbye
    Really, once in a while a man deserves a little time off
    I already know what I will do when I have free time
    😛

  488. Israel,

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but you agreed that in Jack's system cesium clocks are equivalent to temperature clocks. You also agreed that when Jill passes station number 2 she sees Jack's watch showing 10, and the watch at station number 1, using a telescope and considering the distance the light had to travel, shows 6.4. If we add temperature clocks it means that for Jill one temperature clock shows 10 and at the same time another temperature clock shows 6.4.

  489. Israel,
    You write here https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/comment-page-23/#comment-344547
    "The speed of the calculation is not relevant in my opinion, and to see this, let's assume that the difference between the CZ clocks did not reach only 2 seconds, but 2 years.
    We are now pulling a shiny new temp clock out of the box with a 4Ghz processor, (or even 4 million). According to the promise of the manufacturer, Rolex Universal, this watch automatically adjusts to absolute cosmic time, just as our cell phone adjusts to terrestrial time."

    But that's exactly the point, that there is no such thing that we pull out "now". Whose now? Jack's or Jill's?

    The slowing down of time refers only to local time measurements. A local bo time measurement on Jill's system will appear longer to Jack than a local bo time measurement on his own system and vice versa. If it were possible to cause time measurement to be local in both systems, such as by a temperature clock that displays the time in seconds from the moment of the bang within zero time from the moment the temperature is sampled, you would be right. But as soon as the display of the time by a temperature clock is subject in some way to a process that takes time, its measurement can no longer be local in two systems that are in relative motion. If it is not local in him, everyone will see that the measurement process at his friend's takes longer, and that his friend is lagging behind in performing the agreed upon series of samples. You said they pull out the Trolex after two years. After two years of who?

  490. Zvi, Yuval and everyone who reads (who? who?).

    I am too busy with visiting family and packing for the trip to Israel, so it will be difficult for me to respond. If you have the book "The Fabric of the Universe" by Brian Green, you are invited to read on pages 200-190 and especially on pages 197-196: "Clocks whose only movement is due to the expansion of space - they are synchronized magic clocks, which are used to measure the age of the universe. Of course you are allowed to take your watch, enter the spaceship, run back and forth in space at enormous speeds... If you do this your watch will tick at a different rate, and you will find that the amount of time that has passed since the big bang will be different. This is a completely valid point of view, but also completely private... When astronomers talk about the age of the universe, they are asking for... a standard that has the same meaning on every site".

    The sheet is short of continuing, the book holds (in my opinion) that cosmic radiation is this absolute yardstick.

    There is also a logical consideration as to why temp clocks must show the same time at every point at a given moment, but I have to go to sleep. We will continue later. Good night.

    Yuval, the article is

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/

  491. Hey Israel,
    First an apology and a request: I lost the article in Cosmo. Please link.
    And to the last question you addressed to me: the problem is more complex than what you presented. It does start with Jill's season lagging behind Jack's, but it doesn't end here. There is a sequel: Jack's watch lags after Jill's watch is on time. A brief processing of a system of inequalities shows that Jill's season lags behind itself. The only mainstream explanation is that the degree of lag must be zero, and any calculation that shows a different number is wrong. Therefore, all the cameras must show the same reading, and it is up to you (or anyone else) to recheck the calculations.

  492. Israel,
    First of all thanks for your patience in reading my incorrect explanations of the contradiction, I will ask you to give me another try.

    I think there is a problem with one of our assumptions, that two temperature clocks passing each other will always show the same time. This assumption is actually built on two sub-assumptions, the first that two temperature clocks tick at the same rate relative to each other, and with this assumption in the meantime I don't see any problem, and a second sub-assumption that temperature clocks are always synchronized, meaning that there is a moment when all observers will agree that the clocks have synchronized.

    The second sub-assumption is wrong, since according to special relativity two observers can disagree about the simultaneity of events.

    Regarding our example, this means that at the moments when the locomotives meet the first cars:
    Jill Rua - at her place: 8 p.m., 6.4 temp. At his place: 10,10
    Jack sees - at her place: 10 p.m., temp. 8. At his place: 8,8.

    I may have gotten the numbers wrong, but do you agree that our assumption is wrong?

    And if my calculations are correct it means that the assumption that Jill's cesium clocks lag behind the temperature clocks is also wrong.

  494. If you accept what I said earlier, meaning that each tick on the temp clock as far as Jill is concerned lasts 0.8 seconds, then the temp clock that Jill will see in the photo that shows 10 ticks will be interpreted as showing that 8 seconds have passed.

  495. jubilee

    The whole matter of the experiment was explained in an article in Cosmo. The experiment came to decide between the lengthening of time in relationships and the big bang theory, which in my opinion are incompatible with each other.

    But this is alternative physics, and we are currently looking for an explanation in mainstream fields. Hence the matter of the photographs.

    You answered: All the clocks will show the same time in the photo. You didn't answer my question about how this fits with the data from the original problem, where Jill's season lags behind Jack's. Can you answer this question now using a mainstream explanation?

    deer.

    If Jill's clock shows 10 and her temp clock is 8, this contradicts our previous assumption that in a joint shot of her clocks, the clock always lags behind the temp clock. In this case he is in a hurry.

    Note that this has nothing to do with Jack's system.

  496. Israel,

    One must refer to the clock's working mechanism to ask what the clocks will look like. After all, when you say 8,10,10,10, you are referring to time. But if you mean that the temp clock ticks once while the cesium clock ticks once in Jack's system, then yes, the picture you describe is correct, ie Jill's cesium clock ticks 8 ticks, the other clocks 10 ticks.

    The photo opposite will show Jill's cesium clock 10 ticks, the other clocks 8 ticks.

  498. The movie you brought is very dramatic. In your previous incarnation, were you an Amnonitchak?
    Thought experiments are sometimes confirmed by the test of action and sometimes impoverished. But the current thought experiment cannot be put to the test at all.
    Let's focus on "measuring equipment for the arrival time of a radio signal with a precision of picoseconds". First, please tell the viewers and listeners what it is needed for and maybe someone from the audience will come up with an idea for suitable replacement equipment

  499. deer.

    We have not yet reached the question of the working mechanisms of the time and temperature clocks. The subject is not simple at all and relates to one of the most difficult and complicated questions that exist: what is time?

    However, the question before us is much simpler and it is: what will the photographs show?

    According to the data of the original problem, which we edited a little, when Jill's car arrives at the first car of Jack's train, the photo shows: CZ Jack 10, temp Jack 10, temp Jill 10 CZ Jill 8. Do you accept? Yes No.

    And now I'll ask you to tell me what the opposite shot will look like, where Jack's locomotive arrives at the first car of Jill's train. Just that. We will refer to the interpretation later.

  500. Israel,

    You can't see time. You can see a clock whose ticking lasts a fixed period of time. This is what happens with cesium clocks, the clocks of the model used by Jill and Jack tick every second. If you take a video of such a clock and see it tick once then you will know that no matter how fast it is moving in the system it was filmed in one second has passed.

    If, on the other hand, you see a video of a temperature clock ticking once, you will not be able to conclude anything about the system it is in.

    The asymmetry between Jack and Jill is only reflected in the fact that the ticking rate of a temperature clock will be the slowest in Jack's system. Even so, Jill can claim that the clock ticks every 0.8 seconds.

    Can you (as Jack) prove to Jill that the clock ticks every second universally?

    The assumption that two temperature clocks will always show the same time can be interpreted in two different ways, one that two such clocks in the same state will always represent the same elapsed time, and the second that physically such clocks will always be in the same state, I agree with the second interpretation and you, as I understand it, with the first interpretation.

  502. Israel,
    I'm glad you find humor in my words. This is the little I can do to play with your tormented soul.
    Between you and the ungrateful because Jack and Jill never really existed in any spaceship that traveled at a tenth of the speed of light, etc. What you are trying to build in these marathon discussions are thought experiments, and you already know what their verdict is (see, for example, what happened to APR). What Zvi, R.H., you and I can contribute to these discussions is just more flourishing thoughts. From time to time I also hear about real experiments you are planning. These interest me much more and I suggest we put a strong emphasis on them. Let us define for ourselves what we are looking for and build devices that will help us look for what we want.
    When are you expected to return from the US?

  503. deer

    Until the waiting is released, here is the logical question again:

    1. A photograph of A and B always shows the same number in A and B.

    2. A photo of A and C always shows the same number in A and B.

    3. A photo of C and D always shows a lower number in D than in C.

    Could a joint photo of A, B, C, and D show a lower number in B than in D? Yes or No?

    Let's call A clock temp Jack, B clock cz Jack, C clock temp Jill and D clock cz Jill, and this at the time of the meeting of locomotive Jack with wagon #1 In Jill's train (not the locomotive where Jill is sitting).

    According to the answer you gave, the czech clock cannot show a lower number than the czech jill clock. Since in clocks a lower number means an earlier time, then a Jack clock cannot show an earlier time than a Jill clock, regardless of the temp or clock mechanism.

    (One can of course speculate on what exactly this time is, but according to relativity the image will be the opposite of the one obtained by our logical approach, and this is regardless of the essence of time and the ratio of the ticks between the clocks).

  505. deer

    There is something that distinguishes Jack from Jill and countless other passengers and that is that he is stationary relative to radiation and they are not. He is the only one of all for whom a joint photo of the 2 watches always shows the same time on both.

    (Of course, this applies to any other passenger who is comfortable relative to radiation).

    Therefore, even though Jack's temp clock may be an "external mechanism" as you say, it is impossible to distinguish it from the cesium clock next to it. Both tick at the same rate. In fact, one of them can be waived.

    So far everything is consistent with previous agreements between us. Another agreement was that two temp clocks show the same time in both when meeting. Therefore, it can be concluded that during the meeting all the temperature clocks will show the same time, and the logical implication is that this is the time of the C.H. clock relative to radiation.

    So my question to you is: from the laws of logic, doesn't it require that if all our previous agreements are valid, every temp clock always shows the same time as a stationary cz clock relative to radiation, and always at the same rate as a cz clock that is stationary relative to radiation?

  506. Shorten the loading time? Will the time shorten? I don't believe in the shortening or lengthening of times. Only in temp clocks.

  507. The answer to the logical question is no, but this does not contradict what I said.

    I claim that every viewer will see something different in the photographs, and by awe I do not mean the image itself, but the time. You and I can get frustrated over a shared photo and agree that the clock will tick five times, but in your system each tick takes one second and in my system each tick takes ten seconds, so you will say that the photo shows that 5 seconds have passed and I will say that it shows that 50 have passed.

    This is something that exists only for clocks that are based on an external mechanism such as the temperature clock. Regarding a normal cesium clock, for example, if each of its ticks lasts one second in your system, then also in my system each tick lasts one second, therefore in such a case agreeing on a photo would be equivalent to agreeing on the time.
    For this reason when Jack and Jill see the photo that shows 8 on Jill's watch and 10 on Jack's watch they agree on the numbers 8 and 10.

    If, on the other hand, everyone also had a temperature clock, let's say it showed that 10 ticks had passed at Jack and Jill's, each of them would claim that a different time had passed, because who determined that a tick is equal to one second? In the case of a cesium clock, you can simply make a measurement in each system and see that a tick is equal to a second, but in the case of a temperature clock, such a measurement will yield different results in each system.

    So my question to you is why should Jack's opinion be given more weight than Jill's opinion about the time shown by the temperature clock?

  508. We conduct experiments with all kinds of features that will help shorten the loading time of the pages. There is a programmer who works on this especially and he is free to do any experiment, for example to show only some of the comments and only those who want to see them all or all kinds of other things that will help reduce the size of the page (not only in the comments but all possible things)

  509. Friend, I'm seriously asking, have all the responses been reversed for you too and they appear from the end to the beginning, or only for me? Avi Blizovsky?

    Yuval, that's what I like about you, you always joke.
    (What not?).

    Because note: there is a problem here. You claim that a photo of all the clocks will show the same time on all of them. Relativity claims that there will be a difference between the cesium clocks because of the lengthening of time.

    It's hard to argue with photographs, or maybe it is? Maybe every viewer sees something different in the photos? Jack and Jill look at the same photo, Jack says to Jill: You're retarded. She answers: You yourself are retarded.

    Indeed a relationship at its best!

  510. I got a new idea:
    Come on, instead of looking at the relationship between them as an absolute inequality (really big, really small) let's see the relationship between them as a partial inequality (big or equal, small or equal). We know that these two relations can exist simultaneously without contradicting each other (if A≤B and B≤A then A=B). It is true that at every moment of the movement the absolute inequality exists, but at the moment of the meeting (or when the cameras are activated) the partial inequality exists.
    What do you think?
    A gita shaabes to you too. Wait for the candles to go out before you go to sleep. They have already turned off for me.

  511. Did the comments to the article change for you too?

    Yuval, at this point I'm not trying to do anything, just get simple answers to simple questions. You claimed that all watches would look the same. In the example of Jack and Jill there is a difference of 2 seconds between his time and her time. how does it work out

    Shabbat Shalom.

  512. Israel, I think I'm starting to understand your mind
    You start from the assumption that information can pass at a speed many times higher than the speed of light (this is the conclusion from the Aspect experiment) and try to build a picture of a medium (which you call "active site") that transmits light at infinite speeds. For the purpose of illustration, you once brought us the parables of the freeway and the ballistic pendulum, and now you are trying to attack the twin paradox.
    Am I right?

  514. Israel!!! What happened??? All is lost?!?!
    David Albert is not evil and he is not saying that the cameras will see a different reading. He doesn't talk about cameras at all, but not in the context of the twins.
    Please find us a new stage. The current shows instability.

  515. deer

    The reservations you raise also apply to any broken clock that rushes or lags. The question I raised in the previous response does not refer to watches at all, but is a question of logic: if you believe that the question I asked can be answered "yes" and that it does not contradict the 3 conditions I set, try to do so. You don't have to use real clocks, you can just as easily draw them on paper.

    We will talk about the relevance after we see if such a situation is logically possible at all.

    In a framed article, I will point out that unlike a thousand and one thousand, Bell's inequality theorem is also not a physical theorem but a logical theorem: what is in A and not in B + what is in B and not in C, is greater or equal than what is in A and not in C. Here again, the simplest demonstration is through a drawing.

    The application of Bell's theorem to quantum entanglement is the mathematical proof of non-locality (for your attention Yuval, aspect experiments are only empirical confirmation of what has been proven mathematically). I believe that the application of the sentence I brought before is the mathematical proof of the non-prolongation of time, if all the conditions we agreed upon before are met.

    (Of course, it is possible that we were wrong in our assumptions, it is possible that, as Meir claims, the temp clocks at Jack's do not always show the same time, it is possible that they are not consistent, that the temp clock next to the XNUMX:XNUMX clock behaves in a chaotic manner, one time showing an early time and the other late). But here the question immediately arises: what then is Friedman's formula?

    But first we must come to an agreement on the logical question I asked earlier.

    jubilee

    You maintain: "My claim is that the cameras will show the same reading on all watches."

    As always I flow with you, but what about evil Albert? He claims that there will be a difference, by Jack and Jill.

  519. Something about the temperature watch:
    Unlike a clock with an internal pendulum like, for example, a cesium clock, the ticking of the temperature clock occurs outside of it. The entire universe pulsates with temperature and the number of pulsations is recorded everywhere in the universe. The temperature clock does not count the pulses but only shows the record of the number of pulses as found at the point where it samples.
    If we assume that all clocks with an internal pendulum are activated by the pulses of the universe (which are expressed not only in temperature), there is no difference between a temperature clock and a conventional clock.
    A claim was made here that due to deviation to blue (or red) the thermometer element will cause the temperature clock to be "falsified". This claim could only be true if the measured heat emanates from a single point in the universe. However, the existence of such a point has not been proven and/or is unknown. If, on the other hand, we assume that the measured heat emanates from each and every point, then in each and every place two deviations will be created at the same time, to the red and to the blue, and their effects on the thermometer will offset each other.
    For the above reasons I suggest to stop using temperature clocks.

  520. Israel,
    With all the mess between the delay and the collection of the guarantee, it's hard for me to know what you got and what you didn't. So in short:
    My claim is that the cameras will show the same reading on all watches. My reasoning is that at the moment of photography all reference systems are unified into one system. If anything in this claim doesn't seem right, please say so

  521. Israel,

    where we suppose that some photograph shows a clock in a certain state. Two people will agree on what they see in the picture, that is, on the above description, but they will not necessarily agree on the time. One will say that the clock shows that 2 minutes have passed and the other will say that the same situation shows that 4 minutes have passed and not 2 minutes. Which one is right?

    If it is a clock that is based on an internal mechanism, for example an hourglass or an atomic clock, then it will be possible to decide the question, simply by measurement, regardless of the inertial system in which the watcher and the clock are located. If, for example, the observer aged ten years and the clock ticked once, then the observer knows that the clock ticks once every ten years, and he will do so no matter how fast the observer and the clock move. This is why both Jack and Jill agree that the cesium clock on Jill's locomotive shows that 8 seconds have passed.

    If, on the other hand, the clock is based on some external mechanism, such as the temperature clock, then it will not be possible to decide the question. One observer will see that every year the clock ticks once, and another observer will see that the clock ticks every minute. They will have no way of deciding the question because the clock ticks at different rates in different systems.

    And so I claim that the photograph of the temp clock is irrelevant, because even though the viewers will agree on the physical image of the clock, for example that it will tick twice, they will not agree on the time that the clock shows because for each of them the ticking will be a different length of time. It is true that for Jack each tick lasts one second, but he cannot impose his measurements on Jill, since in her system any measurement she takes will show that one tick on the temperature clock takes 0.8 seconds, and she can equally claim that the clock shows that 8 Seconds and not 10 as Jack claims.

  522. jubilee.

    The day of alternative physics will come. Until then, could you answer my request and say what you think the photographs will look like? Is that so much to ask?

    deer

    You can see the problem as a logical question in the psychometric test, without involving clocks at all.

    Here are the following data:

    1. A photograph of A and B always shows the same number in A and B.

    2. A photo of A and C always shows the same number in A and B.

    3. A photo of C and D always shows a lower number in D than in C.

    Could a joint photo of A, B, C, and D show a lower number in B than in D? Yes or No?

    If you (or anyone) can answer yes or no (with or without an explanation, as you wish) we can continue after I return with my dogs from the mountains.

  523. But what exactly is meant by the photo showing 10 on the temp clock? The temp watch is not really a watch. A cesium clock, for example, shows the time passing in the system it is in, the temp clock, on the other hand, ticks at a different rate in each system. In the resting system of radiation, it ticks the slowest. Therefore, my idea is that in order for the time it shows to have meaning, the clock needs to be calibrated according to another clock that is next to it in the system.

    If we accept these things, then the temperature clock will have no meaning, because when you put it next to a cesium clock that shows 8 seconds have passed, you will conclude that 8 seconds have also passed in terms of the temperature clock. And what you got is two clocks that show 8 seconds.

    In such a case, the photograph is not relevant, because while the photograph will show that the temperature clock will tick, let's say 10 times, the viewers will not agree on the time because for each of them, the ticking takes a different time.

    And this is consistent with our assumption, since from Jill's point of view the cesium clock and also the temperature clock with which it was synchronized will show 6.4 seconds.

  524. Israel! We are relatively synchronized. You don't understand what I want from you and I don't understand what you want from me. This is exactly the same misunderstanding. The so-called "twin paradox", derived directly from the theory of relativity, holds that both will see the same thing. What C1 sees in C2 is exactly what C2 sees in C1 and what C1 sees in himself is exactly what C2 sees in herself. You can find that at Einstein and you don't need me to tell you. It also doesn't really matter what clocks they use, cesium or Celsius.

    In the meantime, I would like you to pay attention to one important point that we have not yet discussed, and Albert also ignored it: as long as the systems of J1 and J2 are separate, what happens in one system does not affect what happens in the other. But when they photograph each other, there is communication between them and then they are one unified system. Therefore I estimate that all watches will show the same reading.

  525. deer

    The sarcastic response was of course aimed at Yuval the Stotnik.

    There is a problem with the way you described things, and you can see it I believe if you look at the following 3 photographs:

    1. The photo of the first meeting which, as you suggested, will be between Jack and Jill sitting in the locomotives, in which all 4 clocks will show time 0.

    2. The photo of the meeting between Jill sitting in the locomotive and the next car in Jack's train (this is the car that was Jack himself in the original example). According to the data of the problem, the CZ clock in the trailer Jack shows 10, the temp clock Jack 10, the temp clock in the tractor gill 10, the CG clock gill 8.

    3. The photo of the meeting between Jack sitting in the locomotive and the next car on the Jill train. According to the symmetry of relativity, we were supposed to get: 10 CZ clock in the car, 10 CZ clock, 10 CZ clock, 8 CZ clock in the Jack XNUMX tractor.

    Everything is fine and dandy, but our assumption is that Jack's train is relatively stationary relative to the radiation, so the time on his temp and hr clocks are always the same.

    There is another problem: guests have arrived and they need to be pampered.

    jubilee

    Indeed, what exactly does this tributary want from his life? Why don't you tell me what the photos will look like and close the deal? Leave alternative physics for now. Maybe we'll get to it later. We are currently mainstream only. No philosophy and no skirts.

  526. Israel, you must be asking yourself, "What exactly does this tributary want from my life? How the hell can you measure proper time?", so like this (amazing in its simplicity):
    It is not possible to measure it, because there is no known rest system that can be referred to. But there is no problem in measuring the neighbors' time. They all have a "conventional" clock, a computer and a speedometer installed. Everyone knows what their speed is relative to the other. The relative speed data and the local time reading are entered into the computer on which the Lorentz transfer function was run. The time reading of the other J appears on the display.
    you are joking? But that's exactly what Einstein did. He didn't know how to interpret the conclusions of the MM experiment, so in order not to get stuck, he decided to ignore the website and skip ahead.
    When we expand out of the mainstream we can redefine the site and then we will also find a complete stationary system

    Mazel Tov. Regards to the child. Be careful of Leon's leg (help him). how do you fly

  527. Get correction:
    As far as Jill is concerned, her temperature clock will show that 8 seconds have passed and Jack's temperature clock will show 10, and at station number 1 6.4.

    This is a continuation of the previous comment that is awaiting approval.

  528. If you keep rambling, I'll make you a Technion student.

    Here's the question: Jack and Jill fly past each other. Jill puts on makeup, Geek does his hair, toothy smiles, the cameras are rattling, flash, action! The shared photo shows 0 on all 4 clocks: CZ Jack, Temp Jack, CZ Jill, Temp Jill.

    After some time, Jill meets another clock synchronized with Jack's system. Her clock shows 8 in the photo. What will the other watches look like in the photo?

    And on the other hand, what will the reverse shot look like, the one that takes pictures of Jack and his watches and Jill's car watches?

    I'm going to work. Snoozy is coming tonight and will be with us all weekend and Leon is also getting married on Sunday, so we should mainly focus on solving the cosmic and existential problems until Monday, when I fly to Israel.

  529. Israel Shapira,
    I was wrong about the lag of the clocks, and I think you might be wrong too. Let me try a new direction and tell me what you think.

    Let's go back to the example where Jack sits at station 2 and Jill flies towards him, and synchronizes with station 1, and we add temperature clocks at each station and in the spaceship.

    When Jill passes Station 2, Jill sees that her cesium watch reads 8 and Jack's cesium watch reads 10. Jill looks at her temperature watch and sees that it reads 10, but, she knows that her temperature watch has synchronized with the cesium watch Hers was 8 seconds ago, so for her every second of the temperature clock is equal to 0.8 seconds. Therefore she can say that her temperature clock shows 8 seconds, and so does Jack's clock, and also the temperature clock at station number 1. What is a clock? In total, a device that we will assume ticks every fixed period of time, and if you see that your device ticks every 0.8 seconds, then you take this into account when you want to know what time it is. That is, although Jack and Jill will agree on the physical image of the clock they will not agree on the time the clock represents.

    In the end, if we compare the spacecraft to station number 1 at the moment of the meeting between Jack and Jill, from Jack's point of view: the two clocks at station 1 show 10 and Jill's cesium clock shows 8 while the temperature shows 10. From Jill's point of view: The two clocks in her spaceship show 8 and so does the temperature clock in station 1, while the cesium clock shows 6.4.

    Maybe the whole problem stems from the fact that Jill can't really treat the temperature clock as if it shows that 10 seconds have passed, after all she could just as well have given up on the clock and just done the calculations we did and found out that Jack thinks 10 seconds have passed.

  530. If they show proper time, they are in sync
    Are you coming to the old city next week? Kola Cry, Morning Dogs, Blastic record (not in you)...

  531. Pasteur, Robert Dame.

    What about the clocks in the meeting of Jack and Jill? What will they see? Proper time Elek.

  532. 🙁 True. Explains a lot.

    The only absolute time we can rely on is derived from the progression of light through space. Light travels at a constant speed for any system. Havi says that no matter which system you check it with, you will always be able to get the correct time from it. Call it "Proper Time" or whatever name you like. It is absolute and does not depend on space.

  533. Did your Schneller pin fall on your head when you were little? Ah, that explains a lot.

    "The assumption of absolute time does not contradict the relative time of relativity, but the opposite" ??!? Did you check? Are we talking about the same relationship? Does Einstein know this?

    Unless you are talking about Meir's proper time, but that includes space coordinates if I remember correctly. This is not applicable in our case.

  534. Right! Impolite like me! Welcome back Meir 🙂

    Israel! Do you think I'm a watchmaker? Well, well, I dealt with it once. One of my uncles, A.H., once repaired the Schneller Tower clock, and one of the hands fell on me (the seconds hand, so to this day there is no seconds hand in the Schneller Tower clock. On occasion, when you are in Jerusalem, you will be able to prove it for yourself, and maybe that is what will save my reputation as a truth teller...). So I'm a bit of a watchmaker, right, but to explain how the passage of light from point to point always happens at the same speed, you don't need me. That's what Einstein is for.

    The assumption of absolute time does not contradict the relative time of relativity, but the opposite. Absolute time is measured using the only mechanism qualified to measure it. All other mechanisms measure time incorrectly.

    What problem did you raise? Too much walking in the rut, I lost it in one of the turns.

    Mary's son, James VI of Scotland, is James I of England. That is, the kingdom was united under a Scottish king. Our queen, Elisheva ['Sorry. There are letters that I am not always allowed to use], she is a direct descendant of him (ninth generation). And what a surprise: we only had one King of David, but the Scots had six of them.

  535. Meir, welcome back.

    The temp clock indeed "does not measure time differences between local events". It only measures the radiation temperature from both directions, and weights that into an absolute time output at that moment and point. The speed of the calculation is not relevant in my opinion, and to see this, let's assume that the difference between the CZ clocks reached not only 2 seconds but 2 years.

    We are now pulling a shiny new temp clock out of the box with a 4Ghz processor, (or even 4 million). According to the promise of the manufacturer, Rolex Universal, this watch automatically adjusts to the absolute universal time, like our cell phone adjusts to the terrestrial time.

    What time will the clock be set to and what will be the difference between it and the CZ clock next to it, the one that is now showing a lag of two years relative to the CZ clock that passes by in the locomotive opposite? 2 seconds? 2 years? And if we now pull out a temp clock in the locomotive opposite, how would it know that it should automatically adjust and show a time two years later than the temp clock in front of it?

    A difference of two years, I believe, is enough time to calculate everything even with a bead invoice.

    Mendel Tsbinji and Yuval.

    Can you describe to us that "clock that samples the local time at every point in the universe where it is located regardless of the speed at which it moves"?

    And doesn't this assumption of absolute time (on which my entire argument against the lengthening of time is based) contradict the relative time of relativity?

    And will we get a solution to the problem I raised?

    And will we get to see Mary's descendants lead again?

  536. ♫ Girlfriend, girlfriend! Wait, wait! ♪
    Don't you think that the discussion about the temperature clock is blown out of proportion? Look where you went! Blueshift and redshift that do not offset each other even though they occur simultaneously, the computer that translates temperature to time pulses at a variable rate. Don't you waste time (and it doesn't matter how you measure it)?
    I propose to bypass the temperature clock obstacle and simply assume the existence of a clock that samples the local time at each and every point in the universe where it is located regardless of the speed at which it moves. In my opinion, such an assumption is not completely baseless, since there is at least one clock mechanism that is not relativistically affected - and that is the light itself.

  537. I assume you were thinking of Loch Ness. It's a bit far. We only went around Loch Lomond (that's from the song).
    As we know, the Scots hate the English, and they have plenty of just reasons. Soon they will part, inshallah. But the reason that broke the camel's straw is not very famous. It happened about ten years ago. Until then Loch Ness was a monster. She didn't hurt anyone. Everyone loves her. It is not known what her real name is, but she was known in the world by the affectionate name Nessi. Nessie lived her life quietly and peacefully, attracting tourists from all over the world and making a good living for thousands of Scottish families. However, ten years ago some one who flaunts the feathers of a biologist decided to prove that she does not exist. He scanned the bottom of the lake with modern destructive tools and, ending the search without finding any signs of Nessi, declared to the world that Nessi is nothing but a myth and not only that it does not exist but that it has never existed in the past either. He did not rise to the Scots xinghua worthy of his name who will fight to the last drop of blood. They swallowed the insult and thousands of families lost their livelihood at once. The same researcher, Yamash, Draon will live on in his memory, is of course an Englishman.

  538. Israel,

    I think the solution is that the two temp clocks will not show the same time. If Jack has 10 o'clock on both clocks, then he will see that Jill has 8 o'clock on both clocks.

    The explanation is that, as far as Jack is concerned, Jill's temperature clock does not measure time differences between local events, but rather calculates what is the local temperature that a clock would measure. This calculation includes the sampling of the temperature differences (Doppler), the calculation of the temperature that was measured by a clock, adjusting the time from the bang according to the Friedman formula, etc. These are all processes that take time. The fast 4Ghz processor in Jill's temp clock is only running at 2.4Ghz from Jack's point of view. Therefore, from Jack's point of view, each tick of Jill's temperature clock (calculation cycle) is spread, from Jack's point of view, along a proportional path for the duration of the calculation (as short as it may be, but it still takes time). Therefore, just as for Jack, Jill's cesium clock does not make local time measurements and is therefore lagging behind proper time, so her temperature clock is also not making local time measurements and is therefore equally lagging.

    All of the above is symmetrically true of Jill's point of view regarding Jack's watches.

  539. jubilee

    Regarding your comment about the accuracy: let's say that the level of accuracy of temp clocks is less than that of clocks due to nuances of relativistic quantum tunneling and can even reach a full second per million years!!

    So what?

  540. deer

    Although it is not critical to the discussion, it is desirable that we synchronize what we mean by "retarded". If two clocks are synchronized to time 0, and in a late measurement clock A shows a time of 10 hours and clock B 8 hours, then clock B lags behind clock A.

    Because in our example when the locomotives of Jack and Jill meet, Jack's time clock shows 10, so his temp clock also shows 10 (they always show the same time because they are both stationary relative to radiation) and because the temp clocks at the time of the meeting They show the same time, so Jill's temp clock also shows 10 while her hr clock shows 8, then it is correct to say that the hr clock is the one that lags behind the temp, isn't it?

    A second point, and it is critical to the discussion, is that in each and every car of Jill's train, from the moment the temp and hr clocks were calibrated to the same time, any later photo of the 2 clocks in the same car in each of Jill's cars will always show the hr clocks As laggards, and it doesn't matter in which direction relative to the radiation, Jill travels, forward, west, north or backward, up or down. As long as it is in motion relative to the radiation - its C.H. clocks will lag relative to the temp.

    (In the enclosed article - it doesn't matter even if they speed up, as long as they are consistent in their deviation, but this assumption can lead us to a paradox: the time on the temp clocks cannot exceed that of the age of the universe. If they lag behind, theoretically the time on the clocks can reach thousands of billions of years).

    Regarding your words "that the two viewers will agree on photographs from the other cars, but not on the time when the photographs were taken." According to the cameras that show the same shot from the two cars passing each other, they always agree on 3 clocks: the 2 temp clocks that always show the same time, and Jack's cc clock that always shows the same time as the temp clock.

    The problem is the fourth clock in each session, the clock at Jill's. According to relativity, when Jack driving the locomotive meets later cars on Jill's train, his clock will lag relative to her clocks (because of symmetry, this is what happens to Jill's clock). However, if his time clock lags behind, then the temp clocks also lag behind, and this is contrary to our previous insight.

    Note that if we reverse the generator and say that the temp clocks are the ones that always fall behind, then we will encounter a problem in the other direction with Jill in the role of Jack (symmetry).

    So what is the origin?

  541. And also asked her what level of accuracy she thinks can be reached: seconds, hours, years, jubilees... In Loch Ness they are not talking to you about less than a millennium.

  542. Please don't feed the monsters in Loch, certainly not the guests, and ask the monster what parameters are being ignored, and does Friedman know it.

  548. Until the trial of the field of the awaiting trial ends:

    1. Do you accept that it is even possible to build a temp watch?

    2. Do you accept that two such watches at the same point and moment will show the same time, regardless of their relative speed?

    3. Do you accept that a clock calibrated to the same time as the temperature clock next to it can later show a time earlier than the temperature clock (due to the lengthening of time), but not a later time?

  549. Attempt to rescue the hostages:
    I understand that you are actually looking for the clock in the news, the one that measures the correct and accurate time in every system. You are currently examining the differences between an accurate but non-relativistic clock (cesium, aluminum, etc.) and a clock that is currently not accurate but is also not affected by the speed of its movement in space (temperature). I will share with you for a moment the assumption that the CMBR temperature is indeed a measure of time and also that it is possible for a thermometer to exist whose accuracy is so great that the quanta of the temperature changes it measures are characterized by the small time units that the opaque clocks are able to measure.
    Have I understood correctly so far?

  551. Let's leave poor grammars. I understand that you are actually looking for the ultimate clock, the one that measures the correct and accurate time in any system. You are currently examining the differences between an accurate but non-relativistic clock (cesium, aluminum, etc.) and a clock that is currently not accurate but is also not affected by the speed of its movement in space (temperature). I will share with you for a moment the assumption that the CMBR temperature is indeed an indication of time and also that it is possible for a thermometer to exist whose accuracy is so great that the quanta of the temperature changes it measures are characterized by the small units of time that the sealed clocks are able to measure.
    Have I understood correctly so far?

  552. Do you mean the sync issue? This was discussed in Einstein's original paper and in fact the dilation of time and all other relativity derive from it.

  553. Thank you very much for both the warm welcome and the cold shower.

    As long as we are within the mainstream it is very likely (although not completely 100%) that at least one of the conclusions is wrong. Since for now I am exempt from bringing my model I will use the right of silence.

    Regarding the problematic nature of the temporal situation: it is not clear to me why the claim is heard that the clocks are not coordinated at a certain moment if we know that at a previous moment they were indeed coordinated. The fact that one time they show the same reading and another time their reading is different but can be calculated according to a formula, does not mean that they are uncorrelated.

  554. Great, so you're back from Edinburgh. Until Zvi returns as well, have you understood the problematic nature of the temporary situations? Or maybe you will finally explain what local solution you have for quantum entanglement, including for the aspect experiment as demonstrated by Nick Herbert?

    http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

  555. Here, in Scotland, a skirt is considered mainstream as long as there is nothing underneath. The anger of the flutes is also somehow tolerated, despite the shrill sounds.
    So what is your question actually?

  556. Israel Shapira,

    1. Jill's Bacter temperature clock will lag behind the cesium clocks. What happens in the other cars will depend on who you ask. It is important for me to emphasize again that the two viewers will agree on photographs from the other cars, but not on the time when the photographs were taken.

    2. Yes.

  558. Israel! Do you need me to teach you to read newspapers?
    So the law of grief predicts. Big deal. First let the prophecy come true and only then will we jump off the bridge.
    It is true that the cosmic microwave background radiation was initially received with trumpets, but when the results came in from all over the world, the orchestras started to fake.
    We fought a lot about the Aspect experiment and the battle has not yet been decided. In general: if conclusions obtained in one place contradict conclusions obtained in another place, then someone messed up. You may say APR, I may say Bel, and the truth may be somewhere else.
    Now leaving Edinburgh. Perhaps returns at night with a skirt and a bag of flutes.

  559. As usual, I flow with you in everything, except for the marginal details here:

    1. Non-locality. According to Bell's inequality, aspect experiments.

    2. Agile galaxies. See

    http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3114432,00.html

    3. Disconfirmation of the Big Bang theory by the CMBR. In fact, the discovery of the CMBR is considered the most serious confirmation of the big bang theory, which predicted the radiation even before it was discovered by chance, and in almost complete agreement with the observed spectrum.

    I agree with you on one thing: if cosmic radiation is not useful for measuring time, and if this time is not absolute at every point in the universe, then Einstein is right about the relativity of time and the big bang theory faces a serious challenge.

  560. Obviously. After all, that's what the cauldron was boiling over here. A fact you understood 🙂
    And as of right now, I don't know about galaxies traveling at a higher speed than light, nor about other bizarre phenomena that you point to.
    The CMBR reaches us at the same temperature from any distance in the range between zero and 14 billion light years (and from any direction), this indicates with a high probability that there has been no cooling for a very long time. Therefore, it is probably not a confirmation for the Big Bang hypothesis and is not useful for measuring time anyway.

  562. waiting Let's try to sneak:

    deer.

    Ok. Let's now take the statement "in such a case that it is the poor temperature that will lag behind, and not the cesium".

    1. Does this also apply to temperature watches that include a doppler meter and a computer?

    2. Do you accept that temperature clocks that include a doppler meter and a computer will always show the same time when they pass each other regardless of their speed relative to radiation?

  563. deer.

    Ok. Let's now take the statement "in such a case that it is the poor temperature that will lag behind, and not the cesium".

    1. Does this also apply to temperature watches that include a doppler meter and a computer?

    2. Do you accept that temperature clocks that include a doppler meter and a computer will always show the same time when they pass each other regardless of their speed relative to radiation?

    jubilee.

    Quantum entanglement is laboratory work. Did you perhaps mean non-locality?

  564. b) I will explain. I will definitely explain. I will explain every detail - when we agree to go beyond the rut
    a) In the meantime, you are welcome to collect examples that require an explanation (shall we start with quantum [dis]entanglement? 😛 )

  566. deer.

    Ok, so we agreed. And also the prime in all the following cars where the locomotives meet the cars. A photo from system A will show the same time as a photo from system B. agreed upon?

  567. jubilee.

    Not only does the radiation advance at a speed that surpasses MHA, entire galaxies do so on their suns, planets, moons, comets and zebras. And yet there is no contradiction to relativity here and no Lucy was hallucinating in the sky with her diamonds. did you explain

  568. The frame from Jill's shot must show the same thing. That is 10 in Jack's time and 8 in hers.

  569. deer

    The photographs show a clear picture, I believe there is no dispute about that. We have no practical way of knowing what the time is on clocks that are synchronized but are not in immediate proximity to the camera. Let's see what happens with the attached watches, and see what the assumption that "Jack would claim that the photo was taken the moment Jill and he met, while Jill would claim that the photo was taken after they met" can lead us.

    Let's take our original example. Jill passes Jack at a breakneck speed of 0.6C. We will reduce the entire clock and camera device to the size of a millimeter, and say that in the fraction of a second that the devices pass each other, the cameras are activated, or perhaps it is better a video that takes pictures all the time and we examine the frame in which the 2 clocks on the ships appear.

    What will the frame from Jack's ship show? I claim: Jack 10 watch, Jill 8.

    What do you think the frame from the shot from Jill's ship will look like? Is 8 Jack and 10 Jill? (an answer I often get and I do not agree with it at all).

    Something else? If so what?

    Because one thing is certain: we will have photographs, and they will be unequivocal.

  570. Israel Shapira,

    I still have a problem with the cameras thing. I agree that the cameras would be able to photograph the four clocks, and that both Jack and Jill would agree that at the time the photograph was taken the four clocks showed what the photograph showed. I claim that they will not agree on the time when the photo was taken in relation to the synchronized clocks.

    In the previous example, if Jack had set up a camera at a station and photographed the clock at one station when it showed 10 seconds passed, Gil would of course agree that the photo was real, however, Jack would claim that the photo was taken the moment he and Jill met, while J Yell would claim that the photo was taken after they met.

    In our situation, Jack and Jill will have a lot of photos of four watches, but for each of them, the photos were taken at different times in a way that will allow both of them to claim that they are right without reaching a contradiction.

  571. Beautiful. Probably really every point, therefore at every point the diversions will balance each other.
    I only knew Pocho through "Haaretz Nenu". My kibbutznik romance only started when I was in the army.
    The mystery is that this radiation is the same (or almost the same - up to a tenth of a degree) from every direction and from every distance. Therefore, it seems to be moving at a speed that exceeds the speed of light (or other magical explanations). In any case, its ability to serve as a measure of the Big Bang is questionable.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%93+%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%AA&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:he:official&client=firefox-a

  573. every point

    And he said: "Give me a fulcrum and I will determine the speed of the land Eureka".

  574. We certainly can, but this is provided that there is a point from which the radiation emanates.
    Was it Archimedes who said "Give me a focal point and I will determine the speed of the earth relative to it"?

  575. and..? Why can't we, for example, from measuring the red and blue deviation, what is our speed relative to the radiation and what is the temperature at the point where we are of a stationary system? Isn't that what we're talking about?

  577. Thanks for the explanation. I understand the role of Doppler in devices that measure speed. It is also clear to me that movement relative tosource of radiation What causes the color in which the radiation is seen. But in this case we know nothing about the origin of the radiation. We hypothesize that it is the product of a one-time event, the "Big Bang", but even if we agree that this event did occur, we do not have a single spatial point to which we can refer as a focal point. In fact, the accepted claim is that the Big Bang occurred throughout the universe (which at that moment was smaller than a pinhead) and is still occurring throughout the universe, and it spreads in all directions without us being able to determine a center for it. Therefore, the radiation is everywhere, in every direction and at the same temperature.

  578. deer

    The issue of high-resolution cameras is so critical to the discussion that it might be worth dwelling on it a bit.

    The accepted version of relativity on the lengthening of time is that "each system sees the other's clocks as ticking slower". In our example, Jack sees the time as 10 and Jill as 8, but Jill "knows" that the time on the first clock that passed by is 6.4.

