This is what Gunther Hassinger, the scientific director of the European Space Agency, says following the publication of the second data set of the measurements of the spacecraft designed to map the Milky Way and can also help solve many scientific questions. For the milk and how they move. This data is essential to understand how our galaxy has evolved over time.
On December 19, 2013, the "Gaia" space telescope of the European Space Agency (ESA) was launched for one of the most ambitious missions ever. During the planned five-year mission (recently extended), this space telescope mapped over a billion stars, planets, comets, asteroids and quasars to create the largest and most accurate XNUMXD catalog of the Milky Way.
The first version of the "Gaia" data, published in September 2016, contained the data on the distances and movements of over two million stars. But the release of the second dataset, on April 25, 2018, is even more impressive – it contains the positions, directions, distance and motions of more than a billion stars in our galaxy, asteroids within our solar system, and even stars beyond the Milky Way.
While the release of the first data set was based on over a year of observations, the new data spans a period of about 22 months – from July 25, 2014 to May 23, 2016. An initial analysis of this data revealed precise details about 1.7 billion stars for The milk and how they move. This data is essential to understand how our galaxy has evolved over time.
According to Günter Hassinger, the scientific director of the European Space Agency, "the observations collected by "Gaia" are redefining the foundations of astronomy. "Gaia" is an ambitious mission that relies on large-scale human collaboration created to process a large amount of complex data. It illustrates the need for long-term projects that will ensure progress in science and technology in space and will carry out even more daring scientific missions in the decades to come."
"The accuracy of Gaia's instruments made it possible to perform measurements so precise that it was possible to obtain the parallax of the stars - their true movement around the center of the galaxy, when it is separated from the movement seen due to the rotation of the Earth around the sun, and thus to understand the movements of the stars in the galaxy with greater precision. Out of 1.7 billion cataloged stars, "Gaia" measured and documented the parallax and velocity (that is, the correct motion) of more than 1.3 billion stars."
"For about 10% of the stars measured, the parallax measurements were so precise that astronomers could directly estimate distances to individual stars." explains Anthony Braun from Leiden University in the Netherlands, who is also the chairman of the "Gaia" data processing consortium.
"The second edition of the Gaia data represents a huge leap forward with respect to the European Space Agency's Hypercos satellite, the predecessor of Gaia and the first space mission designed to perform astrometry. For comparison, Hypercos surveyed about 118 thousand stars almost thirty years ago. The sheer number of stars in itself with their positions and movements will make the new catalog of "Gaia" quite amazing. But that's not all. This unique scientific catalog includes many other types of data, which enable the discovery of the properties of stars and other celestial objects, making this publication exceptional.
In addition to the movements of the stars, the catalog provides information on a wide variety of topics that will interest astronomers and astrophysicists. Among other things, Gaia measured the brightness and colors of almost all 1.7 billion cataloged stars, and also the changes in brightness and color of about half a million stars over time.
The "Gaia" catalog also contains the line-of-sight velocity of seven million stars, the surface temperatures of about 100 million, and the effect of interstellar dust on 87 million stars. "Gaia" data also contains information about objects in our solar system, including the location of 14,000 known asteroids, which will enable accurate determination of their orbits.
Beyond the Milky Way galaxy, "Gaia" obtained more precise measurements of the location of half a million distant quasars - bright galaxies that emit enormous amounts of energy due to the presence of a massive black hole at their centers. In the past, quasars served as a frame of reference for the celestial coordinates of all objects in the "Gaia" catalog based on radio waves. However, this information will now be available for the first time also in the optical part of the electromagnetic spectrum. "This development and other Gaia innovations could bring about a revolution in the study of our galaxy and the universe," says Antonella Valenari from the National Institute of Astrophysics in Padua, Italy and vice-chair of the Gaia Data Processing Consortium.
"The new data of "Gaia" are so strong and rich that the exciting findings just jump out at us. For example, we have constructed the most detailed Hertzsprung-Russell diagram of stars ever made of the entire sky and we can already spot some interesting trends. I feel that we are ushering in a new era of galactic archaeology."
For the comprehensive article on the European Space Agency website
111 תגובות
Yehuda
Newton's formula was a good approximation - before we had precise measurements. This formula also didn't explain what was going on. It assumes a "simple universe", where there is a mysterious central force between bodies, simple space and uniform time.
160 years ago they already knew that something was wrong with the formula that you love to quote so much. Einstein solved the problem. He did not propose a cryptic correction to Newton's formula. Instead, he established some simple axioms, and calculated the curvature of space as a result of mass inventions. These axioms not only corrected Newton's hypothesis, they predicted many observations - the bending of light, the expansion of the universe, the slowing down of time, and so on.
And the only reason you throw all this in the trash - and in addition, all quantum theory - is "Occam's Razor".
Dear Nissim
Why is Newton's formula not valid??, it is valid at small speeds of thousands of kilometers per second and at distances of millions of light years. When we say that Andromeda and the Milky Way are about to meet, it can be done according to Newton, and if we correct their mass tenfold with the help of the wonderful dark mass, we will even get accurate results. Similarly, if we check the rotation speed of each spiral galaxy, Newton's formula was always ready to participate in the measurements and with the help of the dark mass it was even possible to reach correct results with it.
Hooray for Newton!!
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
What does Newton have to do with our affairs? His formula has long been invalid.
Dear Nissim
I read an article about the 1500 scientists working at the American Standards and Measurements Institute whose job it is to solve these kinds of problems. It's true that for them the problem is simple because for them the speed of light is still constant, but we'll keep our fingers crossed for them, and maybe I'm wrong and the world of science will get rid of Judah's problem and the simple universe. If, God willing, I am right, I will feel a moral obligation to help the thousands of scientists in the world in their difficult time, and maybe they will be able to pass in peace the days of mourning for the untimely death of the dark mass and energy and with them also the Newtonian gravitation formula that served us faithfully for 350 years.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
To measure a wavelength using interference, you need a wavelength source with a very precise wavelength. So what was the use of the sages in their regulation?
Miracles
There is a relatively simple method to accurately measure the length of waves and it is with the help of friction, Michelson Morley did it in the 19th century
And as for the name of a simple universe, maybe it really is too naive a hope
Good night miracles
Yehuda
Miracles
There is a relatively simple method to accurately measure the length of waves and it is with the help of friction, Michaelson Moore
Yehuda
That's what I said - it is impossible to accurately produce waves at an exact frequency. Even the most coherent laser has a certain dispersion in frequency.
And if you think for a moment - how can you measure these waves? You have a sine that rises and falls, how will you accurately measure its wavelength? Identifying the peak points is very difficult, because the derivative zeros out there, and to discover a transition through any other point, you will have to measure relative to a certain reference value. How will you know that this value is really fixed?
Yehuda, if we have no way to determine a unit of length, or a unit of mass - how can we claim that the universe is simple? Computers are simple, it's "1" or "0". But beyond that, can you tell me one thing that's simple? Even setting up a chair is complicated, and maybe impossible...
Miracles
I was actually thinking about short transmissions on a meter wave and not endless transmissions. So we will look for another idea.
And by the way, the problem is much more serious with the kg, because we cannot define them according to the weight of water, whose weight changes over time. problem
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
You are the one contradicting yourself... after all, you said that you accept the conclusions of general relativity, at least in the short term.
How exactly will you build a broadcasting station that broadcasts at a wavelength of exactly one meter? It is very far from being practical, and theoretically it is also not possible (such a station must broadcast continuously, and it should have broadcast an infinite time ago, and possibly even an infinite time - as strange as it sounds 🙂 )
Miracles
A basic law in the global economy that a meter is a meter long and has always been and will be like that. Until Yehuda opened his mouth, the meter was determined according to the speed of light which was "constant". Now we have a problem of permanence, but under no circumstances must we compromise and put up with a changing meter!
A possible solution that has occurred to me since yesterday is that once a day they will broadcast from a chosen location for example from Radio Herzliya from a transmitter with a wave of exactly one meter and everyone in the near universe will be able to calibrate themselves
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
"Then every year on my birthday we will update the meter for latecomers." I mean - you agree with me that the "length" of a meter is not fixed. So – please – how can you say that the speed of light changes? Maybe it's the length of the meter that changes.
And to be pedantic - the length of the meter does increase over time, and therefore, in a certain sense, the speed of light decreases over time, regardless of temperature.
And speaking of temperature - what is it anyway for you? Do your particles have a temperature?
Miracles
Did I already tell you that you are a pedant??
We will look at some options. For example, you can decide that the speed of light on May 26.5.18, 299,792,458 (my birthday!) will be defined as exactly XNUMX meters per second, so that the whole world has five days to organize. It is also possible to postpone it for a year or two. Then every year on my birthday we will update the meter for latecomers.
But the truth is, in a world where everything changes, it is a problem to determine something that remains constant. It seems to me that there will be no choice but to switch to the standard meter - a meter long rod that will be kept under guard, each country and its standard meter. There are certainly other options but you have to think about them
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
I understood what you were saying.
The meter is defined as 1 divided by 299,792,458 the speed of light. So, again, how can you measure the speed of light? Do you have a more "precise" definition for a meter?
I have the same problem regarding weight. Weight measurement also has units of length.
Miracles
I look at what I wrote and it seems convincing and then I also look at what you wrote and it also seems convincing. The question arises :- Do the things contradict each other? It seems to me not. We are measuring two different things!
I am talking about measuring the expansion of the universe and the speed of light here in the region of the earth with the LIGO instruments and the weighing facilities, and you are talking about the expansion of the universe in distances with the help of galaxies moving away. So it is true that "the speed is determined according to the shift to the red." In order to calculate the speed that results from a certain offset, you need to know the speed of the wave" but this is not the case with me, I measure a deviation in weight (option A) or by measuring a constant distance using a laser in the LIGO facility (option B) and from there draw conclusions as to how much the speed of light has changed and by how much The mourning constant has also changed.
