This is the title of a doctoral thesis approved in 2007 at a Catholic university in the USA. Except for the states of New England, New York and California - the USA is a fanatical religious nation.
Dr. Robert Sungenis wrote his doctorate (700 pages) on the correctness of the geocentric theory, according to which the sun revolves around the earth. He called his book "Galileo was wrong; The church was right." He did not write it in the 17th century, on the mission of the Inquisition that condemned Galileo, but in 2007. You can buy on Amazon.
Dr. Sanginis submitted his thesis at the University of Calamos, a university that grants diplomas by distance learning. In 2010, Sanginis participated in a conference titled as his book and topic - the scientific evidence that the sun revolves around the earth. The team of minds on the issue gathered at the Catholic University "Notre Dame" in Indiana.
Sanginis has written twenty books and a hundred articles, he is a Hollywood producer who produces films about religion and science, and as a religious organization he is exempt from taxes. According to the law in the USA, religious organizations receive tax exemption (that is, federal funding) without a bill, while scientific organizations do not. The American taxpayer's money goes to vouchers (slips) that are given to parents who can decide which schools to send their children to. Among these schools there are religious schools, in complete opposition to the first amendment to the constitution, which requires the separation of religion and state. This is how students in Catholic schools in the United States learn that the Earth is the center of the universe, and their parents receive full funding of the tuition in the form of tax exemption. Sound familiar?
In the US, there was a separation between religion and government for almost two centuries. In the United States Constitution, religion is mentioned only once - and in the negative: "A religious test shall never be required as a condition for any public office in the United States." The motto of the USA, as it appears in the seal of the authorities, is "E Pluribus Unum", which means - "out of the many - one". It is the plurality, the diversity of opinions, that creates unity and strength. Why did the Americans suddenly start decorating the symbols of the government with religious terms? Because of communism. In 1956, Congress determined that the motto should be "In God We Trust". The Pledge of Allegiance did not include the words "under God", but Congress added them in the 1957s to distinguish it from godless communism. And when was "In God We Trust" first printed on the American silver paper? That's right, in XNUMX. Because of communism, not because it was ever part of the founding fathers' American ideology.
But American ideology is changing rapidly. In the XNUMXs and onward, when the Supreme Court intervened in questions of racial segregation in schools, it justified it by violating the principle of equality before the law and stated that its authority to intervene derives from the fact that it is not an intra-state matter but a federal matter. How? Education is influenced by federal budgets, involves interstate transportation, textbooks that are printed in different countries, teachers that are trained in different countries, etc. In short, a federal matter. The states are immune from federal intervention thanks to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that "any right not expressly assigned to the federal government according to the Constitution is reserved to the states." Even so, the Supreme Court ignored the Tenth Amendment to enforce equality on the racist South. Now, when it comes to an action that is explicitly against the constitution - religious funding from the federal government's budget - the Supreme Court ignores it. Today, five Republicans and four Democrats sit in it, and the policy is accordingly.
Sanginis is not a transplant of Richard Dawkins, a kind of sleepwalker designed to present the radical right in the United States in as ridiculous a light as possible by presenting a delusional position. Sanjinis has a broad back in the form of tens of millions of evangelicals. Almost a third of the US population, ninety million people, including several former presidents, such as George W. Bush, they are evangelicals. Evangelicals live in the South of the USA - an area that actually includes two-thirds of the USA's territory between the northern and southern borders, from Kentucky to Texas - and in the vast Midwest spaces between California and Mississippi, from North Dakota on the Canadian border to Arizona on the Mexican border. It is easier to say where they are not than where they are. Except for the states of New England, New York and California - the USA is a fanatical religious nation.
Evangelicals, as we know, are lovers of Israel. What is less well known is that they love Israel only on the condition that the Jews convert to Christianity on Judgment Day, and whoever does not convert to Christianity will be murdered. This is how redemption works according to the evangelists. It is true, evangelicals donate to Israel, but not out of love for the Jews, but because the Jews are a tool in the global struggle against the infidels - Muslims and others - and when the struggle reaches some climax, the Jews will be forced to convert to Christianity or be murdered.
Sanjinis attends anti-Semitic conferences. Even Catholic priests accused him of anti-Semitism. He wrote: "Anti-Christian Jewish influence has penetrated the Catholic Church at the highest levels." He usually quotes antisemites and holocaust deniers. He wrote that from the Jews will come the Antichrist (Satan) and from them will come Bolshevism. It's nice to know that someone knows us so well, better than we know ourselves. Indeed, true friends are evident.
571 תגובות
It really has nothing to do with the scientist and everything is one-sided where you presented the two claims, etc. writing from you and these
In his description, Ehud Amir demeans the evangelicals in the USA and paints them all as anti-Semites whose love for Israel and the Jews is to disguise their desire to convert them to Christianity or murder them. Of course, this is a distorted and crooked view of the situation. Even within the evangelicals there are groups, ideas and activities that express the division that exists in them, as in any society. Of course there are anti-Semitic evangelicals, just as there are anti-Semitic Jews. But from here to the description of evangelicalism as anti-Semitic is a distortion of the truth. Most of the evangelicals are in favor of Israel out of their belief in the return of Zion. It is true that at the beginning of the 20th century the majority of evangelicals adhered to the idea that Jews should convert to Christianity in order to advance the redemption, the second return of Christ to the Land of Israel, but since then and especially since the establishment of the state, more and more evangelicals see the Jewish people as the status of priests and the rest of people in the world as the image of the Israelites. Because of this, the evangelicals accepted much of the Jewish and Israeli culture. The number of evangelicals who dance Hora and sing Hebrew songs in their churches exceeds the number of Israelis who do this every week!!!!
Inappropriate article. This is not a scientific article, but an anti-religious opinion piece. Too many fundamentalist phrases that do not deal with the content but with the coverage of a concept perceived by the writer to be axiomatically anti-scientific. Also, the "reminds you of something?", does not contribute to the matter sounding like pro-scientific coverage, but rather a general criticism article coming out against this or that support of this or that administration for supporting "wrong" perceptions in an "objective" way. One of the nice things about this site is the matter-of-factness and the dry and factual coverage of breakthrough discoveries and just up-to-date scientific information. This article is an expression of opinion. It's very jarring.
Mr. Belizowski, she's just not a good fit. I am in favor of such opinion articles in principle, I suggest setting up an opinion blog page on the website or something similar.
Am I the only one who finds it annoying?
(For those who find it strange that I refer to this type of article as fundamentalist, referring to the idea of accepting an opinionated position as if it were objectively correct and not subject to debate).
jubilee:
So what's the end?
Does the rabbit really rummage and the Euphrates and the Tigris come from a common source?
Prof. Jeremiah Barnover, in his calm and patient language, talks about the subject, among other things
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTdUgl4kj18
I am interested in my father's reaction
Avi,
Your panties have only something to envy!
In other words, the university is not a university, and his degree is not a degree. Father, you should have found this out in advance before you decided to recycle the story.
Don't worry, Kalamos University is not recognized in the US.
The Evangelicals help the Jews only because they believe that when all the Jews are in Israel Jesus will come back,,,,,
My father, he can be both pro-scientific and anti-religious and anti-American.
Hagai is absolutely right when he writes "This man who wrote that the sun circles the earth does not represent 150 million evangelicals and the article is full of extremes and gross generalizations and as such is simply not true."
Not anti-religious and not anti-American but pro-scientific. Those who oppose science should know how to abduct and not shout 'anti-Semitism' (or the equivalent of this expression in other nations) every time they criticize him.
Oh come on. This article is not suitable for science, it is not a scientific article but anti-religious and anti-American political demagoguery. This man who wrote that the sun circles the earth does not represent 150 million evangelicals and the article is full of extremes and gross generalizations and as such is simply not true.
I didn't understand how the university approved it?
And you did not give his "reasons" in the article, only the conclusion.
This will also be a sign that going back in time, at least to the 80s-90s, is indeed possible..
OK. When the token goes down, that will be the sign that a connection has been made and we can talk.
What is the correct way to transfer it?
(I accidentally pressed send before completing the sentence)
If you do not recognize the points on your own, and this after I have already mentioned them explicitly and explained them at least five times during this thread, I raise my hands. When your token drops we'll talk.
"The advantage with you, if I understood correctly, is that, unlike Le Sage, the attraction between bodies does not require force"
Don't look for advantages. Try to understand the mechanism. Because it's clear from your questions that you don't (and sorry for speaking like a professor, but we're dealing with a course I developed. You obviously don't have to pass it, but if you want to, you'll have to trust me that I know).
Let's start from an assumption I received, after all it's the same with Newton.
Point?
The response is directed to your previous message. I wrote it before I saw your last message.
We will get to the difference.
First of all, you need to be sure that the mechanism is clear to you. In fact it is still half a mechanism, the half that supports the part of the saying "space tells matter how to move".
When we get to "the material tells the space how to curve", we will see the difference.
The small m doesn't matter. What matters is that the speed changes in inverse proportion to the root of the distance.
When it is engraved on the tablet of your heart that the mechanism works and maintains a free fall from infinity according to the inverse of the root of the distance, we will move forward.
I went over the model a bit. Not everything is clear of course, especially the main reason: why. Very reminiscent of the model of the disappearing Yuval, now it is clear why he was enthusiastic.
It is still not clear to me what the mystery was to Newton, namely why gravity would suddenly change its quadratic decay, and how the model explains the speed of the stars at the edges of the galaxies. Regarding the Pioneer Anomaly, if I remember correctly there we got acceleration towards the Sun and not outward, as implied by your model.
You claim, if I understood, that according to your model the speed of gravity is infinite, or at least much greater than that of light. In Michael's links, several independent experiments were cited that verified the assumption that the speed of gravity is the fallacy of light. (Not that it matters. Does it?)
Is there any confirmation or disproof test? I know about 200 gravitation theories, some of them are very similar to yours. browse
http://www.amazon.ca/Uncommon-Knowledge-Science-Gravity-Origin/dp/1438912846
Most of them are directly or indirectly based on La Sage. Your advantage, if I understood correctly, is that, unlike Le Sage, the attraction between bodies does not require force.
But let's concentrate mainly: how does gravity know that it should suddenly change its square nature, or as I've asked 80 times: what about the tower?
Don't say anything. I thought you were the one shining, I'm just digging.
Still, what is the difference from Newton? And does the addition of the small m next to the big one change the picture? Because this is the real escape formula.
Thank you for enlightening my eyes.
Please Aref, you wrote:
"The field that decays not according to the square of the distance reveals non-negligible changes at the edge of the galaxy where the hydrogen clouds (which in my opinion are actually anti-hydrogen clouds) surround the galaxy at clearly non-Newtonian speeds (where the gravitational force decays in direct proportion to the distance, instead of according to the square of the distance). According to my method, there is no dark matter, there is only a gravitational field that changes at the edge of the galaxy according to a function that Newtonian gravitation fails to predict (and which my model accurately predicts) and it disappears completely just beyond the outer limit of the anti-hydrogen clouds that surround the galaxy.
June 13th, 2013”
So I thought there was a difference between Newton's theory failing, and your model predicting accurately.
If there is no difference, say there is not. If there is, please tell me what it is.
Why do you call gravity? The gravitational force?
And where do you spot the difference?
For Newton, the decay of gravity is always proportional to the distance squared, not for you.
Everything will work as with Newton.
I don't remember that I sculpted or that I sculpted. What am I, Tumarkin? I raised doubts. I even proposed an experiment that would decide between the two perceptions. It is clear that if Einstein abandoned Mach's principle and claimed that the water in the bucket would overflow in any case, then there are things in the body, although as I have mentioned many times, the lack of understanding is on me.
I'm a little pressed for time, so before we go on. You say: "Yes, mathematical precision is critical." And no, the "idea" is not based on approximation."
Will the idea still work if m+ is added to M to the original escape velocity formula?
No, I'm not saying. And yes, mathematical accuracy is critical. And no, the "idea" is not based on approximation. The same Newtonian formulas, without approximations, describe the two-body fall between when the bodies are sun-moon or two suns and when they are feather-sun. If approximations are needed, they are not related to the mechanism I am presenting but to the limitations of the human race's ability to calculate regarding free fall in which the two bodies change their speed and place in space while approaching each other. Because of the objective complexity of calculating a two-body problem, and not for any other reason, it is recommended to stick to one of the four thought experiments I suggested. When doing this, it is recommended to keep in mind that for each point in the space around a mass, there corresponds a free fall velocity from infinity that is inversely proportional to the root of the distance between that point and the center of mass.