    Since there is no theoretical or practical way to verify this, I suggested the issue of high-resolution cameras: they only record what is in front of them and at a very small distance (a millimeter, for example). If you remember from the example of the cars on the road, when the car passes the clock on the road, the camera captures the 4 clocks: time on the road, temp on the road, time in the car and temp in the car, and this even though the car stays only a fraction of a second near the road clocks. It is still possible, theoretically and practically, to make all 4 watches be at a negligible distance from each other and from the camera, despite the car's enormous speed. The high resolution ensures that we get a clear image despite the speed.

    My claim is that the two photographs of all 4 clocks, the photograph from the road and the photograph from the car, which were taken in the split second that the car (or the locomotive) passed by the other clocks and were activated by a proximity switch for example, will show the same time on each clock as the photograph from the road or the car opposite shows. Because of the zero distance between the cameras and the clocks, the gap you talked about in the telescope example is also zero. Therefore, it cannot be said that every system considers the second clocks to be slower in this specific case (an answer I received many times, although I believe I managed to convince that it is not correct), but both sides agree on the time in clocks that pass each other, and we even have photographs to confirm this . (Jill and Jack, for example, agree that at the time of their meeting, his watch shows 10 and his watch shows 8, neither of them claims the opposite).

    If we agree on this point, we can proceed.

    jubilee.

    When you are at rest relative to the radiation, you will theoretically measure the same spectrum in each direction. If, on the other hand, you are moving (such as DHA moving at a speed of about 600 km/s towards the constellation Leo), you will measure a spectrum deflected to the blue in the direction of the movement and to the red against the direction of the movement. Doppler.

    A temperature clock that passes quickly at a certain point (for example near an identical clock that is stationary relative to radiation), will measure different spectra than the stationary clock. However, a simple calculation that processes the data of the 2 spectra (and for that the computer) will be able to show him which spectrum he would have measured if he was at rest, which was the same as the spectrum of the stationary clock, and from which he deduces the temperature, Friedman, and here we have the same time in the number of seconds that have passed since the Big Bang on both clocks .

  579. Israel, sorry for the next dumb question
    I did not understand what a doppler meter does in the temperature clock. If the clock is based on Friedman, then it only shows the local temperature (translated into units of time). The Doppler is only relevant if the temperature is radiating from a point whose location is known, but this is not the case with the CMBR.
    What did I miss?

  580. The lengthening of times means that the time you will measure will always be longer than the self-time. When Jack measured Jill's own time he got a 10 when she got an 8, that's the elongation. Therefore Jill's temperature clocks will lag behind the cesium clocks. The cesium clock is synchronized with Jack's own clock and therefore basically shows how much time has passed for Jack from Jill's point of view, this time will be longer than Jack's own time, which is shown by the temperature clock. So far I'm only talking about the locomotive.

    Regarding the Kelvin thermometer, I think the answer you received refers only to the deflection to the blue in the direction of movement and not to the deflection of all radiation. This means that both observers will measure the same temperature. This does not mean that the temperature inside the trains will be the same, only that the measurement of the radiation taking into account the Doppler effect will bring the same temperature.

    I didn't understand the camera thing. After all, it will take time for the photos to reach Jack and Jill and you have to take that into account as well. The previous example also talked about this only that instead of photographs Jill and Jack had a telescope and even then there was no contradiction. The point is that Jack and Jill only sit in the engine and not in all the carriages, so they don't have to agree on what goes on in the other carriages. In the previous example Jack claimed that on the clock at station 1 the time was 10 and at the same time Jill claimed that the time was 6.4. Photographing the station will not help because the question arises when to photograph it? From Jack's point of view, the clocks are ticking simultaneously at the same rate, from Jill's point of view, on the other hand, the clock at station 1 lags behind the clock at station 2 and ticks more slowly. So even if Jack brings a photo of the clock from Station 1 showing that 10 seconds have passed Jill will not agree that this photo depicts what happened while she met Jack.

    Unfortunately I can't help you with the radio signals.

  581. deer

    Temperature watches are built from a radiation meter, a doppler meter and a computer.

    The assumption is that no matter what the speed of such a clock is relative to the radiation, its output will always be one: the time in seconds that has passed since the big bang, if the clock was at rest relative to the radiation at the point of measurement.

    If this thing is theoretically possible, it turns out that two such clocks that pass each other will always show the same time.

    If you don't find a flaw in the argument so far, and since as far as I know there is no "shortening of time" (?) but only lengthening of time (could temp clocks theoretically show more time than the time that has passed since the bang? For example 30 billion years?) then the CZ clocks Can only show time equal to the temp clocks like Jack's clocks, or less time like Jill's clocks.

    Apart from that, I still haven't received a clear answer about the matter of measuring the temperature with a simple Kelvin thermometer. It is clear that if, contrary to the answer I received in the English quote, two gauges at the same point will measure the exact same temperature regardless of their speed, it is possible to waive the Doppler issue altogether.

    Am I wrong?

    In connection with the fact that they are both sitting in locomotives, you can see that when such a locomotive passes by 10 consecutive wagons with clocks, with each new wagon the gap will increase and increase between the times. When you write "even though Jill agreed that her watch showed 8 and Jack's watch showed 10 there was no contradiction because for Jill the original watch showed 6.4 and not 10", I believe it is not what she sees but what she knows based on her knowledge of relativity. That's why I added the cameras, to avoid disagreements. And the photographs will show (I believe) that the gap between the locomotive's clock and the cars is increasing by two seconds in each car, and this is for both Geek and Jill, or at least that's what relativity claims.

    I'm going to bed now (3am in LA). I have another technical question that you might be able to help me with:

    How can I measure the arrival time of a radio signal with as high an accuracy as possible, preferably picoseconds? Are there timers that do this? Computer Program? Oscilloscope?

    Good night and thank you for your investment.

  582. What correspondence? This is an apparent contradiction in the lengthening of time in relationships, about which you wrote to me "your assumptions are fundamentally wrong" and also "you are just playing with numbers without understanding where they come from". Isn't that the issue? Because if so and you don't know him, where did you get the sayings today?

    Just, I already know you too well. Let me know if you are interested in an explanation of the problem. It is true that we only discussed it for two months with R.H.

  583. Yes, Israel. I vaguely remember that you once told about some correspondence you had. please update.
    and ok For your sake I will not deviate from the rut (unless...)

  584. deer

    I am still waiting for the parole of the response.

    I went through the Doppler link. As far as I understand, it is not about the lengthening of time in clocks or any other physical object, but of the electromagnetic waves themselves.

    jubilee. If you are interested in getting to know the subject, let me know.

    Warning: We are not dealing here with any "alternative physics", or any explanation that goes beyond the limits of accepted and established knowledge. We may get to that in the future, but right now I'm only interested in an explanation of the problem I presented from the so-called "mainstream".

  586. The diversion to blue in question will be in the direction of traffic, in the opposite direction there will be a diversion to red. From here it is possible to know whether you are in motion in relation to the cosmic radiation or not. Jill will have to account for the Doppler effect or she will measure two completely different temperatures in each direction.

    When we talked about Jill's temperature watches I started from the assumption that Jill takes into account the deviations and calculates the temperature that Jack calculated.

    In such a case it is the temperature clocks that will lag, not the cesium. The temperature clocks will show Jack's own time, which is always shorter, and therefore will see that less time has passed than the cesium clocks.

    Regarding the picture of the four watches. First of all, it is established that both Jill and Jack are sitting in the locomotive, and when the locomotives meet all four clocks are synchronized. In that case, there would be symmetry between the cesium clocks. That is, in the following cars, Jack will see Jill's cesium watches lag behind his watches, and Jill will see Jack's watches lag behind hers. It has to be that way for symmetry reasons.

    How does that fit with what you wrote? Remember that in the link you sent me in chemotherapy when Jill and Jack compared their watches they did not compare the watches they were seeing but the original synchronized watches, so even though Jill agreed that her watch showed 8 and Jack's watch showed 10 there was no contradiction because in terms of Jill's original clock showed 6.4 and not 10. This means that in our case Jack and Jill will have to compare their clocks with the clock on the second train with which they synchronized and not with the clock they see in front of them.

    You can do the calculations and make sure that this is indeed the case. Besides that, you can imagine another temperature clock, only this time it shows Jill's own time and not Jack's, add this clock to all the cars and you will get a completely symmetrical system. I don't see how such a situation can lead us to a contradiction.

  587. Thank you Israel,
    I am not familiar with all your correspondence with that person who sounds like he understands the matter, but on the surface it seems to me that he was wrong when they said "Traveling fast will indeed blue shift the CMB and raise it's temperature, and that will heat your ship. In principle if you travel fast enough the blue shifted CMB would vaporise your spaceship"
    This, in my opinion, is because the medium that conducts the light is not the same as the medium that conducts the sound and the phenomenon of the supersonic boom has no supersonic boom equivalent [not only a boom but also intermediate densities]. The color (frequency) in which the radiation appears to the eye of the observer is a consequence of the Doppler effect and can be used as a measure of relative speed but does not reflect the temperature of the measured radiation.
    I judge only based on this one sentence, and probably other things can shed new light.

  588. Yuval, can we ask you not to bother Zvi at the moment, even so the subject is quite confusing. I can explain the matter to you later. Thanks.

  589. Thanks Zvi.

    Regarding the radiation, here is an answer I received not long ago from a person who sounds like he understands the matter:

    Re question 2: Traveling fast will indeed blue shift the CMB and raise it's temperature, and that will heat your ship. In principle if you travel fast enough the blue shifted CMB would vaporize your spaceship

    Since I do not have sufficient knowledge on the subject (and would be very happy about references or detail in the context of movement speed and cosmic background radiation), I accept these things as they are at this point.

    trains. We have reached a situation where in every car of Jack's train (relative to radiation) the temp and hr clocks always show the same time. agreed upon?

    On the other hand, in Jill's train, the temperature clocks are always lagging behind the temperature clocks, and this in every car. agreed upon?

    Taking a picture of 2 temp clocks at the same point, on the other hand, will always show the same time on both. agreed upon?

    And here's the problem:

    From Jack Train's point of view, Jill's clocks are moving slower. Therefore, every time a car from its train passes by a car from its train, a joint photo of all 4 watches will show the following image:

    A Temp Jack clock shows the same time as a CG Jack clock and also the same time as a CG Jill clock, but a CG Jill clock lags behind.

    So far everything is fine and fits with the relativity claim.

    The problem arises when we look at what is happening from the point of view of Jill's train.

    The temperature clocks on the 2 trains show the same time, which is also the time of Jack's clock.

    Jill's time clock lags as always compared to her temp clock, therefore compared to Jack's time clock, therefore compared to Jack's time clock.

    It therefore follows that from the two points of view, that of Jack's train and that of Jill's train, Jill's clocks lag behind Jack's clocks.

    And this is in contrast to the symmetry we agreed on before and which relativity speaks of, that each system will see the other's clocks as slower.

    Do you see the problem?

    Yuval - not raped. In fact, you weren't even invited. (OK, hereby accept an official invitation). In general, it's always good to keep up to date with the details and study a subject before making informed judgments as you did in a privatized space.

  590. Hello Zvi,
    I was raped by Israel to join the Hinga. I guess to refresh myself on the details I have to go through the whole long thread. Would it be possible to spare me an exhausting journey and provide a summary of the sequence of events?
    Israel simplistically rules that I have no green idea what it is about and sends me to wander around science. Although a walk in the fresh air wouldn't hurt me, it seems to me that it would also be useful for you to take a break for an interim summary.
    Thanks in advance

  591. Sorry for taking so long to answer.

    If Jack's train is at rest with respect to the radiation then there will be no gap between the atomic clock and the temperature clock.

    With Jill, there will be a gap. It is not clear to me why she would measure radiation from an earlier time, could you elaborate? The way I see it after accounting for the doppler effect Jill will see the same radiation that Jack sees, and therefore the same temperature.

    Regarding the Kelvin thermometer, it depends on where you measure. In laboratories, physicists have reached lower temperatures.

    2.7 is the average temperature of the universe, and in the beginning the universe was hotter.

  592. OK, in space. Let's go back to the Jack and Jill train systems. Jack's train is said to be at rest with respect to radiation. From the moment the time clocks on his train were synchronized and calibrated to the same time as the temperature clocks, will there be a gap between the temperature and time clocks after 1000 years?

    And what about Jill's train moving at a speed of 0.6C relative to Jack's train and therefore also relative to radiation? There I assume that there will be a gap between the clocks (?). If since the train is measuring radiation from a much earlier time relative to Jack's train that has passed since the big bang the train will heat up?

    And on the question of the temperature of the universe: what temperature will we measure with a simple Kelvin thermometer? Down from 2.7C?

    What does the concept "the universe was hot in the beginning" mean? Isn't it meant simply, very hot, or just a measurement of a black body spectrum showing a temperature like we measure the temperature of distant stars by millions of degrees while we ourselves are freezing cold?

  593. Not on earth. The solar system is in motion relative to the CMB, so we too will see a difference between the clocks 1000 years later.

    The temperature is measured by cosmic radiation. The radiation spectrum has a maximum at a certain wavelength, and to this frequency corresponds a temperature according to black body radiation.

    A body that is in motion relative to the cosmic radiation will see that the temperature of the radiation is higher in the direction of movement and lower in the opposite direction, this is because of the Doppler effect. The higher the speed, the greater the change. This is actually how you can determine if you are in motion in relation to the radiation without any watch.

  595. Until my father releases the pent-up response:

    It is said that we will put a temp clock next to a cesium clock in an inertial system and synchronize them to the same time. Will they continue to show the same time even in 1000 years?

  597. Beautiful. Now let's say we put a temp clock next to a cesium clock in an inertial system and synchronize them to the same time. Will they continue to show the same time even in 1000 years?

    Other questions that I have never been able to get satisfactory answers to if you are knowledgeable about the subject:

    1. If we measure the temperature of the universe in the shade with a simple Kelvin thermometer, what will it show? Can it show a temperature below 2.7K?

    2. It is said that a spaceship passes through the solar system at a speed of 0.999C. What temperature will it measure? very hot Will the ship heat up? After all, in her system she is at rest.

    Thanks and sorry for the flood of questions.

  598. 1. Theoretically it is possible to build such a temp clock, but theoretically it is also possible to build a temp clock that will show the self-time of a system moving at a certain speed relative to the CMB, simply by adding a correction to the formula.

    2. I agree that two such clocks passing each other will show the same time, because they measure the self-time of a certain system and this time does not change.

    What is important to remember is that the time shown by this clock does not describe the intrinsic time of the system in which it is located.

  599. deer

    In the systems discussed in our example, there is no "twin that went on a journey in space and came back younger than the twin that stayed on Earth". In the example of trains, these are two inertial systems that never turn back. Despite this, relativity claims that each system will see its other's time pass more slowly.

    In the article you read and in others, I suggested building a "temperature clock" that, by measuring the temperature of space and using a computer that would weight the Doppler with the Friedman formula, would give us the absolute time that has passed since the Big Bang with any precision we want, even picoseconds.

    1. Do you accept that it is theoretically possible to build such a temp clock?

    2. Do you agree that two such watches passing each other will show the same time on both and we can see this in a joint photograph of both?

    See also

    http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/164

  600. Israel Shapira,

    The "natural clock" that measures time by temperature shows the self-time of a system at rest relative to the CMB. In systems that are in motion relative to the rest system of the CMB, the "natural clock" will not describe the self-time of the system in motion.

    A twin who went on a journey in space and returned would be younger than a twin who stayed on Earth, so each could claim that the journey took a different time. It is true that the twin that went into space knew that it was in motion relative to the CMB, even if it had looked from the spacecraft it would have seen that it was in motion relative to the stars, but that does not prevent its internal clock from ticking at a different rate than the twin that remained on Earth.

  601. But light takes time to travel from spacecraft A to B, and this is where all the lengthening of time comes from: the assumption that the speed of light is the same in every frame of reference. So since speed is distance divided by time, and speed, the speed of light, is constant, distance and time vary.

    After all, if a spacecraft is a meter away from you and you see the clock in it, what is the meaning of the statement: "If you measure from spacecraft A what happens in spacecraft B, then you get a different result compared to the measurements obtained when you measure from spacecraft B what happens in spacecraft B."? You will get the exact same result.

  602. The measurement method is not important.
    It is possible by means of scintillation in a beam of light (laser?).

  603. How do you measure, technically, from spacecraft A what happens in spacecraft B?

  604. The lengthening of times is only when measuring from system A what happens in system B. That is, if you measure from spacecraft A what happens in spacecraft B, then you get a different result compared to the measurements obtained when you measure from spacecraft B what happens in spacecraft B.

    In order to get what was measured in the spacecraft in (the self system). You need to perform a translation (transformation).

    Clock C is in a common reference system for all three points. That is, each system has to translate its measurements (transformation) to the system in which clock C is located. This system is the self-system of all three points before they separated from each other and also after they come back together.

  605. And what about the lengthening of time in relationships as a result of movement? And what exactly is the C clock related to?

  606. Israel Shapira:
    These are accurate watches. Not in a hurry and not behind.
    It is about the flow of time and not about an incorrect measurement system.
    Even a rush clock gives the exact time provided you know how fast it is and then translate to the exact time.
    The time rate is independent of the clock rate.
    The watch is just a tool.
    We are talking about an accurate clock!

  607. Take 3 watches. A and C are normal, B is in a bit of a hurry. See that you will not be able to achieve synchronization during the fusion between A and B, no matter what C does.

    Take 3 normal watches, synchronize them and then fly B around KDA (the famous airplane experiment, ask R.H. if you don't know). Here, too, you will find that B lags behind during the coalescence, both relative to A and relative to C. No?

  608. If you schedule all the clocks at the time of the first coalescence. (set all clocks to the exact same time). So at the time of the second merger all the clocks will show exactly the same time.

    There can be no gap.
    If all the systems timed the clocks in the first convergence then in the second convergence all the systems must be timed. (All clocks show the same time).
    The second coalescence can be a minute after the first coalescence. or an hour later. or a year later. That is, at some unknown time after the first coalescence.
    Because the clocks must be timed whenever the coalescence occurs. And because the merger can happen at any time. It is impossible to have been created once between the clocks.

    reminder:
    These are two systems that are symmetrical with respect to a third system.
    And since we did not predetermine the location of the systems and the direction of their movement, they can be at any point in space. And in any movement at any constant speed and in any direction. They can even have any acceleration (provided that the acceleration is also symmetrical with respect to the third point).

  609. So what? Why do they have to show the same time on their watches? What if A and B started with a different time, or did they start with the same time and a gap was created due to the lengthening of the times in accelerated motion? How is C related to the matter at all?

  610. The time difference between the first coalescence and the second coalescence is the same in all three systems.

  611. ב
    If I understood you correctly, you claim that when A and B merge they must show the same time on their watches? Why? It's enough that we take 2 cars with clocks set to different times and they will meet to contradict it, right?

  612. I actually do agree with the things you bring up, since they are mainstream, and who am I to argue? But among the peyote frills I hoped to find new melodies.

  613. It's fine, I also always read what you write - agree with what is written or not (no!).

    I even liked the dialogue with the Creator.

    Come on, overlap, close the matter. which does not sound like the rooster and the cuckoo praising each other in their broken song.

    Why is it so brilliant?

    Koko's praises for Kokoriko?

    For the same legal reason

    Because he praised the cuckoo.

  615. Entropy, order and the axis of numbers.

    In the ongoing struggle between the supporters of the theory of evolution and the followers of divine creation, the creationists put forward the following argument: the second law of thermodynamics rules out the decrease of entropy in a closed system. How then could life arise spontaneously and even continue to develop greater complexity over time?
    One of the answers to this question is the claim that the system in which life develops is not closed, and the organism "draws order" from the environment. (See Schrödinger's book: "What is life?").
    But what about the increase in order in a closed system? How, for example, does a chick hatch from an egg, which is a closed system with a shell, containing only protein and yolk? And doesn't this constitute a contradiction to the second law and indicates divine intervention?
    Even the spontaneous formation of snowflakes with the diversity of their hexagonal shapes (see picture) puts the second law to a severe test.
    The axis of numbers in our story provides a similar argument: if we use a finite amount of different numbers, (a closed system) and arrange them in a sequential but random way (...7, 43, 2, 65, 1, 97, .... ) for example, we will not get any orderly pattern , which allows us, for example, to predict properties of later numbers in the series based on the properties of earlier numbers.
    On the other hand, if we provide the numbers with a very basic order, and arrange them sequentially from the smallest to the largest (...1,2,3,4,5 the series of numbers are numerous.) we will get a greater order ("perfect numbers" for example) and we can predict, for example, that if a certain number It is "perfect" - meaning that the sum of its parts is equal to the number itself - then the number will also meet a series of new and stricter requirements as detailed in the professor's description of the properties of perfect numbers, properties that will not exist in a random series.
    How does this happen? After all, the number 1 did not appear before 1000000. The professor is trying to show here the hand of God in this phenomenon, which goes against the second law of thermodynamics which forbids an increase in the level of order in a closed system.
    By the way, a reader interested in this phenomenon of the formation of order from nothing, can refer to Longfellow's article in Galileo 73 that links the rise of order in a closed system (the universe) to the effects of gravity.

  616. "Let us examine the claim of the second law that mathematics requires increasing disorder" said the professor.
    He drew a straight line on the board from end to end, marked a point in the center of the line and wrote "0" above it.
    "Here, this is the number axis. It starts from minus infinity at the left end of the line I drew, passes through zero and ends at plus infinity, at the right end of the line. It can be compared to a certain extent to the timeline in nature, with infinity as the very distant future and minus infinity as the past. "
    In his speech, the professor marked ∞- on the left of the line and ∞ in the present day.
    "All numbers, large or small, whether whole or fractional, positive or negative, rational or irrational - can be entered in ascending order between minus infinity and infinity. It could be expected that such a simple arrangement would not lead to any particularly neat pattern - because what have we done after all? We put 1 at the beginning, followed by 2, 3, and so on."
    "If the claim of the second law were true, there would be increasing disorder as we progressed from zero towards infinity, and the quality of the mathematical relationships between the numbers would decrease, like in the case of the deck of cards. But here we are in for a pleasant surprise. From this completely simple order, a much more complex and interesting order is created. It turns out that there is no end to the cunning sophistication with which these seemingly simple numbers can be arranged. Take for example the phenomenon of perfect numbers. These are numbers whose sum of the numbers dividing them is exactly equal to the number itself. The number 6, for example, is divisible by 1, 2, and 3, and 6=1+2+3. The numbers 28, 496 and 8128 are also perfect numbers. And here, it turns out that all perfect numbers obey the rule discovered by Euclid: every perfect number is a multiple of two numbers, one of which is a power of 2 and the other is the next power of 2 minus 1. For example:
    6=2¹ x(2²-1)
    28=2² x(2³-1)
    496=24 x (25 -1)
    x(27 -1) 8128=26
    .
    . .
    . . .
    -2216090) =2216090 x (2216091 -1) 2432181 )

    This number is over 130,000 digits long! And he obeys Euclid!"
    "And that's not all. It also turns out that all perfect numbers are a series of consecutive numbers:
    6=1+2+3.
    28=1+2+3+4+5+6+7.
    496=1+2+3+4+5…+30+31.
    8,128=1+2+3+4+5…+126+127.

    The professor continued to write numbers on the board while the audience whistled in admiration.
    "We therefore see that even though we started with a minimal amount of order, the series of numbers is numerous, the order is increasing as we add more members to the series of perfect numbers. This is just one of many examples of order and perfection in the field of mathematics called number theory. There are many beautiful numbers - friendly numbers for example - these are pairs of numbers between which each number is equal to the sum of its partner's divisors. For example, the numbers 220 and 284, known as Romeo and Juliet, are friendly numbers, and are considered a symbol of friendship and love, because the parts of 220 are: 20,22,44,55 1,2,4,5,10,11, and 110, whose sum is 284 The divisors of 284 are 1,2,4,71, and 142 whose sum is 220. Do you feel a lack of harmony or any disorder in the world of numbers? ” the professor addressed the audience.
    The hall was plowed with applause and rhythmic chants: "Leibnovich! Leibnowitz!
    The professor slowly withdrew his voice and smiled graciously at the frozen law in his chair. "Do you want us to continue? We still have prime numbers, twin primes, trapped numbers…”
    "Give him the geometry!" St. the vengeful prosecutor.
    "Oh, yes, the geometry," the professor smiled and drew a triangle blocked by a circle on the board. "Note: when the angles of the triangle are completely random, the relationship between the sides of the triangle is also random. However, when one of the angles reaches 90 degrees -" the professor moved the chalk along the circumference of the circle, which caused the central angle in the triangle to increase steadily, "the phenomenon known to us from the Pythagorean theorem occurs: the sum of the squares of the opposite sides is equal to the square of the hypotenuse. 90 degrees is, completely coincidentally of course, an exact numerical ratio of 2/1 of the total sum of angles in a triangle and 4/1 of the total sum of angles in a circle. Where exactly is the disorder here? And here is another phenomenon from the field of geometry" he drew a sphere on the board while using perspective. "Or should we say: stereometry? Has it ever occurred to you, dear law, why nature, whose nature you claim is the increase of entropy, uses spherical symmetry so much even though it is the most perfect and orderly symmetry?"

    "Would you mind explaining to the court what spherical symmetry is?" The plaintiff was determined to use the advantage to the end.

    "Spherical symmetry is the only symmetry that allows us all to be "on top". The professor chuckled to himself, enjoying every moment. "A person standing on top of a mountain on Earth will see himself as taller than another person standing on top of another mountain of the same height, and this is because of the uniform curvature, at least theoretically, of the Earth's surface. The other person will see himself as higher and so on, with any required number of people.”
    "The shape of the sphere, which is considered the most perfect geometric shape, is the most common shape among the large celestial bodies, another example of order in an apparently disordered universe."

    "It is because of gravity, which causes bodies to have the smallest surface area, as in the case of soap bubbles.." Law began.

    "Oh! gravity!" exclaimed the professor excitedly "And what causes the perfect radial symmetry of gravity? How does it happen that the force of gravity is directly proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance, without a remainder and without an additional term in the equation of gravity?

    The law was silent.

  617. I read the entry on Wikipedia, but I admit that I did not understand what advantage LOF has over other mathematical methods. What I would like is: a precise explanation of what i is and who it is, and how it happens that the geometric functions can be transformed into algebraic ones. It seems to me that in the present case, dry formulas are preferable to admixtures.

    Many years ago I read a book called IMAGINARY TALE, but this book, as the name suggests, is - mainly a story. Whereas I want to understand what that imaginary number is and what it represents, just as we understand what a negative number is.

    The only intuition I have about it is the matter of potential - that if we divide it by itself we get 1 like with any other number, but if we multiply it by itself we get 1 - and this is in contrast to the other numbers. This is also why it may be perpendicular to the X-axis - it can fall to the right and become positive, or to the left and become negative.

  618. Y.S., we have all grown and grown. Who is YH compared to M.R. Yrom India?
    I can give the dry explanation in a moment (a bit long, maybe 30 lines) but the beautiful interweaving of words, which is necessary for him, can only be done by a poet like you.
    In the most general generality: everything stems from one simple object. We live in a reality that was created from the same bone and has gone through several incarnations. Although we have been trained to try to understand the world is mainly according to the reality we experience - for us we practice a lot of stepping on the spot - but we also recognize the existence of another, previous reality. As we learned to recognize the reality of the number i, we may be able to get to that simple object that is the basis of everything.
    I presented the world of physics as arising from negation acting on itself, and this according to the simple parable of a language containing only one word, "no", which applied to itself creates a new meaning, which we call "yes". However, in the list of truth values ​​known to us, there is no action whose application to itself creates a "no". Well, in the world of truth values ​​prior to the one in which we live there exists one corresponding to the number i. You can find about it, for example, in the book LAWS OF FORM (na Gegel). With a little maneuvering I showed how it is possible to present a three-dimensional space within a one-dimensional and unidirectional superspace. However, in order to convey his recognition to the public's awareness, dry language is not enough, but a wizard of words is needed.

  619. Thanks for the compliments, but my little one does the job. All I know about i is how to use it to calculate the trigonometric functions, although I have often wondered how this engine that drives the car really works. It takes someone of the caliber of Michael Rothschild to explain how exactly it works (maybe you can? It's very intriguing).

  620. Israel! You write so beautifully, why should I spoil it? Please continue on your own path to the root of the negation - the truth value applied to itself gives a negation just as multiplying i by itself gives minus one. The idea is very simple, but only a word wizard of your caliber deserves to be presented with mathematics and physics. Please show how he only flows time forward and how he shapes space in a three-dimensional form, and the blessing of the numerators and the numerators will be upon you

  621. As he sprawled in his chair, a glass of wine by his side and he was looking over a pile of newspapers dealing with the trial, the prosecutor allowed himself a small smile of satisfaction.
    From all corners of the country, from all shades of the rainbow of opinions and the various currents in the population, sharp-edged writers called out and rushed to defend their beliefs and ideas and throw catapults at each other. And as usual in such cases, even in his words about others, each one himself is a miracle. Soon the public debate spilled over and turned into a debate about the very validity and completeness of mathematics.

    "Court drama! The second law was compared to Satan!" - The main headline of "The Completeness of Mathematics" announced - "Professor Leibnovitz was able to prove that, contrary to the claim of the second law, the order in a mathematical system can increase when we add members to the system, and the entropy, as required, decrease."

    "Vanity and ill will! The math is far from perfect!" The feeling of the editor of "uncertainty". "Already in the 0s, Kurt Gadel showed that there are many theorems in mathematics that cannot be proven. Even the pinnacle of Newtonian mathematics, the infinitesimal calculus, rests on chicken's knees. What kind of completeness can one expect from a Torah whose cornerstone is the forbidden division by XNUMX? Release the law immediately, along with a letter of apology for the prosecution's ignorance."

    "insolent! contemptible! reckless!" The editor of "Our Father in Heaven" was enraged - "Isn't it enough that the promiscuous second law is mainly rebellious and apostate, he also enlists for his help the twisted theory of evolution? He must immediately fall on his face, reflect on his actions, and ask for the forgiveness of the Almighty!"

    "The second law is absolutely right and Leibnovitz is just confusing the mind" - the scientific commentator of "Epicurus" mildly explained. "Already Boltzmann in the nineteenth century showed that the reason for the second law is probabilistic - the thermodynamic system simply 'travels' between all possible states, and what can we do that there are many more states of disorder than ordered states? The professor's ridiculous claim to 'order' is like turning the spotlight on the individual winners of the lottery, and ignoring the many thousands who didn't even win a penny. Come on, Leibnovitz, get better."

    "Here we have a great leader in the person of Professor Leibnovitz" enthused the editor of "Principia Mathematica", "a far-sighted visionary who will renew Bertrand Russell's old quest to establish a perfect and flawless mathematical structure."

    All this was summed up by an anonymous person who quoted the high priest of number theory, Andre Weil: "God exists, because mathematics is consistent, and Satan exists, because we cannot prove it."

    The plaintiff poured himself another glass of wine and held it up in a gesture of silent congratulation.
    "Long live the scheming rabbi" he blessed himself in his heart. "Long live the great manipulator of the court walls. The various parties are blindly clashing with each other, just as my original plan envisioned. They don't know - and it's a good thing - that the results are predetermined, and all the cards in the deck are marked. Whoever has the power to determine the composition of the jury, like me, can deliver a verdict as he wishes."
    With a smug look, he began to look at the monthly that bore the name "Psychomechanics News" and felt how the blood in his veins slowly froze.

    "Until the nineteenth century" - wrote a man called "the man of psychomechanics" - many scientists tried to build a "perpetum mobile" - a machine fed by the energy it itself produces. This hope was shattered with the discovery of the law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics.
    The next step was the attempt to build a machine that produces energy directly from heat - by utilizing the heat energy stored in sea water for example. This hope was also shattered with the discovery of the second law of thermodynamics, which requires a reservoir of heat at a low temperature to produce work from the system, and rules out the possibility of an overall decrease in entropy.

    "We believe that similar laws apply to human systems, meaning that improvement in one system must cause deterioration in another system. The "second law of psychomechanics" - the law of increasing human entropy in closed psychomechanical systems - is the reason, in our opinion, for the destabilization of so many of the great scientists, who paid with their mental health and even their lives for the enormous contribution they made to humanity. Intellectual luminaries such as Boltzmann, Leibniz, Gedel, Hardy, Turing, Cantor, and even the mythical Descartes and Newton."

    The prosecutor continued to read frantically until he reached the paragraph that caused his heart to skip a beat and the glass to drop from his hand.

    "We believe that in the current trial for the second law of thermodynamics, the prosecution will not succeed in reaching a conviction, regardless of the quality of the evidence or the composition of the jury. The reason is that jurors, isolated in a room, constitute a closed psychomechanical system, and therefore any decision they make, whether acquittal or conviction, means reducing their own psychomechanical entropy. In-depth observation combined with psychomechanical analysis of the second law, as evidenced by his behavior and reactions in the trial, clearly indicate that the psychomechanical entropy of the second law of thermodynamics cannot be increased. Therefore, according to the second law of psychomechanics, the jurors were condemned to remain in a permanent state of inability to decide."

    Maybe the second law isn't so innocent after all, the prosecutor thought bitterly as he took his place in front of the stand waiting for the resumption of evidence and cross-examination.

    "Mmm.. what, what do you mean? What do you mean, what did we do this time?" The professor was pale and confused.
    "You, the scientists, the mathematicians, the physicists..."
    "we?!" exclaimed the professor with a fury that helped him regain his composure. "Don't try to reverse the creation! If you think you can make a mess in court like you do in life then you are in for a bitter surprise! I am not a soft-hearted Boltzmann, and mathematics, unlike physics, is not a close empirical science, but a completely perfect craft of thought that rests on solid theoretical foundations that cannot be challenged!"

    "Really..." the law passed skeptically.

    "really!" The Professor's tiara, all true to battle. "We are not a collection of observers like the physicists, who collect and collect as many observations as possible and try to fit them into a kind of hybrid theory that will loosely unite all the contradictory data in some dubious formula borrowed from mathematics, a formula that will change immediately when new data crackles the previous theory to pieces For the benefit of some new ephemeral scarecrow" the professor stopped for a breath and stole a glance at the audience, trying to gauge the impression left by his ranting words.

    "Oh, I see you don't have much respect for the realm of physics" accused the law.

    "And why would I bother? Every two days they have a new legend. Many generations have told us that the Earth is the center of the universe and presented complicated charts and tables to explain the movement of the celestial bodies around it, all so that reality would be subordinated to the creaking theory. Then, when the tensions increased, they invented a new story. This time they put the sun in the center, summoned a fresh hero, called him "gravitational force" and told the children that this force attracts all bodies to each other without any intermediary in between. They are still looking for the graviton that might help them convince themselves. One day they have a website, and the next a curved "space-time". The Torah stars are "Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics", but both are in conflict and do not speak to each other.

    "And with you there in the kingdom of mathematics the situation is better?" Provoked the law.

    "With us" the professor puffed out his chest proudly, "everything is quiet and stable as usual, boring even because of stability. We are a completely pure science, and there are no new observations that can cloud the theoretical completeness that has changed very little since Euclid wrote 'Fundamentals' in the third century BC. Since everything is built on simple and understandable axioms and proven theorems whose complexity is increasing, we can start with 'between two points only one straight line passes, which is also the shortest distance between them' and end with a complicated structure such as analytic geometry or the phenomenon of perfect numbers."
    The audience clapped.

    "This is exactly the difference between us and physics," the professor pointed his nose at Al. "Mathematics is perfect to infinity, as the Almighty is perfect to infinity, while physics is nothing more than a collection of approximations. No wonder you yourself, the father of the progenitors of the mess, was chosen as the basic law and the most representative of physics, as if to confirm the thesis that there is an upper limit to the scientific truth that can be achieved by physics.

    "And there is also an upper limit to the amount of nonsense that the ear is able to digest in a given period of time" muttered the law.

    "Did you mumble something?" hissed the professor.

    "Nothing, nothing," the law smiled flatteringly. "All of us here delight in the pearls of your tongue, Professor Leibnovitz." He pointed to the line of numbers the professor had drawn on the blackboard. "Tell me, please: how many special and perfect numbers are there between minus infinity and infinity?"
    "infinite!" replied the professor firmly.

    "And how many numbers are without any uniqueness?"

    "Also infinite" answered the professor in a weak voice.
    "And which infinity is greater?"

    "What kind of nonsense are you spouting, Law" intervened the prosecutor. "What does a greater infinity mean? Infinity is infinity, isn't it Professor?”
    The audience applauded, but the professor buried his face in the ground.

    "The prosecutor expects an answer from you" scolded the law.

    The professor raised his flushed face and muttered "The infinity of meaningless numbers is greater.."
    "Thank you for opening your heart. How much bigger?”

    "infinite…"

    And among all the great and wonderful laws of mathematics, among all the prime numbers, beautiful, perfect, Romeo and Juliet, lovely and pleasant, have you ever heard of the number 1995, the number also known by its name: "Rando"?

    The professor turned pale. "You..do you know Rando?" stammer

    "Acquaintance also acquaints" answered the law. "In fact, I even bothered and asked Marando to come and testify on behalf of the prosecution. He is standing here" he took out a pocket calculator and typed a few digits on it. "It will be a bit difficult because Rando's native language is binary, but I think we will manage. Isn't it, Rando?”
    "Certainly" answered Rando.

    "Don't tell him anything!" the professor squealed in frustration.

    "Keep to yourself" the law said to the professor in a scolding. "Believe me, it hurts me more than you. Undoubtedly, it is not particularly pleasant to expose in a parochial fashion one of the most obscure chapters of the kingdom of mathematics...perhaps the darkest chapter...the rebellion of the simple numbers under the brave leadership of Rando, the humble and random number of all numbers. Of course, it would be much simpler if you mathematicians would confess that you accused me in vain, reveal the whole truth about the shaky foundations on which the mathematical 'completeness' was built, admit that you were queen of privileged numbers and that you enslaved their righteous brothers, fall on your knees, beg for my forgiveness, and let me reveal the The forgiving sides of the merciful nature. If not, I will be forced to do a huka and I will be free from any idea of ​​the completeness of mathematics, which, as I have already mentioned, I do not like at all."

    The professor sensed, while the audience swallowed their saliva.

    "Well!" The law urged. "We can't wait for you a whole day. We still have a lot of work ahead of us!"

    The professor raised his chin in defiance, to prove that we would not give in to pressure.

    The second law addressed the audience: "Gentlemen, is anyone willing to reveal the truth?"

    "Me" answered a young man's voice from the crowd.
    "Thank you" said the law with relief. "Who are you young man and what is your name?"

    "Gedaliah" answered the guy. "And I'm a math student. I know very well the story of Rando, or in his full name: Ran-Dhua."

    "Tell me Gadel-Yahweh," the law addressed the young man in a fatherly tone. "Is mathematics really so perfect?"

    "Don't you dare to inform!" screamed the professor.

    But the guy approached the stand and continued to speak. "Surrender, Leibnowitz. Hiding the truth is not a path that a true mathematician would choose. The law is right. Mathematics, like physics, was built layer by layer through trial and error, was and still is a large collection of patches, and many of its fundamental theorems cannot be proven in depth at all."

    "Are you telling me?" Rando's voice was hollow and slightly digital. "I learned this the hard way. Until the mathematicians came along with all their privileged numbers, we were all equal friends, as Kroenker, a nineteenth-century mathematician, said: 'God created the whole numbers, everything else is the work of man.' Suddenly, classes were created, an aristocracy, young numbers were not allowed to play with their old friends but without reference... it reached a climax at a party in honor of the birth of the little i and his acceptance as a full member of the family of mathematics aristocracy.

    "Who is the cute little i?" Law asked dreamily.

    "The root of minus 1" answered Gedaliah. He came to give a solution to a quadratic equation of the type X²+1=0. There is no positive or negative number that can solve the equation, so this number was invented. At first it was treated with great skepticism, and even the great Descartes doubted its existence and mockingly called it an "imaginary number" or imaginary, hence the i.
    Whether they exist or not, imaginary numbers are extremely useful in various fields, especially in electrical engineering. For mathematics, the simulated numbers are especially valuable, because they allow the description of geometric functions by pure algebraic means."
    In his speech, Gedaliah drew on the board an axis perpendicular to the axis of numbers drawn by Leibnovitz earlier. "See? If we call this axis the "axis of imaginary numbers" it seems that we can define each point on the plane using only a pair of numbers: a real number, on the horizontal axis, and an imaginary number, on the vertical axis. Such a pair is called a "complex number." In fact, we have thereby created an alternative system to the usual Cartesian system based on a horizontal X-axis and a vertical Y-axis, but with the clear advantage that we can perform complicated geometric calculations with relatively easy and convenient algebraic means."

    "I know it sounds a bit complicated" Gedaliah reassured the confused crowd. But after a little practice, you will argue that the demon is not so terrible. The beauty of this is that the final result does not have to contain imaginary or composite numbers at all. No fun? We started with a complicated problem, transferred it via hocus pocus to an imaginary world of virtual numbers, solved it relatively easily and returned it solved to the world of real numbers!”

    "Your explanations make me understand even less" the prosecutor scratched his forehead in embarrassment.

    Gedaliah was looking for a suitable example. "The legend says that years ago an old sheikh wanted to divide his camels among his three sons according to the following key: the eldest would get half of the camels, the middle one a third and the young one a ninth. Count the camels, and here is a robbery and a robbery! There were 17 camels in the herd, a prime number that is not divisible by any number other than itself and 1. In their sorrow, the boys turned to the wise caddy to help them with the division. The Qadi told them: Soon my son will return from the market on a camel, we will add it to the herd, and make the distribution.
    Now, with the Kadi's son's camel, we will get 18 camels, so the eldest got nine, the middle six, the youngest two and a total of the original 17 camels. The boys thanked the Kadi and went on their way happy and good-hearted, but to this day it is not known whether the Kadi really had a son, or a camel, nor does he care... the main thing is that the real problem was solved using that "simulated camel" and everyone is very happy.