If I were to measure with the accepted method, according to the distance of the galaxies and the redshift, then there would be room for what you said.
It doesn't seem to me that there is a contradiction in my way of measuring.
Of course, all this is provided that the assumptions underlying my theory are correct.
Summarize:
For me, when I do the test with the weight or in the LIGO facility, I only assume a current speed of light of 299,792,458 meters per second, which is accepted by all of us, and do not assume anything about the size of the Hubble constant. In the results of the experiment (both of the scale and of LIGO) I get the size of the Hubble constant and the change in the speed of light!
In the conventional method of the galaxies receding with all the necessary speed offsets (and I take my hat off to the scientists who measure the hard work they do and God forbid do not underestimate them!), with all the necessary offsets, there is a lot of room for errors in the conventional measurement method of Hubble's constant:-
Possibility of errors in the accepted assumption about the constancy of the speed of light and the size of the Hubble constant and the degree of self-motion of the local galaxies and galaxies in general.
Amazingly, the uncertainty in the measurements is, by and large, only between 65-75 km/s per mega-persec.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
No, I'm not contradicting myself. Hubble's "constant" expresses a relationship between distance and speed.
The speed is determined according to the shift to red. To calculate the speed resulting from a certain offset, you need to know the speed of the wave.
Measuring distance obviously does not rely on the speed of light.
Miracles
Didn't you contradict yourself?
Initially you stated that the Hubble constant is not a constant but a parameter - a measured value (I agree with this), and in the second half of your response you state that there are formulas for calculating this parameter?? And where do you enter the calculation of the speed of light? So please show me such a formula. It doesn't seem to me that such a formula exists.
Happy holiday
Yehuda
Yehuda
Happy holiday!
Hubble's "constant" is not a constant, but a parameter. It is a measured value, like the temperature in Tel Aviv yesterday afternoon. This afternoon she was different.
And what is even more interesting - in the formulas for calculating this parameter, we enter the speed of light... so how can you say that you deduce the speed of light from this value?
Miracles
The most important factor in the calculations in my theory is the Hubble constant, which determines the background temperature of the universe and the density of the pushing particles within it. Unfortunately, to this day, the Hubble constant has not been determined precisely and the measurements range from 69.32 km per second per megafarsec (as measured by the WMAP research satellite), later measured by the Planck space telescope, and the result is 67.11 km per second per megafarsec, up to 72 km "m per second to Mega Persec as determined by a group of researchers (the data from Wikipedia) therefore when I determine my data by Hubble's constant there is uncertainty in them, this is what I meant when I said that the constant is not measured with certainty.
But… if I'm right in my theory, it will be able to measure the Hubble constant even without a telescope observation! For example:-
If, for example, we accept that the speed of light changes by 1.06 cm per second per year, this states that the Hubble constant is 69 km per second per megasec. (article number 45 in the blog).
If in the LIGO facility, in the measurement of the speed of light, a deviation of 8 nanometers will be detected for 10 hours when measuring a distance of 200 km, then this deviation is determined by the Hubble constant of 68,571 meters per second per megasec. And it determines a change in the speed of light of 1.0512 cm per second per year (article 45 in the blog).
Another possibility to determine the mourning constant is as a result of the annual weight loss of bodies (note: weight loss and not mass loss). If we measure a weight loss of 0.4234 micrograms per kg of weight per year. This will set us a Hubble constant of 69 km/s per mega-persec. (article 65 in the blog).
I hope the grieving constant is clear.
Regarding "Occam's Razor", I must point out that I disagree with your opinion and the opinion of many (please, please do not claim that I underestimate them) and the reason - due to uncertainty in the measurements that are (always) made to determine the correctness of formulas, there are countless correct formulas for every physical phenomenon. For example, in our Newton's formula, a tiny change in it, for example in power and the like, will still bring correct results within the uncertainty of measurements, and here the question arises as to which of the innumerable correct formulas will we choose?
It still doesn't say exactly what to do because "choosing simple" is a matter of personal taste, and what's simple for me doesn't have to be simple for you. (article 20 in the blog)
To end this response, I must credit you with miracles, that the pedantry you demand from me (and from yourself of course) encourages perfection. I caught myself thinking sometimes, what would miracles say about something I write, and sometimes I change, correct and smile.
Happy holiday miracles!
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
You just said something very strange. You said that your formula for changing the speed of light depends on an observational data. It's not physics 🙂 The thalami cells were epicyclic and different to his observations (I think they were his). Kepler's laws are formulas adapted from Tycho Brahe's observations. Newton, in contrast, gave an explanation for the observations. Einstein expanded to do, and developed his model from a small number of axioms.
And you? You're back to fitting a formula to an observation! That's not how it should be. You have to arrive at your formula from your axioms.
Yehuda, Occam's razor is not related to physics. It's a nice heuristic, not a scientific tool. Your theory has many flaws, and you cannot continue to ignore them. You ignore the problems I raise, and it's just too bad.
Miracles
Now I understand your point. And I really wondered why it would decrease my chances. Let it be said that it would make me happy to be in the company of those who predict the decrease in speed, but I did another thing - I also calculated and determined the size of the decrease in the speed of light, which is approximately one centimeter per second per year. (The exact calculation depends on the size of the Hubble constant which has not yet been measured with certainty) Thanks for the explanation.
And regarding the second part of your response... Problem again!
Indeed I replace the theory of dark matter and energy with undiscovered particles in the theory of pushing gravity again with undiscovered particles?, I admit that I have a problem here
I wonder what Occam's razor would say about it?
And in conclusion I calculated the deviation in epsilon per pound. The deviation in the cycle time of the couples around the common center of gravity will be about 5% more than the Newtonian instead of about 315,000 years (the Newtonian calculation) it will be 332,000 years (the simple universe calculation)
But this is according to data I had several years ago and not my new Gaia calculations. Article number 73 on my blog.
Good Day
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
My intention is: if your theory is the only one that predicts the slowing down of the speed of light, and if this slowing down is indeed discovered - then your theory receives confirmation. The more theories there are that predict a phenomenon, then the effect of the confirmation is small.
The theory of relativity explains gravity at any distance. It also explains the bending of light and the slowing down of time. To explain certain phenomena - we need to add types of particles that we haven't discovered yet.
You say - to explain what relativity does not explain, let's throw its explanation in the trash. Instead, we have to add particles that we haven't discovered yet, we have to throw out the big bang theory, the special theory of relativity and the quantum theory.
Oh, and we'll ignore the problems of drag, non-conservation of energy and so on.
Did I miss something?
Miracles
I don't understand what you just said:-
you say:-
"Let's suppose that now we discover that the speed of light has indeed changed. So now - the chances that your theory is correct have decreased" ??? After all, this will increase the likelihood that my theory is correct!! To remind you, I keep claiming that the speed of light was greater in the past, and if it is discovered and to the extent that I state it, it confirms my theory!!
You keep saying:-
"It's not exactly scientific to bring in a competing theory to strengthen your theory..." And here I must point out that you touched a sensitive point. Is it allowed to bring parts of another theory to confirm my words? It is clear to me that everything
There will be a different decision. But here in my case I don't need an article because what they said, I already said. But it's nice to see that I'm not alone in my ideas.
And regarding your questions I have already said that it makes sense to answer them only when one of the possibilities for rebuttal is examined.
I will still check a bit if others have thought about my ideas and especially about the different gravity formula
Let me write it again:-
Y=N*e^-q
Y the simple universe formula
N Newton's formula
e is the natural number
^ sign of possession
r the distance between the bodies
d the mean free path of the pushing particles
q denote r divided by d
Shabbat Shalom Nissim I thought I would retire to sleep
Thanks for the challenging responses
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
Let's assume that now we find out that the speed of light has indeed changed. So now - the chances that your theory is correct have decreased.
It's not exactly scientific to bring in a competing theory to bolster your own theory….
But, would you please answer my questions?
Miracles and Israel
I'm not alone! Notice how similar it is to the things I say!
Below is the published article:-
The constant speed of light is the basis of the theory of relativity and modern physics, but a new theory claims that in the past it was faster, an explanation that may solve mysteries related to the formation of the universe
One of the revolutionary assumptions that formed the basis of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is that the speed of light is constant in all reference systems. That means a person sitting on Earth and a person in a spaceship moving at high speed will both see the light moving at exactly the same speed - 299,792,458 meters per second. This assumption has far-reaching consequences for the progression of time and the elongation of space at high speeds, and it has been proven over and over again in countless experiments.
Researchers from the University of Waterloo in Canada and Imperial College London offer a slightly different theory. According to them, the speed of light is indeed constant in all reference systems at any given moment, but it changes in time and was higher in the past. The theory they propose may solve an existing problem in cosmology and explain the early stages of the universe's evolution.
Continue on the following link:-
https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/online/askexpert/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%94
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda
for miracles
I have so far avoided trying to deal with attribution. I told myself that relativity is a respectable term in its place, let's deal with Newton. But you're "pressing" and maybe my approach is wrong, maybe it's worth checking what the simple universe is capable of predicting:-
The precession of the planet Hema has already seen that it is possible to predict with the pushing,
Idush is predictable,
The increase in gravitation in fast motion is also predictable because moving bodies will slow down the pushing particles to a greater extent,
What will we have left?, the change of time... It's hard... but you don't have to break... After all, we never gave up on Michaelson Morley,,,
Should I invest now in my relativity??, I prefer to wait and see what happens with all those possibilities for refutation because if the theory is disproved there is no point in trying. If the theory is recovered, I will return to the attribution test.