At the time, you rejected the mechanism of persistence that I presented (but not because of the flaws you found in it, but because of the respect of people higher than me). I hope that you dismissed it after you understood it, and that you still remember it, and this is because the point is that exactly the same mechanism that in my opinion is responsible for the phenomenon of persistence, is also responsible for the phenomenon of gravity (and that's just the way it is, because in my theory persistence is self-gravity). Even if you didn't remember, no big deal. We will come back to it soon.
Meanwhile, note that the whole difference between self-gravity (=persistence) and external gravity (Newtonian gravity) is in the position of the elementary particle relative to the center of the field. In self-gravity, the particle creates the field, and the peak of the field (the point where the agent is at maximum concentration) is in the center of the particle. In external gravity, the concentration of the agent on one side of the particle is less than its concentration on the other side (because one side of the particle is closer to the external mass than its opposite side).
We gained a mechanism, which explains two phenomena that are known to this day, each for itself, as denying a mechanism.
What remains to be shown at this stage is the power of the proposed mechanism to sustain the gravitational phenomena known to us. If he maintains a free fall from infinity as expected according to Newton's formulas (=velocity increasing according to the inverse of the root of the distance), it is strong that he will also maintain all the other phenomena of Newtonian gravity (as I remember I showed at the beginning of the thread from f=dp/dt that blocking the path of the particle will cause the development of a force between the particle and the barrier, a force whose strength decays according to the square of the distance from the center of the external field).
Does the proposed mechanism really support free fall from infinity at a speed that varies according to the inverse of the root of the distance?
In order to show this, it is desirable to know the mechanism, and it is -
Every elementary particle with a non-zero rest mass is actually a spherical shell whose surface is a sequence of an enormous number of quantum translators. A quantum translator is a mechanism that cyclically translates the local density of the agent, into movement in space, and it does it this way: each cycle of the quantum translator begins with a quantum jump, and ends with rest. The jump is due to the fact that the translator absorbs a tiny spatial volume of an agent. If, in order to explain the similarity, we assume that this volume is a cube of space with a volume of nano liters, then in this process of adsorption the translator traveled a distance equal to the cube root of a nano liter. After each such quantum jump that lasts zero time, comes a very long rest, the length of which is directly proportional to the local concentration of the agent.
What did we get?
We accepted that over time our quantum translator will advance in space at an average speed inversely proportional to the agent's local concentration.
What else did we get?
Since the elementary particle is a shell in which masses of units of quantum translators are spread out in spherical symmetry, each of them making quantum jumps towards the center of the particle, then over time the total movements of all the quantum translators will keep the particle in place, as long as the density of the agent on all sides of the particle She is uniform.
What else did we get?
We accepted that in an external gravitational field where the density of the agent varies in space, the particle will move in space from the direction where the density of the agent is low (and therefore the frequency of jumps of the quantum translators on this side of the envelope is higher), to the direction where the density of the agent is higher (and on Yes, the frequency of jumps of the quantum translators on this side of the envelope is lower).
What else did we get?
We accepted that the velocity of the particle in the gravitational field in the direction of the mass generating the external gravitational field will be relative to the difference between one part of the average concentration of the agent on one side of the shell and one part of the average concentration of the agent on the opposite side of the shell, on the axis of symmetry of the field.
And the million dollar question is asked, is the difference between the above two numbers lucky enough to be directly proportional to the inverse of the root of the distance from the center of the mass that generates the external gravitational field (which is actually another version of the question: does a mechanism of the type I described fulfill Newton's gravity formulas).
The answer to this question is: Bingo.
And from this it follows that a quantum translator that translates the concentration of the agent into movement at a speed whose magnitude is inversely proportional to the concentration of the agent, is a candidate for the implementation of all mechanical natural phenomena.
And of course that means many other things. lots of things.
But before we turn to the tower, and before millions of difficulties and tribulations, we will have to be sure that I succeeded in my attempt to explain to you the exploits of the quantum translator in the contexts to which I referred. We will know this when you are ready for a role-playing game in which you will try to explain in my place, in good faith, the algebra of an elementary particle based on quantum translators of the type I have just described, the algebra showing that such a particle falling from infinity in the direction of a given mass will move with the relative velocity inversely proportional to the root of the particle's distance from the mass, as long as The density of the agent in space is also inversely proportional to the root of the distance from the mass.
acceptable, acceptable I already wrote to you in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/galileo-was-wrong-100513/comment-page-20/#comment-436841
"If your idea is based on an approximation, meaning that the moon is much heavier than both the hammer and the feather, then there is something to discuss. On the other hand, if mathematical precision is critical, then the hammer will arrive before the feather in a clear fraction of a second."
If you had said to me then what you are saying now:
"If it's just a moon, we won't let the sun fall on it. We will settle for atoms or feathers or hammers."
We would go straight to the point.
Nice, there you go. So what's the point?
Surely the escape speed is related to the matter. She was mentioned several times before the tower question. I attached a link to the escape velocity formula in the wiki, and next to it a link to the universal gravitation formula in the wiki, and I asked based on what Newton chose to decide that the agent decays according to the square of the distance and not according to the root of the distance. I did this after my statement about the possibility of the finiteness of the range of gravitation was met with overwhelming disdain. This was the first stage of the discussion.
The escape velocity of the moon from the earth (and vice versa) is different at every point between infinity and the earth. What is important is not the magnitude of the velocity but the fact that it varies according to the square root of the distance, and that it has a constant value for every point around a given mass. If I understood you correctly, you wish to refute this last statement.
You do this by increasing the mass significantly (let's say from the mass of a feather to the mass of the sun) and claim that the mutual escape velocity changes with the mass, therefore according to you it is not correct to claim that every point around a mass has one and only value of free fall velocity from infinity.
The problem is that your thought experiment (significantly increasing the mass) introduces another factor: the mass for which the discussion began (which is: whether or not there is a constant value of free fall speed at infinity at any point in space around it) begins to accelerate in space by itself, under the influence of the other mass, and this while that test bodies (including the other mass) make their way to it from infinity.
This is a disruption of the set-up I wanted to discuss. If we want to discuss the effect of the original mass and examine whether or not there is at any point in the surrounding space a constant value for the speed of a body's free fall from infinity to it, we will have to leave it in place and prevent it from changing speed while measuring the speed of bodies falling to it. We can do this in one of several ways:
1. If it's just a moon, we won't let the sun fall on it. We will settle for atoms or feathers or hammers. And if we still want to put some sun on it, then -
2. Set it by magic to rest relative to the distant stars, or -
3. We will make it from an exotic material whose gravitational mass is conventional, but whose persistence mass is infinite.
4. We will drop panes on it simultaneously from all directions symmetrically (and in calculating its effect on the speed of their fall we will offset the mutual attraction between the panes and themselves).
In each of the four cases, the dispersion in space of the agent for which the gravitational mass of the moon is responsible, is a function of G, the mass of the moon and the distance, it is independent of the size of the masses in the space around it, and it predetermines a value of free fall velocity from infinity to every point in the space around the mass .
If at least one of the above options is acceptable to you, we can move forward.
From my response from a week ago:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/galileo-was-wrong-100513/comment-page-20/#comment-436487
"What's the point? Why can't my tower's question be answered?"
Only then was the question of escape speed raised by you. So is she related or not?
you say:
"I remain in the position that the escape velocity does not depend on the size of the mass."
Can you tell me if so what is the escape velocity of a mass like the moon from the earth? And what is the escape velocity of a mass like the Earth from the Moon?
And if you got two different answers, isn't the escape velocity of A from B the same as the escape velocity of B from A? To remind you, the escape velocity is the minimum velocity at which body A at a certain distance from body B escapes its gravity to infinity.
The escape velocity does not depend on mass, because the greater the mass, the greater force is needed to accelerate it, which means that the acceleration of a body towards a given mass is a figure that does not depend on the size of the accelerated mass.
Against this you came up with an argument: after all, when the sun "falls to the earth" the mutual approach between them is at a speed much higher than the speed of the free fall of a feather towards the earth, and if so then to us the acceleration is a given since it depends on the size of the accelerated mass.
Against this I argued that it is not the sun that accelerates towards the earth (but only slightly, i.e. at an acceleration close to the acceleration of the earth) but mainly the earth is the one that accelerates towards the sun, at the acceleration of the sun.
After this claim, which returns the crown to the opening sentence of this post, I remain of the position that the escape velocity is independent of the size of the mass.
Yes, the heart of our "interest" is the form of the agent's decline.
I can show you that gravity can change its quadratic decay even according to your method that the agent decays according to the flux law, but then we will open another front here. Too bad.
Let's concentrate on the decay form of the agent. I was sure that the whole round we did was due to the disagreement on the form of his decay, which is the key to everything else.
waiting
Meir, let's calm down a bit. It turns out that we are not alone here.
You ask: "I ask again, what does this have to do with us?" This is exactly the trouble. that I don't know at all what our business is, because I don't read minds. I only know what you write. And you write that according to your calculations the force of gravity does not diminish according to the distance squared according to different parameters, you write that you do not accept Postulate 1, and you write that distant masses do not affect the inertia of a body.
I tried to show you that because of the flux law gravity cannot suddenly change its quadratic decay. You are the one who increased the escape velocity, which you claim is independent of mass. I believe I showed you that it is.
I asked you if the issue of absolute accuracy is important, based on the speed of a feather falling against a hammer. If it is not critical, we could scroll straight to the topic of the bottom line, that there is some agent that decays in the space around a mass, which according to Newton decays according to the square of the distance and translates into force, and according to my method it decays according to the root of the distance and translates into speed.
But just now I learned that this is the heart of the matter. (Is it so? Please confirm).
Ok. Now if possible answer my tower question. If escape velocity is not relevant, don't mention it. Just please don't tell me "I'm not a breeder yet", and start talking about things that you later say are unrelated.
kid
Follow the thread, you'll see who is always the first to use expressions such as dig, dig, you understand, I have patience, and when your token will fall.
Perhaps you will understand that with Meir there is no such thing as an opinion - there is the absolute truth which is his alone. For him, indeed, the sun revolves around the flat earth. What, don't you see it with your own eyes every day?
In cosmology it is called geocentric. In psychology - egocentric.
Dear All! You are both admirably educated. Just a little discussion culture, won't hurt readers like me...
"The way of the land preceded the Torah"... all Torah...
in my opinion? I don't remember calling that number. When we were talking about the sun I asked you if you could fix the earth. When you suggested mounting them on a pole, I said that the Earth and Sun would fall towards their common center of gravity at their mutual free fall speed (which is not the sum of their surface escape velocities)
The slightly more complex calculation you suggest makes sense. It reminds of the calculations in the problem of two mutually encircling bodies, so it is probably the correct solution (if you have a source, even better).
I ask again, what does this have to do with us? Making things difficult for me is like making things difficult for Newton. If something doesn't add up in the mutual velocities, something doesn't add up in the mutual forces either. What Newton will justify for forces I will justify for velocities. The bottom line is that there is some kind of agent that decays in space around a mass, which according to Newton decays according to the square of the distance and translates into force, and according to my method it decays according to the root of the distance and translates into speed.
If you can make a solid case against it, make it. If not, we can move to the mechanism.
And what is the sun's escape velocity from the earth? Also 11.2? Because the escape velocity of the earth from the sun according to your method is 42.1. So who is running away from whom?
The calculation is actually a bit more complex. Fall velocity from infinity of 2 bodies is: root (2G multiplied by the sum of the masses and divided by the distance between them).
I don't usually get things wrong. The escape velocity of the moon from the earth is 11.2 km per second.
The same Newtonian force acts on every atom of the moon that acts on every single atom. I don't know that Newton's formula differentiates between the gravitational force that the earth exerts on a single atom that is 380,000 km away from it and the force that it exerts on an identical atom that is part of the moon.
Why would I agree to something that is not true? I showed you very well that the falling speed of a large mass is higher than that of a smaller mass (the sun will fall to the moon faster than a feather). I asked you if you accepted the principle of weighting the escape velocities to include the velocities of the two masses. You gave a condescending answer as usual. So I will repeat the question again:
"Did you get that the weighted escape velocity is the sum of the escape velocities of each individual escaping mass?"