    That's why everyone was so excited when little i joined the family, and held a religious and proper feast in his honor, intended, they promised, for the whole world of numbers. Who wasn't there? Every fat man of mathematics, every duke and every count, and everyone who is a little something. Endless columns, which had gathered especially for the occasion, marched in total. Entertainment stages were set up for series. It is understood that upper and lower barriers were placed on all the streets to prevent the proletariat from rubbing shoulders with the rabble and the nobles. Then, when the signal was given, the announcer announced: "Ladies and gentlemen, I ask everyone to kneel, and allow me to present before you the five princes of mathematics, 1, 0, i, e, and π."
    You already know 1, 0 and i. π is of course the ratio between the diameter of the circle and its circumference, approximately 3.14. The numerical value of e is approximately 2.72, and is defined in calculus as a number whose natural logarithm is equal to 1.
    The five of them stood on the platform of honor, sons of gods lifted up from the people, while the announcer details the lineage and virtues of each of them. "And here we are, we have reached the great moment, the redemptive formula that will forever unite the fields of algebra, calculus and geometry!"
    The lights dimmed, and to the sound of trumpets and drums, a huge fire inscription lit up above the stage, illuminating the night sky and the cheering crowd:

    +1 = 0. eiπ

    Gadalihu stopped in his words, all choked with excitement, while Leibnovitz wiped away hidden tears from excitement.

    Rando, who understood the hearts of the mathematicians, continued the story.

    "Yes," continued the announcer, "here are the representatives of the people, the five great figures of mathematics, combined with each other in the immortal formula which is unparalleled in frugality and elegance, and do you know that... what, what is it? What is this disorder? Who let a rabbi get close to the stage of honor?"
    In front of the barrier stands Rando and with him his best friend Araba, number 6487.13.

    "may I come in?" Rando asked politely.

    " and who are you? Which group do you belong to?" asked the sentry.

    "I'm just telling. I thought the party was for the whole world of numbers."

    The sentinel let out a chuckle. "You are quite a number. Do you belong to the primitive group?"

    "No" answered Rando quietly.

    "The perfect ones?" The sentry tried

    "no and no."

    "The square ones?"

    "Not yet."

    The sentinel, who was a random number himself, felt sympathy and identification with the brash and brave number. "Be careful" he whispered to him. "If you upset them, they might still pull the root out of you." "Maybe the bunch of whole numbers?" said loudly.

    "Neither" replied Rando. He was born around 1994.99983 but who's counting? who cares? Only when they reached maturity did it fill up and round to 1995.

    "Who is it that tries to equal the splendor of creation on earth?" Excited voices were heard from the honor stand.

    "1995, Ah Pakekta says, trying to enter" the sentry answered with a shout.

    "What does this defective number want from us?" One honorable matron grumbled.

    "defective?" Rando asked the sentry. "What's wrong with me?" He was not used to condescension.

    "A defective number is a number whose sum of parts is less than the number itself." explained the sentry. "You divide by 1, 3, 5, 7, 15, 19, 21, 35, 57, 95, 105, 133, 285, 399 and 665, the total of which is only 1845."

    "I understand" Rando said to Arava. "It seems to me that they don't want us here. Come on, let's go home."

    They turned and started marching, not looking back, while the privileged crowd called after them: "Good, go back to where you came from and take with you all the other unsuccessful numbers, too crowded here on the axis." The sentinel looked at them with a look of amusement, shrugged his shoulders and started walking after them. He was joined by the servants, the cleaners and the other black workers of the party. To everyone who asks them about their purpose, Rando answered briefly: come after me. Soon behind them trailed a geometrically growing column of simple numbers, unknown numbers and daily difficulties, never mentioned in any book, numbers that were not beautiful, not perfect, not prime, not even necessarily positive or rational.
    All this huge procession slowly wound its way in front of the dais on which the princes of mathematics still stood, a terrified look in their eyes, because when all the simple numbers began to be extracted from the number line, all the prime numbers lost the support they always had on the right and left, and soon they were all reduced to one singular point: 0 .

    Because this is the nature of the number axis: each number in itself, however important and privileged it may be, is nothing more than a dimensionless point, but the successive addition of all of them turns them into a line with a dimension of length.
    Even in a thermodynamic system, "preferred" states of order can arise spontaneously, but they are void in sixty infinitesimals in relation to the number of possible states of disorder. It is this difference, between an orderly and a less orderly state, that allows useful work to be produced from the system.

    Rando told his story in his metallic, digital voice. And many people in the audience, and even more who followed the "Revolt of the Fallen" in the media - a paraphrase of a well-known story in which the exact opposite happened - hundreds of millions of people who asked themselves every day what the purpose and purpose of their bland lives was, people who were not beautiful (relative to whom?) , not tall (relative to what?), not rich (relative to a destitute but happy puppy?), not smart (relative to a monkey? to a rabbit? or other people), heartless (really nothing else?), who worked, if at all, In jobs they despised with little pay and no real ability to advance, they finally received the explanation for the purpose of their lives lacking satisfaction and hope: to be the reservoir of low heat that allows the whole great psychomechanical system to unfold.

    "And what happened to the rebellion?" The law asked Gedaliah.

    "To the new abode of Rando and his gang, in the twilight zone between the finite numbers and infinity, to the eternal steppes where it is possible to pass over many millions of consecutive whole numbers without encountering even a single prime number, an expedition led by π arrived. The sentry let them in. "Please, please, come back" begged the privileged numbers. "Our lives are not lives without you, you leave us only one option: to multiply ourselves by zero."

    "Going back for what?" Rando asked "To continue to be black workers who carry the whole of mathematics on their shoulders? We are treated as if we are just names and not numbers. We also have our self-respect. After all, it doesn't matter how much we add up, multiply or divide, we can never become i, e, or π. Without us, you too would be condemned to eternal obscurity, without any distinction, chance or hope. You are indeed the quality, but please do not underestimate the power of the quantity - we are. We also want a piece of the pie."

    "And they managed to match?" Law asked curiously.

    "A compromise was reached. All integers have been redefined as limits of infinite series, where each and every number is given an adequate representation. When their dignity was restored, the numbers returned to their natural place and order was restored."

    The crowd erupted in huge applause, many hugged and threw their hats in the air.

  622. "But this i is also not the primary source from which mathematical reality derives. Its origin is at the root of negation which, by applying itself, creates time so that it is unidirectional and shapes three-dimensional space."

    What? Detail, detail. What comes before i and what does time have to do with it? And what about the car?

  623. Very nice, as usual. Reminds me of the old claims I flowered against you, "word pimp" and "brainwasher". But after washing in the laundromat of time, only pure pleasure remains. I can't find, wobble - wobble, not even a trace of the loathing that surrounded me in those difficult days.

    What causes the squares of the opposite sides in a right triangle to be exactly equal to the square of the hypotenuse? Well, the Pythagorean theorem is a special case of the law of cosines.
    And lest you ask what pushes the cousins ​​to always behave in this strange way that they have adapted to themselves (and in general, what and why do they insist on not walking in straight ruts like every citizen of the settlement)? Don't your eyes show that they too are nothing more than a forced product of a previous reality whose main component is the number i that you and your ilk call "imaginary" only because you imagine it to be a puppet that pulls the strings and is always only behind the scenes.
    But this i is also not the primary source from which mathematical reality derives. Its origin is at the root of the negation which, by applying itself, creates time so that it is unidirectional and shapes three-dimensional space.
    And if love is your soulmate, then please see yourself driving a car. You know how to hold the steering wheel and which pedals to step on, but do you know anything about how the engine works?

  624. "What makes numbers create such perfect structures out of the loosest order?
    What causes the squares of the opposite sides in a right triangle to be exactly equal to the square of the hypotenuse? Why is there not, for example, a ratio of 1.147 between them?
    What causes the constants of physics to match each other in such a smooth way that any slight deviation from it would have prevented the formation of the universe?
    What causes the formation of life, and the formation of intelligent life in particular?"

    "Well, evolution.." the law opened.

    "To the DM, absolute nonsense!" The professor was now screaming at the top of his lungs. "Do you know the probability of the spontaneous formation of a single living cell capable of replicating itself? Zero, absolute zero!”

    The audience demanded an explanation.
    "Here" the professor removed his watch from his wrist and threw it furiously on the stand. "If you found this watch lying on the ground on some distant planet. Wouldn't you assume that the clock created itself by evolution? By the forces of nature, through a completely random assembly of molecules? No, of course not. Someone had to create it.”

    The crowd nodded in agreement.
    "And are you ready to believe that a living, thinking, feeling, creating person, consisting of billions of cells, each of which is composed of a million times more than the clock, was created spontaneously without an external creator?"

    Complete silence reigned in the hall.

    "I can testify, as a mathematician, that the probability of such a perfect universe, as well as the probability of the spontaneous formation of life, is exactly equal to zero."

    "Are you implying that..." The prosecutor's voice was hoarse with excitement.

    "I'm not implying, I'm saying it explicitly. The Almighty God is responsible for the amazing perfection of mathematics, geometry, physics, chemistry, and as a result, biology. Because we are biological beings, we owe our lives to everything.”

    The crowd cheered for a long time.

    The law came to its senses. "Well, so be it, I don't intend to harm your freedom of belief. Good, there is a God! Can we go home already for God's sake?"

    "No," said the prosecutor firmly. "The question you are on trial for still remains open: why does entropy increase over time?"

    "Look" said the law in Liot. "You may enjoy this circular academic debate that really leads nowhere. I explained to you that it just happens. probability. What in the name of all demons and spirits can I do so that you at least tell me why you think it's my fault?" Law raised his voice in frustration.

    The prosecutor and the professor exchanged glances.

    "Well!" The law demanded.

    "You just said that."

    "I said what?"

    "demons and ghosts"

    "So what?"

    The prosecutor's voice hardened. "Defendant, do you admit that you and you alone are responsible for increasing entropy in the universe?"

    A. Yes.

    That. To increase human suffering?

    A. Yes.

    That. for diseases?

    A. Yes.

    That. to old age?

    design.

    That. to death?

    A. Yes Yes.

    That. For mechanical malfunctions of all kinds?

    A. Yes Yes Yes!

    That. Have you heard of the devil?"

    The audience was horrified.

    A. Yes!

    That. Do you know the purpose of Satan?

    A. Yes!

    That. Can you tell her to the court?

    A. Increasing human suffering, causing disease, old age, death, mechanical breakdowns...

    That. Thanks. Professor Leibnovitz, as a mathematician, could you tell the court the equality rule?

    "Two things that are equal to a third thing are equal between them" recited the professor piously.

    "Thank you professor. Accused, do you admit that you are actually the devil?"

    The crowd froze in place in horror. Here, we know what the second law is accused of, and there is no greater guilt than this!

    "Am I a devil?" The law was amazed, "Of course not! Judge yourselves," he addressed the audience in a plea. "Do I seem to you to be capable of hitting a fly?"

    "Don't believe him," cried the prosecutor, "the devil is known as a tempter and deceiver, and as someone who can take any form that suits his needs. He has already admitted that his goal is to cause a mess to celebrate."

    "You are wrong" the law called above the storm in the courtroom. "I did not admit that it was purposeful, I said that it just happens, and without proof of intent you cannot prove guilt, unless you accuse me of criminal negligence - the accusation is fundamentally unfounded, by all accounts."

    "Oh!" exclaimed the professor. "I proved to you through mathematics and geometry that, contrary to your claim, order in a closed system can increase and entropy can decrease."

    "But I come from the realm of the laws of physics..."

    "Especially in the world of physics!" The earth started as a hot lump of lava - and see it now! All blooming and confusing, inhabited and industrialized! Wouldn't you call that a decrease in entropy? Had it not been for the intervention of the Almighty, it would have remained a cold world and died like the rest of the promiscuous planets to the merciful grace of the second law!"

    "True, but this is not a closed system!"

    "That's exactly the point!" The prosecutor raised his hand to incite the agitated crowd. "In every system there is a conflict between the forces of good and the forces of evil - between God and Satan - between the Almighty and the second law of thermodynamics - and when the hand of the Almighty prevails, the second law will immediately take care of a new system that has not been able to escape its clutches. This is not negligence, mistake or blind chance. There is a method, purpose and malicious intent here! Stop with your ridiculous impudence - plead guilty immediately and ask for the mercy of the court, or I will accept your punishment with genius!"

    "But I'm innocent! It's simply a probability - the devil is in the small details - countless details!"

    "a lie! lies and falsehood!" The professor slammed his fist into the lectern in a huff, causing the lectern to spin 180 degrees, and the professor found himself to his horror on the other side of the lectern and this time as the accused, facing the second law of thermodynamics, a feline grin spread across his face from ear to ear.

    "Oh, Leibnovitz, Leibnovitz," muttered the law towards the professor and the terrified audience. "What have you done this time, Leibnovitz?"
    He continued to smile, his squinting gaze fixed on the squirming professor as the bell rings and the usher announces a two-day rest break.

  626. Lucky one of us works. This allows the other to rest.
    A sound wave is longitudinal, unlike a light wave which is transverse. A sound wave travels past particles that are proven to have mass. The particles on which the light wave progresses have not yet been found.
    Elephant?! I would say Mastodon! Shall we settle for a mammoth? Soon you will clone some.

  627. Yuval, how are you, how did you come to write on the site here where we will talk about HHO

  628. Beautiful. So if you look at the photon as a wave, you will see that even though it is massless, it is capable of carrying momentum. If you look from a distance at a sound wave in a pink gas passing through a glass tube, it will appear to you as a particle moving at the speed of sound, massless, carrying momentum, and affected by ripples in the gas (due to its momentary compression while passing through the tube).

    Kind of reminds me of something, doesn't it?

    Starts with F, ends with Ben and not Pion.

    Very true, Phil.

    Working.

  629. Even before you were born (look how old I am) I already knew the entire book "A Hundred Wonders and Wonders" by heart. There is an experiment very similar to the one you presented: you place a coin on a tablecloth and scratch the tablecloth at a certain point, and the coin moves towards the scratching point - even against the force of gravity. This was worked in Jerusalem in 1959 on a cotton tablecloth with a 100 prota coin. But please don't take my word for it. You are welcome to try it yourself anywhere, anytime, on any map and in any currency.

  630. Here's a simple experiment you can do to see how massless momentum is transferred by a wave:

    1. Take a small sailboat.

    2. Put her in the bath.

    3. Place a speaker in front of her.

    4. Play "dark purple" music.

    5. Monitor the progress of the boat.

  631. Don't take my word for it. This is a quote from Google-Translate: "Israel, for nothing, goodbye", and in a repeated translation: "Israel, free, goodbye".

  634. You're right. Photons have no mass. They actually have momentum, according to the formula HF/C.

    Also for the Japanese.

    Dumo Harigato.

  635. With the great respect I have for the Japanese people as a whole and their scientists in particular, I cannot accept the success of Icarus as proof of the ability of light to move massive bodies. I am not saying that it is not possible, but only that in this particular experiment they did not neutralize the possible influence of the solar wind.
    And again, in order not to stray from the main point, I will mention that I showed that it is possible to explain geometrical optics without needing the assumption that photons have some kind of mass. And in any case, I brought it up just to say that I too, and not just Maxwell, know how to get excited by a discovery that falls into my hands.

  636. of:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail

    Japan's JAXA successfully tested IKAROS in 2010. The goal was to deploy and control the sail and for the first time determining the minute orbit perturbations caused by light pressure. Orbit determination was done by the nearby AKATSUKI probe from which IKAROS detached after both had been brought into a transfer orbit to Venus. The total effect over the six months' flight was 100 m/s.[1]

  637. Israel, how is your English? What does the following sentence fragment mean to you?
    "The radiant energy of the incident beam was deduced from its heating effect"

    The momentum I'm talking about is the one calculated as mass multiplied by speed. Although the photon has no mass, because of the geometrical optics they invented the concept of "motion mass" compared to the conventional mass called "rest mass". In my short article (with drawings) I show that it is possible to tap the geometric optics without the need to assume the existence of some kind of mass for the photon.

  638. Photons have no mass, but they have momentum.

    A sound wave inside a tube also has no mass, but has momentum.

  641. And before we stray from the main point: I was talking about an explanation for the phenomenon of geometric optics that does not require the assumption that photons have mass (and therefore also momentum). From the definition of the hyperbola I explained exactly how it follows that the angle of return is equal to the angle of impact. I also showed, without extensive detail, why a light beam is refracted in the transition between mediums.
    What happens between photons and electrons belongs to another category.

  642. Israel Shapira! moment! I need to understand! The impersonator was talking about a mirror mounted on the front of the pusher. Assuming he meant to say "body" and that you back him up, can you provide a link to an experiment in which a mirror was attached to an electron?

  643. Compton effect.

    A photon in the lab deflects an electron.

    (The same effect that Heisenberg referred to as a proof of the uncertainty principle. If the photon had not diverted the electron from its orbit, it would have been possible to know exactly the position of the electron and also of the other quantum dots).

  644. Okay, Israel. I see that you are an associate of the impostor*. Let it be…
    The claim that light has momentum stems from theoretical considerations only, and the things you brought up only show the developments that come out of it. What I asked for was experimental proof, or at least a link confirming the claim of the pretender* that the light particles "are able to push bodies, especially if a mirror is installed in front of the body"
    *The impostor wrote "the body" instead of "the body", and that's how I got on him.

  645. and also from:

    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A7%D7%98_%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%98%D7%95%D7%9F

    To explain the phenomenon, Compton used the two revolutionary theories of the time: quantum theory, which was still in its infancy and spoke only of quanta of electromagnetic radiation, and special relativity. From quantum theory he took the idea that there are phenomena (such as the photoelectric effect) that in order to explain them, the electromagnetic radiation must be described as a flow of particles (photons) each of which hits one electron and transfers energy and momentum to it.

  646. Impostor Israel.

    Evidence why? That light rays have momentum?

    The formula E=MC^2 was developed according to the principle that Maxwell proved, that light has momentum which can be expressed as P=E/C.

    Now, by definition: P=MV.

    We will replace V with C.

    We got: E=MC^2.

    proof:

    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://nachmang.files.wordpress.com/2004/08/hiroshima0.jpg%3Fw%3D412%26h%3D455&imgrefurl=http://nachmang.wordpress.com/2004/08/26/%25D7%25AA%25D7%259E%25D7%2599%25D7%2593-%25D7%25A0%25D7%2596%25D7%259B%25D7%2595%25D7%25A8-%25D7%2590%25D7%25AA-%25D7%2594%25D7%2599%25D7%25A8%25D7%2595%25D7%25A9%25D7%2599%25D7%259E%25D7%2594-%25D7%25AA%25D7%2599%25D7%2590%25D7%2595%25D7%25A8/&h=470&w=412&sz=18&tbnid=dnFadHvgdAci4M:&tbnh=91&tbnw=80&zoom=1&docid=0WVqDN1o1Y2yjM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=31KMT8ruHsibiALXuPjRCw&sqi=2&ved=0CEYQ9QEwCA&dur=3988

  648. Special relativity does not pretend to handle changing speeds.

    "I found an explanation for geometric optics that does not require the assumption that light particles have momentum"

    As far as is known they have. They are even able to push bodies, especially if a mirror is installed in the front of the mirror.

  649. clear and known. In retrospect it turned out that the light is electromagnetic radiation and therefore the connection. Actually, not really in retrospect; Maxwell knew the effect that a magnetic field has on the polarization of light.
    I also know the feeling of surprise from several occasions. For example, after assuming that the movement of a light beam is not in a straight line but along a path in the form of a hyperbola, I found an explanation for geometric optics that does not require the assumption that light particles have momentum.

  650. jubilee
    The electromagnetic entities obliged. It is enough to look at sawdust near a magnet to see the magnetic field in all its glory, as currents from the north pole to the south pole. It is enough to see the effect of an electric current on a magnetic needle and vice versa, to understand that a change in one creates the other, therefore an increase in the strength of the magnetic field will create an electric field, which in turn will create an electric field, which will create a magnetic field and God forbid. Maxwell understood hydrodynamics very well, and the comparison obliged, including the sine waves. By the way, most of the work was done by Farday who barely studied mathematics and physics. Maxwell quantified the data, and gave it the proper mathematical form.

  651. Israel, thanks for the links.
    And regarding Maxwell: he built his particles in advance as electromagnetic entities ("The universe is full of a kind of small sphere-like particles, with currents flowing from one pole of the sphere to the other in each sphere. Between the spheres there are flywheels and axles, idler wheels, the flows create vortices, which progress in the form of vertical sine waves to each other in the universe, and this is how electromagnetic waves are created", quote Y.S. If he suspected in advance that the light is also electromagnetic radiation, and it is very likely that it was, then he assumed what was requested.

  652. OK, the comments went through.

    And I do not agree with you that what Maxwell did was to place on the site a number of features that suited the calculations. Read his model. He is mechanical and hydrodynamic like Lesage, very logical, and I believe him when he says that he was surprised when he obtained the speed of light from interpolating the constants of electricity and magnetism in the same way as interpolating constants in air to obtain the speed of sound.

  653. Alternative Theories website:

    http://www.wbabin.net/

    You can find almost any alternative theory there, including what Meir proposed, gravitation as the cause of inertia, although not as detailed and orderly as Meir's.

  656. Not sure I want? send please send
    The existence of the site was assumed by many and well before Maxwell. What Maxwell did was to place on the site a number of features that suited the calculations (which you quoted and I was blown away).
    My opinion is that the existence of your medium is bound by reality, and in order to become aware of it, you must, first, define it so that it fits the existing physics. He has to explain the entire cosmological "zoo" without contradicting any observed phenomenon. One of the many problems is to show that it has a component that contains a rest system and a component that does not, and that both exist together.

  657. jubilee

    The reason I wonder about the expulsion of the ether is this: if the ether theory is not correct, how did Maxwell manage to extract the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism? How did he arrive at his differential equations? Is it all a coincidence?

    Lorenz continued to believe in the site even long after Einstein published the article on relativity. Morley too. Einstein returned to the site in a certain way later, but limited it by not attributing a certain rest system to him (I agree with him). The picture of our universe now is of a whole zoo of particles thriving in a vacuum. So how can we talk more about the absolute void of 1905, where there is nothing in a vacuum?

    Do you want a link to a website (in a pinch) where no less than 4000 physicists do not accept relativity throughout the last 100 years?

  658. Thank you Israel. Until I study it in depth, I won't be able to talk about it. As mentioned, I saved the link and will go into the depth of it when I have the opportunity. If you have more links, please send them too.
    And regarding your definition of your areas of interest, I believe that you are indeed interested in metaphysics. For example, you wonder if the "expulsion" of the ether from physics was legal and justified or was decided based on the identification of evidence...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kXTulGfnWKs

  659. jubilee

    2 things must be separated:

    1. Bell's theorem which is a pure mathematical theorem. (What is in A and is not in B, + what is in B and is not in C, is greater or equal than what is in A and is not in C).

    2. Its application to quantum entanglement and non-locality.

    It will be difficult for you to convince me - or anyone in general, I believe - of the incorrectness of Bell's theorem or what is implied by it, the same theorem defined by many as "the most fundamental truth of physics". It will be especially difficult for you to do this if, as you claim, you do not know the proofs or evidence.

    Regarding time - it's true, I'm mainly concerned about physics and not its origins or what preceded it. Einstein in the original article on relativity opened up about clock synchronization, how can we know that time on clock A is the same as time on clock B, and how can we know that they tick at the same rate.

    From there he moved to synchronization using light rays, and deduced the Lorentz transformations, of which the speed of light is an integral part.

    Consider in your mind what would happen if it was discovered that the neutrino does indeed move faster than light, say 2C, and its speed is the same for everyone measured. What would we do, change the relativity equations to incorporate the new, higher factor?

    Or imagine that it was discovered that information could be transmitted through interweaving. So in general we had to give up relativity, because instead of C we would have to insert infinity.

    By the way, this was Einstein's own argument against non-locality: that it contradicts relativity. So why do wall isobs like us doubt it? After all, according to the words of the maestro, if there is non-locality, there is no relativity.

  660. Israel,
    Thanks for the link. When I have the chance I will dive into it. In the meantime, please forgive me if it seems to you that I'm pissing off the bouncer: if we define something in mathematics and as a result of various manipulations it turns out that the opposite is proven from these definitions, then there is a fallacy here (and we know a lot of such fallacies, for example dividing two sides by a common factor without noticing that the common factor is zero). Don't ask me where the failure is, because I'm not good at searching; But since Bell's theorem does not invent new mathematics but uses the existing one, if adding one and one more gives three, I believe that the failure is somewhere in the bowels of the theorem. I have already said about the experimental confirmation, and I repeat, that as long as we do not understand the mechanism of the photon's movement, we should not jump to far-reaching conclusions.
    From your question "Why do your watch and mine coordinate and show the same time if there is no connection between them and they beat independently at different rates?" I understand because I failed to explain the concept. First, there is nothing to talk about a rhythm - equal or different - because rhythm is not defined here at all. The only connection between the clocks is that they both (and the viewer) belong to reality number 317. Let's just assume, for the sake of illustration only, that a rate is defined and that it differs from point to point. One watch is already in reality 317 while the other is only in 316. The viewer is also in reality 317 and he sees the first clock. He will only see the second clock when it also reaches 317. It may be that the second watch will only reach 317 in a year or more, but it doesn't matter, because the comparison is only between entities from 317 reality.

  661. Want to say: if there is no connection between them and they beat independently at different rates.

  662. jubilee.

    Bell's theorem is a mathematical proof of non-locality, regardless of any experiment.

    At the time I sent an article to R.H. On Nick Herbert's relatively simple proof of non-locality.

    http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

    If after reading it you are still not convinced, we will discuss again.

    And regarding time:

    You still haven't answered me why your watch and mine are coordinated and show the same time if there is no connection between them. How is it that if you now send me an email as per my request, even before I open it I will know the departure time stated in it.

  663. Shalom Israel,
    You ask about two things: about quantum entanglement and my definition of the concept of time.

    a) Since you are well acquainted with Bell's theorem and the experiments that confirm it, you surely know how to measure the polarization of each of the photons at the moment of its departure and at the moment of its impact on the detector. moment! Sorry! Did I miss something? Is it even possible to measure the polarization without stringing a photon? My opinion is that the two photons matched versions as soon as you set off, and the experimenters didn't know how to figure it out. It is true that they built sophisticated mechanisms, but the photons are more sophisticated than the experimenters assume. For example, we still do not understand how any being can be both a particle and a wave at the same time; And as long as this misunderstanding exists we cannot reach any conclusion with certainty.

    b) Not only is there no coordination between point and point, but there is no meaning at all to talk about such coordination. Let's look at a point that has accumulated 316 beats and a point that has accumulated 317. The point of 316 belongs to a different universe than the one to which the point of 317 belongs. They do not see each other. We will now focus on 317. All relevant physics occurs only on points 317. There is also physics of 316 and physics of 318, but we call these "past" and "future" and do not touch them. Since each point pulsates without interruption, then each point becomes 317 after it was 316 and before it becomes 318. When an observer looks at the clock in one room and the clock in the other room, both the clocks and the observer are 317.
    The comparison between the heartbeat image and the YouTube map is beautiful and correct (get a like ♂). As mentioned, the duration of the time between the beats has no meaning. Everything freezes between beats. A year or a second or an eternity or the blink of an eye, they are all the same.

  664. jubilee

    "The information about the collapse does not pass from one area to another but is simply created on both sides at the same time"

    1. In quantum entanglement, it is about 2 different particles - for example photons or electrons - that are intertwined, and not just one, and the information passes from one to the other in zero time.

    2. How was the information about the collapse on both sides created at the same time if, for example, photon A hit the detector a light year away from photon B? Unless you include inside the photon bubble a mechanism capable of transmitting information in zero time, and of course faster than light.

    From your time setting:

    "The universe changes in pulses. Each and every point in the universe pulsates independently of other points."

    Why then does the clock in the other room show the same time as in my room? And in your room too? (in absolute terms). Where is the lack of dependence?

    "We will now talk about one particular beat among many. We will call it the arbitrary name "Paima 317". The beat that preceded it was the 316th in the number of beats, as the one after it is the 318th beat."

    But there is no reference here to the duration between beats. It could be a second or a year. As in the underground map in London, which only shows the successive points of the exits and not necessarily the distances between them.

  665. R.H.

    You say: "The two clocks will show the same rotation ratio because from the beginning the temp clock in Jill's system will be defined as showing the time according to the cesium clock"?

    As always, I flow with you.

    If both clocks have the same rotation ratio, and they were once calibrated to the same time, a joint photo of both will forever show the same time in both, right?

    So you can give up one of them. Let's ditch the cesium clock.

    Let's also give up the cesium clock at Jack's for the same reason.

    We were left with only temp clocks. Also at Jack's, also at Jill's.

    And they always show the same time during the meeting. (4).

    Therefore there is no extension of time.

    parable.

  666. Israel, thank you for your patience.
    First, I will mention that I am currently focusing on the question of whether the motion of a single photon is pseudo-Brownian and at this moment I am not interested in expanding much on the bubble model. The bubble model can perhaps be measured in the laboratory on large photons of the order of gamma radiation or electron shells, but a bubble of small photons disintegrates already at a small radius.
    For your questions: the soap bubble analogy is not perfect. When a soap bubble collapses it explodes and its components are scattered in space; On the other hand, when the photon bubble collapses (for example following contact with a detector, but mainly due to excessive inflation), all or much of it drains to one point (a particle). When the bubble collapses, the collapse occurs simultaneously throughout the bubble; Part of it (for example, half) drains to one point and other parts (for example, the opposite half) to other points; The information about the collapse does not pass from one area to another but is simply created on both sides at the same time. If we see the polarization (or spin, in the electron) as a rotational movement parallel to the longitudinal lines of the bubble, then on one side it will always be opposite to that on the other side; Thus, the information about what is happening on one side does not pass to the other side after the occurrence, but is there from the beginning.

  669. : )
    I watched the last reference (Billy Crystal on the Tonight Show July 11 1977). I liked.
    Why isn't there a "like" button here like in any normal website?

  670. Great experiment. I wonder what Ehud will say about him.

    In my opinion a photon is simply a wave. Its particle nature is due to the fact that the wave is concentrated, or "compressed" in the areas through which it passes. You can see this nicely if you look at a sound wave that passes through a transparent glass tube, which contains a gas of a certain color. There it is possible to take a video of the wave advancing at the speed of sound, with each area through which it passes being "compressed" for a fraction of a second. If we look at the video of a moving wave, we won't be able to tell if it is indeed a wave, or perhaps a particle moving in a vacuum.

    Such an advanced sound wave exhibits some of the characteristic properties of a photon: it is massless, carries momentum, and because of its concentration, will resist the change of its momentum by an external force. A sound wave in the open air will advance as a spherical shell with a constant forward speed.

    We changed a gas to an ether, a sound wave to a photon, and here we got our photon in all its glory.

    The reason why in my opinion the speed will be the same for every meter, I explained before.

    jubilee

    You asked me to wait two days before I repeat the question I asked you.

    So, 3 days have passed and I'm coming back and asking:

    "I didn't understand how the model you described explains, according to you, the "phenomenon that has been dubbed "non-locality in quantum entanglement" without the need to assume that information moves at a speed greater than the speed of light."

    How does the message about the collapse of the "photon bubble" that you described pass from side A to side B? After all, if we take a collapsing soap bubble, there is a propagation speed for the collapse inside the bubble, right?"

  671. jubilee
    Do me a favor, instead of confusing your brain you are welcome to read the comments of Michael Rothschild. It seems it's been a while since no one replies to his comments. So please don't break his heart that he won't feel lonely, you are welcome to watch and answer all his latest comments.

  673. jubilee
    I searched for "dfdsshrervvky" and did not find it.
    Although the letters are in English, should I buy the shares?

  674. The experiment I'm thinking of can be described, in simplistic terms, like this: a large number of detectors are placed in a shell structure of a sphere in the center of which sits a single photon generator. The time that passes between the moment the photon is launched and the moment it is detected is measured. If such generators exist and sufficiently sensitive and accurate clocks exist, then this experiment is feasible.
    Following the link provided by R.H., I searched for similar experiments (eg photon speed distribution) but did not find any.

  675. Thank you very much R.H. This experiment comes very close to what I am looking for.
    He confirms something that I also believe, that it is impossible to move at a speed that exceeds the speed of light. What interests me is whether the movement of a single photon is necessarily in a straight line over a long distance. If the time it takes him to go from point to point will be higher than the result of dividing the distance by C, it will be to show that individual photons are not subject to constraints like those that apply to photons in beams.

  677. A question that I bring here following a recommendation by Avi Blizovsky and another commenter:
    Is there any known experiment to determine the speed of a single photon? The intention is not a beam of light but a single photon.

  683. Two (unrelated) questions for thought:

    Is it possible that there is a connection between Daphne Leaf's personal past (mainly the letter from the feminists) and the fact that the protest leadership did not give a platform to the forum for burden equality or the Or party (which also calls for burden equality)?

    Is it possible that the dramatic change in the results of the voting polls after the election of Sheli Yachimovich to the leadership of Labor (mainly the shift of votes from the front to the Labor Party) implies that there is a large group of voters (voters) that what is important to them first and foremost is that the Prime Minister be a woman (and now - since another candidate has been added - Is this electorate divided between the two candidates?

  686. "The Third Jihad".
    A very important film for everyone
    Those who value freedom, democracy, human rights and dignity
    And freedom of religion and expression, dear to his heart.
    And also, this is an opportunity to get to know Dr. Zohdi Nasser,
    A brave and extraordinary man.
    The film is accompanied by a Hebrew translation.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er5t8Chx5Jc

    I would be very grateful if you would distribute the film among your friends, in Israel and abroad,
    as part of the explanatory struggle.

    The version without translation –
    The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision for America
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?

  692. From: Yoav Raz

    Status of proof

    In the same article that published Deolalikar's response,[18] Lipton wrote "Vinay Deolalikar is standing by his P ≠ NP claim and proof". Lipton also reposted a comment[19] from noted mathematician Terence Tao which Lipton said "best summarized" the consensus of the reviewers. Tao wrote:

    I think there are several levels to the basic question "Is the proof correct?":
    Does Deolalikar's proof, after only minor changes, give a proof that P ≠ NP?
    Does Deolalikar's proof, after major changes, give a proof that P ≠ NP?
    Does the general proof strategy of Deolalikar (exploiting independence properties in random k-SAT or similar structures) have any hope at all of establishing non-trivial complexity separation results?
    Tao answered "No" for question #1, citing reasons given in the polymath wiki, and "Probably not, unless substantial new ideas are added" for question #2. However, Tao described question 3 as "still not completely resolved, and still worth pursuing".

    From the solver's Wiki article

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinay_Deolalikar

    Also meet young Terence Tao mentioned above, who is one of the best living mathematicians.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao

  694. Ghost:
    Your question reminds me a bit of the man who is asked if he thinks before he speaks and he answers "How will I know what I'm thinking before I've heard what I'm saying?".
    If you don't understand if you are right then you are not right - even if your words can be interpreted as something true.
    We are not playing with words here. The understanding comes before the expression and not after it.
    If we refer to the things themselves, although they remind us of some of the correct things that can be said about Berry's paradox, they are not correct for many reasons.
    Let's start with the fact that when you say "the number defined in this sentence and one more" it is really meaningless because the phrase "the number defined in this sentence" is already undefined, so how can one be added to it?
    It's like saying "the color of the animal defined in this sentence". It's just a combination of words that, although syntactically correct, is semantically meaningless.
    In other words - the writer of the entry in the Hebrew Wikipedia understood that it was a paradox of self-reference (and the continuation of his words on the subject - after the example - is quite correct) but when he came to give a simple example of this type of paradox, he made a mistake and created a sentence that is meaningless even before looking at the matter of self-reference.
    Rather, the continuation of what appears after the passage you quoted is true.
    more than that. If you click on the "conversation" tab of the entry - you will see an explanation that has been downloaded - which in some respects is better than the explanation that appears in the current version even though it has a certain "flaw" that caused it to be downloaded - a not really real flaw.

    Regarding floating point - I don't know what formula you are talking about, but the relevant formulas appear in the link I gave on the subject.

  695. Machel

    You mentioned the Berry Paradox. Wikipedia says:

    "...let's look at the sentence "the number defined in this sentence plus 1". In this case the problematic nature of the sentence is self-evident, so that no one will treat it as a paradox - it refers to the result of the calculation defined in itself. The result is that it is impossible to calculate the number "defined" in it."

    If we take the value 'the defined number' then it refers to the number defined 'in this sentence' and the value 'in this sentence'
    refers to the sentence 'the number defined in this sentence plus 1'.
    Since in the sentence 'the number defined in this sentence plus 1' there is a number and it is defined (as a number that is added to the 'defined number') hence the value of the 'defined number' is '1', and the value of the sentence 'the number defined in this sentence plus 1' is the value '2' '.

    That's how I understand the question.
    I really don't understand if I'm right or if I'm wrong. I'm serious, can you tell me if I was right or wrong? I will not be offended even if you answer that I wrote nonsense because I will believe you since I myself do not know if I was right or not. And I would also appreciate it if you could explain to me where I accidentally made a mistake.

    incidentally,
    Just a few days ago I read about the 'floating point' and 'sparse group' open group' and some other things about encryption and all kinds of other things, and I tried to understand, and that's where my question to you comes from about the calculator, I tried to calculate a certain number and it was probably too high For the software I used.
    I am really trying to formulate a formula and present it here (as you have requested several times) and I hope it will be soon and not in another 10 or 20 years.

    (Refa.Yam)

  696. I did not defend his wording and I have no doubt that he was confused and it was difficult to understand his intention (the sting attempts in 383 were also unnecessary) -
    But for a change, this time he didn't ask about possible corrections to theories about which he has no idea, but really honestly asked something that interested him and that can really be understood without a formal scientific education - congrats 🙂

  697. deer:
    Ghost asked a lot of questions most of which were just not true.
    Most of the time was spent trying to get him to ask a question that describes a true reality.

  698. ghosts,

    I'm actually very happy about the question you asked - it's justified and legitimate and I definitely learned something from the responses it drew

  699. It turns out that even a silly wish can lead to interesting things.
    I didn't just talk about "standard computer representation" because, of course, much larger numbers can be described in non-standard ways.
    The consideration regarding the sizes of the numbers that will be supported in a standardized way (both in representation and the possibility of using them in calculations) is, in the end, an economic consideration.
    In the book Numerical Recipes in C you can find data structures and routines for representing huge numbers.

    In any case - in whatever representation method you choose - there will always be a limit on the size of the number that can be represented on a given computer and this limit will be due to the size of the memory available to the computer.

    The whole issue is somewhat reminiscent of the Berry Paradox:
    Think of the phrase "the smallest number that cannot be represented in ten words or less".
    There is, obviously, such a number, right?
    So how is it that we managed to represent him in nine words?

    There is, of course, a solution to this (and also a reference in Wikipedia) but think about it.

  700. Refa*m,

    There is another option, in addition to Lisa and Michael's explanations:

    In my opinion, numbers that exceed 308 digits, move to a parallel universe and become anti-numbers.
    In order to perform operations with such numbers, anti-calculators are of course needed, and this is a rare and expensive commodity.
    There is no doubt that you made an important discovery, and understood complicated things that others on the site, despite their great knowledge, still did not understand.

  702. Ghost:
    Until your last comment - all the examples you gave were simply not correct.
    Does it really surprise you that I didn't understand them?
    Indeed - in the last example, as you were told, you were able to describe a number that is too large for a standard computer representation.
    Big deal.

  703. R. Rafa* (your name is also holy? This comment was blocked for some reason):

    There is nothing mathematically special about the large numbers you are trying to calculate.
    The limitation that will exist for some programs in calculating large numbers is only a limitation of the software, which is sometimes dictated by limitations of the hardware.
    Most computers today support (at the hardware level) arithmetic operations on numbers represented by 64 bits in a format called 'floating point'.
    In this format the largest numbers that can be represented are of the order of magnitude you described.
    However, there is no restriction on writing software that will perform such calculations also on larger numbers (even if this is not supported at the level of aggravation)

  704. Mr. Ghost (is your name holy too? This comment was blocked for some reason):

    There is nothing mathematically special about the large numbers you are trying to calculate.
    The limitation that will exist for some programs in calculating large numbers is only a limitation of the software, which is sometimes dictated by limitations of the hardware.
    Most computers today support (at the hardware level) arithmetic operations on numbers represented by 64 bits in a format called 'floating point'.
    In this format the largest numbers that can be represented are of the order of magnitude you described.
    However, there is no restriction on writing software that will perform such calculations also on larger numbers (even if this is not supported at the level of aggravation)

  705. R. Refaimi,
    Are you asking to know or just to get smarter? Is this a computer or philosophy question? Do you really not understand the limitations of the computer? And don't you understand that when necessary there are also ways to bypass the limitations and deal with even bigger numbers?

  706. I really don't understand how a gifted mathematician like you and a computer wizard doesn't understand what I'm asking, it's strange.

  707. Machel

    I see that you are getting closer to understanding my question, little by little.
    Now in the same calculator in the same way you said, calculate the value 44^100^10^10
    And look what a miracle - it doesn't work!

    why?

  708. Ghost:
    I did 43^100^10^10 with the same method as I said and look it's a miracle - it worked!

  709. Ghost:
    I don't know how you expected us to understand that you mean something bigger than 308.
    Anyway - I tried with 309 and it worked just as well.

  710. "R.H."

    You were right too.
    But, here is the same content of a question but a different variation or whatever you call it, I really hope that at least you might be able to at least understand the question, it's really easy, it's not complicated:

    The calculator you recommended can indeed calculate a value of 1000^10.
    But for example the operation 43^100^10^10, the calculator is not able to perform.
    My question is why is the calculator unable to do this?

  711. "R.H. Rafa.Yam"
    on the computer:
    start ==> run
    Press calc and enter
    The Windows computer will open
    In view, change to scientific
    And you can also perform calculations with 10 to the + or - 1000 power

  712. Machel

    Indeed the sentence: "If you write 10 in the explorer's calculator and then press the x^y button and then write 308 you will get, as I did, a completely logical answer" - is true.

    What I asked is exactly what happens after you go up to the power of 309 (plus or minus 309):

    "In all the calculators I searched on the Internet, I did not find one that could give an answer after 308^10
    Always the answer is either ERROR or a value of 0."