Regarding all the satellites orbiting against the Earth's rotation, the gravitation of the mountains will inhibit them also according to Newtonian gravitation and their life span will be shorter. It's not just a matter of Pushing Gravity, so I really don't understand where you get that there is no inhibiting effect on them?
So please be patient and moderate, and we'll see what happens. There really is no rush. Israel is trying to check Gaia's data on ads11635, maybe salvation will come from there.
You can check the weight change of bodies or the friction. in your free time,
It is also possible to change the speed of light, not to stress. There is time, the sun will become a red giant in just another billion years. I promise you miracles, if I have a positive or negative development on the subject of the theory I will update everyone.
Good day miracles
patience
Yehuda
Yehuda
Does space have properties or not? If it has, then no additional particles need to be added.
And if he doesn't have it - you invalidated general relativity (and then you'll have to explain how time is short in a gravitational field).
Certain satellites move opposite to the direction of the Earth's rotation. There is no anomaly in their orbits.
I would be happy to address these points.
Dear Nissim
Where did you see that I am confident in my theory when I bring close to ten measurements that can disprove it??
How come you are so sure about the big bang when the basis of its existence was due to the Hubble expansion?, how does a measurement that is made at a certain point in time, tell you with confidence about a point in time 13.8 billion years ago??, always something that expands must have been concentrated in the past at a singular point??, can you blame Anyone doubting the existence of a singular point?? The whole universe is concentrated in a point??, and you also have a problem with this point, therefore within a fraction of a second it spreads to several light years and in fact the universe continues from there!
Again you state "you underestimate scientists", why? Where did you see it??
I don't want to add about the friction, and about the bodies rotating against the preferred direction so their life span is shorter! And why do you state that gravity does not act on the pushing particles? Because they are small? It's just a desire to adjust the figure to what you need, understand that the size does not matter!
Le Sage saw the Newton formula he arrived at as a success and did not notice that there is also a concept of the "mean free path" that makes the big difference between Newtonian gravitation and the gravitation of pushing gravity.
You want me to adjust my model to reality?, so what do you want me to add dark matter like Fritz Zwicky did at the beginning of the XNUMXth century?, will that be called an adjustment to reality?, and when it doesn't work out then you have no problem changing the data again with another great invention "Dark energy"?
My particle miracles most of them pass through the sun and are unaware of its existence, the tiny part that collides between them and the other matter found in the solar system makes the difference.
And as for the light, it changes on the order of a centimeter per second per year. A Lego device is capable of measuring deviations in the size of nanometers, we'll check and maybe you'll shut me up.
And then you finish with the punch line." It is absolutely possible that dark matter exists, and we will never discover it"!
In this decision she showed that dark matter is not a scientific thing because we are obliged to give the possibility of refutation in order to be such (Popper, remember?). You made dark matter divine, it exists but we can never see see it.
Well, Nissim, we don't agree, but I gave many options to disprove my theory and even promised a double invitation to a restaurant for those who prove it. I promise that in a very short time the scientific world will be solved from the biggest scientific error of the twentieth century - dark matter and energy.
That's my opinion and maybe I'm wrong.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
It annoys me that you are so confident in your theory, and just ignore everything that doesn't seem right to you.
You claim that the universe "started" a few light years in size. What was before that? Don't you see the problem here? 🙂 The assertion of the Big Bang model is not casual. Not only is it based on a mathematical model, but there is also a lot of evidence for this. But, how did you say? I don't think so. Yehuda, what would Popper say??
I really think you are underestimating scientists, and grossly underestimating them. You have a simplistic theory, which doesn't explain much, and blatantly contradicts the very successful theories we have.
It annoys me that you ignore these contradictions, in an ugly way.
And in addition, Lesage already realized that there was a problem with the particle model - friction. So you come up with “the particles go around the windshield or whatever. So what about some bodies that rotate upside down? So what about the little detail that the particles can't go around the sun, because gravity doesn't act on them?
Yehuda - maybe try to adapt your model to reality, and not the other way around? Maybe try to understand that you are not allowed to say "the speed of light depends on the temperature" without understanding what the speed of light is?
Really, Yehuda, think about it, maybe you're wrong. And don't rely on Popper and Occam. In particular - Popper is wrong. It is quite possible that a theory that is true cannot be disproved. It is quite possible that dark matter exists, and we will never discover it. Read a bit beyond Popper, there were many philosophers after him.
On occasion he will admit, inshallah, tomorrow I get it, it will cost as much as it costs, even a thousand lira.
Israel
I don't have the exact data of Gaia's measurements. As soon as I have them, you can calculate.
Can you get the measurements of epsilon lira ads11635?
A guaranteed double meal
Yehuda
Well, and it thinks? Is it really 90%?
Because if not, lift up your waist and immediately get to work.
Israel
Let's take a real example - the star system Epsilon Lyra ads11635. This is a star system made up of two distant pairs about ten thousand and eleven. Since the estimated average free path of the pushing gravity particles is 98,000 y, then q equals 0.102, then e^-q= 0.9, which means that the force of attraction in this system will only be 90 percent of Newtonian gravity and it is measurable. It may be that Gaia has already checked the relevant measurements, and one only needs to calculate the rotation time of one pair around the other pair in epsilon lira, is it according to Newton or a slower rotation due to a smaller gravitation according to a simple universe.
Does this satisfy you Israel??
Yoda, what's so complicated? You take a cube of space a million light years across, clear it of all the galaxies and stars in it and put two individual masses there. Easy, applicable, and also not very expensive.
And seriously, in many physics books you will find theoretical problems dealing with two individual masses. For example the calculation of the gravitational potential energy is the integral of moving a mass from the earth to infinity, even in Sears Zimansky. No more essays.
Oh I forgot, the physics books are not relevant.. 🙂
But don't lose heart. If you dig deeper, it is important that Pushing actually perhaps sheds light on the anomaly of the rotation speed at the edges of the galaxies, and this without obscurity and without arrogance.
Miracles, the response to you is awaiting confirmation
for miracles
When I read a comment that begins "I, unlike you, am really trying to understand" then immediately there is the feeling of disdain, an enlightened person standing in contrast to an inferior person who does not delve deeper and does not try to understand the words of "the only one of his kind", miracles. Tell me miracles, do you really think it's easy to write a theory? Do you think it's possible to write one without having big holes all over the fabric. It's not fair to treat your interlocutor that way.
Let's move on:-
"... particles that were created in a small volume much less than 13.8 billion years ago?" End quote.
I will explain to you what I meant. Today, the universe is explained as a point that exploded and within a fraction of a second spread in inflation to the size of several light years. And I claim that it is possible to start the universe from the size of a few light years and not have to explain the strange inflation that was in the universe during the time of 10^-35 seconds in the universe.
If, for example, you see a group of students scattering during a break in the playground, it means that before the break they were more concentrated, but it must not be concluded that they left a singular point!!.
In other words, if we see the universe expanding according to Hubble's constant, it absolutely does not follow that the universe started at a point.
And the speed of light was higher in the past (and not as you wrote) because the speed of light is proportional to the root of the temperature of the initially hot universe.
When did it happen?, according to my calculation, since part of the time the light was faster, so apparently there is a deviation in the determination of 13.8.
And regarding the continuation of your comment regarding the structure of the particles, we will leave it for another time.
I hope you will be more moderate in your responses and less insulting (unless you can't do without it), ask for an explanation and I will try to come up with it for you.
Good day miracles. I'm still tired.
I go to drink coffee
Please respond in moderation
Yehuda
for everyone
It was an excellent Bat Mitzvah party and I enjoyed seeing my family members celebrate. I only returned at noon to my small house and continued to celebrate in my sleep until the evening, and now I am returning to the tasks of science,
Let's start with Israel because it will be short:-
The question of two masses located in a strange universe is not defined in our normal universe and therefore it is a fictional idea and not scientific. Despite your sincere desire. Every idea should be rebuttable. Here both the idea is unfeasible and Popper's experiment to try to disprove it. It is not possible to make bodies that will be in space without any other disturbance, so who is measuring? What about light that we will notice in the experiment?
In short :- not easy! Define the question differently.
Please respond gently
Yehuda
No turbidity in Tiz el Nabi, no stars, no moons, just two single masses..
Yehuda
I, unlike you, am really trying to understand what you are saying (that is, I don't think you have sat on many things, and you also say it clearly...) - do I understand correctly? You claim that there is a featureless and infinite space in which your particles move, particles that were created in a small volume much less than 13.8 billion years ago? (The time comes from the fact that the speed of light was slower in the past, according to you).
And regarding the particles themselves - are they like little balls? I mean - do they have a fixed radius? Do they have mass? And if so - from the source of their mass (after all, you don't accept the explanation of general relativity).
And again two small problems that really bother me:
1) You dismiss both the special theory of relativity, both the general theory of relativity - and the quantum theory. And if you don't see it - then, Houston, we have a problem.
Israel
Decay according to the square of the distance is lacking because it does not refer to the possibility of disturbance of the space in which the phenomenon moves, for example light moving in space spreads according to the square of the distance and also according to the disturbance "provided" by the space, for example fog. And the formula of the spread becomes more similar to my formula.
So far
Thank you for the wishes Israel, all the best
Yehuda
Congratulations Yoda. I take advantage of the grace period before the details are deleted and have to be re-entered..
I'm not just trying to knock you down. Pushing is a beautiful theory, the decay of gravity not according to an inverse square ratio is a little less so.
In my opinion, there is another problem with the decay of gravity not according to an inverse square ratio to distance - spherical symmetry.
The surface area of a sphere is proportional to the square of the radius. If the gravity decays in a different ratio, in our case smaller than r^2, we will have to get excess gravity in other areas of the shell.
To see this, let's think of two huge crosshairs facing each other in a huge radius. The pushing particles hit the outer sides of the cells regardless of what happens in between, but the inner sides are affected by each other.