In simple words: if the escape velocity from the earth is 11.2 km/s and the escape velocity from the moon is 2.4, do you accept that the escape velocity of the moon from the earth and vice versa is 13.6 km/s?
You're welcome, there's patience, of course, and all your other favorite sarcastic expressions.
All the "knowledge"?
Is this postulate "knowledge"?
"Gravity does not decrease in proportion to distance squared" is that what you understood from everything I said? Where did you get that from?
"Wrong Mach principle" What "knowledge" does this contradict? (According to Alberto in an empty universe the water in a rotating bucket would be concave).
"and more" what else?
"You wrote that you should". Where did I write that a weighted speed is needed?
My point will come after you calm down from your puzzles and understand: "The escape velocity at any point in space around a given mass is equal (in a negative value) to the velocity of free fall from infinity at that point (in other words, for each point in space around a corresponding mass there is a single-valued velocity that any body falling from infinity will have as soon as it passes through it )", and this is because "Newton's formulas are valid for each individual particle. The Newtonian force that according to Newton acts on the particle is specific to the particle, and it so-called accelerates the particle with an acceleration exactly equal to the force divided by the mass of the particle without ticks and without tricks. We get for each particle in the space around a mass an acceleration specific to itself, from which a speed specific to itself is derived."
If you don't want to understand something so simple, I have nowhere to go with you. We will get to B when there is agreement on A.
I don't know what you want exactly. You constantly make claims that contradict all known physical knowledge - postulate 1 is wrong, the force of gravity does not decay in proportion to distance squared, Mach's principle is wrong and should be replaced by Meir's principle, and more. When you are asked what you mean, you throw out general concepts and do not explain. Then when they ask you for a specific example and show you that you are wrong, you get puffed up, play it as a rebbe and now a doctor.
I asked a simple question, the purpose of simplicity: when will the force acting on a test mass hanging on a tower change. I was hoping for an answer along the lines of "at the height of such and such radii". Answer You didn't answer, instead you asked:
"Do you understand that the escape velocity at any point in space around a given mass is equal (in a negative value) to the velocity of free fall from infinity at that point (in other words, for each point in space around a corresponding mass there is a single-valued velocity that any body falling from infinity will have as soon as it passes through it)?"
You brought this example. So why are you writing now:
"Define a weighted escape velocity, and the demon knows what we need it for (I was careful with my language. I didn't say who the demon is)."
I do not know either. You wrote that it was necessary, so I thought it was necessary, maybe so that we finally get to your point.
But apparently we will never reach it, for the simple reason that there is probably no point.
So either you tone it down, go back to natural size and start talking to the point (an answer to my tower question could be a good start) or find someone else to play the stupid game.
Set a weighted escape velocity, and the demon knows what we need it for (I was careful with my language. I didn't say who the demon was).
Newton's formulas are valid for each individual particle. The Newtonian force that according to Newton acts on the particle is specific to the particle, and it so-called accelerates the particle with an acceleration exactly equal to the force divided by the mass of the particle without ticks and without tricks. We get for each particle in the space around a mass an acceleration specific to itself, from which a speed specific to itself is derived.
You feel to me like a child being taken to get a shot.
Hals Irful Give a specific example. Did you get that the weighted escape velocity is the sum of the escape velocities of each individual escaping mass?
We will continue talking when you understand that the velocities and forces are algebraic equivalents. Everything that Newton will justify for forces I will justify for velocities.
Archimedes said call the archbishop and drink archi-cola happily
Archimedes said: Give me a point and I will move the earth.
Was he wrong too?
You didn't exaggerate? Talk on the phone...
So she was a Rebbe. You asked "starting with a certain number of atoms, they suddenly catch themselves". Yes, from the second atom. Try doing the process in the opposite direction, when separating the panes. You will see that the first atom needs more separation energy than the second atom.
And if Grandma had wheels?
Noce and Sun B are already separated by 20 light years from Sun A. Same free fall speed or not?
Same problem as with escape velocity.
If you try to separate one atom from sun B when it is still together with sun A and move it a million km away, you will find that the energy required for this is much higher than its relative share in the mass of the sun. If you move sun B atom by atom instead of the whole as one unit, each atom will require less energy than the previous one even though the end result is the same, the two suns are a million km away from each other.
Same as above on the way back.
Shemesh B is many ones, each of which falls on its own. They have no common speech regarding their interest with Shemesh A.
That's why it doesn't matter if they are many in the shape of a feather or even more many in the shape of a sun.
nuances. Why would one atom by itself fall at all? Sun B is holding it tight, isn't it?
And will the conversion of the potential energy into kinetic energy of free fall bring the double mass atom (which you called two atoms) to the same speed as a single mass atom?
And assuming the answer is positive, will all the atoms of sun A fall towards sun B as if each of them is an atom in itself, or starting with a certain number of atoms they suddenly catch themselves and say to each other "oops, we are sun, the rules of the game change"?
Energy is a scalar quantity, it has no direction. The atoms themselves have no potential energy, only the field. After digging into the topic of accuracy, the answer is yes. An atom with double the mass will have double the potential energy, because it is actually 2 atoms.
Do you think the potential gravitational energy towards Sun B of an atom of a given mass in Sun A is the same as the potential gravitational energy of another atom in Sun A of the same mass, and is half of the HNP of an atom of double mass if two atoms with respect to which we are making the comparison are at the same distance used by B?
same potential energy. Point?
(quickly, burning hands).
Have patience.
Take a spring, attach one end to the floor. Stretch it as much as you can. You have invested muscle energy (know you already. You will use an electric motor or a slave), and now the spring is stretched. Some of the energy you invested has become potential energy of a spring. Does the end of the spring in your hand have potential energy relative to the end on the floor because you moved the end in your hand away from the floor, and does the end on the floor also have potential energy relative to the end in your hand because you moved the floor away from the end in your hand, or is it the same potential energy?
take the sun Double it. Now you have two (careful on your hands. Protective gloves). Keep them a million kilometers away. Now there is gravitational potential energy between them. Does sun A have potential energy relative to sun B and also sun B have potential energy relative to sun A, or is it the same potential energy?
You don't need magic and candies are not good for diabetes. There is a simple experiment you can perform. You can fix the moon and sun at either end of a rod 20 light minutes long, which in all practical respects simulates an infinite distance. Call the rest system of the Y-axis rod, mark it with years and set synchronized clocks. Release the sun and the moon at the same time and let them run into each other's arms. If you check the progress of both of them along our Y-axis, you will see that for every meter the sun advanced, the moon advanced about 1000. When they meet, the speed of the sun relative to the pole will be approximately the escape velocity from the moon and the speed of the moon relative to the pole will be approximately the escape velocity from the sun.
However, if you look at the experiment from the vantage point of the moon where it actually rests, you will see the sun approaching it and hitting it at an enormous speed that is much greater than the escape speed from it, identical to the speed at which small bodies fall to it from infinity. This is why I cannot accept your argument:
"Do you understand that the escape velocity at any point in space around a given mass is equal (in a negative value) to the velocity of free fall from infinity at that point (in other words, for each point in space around a corresponding mass there is a single-valued velocity that any body falling from infinity will have as soon as it passes through it)?"
The true escape velocity is the sum of the escape velocities of the two escaping objects. In the case of a feather or a hammer, their masses are negligible relative to that of the moon and so is their escape velocity. But as the mass of the escaping object increases, it becomes more and more significant.
If you wonder about the contradiction to the formulas that appear in the textbooks, look at the nuances. The books also show the force of gravity as proportional to the distance squared from the centers of gravity of the masses. But does it mean that there is an infinite force at the center of this? The opposite is true, power 0.
Bottom line, we're back to postulate 1 that you're challenging. But Postulate 1 is not only Einstein's, it is also Galileo Newton's and Mach's.
Waiting endlessly.
If you can fix the moon (take candy: relative to the distant stars) with a spell so that it does not fall into the sun, then the sun will fall to it as fast as a feather falls to it.
Let's be precise to avoid misunderstandings. All our falling objects, feathers, hammers, moons, suns, plumes, are so compressed and concentrated that they can almost be seen as point balls. The fall distances in any case are at least 10 orders of magnitude greater than the radii of the objects.
In this case: are you claiming that the speed of the fall of a hammer from infinity to the moon is the same as the speed of the fall of the sun from infinity to the moon at the moment of impact with the moon? Or from any other point between infinity and the moon?
After you answer we will see if there is a contradiction or not with Newton's laws.
It is the same at every point where the distance between the centers of the mutual falls is equal ("the moment of impact" in both cases is different because the center of the moon and the center of a hammer are at a different distance from their surface, and the impact is on the surface and not in the center).
In any case, the insistence on a difference between a hammer and a feather and a semitrailer is incomprehensible. Any deviation in the free fall speed of a hammer relative to the feather or of a semitrailer relative to both, requires a deviation from Newton's universal gravitation formula (are you claiming that we need private gravity formulas for the feather, hammer and semitrailer?)
Are you claiming that the speed of the fall of a hammer from infinity to the moon is the same as the speed of the fall of the sun from infinity to the moon at the moment of impact with the moon? Or from any other point between infinity and the moon?
At the current rate of reproduction, soon we will need 23 countries just for the ultra-Orthodox...
Israel,
You can definitely confirm, because it is true. Even if the sun falls towards the feather/hammer/semitrailer, the speed feather/hammer/semitrailer - sun is the same speed of the feather/hammer/semitrailer falling towards the sun, and this speed has a single-valued value for every distance R between the center of the sun and the center of the falling body.
The ultra-Orthodox also need a state. It is a people in itself with a culture in itself and a demographic potential in itself. So 23 countries for three nations.
Beyond the sun there are other stars.
Even an unknown substance that affects.
Damn! Most of it is energy that no one understands what it is...
Gad Dammitt! This energy is decisive! God forbid…
Good, now you are clear. But what you say now is different from what you said before:
"When you confirm that it is clear to you that according to Newton's laws, for each point in space around a mass there corresponds one and only value of free fall speed from infinity, we can move forward to understand the point."
Because according to the quote above, at every point above the moon there is one and only value of free fall velocity from infinity for any body, be it a feather, a hammer, a smiter or the sun itself. I can't confirm that because it's not true. So if you confirm that the quote (from you, Admo'Rinho) is wrong, or that the content is wrong, we can move forward to understand the point.
congratulations! You managed to confuse me. Only a solution of twenty-two countries for two peoples.
We talked about free fall speed. When I say univalent, I mean that if I know the free fall speed of any body falling from infinity in the direction of a given mass at a point whose distance from the mass is R, I can calculate based on this data alone what the speed of such a body will be at any point in its trajectory.
You are once again not giving a simple answer to a simple question. Do you want to include me in the discussion, or is it just a debate between Meir and Amiram?
Need to move, we will discuss later.
When I say univalent, I mean that if I know the density of the agent at some point in space whose distance from the center of a given mass is R, I can calculate based on this data alone what is the density of the agent at any other point in space around that mass.
Not agreed.
Only a two-state solution for two peoples. One Jewish, the other Israeli.
Without a specific example, we are just hiding behind empty nationalist slogans. That is why it is important that you answer the tower's question in the previous response. Must make sure what you mean when you say monovalent.
One way is enough to clarify that escape velocity does not depend on the size of the falling mass.
Not a tower yet. moment.
Sharp accuracy is not essential. The one-value claim refers to an ideal case: a given mass causes a predetermined dispersion of some agent in the surrounding space (we called it decay). Obviously, the presence of other masses in the same space will cause local perturbations in the ideal distribution (and in those cases where this would make the energetic accuracy an "approximation", it would also make the energetic accuracy of Newton's universal gravitation formula an "approximation"). Therefore, as I said, for the purpose of the discussion the ideal accuracy is not significant. What is significant is that some agent is spread out in space around a mass, and that its local density at any point in space has a constant value for that point. Is it agreed? (What? What did I already ask for? Recognition of a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan??)
The escape velocity formula can be arrived at in different ways. The way you presented is only one. But let's first make sure we're talking about the same thing before we get into algebra and Hamiltonians:
We have a tower on a planet in Tiz Al Nabi (A.A.) that is a kilometer high. We drop a mass of 100 kg and measure the speed of its impact on the ground: XNUMX m/s to be exact.