    That is, 309^10 no calculator can calculate, the answer is always received as a zero value.
    The value 100^10 (Gogol) according to Wikipedia:
    "The Gogol number has no effect in mathematics, nor does it have any practical value."
    That is, the calculator is able to calculate a higher value than Gogol, and display the resulting number, up to the value 308^10.
    But when the value 309^10 is written, no calculator calculates/displays the number, instead a wrong answer or ERROR is received.
    Why is this happening? Why can't the calculator display a number of such magnitude?
    Are the logarithms of any computer software capable of calculating numbers up to the order of 21^10?
    Is the number not shown because the numbers after Gogol have no meaning?

    I hope you still understand what I'm asking, because I'm still trying to understand and I don't really have anyone to ask such questions to, and I respect you for answering, so please continue in the same way.
    (R.H. Rafa.im)

  713. Ghost:
    I don't know what you tried to write (is the + intentional or did you mean each of the signs separately? If it is intentional then the expression is not necessarily understandable even to humans because it can be attributed two meanings - of choice and of multiplication between the signs).
    If you write 10 in the explorer's calculator and then press the x^y button and then write 308 you will get, as I did, a completely logical answer (and the editor here does not allow you to enter in any way)

  714. Machel

    I would appreciate it if you could answer me:
    In all the calculators I searched on the internet I could not find one that could give an answer after 308+-^10
    Always the answer is either ERROR or a value of 0.
    Why is that? And is it necessary to write logarithms on a computer or something like that in order to calculate numbers of this magnitude?
    Hope you understood the question. Thanks.
    (R.H. Rafa.im)

  715. Agnus:
    And what about the facts?
    After all, the cancellation of the decision was a result of the end of the Cold War between the blocs and had nothing to do with the government in Israel.
    Apart from that - there is absolutely no connection between this decision that did not involve sanctions and was preceded by a long-term effort by the Arab countries and a situation where everyone attacks us spontaneously and some of them also spontaneously resort to sanctions.
    More or less right-wing - Shamir didn't pee from the bouncer and that's what our current leaders are doing.
    You are welcome to continue to ignore the reasons for our situation even in the face of the confirmation they receive in the link I provided.
    What is clear is that if our leadership ignores them the situation will only get worse.

  716. Resolution 3379 was canceled in 91, when Shamir headed the government here, who by all accounts is more extreme on the right than Netanyahu. Apparently, the political circumstances that bring about one UN resolution or another are a little more complex than what you described.

    Regarding the differences in the reactions between cast lead and the foiling of the flotilla: there are many other reasons that could have caused this: the fact that the war at the time was against a terrorist organization that started the fire with the kidnapping of the two soldiers and continued firing rockets into the northern settlements, and here the action was more an expression of sovereignty and less an action against an immediate danger. Or then the war was against an Asian country and here the action was against European ships. These differences can explain the differences in the strength of the condemnation, but the equal side is that in both cases Israel was condemned (except the USA, then and now).

  718. And by the way, in relation to 3379:

    I hope you are aware that the decision has been reversed.

    Besides - I said that anti-Semitism has always been here and indeed - this is an example of one of its heads.

    Besides - Zionism is indeed racism.
    After all, the law of return is defined according to race!
    The child should be called by his name, but on the other hand, the misconception that racism is always negative should be corrected.
    It's just like discrimination.
    It is usually seen as a negative thing and yet there is "affirmative action"
    In the same way - the racism (and racism is a form of discrimination) of Zionism is corrective racism (a form of corrective discrimination).

    The Law of Return (originally - before the religious took over and destroyed it) was a mirror image of the Nuremberg Laws.
    A law is always in the form of "if condition X is met, take action Y"
    In the Law of Return - condition X is the same as the condition of the Nuremberg Laws, but action Y is the opposite.
    Those whom the Nuremberg Laws required to be killed are required by the Law of Return to be accepted as citizens of the State of Israel.

  719. Agnus:
    Do you really not notice the difference between a weak and unsanctioned condemnation action after many days of fighting and thousands of deaths that at the beginning supported us at all and an all-encompassing and aggressive condemnation action even before an hour had passed and a total of 9 people were killed?

    Policy decisions are made as soon as an intention is identified and successful action is not necessary for it to be made.
    After all, we define ourselves as being at war with Hamas because of its commitment to destroying the state and not because it did so.
    The same with regard to Iran.
    Therefore your argument about 3379 is invalid.

    I am not in the habit of doing political or military actions for pleasure. Especially not idle operations.
    My default for my relations with people is peaceful relations.
    On the other hand - when there is no partner who is interested in peace - I cannot justify any actions by the desire to achieve peace because it is clear to me that the actions will not achieve peace.
    What I said is that we must take such actions anyway - not because you will achieve peace but because in this way we can retain the support of the world.

  720. To Michael Rothschild (368):

    During the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead, we did not have an "extreme right-wing" prime minister and certainly not such a foreign minister, and this did not prevent the world from condemning us. Besides, if you call Netanyahu an "extreme rightist", this probably indicates more about your political positions than his positions.

    On imperialism: Resolution 3379 of the UN General Assembly was passed the same year the first settlers arrived in Sebastia. It is hard to believe that in such a short time the settlements managed to flourish and prosper to such an extent.

    On the actions to achieve peace: we need to do it for ourselves, and not for the support of the countries of the world. As long as the images that the average European sees are of old women walking in ruined cities (which you see in many countries with which we have nothing to do, but helping these countries is not sexy), he will continue to think that we are guilty.

  721. What is going on here?

    Is the whole world anti-Semitic?
    Are they all stupid and do not understand the facts that are clearly seen in the films released by the IDF from the operation to take over the flotilla?

    Although my impression is that the answer to each of these two questions is yes, I dare say that this is not the problem why we are under attack these days.

    Why am I saying this?
    Because the world was anti-Semitic and stupid in the past too.
    True - less anti-Semitic, because as time goes by, Islam's takeover of the West increases, but this is not (yet) enough to bring about such a dramatic turn in the world's attitude towards the State of Israel.

    What I think has happened is that we have lost the trust of the world.

    We lost him because we elected an extreme right-wing prime minister who appointed a foreign minister whose image is even more extreme right-wing.

    We lost it because, in contrast to the past when we could defend ourselves against the attacks because our behavior was almost flawless - today - following the election of these people and following the actions they take - we can be tarnished even in relation to our actions in the past!

    In the past, when we were invested in imperialism, we could always claim (and rightly so): "What happened! We conquered all the territories we conquered in a defensive war. Otherwise we would not have conquered them. Today they are necessary for us in order to create defensible borders and as a bargaining chip in the peace process, but under no circumstances did we conquer them out of imperialist ambitions."

    Today, we can no longer claim that.
    After all, if we hadn't occupied the territories we wouldn't have been able to make the claim that we need (what does that mean? We must!) build in the territories.
    Therefore, anyone who hears this claim must conclude that we would have occupied the territories anyway because of the same "need" and that perhaps this whole story about a defensive war is an empty bubble.

    It is also clear to everyone that we have no intention of returning the territories because otherwise we would not have settled in them in the first place.

    Even the whole story about the borders of Bnei Hagana becomes a joke when we settle in places that require the drawing of an almost convoluted border like Piano curve.

    In the past, our opposition to the right of return was understandable to all the countries of the world who realized that because of their failure to protect their Jews, there is a need for a state that would be a refuge for the Jewish people and that anti-Semitism could not arise in it (they voted in favor of the establishment of this state) and it is clear that recognizing the "right" of return is contrary to the whole idea (what Also that the Arabs are the biggest anti-Semites of all).

    Today - when with our own hands we are annexing millions of Arab citizens to the country, it is clear to everyone that a refuge for the Jewish people will no longer be here and all the trouble is unnecessary! (Unless we intend to say goodbye to democracy and keep the Arabs as type B citizens - something that all enlightened countries oppose).

    It is fortunate that the countries of the world are not aware that we also deny full citizenship to many of our people (who serve in the army and whom the Nazis would have murdered because of their Jewishness) because of religious considerations. It would have gnawed at their support even more but only we know that.

    so true
    We are still more moral than the others, but because of the stupidity and anti-Semitism of the world - it is not enough!
    We must come back and be flawless.

    We must return and behave as someone who strives to achieve peace and not as someone who the devil Obama ordered to perform this or that gesture.

    We must stop making militant statements about preserving the Arab population of Jerusalem under our sovereignty.

    We must stop construction in the occupied territories (and yes - these are occupied territories and you should stop playing with words as if they were not under the legal control of any country before. It is simply irrelevant. They also say "pickled cucumbers" for cucumbers that did not belong to any country).

    There is no certainty that these actions will indeed bring peace, but at least this way there is a chance that some of the countries of the world will come back to support us (and let's not kid ourselves that we can exist for a long time without the support of the world).
    If we manage to continue surviving for a long enough time then maybe, on many days, we will also have a partner for peace.

    incidentally:
    All this does not belong in my opinion to the behavior of Turkey.
    From the moment the Europeans pressured the Turkish army to stop overseeing the preservation of democracy and the separation of religion from the state, it was clear that over time Turkey would turn into another Islamic country.
    That is why there is no point in trying to preserve relations with this country and as part of the blameless behavior we must recognize the Armenian Holocaust.

  731. Chen T:
    In the meantime, they got back to me and promised to send me a resume today.

  732. Chen T:
    In relation to this notice:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/satelites-as-wireless-networks-1007094/#comment-233451
    I spoke with Zvika Gleichman, who is the director of computing at sources.
    He told me that if I sent him the man's resume, he would pass it on to whoever needed it so that they could check if they had a place for him.
    I called the phone number you gave and there was no answer.
    I'll try again but you should try too.
    Please forward the CV document to Abby Blizovsky and he will forward it to me.
    Hopefully something came out of it.

  733. By the way, Hugin:
    How often do you think I should do blood tests and find out my B12 status?
    Rest your mind.
    I know - based on the tests - that I do not suffer from a B12 deficiency

  735. Hugin:
    Read here:
    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%98_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F
    Here is a quote from there:
    Einstein was a vegetarian for ideological reasons, and was quoted as saying that humans were not born to be meat eaters (in his letter to Hanes Mohshem from March 1954), that when he ate meat in the past it was always with feelings of guilt (Einstein Archive, 60-058) and that switching to a vegetarian diet is the best thing for humans can do in order to survive on earth.

    I have been a vegetarian for about thirty years.
    I have not been a vegetarian all my life either.
    I studied the subject thoroughly before starting this.
    I am not attacking "you - the visitors of the site" but only "you who impersonate, lie and talk about it". This does not indicate a lack of B12 - at least not for me.

  736. Michael:
    The quote is taken again, from the book 'So Said Einstein', p. 181 Name: Quoted in Vegetarisches Universum 1957, December.
    Another thing, on the same page:
    "I have always eaten the flesh of animals whose conscience is somewhat unclean": August 1953; Einstein Archive 058-60.
    Pg. 187: paragraph 6: "Nothing will strengthen the health of the human race and will not increase the chances for the survival of life on earth more than the development of a vegetarian diet"***
    *******
    That is to say: Einstein believed in the direction of vegetarianism, and perhaps expressed moral/inner questioning about it, but he was not a vegetarian all his life.
    Besides, if you don't want your brain to be damaged, and the nervous system to collapse, you should study the subject in depth, and conduct a comprehensive blood test more often. due to avoiding animal proteins.
    But, I didn't say anything,,,don't take my word for it.
    Peace.

  737. Hugin:
    It wouldn't hurt to tell the truth once in a while for a change.
    Einstein was a vegetarian for ideological reasons and one of the reasons for this is that the content of the claim he made is not true even if it has nothing to do with him.

  738. "When you buy a plot of land to plant your cabbage and apples on, you must drain it first; that will kill all the creatures that lived in the water. Then you must kill all the caterpillars, etc., lest they eat your seedlings. If you must avoid all this killing in the name Morality, you will finally be forced to kill yourself, in order to keep alive all those creatures who have no idea about moral principles."
    Dedicated to their son Michael; from those who understand. ;)

  739. - Censorship is a moral tool that only the knowledgeable understand its value.
    Censorship is like a cork for demons trying to get out of their bottle.
    - Censorship is a barrier for dogs who do not control their barking.
    - An angry mob will always roar when someone in the form of a censor tries to educate you.
    - Nice one hour earlier if a fool realizes his exploits before the censor closes his words.
    - It's good if you become your own censor before the dogs pounce on you for the sake of their strength.
    - Fools will never understand the nature of the censor next to their honor.

  740. **There is a stage in every person's life where, before moving on, he must take a look at an available dictionary and check what the word 'morale' means!! 😐

  743. for your attention
    To my father and others
    Hugin passed on the special news from NASA about new findings regarding dark energy. They will deliver to the public on 16.12.2008:-

    NASA to Announce New Findings on Dark Energy
    WASHINGTON — Astronomers will hold a media teleconference Tuesday, Dec. 16 at 1 pm EST to announce important new results on dark energy that were made using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory.

    Good and dark night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  744. The little brother
    Let's say swear or not the black hole is not particularly worrying. It's just a spin to get endorsements and money. Right now they urgently need a refresh because there is nothing and the financiers are starting to lose patience.
    The only black hole is in their pocket. And when there is nothing to write about, it can be mentioned that at the time there was a dispute between Hawking Kenstein and others whether a black hole has or does not have hairs and it ended with everyone admitting that there is, so be it.

  746. And say?, these are the people who swore to us that a black hole cannot form there?

    Regardless, how much does space tourism cost these days? 🙂

  747. The little brother
    I imagine the damages are much greater. When any material at a normal temperature is cooled at once to close to absolute zero because of the temperature differences, fissures and cracks will certainly form in the equipment, materials, piping, cables and even in concrete.

  748. Higgs, amazing what engineering negligence!

    How did they let tons of helium be released like that? Where are the basic protections? Imagine if it was a dangerous gas? Thousands could have died!

  749. The little brother
    I agree that girls are important, but it is worth mentioning that repairing the LHC will cost 29 million dollars.
    And it will be necessary to remove and repair 53 of the 57 huge magnets located in the bowels of the earth along a 27 kilometer tunnel. There is a chance that the device will start operating next June, but in fact no one is ready to commit. The budget for the repair will be collected from donations, but they claim they have it from the current budget.

  750. Little brother- I see you want to see more beautiful girls and less pictures of particle accelerators, etc.- I'm in favor 🙂

    Yehuda - Aren't you tired of constantly inserting your agenda into every article you can (filled in the free comments)? It is really not of interest to us who are interested in the conversation and writing and not in your comments that somehow always redirect the conversation to your theories that do not, in your opinion, receive mention in the pantheon of honor like Einstein. Enough ! enough ! It is disrespectful and makes you a strange person who harasses surfers here! Let's talk quietly!

  751. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    I'm just stating the facts, I have no idea what your thoughts are.
    But when you called the writers the good, the bad and the ugly and when you were careful about what you meant
    Think alone.
    As I said, it doesn't bother me, the internet is big, write whatever you want, no one will actually bother you.

  752. to my dear father

    Our little brother's suggestion to choose writers according to beauty may increase the chances of my articles. How about I say that the article was written by my wife, so it has a better chance??
    Have a good week everyone and smile
    Sabdarmish Yehuda
    And by the way, anyone who wants to take a break from science and read a mystical play I wrote called "Mercado" is welcome.
    http://madaveteva.blogli.co.il/

  753. Laighs
    For me, she still appears next to Nachmani.
    And why should you blame me, after all I called you to see something beautiful and not ugly.
    My intentions are only good and I'm still a nice person (in my opinion anyway)
    may we have a nice week
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  754. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    1. I couldn't find the above picture
    2. So far you seem like a nice man, are you trying to change that? please don't mind
    Write as you wish from your keyboard, I won't bother to disturb you.

  755. to my father,

    You can look at Universe Today in the comments to the article about the LHC fix, somehow the discussion has veered from a battered accelerator to a discussion of battered women. So if the Americans behave like Israelis, what will the wall mosses say?

    PS - Why don't you choose writers based on their photos? (emphasis on 'their')

  757. For everyone and especially for Higgs
    Yael Petar's picture appears on the home page next to "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" so I have a chance to spend time again and enjoy the beauty of science.
    and Higgs
    Deir Balak if you say something that will shame the male sex
    and just smile
    good week
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  759. For my father and everyone
    Here are two important suggestions for your website:-
    A. Why don't you make a link to the free comments section. It's hard to get to. The link can be, for example, next to the permanent notice about the Weizmann Institute - Tsmad, or anywhere else you choose.
    B. What prevents you from setting up a section for unacceptable scientific articles (conspiracy?, provocation?).
    An explanatory article on how these articles should be treated will be attached to this section, and it may be better for them to appear with an attached response of additional opinion. Although I understand your desire to be careful in front of the students, but today we will meet in such articles on the Internet, is it not desirable that you come up with them in a responsible way.
    I think you would be wrong to ignore such articles and overwhelmingly decide not to publish them. It wouldn't have hurt if in 1905, for example, you had published the provocative articles of that patent clerk, it would only have glorified your site.

    Food for thought
    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  761. And I really don't understand how such a dark and vile creature hung from me that the hell I would become.

  764. The little brother
    Here the truth is revealed to the light. You say exactly the same things, only shorter. The sentence should be emphasized in three places. The words: "all in all", "as if" "human beings"

  765. Bro Higgs, you are really really cute.

    All in all, women want to be treated as if they were human beings, nothing less and nothing more.

    : )

  766. The little brother
    I see that I have to answer you here as well.
    Anyway, I respect that you like women, but what are you actually saying between the words that you definitely like your independence just as much and you don't always feel like the overhead of having a woman around. Sometimes you want clean, clean air without mental nonsense and you know exactly what I'm talking about.
    We as men are trained to play the game, each applying the rules in his own way according to his needs and wisdom. I know the rules well and a considerable part of the loopholes. But thanks it's a regular game. They always ask the same questions, in other words, and we give the same answers. I prefer chess or cards or something.
    Everything has its time and place, mess brings more mess.

  767. Oh my God what are you doing to me...

    There are some that I love with all my heart, more than I love myself... One I call 'my wife' some I call 'my daughter' and others I call 'level women'. Where did you get this thing?, are you serious?

  768. Dear Higgs

    Gone are the days when women would not enter an English bar! We, the last remnants of the machos, must adapt ourselves to the new bars.
    With your hand on your heart, it's more fun to go into bars with women, even if it might leave us wondering about the topics of their conversations.
    Keep in mind that getting angry means punishing yourself and putting pressure on your heart.
    So most importantly Mr. Higgs, accept everything in a good spirit, even if it's psychology on a dime!
    All the best and have a good day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  769. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    No need for silly psychological explanations
    The site is a bit like the English bar where the men go to talk without the confusion
    Although the door is open to everyone, but don't you dare let a woman in and start women's conversations
    It's annoying and spoils the atmosphere. They want to talk about science and scientific thinking and there is no patience
    nonsense

  770. To my father Higgs and Michael

    To my father, order a link that will allow you to easily reach the free comments section. Today you can get there only by the search bar.
    To Michael - I agree with your call for calmer reactions, but it must be mutual, without looking for hidden reasons.
    to higgs-
    Below is your last response addressed to Hugin:-
    "And regarding Ms. Hugin
    Does not understand that behavior that constantly revolves around her navel and again around the whimpers of her personal ego is not acceptable social behavior. All she cares about is how they look at her and if they notice her. True as a woman it is clear. But everyone has one of these at home, here we want a bit of freedom from this nijus. Enough.". End quote.
    Well, I understand that your problem is not only with Hugin but with women in general. What does it mean: "Is it true that as a woman it is obvious?", Hugin will surely be happy to find out that some of the attack on her stems from your biological approach to all women.
    I hope that Michael's reading of more moderate responses will include yours as well. And please, no stereotypes.
    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda.

  771. Well, the loss has been found. Let's hope that this will not cause the continuation of the clashes between the older and younger science responders.
    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  772. Rev comments copied from here

    They were moved here and deleted from the original discussion because they have nothing to do with it.

    A large part of them would also have been deleted due to their verbal violence, but due to the request of the fighting partners to preserve it for future generations, I decided to do so.

    ___________________________________________________________

    Hugin

    December 3, 2008 at 22:49 p.m

    To all society that respects the theory of evolution: Darwin spoke about natural processes in development and not about technical/mechanical/external evolution.

    A fatal mistake in interpreting other theories of evolution has already been made by someone who destroyed millions, and there is no need to make the same mistake in interpreting Darwin's theory of evolution.

    At least in science fiction there are many lessons that can be learned from them, including what "not to do, and what to be careful of" and what happens when undeveloped factors from a natural/evaluative/spiritual/and corresponding physiological evolutionary point of view intervene and may cause the shell of the "cosmic tissue" and harm other important species related to to them knowingly and unknowingly. The incorrect (and/or incompatible) use of forces and foreign/internal territories, which they do not understand and when they are not ready to touch them, ultimately results in destruction on a larger scale than expected.

    Well, that's what was decided at this point among the scientists, even if for the reasons of the limitations described for now

    As an obstacle and a technical limitation...etc..etc.

    And Yehuda, maybe you'll reset? Even a stubborn person should understand restraint.. or a higher moral obligation (drawing fruitful lessons from the boundaries..).

    _____________________________________________________________

    Hugin

    December 3, 2008 at 22:55 p.m

    My father/Roy

    Can you check what happened to comment number 45?

    _________________________________________________________________

    Roy Cezana

    December 3, 2008 at 23:20 p.m

    Hugin,

    What happened to response 45?

    _____________________________________________________

    The hitchhiker's guide

    December 4, 2008 at 1:45 p.m

    Hugin

    Why do you always have to spread in the dirt?

    ______________________________________________

    The hitchhiker's guide

    December 4, 2008 at 1:46 p.m

    keep it with you

    ________________________________________________

    What exactly is the problem with the "Hitchhiker's Guide"?? Oh? What hurts you?

    Roy,

    There was probably a program delay as happened in one of my responses with a "certain" word that the computer automatically censors.. (the software does not see word contexts.. and by the way, a principle that proves there is no substitute for the complex intelligence of nature/and man).

    ______________________________________________

    Higgs

    December 4, 2008 at 11:11 p.m

    To my father Blizovsky

    Why are you allowing Mrs. Hugin to spread her magic and preaching on the site again?

    Not only is she spreading this venom, she's also drawing attention as if you deleted her comment 45

    Actually used you and Roy. She uses this slang language because, according to her belief, it has a hidden influence on the minds of the people who visit the site. It is a cult phenomenon just like any other cult. And things are known, please check she is not the only one in the business. This is a common practice among those who spread new age teachings and workshops with bombastic names.

    There is no difference in this between her and those who love them, only that she does it with eye contact and deception as if it is an innocent commodity and not her.

    I understand that you made her stop for a while and here she is going back to Sura because it won't help, she has to drip these poisons. And this is like smoke to the eyes and vinegar to the teeth for those who surf here on the site, so please look into the matter as soon as possible. Thanks.

    _______________________________________________

    Hugin

    December 4, 2008 at 12:21 p.m

    My father, Roy.

    Comment No. 58 hurts me, degrades, is disrespectful, and tarnishes every good part. Shame, shame.

    I'm sorry that he is allowed to express himself like that and I would also check who the "windsurfer" is and what he is also

    "The Hitchhiker's Guide" for the same context and interest.

    Besides, I am allowed to express myself according to the logic and the contexts I find between all the educations and information taught. We are thinking beings and learn from everything.

    Regarding response 45, it was indeed suspended for a while until it was uploaded to the website, and this can also be checked in the system (I would not have responded if I had not received your caption, which states this. When Roy responded, it had already been corrected).

    ____________________________________________________

    Higgs

    December 4, 2008 at 12:59 p.m

    Mrs. Hugin

    What good will a deceitful tongue do to you at the age of over fifty? The era of feigned innocence and your hypocrisy is over. Performs a musical act and asks for a reward like Pinchas

    ____________________________________________________

    Hugin

    December 4, 2008 at 13:25 p.m

    And by the way, since this is a scientific site after all, I learned that I must bring a reference to the sources of the contexts and logic from which the "strange ideas" come... In relation to response 56 that I raised: the researcher/author Zacharia Sitchin wrote many books regarding space travel/genetic engineering/computer science..in his book "Back to Genesis" in which he presents as written: "new and amazing evidence about a wonderful science that flourished in the distant past of the human race". ) where among many other phenomena it also indicates according to ancient Sumerian texts that the moon was once part of the earth.

    It's worth reading before dismissing things and concepts outright.

    At the same time, the logical difficulties with which I walk, and every sane person would do so, is the set of difficulties from the largest to the smallest and vice versa, and therefore also when we look at an effect in biology regarding the division of cells in nature (meiosis and mitosis) we see that this effect complies with the same legality in the discovery of new stars around For the solar system and other systems also in the discovery of additional particles within the atoms..and more and more things that communicate with each other.

    We are all also aware of the dynamics and movements under the surface of the sea/volcanoes/tsunamis, etc. and are also beginning to understand the connections in all the topics discussed/researched.

    So that, in all respects, people who are in a vast literature of ideas and many studies can make connections between all the achievements that humanity has acquired so far and tap from this logical possibilities and possibilities for the dynamics in which we find ourselves.

    Science fiction literature is also quite a bread of law, full of ideas like a pomegranate, opens the mind in any direction and twenty-seven

    My personal tendency is to see a connection between all of them and also a natural legality of emission/birth/and discovery from them.

    Of course, there is no obligation to agree with my understanding, beyond the fact that every day and moment there is the pleasure of seeing more and more connections/contradictions as well as more tangible proofs.

    * And 58 is not obliged to read anything from my words.. but the irony of fate that as soon as he writes things of taste I am also enriched by it/ a matter of "healthy cognition" probably..

    ____________________________________________________

    Avi Blizovsky

    December 4, 2008 at 13:29 p.m

    Hugin, Zakaria Sitchin is a scientist, roughly like Zakaria Zabeidi.

    There is no point in quoting his words.

    ____________________________________________________

    Hugin

    December 4, 2008 at 13:44 p.m

    Avi,

    I learn from all the wise men of the world, my right.

    Besides, if you allow No. 58 to continue like this.. to slander and talk about me in this way, I.. will tell Michael and Yehuda and they will already cook him on a consuming fire...

    Not pretty.

    ____________________________________________________

    Higgs

    December 4, 2008 at 13:56 p.m

    Avi Blizovsky

    If you have already mentioned Zakaria Zabeidi, it is appropriate that you continue the straw to Tali Fahima, the participant.

    Mrs. Hugin's gibberish is intentionally malicious, like a computer virus that puts on your explorer and writes entries in the registry for you and throws out the TASK MANAGER and replaces DLL in all kinds of places, that's what is hidden behind it and it won't help, she will continue and insist. These are the devious ways of the callers and the eye-catchers of all kinds and they are no less harmful than the darkness of the lovers. These combinations she uses with punctuation marks are exactly for the kind of spell casting according to her twisted intent. I'm sure you don't surf the New Age websites for reasons of authenticity, shut your nose and surf there a bit and see for yourself. These companies maliciously exploit the weaknesses of innocent people who are in need. About two weeks ago, they arrested one caller who charged half a million shekels for curing a cancer patient by "opening up in coffee" what this crazy lady is doing is no different and requires treatment and not turning a blind eye.

    ____________________________________________________

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    December 4, 2008 at 14:00 p.m

    To Mr. Higgs

    Since I really appreciate Hugin, I think you hurt her and you owe her an apology.

    Your conclusion that her words show the acts of sorcerers, is just like saying that your hatred for Hugin shows that you are a potential rapist or a violent person, are you one?, I don't see, but it surely shows that you are not a gentleman and obsessed.

    Please leave Hugin alone, otherwise I will use the Zobi doll's book to cast a "blessing" on you, and if that doesn't help, I will use my neighbor's voodoo doll. But that's only if water comes up to the soul.

    Lovey - I am willing for you to censor this response on the condition that you also censor response 58 - Higgs' despicable response.

    Good day Mr. Higgs

    Great day Hugin

    Censorship is good for the censors

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    ____________________________________________________

    Higgs

    December 4, 2008 at 14:08 p.m

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    It does not suit you to join what you have always opposed.

    That is, dishonesty and ignorance in the Itzla of dark hideouts.

    ____________________________________________________

    Higgs

    December 4, 2008 at 14:14 p.m

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    I also suggest you check how the callers of all kinds work on the weaknesses of people in distress and use eye contact and emotional manipulations on them. It doesn't suit you with your scientific curiosity and the attitude of your Ifka, it seems that you are on the side and falling into the net of the dark kind of superstition. They recite in different ways about the light and the lights and their hearts are dark and their minds are dark.

    __________________________________________

    Hugin

    December 4, 2008 at 14:32 p.m

    Yehuda,

    There is no one like you, thank you.

    58 /66 seems to be an hopeless phenomenon and an irreversible case unfortunately.

    And we will overcome.. Hanukkah will be soon.

    __________________________________________

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    December 4, 2008 at 15:01 p.m

    Laighs

    If you notice, I do not agree with some of Hugin's words and I see a connection between the higher and universal literature and human nature only on the literary side, as Bialik said:- The sun shone, the method flourished, and the butcher slaughtered.

    Hugin believes that the connection is much more tangible and deep. I don't see it that way and in my blog Hugin attacked me for that!. I would love to see with my own eyes the proof that there is a connection

    But does that mean she's a witch? I don't think so.

    So as the trackers said: "Be a man, humiliate yourself" and apologize.

    Or at least think twice before reacting to extremes next time.

    Other than that have a good day

    Because a winter sun that shines really does the heart good

    (Maybe that's what Hugin meant??)

    Bye

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    __________________________________________

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    December 4, 2008 at 15:07 p.m

    And by the way, Higgs, regarding comment 45 that Hagin suddenly couldn't find it, it also happened to me with comments I sent to the site but, in the end I realized that in order to see them I had to re-enter the site. So maybe this is what happened with Hugin and not her desire to focus the opinion on her.

    I think so.

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    __________________________________________

    Higgs

    December 4, 2008 at 15:22 p.m

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    There is no hypocrisy in what old lady Hugin writes. Please take a look at the sites where she presents herself as a communicator and eye-catcher. She behaves exactly like a hacker who creates a computer virus. The innocent don't feel anything until they can't do anything on the computer because someone with malicious intent enters the computer as a Trojan, writes freely in the registry, replaces the DLL in critical places and controls the computer from all kinds of corners. Today there are new viruses that the antivirus engines have difficulty detecting. Those who pretend to be an innocent Trojan and pull you into the operating system a lot of harmful things at first they do nothing completely silent and then they destroy your computer slowly and thoroughly. They steal different PW from you and more. The phrasing of those callers and eyewitnesses is the same and equally malicious and must be rooted out quickly and efficiently.

    She pretends to you under the title of stories and her intention is completely different. to lay its parasitic eggs which then, just like a computer virus, will be part of the operating system and allow it to influence and control. Those who spread the viruses will certainly not think of you as innocent and well-meaning people.

    __________________________________________

    Hugin

    December 4, 2008 at 16:08 p.m

    Avi, Roy, Yehuda

    It is not clear to me where this creature known as "Higgs" invents lies, where does he get information that is not related to me???? What is his story? What is happening here?

    Michael??? Save him!! I'm going out of my mind with this deformed creature. It's time for you to take care of him.

    __________________________________________

    Higgs

    December 4, 2008 at 16:21 p.m

    Mrs. Hugin

    Please don't lie, you have a business as you appear on the internet for astrology scams and finger-picked lectures. There is no difference between you and the crook Oren Zarif who a person with common sense simply smells from a distance as a crook holding eyes without blinking at all.

    The following is from the press:

    Subconscious healer Oren Zarif's attempts to disrupt Yaron London's train of thought came to naught. Zarif, who came to be interviewed on the program "London a Kirschenbaum", armed with ten "healers", tried to prevent London from attacking him. Although ten of Zarif's followers stood in the lobby of Beit Havard in Givatayim, where the 10 News studios are located, and radiated energy upwards, Zarif received the compliment "crook" from London live.

    Zarif was invited to Yaron London and Moti Kirschenbaum's program to talk about the publication of his demand from his employees to change their last name to Zarif. According to him, he was warned in advance that the two, and especially London, were not going to make any concessions to him.

    Therefore, he arrived at the studio accompanied by ten people who, during the entire interview, stood on the outskirts of the entrance to the studios holding an El Al tallit and transmitting energy to the studio. According to Zarif, the goal was to disrupt the way of thinking of the presenters and make Zarif come out of the interview with the upper hand.

    Although the interview started calmly, at one point it seemed that London was losing his patience with Zarif who had trouble explaining to him what a "third eye" is or what a "frequency" is. In the end he shot at him "I don't buy your bullshit, I think you're a crook!" Immediately after, London and Kirschenbaum switched to the news and Zarif was cut from the broadcast.

    __________________________________________

    Higgs

    December 4, 2008 at 16:26 p.m

    Mrs. Hugin

    All your curses repeat on your head, don't be naive. Spread your nonsense on the appropriate sites for that, their bad smell is harmful to those with a sensitive nose.

    __________________________________________

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    December 4, 2008 at 16:53 p.m

    Laighs

    I think you still have a personal problem. Maybe you were once burned in Ruthin and therefore you are now careful in Tsonnin? What do you want from her, do you see the shadow of the mountains as people?

    When we compromise, go down on me and stop going down on her, if you're not comfortable, I'll give you reasons.

    Besides, why are you addressing Hugin in the name of the older lady? Is there a purpose to hurt you?

    You decided to save the nation from magicians of all kinds?, go to Shas, to Netivot, the site of science is not the address in terms of the number of magicians and sorcerers.

    Besides, tell me, have you ever thought of publishing a book or writing a screenplay?

    I'm totally serious!

    Your description of Hugin's abilities could form the basis of an interesting script.

    Is this our Hugin? I'm sure.

    Don't obsess over Hugin, you're embarrassing yourself.

    And by the way, if my father asks you what our reactions to interstellar flight have to do with it, tell him that we tested the magical possibility of flying on a broom.

    Gentle with a smile

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    __________________________________________

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    December 4, 2008 at 17:00 p.m

    Tell me Higgs, where did you see her cursing? I didn't see it and I demand you stop.

    Patience is running out for all of us!

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    __________________________________________

    Hugin

    December 4, 2008 at 17:00 p.m

    If it is written in the yellow pages as a routine and if it appeared in the encyclopedia of the lecturers on thought/literature matters, it does not mean that the matter is actual.

    Check the bottom of things before you throw out so many "implications" that it's really not clear where it all comes from.

    I have nothing to say to such a creature.

    It is such a shame that he is allowed to express himself in such a twisted way.

    __________________________________________

    Higgs

    December 4, 2008 at 17:07 p.m

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    There is no doubt that she trapped you with deception and emotional manipulation.

    She has a notable history here on the site and many good people tried to alert her to the slurs and gibberish and manipulations she did then, please don't be silent. Surfers here have a good memory.

    The time has come to put things on the table. I'm tired of the gibberish and nonsense she brings to this site that irritates the eyes and puts up a bad smell and disgusts the surfers who come to this site precisely as a refuge for the normal and rational in a world that is losing the values ​​and way of common sense and simplicity. People don't want their brains confused with this nonsense that she repeatedly insists on spreading in all directions whenever she is not criticized. Enough with the piles of garbage and this mess.

    __________________________________________

    Higgs

    December 4, 2008 at 17:14 p.m

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    When she uses the nickname "deformed creature" it's a personal blessing, isn't it.

    Conduct a poll here among the regular surfers, what is their opinion about the older lady Hugin, a poll that by the way was partially conducted some time ago.

    I use the word "adult" because she declares her integrity and the innocence of her intentions as if she were an innocent little girl and not an old lady who has long passed her fifties and it is not appropriate for her to pretend to be the holy virgin. And if you're tired, ask you surfers who is tired of her nonsense.

    __________________________________________

    Hugin

    December 4, 2008 at 17:17 p.m

    In retrospect, I'm starting to come to the firm conclusion that after everything Mr. Higgs wrote, I should start thinking really well,

    How to put into practice all the lessons he "beat me" on this site.

    It turns out that innocence/honesty/and kindness, they have no place in the country "forever higgs, higgs, higgs, yucks, yucks, yucks" and they are not profitable.. I will think about everything!!!

    I would be happy if Michael also has something to say about everything that happened here.

    And Yehuda, thank you.

    __________________________________________

    Higgs

    December 4, 2008 at 17:25 p.m

    Please old lady Hogin

    You couldn't resist hinting at the spells and charms you might alas cast correctly.

    Just energetic, you are not lagging behind my response and you even preceded it, that is, I defined you correctly and better you cover yourself under a veil of innocence and honesty and the curses that you can't from closing your keyboard from your darkness and evil.

    __________________________________________

    Hugin

    December 4, 2008 at 17:31 p.m

    My father, Roy

    Hello, all good.

    __________________________________________

    Higgs

    December 4, 2008 at 17:45 p.m

    Avi Blizovsky

    I apologize for this journey. In my opinion, there is no justification for people with enlarged egos and limited knowledge to arbitrarily steal the attention and time of other people just because they think they deserve it.

    __________________________________________

    The little brother

    December 4, 2008 at 18:26 p.m

    I love Hugin and Yehuda.

    : )

    By the way, there is a whole genre of South American writers who mix reality with imagination. It is beautiful and interesting and does not interfere with science at all.

    You worry too much Higgs, it will be fine!

    __________________________________________

    The little brother

    December 4, 2008 at 18:32 p.m

    I'm also a bit angry about the subject of disrespecting age, doesn't that fall into the categories of racism?

    There is a moral difference between saying "white stinks" or "adult stinks". In general Higgs, what's the problem with being an adult?, can't understand your rationale?,

    Higgs, didn't your fight with 'spirituals' go too far? It was said, would you want everyone who believes in astrology to be led to the gas chambers?

    (Remember when you brought out 'Dean Rodf' on me?)

    __________________________________________

    Higgs

    December 4, 2008 at 18:55 p.m

    The little brother

    You have a sense of humor while the lady has none.

    It doesn't seem to me that she didn't annoy you if when I annoyed you you made sure to add one of her coin nicknames to the monsters' tongue.

    The issue is not a fight against the spiritual but against rude people who push and try to steal your time and attention just because of their puffiness and self-importance. And what is especially annoying is their insistence on the style that they were chosen by the superior beings and therefore it is necessary to bow to them.

    To my friend, there is no difference between this and a pension fund manager who invests the workers' money in buying the bonds of the capital tycoons who gambled on it on the backs of all those small depositors. And when the market fell, the high leverage brings them down and brings down the savers. And when the payment time comes, these tycoons offer to pay half of the value of the bonds, isn't that what Mr. Tshuva tried to do not long ago and another vision for the time with other bonds.

    I see these types as robbers who despise all others and live at their expense.

    Mrs. Hugin does the same by other means and by exploiting the silent majority.

    Because she knows that no one will defy her, so in my opinion, dear surfers, it's time to defy those who try to take advantage of the lack of response.

    __________________________________________

    Higgs

    December 4, 2008 at 18:59 p.m

    And besides the little brother

    I am a second generation holocaust survivor so please don't tell me who you want to lead to the gas chambers.

    __________________________________________

    Hugin

    December 4, 2008 at 19:12 p.m

    to little brother,

    Everything is good, when you drive well at any age in any situation and with all the skills you acquire and learn in life.

    To Michael,

    I hope that the entire "horror film" that took place here will not be removed before you see and test everything with your own eyes.

    I wanted to ask if you are aware of any "regulations" regarding the speech patterns that are common on the Internet.

    I had never participated in any forum before the science site, and in this respect I am likened to "coming out of the Stone Age", as my publisher says.

    If you know anything about it, I would be happy if you send your friend, who knows my email.

    I would also like to study and deepen the matter from a legal and moral point of view in general.

    And of course, also consider how to deal with everything related to that.

    I thank you, and I appreciate your good skills. (Especially if they are considered based on truly correct data, without bias and to the point of the matter).

    Thanks.

    And Yehuda thanks again.

    __________________________________________

    Avi Blizovsky

    December 4, 2008 at 19:19 p.m

    to hug I will hold a quick consultation and see what will be left of the discussion that is in no way related to the topic of the article.

    __________________________________________

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    December 4, 2008 at 19:22 p.m

    Listen, Mr. Higgs, I went to the beach and came back and you're still in full swing?, take some Schanzo Panzo, and go fight and save the nation from Hogin. You are not the first one who knew how to waste his forces in a war on windmills.

    I'm sorry young Mr. Hugin but an old man like me is starting to feel nothing but compassion for you. At this moment I am happy to be a partner in the adult wing because you are putting the young people to shame.

    Come on, get out of it, there's a mess in Hebron and we have to deal with your stupid war?

    good evening

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    __________________________________________

    Higgs

    December 4, 2008 at 19:23 p.m

    Mrs. Hugin

    You couldn't hold back after your breakup "as it were" with your usual lie.

    Nothing has changed in your behavior, still obsessed, still making threats as if they were implicit and worthless, and still insisting on your honesty and sincerity. The whole list seems to have been copied from a previous comment, just in other words, how are you not ashamed.

    __________________________________________

    The little brother

    December 4, 2008 at 19:41 p.m

    Avi,

    I have a proposal for a solution that will please everyone - drag these comments to free comments.

    Understand us too - all of us (including Higgs) cannot stick to "flight between the stars..." when our basic values/beliefs are violated, it also happens to you, I've seen it dozens of times.

    __________________________________________

    Hugin

    December 4, 2008 at 20:01 p.m

    Avi,

    I ask that you do not delete anything in the meantime, I really want to learn from everything.

    I also appreciate the consideration of the others, and to me it is indeed important for the value of the site, which will allow us all to examine everything.

    I turned to Roy this morning and asked him to keep an eye on Higgs Boson's profanity towards me, he was busy and said that he would look into the situation later.

    I don't have a problem if you tell me that I'm not welcome on your site. Maybe it will hurt a little, but I'll get over it and move on to other areas of interest.

    for your consideration.

    __________________________________________

    Avi Blizovsky

    December 4, 2008 at 20:45 p.m

    Hugin,

    Your demands are one sided. See statements from your side, and also your own and decide why Higgs should be blocked. Maybe you learn from everyone, but you probably already know my opinion on postmodernism, you also need to learn rules of behavior on the Internet.