If the two axes are one kilometer apart and the pull between them corresponds to a newton, but at a light year distance it is only a third of a newton - what happens if the radius of the two axes is a million light years? What happens to the force that the particles exert on the outside but is blocked on the inside? Rms will not help here because the traps are so large that they form a kind of pot and lid with more particles being blocked on the outside than on the inside.
Therefore, if in one area of each of the pair of cells we get less gravity, we will inevitably get increased gravity in another area, because the outer sides continue to block the same number of particles regardless of what happens in the middle.
To Israel
You asked: - If the mean free path is so large - then how does pushing explain the attraction between small particles like atoms?
Answer - there are particle masses and therefore, despite the great freedom of pushing, there is an attraction between the atoms as well. There is no contradiction between the things.
for miracles
You asked: - How do you arrive at the formula?
Answer - go to my blog and see. Even so, it is very difficult to write formulas in science. I will only explain that I did not do it by induction like Newton did. I did this by deduction, I assumed the existence of particles moving in space from anywhere to everywhere, I showed why there is gravitation, its size and formula, and the effect of the mean free path. Le Sage and others did not consider the mean free path and its effect!,
And regarding the immolation there are two reasons:-
A. The well-remembered gravitation that operates in small ranges up to a distance of a few light years.
B. Pressure differences between different areas in space that bend the light rays.
By the way, you are making a mistake that many make. The problem must be precisely defined. What is meant by?
You are asking how do I explain gravitational clouding?, the question that needs to be asked: - How do I explain clouding?, because that is what we see in space, the explanation should not limit us only to gravitational clouding.
If you didn't understand, then it's okay.
In general, it seems to me that with a little thought you both could come to the answers on your own, but you are reluctant to justify your opinion just as it is written in the interesting article published yesterday in the science "The Instinct to Agree with Ourselves" because of my work in factory optimization I have learned to ignore this human trait expressed in the article.
I already have to prepare for the Bat Mitzvah event of my oldest and beloved granddaughter, which is held today,
So thanks in advance for the best wishes
Good Day
Yehuda
Yehuda
You have now given Israel a formula. How do you arrive at this formula? I'm pretty tired of telling you that you have to learn what general relativity is. You must understand that your Torah completely contradicts the theory of relativity.
According to your claim, light should not bend over large distances. So, please, how do you explain gravity defiling?
And this nouveau that you introduced to Israel - how do you get to it? What axioms do you start from?
Yehuda
You have now given Israel a formula. How do you arrive at this formula? I'm pretty tired of telling you that you have to learn what general relativity is. You must understand that your Torah completely contradicts the theory of relativity.
According to your claim, light should not bend over large distances. So, please, how do you explain gravity defiling?
And this Nohsa that you introduced to Israel - how do you get to it? What axioms do you start from?
"If the mean free path d is 1.55 light years, this explains the precession of the planet Hema".
But if the mean free path is so large - then how does pushing explain the attraction between small particles like atoms?
I think I succeeded
To Israel
There is a formula, and I will try to convey it to you again on the science website, maybe we will succeed
Let's mark Newton's formula with the letter N and the formula of the simple universe with the letter Y
The formula is:-
Y=N*e^-q
e is the natural number
^ sign of possession
r the distance between the bodies
d the mean free path of the pushing particles
q denote r divided by d
If r is very small than d then q tends to zero, then e^-q tends to 1 then Y=N
And if r is much greater than d then q tends to infinity and then e^-q tends to zero and then Y=0
That is, at small distances relative to the mean free path, the simple universe formula is equal to Newton's formula
And at distances relatively large to the mean free path, the simple universe formula equals zero
As you can see, the strength of gravity is getting smaller relative to the strength calculated by Newton.
For example:- if the distance between the bodies is d, the gravity will only be about 0.368 of the newton
If the mean free path d is 1.55 light years this explains the precession of Mercury.
In this case, for bodies located at a distance of a hundred light years we will get Y=N*e^-65 so that there is actually no gravitation.
In other words, you have to look for another force to drive the galaxies, and it is, in my opinion, a pressure difference.
Hopefully I answered your question
Good night
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
We will be a mess. It can be found on my website. You're welcome
To Israel
There is a formula, and I will try to transfer it to you on the science website, but it seems to me that it would be a mess in the transfer.
We'll try anyway
We will mark Newton's formula with the letter N and the formula of the simple universe with the letter Y
we get d) Y=N*e^(-r/
e is the natural number
^ sign of possession
r the distance between the bodies
d the mean free path of the pushing particles
Yoda
Let's try this for a moment.
It is said that in that desolate and desolate area of the universe known in space as Tiz al Nabi, where you could sail hundreds of millions of light years without encountering a single healing moon, there are 2 individual masses.
We check what the attraction between them is at a distance of a meter and the force obeys Newton.
Check at a km distance - as above.
Light year - ditto.
One hundred light years - a significant change (as for our milk).
Question: In what range between a light year and a hundred thousand does the power begin to change? Is there a formula? And considering the spherical symmetry of the problem - how can this be?
for miracles
You are obviously asking:- What is the mean free path of the particles of the Foshinev gravity? Well, this is the average way the particle moves until it hits another particle. In article 55 on my blog, the idea of gravity pushing is explained, then in article 62, the effect of the mean free path on the final formula is explained and it is explained there why the formula differs from the Newtonian gravity formula. The explanation is accompanied by drawings and it is difficult to explain it on the science website. So you will enter the blog and be impressed there. And by the way, the free path is the one that explains why in normal gas the phenomenon of gravitation does not take place between bodies that are inside it,
Regarding your second question, until today I have not found the possibility to calculate it. apologetic.
Good Day
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Miracles
You asked" So how do you explain the bending of light near mass?" Or the slowing down of time near Mesa"? End of question.
What is not clear here?, I explain it with the theory of relativity and yes, I don't like the above explanation, just a personal opinion. Understand miracles, if someone finds a Newtonian or gravitational pushing explanation for the bending of light or the slowing down of time, he will be better than me. I think about it all the time, until then in every exam I will do the relative calculations.
Popper will not enter here, but "Ockham's Razor". Newtonian or Pushing seems to me to be better than my attribution.
Example?- When we were children they would give us fish oil - a disgusting substance that we took because that's how we needed it until the day came when more delicious substitutes for the oil would be found to make the children (and the fish) happy.
I am waiting for an alternative explanation. The curvature of space is fish oil for me.
I hope I enlightened your eyes.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
I don't understand your free distance. I am holding in my hand a ball that weighs 5 kg. How many particles hit it every second?
Yehuda
You seriously wrote: 'I don't like concepts like "curvature of space"??? are you? The one who quotes Popper's approach morning and night???
So how do you explain the bending of light near mass? Or the slowing down of time near Mesa?
Please enlighten my eyes.
Israel
You asked: In what range does gravitation begin to change? The answer depends on the magnitude of the mean free path of the gravitationally pushing particles. Every particle that collides, becomes random and loses the message of gravity, it is possible that the average free path of the pushing gravitational particles is about one hundred thousand astronomical units, a little more than 1.5 light years, because such a path would explain the precession of the planet Hema without relativity. Details on the blog. It is clear to me that the average free path is orders of magnitude smaller than a hundred thousand light years.
In other words, actually from the first meter the gravitation already changes from a newton, but the change is not significant up to a distance of thousands of astronomical units. The double is double epsilon lira ads11635, where the two doubles are about ten thousand astronomical units apart. can be used to test the Newtonian deviation if it exists, and I told Professor Shay Zucker that it should be tested with Gaia.
Miracles
You think of something and immediately with the joy of victory shouts: refutation!! Sorry Nissim, Lagrange point number 2 is located about a million and a half kilometers from the earth and a small correction of the position by a number of kilometers (or meters) will already provide a solution to the problem you raised, and it is also true that only points 4 and 5 are in stable equilibrium for the rest a mechanism is needed Orbital corrections, and by the way, the 3rd Lagrange point of the Earth-Sun has a great influence as a result of the movement of Venus. (Wikipedia)
and about the curvature of space,
The method of calculation gives correct results, but I don't like concepts like "curvature of space" and for me they have a place of "honor" next to "dark matter" "and dark energy". I would love it if the simple universe could explain the curvature like it can explain the precession of the planet Mercury.
In other words, for me the curvature of the space is "kosher" but "I don't like it" is what I can tell you about my opinion on the curvature of the space.
And as for the well-known Godel, I am of course sorry that I brought it up in a debate between us, but the debate about it is really marginal in relation to the gravitation we are discussing, and if you think it is absolutely a mistake, then so be it. apologetic.
Good Day
Yehuda
You dodge…
Yehuda
What do you mean you don't agree? Is it a matter of opinion???
Yehuda - the WMAP spacecraft is located at point L2. That is - in a full and permanent solar eclipse. From what you say, its trajectory should have been steadily drifting apart. Bummer… . Rebuttal again...
And yet you don't avoid answering my question: mass distorts space? or not?
Yoda
At what range does gravity start to change? Assuming that the spatial symmetry of all the bodies involved is spherical, then if Newtonian gravitation is approximately correct at a distance of say 100,000 light years, then when does it start to change? Why? Is there a formula that shows the dependence of gravity on distance? distance from what?
Miracles
I don't agree with you that Gadel said something completely different, but I really don't want to expand on Gadel's point of view, what I said is acceptable to many but not to you, and I showed it. So we don't agree on Gadel, period.
And regarding my theory and the theory of relativity: in short ranges the results are almost like Newton, and at relativistic speeds like relativity. On the other hand, at large ranges, gravity tends to zero because of the mean free path of the gravitationally pushing particles, and there is of course no compatibility with relativistic calculations either, the movement in distant bodies results from pressure differences and not from gravity, i.e. if, for example, Andromeda moves towards the Milky Way, it does not result from gravity (almost) but from the pressure differences between The regions where the galaxies are located.