We move the same mass to a distance of a light year and drop it. Impact speed on the planet: 10,000 km/s (I didn't calculate exactly, not even in principle).
Questions:
1. Do you think we will get exactly the same results with masses of 10, 100, 1000 and 10,000 kg?
2. Is energetic precision essential to your explanation as implied by the one-valued claim, or will it work with approximations as well?
Israel,
Do not run forward. moment.
Not an approximation. The escape velocity formula is based on an energy calculation, which is based on the assumption that the sum of the kinetic and potential energy of any body at an infinite distance from a given mass = zero, therefore it must remain zero at every point in the trajectory (law of conservation of energy). The potential energy is a function of the distance between the centers of the masses, so the calculation is based on the assumption that one of the masses is at rest. You came up with an idea for a different calculation: the two masses move towards each other for each of the masses a potential energy relative to their future meeting point (I called it the common center of gravity). From energy considerations, there is no possible difference between the calculations, therefore there is also no possible difference between the results. The sum of the velocities towards the future meeting point (according to your calculation method) must equal the interbody velocity according to the conventional calculation method.
Tifala is right, but not for the reason you came for. If the hammer and the feather are taken from the earth, then in the case of the feather the weight of the earth includes the weight of the hammer, while in the case of the fall of the hammer, the weight of the earth includes the weight of the feather (ie 5 kg less compared to the second case, assuming it is a 5 kilo hammer).
Is it agreed that every point in space around a mass has a single-valued value of free fall velocity from infinity (if not, it also does not have a single-valued value of g for every point in space, which undermines Newton's laws also according to your method)?
So what do you claim, Mr. Murray and Rabbi? That the time of the fall of a small mass to the moon from a certain distance will be exactly the same as the time of the fall of a much larger mass from the same distance regardless of the size of the masses and the distance? Will a hammer and a feather take exactly the same amount of time?
If your idea is based on an approximation, i.e. that the moon is much heavier than both the hammer and the feather, then there is something to discuss. On the other hand, if mathematical precision is critical, then the hammer will arrive before the feather in a clear fraction of a second.
Israel,
This is not true. If you have already decided to refer to the movement of the large mass towards the small mass, then the solution to the riddle is this:
Each of the masses falls towards the common center of mass of both. In the case of the plume the common center of mass is very close to the center of the Earth with a minor deviation towards the plume. In the case of the hammer the common center of mass is very close to the center of the earth with a minor deviation a little larger than the previous one, towards the hammer.
Therefore, whatever acceleration of the earth towards the hammer is greater than its acceleration towards the feather is offset against the longer path it has to take towards the common center of gravity. Bottom line, the sum of the velocities towards the common center of gravity remains the same in both cases.
When you confirm that it is clear to you that, according to Newton's laws, for each point in the space around a mass there corresponds one and only one value of free fall speed from infinity, we can move forward to understand the point, and long before we reach the tower you will see me as a rebbe and become my Hasid.
Meir.
Your answer is the solution to my hammer and feather puzzle: the hammer will take less time than the feather, because although its acceleration toward the moon is the same as the feather's, the moon's acceleration toward it is greater.
Therefore I cannot approve your request. An apple falling from a tower to the ground has a much smaller fall speed than a neutron apple of the same size but mass as the sun. Actually in this case, it is the earth that falls towards the apple, and the acceleration is much higher.
What about the tower?
Israel,
"And for every charge that falls from infinity" - no. Double charge = double force according to Coulomb's law, but not necessarily double mass. A drop of oil can be charged with a charge of one electron, two electrons or three electrons, without changing its mass. In each of the three cases it will have a different speed at each point in space.
In contrast, according to Newton's laws, the speed of gravitational free fall does not depend on mass.
When you confirm that it is clear to you that according to Newton's laws, for each point in space around a mass there corresponds one and only value of free fall speed from infinity, we can move forward to understand the point.
Thanks Amiram
to you Meir
And also for any charge that falls from infinity. what's the point Why can't my tower question be answered? Why all this complication?
Israel,
According to Newton the escape velocity is zero at an infinite distance. We are still according to Newton. Do not run forward. Not a tower yet. moment.
Is it clear to you that the escape velocity at any point in space around a given mass is equal (in a negative value) to the velocity of free fall from infinity at that point (in other words, for each point in space around a corresponding mass there is a single-valued velocity that any body falling from infinity will have as soon as it passes through it)?
Waiting is something
jubilee,
This is the electric force that must be applied to a proton in order to accelerate it to a given acceleration. The same goes for an electron.
From this the persistence masses of the electron and the proton are derived. Their gravitational mass is an open question in science (it is assumed to be the same because there is no consideration for it to be otherwise).
Israel,
According to Newton the escape velocity is zero at an infinite distance. We are still according to Newton. Do not run forward. Not a tower yet. moment.
Is it clear to you that the escape velocity at any point in space around a given mass is equal (in a negative value) to the velocity of free fall from infinity at that point (in other words, for each point in space around a corresponding mass there is a single-valued velocity that any body falling from infinity will have as soon as it passes through it)?
jubilee,
This is the electric force that must be applied to a proton to accelerate it to a given acceleration. The same goes for an electron.
These are the persistence masses of the electron and the proton. Their gravitational mass is an open question in science (it is assumed to be the same because there is no consideration for it to be otherwise).
Israel, basically the escape velocity will never be zero. Maybe at really large distances, then the force of gravity reverses and becomes a force of repulsion. It is still not clear to us why this is happening, and at what distances. Einstein's constant remains some hint, but there are still not enough temporal descriptions or cosmological evidence that can open our eyes
Clear clear. When is the escape velocity 0? What about the tower?
Copying from Wikipedia to save link:
Rest mass [of a proton] of 938MeV or 1.00728 JMA (about 1834 times that of an electron)
where did they get them from?
Israel,
You run forward, before you run out of tokens.
"You talk about "velocity field" but you refer to the escape velocity link. "
exactly. Understand that at every radius from the mass there is a specific escape velocity for that radius, and it varies according to the square root of the distance.
So far is it clear?
Meir.
To make it easier for you to understand the sublime logic.
The token doesn't drop for me because there is nothing to drop. you don't say anything You talk about "velocity field" but refer to the escape velocity link. You talk about formulas, but don't show them. You talk about "numerous advantages" over Newton's theory, but you don't show a single one. And when you are asked a specific question, you answer with your own questions.
With Le Sage, everything is clear and understandable, whether you agree with him or not. Ptolemy also presents a clear picture. Will any of the commenters be able to explain to Israel what Meir is even talking about?
So here is once again a detailed example of a thought experiment that I would like you to refer to and only to it:
We have a tower based in Kriya and a million light years high. Apart from him there is not a single star in the entire visible universe.
We measure the force exerted by a 9.8 kg mass on spring scales at ground level. They show: XNUMX newtons.
We measure at the height of the radius as DHA. They show: a quarter.
At a height of 9 radii: a hundred.
If I understood your claim correctly, at a certain point the force will disappear completely and maybe even change direction.
Questions:
1. At what height will the force start to change?
2. What is the mechanism that causes the force to be applied, and why does it suddenly change its quadratic decay?
If you could answer these questions in simple physics, I would be very grateful.
If, on the other hand, you choose to answer your own questions, and add comments about my character and education, I will be forced to sadly conclude that the principle of Meir is simply the principle of ad hominem.
Israel,
Your logic is sublime to me.
"
"I didn't achieve anything. I'm in doubt."
Of course I got a lot. But I have no interest in moving forward with you to B before you even have the token down. That's why I said let's assume I didn't reach anything, because even the doubt stage is an excellent start. Also to recognize that there is a problem, puts the one who is aware of it at an advantage against those who prefer to live in a fool's paradise.
But you are so fixated, that you don't even agree that there is a problem. Therefore, one of the two, either you bother to go through everything I wrote and try to understand (when you can play a role-playing game to present my claims, you will know you understood), or we will really close the basta here.
"I have to defend Newton's theory which has been tested and proven countless times".
Yes? really? In rotation curves is it proven, or has it failed miserably?
In predicting the Pioneer anomaly has it been proven or has it failed miserably?
In predicting the expansion of the universe was it proven or failed miserably?
jubilee,
It's not one and another. Part of the mass of the hydrogen atom is attributed to the bond energy, part to the thermal energy and more.
It is also impossible to weigh a single hydrogen atom, all that is known about its gravitational mass is taken from the weighing of countless hydrogen atoms (because it is also impossible to count Avogadro's number of hydrogen atoms) whose number is again estimated from the pressure and temperature. Weighing charged particles is also impossible (as of today. Maybe if one day someone takes more seriously the testing of the basics of physics instead of talking about time travel, parallel universes and what happens inside a black hole, maybe it will be possible to plan an experiment in which the effect of gravity on charged particles will be tested). Therefore, everything that is known about the masses of the particles you mentioned is based on the baseless assumption that the mass of persistence is the same as the mass of gravity, and not on direct measurements.
Meir, the mass of the electron,
Indeed this has never been measured directly, but…
The mass of the proton is known.
The mass of the hydrogen atom is also known.
It was found that the hydrogen atom is slightly heavier than our nucleus
The difference between the masses is commonly attributed to the mass of the electron (and therefore also of the positron)
"The question was based on what Newton decided that the flux law is the one that determines the decay exponent in space of the agent of gravitation."
based on logic.
If a weight hanging from a rope causes X tension in the rope, then the same weight will cause a quarter X tension in one of four ropes holding the same weight.
And if we say that the rope exerts on the ceiling a force resulting from the weight, then on a ceiling whose area is four times greater, the weight will exert a quarter of the force per unit area.
The same with electric and magnetic force. The escape velocity and the velocity field are also the same in electric and magnetic fields, with the charge replacing the mass.
What's more, the discussion here is taking on a strange character: I have to defend Newton's theory, which has been tested and proven countless times, while you challenge that theory, and claim that you have an alternative theory backed by formulas, which, according to you, "goes hand in hand with a simple and algebraically proven mechanism", and " Advantages are countless" about Newton's theory, says now "I have not reached anything. I'm in doubt."
So, in my opinion, it's time for you to present the same simple and algebraically proven mechanism and the same countless advantages, or say that you are not interested in detail and move on to a new topic, because as I already mentioned, telepathy no longer works as it used to. Otherwise I don't understand what the purpose of the discussion here really is.
Israel, we are no longer children. Can you really explain to me what the law of flux is?
The question was based on what Newton decided that the flux law is the one that determines the decay exponent in space of the agent of gravitation.
Neither Newton nor you nor I know what the agent is and how it creates the phenomenon (and to your point how it causes the spring to stretch a quarter time when the distance is doubled).
I ask again: on what basis are you so determined that if the tension of the spring decays according to the square of the distance, then the agent also decays according to the square of the distance.
"And now I will again ask for your answer to my question: Why did you come? how?"
I got nowhere. I'm at the stage of doubt and I can't understand where Newton and you get the assurance that the density of the agent, which you don't know what it is and how it does the trick, is directly proportional to the degree of stretch of the spring (and I understand the law of flux very well).
Meir.
You asked: "How do you surmise from these two what is the exponent according to which the distribution of the agent decays?"
I answered: "The law of flux through a shell, as I explained." I did explain.
I asked: "And why did you come? how?"
You answered: "Yes, of course." Does every natural phenomenon have to push the law of flux through a shell?" Really an answer.
So here is my explanation once again and this time in detail:
Water that flows continuously through a pipe and passes through a shell has a constant flux (FLUX) whose size is: dm/dt/A, if this flux is homogeneously distributed over the shell. The flux of a vector field is the "amount" of the vector field passing through a certain surface per unit of time. If the area of the shell is doubled, the flux is 2 times smaller. If it is increased by 4 times, the flux is 4 times smaller.
The same principle can be applied to a magnetic field, an electric field, or the bullets fired from a shotgun. Since the number of marbles does not change, then if the area is doubled the number of marbles per unit area is halved.
The principle is mathematical, and self-evident I believe. Because in spherical symmetry the area of the shell increases proportionally to R^2, the flux also decreases in the same ratio.
Therefore, if you tested a certain field over a long range, and you saw that the force on a test unit is small in proportion to R^2, then this is what you will get later, unless the medium has changed or the nature of the field contains time-dependent variables.