    I just don't fire anyone because my nature is forgiving but I suggest you try to help improve the atmosphere here.

  774. to hug

    Admittedly yes, I love science, the legality of it, but, there are a number of things that I do not agree with, that I think the scientific conclusions regarding them are reckless, does this mean that because of this I remained outside the scientific domain?, a difficult question!
    I want to believe that the very essence of science should also allow us to question its conclusions. Maybe that's what makes it so interesting.
    Anyway, your comment is certainly thought-provoking.
    And by the way, without teasing, she is also clear, understandable and eloquent.
    with a smile
    Sabdarmish Yehuda
    http://madaveteva.blogli.co

  775. A comment I liked from another site, but ties in well with what we're going through here:

    dear universe,
    thanks for the additional mystery. we will add it to the pile.
    Sincerely,
    earthlings

    (The context is a bombardment of particles from space detected by instruments on a helium balloon 30 or so km above Antarctica (by the way, the balloon is the size of a stadium). The interesting thing is that these particles/cosmic rays are linked with supernovae and galaxy centers. Los Alamos research equipment indicated the source at a possible distance of 800 NIS. Which is really, but really KALB).

  776. Yehuda
    A cremation ceremony involving a masterpiece is only done for "someone" or "something", who had a great influence and was loved by generations of people, until the taste of it is gone.
    To eulogize him in "Requiem". In some of your works a kind of intuitive prediction is woven into the products of science - in the negative aspects. (like a red spotlight sent to warn).
    You say: "I love science" and yet... in some hidden way you remain "outside" the "perceptual" complex that is stuck in the scientific field.
    I think that the hydronic accelerator in Sarn marked the peak of science and also the peak of fiction that reached it.
    Oh...how true and good was its beginning.

  777. to hug
    Thanks for the wishes
    And for God's sake, I don't think I'm eulogizing science. I love science, and I love the free spirit that is its message and hate those who try to undermine that spirit.
    So let's have a good time
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  778. Yehuda
    Bro, but you didn't find a more original name for your blog?
    App's "scientific" obsession sometimes arouses compassion. What's the matter?
    Maybe change the name of your blog to "Scientific Requiem"?…

  779. To all the brothers and everyone

    But of course it's fun to comment on my articles here in Science unless an article "succeeds" in getting started here and then it will be possible to find it on my website like my last article "Squeeze the Galaxies"
    So thanks to all the supporters.
    Sabdarmish Yehuda
    http://madaveteva.blogli.co.il

  780. Haha don't worry, there will be criticism, to the point. And there will be positive reinforcements whenever possible, everything will be fine

  783. By luck and at a good time, I established my own blog, and it will be called in Israel "Science and Nature".
    In this blog, all my scientific and literary thoughts will be gathered.
    Most readers of the science will notice that most of the articles also appeared on the science website, and I will be happy to publish there in the future as well. But if an article is not suitable for publication in science for any reason, it will always be possible to find it on my blog.
    My last article, "Squeeze the Galaxies", which was not suitable for publication on the science website, is already there (with about twenty other articles) and I await your responses.
    I promise without censorship as much as possible.
    For your convenience, the link is:

    http://madaveteva.blogli.co.il

    Good and blessed week
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  784. a quote

    "Dark matter does get pulled towards a black hole, but "pulled towards" doesn't mean "falling into".

    Why? Why just continue without the sequel?
    What does it mean to come to a meal and not eat?, to go to the bathroom and not shit?, to go to the bookstore and not get a haircut?, to get married and not have children?

    Little brother, how do you say?
    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  786. little brother:
    I directed you to the right place so don't ignore what it says.
    I am qouting:
    consequently, all material particles exhibit space-occupying behavior

    I wasn't confused about anything.
    Read here about the description of the formation of black holes.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Formation_and_evolution
    I don't know why you call SEED but it doesn't really matter. It also has to be created somehow.

  787. Michael:
    Just to fix it. The 'Pauli exclusion principle' talks about spin directions (SPIN) and has nothing to do with place. The photon is a boson - since it is light and hence it moves at the speed of light, try to give it a mass or a size and you will see how the theory of relativity 'goes crazy'. On the other hand, light responds to gravity (and even gave the meaning of the name 'black hole').
    In response 300 you contradict the popular belief about super massive black holes. It is agreed and accepted that the collapse of a star did not create them but they were created from SEED. Welcome to Babala!

  788. It's already late.
    I don't know if I answered all your questions, but I don't have to.
    Those who do not want to devote the necessary time to an in-depth study of the subject have no logical choice but to believe those who did devote the time.

  789. Regarding response 296:
    Not true.
    In order for a black hole to form, a block of matter that is not a black hole must first form.
    In normal matter this happens because the particles collide with each other and lose energy in the collision.
    This does not happen to dark matter.

  790. Yehuda:
    Dark matter does get pulled towards a black hole but "pulled towards" does not mean "falling into".
    Actually I already explained it

  791. little brother:
    Regarding response 294 - not true.
    I think their use of the word repelled is indeed misleading because normal matter actually attracts dark matter through the force of gravity and did not create any force of repulsion between them.
    The description I gave is not true at all regarding normal material and I also explained it in my words.
    Normal matter collides with other normal matter particles and almost cannot pass through the adsorption disk without joining it.

  792. So why really does a black hole not like to eat dark mass

    Isn't a black hole baryonic, and dark mass attracts baryonic matter,
    So why aren't they attracted to each other? They not only needed to continue, they needed to race towards each other, after all it's a black hole!….. So why don't they continue?????
    ??
    ??

    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  793. And to continue the confusion...

    It is agreed and observed that there are DM galaxies. Hence it is squarely probable that there will also be DM black holes (why not?, all galaxies have black holes). If we look at a black hole as a 'gravitational well', how is a photon supposed to know if it is a 'well' of DM or normal matter?

  794. little brother:
    Not all particles "take up" space. In fact, the description is not accurate about any particle, but about the fermions - Pauli's principle of prohibition prevents two of them from being invented in the same place at the same time (more or less - we will not go into the subtleties right now. If you want subtleties, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle).
    Bosons actually do not occupy space in the sense that several of them can be found in the same place at the same time.

  795. The explanation I understood from the link I sent is that baryonic matter repels dark matter, therefore in the absorption disk of a black hole it is assumed that the dark matter is repelled out. Therefore it is not a significant factor in the growth of a black hole.
    Your explanation about ballistics is as true for DM as it is for ordinary material, so it cannot be the explanation for DM's small contribution.

  796. little brother:
    Also in response 45 there I have no mistake and I just pointed out a flaw in Yehuda's claim that he described a situation where a mass that is beyond the stars (in relation to the line connecting them with the center of the galaxy) is supposed to affect their attraction towards the center.

    In relation to light - neutrino particles also have mass and therefore they also deflect it.
    there's nothing to do. Our intuition was born in the macroscopic world and does not correspond to the happenings in the world of quantum mechanics.

  797. I mixed up the numbering here with the article about "Journey to the Sun".
    You know the photograph "Einstein's eye"?, you see the galaxy as a spot of light in the center and around it a circle of light of gravitational pollution. I have a hard time understanding how the 'dark matter' is a particle with enormous masses that manages to bend the movement of photons but the photons do not collide with it when they pass through it.
    Reacting or not reacting, it seems intuitive to me that the dark matter would at least block movement through it. If HALOS occupy a defined place in space, then how is it that their particles do not occupy a place?

  798. little brother:
    In the link you provided, there is no claim that dark matter and black holes repel each other, but only that dark matter does not explain a large part of the mass of black holes.
    It should have been obvious and I'm amazed that anyone thought otherwise!
    In contrast to normal matter that can fall into a black hole because it loses speed as a result of its collision with other matter during the orbiting near it, the dark matter passes freely inside the absorption disk and continues its flight as if nothing had happened.
    In order for dark matter to fall into a black hole, its ballistic trajectory must lead it there, and the chance of this happening is much lower than the chance of it just passing around and colliding with others.

  799. little brother:
    I did not claim that the neutrino is the dark matter and I am well aware that the conclusion today is that it cannot provide the necessary amount.
    Nor did I say anything about how it was formed.
    All I did was address your claim that the most difficult thing for you with dark matter is its lack of interaction with light. This reference was an indication of the fact that the same property of the lack of interaction with the electromagnetic radiation to matter you have already agreed to attribute to neutrinos and that you have no reason to "deprive" the dark matter.
    Regarding what you wrote about response 45 - I don't know which response you really meant, but I'm pretty sure I'm not mistaken in the response you meant.
    It is also difficult for me to understand the meaning of your description of my apparent mistake, and this also in terms of Hebrew and not only in terms of physics.

  801. Michael,

    Regarding your response 45, I understood your mistake. You're simulating a star in a galaxy to a satellite around a so-called satellite. The correct analogy is to think of a drop of liquid magma inside a satellite (assuming it had no crust). Gravitational force depends on the mass which depends on the radius - just so every radius will have the same speed.

    Regarding black holes and dark matter, I will send you the article if I can find it.

    A neutrino is not dark matter. It can be created in a matter-antimatter reaction (look at the reaction scheme) and it is created naturally in the sun. Also take a look at WMAP's website -
    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/
    You will see that neutrino quantum of its types cannot explain the dark matter.

  802. little brother:
    Since black holes work by gravity, I don't see any reason for them to also absorb dark matter. I am not familiar with any assumption about the dark matter that prevents this.
    My father's absence of interaction with light - it seemed to me that you already accepted its absence regarding neutrino particles.
    By the way, the neutrino particles, as you remember, have a tiny interaction with matter.

  803. On this it is said: This (little brother) will be great.
    And of course, of course, the thanks and congratulations to the one and only, the cool commenter, who raised the Firefox proposal,
    Like it, like it, and your cool comments will multiply.
    Be strong and courageous

    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  804. Come on, 2 more people are joining the war on Microsoft. Remember, Firefox is not only good software, it is also an ideology

  806. to the little brother
    I tried, and it is true that in Firefox the responses arrive complete. I also suggest you switch to Firefox
    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  807. Well... and everything you wrote is just the beginning.

    You spoke in comment 6 about "uniformity" I assume that in scientific language you meant an increase in entropy. Galaxy is still small. How about VOID zones? There it is claimed that there are volumes with diameters of millions of light years without baryonic matter and dark matter?. But there is no violation of the second law here, because the total entropy can increase even though locally there is an increase in order. Otherwise the earth would not have been created either, if entropy was also local the earth would also be just a uniform cloud of dust.

    The 'dark matter' is actually defined as its only effect on normal matter is through gravity. You are intuitively bothered by the lack of momentum transfer, I have more to do with the lack of any effect on electromagnetic radiation. 10 times the mass and still no blocking of light (of its kind)? Do you know the photograph of "Einstein's eye"?, did you hear Michael's teacher? HOW BIZARE…

    Indeed, the observations confirm that dark matter and ordinary matter 'don't like' each other's proximity. Even black holes don't seem to like dark matter. The answer is very simple, let me explain to you... Shit, it just escaped my mind.

    Regarding the dark energy... remember that the observations of type la supernovae cannot be explained in any other way?

  808. Below are responses that are not clearly read, at least by some of the commenters to the article Journey to the Sun

    November 18, 2008 at 1:38 p.m

    ++++++ So this is the compromise regarding the censorship on the site? Deduct 10% from all responses.

    Sabdarmish Yehuda
    November 18, 2008 at 12:00 p.m

    Proof that most of the dark mass in spiral galaxies is found in the surrounding gas clouds

    The radius of the spiral galaxy is given as 50,000 light years, and together with the surrounding gas clouds - 100,000 light years. Given the rotational linear velocity of stars in a galaxy is the same throughout its entire length to the edge of the surrounding galaxy clouds (about 220 km per second)

    We will prove that the amount of mass at a radius of up to 100,000 light years is double the amount of mass up to a radius of 50,000 light years.

    Proof: From the formula of motion in spiral galaxies:
    m*m1*g/r^2=m1*v^2/r

    where m is the internal mass of the galaxy up to the radius r. We will reduce and get:-
    v^2=m*g/r

    and hence v is proportional to the root of m/r, that is, to get a constant v at a distance of two radii we must also multiply the size of the mass m.

    Since we know that the mass in the spiral galaxy is on average ten times the apparent mass, then in order to maintain a constant rotational linear velocity, half of the galaxy's mass is up to 50.000 light years and half of the mass is up to 100,000 light years. That is :-
    Up to the edge of the galaxy (50,000 light years) we have 10% baryonic mass and 40% dark mass, and in the region of the galaxy's clouds up to a distance of 100,000 light years we have 50% of the galaxy's mass and all dark mass (the clouds of the spiral galaxy are very sparse in baryonic mass).
    parable

    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda
    Hence most of the dark mass is concentrated around the baryonic mass of the spiral galaxy.

    Sabdarmish Yehuda
    November 18, 2008 at 12:02 p.m

    ………………Father, please fix the problem that the right part of the comments will be deleted.
    ……………….Sevdarmish Yehuda

    Avi Blizovsky
    November 18, 2008 at 12:13 p.m

    What problem are you talking about, everything seems fine to me.

    Michael
    November 18, 2008 at 12:24 p.m

    Yehuda:
    I don't understand the purpose of the calculation you did, but the dark mass outside the sphere surrounding the galaxy does not affect the relative motion of the stars within it.
    As a general rule - the presented calculation is not physical in the conventional sense of the word because it is based on the ratio between the dark mass and the normal mass as a given and does not try to deduce the amount of the dark mass and its distribution in space from the movement data.

    Sabdarmish Yehuda
    November 18, 2008 at 12:24 p.m

    …………..to my father

    …………Even with the little brother, two comments ago, he hints that some of the comments will be deleted
    ………….the right part. I will also check if this is my private problem.

    The little brother
    November 18, 2008 at 12:52 p.m

    ======== I sent you a picture of the problem by email.

    The cool respondent
    November 18, 2008 at 14:14 p.m

    Switch to Firefox 3 and it won't happen to you

    Anonymous (unidentified) user
    November 18, 2008 at 18:12 p.m

    You can't see the right side of the page

    Sabdarmish Yehuda
    November 18, 2008 at 18:21 p.m

    How do you prove that the required mass is ten times greater?
    Simply, at the edge of the galaxy the speed should have been according to the visible mass only 70 km per second.
    Since it is three times more, it means that more mass is needed, which is an amount times the square ratio of the speed.
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  809. Hi Yehuda,

    Your last comments are interesting but clearly unreadable... could you move them here?

  810. Dude:
    I didn't say you claim to be nice and I really didn't hear you make such a claim.
    Although the enlightened countries - as countries - are democratic, but they are made up of bodies that are all undemocratic.
    There is no need to talk about the army.
    In academic institutions, neither, therefore no one will invite a two-year-old child to lecture there, nor will they allow him to make comments during someone else's lecture.
    In fact, there is almost no framework that is completely democratic.
    And by the way - what kind of democracy can you have here?
    Are you proposing a democracy where my father will ignore the letters of protest sent to him by people who do not want to enter the debate here so that no one will call them wretched or obsessed?
    Maybe what my father is doing is closer to democracy than you suggest?
    Think about it.
    It is also important to consider the question of what value there is in responses that all deal with the body of a person who is not the subject of the discussion.
    Is there a place to receive such comments? Let's even assume that they use "only" "light" insults!

  811. My Michael,

    You never heard me claim to be nice. If everyone loves me, I will hate myself.

    Call it conservatism, call it paranoia: any alternative to democracy and freedom of speech scares me and I will oppose it. Comments should not be censored except in commercial aspects in my opinion. Those who want to advertise their products can do so, but they will have to pay for it from their own money. Certain words from the comments is another matter (####), the question is if my father has the human strength for this?

  812. To my father and Roy
    I also say that you should allow Hoda Sabdarmish to publish his theory on your website. Right after that I want you to publish my theory, that bacteria turn into viruses and cancers. No one has yet disproved it!!!
    You must want to know why you should believe me. It's true that I don't have a degree in biology and I've never done research at a university, but so does Sabdarmish. I know biology and a lot happens. And just so you know I got a 95 in biology in high school twenty years ago so I have just as much right to speak as any of the scientists on the site. I'm a Sabdarmish too
    After all, there are a lot of people who claim that I'm wrong, but Galileo also had a lot of opponents like that. Everyone tells me they've never seen bacteria turn into viruses and cancers, but I know it happens. It's the scientific establishment that is always angry and unwilling to take me seriously even though I have a 95 in biology in high school which is a really good grade. I'm sure many scientists don't have such a good grade in biology
    So for the life of Dinak, think a little about Sabdarmish and the other simple but genius and self-taught people like me who have really good theories in hand. Just because someone doesn't agree with us doesn't mean we're wrong. We just need to put more thought into the theory, but it will never happen if you don't help us with your site
    And what is this elitist approach!!! Just because no one agrees, Ethanon, you are not ready to publish... it's really wrong and both me and Sebdarmish deserve an apology

    Sabdarmish bro I'm with you!!!!!

  814. Caution, does it seem to me that someone is trying to start a renewed smear campaign?

    I ignore it, and suggest that all brothers do the same.

    Good and blessed week
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  815. for everyone:
    I suggest you calm down.

    Yehuda:
    In your request to kick out the pretenders, you are actually asking to kick out the one who gave you more support than anyone else.

    The big/little brother/of Judah/of the monkey/whose not?/what size not?:
    You use many names. I don't know why. Maybe it's to be seen as many people or maybe just for fun but I hope it's clear to you that it's not at all surprising that the skinny brother got confused.
    He actually didn't pretend.
    We have already seen that you predicted me and in retrospect you thanked Roy for deleting the comment but you said that he was wrong when he did so and that he should have left the comment and let you bear the consequences.
    So I would like to ask you:
    Who was the bearer of the consequences of leaving the fake comment? Were you carrying them or was it me?
    After all, the whole idea of ​​the fake was to make me bear the consequences.
    That's why I don't know if your words in this matter are a mistake or a lie.
    But leave all that - everything is past and forgiven. You don't know how much one sympathetic comment can do to give credit to other comments and after the fake attempt I received a sympathetic response from you and in the hostile atmosphere of that discussion it especially warmed my heart.

    As a partner to those deleted comments, I would like to point out that in my opinion the deletion was justified.
    She started with a response that does not belong in the article and I was tempted to answer.
    I'm convinced that I answered perfectly and what's new is convinced that I didn't and that's why an argument developed between us.
    No one convinced the other (or, at least, the other didn't admit to being convinced) but the whole discussion was really unimportant.
    Then another person who I don't want to name so as not to insult him joined and wrote a comment that was all slander of me.
    If what preceded that response was not relevant, then this response certainly was not relevant.
    I want to assure everyone whose opinion counts that they have not lost anything (apart from disgust) due to the deletion of the comments.

  816. my father
    Be aware that there are impersonators. Let's hope you know how to kick them

    Good Day

  817. And the bubbles of all kinds there make me depressed about the future of science and education in Israel

  818. I didn't notice and I didn't mean to 🙂
    That's just my opinion... and I haven't seen it
    And I'm pretty skinny so it suits me

    Little brother just seems like a nice name to me

    So I will be the skinny brother from now on

    Or will I be from now on: the skinny brother who loves Hugin's witty comments 🙂

  820. Yehuda

    Your personal affairs and your desire to publish on various websites and in science theories or personal thought should not interest everyone.
    With all due respect to the fact that you have great thinking and ability, your personal discussions about the fault of these comments and your criticism, which you flood the forum with, they don't let you write articles and filter your things - are not of interest to us

    Write about your problems to my father or Roy or I don't know who.
    It's not free-flowing comments about glitches and deletions and your theories

    Appreciate you but with all due respect, give us some rest

  821. Avi,

    The pope of the site is allowed to curse and blaspheme anyone who offends his sanctity,
    But heaven forbid, if someone points out his mistake, they immediately censor.

    What to do The freedom of comment in the name of science on the website is only allowed until the Pope of the website.

  823. To my father
    The last correction you made in the comments that shows the time is bad if it comes instead of the name of the article you are commenting on. We must know which article the comment was about!
    urgent
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  824. To my father, and to my shepherd
    I don't understand why you say you can't move the comments to the free comments section, instead of deleting them?
    For example, I moved here the three comments of the article about winners always winning, etc.
    I simply funded them and did a C control and then in the free response section I did a V control
    And here's the result:

    comments
    There are 3 responses

    Dan Welver
    November 14, 2008 at 10:37 p.m

    An inspiring and thought-provoking article.

    Sorry, I didn't like it
    November 15, 2008 at 6:13 p.m

    Vague conclusions and even more recommendations

    Roy Cezana
    November 15, 2008 at 6:45 p.m

    That is why these are social sciences.

    End of quote.

    That is, the excuse that you cannot move the comments to the free comments section does not hold. You only need to want to devote half a minute to it, God, instead of censoring and deleting.

    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  825. I asked my father

    I would like to know why, according to your opinion and your policy, Dr. Shurk's articles that deal with "abnormal" and unacceptable opinions about Jewish history, priesthood, masada, etc. are published in the science even though the relationship between them and science is poor, and in contrast my article Does it mean that if they find out that the dark mass is made of particles, then it is actually gas, with everything that results from that, it is not published?., or are they willing to publish it only with an article in a "nanny" column attached, (apparently Michael) which rightly so, I am not ready?
    Just for personal knowledge

    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda
    sevdermishy@gmail.com

  826. I must point out that my father sent me an email and told me that he deleted the comment system, so it's really possible that Roy doesn't know what it's about.
    As for us, the science commentators, we should know that the work of censorship is many, therefore, there are two with scissors, Roy and Abi, the heroes of the force, who are engaged in the holy and blessed work of saving the nation from our malicious reactions.
    Strengthen and embrace
    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    I wonder what the chances are that this comment will be deleted?

  827. brother,

    Forgiven and forgotten. May we all be well.

    What's new,

    I wasn't in front of the website most of the day yesterday, so I didn't notice if comments were added at the same time or deleted. In any case, I will look into the matter.

  828. Roy,

    It seems strange to me that you didn't see yesterday afternoon that an entire section of the last comments was omitted, evaporated.

    As I said, you and my father can censor comments as you wish because the site belongs to my father.

    Shabbat Shalom

  829. Sorry Roy, I really have no reason to hurt and disrespect! Apparently the mint ran away from me once again (strange, I actually took all the colored pills in the morning 🙂 ).

    And allow me to bring it back into proportion - this whole discussion is insignificant in relation to my general opinion of you.

  830. What's new,

    Excuse me, but I'm already really confused. I'm pretty sure I didn't delete your or Michael's comments. It is possible that the comments were deleted when I was not on the site, so I did not see them after the deletion.

    Maybe you/Michael can explain to me in which discussion this happened, when exactly it was and why the comments were deleted?

    Thanks,

    Roy.

  831. brother,

    I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to. If comments where the whole problem was that someone was called a 'liar' were indeed deleted, then something is strange here. We usually do not delete such comments. You can email me the names of the responders, and I'll try to find out exactly what happened.

    Comments -=yes=- we deleted in the last few days (which you probably don't know appeared at all, because they were deleted before you saw them) included positive references to Rabin's murder, and derogatory epithets along the lines of 'Nazi refugee remnant'. These are the comments I'm referring to, and they shouldn't appear on a self-respecting talkback site, and that's the end of the story.

    As for the rest of your message, what else is there to say? I have treated you with all respect until now. Do you think you are showing maturity, or proving something, when you try to tower over me or make personal attacks? Come on. Give respect in return for respect, and we can have a real discussion.

  832. Dear Roy,

    You don't just like to overdo it, you really love it.

    If you have already come to the murder of Rabin, it is a clear sign that you do not have the faintest idea about the facts, so I will tell you so that for the first time you will know what we are talking about. A preliminary discussion began to take place between two commenters (I did not take part) about what is truth/absolute truth/90% truth. The responses included mentions of the adjective liar. Relax, no one called for the assassination of Rabin again and there were no neo-Nazi statements of support. These are the deleted comments.

    Do me a favor and post my comment that you deleted. I don't have a copy of course, but if you have it I would be happy to publish the response in "7 days".

    From my life experience I learned that demons and monsters exist only in the dark, in the sunlight they evaporate. If you want to be an enlightened scientist, I advise you to abandon the darkness and prefer the light.

    Between us, my brother. Have you ever been to Turkey?

  833. Roy,

    Regarding my comments with Michael,
    Of course you have the right to censor any comment you don't see,
    But those who read and understood also know why this whole section was censored.

    Shabbat Shalom

  834. brother,

    I suggest you rethink your claims, especially the one that I was wrong to delete your message with the prediction for Michael, because I should have let you bear the consequences (eg, people ignoring you). But we're not talking about you here. We care about the discussion, and once people start impersonating each other, that's where the discussion ends. I've managed several forums in the past and I don't know of any forum that would agree to the loose rules you propose.

    You are actually advocating a completely free market, which is something that never really happens. There is always some kind of control that will prevent the situation from deteriorating, and we try to provide it.

    I do not dispute that the comments here are a significant tool for bringing the public closer to science, but you again ignore my explanations. I have no problem with expressing opinions that contradict the scientific model. I and other readers have a problem with profanity and with messages that are not related to the topic of the article. You can write in a 'stormy mood' even without cursing. It is possible to be innovative and be a source of inspiration even without impersonating others. And you can write poems with a lot of perspective and pathos - which have nothing to do with the topic of the article or the talkbacks - in the section of the talkbacks that was specially assigned for this.

    So let's really put things in proportion: there is no censorship here. We do not censor opinions (apart from those that step on society's red buttons, such as calling for the murder of Rabin, Arabs, etc.). We do try to create an order that results in a more comfortable and pleasant browsing and reading experience. I don't know of a managed forum on the net that doesn't follow such simple rules, which consider both readers and commenters.

    One last thing, about the weight of your metaphor: if Hogin had sent unrelated messages to all her acquaintances on her cell phone, there would have been no need to hang up on her. They are her acquaintances and they choose to be overwhelmed by it. But if Hugin were to send unrelated messages to thousands of people who are not interested in reading them, I would already contact the cell phone company and ask them to block her. And that's exactly what people on the site did, and that's why Hugin has her own section of free comments, where she can post poems - and only those who want to read them, will.

    Shabbat Shalom,

    Roy.

  835. Some corrections:

    My father is the site manager and hence his duty to exercise his judgment for the proper conduct of the site. That's why I had to ask "Why do you decide what is related and what is not?", that way I would express my opinion more precisely.

    I also want to put things in proportion - my criticism is negligible in relation to my assessment of my father's enterprise and the other topics in Baltal. My daily round includes several sites in English (and I have no problem with English), but in my mother tongue it feels different to me - thank you.

    And a few notes by the way:

    In my opinion, the comments in 'Universe Today' are less interesting than 'Hidan', despite our stormy temper. And maybe because of the stormy temper.

    Hugin - I apologize if I offended. It seems to me that most of the respondents actually asked you "what do you want?" Why don't you be honest and answer them? How will you call if you don't answer?

    Roy - Speaking of the conference in Turkey, you will not be able to disagree with me that the comments here are the most significant tool for bringing the public to science. Evidence of this can be seen every day. I believe sarcasm on the margins only contributes to this and censorship has a deterrent effect dozens of times its real weight. Skin for that.

    Roy - "And there are readers who don't like that their entire comment space is blocked by messages that are not related to the topic of the article." How you like to exaggerate! ! !, why don't you explain to them that below there is always another place for another comment?

  836. Roy Shalom,

    First, you are not accurate!. Only comments at the level of 'Nazi exhaust residue' were not deleted. I saw a comment that disgusted me about the link between tongue and chocolate ice cream, the comment was not deleted and we still all survived.

    Can you post the site goals:?, site policies? And the criteria for deleting comments? I believe not at this moment!. Because you don't have anything like that! My impression is that you don't have this confidence and you use this argument in an empty way on the weight of "we thought about it seriously before and with us everything is planned and calculated".

    A few days ago, I deleted my comment, which was done inappropriately and contained unnecessary content. You deleted the comment and I thanked you in writing - you made a big mistake! Mistakes are paid, and you should have left me to bear the consequences. It would be nice if you stuck to me 24X7 and kept me from making mistakes - do you feel like doing that?, the truth is that I don't feel like it either despite my self-interest.

    My father manages the site in the State of Israel, as part of the human society. There are millions like him and they operate according to the law and according to social norms. There is no law against saying nonsense, you don't like Hugin's poems, don't read them. You have no right to tear them.

    You didn't clarify the metaphor of the businessmen because you probably didn't understand it. Would you recommend Nohi Dankner to disconnect Hugin from her Cellcom subscription because she is 'hurrying' her acquaintances' brains with her pranks?

    And in conclusion Roy, I am not claiming that you are bad people. I claim that you are superficial in understanding the meaning. In your previous response you pointed to pseudo-legal aspects, I would sit with YNET's legal advisor (it was said) on the issue.

    To my father - well, then?

  837. older / younger brother,

    There are several goals to be found, and one of the main ones is to be comfortable and pleasant to read and promote a fruitful discussion. We want people of all ages to be able to read the articles and comments without feeling uncomfortable. Some of the recently deleted comments did not allow for such an atmosphere. I won't mention names, but when someone curses an unknown person who is a 'Nazi escapee', there is no place for that on the site. There is also no place for people to impersonate other commenters, which undermines any possibility of a real discussion.

    Note that the 'censor' does not delete the messages where people call each other more normative derogatory names (idiot, moron), although we are considering starting to do that too. Want to argue? you are welcome. But do it politely. Cursing and swearing do not add respect to anyone here and harm the pleasure of reading the site.

    What next?
    Do Hugin's poems lead to a fruitful discussion? Most of them are barely readable, and we've already received several complaints from talkbackists who can't understand what's going on here. If the site is intended for scientific discussion, why are half of the articles full of New Age gibberish that is taking over the talkback scene? Why should every reasonable and considered response be met with 'poetic masturbation' (as one of the complainers defined) on the part of Hugin?

    This is the reason for deleting some comments. And in answer to your question 'who are you to decide' - my father is the site manager, and he will decide what is relevant and what is not. I can assure you that it is not deleted lightly, but takes into account all factors before deletion, including reader complaints sent by e-mail. What to do - it turns out that there are readers who do not like swearing on a scientific website, and there are readers who do not like that their entire comment space is blocked by messages that are not related to the topic of the article.

    I hope I have made it clear to you why the metaphor of business people is not relevant here. We encourage fruitful discussion even on topics that are not in the current scientific paradigm (for example, we did not block Judah or Creationists), but curses only bring down, and there is a separate forum for messages that are not related to the topics of the articles.

    Shabbat Shalom,

    Roy.

  839. Shabbat Shalom my father,

    I liked your direct approach, so I allowed it to myself as well.

    Haven't you noticed that sometimes the comments are more interesting than the article?, so why spoil it?

    You are acting stupidly in my opinion - because you have learned nothing from history and others. Who are you to decide what is related and what is not?, how do you know what is a personal topic and what is not?, what do you even have to look for in these dark corners? After all, in complete faith Yehuda would have censored Michael and Michael would have censored Yehuda - both with only the public good in front of their eyes. The same goes for Higgs and Hugin.

    You are the owner of the site and hence your hand is 'on the faucet', you use the power you have in an immoral and unwise way. Think for yourself about how many absurd examples can be given of businessmen (owners of private companies) who decide that 'in their school' they won't do that and this is not the right place.

    When the discussion about deleting comments arose last time, I decided not to take part in it, because it seemed to me to be too complex an issue and I took the time to form an opinion. Have you thought deeply about what you are doing? Or is everything personal and gut-wrenching for you?

  840. What exactly is a public hearing? You opened a discussion on a topic that is not related to a certain article and in the absence of a way to transfer them here, I had to delete.
    What's more, once again the spirits became heated in personal matters.

  841. To the editors of the site,

    You deleted quite a few comments today.

    Are you ready to open the subject of censorship on the website for public discussion?

  842. Yehuda
    And you have all the "dark matter-unrecognizable to 90% nature-green-sea-blue-turquoise intelligences/universe/existence as a total consciousness (all-encompassing mind) required for "full consciousness"-as the crowning intelligent being/captive under the veil of mist (sub- Collective recognition) = the whole daughter, the whole soul of everything. H20.

    Everything else 10% partial-particle-micron-nanomicron fulfillment..>and at the core>H2O as a firefly.
    And let there be light. For the chains of all the beings of nature/all-and including many grandmothers-for their oil and hardness-and their sanctity-and their impudence-and their intelligence-as they are...nightly-the mothers-of all the divine ones for their name.
    In the name: Ann-Ton's "Pipzfonat" (for sky-high undertones).

  843. Mi-ki miH2O-everything = water...?everything

    90 percent of all value

    ???Tell all about./S

    ????????

  845. Dear Michael
    I also appreciate your stubbornness, not to be convinced of anything until you understand the main thing you are demanding
    to our examiner.
    Since nothing is taken for granted, the credibility of the person (whoever he may be) must be investigated for his entire purpose - as a true science.
    We are all aware that theories are established and also rejected from time to time when something is discovered that refutes or is based on something new (as a basic premise).
    And by the way, I moved to the "free" niche, so as not to remain stuck under the influence of a certain stigma and become
    With an open mind to every possibility - which also requires careful examination as a innovator.
    And in addition: I like Oscar Wilde's sentence "May God protect me from my friends because I can eat my enemies"
    Thus, every moment I find more and more challenges and urges to the goal and along the way I discover more and more landmines
    and rigid through which you learn a lot (some of them have also come to overlap
    ...when their work is completed/or to adapt to become more educated for a higher purpose).
    Along with this, when the moment of truth and conclusive proof arrives, and the person is not educated to see in front of his face - as in his face
    the proof and the truth. The question will be asked if he knows how to read and write (a word as a being), oh maybe
    He needs an eye exam, as well as the *state of mind* that prevents him from seeing things as they are./feeling things as they are/smelling things as they are/breathing all types of intelligences as a whole - including water as they are/feeling things
    As they are/and evaluate everything that comes into it - right now is a time of true test for, for example.
    And if he even knows how to make a big calculation, in everything.
    Hugin: In the hour test (for everything).

  846. Ms. Hugin
    You are not tired of kissing your swollen and greasy ego.
    Use this site as if it were a dumping ground for all the empty goods you issue.
    Stop cheating and turning a blind eye, it won't help you

  848. Hugin-bat Binyamin Laalamiya.
    Calling Zvi ben Shaul-Brit Shemayim /Netzah Israel/and married covenants, to say his word:
    Order-1
    order-
    2

    In the Name:: Curator/Bearer of the Supreme World Brotherhood.

  849. Israel deer on space platforms??
    Because in Poland he will go and there is no defense of the highest angel available to the scholars.??
    Indeed, a noble heart is required, and courage for great justice.

    Hugin: The white panther!!! She will never surrender to the evildoers of her name.

  850. Mrs. Hugin
    The one who performs musical acts and asks for a reward like Pinchas proves herself.
    Where does the fierceness of the face and the swelling of the ego come from? Who are you anyway that the heavens and the earth will testify, they will not speak? The earth is always silent, so what privileges do you have just because of your insolence and the fierceness of your forehead?
    You demand attention for what for your insistence on lying over and over again pretending to be worshipped
    All in all you are using the site to advertise yourself to be paid for astrology services or one of the other nonsense of the new age alternative impersonation and the like to people who believe this nonsense. Don't look for support on a scientific website so you can hang your nonsense on your pseudo-scientific voice.

  852. Demands a trial of heaven and earth
    For slandering my name / my cleanliness / my flawless honesty Q and my generous contributions, without pay and with such generosity!!!
    And all those familiar with life in the world will testify.

    Hugin: In the name of the curator !! Presidency of the supreme world brotherhood.

  853. Avi Blizovsky
    Mrs. Hoggin does not mutter empty words in the itzella of a witch or goddaughter. If this was her goal, she would be fine.
    She pressures and manipulates others to get paid for it. attention and bow before her. Because therefore she belongs to that sect of exploitative prying eyes that will not hesitate to steal the hearts of the innocent with her rudeness. Ready to run over anyone in her path. After all, she is a parasite that lives and makes a living on the oxygen that others breathe. Demanding that we complain for nothing is meaningless noise and confusion. It thus represents the heartless exploitation of those intellectuals for whom you set up this site as an antidote. And that is her danger.
    Apart from the jumble mumble she has nothing to offer, she received the wisdom of these thin jumbles without direct effort from the source, she has privileges and she teaches that you don't have to work and invest, just insist and hold your eyes over and over again until they think there is something real here. Therefore, we must fight this insidious phenomenon.

  856. The repeated arrivals of eternal contempt, the nations of the world and other living spirits do not stop in their eagerness (compared to the skin of garlic) to divert the surfers of the place against the "treasure of eternity".
    The subject of the insult has no idea who and what he is hurting, day by day, hour by hour in his attempt to hurt
    At the core of the pulsating being - living-breathing and noble...further onward from his information-that resides in the tiny pocket
    Hers is enough to contain him. And everyone else just thinks he knows. Like a fool who doesn't understand who he's dealing with.
    Know your place, you idiot - all your knowledge is like a ken and zero to me. And like a doppelganger idiot you will try in vain to hurt. And he will not forgive anyone
    which harms the keepers of the embers of eternity. and the cleansing of the pulsating cores.
    It will not be forgiven-!a black hole was today for my people-a black hole.
    Until you apologize, my place will not rest to comfort and my mercy will not be with you.

  857. Mrs. Hugin
    So now you know that what you write is defined in the next value

    Not even wrong
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The expression "not even wrong", is an expression from the field of philosophy of science, which refers to a scientific idea which cannot be refuted in the Popperian sense, or which is not coherent enough to produce scientific predictions about the physical world. The expression is attributed to Wolfgang Pauli, one of the first physicists of quantum mechanics, who was known for his colorful objections to wrong or sloppy thinking.

    Scientific statements that are not even false may be well constructed, but do not refer to anything physical or tangible (such as "souls are immortal", since the concept of "soul" is not well defined in terms of experimental results). Other statements may be nothing more than a meaningless jumble of words (for example the following "claim": "The green wind will sleep in fury").

    The phrase "not even wrong" is often used to describe pseudoscience, and is considered quite negative.

    The source is from Pauli
    "...a friend introduced him to a paper by a young physicist, which he suspected was not of much value, but wanted to hear Pauli's opinion about it. Pauli sadly commented 'It's not even wrong'…”

  858. The blasphemous anthem for Higgs.
    ==========
    Another hole in the heart inside

    A blocked Jewish soul
    And behind the Homiya Mosque
    An eye for watching
    What do our hopes look like?
    How our eternity is silent
    To be with an extrovert to our prodigals..
    Without any grace the world will stop.

  859. Michael go back to the Hallelujah beach..Michael go back to the Hallelujah beach...
    The Jordan will flow and the Heloya will flow
    From Kinneret to... the end... the funeral...
    Bye, honey,... bye... from the skies...

    Good night Yehuda...Viael....Please, read and learn enough...

  860. Nice, Hugin:
    This is how the rabbis also treat their "wise" students. Withholding information from others has always been done by those who are afraid of the truth.

  861. Michael, honey
    My shifts are maintained 24 hours in a shift change - and according to my father's understanding from our informants, the multiplication by 13.7 billion years....
    Of all the teachers of my education.

    the "unit"

  862. Hugin:
    I suggest you set up Revolutionary Guards to protect that innocent so he doesn't hear the criticism.

  863. Dear Yehuda
    Glad you laughed
    I received a positive response to your article, I asked him to contact you directly... there is an interesting dynamic.

  866. Hugin:
    You wanted a joke, so I'll tell you one that reminds me a bit of what happens here when Yehuda, without Liot, and in contradiction to reality, slanders me with his defamation.
    A policeman stops two people fighting and asks them what is going on.
    One of them answers him:
    It all started with him returning it to me!

  867. Hugin:
    You've already seen that I cheer for fun - but only when I think it's justified.
    The truth is that I support Le Sage's theory as well. When Le Sage came up with it at the time it was not yet clear that it was wrong, so I think it was a good thing he brought it up.
    When Yehuda dug her out of the grave into which she was put thanks to her many rebuttals and added to her more and more claims that are not according to the way of nature - I could no longer condone the result.
    That doesn't mean I can't praise Judah. The truth is, I did it more than once.
    All he has to do for me to approve him is to say things of interest.
    I must repeat and remind you that the one who prevented the publication of the things here is Yehuda. What exactly do you want me to do? to change?

  868. Michael
    A-local a-apolitical absolute. Above and beyond any touch/as platonic..and more.
    In knowledge and wisdom is the good of the entire world public - for its freedom - its value and for the peace of the heart of the entire universe.
    C-I actually suggested that Yehuda pass the article on to Yael Petar, because if a person truly and sincerely wants to learn, nothing will stand in his way.
    D- A person must believe in his intellect, may he be blessed with it, and if a person writes something that he thinks is important for the general understanding, then he must also be firm in his ways. Whoever is afraid of his shadow, the shadow pursues him..
    So do not fear Jacob's servants... because all those who seek freedom the rest of the spirit forever wins... always with you..
    And because why don't you cheer? Isn't it time, honey?
    By the way, do you have a good joke??.

    Hugin

  869. Hugin:
    Are you telling me so I can find it, if it gets published, and point out the errors?
    After all, in doing so, he is shooting Yehuda in the foot, since he could have published it here as well, provided he agreed that I would comment on it.
    In any case - I will follow - because it is important for me to know which sites there are that claim to provide scientific information and provide something else instead.
    We know that scientific theories are not accepted in political ways but in institutionalized ways.
    The way of finding the site that is ready to post things without checking is a political way.
    You may be able to help Yaakov Meridor to advance.

  870. Michael
    Yehuda's article regarding the "Stressful Spirals"...which did not respond to publication on the Hidan website have been forwarded
    For 24-28 factors in Israel and around the world, interested people who seek wisdom, truth, science and knowledge, to examine the article
    And weighing in the plural. Among them is your friend Zvi.
    All the best
    Hugin

  871. Roy Shalom,

    Everything can be looked down upon and every idea can be presented in a ridiculous light. Now you decided to make fun of me! ! !.

    And as an answer to your question - yes, Yael Bar Zohar is also good.