Another example - the movement of the galaxies in our regions is known in a certain direction in space that seems quite empty and is called "the great attractor", and we are looking for the attracting mass. My opinion is that the large attractor region is a region of low pressure and therefore has a flow to it and not because of dark mass or mysterious black holes.
Also regarding large and dense masses there is a different behavior between my theory and relativity and Newton's because not all the mass of the heavy body participates in the process of gravitation.
Another difference - two bodies weighed on the scales next to each other will weigh more than one above the other. A tiny difference but it exists.
Another thing - during a solar eclipse the moon hides not only the light of the sun but also a little of its gravity. That means the gravity acting on the earth at the moment of the solar eclipse is smaller than the moment before the eclipse.
Just food for thought.
There are other differences between your universe, saturated with masses and dark energies, and my universe, but it's five in the morning and I feel that the insomnia passes then..
Good night
Yehuda
Yehuda
You are the one who mentioned Gadel, not me. You claimed he said something, and I explained to you that he said something completely different.
Yehuda, there is still a painful contradiction in what you say. You say you accept the general relativity explanation for gravity at close ranges. If so, then you dismiss your theory outright. After all, the effect of your particles increases with decreasing distance, doesn't it?
G
You have touched a sensitive spot again
When I decided that the speed of light I had to attach to the root of a certain temperature, I had to decide what that temperature would be and the first option that came to my mind was the background temperature of the universe. Am I sure that this is the right choice??, not necessarily, but in the end I got a result that I liked, based on the decrease in speed I got that the distance of the moon from the earth is only 26 mm per year and not 38 mm that was measured with the help of a laser. So why did I like it so much because 26 mm or so is the spread of the Hubble to the distance to the moon [nice, so we don't need to give any reference to the tides created by the moon on the earth?, maybe I'm wrong?, but it doesn't need to change because you can fasten the speed The light for the expansion of the universe regardless of its temperature, and what is important is to measure and see what happens with the speed of light.
Food for thought
Good Day
Yehuda
Miracles
I'm a commoner, I don't understand math like you, and if there's a problem, I go to Google and there it says (Wikipedia):-
Godel showed that any axiom system that is effective and rich enough (one that contains a sufficiently large part of the axioms of arithmetic) that is consistent, is necessarily incomplete, meaning that there are claims that cannot be decided, meaning that they cannot be proved or disproved. End quote. And I just said the last sentence in my response (G14 May 2018 at 05:16):-
"Godel already said that there will always be parts of every theory that I cannot tell about their correctness, end of quote"
And you claim that the thing (that I said from memory) is not true? But this is what Wikipedia says:-
"There are claims that cannot be decided, meaning that they cannot be proven or disproved." End quote.
So it is clear to me that my knowledge is not the same as yours and of course you are right but the spirit of things is that one can decide that an answer must be thought of. After all, that's what started the debate about Gadel. Miracles, today's information is large and growing at a murderous rate. I have already heard that today about a million scientific articles are published every year, how can one go through them all? Is there not a trace of arrogance in this demand of yours that I am supposed to know the tip of Godel's, Hilbert's, or Piano's iodine?, whose name I heard for the first time today.
I don't come from the scientific world, I come from a business optimization area, and I would never produce a solution of dark matter or dark energy dominant in my manufacturing processes, so I'm looking for a way to explain things in a different way. I did so, and as required, I also show the possibilities for rebuttal, so what you tell me about piano or how much you know Gadel, it doesn't belong. And God forbid you don't think I'm not jealous of your knowledge of Gedel, but it seems to me that for our eyes, what I know about Gedel is definitely enough.
Good day miracles
Yehuda.
Yoda, you wrote: the absolute temperature of the medium in which the wave moves. And I assume you were referring to the 2.73 Kelvin temp.
But it's a bit strange because 2.73 is not the temperature of the medium but the temperature (ie the spectrum) of the background radiation. But the exact same medium also contains photons at a temperature (that is, a spectrum) of 5700 Kelvin - the photons that came out of our sun. And it also contains photons that moved to us from distant quasars for billions of years and their temperature is millions of Kelvin. I must be oversimplifying, but correct me if I'm wrong.
In any case, it is a bit strange to attribute to the medium the temperature of some of the photons that move through it. You are going the opposite of what you describe! Instead of deriving the wave speed from the mean temp, you derive the mean temp from the wavelength spectrum of some of the waves.
But if anything - in the solar system there are many more photons from the sun than photons of background radiation, that's why it's so warm and pleasant on Kadoheya. So maybe the average temperature in our area is actually high, and in contrast in other places it is low? So does the speed of light change from place to place? Suspicious to me.
Yehuda
In science you should be precise...
Here's what you said "and by the way the mathematician philosopher Gadel already said that there will always be parts of every theory whose correctness cannot be known".
No - that's not true!!! David Hilbert asked in 1928: Is it possible to show - within certain mathematics - that it is traceable. That is - given a claim within the language, is it possible to decide its correctness - within the language. Can it be proven true or false? "Proof" here is something you probably don't know. The meaning is that we have (a) a set of axioms (in this case Piano's axioms) and (b) a number of inference rules (for example: if both A and B are true then in particular, A is true). Now we are given a claim "T". A decision means: is it possible to arrive at "T" or "not T" with the help of the axioms and the rules of inference (only). This is what Godel showed in his second incomplete sentence. In particular, in the second sentence, Godel showed that such a claim can always be found, within the language itself.
do you notice It does not mention "theory" and certainly not "any theory".
After that you quote: "The law of imperfection is used by the followers of the new age in order to attack the so-called pretension of science to know everything". Shabin - do you consider yourself a member of this miserable group??? 🙂
You write "general relativity explains gravity as a property of space - right!" So your particles don't work over short distances? They don't work on Newton's apple, the moon, or Pluto? What if Andromeda (coming closer to us) or distant galaxies (moving away)?
And if the theory of relativity is correct in short ranges, then how does the curvature of space not affect large distances?
And just an interesting curiosity about light and photons: light does move slower in glass (for example) - but the speed of photons does not change. This is a terrible abstraction that will really upset Albenzo (because we don't have a particle that is a photon that enters the glass from one side and comes out the other side) but this here emphasizes that you cannot make an analogy between photons (quantum particles) and your particles (which are classical).
For those interested, my blog:-
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Thanks in advance to Avi Blizovsky for the publication!
Yehuda
G
The speed of each wave is proportional to the root of the absolute temperature of the medium in which the wave moves. I decided to assume the same with the speed of light in a vacuum, that is, the speed of light in a vacuum is proportional to the root of the background temperature of the universe. For example, when the background temperature of the universe was a hundred times (273 degrees Kelvin) the speed of light was Ten times that is about three million kilometers per second.
For example: the speed of light during the recombination period - 380,000 years after the big bang, at a background temperature of about 3000 degrees Kelvin would have been 33 times that is a speed of about 10 million km per second.
What's wrong with the current number you ask, the answer is I would be willing to accept the constancy of the speed of light, if it was due to something, but unfortunately, contrary to conventional wisdom, the Mickelson Morley experiment could not determine that the speed of light is constant in the past and in the future, for this purpose several measurements must be made and compare them, you cannot make determinations based on one measurement. For example, you take a picture of a clock at a point in time, you cannot tell based on one picture if the hands are moving, but two pictures and compare them you will be able to determine. I offered to check the change in the LIGO facility, it seems to me that the facility has the appropriate sensitivity to check the change, so if anyone has any connections, I would appreciate it. A guaranteed double meal.
I tested the expansion of the universe and its cooling and determined what the change in the speed of light should be. The result is a decrease of one cm per second per year.
Article number 40 on my blog.
Good day, and welcome to the American Embassy in Jerusalem
Yehuda
Yes, but what about conservation of momentum? When something fast collides with something slow, momentum is conserved. If a fast particle meets a slow one and both are of the same mass, then nothing has changed, the fast one becomes slow and the slow one fast...
Maybe just explain why you think the speed of light is small.. What's wrong with her with the current number, she doesn't need a diet in my opinion.
for miracles
From the Hebrew Wikipedia:-
"Kurt Gadel's incompleteness theorems are a pair of fundamental theorems in mathematical logic, the branch that studies the foundations of logic with mathematical tools.
Godel showed that any system of axioms that is effective and rich enough (one that contains a sufficiently large part of the axioms of arithmetic) that is consistent, is necessarily incomplete, meaning that there are claims that cannot be decided, meaning that they cannot be proved or disproved. This brought an end to many attempts to build a comprehensive axiomatic system from which all mathematics would derive.
The influence outside the fields of mathematics was also great. The Law of Imperfection is used by New Age followers to attack the supposed pretension of science to know everything. According to them, if even the most basic mathematical systems cannot be proven, then there is a problem with the approach according to which science is able to understand the world" end quote. So nothing to do with the philosophy of miracles?, others did not link it with science?
So apparently I still said what people think about Godel and his sentences, so what do you say now? Oh, I remembered, Wikipedia in Hebrew is the liars who mislead the Israelis. Just looking to slander.
And what did you say in the first part of your response? We will check:-
I'm sorry you're offended, but I'm very matter-of-fact.- Let's say
I keep repeating myself, right?
Because you avoid thinking about the meaning of what you say. - How wrong you are!
You said - "my theory and the theory of relativity are friends" - right, in short ranges.
General relativity explains gravity as a property of space. - Right!
You claim that space has no properties. - Not true, properties for small ranges acceptable to me derive from the Mickelson-Morlay experiment.
Do you really not see that something is wrong here? - No, because then I would be required to agree that in the large ranges there must be dark mass and dark energy and I explain what they allow with the help of my theory, and without them!.
Miracles I answered everything, even now say I'm evading??