This is the reason that if our test weights hanging on the column with its base in the Kirya in Tel Aviv and its head at the distance of Andromeda in an empty universe show in a wide range a small power proportional to R^2, then this is the ratio that they will continue to show forever.
So far my answer without going into too much detail.
And now I will again ask for your answer to my question: why did you come? how?
"Could you give one parallel from the familiar physics of an empty field that suddenly changes its character, without changing the medium or the environment?"
-Higgs field.
(I know.. 🙂 for nothing)
Yes. certainly. Every natural phenomenon is automatically explained by the law of flux through a shell.
Ohm's law is also explained by the law of flux through a shell? Also the strong force? Batz's law too?
Remember, pushing gravity was not part of Newton's agenda. Please protect him. On what basis did Isaac decide to hang gravitation on the law of flux?
(This message is sent after 8 hours of "waiting" for no wrongdoing)
jubilee,
Even though man-made spacecraft are currently making their way out of the solar system, and even though electrons are the slaves of modern man, no one has yet managed to measure the gravitational mass of the electron (and there is nothing to talk about measuring the mass of the positron at all).
Yes of course. Does every natural phenomenon have to push the law of flux through a shell?
Is it also worth using the law of flux through a shell to explain Ohm's law?
Pascal's law?
Newton was not a follower of pushing gravity. Speak on his behalf if you can, because it is not you who is attacked by me, but he. defend him. The man does not know what the mechanism of gravitation is, but he knows that the agent decays according to the square of the distance. Advocate for Isaac, please.
The law of flux through a shell, as I explained. And why did you come? how?
As far as I know, the electron and the positron are identical in all their properties except for the sign of the electric charge. You predict that matter reacts opposite to antimatter in the gravitational field, and from this I conclude that you have found a formula linking the electromagnetic force and gravity 🙂
☼ When you stand on the stand in Stockholm, don't forget your friends from the science 😛
Puja How did you get to that?
K/R^2
Israel,
My response from last night is still pending, so I will try to bypass the regulation:
Reporter:
"What is the difference between the velocity field and the gravitational field. They both require Newton's theory, don't they?"
I answer with a question:
Newton was looking for some kind of agent that spreads gravitation in space. Some call it Graviton. I called him a dollar. Call him whatever you want. What is the decay exponent of the distribution of the agent in space?
Here is the escape velocity formula and the gravity formula. Newton is the father of both. How do you guess from these two what is the exponent according to which the distribution of the agent decays?
jubilee,
An electron is matter. Matter is attracted to mass.
Unfortunately, Dr. Robert is right. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the distance of each of us to the edge of the cosmos is the same.
That is, the entire cosmos revolves around the earth, including the sun. And there is no religious issue here at all when all the psihis believe that there is a God and his size is infinite. So, mathematically, you and I and everyone else is zero. So pray as much as you want, but zero cannot produce more than zero. That is, say something to the map, maybe you will get an answer.
Meir, what do you mean by "reverse"? Is an electron attracted to mass and a positron repelled by it?
A positron reacts inversely, an electron reacts normally.
jubilee
What letters…
Leave the fictions and nonsense now, the main thing is that there is a model! What, you also expect him to have to face reality? Does the Bible do this? And despite everything, more people believe in it than in any "superphysical" facts, mercifully, Delitzlan..
There is a God, Creator of the world!
Who created the existing!
And he created man!
And the rest - to the DM!
Working.
I admit, as a vessel full of words, that I still did not understand the difference between the velocity field and the gravity field. They both follow from Newton's theory, don't they?
"The space is filled with fabric made of two components"
Can you point to another field that suddenly changes its character, without changing the fabric made of two components? magnetic? electric? Higgs? temperature? something?
Regarding the Lorentz transformation: I hope we all understand that nothing really changes in terms of a body approaching the speed of light. For him, he was and remains at rest, and if he is at a speed of 0.9C relative to Israel and now we add another 0.6C, then for him he is really moving at a speed of 0.6C relative to his previous speed. It is only us on earth who will see that his speed has hardly changed.
This is different in a gravitational field that does not decay according to the square of the distance: here, test weights scattered along our column whose head is in the clouds of galaxies, will suddenly change the decay pattern of the force they exert on the spring balances that measure the same force.
This raises weighty questions (...): what will happen if we introduce another heavy mass at the point where the function begins to change its volatile nature? Test weights above that point will measure an attractive force to the heavy mass that is proportional to R^2, and a different force, perhaps even 0 or repulsive, to DHA.
Isn't it better to just have the good old Uncle Isaac?
Meir, a question about antimatter:
Let's take, for example, a positron and an electron. Since a positron reacts normally to a gravitational field, according to you, an electron will react to it in the opposite way. How does this manifest itself in known reality?
Israel, who hides his face from us in such fateful hours.
Get some friendly advice: don't take credit for writing the Bible. More and more people reject it as nonsense and nonsense. It will blow up in your face.
Yes, Meir. It is acceptable to me that the space of the universe is populated by particles (which I say are the dark matter that today's physics talks about) with spaces between them. By saying "weave" or "weave" it seems to me that you attribute to them some kind of constraint of order. For me, the order is random.
Israel, what don't you know? Newton's formula, showing decay according to the root of the distance.
your reply?
"Could you give one parallel from the familiar physics of an empty field that suddenly changes its character, without changing the medium or the environment?"
Did someone say empty field? The space is filled with fabric made of two components.
jubilee,
The fact that I am a secret should not interfere with the discussion of the open things. I showed that Newtonian gravity has two sides, of which only one has been studied to date. In my opinion, this should be enough for anyone with sense to understand that nothing happened in Israel, even without me volunteering every other detail, and I have volunteered a lot, over the last two years here. After that token is down, it would make sense to insert more tokens, but what's the point of inserting tokens into the phone when there's a constant busy tone on the other end?
"A field function unforgiving of prejudices" is the same function that Israel does not tolerate, which was likened to the Lorentz transformation.
I predict that antimatter produces a normal gravitational field, but reacts to it in reverse. That's why I distinguish between them. Anti-material is a normal material worn on the jacket upside down, "with the seams outwards".
Gravitation is the reaction of an elementary particle to differences in the concentration of one of two components that make up the fabric of space.
Check if this definition suits you. For my part, I guarantee that this is the shortest and most accurate definition given to gravitation since the big bang.
Yuval is welcoming.
"A metaphysical image that is an object of faith only".
Oh, why didn't you say, beliefs are another matter entirely!
I also have a belief that explains the dark mass and energy, the source of life and the loss of Barcelona:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
My model has 954 chapters.
I also have conclusive proof, but because of the secrecy of the security forces and the fear of plagiarism, I cannot elaborate.
Meir.
Of course, you have the right to ignore it, but as I mentioned, I can't comment on what I don't know.
Just one question: Can you give one parallel from the known physics of an empty field that suddenly changes its character, without changing the medium or the environment?
"I already mentioned that I can't comment on what I don't know."
The possibility that the physical gravitational field decays according to the root of the distance is known to you. Just to be sure, get a link again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
your reply?
"But it seems to me that it will be very difficult for you or anyone to overcome the inverse square law because of that geometric symmetry that I pointed out earlier. If you don't introduce new factors into the intergalactic medium"
No. really not hard. Missing functions whose beginning does not indicate their end? In a considerable range of values of X the function is linear, and beyond the range a dramatic change takes place, a jump to infinity, a rapid decay to minus infinity and a strange exponent at the end, and all this without adding new factors.
"Does the accelerated decay also only work between 2 individual masses?"
Just for the sake of historical accuracy, I didn't say that the decay is accelerated (the decay function is a bit more strange and includes a reversal to a negative field, its decay according to R/1, and a sudden cutoff). But yes, the answer is positive: everything that exists between two galaxies also exists between any two individual masses that are opposite each other in the intergalactic medium when they are isolated from the rest of the matter in the universe.
"You can't just present it as a postulate, because a postulate must rest on mathematical or empirical reasoning."
I base my words on these two. But let's say that I haven't found the mathematical connection yet, and let's say that I live at the beginning of the last century, before observations were accumulated that hint at "strange" things happening at the edges of galaxies and between them. Does that absolve me from trying to find a mathematical relationship that causes a field to decay by the square root of distance, after the token is dropped and I realize that such decay is the algebraic equivalent of Newton's law of gravitation?
"This is the place and time to present the benefits, otherwise the discussion loses meaning for me."
Let me ignore. I am not here to please people nor to try to convince them. For the last four years, I have only been engaged in putting things in writing, and using the discussions here as a tool to direct my writing to the heart of the reader. You helped me a lot with this even if unintentionally, and for that thank you. I don't feel the need to open a few dozen new topics here, some of which are already open anyway and I'm just holding myself back from tying myself into them.
"As for the truth, I still haven't understood what the contradiction is between a gravitational field and a velocity field."
There is only one gravitational field. Either it is a velocity field and then it decays according to the root of the distance, or it is a force field and then it decays according to the square of the distance. Since it cannot be both, then one has to investigate which of the two possibilities is true, which means investigating how it physically fades in space. One option has been studied for 340 years and has raised questions about the mechanism that creates it. I discovered the second option 4 years ago, and it goes hand in hand with a simple and algebraically proven mechanism, which we have already discussed regarding self-gravity. If this is not an advantage in your eyes over "Newton" who went to a world without gravity without having a trace of a mechanism in his hand that he took so much trouble to discover, then what is the point of me opening 20 more nature puzzles here, which the same mechanism solves while walking?
And one more little thing because it's really hard for me to resist: if what you call "gravitational field" is what I call "dark matter", then the debate between us is a semantic terminological one
Meyer,
It's a bit difficult for me to have a dialogue with you, both because you're creating a secret (for example, "a very specific interaction" but without details) and because I can't see the connection of your words to the matters discussed (for example, "a field function that is unforgiving of prejudices").
It is clear to me that you are preparing an explosive surprise for us, and I am eagerly awaiting it. I understand that, among other things, you can explain how according to your theory there is no room for the existence of dark matter.
And only regarding your reference to anti-matter I don't understand something. Is antimatter not matter?
Israel, without bias. Is it possible?
You must have noticed, but for the sake of other readers (if anyone bothers) I would emphasize that I was talking about a metaphysical image that is an object of faith only. Currently there is no evidence. There is only a model. Accept it or reject it, but any debate about it is a needless theological debate.
jubilee,
"A) (as always) did I understand correctly? "
Yes. You understood very correctly.
"b) If so, can you point to a possible cause of the phenomenon?"
Yes. Completely. One of the factors is quantum activity of matter, the second is time, and the third is the fabric of space. The quantum activity of matter, which is a very specific interaction of it with the fabric of space, produces (taking into account the time factor) a field function that is unforgiving to prejudices.
” c) R.H. Refai.M., perhaps by accident or perhaps out of a spark of genius, said that the changing density of the dark matter is the one responsible for the phenomenon; Do you have anything to say about that?”
There is no dark matter. There is only matter, antimatter, and a gravitational field that behaves in a way that is not expectedly Newtonian but expectedly enlightening.
Yuval is a face.
what words…
Every word - Malmilian. Every sentence - Ohana.
But maybe for us who are earthly and carnal, something a little physical and tangible?
A kilo of material that does not react to light, or there is no soup for you. 3 weeks.
RH, who is there?