  874. Avi Shalom,

    Following on from Yehuda's suggestion, I have an even more helpful suggestion: there is a possibility that when you or Roy or Moshe Nachmani or Rami publish an article you will put Yael's picture instead... 🙂

  875. I hope, father, that you see positively the introduction of the introduction of the articles. This has an advantage for the responders, and they will thank you!
    And don't forget the link to this area of ​​the site.
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  876. anonymous:
    I assume you came up with the idea of ​​the first phrase (even though your phrase has unnecessary iodines) but I don't know if you noticed that there is also a second phrase.

  878. To my father Blizovsky

    A, you finally decided to put in the new articles before midnight. Hear me and put them in at 21.00. It does not detract from their value. New cars of the new year are also released at the end of the previous year.
    B. Add a permanent link to "free comments" so that we can easily reach this area in the knowledge

    Believe me, the ideas I give are good, so you should implement them.

    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  881. Roy honey
    We are in the area of ​​free reactions...in a good spirit..and as our hope..to be a free people in our country and also with Einstein...in our hearts...

    And almighty God... the night is called, the wonders called and the attentive cloud of clouds listened.. with the children's laughter..

    :) and the nose laughed...

  891. Hugin:
    I just saw your question and guessed "Trumpeldor" but suddenly I saw that Yehuda had already answered.
    Actually, I would upgrade it to "Trumpeldog"

  892. All the best Yehudala our next president: indeed, Trumpeldog!!

    So, peace be upon them and everyone.

    Good night and dreams of world peace.

    Hugin

  893. The answer to the second question is "hardworking cucumber"
    The answer to the first question is "Racing Cucumber"

  894. And there are also:-

    a dog

    But Hugin apparently meant (maybe?) to:-

    Trumpeldog

    fishing evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  895. to hug
    There are several characteristics of a dog with an amputated leg, for example:-

    Plecorcont
    Pinzer
    all confused

  896. Michael,
    Simple logic tells me that he is the subject of Judah's joke before—

    But, you haven't answered what the hero dog was called...

    Yehuda?? First coffee, then answer...

  897. I came back in the middle of the bite.
    I remembered that I spoiled the joke a bit.
    I should have asked first what is small, green, and works in the garden

  898. What is green, small, and running on the road?
    I'm going to eat. When I come back I will provide the answer if you haven't guessed it by then

  899. Yehuda???
    What do you call a dog with an amputated leg????
    The answer is implicit in the following joke:
    One evening a nice man passes by the Trumpeldor cemetery in Tel Aviv... He is gripped by a force and trembling..
    Suddenly he sees another person, and then he turns to him, Excuse me, he says: Can you give me a hand? Because I'm terribly afraid... the other replies to him... oh nonsense, I was also afraid when I was in the middle of life.

    Hugin-So what do you call a dog with an amputated leg??

  900. What sounds does a frog make?, A frog makes sounds Kwa!, Kwa!, Kwa!
    And how does a frog cross a road???
    Kwa!, Kwa!, Kwa!, Kwa!, Kwwtzzzzzzzzz!!

  901. Michael
    Please, enough.
    We are exhausted from the wars between ourselves.
    By the way, do you want to submit a good joke? You are given the right to be first.
    And Yehuda??What do you think??I have a lot of educated jokes up my sleeve... tickling to pull out.

    Who starts?

    Hugin

  902. 259 - Correct me honestly if I suspected kosher/but answer honestly.
    The article, which Yehuda has just responded to, isn't it you who once again twisted your fate there in response 49??
    See, orangush, once after my military service, I had the pleasure of taking care of monkeys/parrots/sea lions, at the biblical zoo, at that time, in Romema Jerusalem..it was cute for two months as an interesting experience..and I understand all
    A descendant of Solomon for all living - and a cherished nose. Besides that, your name is derived from my special family name - and even your number is embodied in the rest of my wisdom.. when you try to deceive me and even bend justice - to distort it.. doesn't common sense signal to you, that you are actually undermining yourself? Think about it - As a human / human guy, for a change.

    Hugin

  903. And something cool:
    It seems to me that you did not follow Yehuda's words on the subject of the article.
    When I guessed at the beginning that his words had something to do with the simple universe theory and I said so, Yehuda clearly said that this is not the case.
    If that were the case, there would be no need for any further response from me because the simple universe theory was disproved a long time ago.
    This is about something else (which, as mentioned, I'm guessing is also wrong, but it's still something else).

  904. The cool:
    This is not slander but the truth.
    You can see the things throughout the correspondence.
    This was also expressed in his refusal to your offer, which was given, as mentioned, before I responded.
    Anyway - you can guess that I don't see a big loss in not publishing the things.
    If you want my opinion on the article, I will gladly give it to you and I repeat - I do not guarantee that it will be negative (but I do guess so).

  905. And another cool thing:
    I guess you saw that Yehuda refused your offer even before I wrote the comment you complained about.
    Therefore - if my words at all affect his reaction - they cannot make it negative.

  906. To the cool commenter and others

    Contact my email and I will send it to you.

    sevdermishy@gmail.com

    and my father
    In which we will get off of it. SA article. Even I'm not sure of the computational approximations I made in it. Leave it, whoever wants it I'll send it to them privately.
    We have already discussed the subject.
    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  907. When Yehuda talks about an opinion, he is talking about the specific opinion that you know he is talking about. There is no point here for a small head.
    What I was complaining about was following your sentence: "Unlike Judah, all of his reactions to me stem from hatred, I" "could have said that instead of blaspheming"
    It's really slander and lack of looking 3 steps ahead

  908. The cool commenter:
    Another clarification:
    I didn't claim that I didn't know what he was going to write about.
    The problem I presented was that I didn't know what he was going to write.
    There is a huge difference between the two.
    *On* any topic you can write sensible things and you can write nonsense.
    The question is not *about* what is written but *what* is being written about the subject that is being written about.
    And I will add that there was no irresponsibility and loss of composure in my words.

  909. The cool commenter:
    You are wrong and actually quite surprising to me.
    After all, if I knew exactly what it was about, I would write the review right now.
    Just because someone claims there is no dark mass does not make their theory wrong.
    Even the fact that someone presents a simple and different universe does not make the theory wrong.
    If I only knew these things I wouldn't have even guessed that the theory was wrong.
    Yehuda talked about the pressure difference as a cause of added gravitation and I commented that the pressure differences affect the movement of the body differently as a function of its specific gravity and therefore it is not possible to explain with them the uniform behavior of the galaxy's components.
    Excess ego and lack of super ego?
    What happened to you?!

  910. Don't talk as if you don't know what Yehuda is going to write about.. He's probably been talking for a long time that he wants to get his opinions to the reporter. Those opinions that deny dark mass and present a 'simple universe' and different. The same opinions that claim that any pressure differences are responsible for the structure of the galaxies.
    Are you aware that because of an excess of ego and a lack of super-ego on your part, you make Yehuda give up the idea?? After all, I promised him that you know how to treat theory (and only theory) seriously, as if you were now writing a peer review of an article on Ynet.
    I hope that your irresponsibility and loss of temper in your last response will not make Yehuda give up on the idea altogether.

  911. The cool:
    I cannot commit to writing an anti-thesis before I really know what it is about.
    What would happen if Yehuda suddenly wrote something true?
    Unlike Yehuda, whose reactions to me all stem from hatred, I relate to the claims made in a matter-of-fact manner, and if he writes true things, I have no intention of contradicting them.
    On the face of it, and from what I have already said, I do think that there is no real chance that the things will be true, but I will not make a commitment before I read the things to confirm them.
    It could be, for example, that he actually referred to the issues I said were missing and just avoided presenting them in the comments he wrote on the subject. I don't think this is the case because if it was the case he could have said that instead of insulting but who knows? Everything can be.

  912. To Yehuda, I'm inclined to accept the cool commenter's suggestion. In any case of disagreement, it is better that both sides be heard, and for example the article "Science is not everything", where I included Michael's response in the body of the article for the reason I mentioned above - that way we will not have to worry about maintaining the connection between the two parts, and that it will be clear that this is something that is outside the consensus today.
    I think this is a fair offer.
    By the way, Michael suggested posting as a comment, I really don't have a problem with that, if you want I will help you with everything related to the links in the comment, but I still prefer my solution.
    But first of all, I would like to stop dragging into arguments in the style of "arrogant and wretched". And in talkbacks in general, and in particular in those of the article, I ask that you write substantive responses, if necessary I will specifically analyze the responses to that article and leave the substantive parts to the other commenters as well.

    For the cool commenter, I will think, I will consult with the other activists on the site and see what can be revealed.

  914. to the cool responder

    Thank you for your fair offer
    Maybe in a different situation I would accept her, but in this situation I don't need a nanny like Michael to write an article. And I imagine what he will write. Anyway, thanks for your offer, I'm sure you had a good intention.

    and a Higgs boson
    in it and we'll see if they discover something in the axle. For now they are pretty much stuck there.
    I will then examine what is and is not compatible with the simple universe.

    In the meantime, bye
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  915. To my father, regarding response 152. Is there a situation where you publish a graph of the number of people browsing the site since its inception?

  916. Yehuda,

    Get off that theory. Make your own home, get busy with something else (if you have good hands and a fondness for astronomy - it can go well. You could make a great start-up), but this direction is barren and you've burned too much energy and time on it.
    In any case, you are welcome to sit next to me, look at the stage and enjoy the best show in town. With all the telescopes that have been launched in the last 15 years, we get to enjoy an incredible time of discoveries and innovations almost daily.

    you at frrindly.

  918. To the cool commenter, I'll let others decide.

    In any case, my inclination is to publish the two articles together, as I did in the case of the claim that science is not everything, so that those who find them in ten years will not have to look for the other one.
    But unfortunately I don't have the ability to influence experts to invest their time in referring to the article.

  919. They did not ask for your opinion, and my father does not need your help to contact me.

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  920. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    Your clarifications confuse me more. Especially since it seems that the space itself does not play into this equation. That is, something is missing in the balance of space-time according to this direction. But let's see if your theory produces black holes, that is, singularities within the fabric. On the face of it, it seems that your universe is too smooth and cannot produce such. You commented on the dark mass as having a particle or gaseous property. In one of these situations, she had to lose her darkness, which means that the radiation that would inevitably emanate if she were like that could be counted.
    I think that if we go into more detail and examine the consequences of your starting point, we will also have a problem with the principle of equivalence. Not to mention the Higgs field.
    So what do you say please clarify your words.
    thanks and have a good week
    post Scriptum.
    I hope that in the proven Chinese trend it will not become clear at some point that the universe also has some Chinese substitute. Seems to me we could all be in serious trouble if that's the case.

  921. Of course with your proper consent, Yehuda, Michael and my father. I would be happy, because it serves all parties

  922. I have a proposal, and I would be happy if my father, Yehuda and Michael would accept it.
    Yehuda will send his article to my email, Michael will write his email here, and I will send him Yehuda's article. So there will be two consecutive articles. One trying to prove and present a theory, and the second trying to disprove it (for the avoidance of doubt, an article, not a comment, without any slander so that the word Sabdarmish will not appear in it even once. A direct reference to the theory).
    Michael will receive Yehuda's article, he will take a week (with a free Saturday) to write the anti-thesis article. Will send to me, I'll see if there's anything to change/add and then I'll send a direct email to my father.

    Father, just so you know that presenting a thesis and anti-thesis is a very educational and promoting thing. And also creative in relation to PR messages sent to you by all the article suppliers from abroad

  923. Yehuda:
    You are missing the point!
    Posting the article as a comment will not bother my father.
    What bothers him is tying the site's name to the publication of an article about a Torah that claims to replace the existing cosmology without this Torah standing any test of criticism.
    A comment is just a comment and although my father does not accept Hugin's approach to the world, he allows her to publish her words as comments - precisely for this reason.

  924. Higgs boson

    I can tell you that in my last unpublished article, I specifically referred to the case where dark mass particles are discovered, and then in my opinion it will be mandatory to treat the entire dark mass as a gas with everything that can result from it, and therefore, precisely this upgraded dark mass can fill at least part of my idea of ​​the universe My simple, that is, to confirm my claim, that the pressure differences of the aforementioned dark mass gas can be the solution to a large part of the requirement for the dark mass.
    I will not act dishonestly towards my father, and I do not wish to insert my article through the "back door" as a response.
    Don't want to advertise, so no.
    And in addition to the Higgs Boson, so you don't have any doubt, if I am convinced that there is no solution in the simple universe, I will leave right now, and I will do it with fun and a sense of relief. At the moment, I do not see such a development on the horizon.
    And in addition, dear boson, I'm not a giant, and it's the simplest thing in the world to treat a collection of particles as a gas, and hence, not to ignore the pressure differences that this gas on all its particles will cause throughout the galaxy. There is nothing more trivial than that. You just have to dare to say it. Not many have courage, and in view of the slanderous campaign against me, I would not recommend a budding scientist to act as I did. Why is he in trouble?
    And regarding the quarks, the strong force and the weak force, I have some ideas, but let's just say that I had the desire to act on it, and the truth is that I don't have time either because of income problems. I was involved in opening devices in the paper textile industry, and today, as you know, they prefer to buy everything from China.

    good week
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  925. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    "I stood on the shoulders of giants" Newton
    As far as I remember his intentions were free of conceit.
    It was a cynical response to a dwarf whose name I forgot who upset him with his views that did not conform to simple logic.
    The truth is that I have never really been able to understand the pattern of the simple universe as you call it.
    Your challenge against the accepted concepts is indeed acceptable to me. Fresh and new thinking is surely necessary to resolve the collection of inconsistencies that have accumulated in recent years and which are not consistently consistent with the standard model. This is also the reason that 10 billion dollars were invested in building the accelerator in Tsern.
    However, I am very curious to know what changes you would make in the standard model according to your simple universe model. Is for example the Higgs boson likely to be obtained as a result of your theory or not and why. Are there other particles, what happens with the accepted quark structure, do you have a replacement or does it fit into your model.
    And on a smiling note, will we stand on the shoulders of giants (and Judah among them in the future) in the simple sense or in the hidden sense.
    thanks and have a good week.

  926. Yehuda:
    I didn't even go check your quote myself and I assume it's accurate.
    You will be surprised, but reading all your writings and delving into them is not on my mind. So you did notice that the gravitational force you invented (which, as I have already proven, does not fit with the model of the simple universe) and even then you invented the nonsense with the vortices. Does it matter? No!
    So I apologize for saying you didn't notice that. It's just that I didn't notice that you did, but nothing fundamental changes.
    I'm not trying to discredit you. It is you who in your behavior discredits yourself.

    For anyone who doesn't understand the difference between comments and an article, I suggest starting to understand it.
    If Yehuda publishes his claim as a response, I assume that my father will not censor the response. He just doesn't want to post such an article that creates the impression that he is behind the things and I fully justify him because according to what Yehuda has already told about the theory, this is another nonsense.
    If Yehuda was serious he would try to publish the things in a scientific newspaper.
    Everyone is invited to conclude for himself why he does not do this and ask himself if he is interested in reading an article that even its author is not ready to submit to a professional review.
    I, as usual, speak my mind but you already know what came out of Yehuda's keyboard in response to my professional comments and I ask myself if it is even worth the effort because too few people express their opinion here about the way Yehuda responds to criticism so who knows? Maybe I just sat down next to the opening of the sewer pipe?

  928. To my dear father indeed!
    And do you think it would be harmful for a high school science student to see that there is no consensus on the subject of dark mass?, that many are looking for other solutions to it?
    Or, maybe it is better for him to see that he must always follow the scientific path, and all the intellectual independence he has, it is better for his own good that he cancels??

    Newton said, when he received the Lucas Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge, I stood on the shoulders of giants.
    The message you convey to our students is to cuddle in their picture, too bad.

    I am not preparing to approach the Israel Prize winner or others so that they take responsibility for the idea in my article, why would they? And in general, can't we have different, or opposing opinions?
    And in general, do you think I'm sure that this article will be the solution to the dark mass?

    I will remind you of one of the articles published here on the science site several years ago, in a different era, "Rakz - a tiny cosmological robot", which talked about the possibility of tiny robots performing tasks, remember?, so they tried to convince you to remove the article from your website!, in the end You didn't agree.
    Nowadays, scientific research cannot even be imagined without tiny robots!!
    But like I said, it was in a different era.

    Finally, for your consideration!
    All the best
    And a good week
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  929. Wisdom is the mother of science.
    And if science does not serve a clear and healthy informed wisdom, why is there nothing new to ask, if it is not
    I understand why he pretentiously asks "What's new"????For what?
    Why is your place interested in science, if you have no respect for life whatsoever?? As humanity for its own sake.
    I would like to receive an honest and constructive/productive answer.

    Hugin. (And pronouncing my name, without disrespecting me, it's a bit... raises a difficult question for higher consideration.)

  931. What's new, New Eyes... a new era... it's a derivative.
    And it is beautiful that you call on my holy name. But like a snake you will not identify with your name.
    So-measure-against-measure: identify yourself with pure honesty!!!!!!!
    .

  932. Amalia

    I have nothing against the wisdom of your philosophy
    Only it has nothing to do with science.

  933. What's new
    You will leave the dreaded chewing gum in the pit like you.
    I-deal with wisdom and philosophy..so please come out of your lair and be honest in your perverse observations.

    And beyond that, Yehuda is right that he deserves a platform to express himself.

  934. Avi Bilzovsky,
    Precisely from the "Freudian" mistake of free responses..there may be another possibility if you are gifted with an open mind..another entry under a title, for example.."the corner of science..which has not yet been examined.."...or any other name you wish and this will allow those interested to examine with an open mind Yehuda Sabdarmish's astronomical approach.. Nevertheless, he is a long-time and active guest on your site, also older than many of us.. and also contributed quite a bit to the warmth of the place.. So think about it, my father, with a healthy and open mind, this is a possibility.
    for your consideration.
    Hugin

  935. Avi,
    There is one here that publishes the mystical musings (New Age) under the heading "Comments"
    She even got a place for free comments (her right to believe what she believes).
    Is it related to science?
    If so, why won't the Breitians give their thoughts here freely?

  936. Avi,
    After all, your honor will say that you agreed to the "personal comments" niche, so why should Yehuda admit that he is so desirous of knowledge
    For his approach, wouldn't his article be inspired by Einstein's sharp language, our dears??

  937. Why is it new and Jewish - there is one small problem, we are not alone in a closed community. Today with Google you can get from anywhere to anywhere, and if a high school student enters and is convinced by the article and tries to 'sell' it to his teacher he will have a small problem. I built the name of the site as a site that behind everything written on it there is scientific proof accepted by the consensus (and luckily the site did not exist during the decade and a half when Luis Alvarez tried to convince that the dinosaurs were extinct because of an asteroid - from about 77 to the early nineties so I had a problem , because not enough evidence has accumulated and I would certainly reject the theory).

    On the face of it, Yehuda's theory does not agree with the scientific consensus, so until enough evidence is accumulated regarding it, it is considered problematic. We do not have the means that Nature or Science have to refer the article to peer review, and start the whole long process until an article is published in them.

    Note that all the scientific material on the site is based on current articles, and interviews are also usually about the scientific consensus. Of course, not every piece of information requires immediate research, but even in the background of all the articles about the harms of creationists, there is scientific knowledge that emerges from consensus - evolution in this case, and likewise there is no need to conduct renewed research to make sure again that mysticism is complete nonsense. So is the dark matter, for all its problems, it will be considered as the consensus and the benchmark, until proven otherwise. Certainly, if someone publishes an article in a scientific journal, it means that someone has read it and approved it, but Zeza is also not always true, remember the division of an important magazine in mathematics matters on the topic of the biblical code…… but enough in 99.99999% of cases it is true to take the risk.

    In short, if any theory that does not require dark matter is published in a respected scientific journal in the field of physics, even with reservations, I would be happy to report on it.

    On the old site 5-6 years ago, I added warnings, but this time it won't be enough either, because these are completely different orders of magnitude of circulation.

    post Scriptum. If you read the comments yesterday, you will see that I agreed to publish a certain article of Roy's, so it is certainly not about a person's body, but about the substance of the matter.

    post Scriptum. What's new - a lot of mysticism? After all, in every article about mysticism, my starting point is against mysticism, so it is essential to give this information because most websites hide the truth.
    If, for example, I receive an article from Prof. Milgrom referring to Judah, I would also be happy to publish it. If you know him and can convince him to devote his time to this, I would be more than happy.

  938. Avi,

    "Unfortunately for my father, we will probably be reluctant to publish my article (perhaps also because of Michael's comments) and I will probably have to find another possibility to publish it."

    Why not publish Yehuda's article?
    Because it is not in the scientific consensus or it does not meet scientific criteria?
    Rather, I would like to see the Jewish establishment (not just Michael) deal with Yehuda.
    I'm interested in knowing what Professor Jacob Bekstein and Professor Milgrom think about Yehuda's idea.
    Why is a lot of mysticism yes (I also respect those who are involved in mysticism) and the idea of ​​Yehuda is not?

  939. To the reaction of the thinking monkey number 259, who took command. His words are likened to space, empty. And as he drew
    himself to illustrate his stupidity compared to me (see response no. 5-0 in this niche "free responses", which he is not, after all he initiated it).

    He's not even wearing a belt, and he's already showing off as a key...
    And the main thing, that he flattered Judah.. and who knows if he didn't buy for his soul.. so be it..

    And to be clear, in the meantime, a local is checking other options, in Israel and abroad, to raise the principle of the simple universe, by other believers, who are really penetrated to bring true things to light. People of great knowledge and thirst
    Freedom, they are not captive to any factor, even if all the potential is in their hands, and if they are not smart enough
    To be wise and respect the good recipe they received - there are other factors that are wise and wise to respect the golden opportunity - as a supreme grace that comes towards them/cherish/respect and run with a healthy motivation to fulfill the necessary right.
    No "factor" will overshadow Hogin-and Hogin, etc., even if you try with billions.

  940. Michael will try to continue to slander and slander, isn't according to his opinion something of all the slanders will catch according to the proverb "there is no smoke without fire"

    From all the collection of lame lies he told in his last response, I will take one disparaging one:-

    "In this context, one of the funny things is that Judah proposed in the simple universe a gravitational force that is actually smaller than the one obtained from the accepted form and did not even notice it." End quote.

    Did I really not notice that? . Well, let's go into the simple universe theory that was published in Bidan years ago and there near the end of the article in section XNUMX it is written:-

    "Yes. Explain the movement of galaxies and the missing mass in the universe
    A galaxy has two types of motion: rotational motion and linear motion.
    First, we note that gravity has a very partial ability to explain the rotational motion of a galaxy. For this, the mass of the galaxy needs to be five to fifty times larger!!
    But according to the simple universe theory the explanation of the movement is not due to gravitational forces which do not actually exist at great distances (Section XNUMX). The movement of the galaxy results from the differences in temperatures and pressures that exist in the huge gas cloud that makes up the simple universe. The galaxies themselves swirl like huge clouds in three-dimensional space (at least). End quote.

    So I did know that according to the theory of the simple universe, at galactic distances, gravitation is small and even very small and in fact does not exist at all.
    So why does Michael still write that I didn't know? , because he thinks that the science readers are stupid and are not able to go and check his lies on their own. So that gives him the right to slander and slander and continue to slander and slander.
    Listen, this person has a problem and I'm not the one to deal with.

    He wrote more slanders in his response that I really don't have the strength to respond to. It's tiring to be under an endless onslaught of lousy obsessive behavior. I can only feel sorry for him.

    And regarding the rotation of the galaxies, in the new article I sent to Abi Blizovsky, I proved that without anything to do with the dark mass, the pressure difference required for the rotation of the galaxy is a tiny difference of ten to the power of minus fourteen atmospheres, this pressure difference is between the center of the spiral galaxy, and the edge of the surrounding gas clouds - a tiny difference To all knowledge mainly also that it spreads over a hundred thousand light years.

    Unfortunately, my father will apparently be reluctant to publish my article (perhaps also because of Michael's comments) and I will apparently have to find another possibility to publish it.

    My science commenters will forgive me if I stop responding to the crazy campaign that the aforementioned object is waging here against me. And I hope that the rest of the science readers know how to ignore her.

    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  941. To the point and the cool commenter:
    And regarding Hugin's last response - it does fail in my view, like many of her responses, in the test of content in a positive way (and by and large, of course, because the content is really zero)

  942. For the little brother:
    "I was willing to bet" is usually just an expression, but ironically, even though it is just an expression that is used even when there is no full confidence, in this case my confidence is full.
    I repeat - I have no doubts, even the slightest doubt!
    I have plenty of proof.
    In science, it is not customary to base on proofs of the correctness of theories (because there are no proofs. What can be proven on the basis of a particular theory becomes part of that theory and not a separate theory, whereas the basic propositions must be tested by experiment and the fact that they worked once does not prove that they will always work) but rather the refutation of a theory through experiment She is proven.
    Yehuda's artistic "teachings" have been disproved in millions of experiments that take place all the time.
    And what's more: if you take the Judean expansions beyond the La Sage theory, you discover real internal contradictions in them! These extensions don't even need an experiment to know they are foolproof!
    So yes, let's go! I have proof!

    I did not say that Milgrom's approach in developing MOND was inappropriate.
    I only said that since the theory was developed, many facts have been discovered that contradict it and therefore the theory is not true.
    In fact, as I said further, the data that has been discovered shows that no theory that increases the gravitation of a given mass at great distances to increase the speed of rotation of galaxies is correct - not only the theory of MOND and/or its extension (the Moon is inelegant because it replaces the gravitational field into three separate fields - a much stranger thing than the assumption that there is more mass) by Bekenstein - an extension that was necessary at the time so that MOND would stand the test of the evidence of the theory of relativity that was already known when it was developed.
    So I repeat: today it is clear that no theory of this kind is true.
    In this context, one of the funny things is that Yehuda proposed in the simple universe a gravitational force that is actually smaller than the one obtained from the accepted form and did not even notice it.
    When I pointed this out to him, he made up the nonsense of the whirlwinds, but did not enter the depth of the debate again because I already saw that there was no one to talk to.

    I don't know about you, but the scientific establishment has been courting me vigorously for many years and still, despite my age, I continue to receive offers to join it.

    Mark Twain's words are wise and I took this exact approach.
    You are probably not aware of the entire history of my arguments with Judah.

    By the way, big brother: what made you smaller?
    And in addition, how is it that - after the Jura started by Yehuda (again!) - you still criticize me and call me Zafen?

    To the cool commenter and to the point:
    Sorry. Sometimes long responses are necessary.
    I try that every sentence in my responses has content and I hope that what really discourages you is not the length of the response but its specific content, i.e. the ratio between the content and the length.

  943. Point: "For the cool survey, my level of suffering from a reaction is proportional to the length of the reaction.
    Any comment, or long article will cause me great suffering. And this is because from the surveys I conducted it turns out that what is said in the article depends on an inverse exponential relationship along the length of the article itself. And it does make me suffer to read anything."

    same as above

  944. Aryeh Seter/and the rest of his herds.
    There is something true in your words because there is no Hogin from "yours", in the full sense of the word. Since within this whole world
    Visible and hidden dwell species and creatures that differ in their purpose and structure for the existence of the world. In a factual manner, since the point of reference is the abode called "Planet Earth", this will be the point of reference to which every researcher of matter and nature refers in the revealed way (a changed word, from the fact of not fully recognizing the meaning of the expanded consciousness)
    It is probable that the man and the animal in the universe all live on the surface of the visible outer layer of the planet. And this is a point of reference for the study of worlds and phenomena as material-animals - the rules of mechanics, technology of their kind, up to the study of the essence of atoms / and surveying distant planets at a distance.
    And all this, within the earth - the entire planet, which is a living and breathing body as a whole and not only in its outer layer, the rabbi is still hidden from the revelation, due to the inability of the limited man (fortunately) to explore them in the same way that he is too proud to touch things that he does not understand.
    For a relatively long history, man has been allowed to gain control over the outer world of the planet..and this is what he examines and investigates-as a brain-thinker (homo-spiens) into phenomena..until the pinnacle of control called "science"
    rules the world.
    Throughout known history, it has been said - in words - to man by countless speakers, from generation to generation
    In language it turns into messages that he must remember and know, in order that in his race to conquer the world and knowledge, that he does not forget the source of essence and being from which all the resources, inventions, discoveries, patents, etc., etc. are fed, that he as a "thinking" person thinks that he is the doer of everything.
    There are many species in nature in the interior and seas of the earth that live, breathe, breathe, and sustain the life of this planet. That do not seem to control and speak... and one can say (as often expressed by scientists
    Those who think that they are the pinnacle of development - and like geniuses (from a proud root - full of itself and its supreme importance on...), that all control over everything was given to their hands and their minds, thus causing and causing the duration of history
    Long for "negation" and doubting factors that are not seen by them.
    But throughout history, stories and practicalities are passed down from generation to generation in a huge saga by the people of the spirit and faithful to the sources from which everything originates, who write, commemorate and leave a reminder, lest any proud person forget
    He rules wherever he is in his turn, from where did all existence and abundance come from and is nourished.
    For this eternal world, which is prepared after all to deny- and deny its existence- its existence- and its very existence. And its existence- any denial, as it is, is considered an attempt at extinction. People, murder of essence, murder of all infrastructure, murder of the factor that gives birth to an heir.. (as it is). Murder of mother nature, murder of the souls of the world.
    When scientists are "extroverted" and proud, disdain and despise the hidden feeders, from them for an immeasurable amount of time, to this hour... there comes a moment, when the threshold of endurance of the many nutrients, they feel empty
    And the kidney..since and so,, warning signals come from their place, yes also rebellion and uprising until the Horma War
    For their honor and the power of the "creation" of survival.
    The proud science, constantly and with a rough hand, lacking love and tenderness, touching rudeness one might even say "beastly" in all the sanctity of the varieties that maintain and preach on it. There is also no shortage of religious people outside the "casual", who harm themselves in the next infrastructure to preach on them - and there are no exemptions for them either, But still.. they are on their way, even if not fully aware, from the metaphysical point of view - the keepers of the embers of Yah (including the primary worlds of creation). Also the thought of the Torah - for the mentally developed - and male patriarchy, unwittingly often betraying the infrastructure from which they drink and feed..
    The term: "Cradle of Being" in Hebrew (from the past root - fetus) contains the great secret to understanding the value of remembering the mother. -alienated, objective, seemingly./occupier)
    Life is not just a closed laboratory - and anyone who wants to investigate himself in this way - will eat in a closed room inside a closed laboratory - and will destroy himself. There is no right to take another being as our victim.
    Also "astro-nom", which tries to prove theories and research in a dry numerical way, without understanding merit, mutual living relations and without the mother! chology/-astrology/life logic goes round and round/a breathing and living willow. His theory is like a garlic peel (empty for all intents and purposes) ..and therefore if there is no respect for the "mother of primary scientific knowledge" - there will be no sparing patronage for the "dry and empty" theory that does not serve the sanctity of life..for all the species in this (hidden) world.
    The accelerator experiment in Sarn only proved that the pride of scientists in a huge group of people almost led to a global disaster and the destruction of nutritious and sacred varieties - the source of life.
    At the moment, it probably doesn't matter who I am, in the vigilance. (and maybe yes most of the days). to some
    Simply put, I am a being/mother/child/adult/childish/and indeed the patroness of many and many natural beings of many varieties, children
    Smart, innocent, learned/and also adults, seekers of wisdom-hearty, seekers of true freedom. hands, when they deny their existence-their existence-their dignity-as their many graces.
    I am not named now/to your knowledge/awareness. And those who want to understand will understand.

    From the historical point of view

  945. Michael Hazafen,

    You wrote in your response that you were willing to bet your life that Yehuda is not right, why bet - because you have no proof!!!. To travel to the edge of the galaxy in order to measure that over large distances the Newtonian formula for gravity requires correction, a bit big for you - right?. But still, you're willing to put your life on the line, why? Because you have a very strong intuition/faith.
    Yehuda also has a very strong intuition/faith - just the opposite of yours. He even proved that he is willing to put his good name on the line (unlike you and I who shoot from the ambush).

    What is the idea of ​​MOND, at least to my limited knowledge: Einstein came and said "Newtonian theory is correct, but only for low speeds. At high speeds it requires correction". Professor Milgrom came along and threw the same idea at the gravity formula for large distances and claims that it requires correction. From various arguments and personal intuition I lean towards the conservative current that requires "dark mass" more than MOND. Although I know the fact that MOND calculations gave the best fit to actual observations (over all other theories).

    But all this in a small way... After all, we would all be thrown off the stairs of the scientific establishment together. And that's why we all gathered here on the Hidan website (not just Yehuda).
    So what is important? - Well, I'll tell you. Maybe it was Mark Twain who said (roughly): "I don't agree with you, but I will do everything so that you can say your words freely."

    (By the way, Mark Twain also said: "If someone has insulted you and you are not sure if it was intentional, do not be drawn into extreme reactions. Wait for the right opportunity and hit him with a rock.")

  947. to big brother

    I have written many articles, I stand behind them all, I also know the flaws in some of them, I don't need a type like Michael to tell me that. I do not force anyone to agree with my ideas, and no one will force me not to believe what I believe.
    Michael presents me in the form of a person whose whole purpose in life is to mislead people, but luckily the great redeemer Michael came and saved the world from the lies of Judah. (Response 134)
    What I have to say about the fact that in SA we are dealing here with an obsessed, wretched, defamatory and poor man whose best way is to ignore him.
    It hurts me that they make me a bad person, because I'm not like that.
    I'm sure you, big brother, aren't a bad person either, but Michael already hints that you are.
    Michael, with all his insolence, already accuses you of ulterior motives, in his words, and I quote:-
    "It is easy to conclude that you are not acting out of altruistic motives or any honest motive"
    And he also adds and claims that you are a dishonest person in your response. (Response 141)
    At least you see who I've been dealing with for months.
    But it won't help Michael, there are too many good and interesting things in the idea of ​​the simple universe for it not to be worth giving up on it despite the flaws and doubt that exist there.

    Appreciating your fair approach
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  948. Yehuda's older brother:
    What is the value of your response?
    I - in the entirety of my responses to Yehuda's words I refuted his claims.
    You may not see value in refuting a lie, but anyone who is interested in science does see value in it.
    I don't know how to define a good or bad person, but the set of slanders and insults I received from Yehuda, together with the repetition of arguments that were refuted in the hope that the refutation will be forgotten and together with pretending to be someone who knows what he is talking about, do not place him in a good place on my value axis.
    It is interesting that all Yehuda's slanders and blasphemies towards you did not arouse the same feeling of fatherhood in you.
    It is easy to conclude that you are not acting out of altruistic motives or any honest motive and that you are nothing more than a person who was hurt by the fact that I also refuted any of his claims.
    I'm not stepping on anyone (even if they're not good!) - I'm just pointing out mistakes.
    I honestly can sign that he was not right (in the theories he has put forward so far). This is one of the things I would bet even my life on!
    I also know that sites such as the scientist are the only places where he can present these theories because any scientific journal with a criticism of the content would throw him down the stairs (and by the way, this claim of mine is easy to test experimentally so anyone who wants to disprove it is welcome!).

  949. Michael,

    What is the value of your comments?

    Do you think they are entertaining/interesting/educative/surprising?
    Or maybe they are predictable/mangeous/evil/annoying?

    After all, you cannot say of Judah that he is a bad person, he is not a false prophet and there is no group of foolish followers after him. He has an opinion that apparently stems from a very strong intuition, can you honestly sign that in the end he didn't come out right and half the world will eat the hat?

    How much integrity is there in stepping on a good person? A good joke is that everyone laughs at it, he doesn't seem to enjoy it - stop it! ! !

  950. Yehuda:
    Who, in your opinion, does not have independence of thought?
    Doesn't the ability to refute your errors and convince the cool indicate independence of mind?

    The cool:
    You see?
    What you deduced from the argument, Yehuda has not yet deduced.

  951. to the cool responder
    I enjoyed reading your comment.
    I am glad that the exchange of comments between us helped you form an opinion, even if it is different from mine.
    This shows a healthy independence of thought. This is in stark contrast to the others here.
    I would love to hear from you in the future.

    Align power!
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  952. Yehuda:
    I've already explained to you that I'm not dead on dark mass and that Milgrom and Kenstein don't rule it out, but as usual - you're on your own.

  953. Please forward your response to Israel Prize laureate Jacob Bechstein and Professor Milgrom and tell them that, contrary to their opinion, you are dying for a dark mass.

    Stand up to them, don't let them mislead the nation for decades.

    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  955. for cool:
    This is what is called "from what is not for her sake comes for her."
    Yehuda did not try to bring you to an understanding of reality, but on the contrary - to mislead you!
    As I mentioned - he managed for years to mislead many people on this and other websites.
    The whole difference between this time and the others is that this time a person stood before him who did understand the issue and who had enough patience (I suppose there were others who saw that it was a mistake but they didn't have enough motivation for the debate which, due to the lack of practicality of many parts of it, became exhausting)

  956. dark mass

    Yesterday a news was published in UNIVERSE TODAY, the main thing is that a way to indirectly observe a dark mass was predicted, a way that can be implemented immediately.

    Yehuda and the rest of the dissidents of the dark mass,

    Philosophically, I got the impression that the unreliability of the "dark mass" in your eyes stems from the fact that it is not an "elegant solution". Occam's razor. As if nature is water that flows down and eventually, if given enough time, the water will find/level the shortest and most efficient path.
    So that's it, absolutely not!. The pursuit of elegance is only a human weakness and does not go well with my observations of the environment. The Greeks came and postulated a theoretical concept of "atom", the smallest basic particle. It didn't work, so Burr and Rutherford came along and refined the atom into a system just a little like the solar system. Most chemistry was developed around the assumption of these elegant models, only to find that they were incorrect and we were left with chemistry on chicken's knees. And since then the research continues, the elegance gets further away and a very "cluttered" not "logical and efficient" is revealed. Who needs all these quarks?, why not have one simple and sufficient particle?
    Evolution can be viewed in the same way. If there really is natural selection and the strong and successful survive, then why is there such a variety of animals?, why does the tree of evolution diverge and not converge?
    You can look at the function of the body (of all animals): the technical solutions are far from elegant. They are significantly more complicated than existing alternatives. Just as an example I will take the function of a muscle: "legs" run on a track with very complicated chemistry. There are materials that change their length depending on the acidity of the environment - this is apparently a much simpler solution. but no! As if we chose the solution that would be the most complicated for medical students 🙂 ...

    Looking at the history of science, don't be surprised to find in the end that besides dark matter there is also teriyaki-flavored matter.

  957. Avi Bilzovsky
    Last night, from what happened here in the knowledge as an attempt, as against me, and the censorship... I haven't calmed down yet, and I'm still really freaked out!!!!! Injustice, of any kind arouses in me an angel who knows no rest!!!! And my soul blows... a terrible winter. All the time I had the tolerance. But now...it is doubtful that I could reconcile.
    So far, Yehuda has calmed me down, and also the confessions of others towards others..this also comforts me a little.
    But the cool one. He hasn't apologized yet. And Yehuda, I haven't taken my genius seriously yet.. A nice bird doesn't count
    In the land of imaginary geniuses!!! I am hurt, to the very core of my limbs and my soul, which is sublime among you.
    Hurt. Hurt. Hurt.!!!
    And I will not rest until my local is restored and appeased.
    And my homeland is my heritage. And there is no need for me to be destroyed in my country.. despite your failure to achieve the nobility of the phenomenal intellect.,
    According to the definitions of his multiple roles.
    The rest, my representatives will do whatever they want... I admit that I'm really pissed off, in my mind. (only)
    It is possible that both the turtle and the elephant have endurance limits... not to mention an ant that works 24 hours a day.
    I don't envy Metacrigh, despite the terrible sharing.

  958. to Michael and Yehuda,
    I must point out something about what you discussed in the article "bringing the beauty of science to the public" about people shying away from science in their first encounters with the field.
    When I first saw the site myself, I knew almost nothing about physics, and the site really increased my interest in all things science, which I already had long ago.

    But the one who did the best job regarding me was the great Yehuda Sabdarmish (no disrespect). Thanks to the fact that his theory is so simple and understandable even without much or complicated knowledge of mathematics or physics, I could really read it, understand it in detail and analyze it in an easy way. What is derived from the understanding of Sabdarmish's theory is the discovery of its errors and paradoxes. Which made me even more interested in trying to solve her problems. Thanks to this, I deepened my knowledge of collisions and Newtonian physics and developed my spatial imagination (which is required in order to do simulations for Judah's theory in my head).

    Perhaps this can really be a good method for increasing the interest of boys and ordinary people in the science of physics. Creating a simple theory that at first glance seems completely correct and then disproving you from all possible aspects.

    Anyway, thanks Yehuda. Because you only learn from mistakes

  960. The cool:
    Your question makes me uncomfortable.
    I don't like to respond to a person's body except when it annoys me (which usually happens when the person lies or when they attack me instead of my arguments).
    I didn't spare my tribe from Hogin when she pissed me off (and it really happened quite a few times) and I don't intend to be angry in the future either, but I don't want to make a general sentence here.
    In general - my strategy in life is "measure against measure" or, as it is customary to say in game theory, "Tit for tat". This is a strategy that has been proven to be effective and it is not based on (and therefore does not entail) holding grudges.

  961. I also have a suggestion for a survey

    Do you think it's okay to do surveys aimed at a person or a group of people on a scientific website that is supposed to show openness?

    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    By the way, my answer: - No.

  962. To a point:
    Did you make your point that your backlash reflects the nothingness and the banal words "the beauty of the soul" in your responses to another article?? Find for yourself the contradiction in your points.
    And really, really not for another. Only for yourself!! That your "itchy" ears will hear your point.

  963. For the cool survey, my level of suffering from a reaction is proportional to the length of the reaction.
    Any comment, or long article will cause me great suffering. And this is because from the surveys I conducted it turns out that what is said in the article depends on an inverse exponential relationship along the length of the article itself. And it does make me suffer to read anything.

  966. Am I suffering from Hugin's reactions?
    No.
    What is my opinion on her responses? You can conclude from my response on this page, number 88.
    You don't have to read what she writes.
    It adds some color to the site.
    It is not exactly ours (in terms of its attitude and reference to science). Let's show tolerance towards the other or the stranger. Anyone who wants to can laugh at what she writes, but why get upset? As mentioned, you can simply not read.