Good day miracles and let's hope for relative peace in the south.
Yehuda
The response is addressed to G
I must point out that I did not think about your following question:-
(in my words) "What happens to the (old) particles and photons moving above the new, slower speed of light"?
It is clear that they slowed down, because it is a fact that today there are no photons that move faster than the current speed of light. tough question . But I think the solution is found in solving the similar question:-
What happens today to photons of light when light penetrates an area where the speed of light is different? For example, does light pass from emptiness to a gas cloud?, (or from a gas cloud to emptiness?)
An answer you give me to this question can help me with the solution.
I have some ideas for a solution for example, collision with the slower new photons, or collision with other slow particles that exist in the cosmos, but I would like to think about it.
I must point out that this is a difficult question. Try to solve it yourself? This can be a challenging question for advanced students in the Faculty of Physics!
Obviously, if you prove that the speed of light cannot slow down in a vacuum, it will require far-reaching changes in my theory to the point of its extinction. And in humor it is said that chapter 299,792,458 of Genesis will be changed to: - And God said let there be light, and there was light at a speed of XNUMX meters per second in space. point.
Yom Tov G. Must point out that you are the closest to earning a double meal from me.
Yehuda
Yehuda
I'm sorry you're offended, but I'm very businesslike.
I keep repeating myself, because you avoid thinking about the meaning of what you say.
You said - "My theory and relativity are friends". General relativity explains gravity as a property of space. You claim that space has no properties. Do you really not see that something is wrong here?
Gedel didn't say anything even close to what you just said! Godel addressed one of Hilbert's problems and showed that Piano's mathematics is incomplete. This has nothing to do with philosophy, and there is no general epistemological statement here.
It's nice that you get angry when you have nothing to say.
Yes, you wrote: My preference is that they all travel at the speed of light because it is clear that the neutrinos and other cosmic rays travel at the speed of light. End quote.
But you said that the speed of light is constantly decreasing, do the pushing particles also slow down to match the speed of light? A kind of peg to the dollar? And if so - how does all their momentum get lost?
Miracles
My universe is in a space that is mostly empty and the universe expands into the empty space. I don't need the space to spread and I don't understand where it should spread?, if this answer satisfies you or you just want to fight.
Here too we have to get to the bottom of things, so tell me miracles, did I really commit a religious sin by saying that I didn't think about something in the depth of things?? Does that make me religious? After all, everything is clear to the religious. By the way, when you compare me to Wallace, I see it as a compliment. After all, the best of the best scientists said things and repeated them. Hubble said that the expansion of the universe is seven times what is estimated today, Einstein determined the cosmological constant "his biggest mistake" so what happened if I have to think about an imperfect problem or two. And by the way, the mathematician philosopher Gadel already said that there will always be parts of every theory that I will not be able to know about their correctness, so what's the problem if I say that I haven't thought about a certain problem yet?, just to belittle and slander and you accuse me of slander? Leave it, sometimes it's not fun to face your reactions. Where did you see that I push the problems aside?, where did you see that I moved the subject, and where did you see that I avoided the answers? Just reproaching!
Good night
Yehuda
Yehuda
Either space itself expands or it doesn't. I think we have discussed what is really wrong with your approach: "I didn't think about it"...
You remind me of Alfred Wallace: he also thought of natural selection as the reason for the multiplicity of species, but dismissed it when it came to humans, and stuck with God's nonsense.
And like religious people, when you encounter problems then you push the problems aside, belittle those who present the problems (and/or the problems themselves), or move on.
Miracles
I have already said that in the ranges up to XNUMX thousandths my theory accepts all the conclusions of the Michelson Morley experiment and the theory of relativity. Beyond that, in the range of light years, relativity is not acceptable to me, just like gravitation is not. This does not mean that we will not receive gravitational waves from the distance because they were created as a result of the nearby activity of large bodies, black holes or neutron stars, etc.
If you blow up a balloon in a vacuum, the inner layers of the gas will not be aware of the explosion at first and then they too will spread out, meaning that from zero speed they will move to increasing speed, and this is called acceleration.
And regarding a preferred central point/area, so first of all in a universe like mine each point moves away relative to the others but there is no reason for us to be in this center. It is true that there is an area in the cosmos that is "privileged" from the others and there is also a preferred direction, and I agree that this requires thinking about exactly what the expansion from each and every point in the universe will look like and what the privileged area will look like.
Apparently there will be a tiny change in the background radiation from certain directions, but again I haven't thought about it in depth.
good week
Yehuda
Miracles
My response to you is also awaiting confirmation. Don't understand why?, we will wait patiently
Miracles
I have already said that in the ranges up to XNUMX thousandths my theory accepts all the conclusions of the Michelson Morley experiment and the theory of relativity. Beyond that, in the range of light years, relativity is not acceptable to me, just like gravitation is not. This does not mean that we will not receive gravitational waves from the distance because they were created as a result of the nearby activity of large bodies, black holes or neutron stars, etc.
If you blow up a balloon in a vacuum, the inner layers of the gas will not be aware of the explosion at first and then they too will spread out, meaning that from zero speed they will move to increasing speed, and this is called acceleration.
And regarding the centrality of a point, then first of all in a universe like mine each point moves away relative to the others but it is true that there is an area in the cosmos that is "privileged" from the others and there is also a preferred direction. There is no reason for us to be at the center of this, but I agree that it requires thinking about exactly what the expansion from each and every point in the universe would look like and what the privileged area would look like.
Apparently there will be a change in the background radiation from certain directions, but again I didn't think about it in depth.
good week
Yehuda
Yehuda
That is, your theory is in complete contradiction to general relativity. So please, stop saying they are friends.
I don't understand how your universe accelerates. If you blow up a balloon in space, then the gas will not accelerate.
According to your theory, the universe has a center. Are you claiming that we are right in the middle of this? Do you become religious? 🙂
Miracles,
Take two hours from the important work you do here (not sarcastically) and watch a lecture by Nima Arkadi Hamed. The topic is the end of space-time and among other things it describes new methods for calculating interaction between elementary particles that were created because they cannot be calculated using Feynman diagrams and they arise from the understanding that space-time is an idea close to reality but apparently there are more primitive building blocks.
https://youtu.be/qTx98PUW6lE
He starts talking about the new methods around minute 45
Here is a link to the job
https://physicslearning.colorado.edu/tasi/tasi_2013/notes/june19/Dixon3.pdf
Albantezo, if you are still here and familiar with the subject, it would be nice to hear more details. I don't have a specific question, the subject is simply fascinating
G My comment is waiting for confirmation... we will wait patiently
Well G here really is a trap problem that any answer could be problematic. If I say that there is a Boltzmann distribution in the speed of the particles, then there will be particles that move faster than the speed of light, and if I say that they all move at the same speed, then where is Boltzmann?, there is also the possibility that the Boltzmann distribution will be in the relative energy of the particles that will all move at almost the same speed and again a problem, am I allowed Use the theory of attribution from another theory to analyze a new theory? So I don't exactly know what the solution is. My preference is that they all travel at the speed of light since it is clear that the neutrinos photons and other cosmic rays travel at the speed of light.- exactly or nearly so. Le Sage didn't know relativity, that's why he said what he said, I don't think friction exists and therefore don't need the La Sage speed.
Going back to see what the result is in the audition...
Good Day
Yehuda
Yes, you said "gaseous space", are you saying that some of the gravitational pushing particles move fast and some slowly, in the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution - and only the average is C? After all, this is how gas works.. If so, then it contradicts what they saw in LIGO.
By the way Lasag wrote that the speed of pushing gravity is 10000 times C (to overcome the problem you are ignoring - friction) so it turns out that not only the speed of light erodes over the years 🙂
G - You asked the question "What is the speed of my gravitational pushing particles in my theory?" The answer to this is not easy, I estimate that these are particles similar to neutrinos, only smaller and their speed is similar, very close to the speed of light.
Miracles - Regarding the expansion of the universe, my universe looks a little different,:- my universe is a gaseous space made up of masses of gravitational pushing particles, neutrinos, photons, Higgs bosons and other masses of cosmic rays, which also contains stars and galaxies.. beyond the most distant galaxies there is emptiness, I don't know until where In other words, our entire universe is a huge gaseous body containing stars and galaxies, spreading into the void around it. The outer layers of the universe naturally expand rapidly while the inner layers expand slowly (Hubble expansion). It is easy to prove that the expansion of such a universe into the void around it, even accelerates, because the force pushing a galaxy outward is always greater than the force pushing it inward. So simple, no dark energy and no strange particles, and by the way my universe did not start from a singular point and there is no reason to assume so, I believe its minimum size was a few light years in diameter. The gravity in my pushing gravity universe - the simple universe, operates at a distance of a few light years, the dominant force in my universe is not gravity but the pressure differences operating in my gaseous universe. Just, explain a "simple universe" on one leg.
And thanks for the good luck wishes for the celebration of my first granddaughter!
All the best
Yehuda
Miracles,
Take two hours from the important work you do here (not sarcastically) and watch a lecture by Nima Arkadi Hamed. The topic is the end of space-time and among other things it describes new methods for calculating interaction between elementary particles that were created because they cannot be calculated using Feynman diagrams and they arise from the understanding that space-time is an idea close to reality but apparently there are more primitive building blocks.
Here is the lecture
https://youtu.be/qTx98PUW6lE
I think he starts talking about the new methods around minute 45
Here is an article on the subject
https://physicslearning.colorado.edu/tasi/tasi_2013/notes/june19/Dixon3.pdf
Albentazo, if you're still in the area and want to shed more light on the subject, I'd be happy to. I have no concrete questions, I say in advance (the fourth son in the Haggadah...)
Yehuda
First of all, congratulations!