So you're just a genius. I have no words ☼
Israel face,
The dark matter is what builds the mass and transmits the light. It is nothing that is everything
The creation of man is a miracle, but the miracle is not the creation of man, nor the creation of the entire animal world
The reality of a grain of sand is more experimental than the existence of all human consciousness
And the grain of sand is not a miracle either. Not even the smallest grain of dust
Not even the tiniest particle of matter
From the moment matter was created, its small particles were created that joined the creation of dust and sand and the living and the human
And the creation of matter is not a miracle either
The miracle is first of all, and from which everything flows
It is unbelievable how simple it is, and there is no way to describe its infinite complexity
He is the absolute negation that denies itself to positive and negative ad infinitum
He is the absolute nothingness that sorts itself into nothingness and repeats and sorties into nothingness and there is until there is not enough
Since he is the absolute nothing, he is the complete being and everything in between and outside of them
His reality is the only one that can be brought up with logic, and he is beyond all logic
He is the absolute truth, the dark lie and every possible and impossible combination between them
He is nature, above nature, within it and outside it
He is outside the world and inseparable from it
He is everywhere and nowhere
He has no power and is stronger than any power
He is zero and infinity and every number in between, both one and many
There are people who imagine him as they are, with reason and emotions, because human consciousness only reaches this far
But he is much more human in her to the extent that he is much less than a grain of dust
He has an infinite number of faces, and each person sees only a few of them
Everyone believes in him and at the same time doubts him
Such is the absolute disbeliever who believes in ignorance
And such is the one who believes with all his heart, who does not even know the bottom line
Admiring him says everything about the fan and nothing about him
He is in all
Every creature, whether living or inanimate, has its own consciousness and belief in it
Every creature, whether he wants it or not, loves him and thanks him at all times
Such is the smallest particle of matter and such is the most complex human brain
Every intelligent life, on every planet, in every solar system and in every star cluster believes in him and bears his name and seal
Knock knock
jubilee?
To Tommy, I thought I only copied the 🙂 🙁 from you
I have always believed that dark matter has mass but not light.
So where is he on the "Etzeno" map? Can you show me one gram of Humapel like this?
You're not offended that I call you Yuval, are you? Meir simply means Meir Panis and my rabbi's name is Raul Panis. That's why I thought it might be appropriate...
Why is Yuval better than the face?
Dark matter is the fundamental component of כל The matter in the universe and not just a "significant percentage". The entire cosmos is full of His glory, in one concentration or another. He is one and has no part, and is in heaven and on earth. We cannot discover it because we do not believe in its existence.
And just the opposite: in dense regions of the dark matter the gravity is stronger than in sparse regions.
a tributary
If "the changing density of the dark matter is responsible for the phenomenon" then we would accept that in dense areas of the dark matter the phenomenon would have happened even at short distances.
And speaking of dark matter: where is it? Why can't we discover it here on earth if it constitutes such a significant percentage of the cosmic mass?
Meyer,
"For example, in the entire range of speeds known to us, Newton's laws are valid, but when you reach relative speeds, the Lorentz transformation suddenly starts to speak." The accepted explanation for this is that the Lorentz transformation is present all the time, but at low speeds its expression is so small as to be negligible. I assume you mean to say that in a similar way there is some kind of transformation that at "small" intragalactic distances is negligible and only at "large" intergalactic distances does its expression become significant. My questions are: a) (as always) did I understand correctly? b) If so, can you point to a possible cause of the phenomenon? c) R.H. Refai.M., perhaps by accident or perhaps out of a spark of genius, said that the changing density of the dark matter is the one responsible for the phenomenon; Do you have anything to say about it?
Sorry for the delay, Father's Day is today.
Aalek Father's Day.. the mothers sunbathe in the pool and the fathers amuse the children. Father's Day or Tisha B'Av?
Welcoming.
"In my explanations I didn't go into details, so in general you are right".
I already mentioned that I can't comment because I don't know. But it seems to me that it would be very difficult for you or anyone to overcome the inverse square law because of that geometric symmetry that I pointed out earlier. If you don't introduce new factors into the intergalactic medium, how does gravity, or the velocity field, know it's time to put on gas and fade faster? Does the accelerated decay also only work between 2 individual masses?
You cannot simply present it as a postulate, because a postulate must rest on mathematical or empirical reasoning.
"The advantages are numerous. But before I present them, there is a more important question: What is the truth?"
This is the place and time to present the benefits, otherwise the discussion loses meaning for me. As for the truth, I still haven't understood the contradiction between a gravitational field and a velocity field.
Be that as it may - do you still maintain that at least in the limited domain where the force field is measured by spring balances and decays by the square of the distance, all masses are unrelated? And if the answer is yes, isn't Mach's principle in that limited domain required as a derivation of inertia from gravity?
Dozens turned into thousands for me. Inflation 😛
Meyer,
We can easily measure the escape velocity from the sun as a function of distance. We have eight planets and several planetoids and many asteroids orbiting the Sun in fixed orbits. The escape velocity is according to Kepler's laws, and from them it is obtained that it is inversely proportional to the root of the distance, as you mentioned. This rule is valid at a distance of several astronomical units from the sun. Within the galaxies it attacks even at distances of thousands of light years from the black holes. The galaxies are also arranged in clusters spanning millions of light years. What reason do we have to assume that precisely in the intergalactic spaces or, in contrast, at tiny distances, this rule gives way to other rules?
R.H., for the mention of dark matter in your response to Meir.
You quote me exactly energetically, except for the :-). The smile is your original contribution.
Meir
So here is the answer:
"Why is the range of gravitation limited? Why does an unexpected change begin in a certain range?"
It all depends on the density of the dark matter. He keeps all the gabitation to himself. 🙂
jubilee,
There is nothing to understand me. You only need to understand Newton's laws:
A. the law of escape velocity (which decays according to the square root of the distance), and B. the law of the gravitational force (which decays according to the square of the distance).
After you understand them and understand how Newton got A from B
There is no choice but to understand that as above and vice versa it is possible to get B from A.
Only here do I enter the picture and ask:
Does the physical field of gravitation correspond to the exponent of A, or does it correspond to the exponent of B.
Unfortunately, Newton did not ask this question. Therefore, the one who should give the answer is us.
And after that question has been thrown out into the space of the world, I don't think anyone can be called a gravitation researcher if they think it can be ignored.
Israel,
"But at a certain point the decay will decrease from the force expected according to this calculation until it disappears completely. did I understand correctly?"
It's not accurate, but I didn't go into details in my explanations, so you're basically right. Where the Hubble expansion is measured between galaxies, there is no gravitational force (not that the Hubble expansion "overcomes" gravity with a stronger force, but literally there is no gravity: there is nothing to overcome)
"What is the distance at which gravity changes its shape contrary to the flux law, which is proportional to the distance squared because of the geometry of the mantle?"
Conclusions arising from the flux law are not relevant to the field which decays according to the root of the distance.
Why is the range of gravity limited? Why does an unexpected change begin in a certain range? The answer is that there are mathematical functions that show a linear character in a certain range, and suddenly turn their face. For example, in the entire range of speeds known to us, Newton's laws are valid, but when you reach relative speeds, the Lorentz transformation suddenly starts to speak. Something similar happens with the function that describes a field that decays according to the square root of the distance. In a certain range (which depends on the size of the mass and the Hubble constant) the function behaves according to Newton's laws, and beyond this range it suddenly changes its skin.
"2. Why all the trouble? What is the advantage over Newton?"
Even when Galileo claimed that the earth revolves around the sun it seemed complicated, and I guess some of the questions he was asked were "what is the advantage" and "what is all the complication for".
The advantages are numerous. But before I present them, there is a more important question: what is the truth?
What is the physical reality, out of the two legitimate but contradictory possibilities offered by algebra?
Israel,
"I don't remember such an agreement on my part. Can you show me where?”
Sorry, I thought you agreed with Newton's laws.
The speed of a body falling freely from infinity varies according to the inverse of the square root of the distance. Don't need your consent. This is Newton's law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
The force by which Newton calculated the above changes according to the inverse of the square of the distance. It doesn't need your consent either. This is also Newton's law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity#Derivation_using_G_and_M
Jubilee
I have not forgotten you. And I agree with you. There is nothing new under the sun
Israel,
Gravitation is measured between two bodies. Around every body there is a field of some entity. Gravitation is a product of interaction between these fields. Therefore the name "gravitational field" referring to the field around one body is somewhat obscure.
Assuming that the field around the body is created by the body (which to me is not the complete picture) we have no reason not to assume that its concentration at some point is inversely proportional to the square root of its distance from the center of the body. The strength of the interaction between the fields (let's say gravitation) is, therefore, inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
However, Meir does not talk about a gravitational field, but introduces us to another concept, "velocity field", which does not refer to the interaction between two bodies, but to the phenomena occurring within the field of one body.
Meir, have I understood correctly so far?
Meir Darling.
"We also agreed that algebraically it is possible that the decay of the force results from a physical field that decays according to the square root of the distance."
I don't remember such an agreement on my part. can you show me where
Be that as it may, the final result according to your calculations, if I understood correctly: the farther we get from the center of the center, then if we measure the force acting on a test mass using spring balances, we will get a decay proportional to the distance squared from the center of the center up to a certain range, but at a certain stage the decay will decrease from the expected force According to this calculation until you disappear completely. did I understand correctly?
two questions:
1. What is the distance at which gravity changes its shape contrary to the flux law, which is proportional to the distance squared due to the geometry of the shell? Why exactly this distance?
2. What is all the complication for? What is the advantage over Newton?
Dear Israel. We agreed on the decay of the force according to the square of the distance, but we also agreed that algebraically it is possible that the decay of the force is due to a physical field which decays according to the square root of the distance.
Remember the example of the dollars?
The question is what is the commodity that the elementary particles purchase with the dollars scattered in space. Do they pay in dollars for speed (and then in order to get a force that decays according to the square of the distance, the dollars scattered in space need to decay according to the square root of the distance), or do they pay in dollars for power (and then indeed the dollars decay according to the square of the distance) and the power produces an escape velocity that varies according to the root of the distance .
Now, on what basis do you decide what the shape of the dollar's decline is in space? As you like? according to how the teacher taught in school?
I'm not asking what the shape of the decay of the force is, or what the shape of the decay of the speed is. We know these two from the formulas. I am asking what is the form of decay of the physical thing that causes the form of decay of force and speed (two forms of decay that are fundamentally different from each other!). Does it match the force decay form or the velocity decay form?
I thought we agreed that at a distance of an earth's radius from the surface of the earth we would measure a quarter of the force on its surface.
A quarter power at a distance twice proportional to the decay by the square of the distance, not by the root.
Israel,
"A field cannot fade in the ratio of the square of the distance to a certain range, then change its nature and fade according to different parameters".
For the sake of discussion, let's say I agree with this argument (I don't. But let's say.)
But the discussion started with my claim that the gravitational field decays according to the root of the distance and not according to the square of the distance.
Regarding a field with such a decaying nature, your geometric argument is no longer relevant.
Where are you rowing now?
R. H.,
Indeed the four of us are like that, but each one comes from the direction that specifically interests him. I wouldn't be surprised ( 🙂 ) to find out that the truth is somehow at some center of gravity
If you really don't, then I apologize for comparing you to him.
However, that still doesn't explain why you chose to fix where it wasn't necessary... But let's go.. it's better to end this stupid discussion here. And again, sorry.
clarification
As I mentioned, I am not a bystander
They will soon be gone. Fishing rod. 🙂
No one disappeared
It turns out that the anonymous and a passerby…….. simultaneously disappeared from the site…. interesting. 🙂
The last word may or may not be mine. Because there are other commenters here with whom I correspond and it is possible that one of them will be the last to respond. And I really don't care who it will be (me or others).
On the other hand, I can summarize for you: overlap, you parasite.
If it's important to you, your last word is wind. Come on whip..
It was called a stupid act. And I add a stupid act of a parasite who wants to protect someone…..
You corrected unnecessarily.
What are you attacking? All in all, I corrected you. take a glass of water (or a pill)
If you are not that guest. So I apologize.
But it's still not clear to me why you were offended by the fact that I wrote "could" instead of "eat".
What does it matter so much to you?
And the rest of the things I wrote…..don't you have anything to say?
If not then it looks like the care of a parasite.
Get the truth from who said it, spirit
No. I'm not a 'passerby'
No need to exaggerate.
You are not by chance a "passerby" from here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-of-prebiotic-hydrocarbons-in-impacts-of-simple-icy-mixtures-on-early-earth-life-on-earth-shockingly-comes-from-out-of-this-world-140613/comment-page-2
anonymous
What happened? Impaired?
ghosts
They write 'I will be able to be interested' and not 'I will be able to'. Correct Hebrew is important
Let's start with zero dimensions and zero particles... If it was assembly you would get ERROR. 🙂 🙂
And yes, I'm also looking for the micro. (That's why I usually refer to the photon when I talk about this physical model. Because the photon is the basic particle from which we learn about quantum phenomena).
Beyond that, I have never considered fashionable things. And what's fashionable or trendy doesn't interest me just because it's fashionable. I can be interested in it if it interests me... and not because it's trendy. I see you and others like that too. And also that we saved.