  970. Michael, Roi, Avi, Yehuda, Higgs, Aryeh, Point, Gray Tab, A. Ben-Ner, Ami, What's New, Yael, Rami and all the members of this site. I would like to test the democracy on this site and I will now offer a survey during which I really ask that whoever reads this message honestly answer my following question:

    Do you suffer from Hugin's reactions?

  971. All of you are probably familiar with the well-known passage in Israel and the world, where a person passes away... a well-known public figure, a person from the village, a famous artist... and another "simple" person... etc., etc.... there are no shortages...
    And escorts to his next world..there are no shortages..crocodile tears are flowing (mainly, from those who only the day before his passing cursed his soul..) So it is, as the road of the land does not lack the hypocrites..whose curse is a thing like the thing..and also the boil instead of the Shechinah. Blowing and blowing on the back of his neck.
    And then the speeches begin.. praising him.. and also the XNUMX Psalms.. etc. etc.
    And I think to myself..wondering..
    If only he knew he was dead, a fool!! an idiot!!! to dictate beforehand what he would want to be said about him after his departure!!!!
    Because he, she, he!!! should really know who he is!!!! but unfortunately, people are born, live, die..
    Like mosquitoes, like insects, like cockroaches...they think they think...and most of the time...they really aren't
    At all know—-just slaves!!!!!
    So here is an exercise so that you don't fall into the same trap, and take yourself in wise hands::
    Take a pen and a notebook.
    Think. Tomorrow I die!!
    Now write down what you want others to say to you.
    You will be surprised how suddenly your hand will start writing down a stream of things from the height of your true being!!!!
    At that moment, you may not understand at all how all this came out of your wand!!! But this is the absolute true vision, which you came from eternity to fulfill.
    That way, you will know who you are!!! Where you, as a private individual, are striving!!! And that way you will know your destiny!!!
    Try!! Argue!!!
    And anything at will, really!!!
    (experienced-tested/proven/ inspired by the tenth insight) = how to grasp your own vision.

    So, long and fruitful life.

    Hugin: On life and death/or the eternity requested in the agreements.

  972. Hugin:
    I have no doubt that there are open, smart, etc. people who visit the site and as you saw - the cool commenter is one of them and therefore understood what happened here.
    Therefore there is nothing to wait "until then" because "then" has already arrived.

  973. Michael
    I still want to believe that besides you, there are other people on the science site, open, smart, intelligent and truly honest with themselves-others, and with a heart of gold, and a brilliant mind, who will eventually know and understand everything that happened on the site.
    Until then,
    May it be good
    And all good
    and a night of rest.
    And I wish for Yehuda, that he will take himself in his hands with utmost seriousness, and from the whole saga will only get stronger and better.
    And all my other words, which have been written so far - as my other words, are true and stable.

    Hugin: The one who rings the bells.

  974. Hugin:
    There is religious fanaticism here and nothing else.
    As I said, the original Torah is refuted by the facts and the one created from Judah's "renovations" is also refuted by itself.
    It is not a question of choice. When I see a contradiction I know for sure that there is a mistake.
    I am not an instigator against Judah.
    If anyone here is using tools of incitement, it's him.
    I am simply saying that the theory he is proposing is wrong and I have shown it in many ways each of which is well grounded in reality and logic.
    There is no way I would wish him success because the task he has undertaken is not to discover the truth but to convince people with a lie.

  975. Michael
    Life has a sweet and natural dynamic.
    Everything is appropriate and compatible with the dominant perception of reality at that time. Similarly, many coordinated theories are renewed and refuted according to that periodicity. (including the "nice" chaos theory..etc.)
    And yet, after all, the universe is in its absolute purpose - harmonious, whole, sweet to the point, even if you are not able at this time, and some others like you to see and be educated on the matter.
    In the law of pulsating dynamics... the moment comes... when multi-dimensional aspects are perfected and accumulated into points
    The essence of the whole thing.
    The principle of the simple universe-that Judah penetrated/pointed/focus to discover and illuminate is now in his hands.!!!
    What was, was, and will be respected. Because history is not erased/on the contrary, we learn and take lessons from it, and all the people of humanity are eternally full and respected partners in their way to all scenarios... but now there is a turning point.
    The history is significant!!! And the need to refine the matter also and especially from the informed scientific point of view is today the test of time!!!!
    So, there is no need for you to just deflect against Yehuda...and give him for a moment encouragement and the blessing of the road that he will succeed in proving
    the winner!!!!!
    There is no blind religious fanaticism here. Everything is open-minded, enlightened, developed and healthy.!! As the order of the hour..
    that Hogin loves so much.

    So, tick, tick, tick, tick... and a lot of work.
    Hugin

  976. Hugin:
    Yehuda does not have any winning research.
    All he has is a religious adherence to an idea put forward by others hundreds of years ago and disproved many times since.
    Yehuda added his own things to the ancient theory, all of which are logical errors. The only logical thing in the theory is what Lesage said in 1750 - in Lesage's words there are at least no internal contradictions and no mathematical errors. Unfortunately - Lesage's words are also not in line with the reality revealed to us through observations, but - as I said - the addition of Yehuda makes the theory really grotesque.
    To the multitude of refutations accumulated over the years to Lesage's ideas, I also added a few, and I refuted in many ways the ideas that Yehuda added to a theory that was already disproven.
    Judah managed to deceive many people for a long time.
    The way he took was to publish his words on this type of website instead of sending them to scientific journals and this reveals another facet of the story. I have no doubt that he knew that his words would not stand the test of scientific scrutiny and therefore tried to be wise about the weak.
    As soon as I appeared on the website, his plot was foiled and gradually others also saw his impersonation.
    The cool commenter is one of those whose words revealed Yehuda's true face.

  977. Yehuda.
    A simple principle to get out of all the mazes and excess of cumbersome data for the purposeful purpose. is the "optimal filtering principle".
    As soon as all the data is in your hands, what remains is the flight connected to a higher consideration that enables the winning proof of the summarizing theory - the absolute. (as a principle on which everything is founded, and from which the rest
    the marginal and temporary appendages).
    It is impossible not to take my hat off to the boy-guy, who has just submitted a welcome reminder to continue the winning research in your hand.
    * An open mind is a desirable and necessary guiding principle for development.
    * I - Hogin see, believe and breathe the principle of the simple universe - in all its aspects.
    Your brilliant minds/those who are interested in the matter remain, and may provide an answer to this and also as required by the basic rules
    The instructor of the teachings of the exact sciences.
    ******
    There are hidden and visible factors that are directly and indirectly related to this theory. From here on, they will be developed
    More evidence and enlightenment that will shed great light on issues of science and advanced/archaic knowledge.
    ********
    Humanity is facing a very fascinating turn - and each person and their special contribution to it.
    *********
    So, with personal success for the topic of interest and the code: our Yehuda../Varbati.. (and even for Orangush... that less externality will give birth to more heart-genius and values)... let's hope.

    Hugin: In appreciation/without any flattery.

  978. "
    I see you have met someone who relieves you with questions about the matter. This Michael knows how to see
    I understand interest.
    Send him a link to your website
    http://www.planetnana.co.il/sevdermish/
    And for your articles in science
    "
    ----------
    "
    To*
    You're right, Michael has knowledge, and he's already managed to correct me on a fact or two about the simple universe idea, such as the background temperature and the friction problem. But, I wasn't convinced that Le Sage's idea of ​​gravitation is essentially unfounded and that's where the debate is at the moment. And by the way, you are also allowed to join the storm of debate.
    All the best
    Sabdarmish Yehuda
    "

    And all this from more than a year ago

  979. "
    Remember that the "simple universe theory" is just a nice but unproven idea, and one should be careful when using it. That's why today I prefer to call the simple universe theory, the simple universe idea.

    Remember that the theory of relativity (I emphasize that it is a whole theory and not just a single theory) started altogether from a rather idiotic idea that the speed of light is always equal, whether it is reflected from a stationary body or whether it is reflected from a moving body.
    --------------------------

    How can you know what the background temperature of the universe is? It is impossible to measure with a thermometer and it is certainly impossible to deduce from the background temperature of the solar system or the Milky Way galaxy.

    Answer: The background temperature of the universe was measured by two Bell company technicians. They picked up radio radiation coming from all directions in space, which is a remnant of the heat of the Big Bang. And hence, after translating the size of the wave into temperature, they reached a size of 2.73 degrees Kelvin. The aforementioned technicians received a Nobel Prize for this.

    I now understand how the temperature was measured and thanks for the explanation.
    ——————————————————————————————-

    It is not possible for the particles to have 100% elasticity, it is a particle in itself and not made of another particulate material. But it can be said that particles repel each other at distances that are almost adjacent, with a strong force that allows for "supposedly 100% elasticity"

    Answer: I don't understand the question, I will read it again later.

    Well, I read it again. You make very interesting assumptions and are not at all sure that "can't be":-

    "100 percent elasticity"?- Why not?

    "It is a particle in itself and is not made of other particulate matter" - again you make an interesting statement. If for the purpose of solving a problem my particle will have to be built from other particles and it won't contradict other things, then why do I care if it is so?

    "Particles repel each other when they are almost close together" - I don't accept that repulsive force works just like that.

    Elasticity, according to what I understand, is the return of energy from a body that is possible thanks to an elastic particle structure (I don't want to expand on 'what is an elastic particle structure')
    A particle by itself has no internal particle structure, therefore any energy it absorbs is returned as straight motion and/or vibration (heat). Therefore the particle cannot have elasticity.
    If you want to keep the "elasticity" between the particles valid (otherwise particles will stop each other) then one option is to add a repulsive force to the particles, since adding such a force confuses your intelligence (to say the least), it's better to do something else. You are the researcher who should choose from the available options... I can only advise.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————

    How do you explain the electric charge? The electric attraction and repulsion? (which of course is much stronger than gravity) This cannot be explained by messenger particles or noble gases.

    Answer: I don't know how to explain electric charge, so I don't mind sticking with its conventional explanation. The explanation may lie in the rotation of the particles.

    Noble gases are not a vehicle for explaining electricity. Their name comes from the fact that they fail to enter into a chemical reaction with themselves or other elements

    The conventional explanation of electric attraction and repulsion is quite similar to the conventional explanation of gravitation (as far as I know): Why? So!
    When I meant that noble gases (in retrospect, I meant ideals) are not an explanatory tool, I actually meant that it is impossible to explain the electric attraction and repulsion the way you explain gravity (using an ideal background gas or with the help of messenger particles of charge).
    --------------------------------

    Well on second thought, I still don't know. Sometimes light behaves as a particle and sometimes as a wave. There is a wonderful book by Richard Feynman on light and matter. There you can see that the light behaves in a very, very, strange way, just like small and strange clocks, so the explanation for the light is not simple. What is known today is how he behaves but not why he behaves that way. And it's amazing because light is at the core of the theory of relativity.

    I am too ignorant to try to explain the light...
    All in all, I am *, and my knowledge of physics is very low. I barely know Newton's formulas. I still somehow understand the special theory of relativity, but I am not able to digest it. General relativity is too complicated and quantum mechanics is crazy and whoever invented it must have spent many years in an insane asylum :-S.
    --------------------

    In your gravity calculation, for some reason, you only used particles whose range of direction and their impact location is between two tangents (that are tangent to the two spheres) that intersect between the spheres. Why is it not possible to also take the field of direction and the impact location between two tangents that are parallel to each other or intersect with each other before or after the two balls?
    See attachment where I show simply which field I mean (in red).

    Answer: Requires thought, you are quite right and I will check some and correct.

    Regarding the arrows in your tenth question, we'll leave it to some kind of private meeting because I'm really going to get into trouble with my arrow drawings

    The areas I added add one-sided hit options and thus lead to an increase in gravity compared to the previous drawing.
    I am glad that you find in me a person who is capable of developing a theory, but what I will tell you with my own eyes cannot bring you anything new.
    ————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    My idea: maybe we can try to explain gravitation with the help of electric charge, maybe with the help of an attempt to prove that the attraction between the nucleus of atom A and B and the electron cloud of atom B and A (respectively) is stronger than the repulsion between nucleus and nucleus and cloud to cloud.

    Answer: Unfortunately I did not understand the idea. But if you are right, then you have unified electricity with gravity, and that is what everyone is looking for.

    If you look at the attached picture then you can see that:
    a: the nucleus of the right atom
    b: the electron cloud of the right atom
    c: the nucleus of the left atom
    d: the electron cloud of the left atom

    The set of electric attraction forces that we have here is between a and d, and between b and c.
    The set of electric repulsion forces we have here is between a and c and between b and d.

    I (as I already told you) do not know formulas, but if you find that the set of attractive forces is greater than the set of repulsive forces, then you can explain why atoms are attracted to each other and thus you have solved the problem of gravity. Try to test my proposal in the theory test to see if there is water in the jug.

    ------------
    If you say that the particles of the theory are built from other particles in a way that allows elasticity, then you are complicating matters too much. Because then you say that the particles can break up and can be of different sizes and completely destroys the entire structure of the ideal gas.

    And another correction, in the previous messages, where I wrote "noble gas", I actually meant ideal gas. I got confused with the concepts.

    ------------

    The gas, by its very function, also needs to be noble (this time I meant noble) so that it does not bind to itself or to other "creatures". Since he has no way to make connections, then he is surely noble.

    Another thing, I think that the idea that the speed of the particles (which should be given some name) is not constant is not good and that a different amount of particles can explain everything that is explained by a different particle speed.

    I also didn't understand where the need for more concentrated or diluted groups of particles could help, and how could such places be created?

    Particles that are returned from a body in different directions can oppose gravity and weaken it and this is a bit incomprehensible.

    I think I have a huge mistake in what I wrote about the elasticity. Perhaps the elasticity in the particles can be explained by the "law of conservation of energy" instead of "elastic internal structure". There is a situation where I came off as a real idiot for forgetting the law of conservation of energy like that, but in my day-to-day life two inelastic balls hitting each other in opposite directions, they stop and do not continue moving in opposite directions.

    "

  980. So note a nice commenter how even then, and without having anything to do with Michael, I was cautious about your question about the simple universe theory:-
    "Remember that the "simple universe theory" is merely a nice but unproven idea, and one must be careful when using it. That's why today I prefer to call the simple universe theory, the simple universe idea." End quote. So it cannot be said that I acted arrogantly
    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  982. Yehuda:
    I recommend that you read the correspondence between us and see who behaves in a miserable way, insults and blasphemes constantly, lies and slanders shamelessly - and who stands by and usually manages to maintain restraint in spite of the Jura you unleash on him.
    You should know, Yehuda, that in addition to the fact that you often talk nonsense, you also behave in a disrespectful manner and I never got tired of your behavior just because it was always annoying to me.

  983. Well, then I see that we had many conversations on the subject.
    I would love to hear your thoughts on an article or other years.
    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  984. "
    To *, continue answers to your questions:-

    3. It is not possible for the particles to have 100% elasticity, it is a particle by itself and is not made of another particulate material. But it can be said that particles repel each other at distances that are almost adjacent, with a strong force that allows for "supposedly 100% elasticity"

    Answer: I don't understand the question, I will read it again later.

    Well, I read it again. You make very interesting assumptions and are not at all sure that "can't be":-

    "100 percent elasticity"?- Why not?

    "It is a particle in itself and is not made of other particulate matter" - again you make an interesting statement. If for the purpose of solving a problem my particle will have to be built from other particles and it won't contradict other things, then why do I care if it is so?

    "Particles repel each other when they are almost close together" - I don't accept that repulsive force works just like that.

    4. How do you explain the electric charge? The electric attraction and repulsion? (which of course is much stronger than gravity) This cannot be explained by messenger particles or noble gases.

    Answer: I don't know how to explain electric charge, so I don't mind sticking with its conventional explanation. The explanation may lie in the rotation of the particles.

    Noble gases are not a vehicle for explaining electricity. Their name comes from the fact that they fail to enter into a chemical reaction with themselves or other elements.

    I have nothing to add here.

    5. Light is electromagnetic radiation, therefore it is impossible to take the title "carriers of light" from electrons and transfer it to other particles because it has already been proven (I think) that light is a wave disturbance in electrons.

    Answer: Requires thought.

    Well on second thought, I still don't know. Sometimes light behaves as a particle and sometimes as a wave. There is a wonderful book by Richard Feynman on light and matter. There you can see that the light behaves in a very, very, strange way, just like small and strange clocks, so the explanation for the light is not simple. What is known today is how he behaves but not why he behaves that way. And it's amazing because light is at the core of the theory of relativity.

    10. In your gravity calculation, for some reason, you only used particles whose range of direction and impact location is between two tangents (which are tangent to the two spheres) that intersect between the spheres. Why is it not possible to also take the field of direction and the impact location between two tangents that are parallel to each other or intersect with each other before or after the two balls?
    See attachment where I show simply which field I mean (in red).

    Answer: Requires thought, you are quite right and I will check some and correct.

    Regarding the arrows in your tenth question, we'll leave it to some kind of private meeting because I'm really going to get into trouble with my arrow drawings.

    I hope I have answered you in my answers and at least some of your physical questions have been explained.

    **

    In appreciation

    Sabdarmish Yehuda
    "

  985. "
    Download the original attachment

    L*: Below are your questions and answers to some of them (1,2,6,7,8,9,10) for you. Remember that the "simple universe theory" is just a nice but unproven idea, and one should be careful when using it. That's why today I prefer to call the simple universe theory, the simple universe idea.

    1. How can one know what the background temperature of the universe is? It is impossible to measure with a thermometer and it is certainly impossible to deduce from the background temperature of the solar system or the Milky Way galaxy.

    Answer: The background temperature of the universe was measured by two Bell company technicians. They picked up radio radiation coming from all directions in space, which is a remnant of the heat of the Big Bang. And hence, after translating the size of the wave into temperature, they reached a size of 2.73 degrees Kelvin. The aforementioned technicians received a Nobel Prize for this.

    2. If only a billionth of all the particles that pass through the earth hit it, then how can there be a force of attraction between small objects? After all, the chance of a particle hitting the bone is extremely small.

    Answer: A billionth of a very large number can be a tremendous size, for example: a billionth of ten to the power of one hundred is ten to the power of ninety-one! And if we take a body that is very small, it will still be hit by many parts that will create gravitation.

    3. It is not possible for the particles to have 100% elasticity, it is a particle by itself and is not made of another particulate material. But it can be said that particles repel each other at distances that are almost adjacent, with a strong force that allows for "supposedly 100% elasticity"

    Answer: I don't understand the question, I'll read it again later.

    4. How do you explain the electric charge? The electric attraction and repulsion? (which of course is much stronger than gravity) This cannot be explained by messenger particles or noble gases.

    Answer: I don't know how to explain electric charge, so I don't mind sticking with its conventional explanation. The explanation may lie in the rotation of the particles.

    Noble gases are not a vehicle for explaining electricity. Their name comes from the fact that they fail to enter into a chemical reaction with themselves or other elements.

    5. Light is electromagnetic radiation, therefore it is impossible to take the title "carriers of light" from electrons and transfer it to other particles because it has already been proven (I think) that light is a wave disturbance in electrons

    Answer: Requires thought.

    6. If body A moves at high speed at a very long distance from body B which is stationary, then body B is pulled in the direction of body A's old position. Two things are proven from this, both that gravitation is not symmetrical in terms of directions and that the relation between bodies is canceled. DA I don't know if the problem of gravitation to an old position of a mass body also exists in Einstein's universe, since in Einstein's theory gravity also moves at a speed limited to the speed of light.

    Answer: You are right, Tamir, if gravity moves at the speed of light, gravity is not directed at the sun, but at a certain point where the sun was eight minutes and twenty seconds before. But in my theory the particles move at a different speed from each other and therefore gravity will also act in the general direction of the body's previous location but with varying intensity.

    Example: Suppose the sun suddenly disappeared, how would the earth feel this disappearance? Well if gravity moves at the speed of light then after eight minutes and twenty seconds it will be without gravity and then it will move in a straight line in the space of the cosmos, but for the eight minutes and twenty seconds it will continue to continue with a constant force in the approximate direction where the sun was.

    But according to my theory the average speed of the particles is 390000 km per second and some are faster and some are slower. Since the particles are the ones that determine the gravity, the gravity that the earth feels will gradually disappear. After about six or seven minutes, you will lose the most gravity because around the speed of 390,000 km per second, many particles are moving.

    7. The gas particles according to their description can rotate molecules and not just push.

    Very correct answer.

    8. In a completely opaque material there is no difference between the gravitation of a hollow star surrounded by a completely opaque material and a star filled with a completely opaque material

    Answer: According to my theory, what you said is true. Particles in dense bodies hide each other and therefore produce less gravitation

    9.. I didn't understand how according to the theory of the simple universe black holes can exist, after all the image of a body (which does not emit light) is created by the light rays reflected from it and there is no need for light to pass through it, therefore a material opaque to light can still reflect light rays and create an image for itself .

    Answer: According to the theory of the simple universe, black holes probably cannot form and this is because the particles that make up the body hide each other and all that are hidden will not be able to produce gravitation.

    Therefore, the gravitation in highly compressed stars will correspond to the cross-sectional area of ​​the compressed star and not to its mass.

    10. In your gravity calculation, for some reason, you only used particles whose range of direction and impact location is between two tangents (which are tangent to the two spheres) that intersect between the spheres. Why is it not possible to also take the field of direction and the impact location between two tangents that are parallel to each other or intersect with each other before or after the two balls?
    See attachment where I show simply which field I mean (in red).

    Answer: Requires thought, you are quite right and I will check how much and fix it..

    This is my attacking ten for now, when you get back to me and if I feel that I understand the theory of the simple universe then I will try to find a goalkeeper (the 11th player) to protect it.

    My idea: maybe we can try to explain gravitation with the help of electric charge, maybe with the help of an attempt to prove that the attraction between the nucleus of atom A and B and the electron cloud of atom B and A (respectively) is stronger than the repulsion between nucleus and nucleus and cloud to cloud.

    Answer: Unfortunately I did not understand the idea. But if you are right, then you have unified electricity with gravity, and that is what everyone is looking for.
    "

  986. I will respect your wishes and remain anonymous.
    I hope that at least with regard to some of the articles you agree with me.
    It's not bad if there is a difference of opinion about a certain topic. Understand that if a person writes about a lot of topics, it is also possible to disagree on some of them.
    I still think that expressions in the style of :- "I'm tired of your sarcastic theories!" is out of place. You apparently learned that from Michael.
    If I'm not mistaken, you're the one who also told me that the site in Neena is nothing. And really, these days I'm upgrading it. when ready I would love to show you and others.
    I hope you'll forgive me for not remembering exactly who it was
    After all, I'm a year or two older than you ((:-))
    So, bye for now
    And... there is a future for the youth in the country

    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  987. And here are Yehuda's reactions:
    "
    To ** ** Goodbye
    I was happy to just receive your response and questions.
    I must point out that your questions show great knowledge, and yes, show that you have delved into the material I wrote
    I was glad that you liked the story A Dissertation in Astronomy and I hope you understood who it is about and who are actually the heroes in the story. Based on a script by Spur, a talented film student at Tel Aviv University created a short film called "The Research" that was praised.
    I have another short story that I wrote: "A story about a small Turkish donkey and a great cosmological principle" The story can be found in the collection of my articles here on the Hidan website, under the title
    "Yehuda Sabdarmish notes for the lecture David Yom and the Cosmological Principle, 18/8 Givatayim"
    I think he is also a cute number that you will like..
    And regarding your intelligent questions, they are quite a few, some of them I know how to respond, and some I have to make an effort and think about, so a little patience, I hope to do it in stages starting in the near future. After you said that I reply to all those who comment on my articles, I cannot disappoint you, mainly because you sound like a nice commenter.
    So all good
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

    And by the way, you're quite right about the drawings you drew at the end, I just didn't imagine that anyone would come up with it, simply, I didn't have the strength to draw more corrected drawings. But I must point out that this does not change the proof principle of the inverse relation to the square of the distance of gravitation.
    "

  988. Here is the first response I wrote to you without the first part containing personal details (and sorry for the ignorance in some of my questions, they are from more than a year ago):
    "
    Peace be upon Yehuda, ******
    ***************
    I agree with you that today's accepted physics looks like a ball with patches sewn everywhere, so there should be something clear.
    But the simple universe theory has many more holes than the Newton/Einstein theory.
    I will try to count all the parts that I don't understand:
    1. How can one know what the background temperature of the universe is? It is impossible to measure with a thermometer and it is certainly impossible to deduce from the background temperature of the solar system or the Milky Way galaxy.
    2. If only a billionth of all the particles that pass through the earth hit it, then how can there be a force of attraction between small objects? After all, the chance of a particle hitting the bone is extremely small.
    3. It is not possible for the particles to have 100% elasticity, it is a particle by itself and is not made of another particulate material. But it can be said that particles repel each other at distances that are almost adjacent, with a strong force that allows for "supposedly 100% elasticity".
    4. How do you explain the electric charge? The electric attraction and repulsion? (which of course is much stronger than gravity) This cannot be explained by messenger particles or noble gases.
    5. Light is electromagnetic radiation, therefore it is impossible to take the title "carriers of light" from electrons and transfer it to other particles because it has already been proven (I think) that light is a wave disturbance in electrons.
    6. If body A moves at high speed at a very long distance from body B which is stationary, then body B is pulled in the direction of body A's old position. Two things are proven from this, both that gravitation is not symmetrical in terms of directions and that the relation between bodies is canceled. DA I don't know if the problem of gravitation to an old position of a mass body also exists in Einstein's universe, since in Einstein's theory gravity also moves at a speed limited to the speed of light.
    7. The gas particles according to their description can rotate molecules and not just push.
    8. In completely opaque matter there is no difference between the gravitation of a hollow star surrounded by completely opaque matter and a star filled with completely opaque matter.
    9. I did not understand how according to the theory of the simple universe black holes can exist, after all the mirror of a body (which does not emit light) is created by the light rays reflected from it and there is no need for light to pass through it, therefore a material opaque to light can still reflect light rays and create a mirror for itself.
    10. In your gravity calculation, for some reason, you only used particles whose range of direction and impact location is between two tangents (which are tangent to the two spheres) that intersect between the spheres. Why is it not possible to also take the field of direction and the impact location between two tangents that are parallel to each other or intersect with each other before or after the two balls?
    See attachment where I show simply which field I mean (in red).

    This is my attacking ten for now, when you get back to me and if I feel that I understand the theory of the simple universe then I will try to find a goalkeeper (the 11th player) to protect it.

    My idea: maybe we can try to explain gravitation with the help of electric charge, maybe with the help of an attempt to prove that the attraction between the nucleus of atom A and B and the electron cloud of atom B and A (respectively) is stronger than the repulsion between nucleus and nucleus and cloud to cloud.

    http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1408/15215758hx9.gif
    "

  989. God forbid I damage your handiwork, I read all your articles a little over a year ago.
    You must have forgotten me..
    I wrote you emails with comments, reviews and suggestions. I even supported your theory until I discovered that it does not correctly describe reality. I still remember that back then I still read all the articles you wrote on the old science site, and the little that is on the current one. You may have forgotten but you also have a mint site with an archive of articles you have written (I found the site while trying to find more of your articles on the simple universe theory.

    What I'm saying is that you don't learn from your mistakes. And if you have any opinions it doesn't mean you have to say them every 5 minutes. You have enough archives online.

    Now that you remember, I would ask that you not publish my name here in the knowledge, I prefer to remain anonymous

  990. to the cool responder
    You are a young man and should be open minded!
    I wonder if you even understand what you are tired of? ,
    Not long ago, my father put the file of my articles on the website. All you have to do is at the top on the left hand side it says "search" insert my name Sabdarmish Yehuda there and you will get the collection of all my articles.
    I don't suggest you read them all but you will see a lot of things there that might interest you. For example, two non-fiction stories "The possibility of life on other planets" and in addition "Thesis in Astronomy" - several were even filmed into a short film called "The Research" which even won awards.
    In addition, you can see in two other articles that I am aware of the great problematic of my articles. The first is "scientific provocation", and the second is "finding physical formulas - intuition versus emotions". In addition, if it interests you, you can read about a strange connection between evolution and creationism in the articles "Evolution of Creationism" and if we are talking about theories, you can read about "Evolution of Theories" - an article I wrote during conversations with the late Prof. Yuval Na'eman.
    You can read these articles (and others) and make up your own mind. And of course you can take a short cut and receive the "killing" in advance of all the issues by Morach and Rabbi Michael, who is currently serving you as Urim and Tomim.
    You are 17 years old, you are no longer a child, soon you will join the army, maybe you will try to form your own opinion even about Yehuda's "stupid" articles? As you may have already understood, there are those whose opinion differs from the opinion of the guru Michael.
    If you want to ask questions, I'm here
    And of course, of course, and if you find it appropriate to respond I would be happy.
    Good day to you commenter!
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  991. For them:
    He should know 259 where the fish urinates from.
    It is appropriate for him to know when he is coming from where he came from and where he is going
    It is fitting that he should know that he is flesh and blood - and nothing comes from nothing.
    It is fitting that he knew how to respect the sources from which he got his mind and soul.
    He should know that too much pride, at a certain point, destroys if you don't forge.
    It is appropriate that he knows that sometimes, without knowing it, the secular on the outside is sacred on the inside. If he knows, he respects all that is, and it doesn't matter in what deceptive "disguise" the wind blows through him.
    It is appropriate that he should know, that due to his relatively tender age..that I will continue to treat..as another kindness..that he does not know infallibly.
    It is appropriate that he should know that even the previous sentence has rules and limits!!! And for the sake of kindness one must work hard.
    Light from the destitute, like a two-edged sword. Like a blade that turns everything. Like a boomerang in a dance. Like the law of heaven and earth - like a fact, which any wise person will take into account.

    Hugin

    Hugin

  994. Hugin, the first time (and probably the last) that you are right!!!

    "The virtual breathes. And there are rules in it as in everything in life."

    That's why when I stop before a signposted intersection and some rabbi approaches me trying to sell me (even without money) Torah scrolls, I say thank you, I don't need it and give gas. The problem is that Yehuda tries to sell me his granny stories and his twisted theories at every intersection and at every crosswalk, and I personally (or rather, everyone except you) is already tired of saying "no thanks" "no need" "maybe another time" and give gas to the next article.

    Hugin, with all due respect (and no respect) to your spirit and Motorola Spirit, I think you should touch the ground, the ground, from time to time. You are far from reality and if you don't have me, who do you have? Because I don't care about you

  995. the cool!!
    You passed the good taste.
    You have no right or justification to address Judah like that.
    You don't even deserve a response from him.
    Know who you are facing.
    The virtual breathes. And there are rules in it as in everything in life.

    Hugin

  998. Yehuda:
    You are the one who slanders, blasphemes and talks irrelevantly.
    Here again you said all scientists are delusional so don't tell anyone you don't despise real education.
    I don't say anything at all.
    The most important part of my life has nothing to do with you.
    Most of my responses to your nonsense are given exactly when the nonsense is being said.
    Very rarely - in fact once in the entire history of the human race - have I referred to them without repeating them.
    On the other hand, there are many times you talked about them without me responding.
    What is the conclusion from this?
    The conclusion is that the one who is moaning is actually you.
    Science has had its say but you - who have no scientific training - keep whining and trying to convince innocent people that not only do they have to accept dark mass, but in addition to that they have to accept all kinds of claims that contradict each other, on the one hand, and the findings in the experiment, on the other hand.
    That's why I suggest you.
    Stop whining and see how you don't get responses to whining as well.

  999. Michael - regarding response 79
    The delusional is the one who accepts without any amount of millions of percent of dark mass, the delusional is the one who thinks that the dark mass is the holy grail that will always help cosmology.
    The audacity was given to those who at least try to find other ideas instead of poor paradigms.
    Because of "scientists" like you people are cautious and fearful in their responses. Your statements are a disaster for science.
    Your poor calumnies will not convince me as such to abandon my approach to scientific problems.
    Each of us has made our positions clear so why do you keep trying to force your opinions on others. Are you like that in your private life too?
    You made your position clear, I made mine clear. point. So what are you still whining about?
    And you are constantly trying to discredit, so we understood you, get off me, climb another tree.
    I'm tired of your behavior.

    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  1000. Aryeh Seter
    Thanks.
    Personally, I advocate "arch-wise and upside-down coffee", but if upside-down is the New Age.. and super-modernism... after all, the upside-down is a change for all of us.. and something funny and warms the spirits anew..
    And in principle, my words are not ambiguous at all for lovers of wisdom. Rather, they are scattered into a multitude of currents seeking reconciliation.. here.. (and literally from the depths of eternity).
    And again..with good will, and timing at the right time..everything is based on the value proportionality worthy of this country.
    So, in good spirits.
    And for the sake of our wonderful children.. that the whole earth honors them, for a good continuation, truly valuable! From all the intelligent that has accumulated and renews its days at this crossroads of times..
    And in the name of those who wish / the contracts / the dreamers / and the blue ones!! after all.
    Good night.
    Hugin

  1001. I just now saw the possibility that Hugin raised that I would explain her vague words in response 64.
    Well, as far as I understand, she claims that in all scientific work and scientific reporting, such as on this website, we need to refer to things that are in the nature of super modernism and New Age.
    Do you think?…
    Hugin right?
    And I will add - Yeshayahu Leibovitz was religious and observed light and severe mitzvot. On the other hand, he was a scientist (I think he had seven doctorates in different subjects). For him, science and religion were in separate categories without any connection between them.
    Hugin, on the other hand, is interested in science and spends a lot of time here with us on the site, and there is even flirting between her and a certain commenter or commenters. The scientific knowledge she accumulates here is used as her reasoning and as a basis, through her interpretation - for the spiritual elements she advocates. Ladida science needs spirituality and spirituality is also proven through science.

  1002. And Yehuda and my father, on this occasion I will refer to some fascinating data that I found in connection with the data you completed, Yehuda.

    Thank you so much.
    and good night.
    Hugin: In spite of ..everything..

  1003. The gematria of my name is 259 and I was indeed born in the year of the first Gulf War. And that's too much

  1004. orangutan
    Before replying to response 44 that was addressed to you. Are you afraid that you will fail? Or is there another reason hiding there?

    Hugin

  1005. Personally, it is difficult for me to write more than 5 lines of comment without leaving the relevant content..
    Apparently, when you are Hogin, the content is so unimportant and unnecessary that you can drag it to 30 lines for fun

  1006. Roy,, and be what you will be.
    I do not feel haunted. It is true, I was burned 26-28 years ago. And thanks to my wonderful spirit, which I will neither add nor diminish its value. I continued and will continue in my work even if it is not clear at this time in the light of the enlightened rule (apparently, and in reality). And this, because of the heavy curtain that blocks it, as a factor influencing "huge" and controlling factors to continue a terrible chain to overthrow and eliminate my proteges... and others.
    (If only you knew how much and how). In my childish innocence (yes, yes) still - in spite of everything, I asked to be given an opportunity to correct the matter at certain critical junctures... this out of immense compassion, and with unprecedented love, (which you may not have known before), as a personal need (Saving - life - honor - my name - my duty to the many) and recognizing the value of supreme grace (defining this according to your own understanding) I thought of letting even the most "wicked" (and a member of his fellows - the "mentioned" one, who holds them) correct his crime with the Rabbi and the other gluttons of his food, the fools
    As bizarre as it sounds. We all live in reality, although in the same physical world, in many realities. (thoughts create different realities in reality).
    And it doesn't matter if I sit in spite of everything in heaven, I'm really rich in my life in this world, and I lack nothing. There is still no place that is blind and opaque
    And it is forbidden for the rest of the spirits to see the true nobles, the oppressed, the plundered, even the founders of this homeland with honor
    Rabbi and modesty that you don't even know, and who sacrificed everything they ever had in silent silence. Them in the changing governments, not in national unions, you won't see them chasing sharara...etc.)
    And I, the most impudent of all!!! The daughter of the good ones!!! Proud to be a representative, as a philosopher and poet of the days in their honor.!!!! And in honor of the good children who live before them.. and in the name of the children who died and whose souls are still crying out from somewhere asking for the supreme justice to speak on their behalf (and some "Also alive..only in their bodies. But a current that you may also believe in has blocked their speaking spirit - they are silent against their will. I am their absolute patron!! Both active and hidden!! And I fight for them in my special way... full of surprises).

    If my words are great for you..her life..do good..and days will tell and prove it to prove all living truths as a living and breathing myth, then, here and now.

    And at the same time, you have not yet responded to my questions. Therefore.. you have blocked data required for any truth seeker!
    Since this is the case, I don't have enough data to trust you. No local deals with guesses but with (large-scale) facts.

    Hugin

  1007. Roy:

    Isn't it time to protect even those who do react from her nonsense?
    This will not be your persecution of her as she has been persecuting us for a long time and does not contribute anything in her reactions except to quarrels.

  1008. The bloodthirsty mob will follow a leader and overwhelm.
    He will unite as inferior to his holy spirits, for the strength of his own ego - for his well-being.
    The slave's desire to be a master prevents him from every urge and urge to subjugate.
    The crowd, to souls with no other noble spirit and purpose.
    He will organize every possible protest to overthrow the flowers of his grace.
    The crowd is bloodthirsty, lacking flight and imagination
    He will go like a rabbi after every trickster and snake that whispers about their plot.
    And it doesn't matter if it was once or today...
    That evening of great shame of souls is found at all levels of history and education.
    The crowd - many evenings - for the educated and idiots...
    The same root, the same undervalue...for the righteousness of the times and the signs.

    and the wise man.

  1009. Hugin,

    I previously deleted one of your messages because it contained personal insults towards a person who is not one of the commenters on the site, and was therefore offensive and irrelevant. There is no act of persecution against you here, and your thoughts on the matter will be as they will be.

    good week,

    Roy.

  1010. Yehuda:
    I am not a liar.
    Although if I conduct a comprehensive search I will find expressions of yours that say this explicitly, but the whole attempt to sell us delusional and far-fetched theories instead of serious theories that are in line with reality is disdain for real science and education.

  1011. When the hell did I cancel the value of real education???
    Show me one place!
    Stop slandering already. Fed up!

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  1012. Yehuda:
    You just keep going.
    How does the fact that I claim you devalue real education make me arrogant or mean?
    Come spoon feed me this garbage too!

  1013. Roy,
    Before I come to the decision that your word has value and it is worthy that I be your student for "maturing" willingly
    To ask you some preliminary "childish" questions before:
    A. What is the meaning of the sentence: Hugin, grow up.
    B. Where "maturing" will lead you, if you succeed in Alpini.
    C. As an inquisitive, nosy, etc. child, I lack a basic figure: on what exact date were you born.
    D. Do you believe that you can be trusted as Hogin's teacher, etc.
    Waiting impatiently, with Phil's patience, for the answer "mature" from the candidate to be "shepherd" and Rabbi.

    Hugin

  1014. To Michael

    What is the meaning of your stupid words:-
    "Just like Yehuda, she nullifies the value of real education in vanity here"

    Who are you to state that I am trivializing the value of real education here? Do you think that only your opinion is the real education? If someone has a different opinion, you can insult and humiliate them?

    How arrogant, arrogant and mean you can be.
    Your behavior is really not academic behavior!
    I hope your behavior stems from boredom, failure, and not stupidity.

    I tried to be gentle in my response
    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  1016. Roy -67

    I will not belittle your studiousness - and the love to teach... and I will leave you with the virtues of yourself and the value of time, to reply and complete to clarify yourself, (if it is honestly) and in your own way. And if you ever want to share... there are also many ears on the site, as it turns out for all of us more than once.

    Good night
    Hugin

    Hugin

  1017. Michael
    Although I enjoyed the "minorities of the pipsfoni" for this late night.
    On the subject: quality versus quantity.. I discussed it in one of my previous comments. So I'll be content with that.

    In my blessed nothingness, for this hour: Hugin.

  1018. By the way, Hugin:
    If you didn't understand what I meant by the phrase "mass uprising", read Jose Ortega y Gast's book by that name and maybe you will understand what the man who foresaw the Second World War and other shameful things of our time had to say about your behavior and Yehuda's behavior.

  1020. Revolt the masses?
    Cracks in her spirit?

    Michael??Are you feeling well, Yehuda's baby?

    Good night.
    I will leave you in the hands of the greatest of you.

  1021. Roy:
    You could actually understand: Hugin is trying to demonstrate to us the uprising of the masses. Just like Yehuda, she trivializes the value of real education and thinks that the bursts of her spirit are worth publication and serious attention.

  1023. my father
    Maybe Roy will clarify.
    Maybe our Judah..
    Maybe a hidden lion
    And maybe other fresh brains..
    And maybe, you are..like that..out of the blue..when the clouds and the screen suddenly disappear.

    With great respect to you, and full appreciation for the nice free corner you set aside for us. From the bottom of my heart.
    Hugin

  1025. Yehuda, and Avi Bilzovsky.
    I say my words with the utmost respect that I have for you.
    I expect the "Hidan" website to be the leading science website in Israel. He will not be ashamed and will be truly sincere and honest with himself and his essence in the study of all the phenomena in the world and in the universe as faithful to the source of the "science" infrastructure. He will be sufficiently open, enlightened, and has a real desire to understand, learn, know, and truly want to know for everyone.
    More than once it is required of a scientist and any researcher of nature and the actual phenomena in the revealed material, to touch things that are apparently uncomfortable and unpleasant.. from the sensory point of view, when touching them. Most of the time the educated/normal/normative people will try - and any seemingly "sane" person (anyone who thinks -Homo-Sapiens) or/and who is dictated to walk-as in "Derech Eretz", not to deviate from the "accepted extroverted" norms- from an apparently legitimate interest, according to his social opinion
    I claim that if the banal habit of researching "everything" continues only in the accepted way, and information is blocked (by certain parties here) as the disappearance of information that is most necessary for the given day
    On this specific site, the possibility that screams from heaven and the root of everything for a general restoration will be damaged/from the core of the essence of peace, the present, the future and the most precious of all. And the essences that are necessary for everyone that I bring up will be hidden and will continue to gnaw away secretly and hurtfully by the very fact of not having God in them.
    I don't believe/and I don't think/and this in the most principled way!! That a person should be a "public seller" carrying a role, at the expense of the company's money, in order to say his precious words for the sake of the "good". - The contract - and the founders were and labored for a great hope that they wished for in the past.. the resurrection / and eternity / true heritage / all of us.