Regarding GPS, there are several methods that greatly increase its accuracy. Two examples are DGPS and RTK.
Dark energy is required to accelerate the expansion of the universe, but not for the expansion itself. But that's not the point. I'll ask you again: do you think space itself is expanding?
Yehuda, speak in numbers! What is the speed of the pushing gravity particles in your theory? Is it faster than the speed of light?
Yes or No..
Miracles
I brought my information from Wikipedia in Hebrew and they talk there about the inaccuracy I was talking about. It is not my knowledge. But "as we know", the scientists who publish on the Hebrew Wikipedia are (in your opinion, in the opinion of Albanzo and others) stupid scientists who do not understand anything and speak nonsense and spread lies. Understand that in my opinion an inaccuracy of less than XNUMX mm per year cannot be surpassed even according to the new data you invented. I don't understand much about GPS, but I imagine that there is a correction mechanism where two per mille mm per day of measurements will dissolve among all the other corrections made in the measurements. They do their subtle directions by measuring with electromagnetic waves, laser, radar, or radio and you understand that the "bar" they use is, it is, the one that is not constant, and they will not be able to surpass it....
You keep repeating that as if I said the scientists are idiots, I never claimed that!!!! Disagreeing with what you say does not make your interlocutor stupid.
I didn't understand the rest of your response with gravity, but as you know the universe is expanding and even accelerating, and you desperately need dark energy to explain this. I don't need it.
Well, it seems to me that the day will not go far and we will see doubts about everything I claim: - dark matter, dark energy, constant speed of light and more. So we will go to sleep and rest on Shabbat afternoon, in our homeland a week full of activity is expected with our neighbors the Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Iranians and more, and besides, in contrast, my smart and beautiful eldest granddaughter will celebrate her Bat Mitzvah this week, it is more interesting than the world of cosmology and galaxies.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
I'm sorry, but I misled you - the accuracy of GPS is 1 cm...
Yehuda
I'm really sorry, but your opinion is irrelevant. The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. You claim that your theory agrees with the theory of relativity - but you have no idea about the theory of relativity. Don't you see a problem here?
Even in GPS you don't understand.... You can reach an accuracy of 2 centimeters in GPS. You never let the facts confuse you 🙂
Yehuda, if gravity weakens then the universe expands. If space itself is not expanding, then what is the universe expanding into? If space does expand - then you are not allowed to claim that the speed of light is not constant.
Again the scientists are idiots and liars??? Didn't we say we stop with this??? Albanzo explained to you in detail that there is no reason to think that those who investigated the matter are not telling the truth, the whole truth and only the truth. have you no shame
And by the way, regarding the meter, which is currently defined according to the speed of light, its definition must be changed, it loses about 0.3 angstroms of its length every year.
And regarding the moving away of the moon from the earth, which was determined by laser measurements to be about 38 mm per year, in my opinion it is only about 25 mm per year, again, due to the change in the speed of light. And by the way, 25 mm per year is the expansion of the universe to the distance to the moon - just food for thought.
And the annual weight loss is 0.43 micrograms per kg of weight per year and it doesn't matter on which planet or moon we weigh it. It's actually nice to think that the dinosaurs a hundred or two hundred million years ago weighed much more.
But what a beautiful universe!
Yehuda
Miracles
Good morning in Israel!
And for our purposes:
If something is a variable size, you cannot by definition force it to be constant, i.e., the speed of light cannot be constant by definition if it is changing (in my opinion).
Regarding the GPS system. It is true that the system should have accumulated an error, let's check how many?.
It is known that the satellites fly at an altitude of 20,200 km, which is about 0.07 light seconds, therefore the error that will be measured in a year due to the change in the speed of light is less than 1 mm, and regarding the accuracy determined by the satellites, I am quoting from Wikipedia:-
"The GPS satellites in operation, as of the year (2012), satellites of the "Block 2" type, guarantee a positioning accuracy of 5 meters in the vertical axis and 3 meters using the civil signal 95% of the time[3] - before calculating the resulting error (mainly ) from the ionosphere. In practice, accuracy exceeding about 10 meters requires correction for ionospheric effects. ” end quote. In short, I don't think that with deviations of meters from the horizontal and vertical and the ionosphere and what not, they will detect a deviation of one mm resulting from the change in the speed of light. So I'm sorry to disappoint you Nisim my friend.
And regarding weight loss, I mean what I said: - "weight loss", (not mass loss) that is, the weakening of gravity resulting from the expansion of the universe so that the particles pushing gravity will be more sparse, all that needs to be done is to weigh in a year apart and show that there is no change in weight on the order of 0.43 micrograms per year. You are so passionate about miracles, to destroy my "beloved" theory that you tell stories about inertial mass and gravitational mass and Paris etc. Consider and check! Right now, sorry, no rebuttal again!.
And after probes follow with "tremendous precision"??, the only one that followed her a bit was Pioneer and there she would have her anomaly, as a deviation caused by heating from her off atomic engines in exactly the right direction.
In short, I'm sorry, but nothing was disproved.
I would be happy, Nissim, to apologize in front of everyone for the brain fog I caused with my "Hava theory", and to invite you to a dinner for two, but sorry, the theory was not disproved.
Shabbat shalom nisim
And all good
Yehuda
Yehuda
The speed of light is constant by definition. If it really changed as you claim then the GPS system should have accumulated a probable error of over 20 by today. It did not happen.
Wait, that's it? Has your theory been disproved?
weight loss? Do you mean the loss of mass, or the weakening of gravity? And if mass - gravitational mass or inertial mass? The standard kilogram did not lose its weight, so again a refutation... (The one in Paris will be lighter - relative to its copies elsewhere, so you can't claim that the mass is decreasing)
Bumps in space are followed, exactly which is really amazing. There is no unexplained movement of these bumps. Rebuttal again? What will….
Regarding Thursday I have no understanding.
But I don't understand why the theory should be refuted, if there are enough other reasons not to accept it. The curvature of space in my opinion completely disqualifies it - don't you agree?
for miracles
I'm sorry that you ignored the five rebuttal options given in section 8 of my previous response. What's simpler than checking (even without anything to do with my theory)
- The speed of light decreasing by XNUMX cm per second per year, - apparently possible to measure in the LIGO facility
- Annual weight loss of about 0.43 micrograms per year per kg of weight - accurate electronic device
- Friction in movement in space in certain directions, mainly perpendicular to the orbits of the planets - to follow probes
- The deviation of the rotation speed of the double double epsilon lira system ADS11635, and the expansion of the universe that also takes place inside the spiral galaxies, can be measured and calculated with the help of Gaia's data.
Disproving one of the five possibilities will undermine the correctness of the theory.
And regarding sections 5,6,7, I disagree with you regarding the scientificity of and the relevance of "Ockham's Razor".
You may be surprised, but I give a dominant role to "Occam's Razor" in determining the physical formulas.
The reason for this is simple - because of uncertainties that always exist in measurements, every physical phenomenon has countless formulas that give scientifically correct results (within the uncertainty). We can never be XNUMX percent sure which is the formula we have to calculate according to!,
This is where "Ockham's Razor" comes into play, stating that out of the countless formulas that are scientifically correct, the simple formula for calculation purposes is chosen for reasons of convenience, and not for reasons of correctness, because they are all scientifically correct.
(article 20 on my blog)
I also have something to say about your response to paragraphs 1-4, but I admit that your response is challenging and requires thought.
For example, how should I relate to the explanation of the curvature of space of the theory of relativity?
Or, do I have to specify in the theory how my particles are discovered?
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
1. "My theory loves the theory of relativity and has no interest in confronting it, all the conclusions of the theory of relativity are acceptable to me, there is no objection to the Michaelson Morley experiment and its relativistic conclusions"
The theory of relativity explains gravity as a result of the curvature of space. You claim that there is no curvature in space.
2. A great many particles that we have discovered are the result of predictions of the standard model. Your particles, you claim, are undetectable today. So you're suggesting we throw out the standard model and do nothing until someone builds a galley for your particles? And by the way, where exactly are such particles discovered?
3. You completely do not understand what the theory of relativity is 🙂 It is impossible - in any way - to say that it works only at short distances. It is like saying that the exchange law does not apply to large numbers....
4. Your Torah fails because of the friction. We've already talked about this a lot... and you're just avoiding giving a good answer. You can't say there are vortices, and then ignore those bodies moving in the opposite direction.
5-7 are not relevant to science. Occam's razor is not a scientific theorem, but a tool for thinking.
We have already disproved your theory... friction
my father
Please delete two of my last three comments are almost identical
Thanks
Yehuda
for miracles
Let's take care of the tiny problems (as you define):
1. It does not explain what the theory of relativity does explain.
Answer: My theory loves the theory of relativity and has no interest in confronting it, all the conclusions of the theory of relativity are acceptable to me, there is no objection to the Michelson Morley experiment and its relativistic conclusions
2. It does not explain why we have not discovered its particles until today.
Answer: It is difficult to detect the particles because they are of the order of ten to the minus 40th power of the kilogram.
3. It contradicts both relativity and quantum theory (the standard model.
Answer: She agrees with the theory of attribution to short distances of a few thousand Yaha. At a distance of light years there is no match
4. She doesn't work either….
Answer: The fact that there is no compatibility at large cosmological distances with the theory of relativity does not mean that it does not work (see below).
In addition, for your information:
5. The theory does not have to use dark matter to justify the magnitude of gravity.
6. The theory does not need "dark energy" to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe
7. Singular points do not exist
8. In addition, she predicts a number of things, the refutation of which will disprove the theory, such as:
- the speed of light decreasing by XNUMX cm per second per year,
-Annual weight loss of about 0.43 micrograms per year per kilogram of weight on Earth.