R.H., you spoke beautifully.
The known equations and the known physical constants were obtained from observing the phenomena. I usually accept them without question. It is possible to relate different equations and different constants and get a picture of the world that is conceivable. All this, as far as I'm concerned, is "macro", and I'm looking to work with the "micro". For example, we know a number of different forces (today it is customary to talk about four: gravitation, electromagnetic, the strong force and the weak force). Some of them have been found to emanate from the same power, but no way has yet been found to connect all the rest to them. Albert Einstein began a search that continues to this day for the "unified field theory". During the searches, various theories were born that require many assumptions. For example, today it is fashionable to talk about string theory, which requires a universe with "only" eleven dimensions, and I predict that more theories will rise and fall like it. I'm looking for something completely different, the simpler the better. The ideal for me is zero dimensions and zero particles with the simplest calculations possible. It is very possible that I am influenced by the profession in which I worked for many years - computer programming. I always tried to break down complicated programs into simple functions...
I work like that too, mostly.
But it's important to clarify: no one (theoreticians), at least I'm sure, will just invent equations because they feel like it.
The existing equations (for example: those that define space) are really complex. and not in vain.
Personally, I prefer to study the existing equations and use those who understand them, than to build new models and invent new equations unnecessarily.
R. H.,
I believe that you can get out of any complicated situation by breaking it down into small situations. This is also the way I work. Unlike the celebrated theoretical physicists, who cook spaghetti with bombastic formulas, I go small. What do you think?
Israel, that is clear.
I have no argument with you on this point, and between you and Meir I am on your side. Just wanted to add a little accuracy and show that I'm still visiting here.
jubilee
You're right. But I also wrote that the whole subject and in general only the beginning of the definitions are very complicated (on the mathematical level).
That is: it's not just a drawing of X and Y. The values represent real physical quantities (let's say photons).
The very definition of what is X and what is Y is problematic on a mathematical level. The problem is with me: since this is a model I invented, and I don't have "any" knowledge in physics and mathematics, then I encounter difficulty in formulating the space mathematically. There are several starting options, all of which at the mathematical level are complicated equations and not like multiplying X by Y. (In the example I gave, the intention was to duplicate the entire matrix when time is the function - but again, as explained above - the very mathematical definition of the thing is complicated)
jubilee.
The strong force even changes its direction within a certain range and becomes a repulsive force. So what?
From my previous comment: "Therefore if you measured and found that gravitation wanes in relation to R^2 in a relatively large area"
And this is not the case with the strong force, which operates only in the atomic domain, and its causes are still unknown.
In the case of two individual masses that the force between them is proportional to R^2, there are no additional factors that can affect and the law of flux determines.
Israel,
It is true that the decay is characteristic of some relation (the square of the distance, in the case you mentioned) within a certain range But this is because other parameters are negligible in the same range. For example, the strong force and the weak force, which are several orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, are not felt at all at distances greater than a few millimicrons.
R.H., I apologize for disappearing.
When you take a two-dimensional matrix and multiply it by its eigenvector you are left with a two-dimensional matrix because that multiplication is the same as multiplication by its eigenvalue which is a scalar. That's why I thought that in the model you brought X (or Y, one of them) symbolizes the size of the universe that swells with time and I didn't understand what the role of the other variable is.
Meir.
Here's what I'm aiming for:
A field cannot fade in the ratio of the square of the distance to a certain range, then change its nature and fade according to different parameters. The reason is geometric: the area of the envelope is proportional to 4piR^2, while the flux that passes through it always remains constant. Therefore, it does not matter what the type of flux is - water, magnetic, electric, whatever - if it has faded in a certain area in relation to R^2, it must continue to fade in the same proportion, unless the medium changes.
One can ask why then a laser beam does not decay according to this ratio, and the answer is that it does. It is concentrated only in a limited area, but beyond it it fades proportionally to R^2.
And so if you measured and found that gravitation decays in relation to R^2 in a relatively large area, then it will continue to decay in the same ratio forever, unless the medium has changed. Otherwise how will she know when she should change parameters?
Israel,
If you explain to me where you are rowing, I might be able to help you get there.
I already wrote to you here
https://www.hayadan.org.il/galileo-was-wrong-100513/comment-page-12/#comment-433877
You shouldn't expect any differences, after all
From dp=m*dv we get that
f=m*dv/dt, and since dv/dt=g we returned to Newton's formula f=m*g. This is a generic explanation that equates the earth to the moon and any planet you choose.
The same g that is derived from the change in escape velocity for each value of R that you place in the formula, is the g that causes the force of gravity. As you remember, the escape velocity formula is obtained from giving Newton's laws. The question is the chicken and the egg question. Is gravity a force that causes a change in velocity or a change in velocity that causes a force.
So, for your last questions:
A. Also according to my model the spring scales will show exactly a quarter of 9.8 newtons.
B. The field that decays not according to the square of the distance reveals non-negligible changes at the edge of the galaxy where the hydrogen clouds (which in my opinion are actually anti-hydrogen clouds) surround the galaxy at clearly non-Newtonian speeds (where the gravitational force decays in direct proportion to the distance, instead of according to the square of the distance). According to my method, there is no dark matter, there is only a gravitational field that changes at the edge of the galaxy according to a function that Newtonian gravitation fails to predict (and which my model accurately predicts) and it disappears completely just beyond the outer limit of the anti-hydrogen clouds that surround the galaxy.
Next I will put more Corson.
?Se hablar Español?
Israel:
The thing is that the word is French and from there it was imported into other languages.
Casper? fly on it
Have you ever heard of Casper? It's as health friendly and convenient as Elmer Pad!
NEXT TIME I SEE YOU I SCREAM
Or in spoken Hebrew: ice cream for the third time.
be quiet! i'm hunting a wabbit
It's a matter of geography.
Amwikni Matovat not umwu vasish.
My tone puzzle is also a matter of geography.
In Amvika a ton is not a thousand kg but 2000 pounds - about 907 kg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton
Merit differences, that's all. Why don't you have differences between the Jews and the Jews?
And what about the hammer and feather puzzle?
Machel
How much do you sell the joke? I bought! 🙂 🙂
Israel:
As a skeptic said, the origin of the word is in French and Harish is not Harishit.
Many Israelis in general say Korason which does not sound similar at all.
When I meet one like that I ask if he meant it to Corazon Aquino.
I read the article that Michael referred to
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php
There the result measured regarding the speed of gravitational expansion was 1.06 minus plus 0.21 of the speed of light and hence they concluded that the speed of gravitational expansion is the speed of light. In the simple universe I only got from Newtonian calculations that the average speed is 1.3 of the speed of light because only at this speed and only at a background temperature of 2.73 degrees Kelvin, light would have its speed C. I don't know what a relative calculation would do to the above result. Sublime from my understanding even if there is a place for such a calculation.
Please respond gently
Thanks
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel
It seems you haven't learned French. The R in Croissant is clearly driven, not silenced.
r is not used in the endings of certain words in French, for example the ending er- or the ending oir-.
On the other hand, R in Croissant is used in French not as it is used in Hebrew, for example it is used as a shrill h (cahuson) in certain dialects of French. This means that a non-French person has difficulty pronouncing the r correctly, and this may be the reason for the disruption.
To Yuval and Meir
For your comments from 5.6.13 about the speed of gravitational expansion:
According to pushing gravity - a simple universe, gravitation does not advance at infinite speed or at the speed of light, but at the speed of particles. But the speed of these particles is not necessarily constant and it is very possible/likely to assume that the speed of the particles is not the same and has a normal distribution, therefore gravitation spreads in a sequence of different speeds.
That is
If we made a certain change in gravitation, the first effects of the change will move according to the speed of the fast particles and finally according to the speed of the slow particles
Example
If the sun suddenly disappears, its gravitational force will not disappear instantly or at some other constant speed (the speed of light?), meaning it will not happen that after eight minutes and twenty seconds the earth will suddenly start moving in a straight line. What will happen is that the earth will begin to feel the gravitational pull of the sun in a variable way. First a little and then more and more until gravitation disappears completely and the earth moves in a straight line forever.
Note that if this phenomenon is true, a planet moving around the sun moves in a different way than if the progression of gravity is infinite, or finite (the speed of light or any other speed)
Maybe this explains part of the precession phenomenon of the planet Mercury (apologies Einstein)
Humbly accept my response because I just wanted to respond.
As the ancient Chinese philosopher said:
Yang Chung, Ching Chang Chung!
retired
Responding means you exist!
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Kwason, Kwason.
Like an assembly experiment(k), like a grave(t), like Mr. Wannabe(t).
Her is silent.
Who knows the origin of the phrase "third time is ice cream?"
jubilee
If I wasn't sure you understood something in physics and mathematics I wouldn't have written what I wrote.
Beyond that, I can continue to tell, but this is not a storytelling festival here.
What interests me is why there isn't a gifted mathematician here who wants to give his opinion on the matter (that is, is there something in the plastic description that doesn't add up on a mathematical level).
And maybe a quasson is a Jerusalem croissant? 🙂
I just wanted to add something to the scientific background of the joke.
The waiter didn't have any quesoons because there is no such thing in the world. The food in question is called croissants 🙂
: )
The things you said are trivial and therefore I did not understand that you are really asking me to address them. So you have something you hear a lot in logic classes: "If the puzzle is constructed correctly and its result is wrong, then its premises are false."
Thanks for the tip. Please don't be offended that I don't eat it. I am very strict about diet.
Yuval, you remind me of a story.
A drunk enters a bar and orders a coffee with a chocolate quaison.
Sorry sir, replies the bartender, we don't have quesoons.
All right, replies the drunk, so give me coffee with a buttered Cawson.
But we don't have any quesoons, the bartender gets angry.
You know what - the drunk relents, leave the coffee, just give me a quesoun, it doesn't matter what kind.
The bartender throws the drunk out, and turns to his friend who was sitting next to him: Did you see how stoned your friend is?
You're right, the friend replies, if I were you I'd throw all the kvasons in his face!
Nothing to do with the structure of the photon, no! This is a purely logical question. You can try to solve it using numbers, or marbles, or whatever you like. You will always accept that to explain the results of an assemblage experiment or Bell's theorem you must assume an instantaneous transfer of polarization, number, or whatever you choose. It has nothing to do with the physical structure you built.
And today is a Tuesday when the Levites used to say in the Temple: today they are playing poker at Rapoul's.
And Rabbi Sergio Costanza was different: Cara takes Paul.
"No local reality can explain these facts"
is that so?
If due to misunderstanding the structure of the photon (as well as the structure of the electron, and structures of particles in general) we attribute to it the property of a particle, then it is clear that we will discover together with Nick Herbert that the arithmetic we learned in kindergarten is not valid.
According to our intuition, a photon comes out of some light source and scatters in space. But in fact the movement of a photon involves another particle whose movement is in the opposite direction. This is nicely illustrated in the particular experiment presented in the article: the reaction is not between the photons but between the opposite particles coming from the polarizers.
jubilee.
You haven't read the article yet, have you?
Because if you had read, you would have seen that, according to the claim, it is not possible to build a model other than non-locality. This is exactly the inequality theorem: 3=1+1. Nothing to do with physics, just logic.
"Plan an experiment that will send a signal/information/something, for example to the moon, which will be immediately received back at the launch point".
It is impossible to send information faster than the speed of light.
R. H.,
I just sent you a long speech that got stuck in the system's freezer. In short, please continue to tell.
R. H.,
The first response I thought of was to tell you about my mathematics and physics studies at three universities (not exaggerating). So there, I told. But the sad truth (or the kind, depending on the point of view) is that I absolutely agree with you. Although I know how to recite the two theories of relativity without blinking, and I know how to solve matrices and differential equations and calculate multivariable integrals, but the bottom line is that I am a smooth slate.
I have a belief that I have carried on my back almost since I was born (over fifty years, would you believe it?) according to which every phenomenon, no matter how complicated, has a simple explanation. Furthermore, every simple explanation has a simple explanation from it that explains it, and so on until the creation of the world from nothing by means of nothing. Wherever I hear people talking about physics, I strain my ears in the hope of hearing an echo of my faith. This is what is happening to me now in the discussion with you. First, I listen and look to see if things line up with my own ideas. Sometimes I ask "guiding" questions, but most of the time I ask dumb questions.