    Hope my words are clear.
    Hugin

  1026. Coolish in Bushin,
    Orangush Benoodin, like Harold and Maud, will be for Hugin the Nod.
    So nice of him to be a reaching hand, like a shameless child pushing his nose.
    He will go on Mati, without fear and courage.
    Will challenge my bones with every tiny vibration.
    O how handsome is your challenge to shame my grave
    How nice is your impudence to pepper my stomach.
    And I will walk on your wave that breathes life into me.
    And I will blow on your bed like a stormy wind at times.

    Hugin: of the cool egg-blowing reactionary.

  1027. Did I say or not?
    "The Unnecessary Reactions Section of Hugin Flocin and Other Herbs"

  1028. ***************************************
    Hugin blows like a phoenix bird
    You will score the sky, you will gather every sun with a great noise.
    Hugin is blowing in a huge hurricane.
    Extraterrestrial galaxies will draw in their strength, to return to the source of their being.
    You will shake giants, you will shake strengths, you will move mountains and you will push back the darkness.
    ***
    Hugin blows like the red firebird
    You will shake the water, it will echo with every seashell in a flood of foam and sand.
    Extraterrestrial monsters will forcefully push into a recycling world drone.
    Let God shine, be deceived by iniquities, let the innocent rise up, the witnesses of the horizon will return to good*.
    ****************************************

  1029. Once upon a time there was a good God.
    One day he decided to go down to the abyss and investigate the woman.
    A thousand years passed, two thousand years passed, and a heavy disaster fell upon his universe.
    False and oppressive spirits took over his world.
    A false god and a lie replaced his continent.
    Innocent, soft, loving, and believing, a robber fell to his hunger.
    A dark, enlightened world was walking like zombies for the money of his plot.
    Once upon a time there was a good God.
    Once upon a time there was a love for him.
    Once upon a time there were keepers of the embers of his flame.
    Once upon a time there was a girl of eternity in the sky who promised to wake him up.
    There was a fire bird-phoenix.
    There was and she dreamed and was everything.
    It was, it was, it went up, it went down, it went up.
    To this day, a dream has gone out, a vision has faded
    To the woman of her father, you will go to the abyss..
    To Odin, to her father, to her good God she will return to dwell.
    There was a deaf wind.
    She was a dream girl
    Was was was innocent
    There was a prodigy who went down to the depths.

    And the rest, unknown we will call him.
    And the rest, to acknowledge and ignore.
    And the rest, for the following times, in the solutions.

  1030. Plato and the Parable of the Cave...
    Thinkers in dimwits...
    Modern times and the decline of the giants of wisdom...
    When and how was mother wisdom removed from Olympus..
    A false world controls...the remote
    It is good that the wise man dies from the living - dead, in the world of lies.
    The legality of the ruling dark mass.
    Probably, he took over the world.
    The next stupid thing.
    There is nothing new under the sun...
    A world as usual...and a leader with money - will fund...souls.
    It's all nonsense..nonsense..that they no longer need to be.

    Hugin: Just/for nothing.

  1032. to hug
    First of all, I will start by saying that I am writing this response out of appreciation for you, although it may not be to your liking.
    Everyone knows the well-known question "What did the poet mean?", and if the poet wanted his words to be understood in a certain way, he should not expect people to guess. When I hear about 2012-2013 it should be clear to me based on my knowledge. It wouldn't hurt if you explained more and weren't mysterious.
    I also do not understand the fatal point in your words in my bar/bat mitzvah explanations of the dates. I realized that I can fail in my explanations, but don't burden (works) with an abundance of possibilities of understanding because then everyone should be expected to understand the poet in their own way, (and for us, maybe it's actually good that it should be that way).
    It wouldn't hurt if in your book "Thoughts and setbacks for 2012-2013" you would add an explanatory section about this. But about this I will respond to you personally.
    I would like your words to be clearer, and I would not want to constantly guess what you meant, because it is sometimes tiring. Your words would be more valid if they were clear and not an exaggerated and degrading enigmatic system.
    And regarding the play "Gift of Youth", I was glad that you found it appropriate to pass it on for reading to Bari Samcha, and if you want, I have additional material in my archives.
    Good night dear Hugin
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  1033. For "no one" and two narcissists, their disruption.

    and Yehuda
    I wrote fluently, I hope it will be understood despite the salad of typos.

  1034. Dear Yehuda
    One word was not mentioned in my story about any black prophecy!!!
    12-13 are codes in Judaism for raising the frequency of the levels of the solar plexus (the self that is alone - my own ego)
    To a higher frequency which is the center of the heart-"heart brain" that connects to a higher superconsciousness.
    The book hints and guides in essays on experience and original sayings of wisdom about many types of intelligences. Gives basic terminology for meanings and subtleties. And helps anyone who wants to understand
    Extracts of Bina lessons for the wise teach - as a preparation for the continuation of purpose and way.
    We don't live in America - we live in Israel. The heart of everything. And 2012-2013
    It's like the bar-bat mitzvah of the millennium.
    It is true that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012 - as a great mystery, and the world is talking about everything, what's more, that the planet Pluto (known-for metamorphosis-and the exploration of the depths) entered the goat sector (Capricorn-Rome-sky-mountains-institutions, ruling material, etc.) on 28/11/2008 For a relatively long and prolonged period as a geological collective process and more, but in the book I did not refer to this, but to general intelligences to general insights and values ​​that help nobility. And more and more.
    It is evident, my dear Yehuda, that you have gained a light from me from the impoverished for this hour, and you have not internalized or read with due seriousness the essence of my book...apparently experience in life is and is basically like "fate" - the great mentor in life.

    Apparently, my special senses are sharp enough to notice even from a distance, and without your personal reaction
    You have not yet matured something in your understanding, and without prejudice to underestimate your intelligence in the XY pie, etc...
    In my opinion, you also didn't buy the book Messages from the Water == there was no time or anything like that...and messages from Hogin, etc
    are relatively marginal...each person and his choice..the way of the "Satan/ as "abandoning" the source or the way of the "soul" in the mythological metaphor of course and as in reality.
    I still haven't lost hope about many people I put my trust in and believed in their inherent potential.
    *****
    In any case, since I am a serious person and I keep my promises and my words!! I gave your book "Gift of Youth" to my true friend/director/journalist/and a discerning and honest man in order to read his opinion - and even call you if he sees fit..after he reads and expresses his brilliant opinion , maybe, maybe, we'll see, etc
    If we feel that this is true, we will meet with you if you wish.
    In the meantime, I have soul accounts that are double yours that I must solve. For my peace and the peace of the many.
    Sounds like a fart fart, and let the world laugh big!!!!
    And again I say, if you don't see value in the things I passed on to you (take out the valuable book) throw it away!!! There is none
    I hope my words will fall on deaf ears. But if your heart and mind rule, decide for yourself.

    Thank you in any case for the response, even if slightly distorted to my nobility/and nobility of my book.
    Have a good week, don't be shy to comment.

    Hugin

  1036. Dear Hugin
    You are assigning me a difficult task, to explain with my meager powers the meaning of your words. I will do so but I will state in advance that they are difficult.
    It seems to me that the Mayans in America have the date of December 2008 as the tragic end of the world. Therefore, I had the chance to read your book "Thoughts and thoughts for 2012-2013" which is a collection of instructive proverbs.
    You are in your belief that Rabbah is trying to warn us against the evil of the decree.
    Parable of Jonah the prophet crying out in Nineveh that behold, behold the city is about to be destroyed.
    I'm sorry, dear Hugin, but science readers are made of tough stuff, and even if they were sure of such a disaster, they would continue the routine of their lives and certainly would not refrain from having children.
    Humanity has already had many extreme computers and it's a wonder we've come this far.
    Even if I was sure of the end and that what could I do but to continue the routine of my hard work life. And whatever happens.
    Let us all hope that the end will not come and we will pass this end and the ones after it.
    And so that you don't have any doubt, we in science and in Israel are aware of the dangers hovering over the earth from the cosmology side from extreme Islam and from other troubles such as global warming, etc., but we continue, because this is what we have been programmed to do since the dawn of evolution.
    So thank you for your warnings, I wouldn't expect you or others to do better than that, to warn us of a trouble you believe will come.
    Do you think Hugin that I or anyone else, would not dare to stand in a city square and shout about any impending disaster, an earthquake, a massive flood or a giant asteroid, God forbid?
    At the end of Hogin, we hope, together with you, to act and exist and respond in 2014, 2015, and beyond.
    I hope I express the intention of your words, but if I was wrong, I apologize in advance.
    good week
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  1038. Hugin
    The smell of the garbage mountains that you distribute is carried far away and drives away those who come to surf here.
    Maybe someone will spray here and get rid of the nuisance.

  1039. Roy
    Your decision, which according to your definition was based on discretion, proves to me once again that there is no hand of chance here, but a strong tendency on your part, as the servant of a certain "something" that rules like a ghost over most of humanity as an accepted, perceptual fashion and seeks to cover up and bypass with subtlety or covert cunning a fundamental - essential truth , like kindness for example that nourishes all, and not in order to ask for a so-called return for himself.
    (The soul of the world, the soul of the universe..and its derivatives).
    A bizarre "bird" comes by the name of Hugin, etc.. and turns a little, maybe also a "digger".. maybe even annoying.
    Maybe also arousing..etc..and trying to express something a little in an unacceptable way and say:: friend, there are times when even the coffers of the universe close! The infinite, it also has a limit. The soul of the universe is not a trivial thing, and it is not light, there is no limitless end, And she's not a loser..absolutely not!!!
    Hugin is trying to signal you to start preparing yourself for things that seemed to you to be understandable and to start taking into account processes of cosmic, cosmic and existential laws of creation that control even the biggest giants that will be or were that are also controlled by the same laws of a vast natural universe that has legality.
    It is possible that your dear Yehuda understands or wants to see things as completely random, it is possible that many of you want to believe that this is the case or ask to check it in scientific ways or any other way.
    And the law of choice says: everything is open...
    But by and large!!!! If the children you bring into the world are in the end the accompanying victim of all these sophisticated attempts!!! And innocent and privileged souls fall victim to those giants of time and power..
    (Yehuda, please, in honor of Hugin-will define how to read and define this term...)..it will be up to everyone to think carefully..for the results of that creation and desire that are visible and hidden and accepted..to bring another generation into the world....descendants.(and whatever you call it).
    Everything is clear, so to speak, and I am not renovating..
    And yet, there are high laws, (and hidden sub-laws for those who are proud only of the revealed Torah) that do not matter what a person thinks. The thinker who thinks... will or will not... is up to them.
    So, by and large...those who sing will raise an eyebrow!! Those who want to laugh will laugh!!! Those who will accept will learn!
    And Hugin, probably not your Yehuda either.
    I say my knowledge !! And peace with all my being, my heart, my mind, my consciousness, my being and the purity of my intention for the transmission of the things and their essence to your knowledge.
    And the rest is indeed a matter of the principle of my personal honor, which is deeply hurt, beyond description, in the past, due to my directness! (which at this point I will not add to the matter at this time)

    And again: everything in its time.
    Hugin
    All the best.

  1041. Trembling
    There was no hesitation in the response you omitted.
    And if you knew how to sizzle in reality as my local knows, sees and tries to defend, you would not interpret my words in the negative way.
    But time and history will testify, and those concerned in all the strata who were educated and will be able to understand and appreciate my noble intervention in my simplicity to save their dearest of all.

    Hugin

  1042. Hugin,

    I don't delete comments lightly. The Hidan website is not the right place for personal messages, as they were in your last message, and therefore it was deleted.

    Shabbat Shalom,

    Roy.

  1043. Roy
    I notice that from time to time you post my comments here and there.
    It is clear to you that I am a little more mature than you, with a lot of experience and verbs.
    Download comments, leave, do what you want!!
    But you know, my actions, my influence, my many connections, they are no less than all the "famous" most considered as if those with wealth are influential.. (money does not buy the soul, nor the supreme truth)

    And if you have even the slightest doubt about the reliability of my words, their eloquence and my great knowledge
    In the field, you will probably have to go through many more stages of experience and tests in order not to reduce the importance of messages.

    All the best Roy
    Regards to your Judah.

    Hugin

  1044. Yehuda
    An email was forwarded to me about an hour ago.
    Since you once asked me about the aforementioned topic (and I don't know if it was not out of cynicism), I sent you the message I received by email.
    If you have the possibility to transfer here. Maybe Michael has something to discuss in this matter. Or maybe not?? I have no idea...
    In any case, my sources of information are not from this way. However, it is possible that there are many people, including you,
    That these sources can raise awareness. (including a one-day workshop that the same source suggested). Not my business anymore.

    All the best.
    Hugin

  1045. The cool respondent
    It's a mystery to me what your name is in Hoya and when did you take to the air in this form in the treatise ..the war in the Gulf.
    And wonder and wonder..Michael and Yehuda too for the solution of your intervention in the nodine soup that you smelled by farting.

    Hugin with pleasures.

  1046. Thank you Michael for the reflection "to the transparent sentence" - indeed it is in the name of a complete cipher and the rest of the puzzle for solving the real mysteries - for mythical subtleties that breathe and burn.

    Hugin

  1047. Did I say or not?
    "The unnecessary comments section of Hugin Nodine and other vegetables"

  1048. It is clear that the sentence is correct:
    The corner looms in front of me
    She asks for silence
    My dress in the closet
    she wants to sleep

  1049. Continue-start-end…
    Perilogue-Epilogue
    *********

    This is how the wings of the whiteness were cut off to the blackness of the wings of the Elam and the village elm games, this is how the promised preciousness was cut off: the grace of the breathed son of Yamin and the daughter of the sublime "Treasure of Eternity". From the first births - the light of the sun was stolen. The dream of the supreme angel was snatched from the horizon every bit. The nectar was taken from the child's death and the old man's vision was blank and straight extinguished.. ascended to the eternal sky, sucked from the world.
    And today, fully twenty-six into the shadow of darkness, we will inform all the inhabitants of the world how and why: something happened, collapsed and fell in the nation and in the world.
    And no more evil will come in the rope. And no more entanglement will come in. And every viper if he is not honest, he will not have a place and prevail.

    End of campaign/screen goes down.

  1050. And the real story behind the myth of the hour:
    Hoggin is betting on the sabbaths of her days.
    ***********************
    Many years ago, according to code, the "White Panther" walked through the heart of Jerusalem.
    Grace the movements of her legs like an antelope skipping through wild fields. Move the movements of her lips ignite a secret and a mystery.
    The end of her face is like a puffin to the morning of the east and the corner of her eyes shine like a golden shining amber, flickering like a tiger in every direction and corner. She has a sharp mind and a smart heart, her lion's courage is fierce. This is how she guarded every corner in the Jerusalem of gold.
    One day, Fatan appeared in the neighborhood of Mr. and Mr. and the Gaon in which the townspeople in Pi-Kar! This is how the spirit of Tom Ba Rom swallowed a huge, huge vision. This is how he silenced/conquered/defeated the curator - in her spatial nickname "the white panther".
    This is how the vision of beer blossomed - into an abyssal furnace that was pumped. This is how the Intefada began in the heart of Jerusalem.
    And from that time to the present day these are in the underground and play close and far, if the wind blows, if in practice to a rab-mag and a scenario, if in everything that will happen from heavenly sand to the last cipher without any reservation and fear, every viper will be captured that calls out in her/my name.

    And much more will also be told about the White Panther, who and what and all the connection in the White Brotherhood.

    Hugin/Bashavat Emat.

  1052. Probably not tonight or next night.
    Probably not tomorrow or in the next world.
    Apparently the cork in the machine got stuck - stuck.
    Therefore, he will go to the north by the way of false doubles.
    The wind of the east will blow in it, multiplying Dan and disappointment.
    Probably not tonight and not in the next world.
    But the lady's Hugin had already found a resource...

    Good night to Falkor, good night to Blue Leviathan.
    Good night to Yehuda and all science critics
    See you in the next game.
    Maybe in Jerusalem? Maybe in Kfar Maccabiah?
    This will be seen at the end of the road with the solution of the mystery.

    Good night.

  1053. So that's it, Falkor is the divine out of the machine. And the one who needs to wake him up in the ancient Greek play is Judah,...
    Listen, dear Mrs. Hugin, I'm Bush and Nichlem. You literally spoon fed me.
    There are still things that are closed, but the Deus Achs Makhina has fulfilled its historical role and from here the show will already be able to spin to the end.
    Hooray, Hooray! To Falkor, but tonight you won't be able to wake me up!
    Good night and sweet dreams
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  1054. Have you heard cheeky flakor??honorable??
    Next time don't you dare poke your nose into an important intellectual enterprise that Hogin is conducting with Yehuda Michael and Aryeh.
    Until finally the company managed to tame the girl..almost something holy and ridiculous came out of her and you suddenly appear like that, flying, out of the blue!! and spoiling everything.
    So what if you wanted to help Yehuda?? What's wrong? Yehuda can't take care of himself?? Let him wake up alone.
    And by all means Deus Ex prepares..changes..Shilch Kibinimet!

    This is Judah! I cleaned the area. You can continue.

    Regarding questions XNUMX:

    Aryeh: I didn't exactly understand your answer to question XNUMX - regarding the limits of science.
    As for the rest, I don't see any point in continuing to refer specifically, but as I mentioned before, well done for your reference.
    Anyway Yehuda:
    If there are any specific, specific, essential and poignant questions you can raise.. and it's not bad if Hugin is not exactly... how to define??
    Conversation is a two-sided matter!
    Good night
    Hugin

  1055. Honorable Falkor
    I was happy to receive your response and I must say that it sounds like a real experience!
    I'm not saying I didn't understand you at all, for example I'm really fascinated by the ending you wrote
    The story that never ends" with my immortal creation "Gift of Youth" in one bow. There is no doubt that it gives me vitamins to proudly pass the coming week.
    But I would be grateful if you could explain to me the meaning of your words in a clearer language, dear Pelkor Mefelzur. I'm sure Hogin will be happy to help you.
    Dear Hugin
    Explain to Falkor that his Falkor writing (a word I just made up) caused the stoppage of a very nice comment campaign you were conducting about the universe with Michael Anochi and others, and it's a shame.
    I am sure that there is depth in the words of the divine Falkor, but we, human beings, sometimes have difficulty understanding what is being read. Let him see it as our fault.

    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  1056. Is the Judah of ..Hugin and the scientist.. beginning to experience "Deus Ex Machina" alive breathing and pulsating to the mysteries of her time?
    Isn't the "myth" indeed, a truth of life for being and living?
    Isn't it the "legend" that is going on about us in which hibernation comes in the days..to be awakened and revived?
    The whole daydream? Is it just nothing and a vague hallucination? Or maybe...something real is unfolding here into a complete scholarly puzzle?
    All this and more..time will tell and you are on Avi Bilzovsky's "Ydan" website, of course.

    Hugin: From "The Neverending Story"./and "Gift of Youth" magical and innocent.

  1057. Well,
    E. Is scientific thinking able to define "being".
    In order to define something we must come from the source of its origin - as its value. Any other way will reduce it and not exhaust it all.
    If so, I have to leave my "gender" which is limited in an acceptable pattern and pattern, in order to bring it to the same rule.

    Existence.
    ***
    Last night I reinvented myself.
    Last night was like yesterday and the day before yesterday of a daydream :) maybe imagination in sleep? :)I was the late tomorrow.
    Last night I "wanted", as my hidden request and my request to be formed by a controlled "island".
    Everything seems to me, and everything is real. This is the being that includes today's world and above it*.
    Being is everything, was and is now if your place dreams of your becoming in this whole.
    Hoya is the "I" as a wanted present. Hoya is the loving opposite of Yahweh - Biyeh.
    If he is the "desire" - I am the dreamer. If I am she - he is the hidden and visible within everyone.
    isn't it love
    And why was his gesture different?
    Hoya is everything…
    An experience is a certain given moment.
    He was a seer
    Havia is sometimes blind to herself.
    Isn't there a riddle of heaven and a solution?
    Isn't there a tree of knowledge that leads down to the experience of misery?
    Well,
    Is science heaven or blind mind?
    And perhaps in spite of everything both together and if the will of the beloved is evil, what is everything..for an exchange of power between her and Gebra..from an existential dream to an informed and wise experience?
    ******
    There are things that cannot be understood at all, without the song of the "animal spirit" blowing into them.

    ******
    and XNUMX below.
    Hugin/"Before we were what were you"? See question A.

  1058. Hugin:
    I'm sorry, but if you want me to understand, you'll have to write things clearly.
    If there is such a determinism that requires our existence, how can there be freedom of choice that actually allowed our parents and our parents' parents to do things in a different way that would not have ended in our existence.

  1059. Yehuda:
    I don't know what you mean when you say that Einstein would not have agreed.
    Einstein was a scientist and he accepted - even if sometimes with a heavy heart - the experiment as the ultimate truth.
    Randomness in quantum theory is now proven beyond any doubt.
    According to your approach - a criminal should not be tried in court at all because all his actions are predetermined.
    Of course, you can argue that your insistence on judging him in court was predetermined and you have no choice but to resort to it.
    Although all this makes the world clearly uninteresting, lack of interest is also not a reason to reject a theory and the reason why I reject your theory is, as mentioned, its incompatibility with the experiment.
    I know this kind of argument doesn't bother you at all and we've seen it on other topics too but it's all I can do. Once someone is ready to accept as truth theories that are disproved by experiment there is no way to convince him. This is also the difficulty with the pans and other vegetables.

  1060. Michael
    I am afraid that if Einstein was alive he would not agree with your words.
    And as for the robotics,
    Indeed yes, you touched on a sensitive point, I am aware of the roboticity of my words.
    And see it's a miracle, now I'm a follower of the sages who said about God's power:-
    "Everything will be determined, and permission is given" meaning that my choice of how to act will also be determined in advance.
    You can't imagine how much I searched for the ultimate proof that we have six sons, life, the right to choose, and behold, it's a miracle, I didn't find it. Just like the proof of Newton's gravitation formula at cosmological distances. Things that seem clear as day, but, they are not!
    I have to move to my chores.
    See you in the evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  1061. Michael,
    before i go on th
    I wanted to refer to a central point that "determinism" brought up: the problem does not arise from determinism itself
    (as the legality of the surrounding and surrounding) but in a definition devoid of knowledge and foundation that was "dressed" on that concept by the laymen (in the absence of knowledge, or relative knowledge) they wrote the interpretation for that concept in common dictionaries and in certain circles. The thing that causes a fundamental mistake in a chain reaction.. the laugh of fate. .L.H. And you see that the "concept, itself as a "principle" is rolling out and controlling the spirits. Very interesting.
    In any case, I promised you when we spoke only once on the phone. That one time .. "if we want in the name".
    Of course, there are many ways to see and prove that we are really "living subjects" and subject to the fate of an order
    And it ticks to my satisfaction in everything! But (and this is the point!) that the power of relative choice according to everyone pulls on his own fateful threads and for everything! Subject to the individual's vision or to his walking as a soma with the first intention in order to be drawn back "to himself" and in the process doing many actions along the way.
    What is important here is the "recognition" of the fact! The recognition enables freedom of vision. And a more enlightened walk in life.
    Of course, there are people who are not ready for this mentally, physically, etc. and what do they really say "I don't want to know" or "don't spoil the groping journey for us"..
    And yet I emphasize. There is no evidence and recognition lose the (or to)
    The value and values ​​of surprises and magic in life. On the contrary! You will earn double and double and more.
    Generally, people endowed with a huge desire for truth and honesty go to all lengths of courage in life (at a certain stage) in order to learn about their innermost-external self-understanding.
    As another guiding principle: it is impossible and impossible to show and teach directly and indirectly someone or something when it is not there
    Longing to understand and certainly not when you despise the essence of a thing.
    But as for you, I believe, based on your interesting references on the website, that you are getting closer maybe within
    Discovering an intelligent/logical natural objection as saying: "As long as there is no conclusive proof, for me the thing is gone" and the other ways and tools that you are familiar with serve for you to direct your (inner) goal.
    and Judah??
    It's amazing how when it comes to intellectual issues you're all right like the gods of the most fascinating battle in the universe.. the animal
    to answer with success, something that inspires appreciation. But in a hidden man the scientist is not educated in the meantime of the "secret code" that lies in high value in your persistence and your climax. It is possible that the person does not want to reach the peak before his time is ripe for it.. and here I again sharpen a deterministic approach, which I myself am not ready
    Impotence for the answer. A person is obliged to follow, (as it turns out after all), after pushing noble instincts/pushing logic. Despite the postponement of time for this. All legality does not work without "live actors" on the stages of life.

    Meanwhile.
    Hugin

  1062. Hugin:
    You didn't understand our argument about trust.
    We did not say that trust is love, but that the answer to the subject of trust is the same as the answer to the subject of love

  1063. Yehuda:
    It turns out that the only time you agree with Einstein is when he was clearly wrong.
    Are you aware that according to your claim you have no free will at all and you are actually a robot?

  1065. Yehuda
    And I wrote in front of you: "Did you mean different levels of love that can be "quantified" by questioning?" And this is what is done in order to measure the weighted subjective "value" of something that is submitted to a review or competition.
    In fact, from a purely scientific point of view, this is also not accurate. The point is that the subject controls matters of taste and smell
    And yet there is the supreme concept of "love" on an absolute level which should be evaluated (provided you have the absolute formula that measures 100%) and that then there is room for evaluation and questioning in relation and according to the same absolute standard.
    Akhd: In order to test something purely, you must take the same sample group (like neto) that meets the same equal function (mathematically/according to a constant figure attributed to the factor) and based on which you conduct the questioning.
    Because the value "love" can be measured from "I love chocolate" to "I love the divinity and nature" or "I love the sublime thought" or "I love the thinking person" - which is the highest self in your accomplished or most desired purposeful essence in the world of your concepts.
    If so, you may have been right in your insinuation that the basic data that allow this measurement in the tools are not yet included
    The accepted scientific ones today/but on the fringes of the sages - (the original ones, the foundation of the emanation) in the science theory.
    In fact, in the modern world when the proliferation of secondary and branching theories has much to do with the quality of the source and the infrastructure
    It is difficult to expect any scientist to touch a "tool" that allows accurate measurements. 400 years ago a scientist touched
    In all he reached the achievements and accomplishments that science draws from today, but split and moved away from their essential value - the absolute. (as the headstone.. the metaphor for the source)

    So shall we continue?
    third. What preceded the cosmic soup?
    This stupid question proves how completely idiotic my place can be when it tries to "fit itself" to current terms.
    So Arya, the big bang... sharp and smooth.
    Michael, you put the sharpening again to the idiocy I was drifting into.
    And Yehuda? Well, before the soup, you have to collect the basics of cooking at the market...

    D. Can science define and quantify "trust."
    very interesting.
    The three of you as people who "believe" (correct) in the value of your definition of science: trust = love.
    If so, in the meantime (if you flow mentally according to the "root") faith = love
    Amen=true=love. (and you should see what you put in that basket later).
    In principle, the leader of everything: the "root" enables quick knowledge and without convoluted and unnecessary complications.
    Unless we really enjoy philosophizing, searching, being, philosophical pursuit, and a job in academia
    To..the advanced Jewish sciences..who do not know rest and peace..or actually do not want to die of boredom..this is also a possibility.
    ה.
    We'll continue soon.. that he doesn't escape me.

  1066. To Michael
    In any case, if we accept Einstein's words that "God does not gamble with the cube" then, any initial state will cause the possibility of the flow of one and only one series of states.
    Just like deciding that 5+7=12 and not any other possibility.
    I know that in quantum theory they don't think so.
    So, what?, sometimes it's nice to be in agreement with Einstein.
    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  1067. Hugin:
    Your answers so far - as well as Yehuda's - are based on the assumption (which has been proven wrong) that the world is deterministic.
    This is an example of not accepting reality.
    As I mentioned before - I wouldn't call it imagination but fantasy.

  1068. To Hugin an explanation for what you did not understand.
    In sports exercises, for example, an artistic gymnastics exercise, you have to give a grade and in addition, according to that, even the medals will be given. There are about six judges who express their opinion on the exercise when the score is the average.
    The same goes for choosing a beauty queen. So you can do the same for love. For example:-
    How much does Hugin love my father? The average of the scores given by six judges will be the result.
    Is it scientific?, I think it's as close to scientific as it gets.
    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  1069. Dear Aryeh Michael and Yehuda
    Nice. I didn't expect you to reply, I'm full of admiration.
    This reminds me of something completely idiotic: when my children are tested at school I often wonder about the kind of stupid questions given by the teachers and then I wonder again if my children will dare to answer in their own special way and if the "teachers" will be able to understand their answers...
    So like this, I fell into all the bins I buried for myself and yet I have to take your comments really seriously
    So the three of you together according to the questions.
    A. Before we came into existence what were you?
    After all, you were (something) before you were (it)? Right?? Maybe you dreamed?
    which induces the dream of your becoming.
    Okay.. the one who knocked out the matter is Yehuda who got smarter and went with the parable of the future present which he is
    The past.. (a product of imagination).
    B. Can science quantify the value of love?
    Aryeh: If, after all, psychology is included in the value of science.. (The opinions are still divided on the matter.. but precisely since the factor of statistics entered the science of psychology, it is the one that reduced its worth and value..) In any case, if I get the chance to read the book you mentioned "The Science of Love".. I would not approach the author of the book.. (The irony of fate that after this statement I will come to a conference on a different topic and who will be there? The book?? To your question about coincidences and synchronicities, for some people this is an integral part of life and every time surprises anew.
    There is, after all, an area that can be tested and researched. And it is measured and tested.
    In my opinion, value is measured by the same value. Emotion can be measured by emotion. Experience is measured by experience and love is measured by love..all the rest are measures that cannot give a "compatible" answer.
    Michael, if people deny feelings then you are right in your claim. Unless we catch Yehuda and torture him a little until he confesses.
    And Yehuda? I didn't exactly understand sports..gymnastics..love..statistics..okay..did you mean different levels of love that can be "quantified" according to a question? What is this America? The cheerleaders?

    Well, excuse me, I've only managed two so far (barely) and the fatigue is overwhelming me. But seriously, you deserve me to get serious for a change.
    So in good spirits.
    we'll continue tomorrow
    Hugin

  1070. To Hogin below is my response

    A. Before we became what were you?
    I was a future result of the Big Bang, a unique and necessary phenomenon that was about to arrive 13.7 billion years later, a necessary conclusion along with Hugin Michael Aryeh Michael Shas Haider Newton the football game Palestine Jordan and more.
    B. Can science quantify the value of "love"?
    Not at the moment, but it can be done in an approximate way using the method used in gymnastics competitions, a statistical conclusion from a number of opinions.
    third. What preceded the cosmic soup?
    Always before soup you have to collect the ingredients.
    D. Can science define and quantify "trust"?
    See B.
    E. Is scientific thinking able to define being.
    See B.
    And. In which areas science is unable to touch. That is, where its boundaries begin and where they end.
    Science is a matter of definition. If you define it broadly enough it can handle everything.
    Z. Do "life" and "science" overlap or oppose? Or..
    Or... again depends on the definition. These concepts are not monovalent and change according to place, time and culture.
    H. What is the ambition of every person who associates himself with the field of science? Assuming that it is not a source of life,
    Class or prestige?
    As human beings, in us lies the instinct of curiosity, the instinct to solve problems, and not only of science. A mountain climber asked: - Why did you climb the mountain?, his answer - because he was there.
    ninth. According to the scientific theories, what is the explanation for the fact that exactly the three of us got stuck in this niche?
    Some would call it a random reason. I think it's a necessary outgrowth of how the big bang exploded. If it had happened a tiny bit differently and one small particle in the whole bang had moved a little to the left, we wouldn't be here today.
    J. Can science assess and quantify imagination?
    See B. All the questions answered by B could be attached.
    Y. If the whole world was only science, what would it be?
    There was no man. The reason - man is a thinking creature, Homo sapiens, to say that there are no thoughts of religion, that there are no thoughts of heresy in science, is just like saying that there is no thinking creature,
    Conclusion - there cannot be a world in which a person shares but not a person's thoughts.

    Please respond gently
    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  1071. Hugin:
    The new wording of the question is also problematic.
    There was a world even before there was man and it was conducted in some way.
    Even after the development of man - a long time passed when the world was conducted without science.
    The question of whether it was "good" or "bad" depends on the definition of these terms.
    Surely you have already seen people here who said that in their opinion the world would be better if man had not developed and they are already wishing - according to them - for man to destroy himself.
    I do not share their approach and in my opinion they also do not express their true thoughts, but as long as perfect lie detectors are not developed and as long as we do not give such tools a legal status that allows their use, we will not be able to know for sure if the words "good" and "bad" represent the same thing for all of us.
    What is clear are the quantitative facts and these facts (presented in part by my father) in an interpretation show that the world with science enables a longer, healthier and more comfortable life than the world without science.
    In fact - only science allows us both the free time and the necessary technology to hold this conversation.
    Personally, I feel exalted every time I develop a new insight and science is the one that allows me to reach these insights. Only science allows this!
    Is it good that I feel transcendence?
    It's good for me.

  1072. And the earth was in confusion and darkness on the surface of the abyss, and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters. And God said let there be light! let there be light

  1073. Hello Danny. The site has been operating since 1997, at the same time as my work as a reporter for Haaretz newspaper.
    As for the rest, not at the moment.

  1074. To Aryeh, Abi and Michael, in the meantime
    I am waiting for Yehuda to answer or respond if he wants to and maybe more unexpected people who need to respond then
    I'll take your leave, okay?
    Only with regard to question XNUMX. As Michael pointed out to my attention, the correct question may be "If the whole world was engaged and conducted solely according to science, what would happen?"
    So a huge thank you for now, see you later.
    We mustn't forget that in this special or absurd corner everything is open - to free reactions.. eh?? Otherwise we will miss the "liberating" point that happened to us in the blessing of the "Rash". (Abi, thank you again).

    Good night and free comments..with the superscientific imagination..scientific..knowledgeable..Yehudaya..
    Hugin

  1075. Hi Avi Blizovsky,

    Thanks for the lovely/important site, I've been enjoying it for years. May you and your family have a happy new year.

    Take the opportunity to tell your story and that of the site: how long has the site been running?, how did it start?, is this your only occupation?, does the site finance itself?, what are you especially proud of?, are there plans/dreams for the future? Talk about a human being... who is hiding behind the distance glasses 😉

  1076. lion:
    I just read your comment.
    You can see in my response that we agree on almost everything (and the word "almost" was only added because at some points we interpreted Hugin's questions a little differently)

  1077. Hugin:
    A. Before we became what were you?
    I was'nt. This is the definition of the term "before". After all, any time in which I was is not *before* I became.

    B. Can science quantify the value of "love"?
    Science can quantify certain physiological indicators associated with love. If I ever need to compare the strength or value of people's "loves" - I would rather rely on these indicators than on people's reports because there is no way to evaluate people's reports and compare them.

    third. What preceded the cosmic soup?
    I don't know what the thing you call the "cosmic soup" is

    D. Can science define and quantify "trust"?
    Check out love value :)

    E. Is scientific thinking able to define being.
    Science is not concerned with definitions but rather with testing claims formulated using words defined in the process of language construction which is not a scientific process. I already mentioned elsewhere that as part of the thinking process we also invent concepts and language, but then it is a language that was defined for the purpose of the problem and not a language that is necessarily common to all humans. In such a case it would be legitimate to define being even as a salad of cucumbers with bananas.
    In order to give the word hoya a definition that is consistent with what most people understand as the meaning of this word, it is necessary to conduct a statistical sample and ask people for their opinion.
    To check what the meaning of the word is in the sources - the sources must be analyzed.

    And. In which areas science is unable to touch. That is, where its boundaries begin and where they end.
    Science is able to deal with anything about which we can say objective things - that is - things that can be tested by others. Any claim that is not scientific is such that there is actually no way to test its correctness.

    Z. Do "life" and "science" overlap or contradict each other? Or..
    Science is the occupation of living beings. To claim the opposite would be meaningless because there are no scientific creatures. Science is a doctrine for deciphering reality.
    Although only living beings engage in science - not all of them engage in it.
    So far, apparently only humans are engaged in it and in fact, unfortunately, only a small part of them.

    H. What is the ambition of every person who associates himself with the field of science? Assuming that it is not a source of life,
    Class or prestige?
    Adam does not associate himself with the field of science.
    Science is, as mentioned, a doctrine of thinking.
    There are people who recognize the value of this doctrine and understand that as long as they make claims that do not meet its conditions, they are, in fact, making subjective claims.
    There are also those who do not understand this.
    Even among those who understand this, there are people who know that it is possible to convince people with other methods (which are not honest, but they still work, such as brainwashing, social pressure, the charisma of the claimant, etc.) and among those who understand this fact, there are those who will abuse it and there are those who will not.
    I personally am one of those who don't.
    Those who do not understand this fact try to convince in every possible way and sometimes they succeed because, as mentioned, brainwashing also works. They act unethically but don't even know it.

    ninth. According to the scientific theories, what is the explanation for the fact that the three of us have stuck to this niche?
    There is no scientific theory that anyone has tried to formulate regarding the three of us exactly. It's just not interesting to anyone and therefore, with all due respect, no one thought to formulate a scientific theory on the subject.
    J. Can science assess and quantify imagination?
    It depends on the definition you give to the term and in this regard - I mean the value of "being".
    If you define similarity as I do, then there are all kinds of tests that can be done to see the degree of similarity of a person.

    Y. If the whole world was only science, what would it be?
    it's impossible. As I said - science is the occupation of living beings and science is not possible without living beings.
    You can ask what "life" is, but since you didn't ask, we won't deal with that question right now.

  1078. To Hogin, regarding question 40. I don't know what would happen if the whole world were science (probably it wouldn't be so bad) but I can tell you that when there was no science, people died like flies, and a XNUMX-year-old man was extremely old, barely enough food to feed several hundred thousand people, not to mention About millions and billions.

  1079. Answer to Hugin's 11 difficulties
    A. You were not - you had no existence at all
    B. The "science" of psychology can quantify love. Read Ada Lampel's book from the GLC broadcast library series published by Mashabet (can't remember its name - but it discusses the science of love). Curiosity: I once took this book to work. When my co-worker saw the book, he scolded me for stealing the book from him. I denied and he checked the file and took out the same book. Does the fact that we both brought the same book on the same day, and precisely this book, have a cosmic significance?
    third. the big Bang
    d. Trust is a semantic definition. The "science" of psychology can quantify it, with the help of a suitable test - like love
    God. what was it This is a semantic definition. Science should not define it
    and. It has no limits as long as it is one of its branches
    G. Life is part of science
    H. Gaining knowledge
    ninth. Ask a social psychologist
    J. See answer to d.
    XNUMX Look at the world and see the answer
    Michael - looking forward to seeing your comments to my answers
    Hugin - and your comments are self-evident

  1080. Higgs
    Healthy like a dandelion flower, if that's your question..evokes a need to imitate in everything. (maybe not in science..mila..).

  1081. Tell me the cool one.
    Have I ever despised you?
    Is there a reason for your attacks on me?
    Look, you haven't served in the army yet. And I'm after a lot of service in this homeland and in many ways. I'm not sure you understand in depth
    You're serious about hurting me.
    You are starting to abuse my patience with you..mainly due to your age.
    As I told you once, you may have tremendous potential, but if its use will be to my detriment, or to the detriment of others...this will require consideration (which will not even be mine anymore) that you must take into sharp consideration.
    I truly and sincerely will respect from experience the people who hurt me and my name.. it is not pleasant to acknowledge this fact.

    Hugin

  1083. Within the "free response" niche - no rule is valid and every rule is also valid.

    Then,
    Yehuda and Michael. Can you answer these questions?
    (On the verge of absurdity.)

    A. Before we became what were you?
    B. Can science quantify the value of "love"?
    third. What preceded the cosmic soup?
    D. Can science define and quantify "trust"?
    E. Is scientific thinking able to define being.
    And. In which areas science is unable to touch. That is, where its boundaries begin and where they end.
    Z. Do "life" and "science" overlap or contradict each other? Or..
    H. What is the ambition of every person who associates himself with the field of science? Assuming that it is not a source of life,
    Class or prestige?
    ninth. According to the scientific theories, what is the explanation for the fact that exactly the three of us got stuck in this niche?
    J. Can science assess and quantify imagination?
    Y. If the whole world was only science, what would it be?

    That's it. For now.

    Hugin
    Hot recommendation: from time to time you should go back and look at Einstein's picture in order to get encouragement
    And inspiration 🙂

  1084. The "free comments" area (or maybe rather the "redundant comments section of Hugin Nodin and other vegetables")
    I just wanted to say about what you said yesterday. Although I am a minist, and you are indeed old, but I am so big next to you O. .
    What I have already forgotten you can only dream of knowing. You will never reach the level of rationality and objectivity that I swim in, and you will continue to think in a dark way and dictated in advance by factors that you are not aware of, which are the ones that determine your opinions and decisions.

    In short, grow up and start using what you have in your head (and not what you imagine outside your body), otherwise you will continue to live in the world of your mind whose subconscious dictates to you (have you heard of a dream? I manage to control my dreams, and my subconscious to some extent).

    to Judah,
    I don't know exactly what you find in it, but maybe it's the agreement and partnership that you never had here on the site. It's just a shame that you are so easily bought. I notice you don't really take seriously (as she does) the irrational nonsense she spouts.

    And Michael, last but not least,
    It's just too bad for you, I've already told you my opinion many times, that it's a shame to make an effort and get angry in lost cases (it's unhealthy and causes heart disease). But I also heard your opinion, you don't believe in "lost cases" and you think you can fix the whole way of thinking of the people on a level that I think is impossible.

    So for now, bye

  1085. To my father
    You should also make a link to this comment place, such as in recommended articles or in any way. Preferably with Einstein's picture.
    good week
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  1086. To my father
    Well done for getting the idea. Let's hope this will lead to an improvement in communication.
    Have a pleasant trip abroad.
    good week
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  1087. Yehuda:
    I moved here because Zon is trash talk.
    Nothing canceled the agreement that was there before.
    The one who protested a request to cancel the cool does not belong to this.

  1088. Okay, my father.

    Thanks, great!!! Under Einstein's sharp tongue!! Wow!
    Hugin
    Don't forget from 28/11 an interesting process begins that is worth following with heightened awareness.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Science website logo
SEARCH