- Friction in movement in space in certain directions mainly perpendicular to the orbits of the planets
-The rotation speed of the double system double epsilon lira thesta from Newton's formula
-The expansion of the universe is also taking place inside the spiral galaxies.
And more.
For your attention Nissim, I present in section 8 five possible refutations for the theory (as required according to Popper).
What else is needed for an idea for a theory? Please refute….
And we hope that the shelters in the north will not be used
And everyone will respond gently...
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Yehuda
You wrote "Do people really not notice that here the measured measurements are simply changed, just to adjust them to what should be obtained from the formula??"
Those stupid scientists!!! 95%, and maybe 99%, do not notice this nonsense? Unbelievable, huh?
So. That silly formula amazingly explains most of what we see in observations. It explains the bending of light near mass, the shortening of time in a gravitational field, the pulsation of the star Hema. Yehuda - it also explains gravity itself (so it is written in Google....).
The "formula" you refer to is Einstein's field formula, not Newton's gravity formula. I don't understand why Ah keeps repeating this mistake.
And as for your theory, it has a few tiny problems:
1. It does not explain what the theory of relativity does explain.
2. It does not explain why we have not discovered its particles until today.
3. It contradicts both relativity and quantum theory (the standard model).
4. She doesn't work either….
Miracles
I agree that I took your words a bit too far and I apologize for that, but you cannot deny that this is the spirit of your response to Herzl.
And I quote: "Most scientists are very smart people, and when most of them claim something, there is a good chance that they are right." End quote. In it it says that if most scientists say something then the chance is at least 95 percent that they are right, on second thought, even 99 percent that they are right, is that acceptable to you?, and I ask: So what? Is this supposed to prevent me from coming up with an idea against me?, Nissim, you are not a stupid person, didn't it happen to you that you were in a minority opinion and trusted it? I'm sure you've sometimes gone against a whole system of people in important decisions that need to be made. Intuition and life experience is something that distinguishes us from others for better or for worse, therefore we can be right even if we are the minority opinion, because that is how our intuition screams. For me, the dark matter and the way of receiving it, is jarring to the thought. Do people really not notice that there is simply a change in the measured measurements, just to adjust them to what should be obtained from the formula??
Hear miracles, the dark matter solution can be accepted as legitimate for a short period of time, a few months, up to a year, two years, but after eighty years of not finding anything about it? Let us be brave and decide that maybe, despite everything, it does not exist, and the solution is another explanation, a solution that only brave and very smart scientists may find it, did I convince you of miracles, did I at least raise some doubts in you?.
That's my opinion
Good Day
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Herzl
What new knowledge are you talking about?
If all the measurements show A and one measurement shows no-A, then all the measurements are rejected because of one measurement?
א
Are you claiming that because they showed that there is no ether then it follows that there is no dark matter?
Yehuda
1. "If most scientists agree on something, that means that something is true" - that's not what I'm saying. I say that if most scientists agree on something and someone has a different idea, then that someone should (a) understand the same thing - no less than them, (b) bring an alternative claim that does not contradict the observations, and (c) bring an alternative claim that does not explain less from the agreed upon claim.
2. "If it's also written on Google, then it must be true" - Google is not a website, but a search engine. I don't understand why you made me say that.
3. "Any deviation from this principle would be an injury to the honor of the scientists who are very smart people" - no, but calling them a bunch of publicity-seeking idiots is definitely an injury to their honor.
And after that - you only strengthen my position 🙂 🙂
You happen to the dark matter "poor experience" (see section 3 above).
After that you say that the whole function of your dark matter is to explain something related to Newton's gravity formula - see sections 1a, 1b and 1c...
Herzl
I went to the link you sent us to. The paper is not so conclusive that the measurements show that dark matter is not needed
We report a correlation between the radial acceleration traced by rotation curves and that predicted by the observed distribution of baryons. The same relation is followed by 2693 points in 153 galaxies with very different morphologies, masses, sizes, and gas fractions. The correlation persists even when dark matter dominates. Consequently, the dark matter contribution is fully specified by that of the baryons. The observed scatter is small and largely dominated by observational uncertainties. This radial acceleration relation is tantamount to a natural law for rotating galaxies.
This is not about denying the existence of dark matter. Perhaps it is possible at most to state that:-
The infrared measurements are correlated to Newtonian calculations.
And for miracles-
First of all, how are you doing in the American exile? I hope you are well.
You warned us not to invent new physics, but I must point out that you are the one building science with new fundamental laws. Let us call it, with your permission, "the democratic science".
First rule in democratic science: if the majority of scientists agree on something, that means that something is true,
Second rule:- and if it is also written in Google, then it must be true.
Third rule:- Any deviation from this principle will be an injury to the honor of the scientists who are very smart people.
Note: Once upon a time this was also a violation of the honor of the Holy Church and its punishment was burning at the stake (see on Google the Holy, the entry Giordano Bruno, peace be upon him)
In short, miracles, why not understand the simple thing, dark matter is a (poor) attempt to change the measurements in the spiral galaxies so that they fit an old gravity formula that is three hundred years old plus. And by the way miracles there are altogether 20 possibilities to maintain the annoying inequality in the movement of the spiral galaxies for example... Increasing G to great distances just like M. Both are found in the gravitation formula counter and increasing one can easily be replaced by increasing the other!
You saw, miracles, how relatively easily I showed a solution, in addition to the dark matter solution that you so advocate, but there are 18 more. Among them are some really good ones and one excellent one, which I believe in.
Come on, let's get enough sleep for today
For those who want, details on my blog.
Please respond gently.
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
As the measurements increase, the chance that the far-reaching speculation about 'dark matter' will be dismantled increases. This still does not mean that they may require corrections in the theory of relativity and perhaps even beyond it, but in general science will benefit greatly.
Miracles - the scientists usually have a higher than average intelligence and sometimes much higher, and they are also skilled in their profession. But it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with wisdom. Scientists are also prone to model thinking, they are also prone to serious mistakes. The history of science is full of theories that were once thought to be the real truth. One of them, not so ancient, mentions the dark matter speculation. I mean speculation about the "website". We know what happened to her. You can say about her that she is a dead body, but her soul is still chasing science from her grave, after she was revived through the speculation of the dark matter by intelligent and skilled scientists, but not really thoughtful, careful and wise enough.
for miracles:
The correct option is to disqualify one measurement, even if they received a Nobel Prize for it, when it does not fit any other measurement, and especially when other measurements are published that contradict it.
Max Planck said that science advances not when new scientific knowledge succeeds in convincing scientists, but when they die, and a new generation of scientists arise who accept the new knowledge (my free translation).
The problem today is that there is a whole generation of scientists who grew up on the dark matter and they are not ready to accept new knowledge. Probably not scientists "stuck" with the matter either.
To Yehuda: The infrared measurements do correspond to Newtonian calculations:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05917
The Radial Acceleration Relation in Rotationally Supported Galaxies
See drawing 3.
And regarding the black holes that make up the "dark matter" in the central region of the galaxies:
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-tens-thousands-black-holes-milky.html
and also:
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-dark-influential-galaxies-early-universe.html
Herzl
Most scientists are very smart people, and when most of them claim something, there is a good chance that they are right.
If someone like me, and maybe also like you, find out what seems illogical to us - open Google, or go to the library, to understand.
And what do we find out? Among other things, the amount of baryonic mass in the universe is known, because there is a certain relationship between it and the amount of photons in the universe. Therefore - it is not possible that the missing mass is ordinary matter, like dust for example.
Another possibility is to reject all known physics and invent new physics. But, you can only do this if you are an expert in existing physics...
I agree with what was said in the reaction of Herzl, who is disturbed by the excessive demand of the dark matter for the "operation" of the spiral galaxies. It seems to me that "Gaia" is able, with its precise measurements, to accurately calculate the dark matter, its quantity and essence. And maybe the day will come when we will get rid of the problem of this (dark matter) whose whole purpose is to match the results measured in the vastness of the cosmos to Newton's "holy" gravitation formula.
Needless to say, any other formula would have been thrown out a long time ago when they discovered such a large discrepancy between it and the measurements in the cosmos!
Please respond gently even from those who are "dead" about Newton and dark matter.
Good Day
Yehuda
The number of stars for the milk path is an important and problematic issue.
Due to large amounts of dust clouds, not all stars can be seen. As a result, it was estimated that there is a lack of mass in galaxies, and dark matter was "invented". I write "invented" in quotation marks because it was an unfounded assumption at all, but hundreds and thousands of scientists built their entire careers on it. So far no evidence has been found.
Recently, research was conducted in infrared telescopes, which can "see" through the dust clouds. They discovered a much larger amount of mass than in visible light. Mass is still missing in the center of the galaxies, but outside the central bulge (what is the Hebrew name for BULGE?), i.e. in the arms, the calculation of the movement of the stars and the observed mass corresponds to the Einstein/Newton calculations.
Recently it was discovered (with the help of gravitational waves) that there are black holes with a mass of tens of solar masses, which of course cannot be observed, and until now it was not clear if there are any at all. A few more years of measurements are needed to gather statistics on the quantities of these black holes. They may be solving for the rest of the missing mass in galaxies.
With the dimensionality of Gaia, it may also be possible to discover black holes in the Milky Way by their influence on the motion of stars in their vicinity. let's hope
And yet, estimates of the number of stars in the Milky Way range from 100 to 400 billion, which means that the unknown is greater than the known.
You are right, YOU KNOW means both know and know.
I agree with the commenter Yehuda.
There are about 200 billion stars in the Milky Way. The estimate regarding their number is rough and varies between 50 billion and 400 billion.
As the commenter says the number of 1.7 billion is only the number of stars being studied.
Please change the title of the article. The Milky Way has at least a hundred billion stars and not just 1.7 billion stars. This apparently means that Gaia studied data on 1.7 billion stars in our galaxy.
Yehuda