So let's be clear: I'm looking for the most fundamental particle there is, which today no mainstream model knows of. But it's okay for me to also talk about models that are based on known models. Please continue the story. As a reminder, I would also like to receive an email from you.
jubilee
According to your words, I can only assume that you are not familiar with physics and mathematics.
Not Israel! The experiment is beautiful and its result does not agree with previous assumptions (ie "surprising", "amazing", you name it). So far it is empirical. But coming to the conclusion that there is something moving at infinite speed is terribly rationalistic.
Nevertheless I will flow with you to Andromeda and even beyond it. On the assumption that movement at infinite speed is possible, it does not have to be limited only to an assembly experiment. Please design an experiment that will send a signal/information/something, for example to the moon, which will be immediately received back at the launch point. Until you show me such a successful experiment, I assume that the phenomenon is unique to the Aspa experiment and I still do not accept this conclusion that I call "delusional".
Empiricistonino.
What is more empirical than an assembly experiment? The results are in front of you in the link. Are you claiming they are puberco?
The point is that no one has been able to find another interpretation for the experiment other than non-locality, although one of the interpretations is that the logic is invalid. That's why I suggested you find another interpretation for the results of the experiment, because if you notice in the article Nick Herbert states unequivocally:
No local reality can explain these facts. Therefore reality must be non-local. Furthermore this conclusion is not a supposition or speculation but a mathematical proof. John Bell found a way to ask a question about reality itself–not merely about theory or fact. And he obtained a clear and surprising answer: reality is non-local. there is no way around it.
ZA, if you manage to describe some mechanism or logic that would explain the results of the experiment without information passing in zero time, the Nobel Prize is yours for sure. But first you should see who is against who, that is, read and understand the results of the experiment.
And seriously, remember the Michaelson Morley experiment? They were looking for something and couldn't find it. So they came up with reasons why they couldn't find it and at some point they completely gave up on the middleman even though Obeysli must be one. Here too, they don't understand something, so delusional explanations come out of their fingers.
Israel,
The logic for the rationalists, the long articles for the bookworms. What should I do if, with me, the empiricist, logic does not play a role and I am dyslexic at all?
R.H., sorry I disappeared. Arrangements.
No I didn't understand in a sense I was stuck. I'm just looking for connections between what you're telling and what I know, and I still don't have much.
jubilee.
I know you don't like confusing links and facts, but here it is from a confusing link:
http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html
. When the mutual angle between the two detectors is 0 degrees, the Match between the two sequences is 100%
In general, if you want to understand a little about the puzzling phenomenon, you should read the entire article. Perhaps you will understand that this has nothing to do with a physical model, the explanation is logical.
I will definitely continue. But you need to tell me at what point on the count you get stuck so I can know how to save you from the don't understand decree.
: )
R. H.,
I'm not sure I understood, but maybe I'll understand better later. Please continue development.
It's a point that has swelled into a ball. But the Einsteinian space enters within the sphere of the universe. The sphere is the shell itself. the circle itself. The circle is an Einsteinian dimension (as mentioned - inside a spherical envelope).
That is, the universe did not begin as a point but as something flat?
Compatible = adapted
I am a very little mathematician 🙁 not really gifted. I will need detailed explanations
X is not the size of the universe. X can be one of two (height, width). The same goes for Y. When, for example, X is determined as height, then Y is width. The time factor is an operator that creates volume (or length, for example {the length can be replaced by width or height and the changes in the other values correspond}).
Except this is just the beginning of the beginning. We haven't turned the circle into a ball yet.
R. H.,
Without loss of generality, let's assume that X is the size of the universe. So what is Y?
In the simplistic way of things, but really simplistic, so yes.
But just formulating the correct option among the rest is not a simple mathematical problem that requires the activation of the thinking powers of gifted mathematicians.
R. H.,
I assume that the product of X or Y in the time vector represents the expansion of the universe. was i right
Israel!
you said In entanglement, in the 0 degree polarized state, the two photons are always in the same polarization. Likewise for any other identical state of the polarizers
And I think that's not true: they're in the exact opposite polarization. At the pole, 180 degrees and zero degrees look the same. You can try it yourself easily with 3D glasses of the kind that are distributed in movie theaters.
Meir.
Let's try to focus on a specific example. You say: "Let's start with the incorrect assumption according to which the physical gravitational field (the amount of bills per cubic meter in space) decays according to the square of the distance."
So let's take our tower whose height is the radius of the earth. We will ignore the influence of the moon, the sun, the sky and all their host.
We weigh a kg mass at sea level using precise spring scales. The scales show: a force of 9.8 newtons.
Can you use your model to tell me what force the scales will show at the height of the tower? Isn't it exactly a quarter? And if there is a difference in how much?
And if according to you the difference is negligible, then when does it stop being negligible? When does the field that decays not according to the square of the distance disappear?
Israel,
"Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about a barbell hanging on a spring at rest. Why would anyone block something?”
There is no difference between a barbell hanging on a spring and a barbell sitting on a weighing platform. In the case of a weighing surface, I assume that it is clear to you that the elementary particles that make up the surface block the path of the elementary particles that make up the weight. Also in the same spring. The elementary particles that make up the hook at the end of the spring block the path of the elementary particles that make up the ear of the weight threaded on the hook. The bottom line is that in the combination of the electrical and nuclear forces between the elementary particles of the weight and the surface of the balance, the tendency of the elementary particles of the weight to move toward the center of the earth (which is higher than their tendency to move in the opposite direction) creates pressure on the surface of the scales or on the spring hook, whichever you choose.
"Except that I don't understand the big point. You claim: the velocity field was neglected by the professor in favor of the gravitation field and has since been forgotten."
not like that. I claim that a gravitational field is a velocity field. The professor teaches that a gravitational field is a force field.
The question to be tested is the decay exponent of the physical gravitational field (as opposed to the algebraic one). Suppose the physical gravitational field is a sequence of $1 bills, with which the elementary particles can purchase groceries at the neighborhood store. Does the concentration of $1 bills per cubic meter of space decay according to the square of the distance (in this case if we found that at a distance of 6500 km from the center of the earth there is a density of one million $1 bills per cubic meter, then we would know that at a distance of 13,000 km from the center of the earth The country is expected to have a density of a quarter of a million $1 bills per cubic meter), or perhaps the concentration of bills in the field diminishes according to the root of the distance (in this case, if we found that at a distance of 6500 km from the center of the earth there is a density of one million $1 bills per cubic meter , then we will know that at a distance of 13,000 a density of 707,106.78 thousand dollars per cubic meter of space is expected).
This difference between 250,000 bills per cubic meter of space (according to the professor's method) and 707,106 bills per cubic meter according to the method the professor forgot to teach, is what makes the critical difference between Newton's theory of gravity and Meir's theory of gravity. Algebraically there is no difference (when you translate dollars to power, you will get the same result according to both theories. Likewise when you translate dollars to speed). In terms of physical reality, there is an abyss between the two possibilities.
"Which problem of Newton's theory does the velocity field correct?"
Let's start with the incorrect assumption that the physical gravitational field (the amount of bills per cubic meter in space) decays according to the square of the distance, leads to another false assumption, that the physical gravitational field has an infinite range (radial decay model, similar to radiation). This leads to another false assumption, that all galaxies in the universe are gravitationally bound, which in turn leads to the false assumption that the accelerated expansion of space shows that 70% of the mass of the universe is in the form of dark energy.
Let's conclude by saying that the Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitation theory has led to a dead end (at least so far) in the search for a mechanism to explain them.
"According to Newton's theory, the force that will act on a body suspended from a tower at the height of the earth's radius (approximately 6400 km) is only approximately a quarter of the force acting on it at the level of the earth's surface. Really not negligible."
Where in my words did I conclude that the difference is negligible?
You asked: "Do you think we will get a different result than what Newton's theory predicts", and I answered that the difference in the result we get is negligible (=the difference will be so many digits after the point, far beyond our ability to be precise in the measurement), meaning that according to both approaches the same result is expected in every range Distance (up to beyond about 15 AU and even there the differences in the calculations according to the two theories are still tiny but perhaps already in the accuracy of measurement.
jubilee
Without saying too much about the beginning, I will mention only a few things to make it easy to understand and move on:
First of all: the canonical circle does not simulate a photon but the shape of the universe.
Draw a Cartesian axis system (two-dimensional).
The X and Y values represent dimensions.
Now draw a canonical circle.
The circle in this case is the universe and the dimensions represent the size of the universe.
now,
If we add a third dimension (not a fourth) which is the time factor, we will create a three-dimensional system.
Time in that case will be an eigenvector. So far, do you understand why?
"The information is created halfway and moves together with the photons in time at speed c".
Sho isma middle of the road? You mean the source of the photons? What about the photons in the Bose-Einstein condensed state, where is the middle ground here?
Well, you've already said that you don't know the experiment well, and links how I like it, so it doesn't seem to me that we have any agreement or disagreement, because according to your words "I don't claim that. I also do not claim the opposite" and therefore I conclude that the polarization information moves at infinite speed and vice versa.
General comment - you say: "While mine is self-evident that the polarization in one direction is always opposite to the polarization in the other direction".
In entanglement, in the 0 degree polarized state, the two photons are always in the same polarization. Likewise for any other identical state of the polarizers.
R.H., thanks in advance
Please try. Any donation to untangle the tangle will be welcomed by me. I have no objection to receiving things from you by email as well, if you prefer
ivrit.yuval00@gmail.com
I don't claim that either. I'm not claiming the opposite either. What is the matter of going to Mount Sinai? What I claim is that no information about the polarization has passed from one photon to another but that the information is created midway and moves along with the photons simultaneously at speed c. You insist on calling it a "hidden variable", while to me it is self-evident that polarization in one direction is always opposite to polarization in the other direction.
If you were to show that the polarization of one photon changed during the observation and as a result the polarization of the other photon also changed accordingly, then it really raises the suspicion that the information passed at a great speed - perhaps even infinitely. But we don't know what the polarization was before it was measured, so we can't say it changed. All we have is a single measurement of the polarization of two photons, not a double measurement.
jubilee
Very Good. I think you're starting to understand where I've been going all along.
There are still problems with the model, I will try to add more information today if it interests you.
But the difference between you and our friendship is that she does not claim, like you, that the speed of polarization passes at a speed less than infinity.
Right. I don't know him well enough. But our mutual friend Gali Weinstein knows him
http://delorian64.wordpress.com/tag/%D7%90%D7%99-%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%99%D7%AA/
jubilee.
I have a feeling, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you don't know enough about Aspa Experiment.
According to the accepted interpretation (Nick Herbert) there is no theoretical way by which the results of the experiment can be explained without passing the spin or polarization information at infinite speed.
Meir showed a beautiful way according to which it can be said that in the domain of the experiment reality is not local but beyond it the variables become hidden. But in the areas of the experiments conducted so far - a good few kilometers - there is no escaping the conclusion that the reality is not local.
And this is M.S.L.I.
Meir.
"When the particle encounters resistance to its tendency to move towards the center of the field (another particle in the system blocks its path), a compressive force f=dp/dt is created"
Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about a barbell hanging on a spring at rest. Why would someone block something?
Except I don't get the big point. You claim: the velocity field was neglected by the professor in favor of the gravitational field and has since been forgotten. So let's say it's true. But also according to your description, the two descriptions are equivalent and there is no contradiction between one and the other, so what is the use of the velocity field? It seems to me that it is much more complicated and gives the same results. Can you point to an advantage of the velocity field, or what problem of Newton's theory that the velocity field corrects?
"The difference is negligible as long as we are talking about relatively small distance ranges (for example, in the solar system up to about 15 astronomical units)".
According to Newton's theory, the force that will act on a body suspended from a tower at the height of the radius of the earth (approximately 6400 km) is only approximately a quarter of the force acting on it at the level of the earth's surface. Really not negligible.
If you compare the force acting on a body at sea level to the force acting on it at the top of Everest, you will get a significant and easily measurable difference using a modern spring balance. Also in Hermon, if you are stingy on the trip.
Chechach please Buoyat and Amayat. The correct way to describe the propagation of the photon in space is the envelope of a sphere that inflates with a radial velocity c. It also has polarization. For the sake of illustration, we will now say "inscription" and look at the shell from the front and back. In one direction the inscription is straight, and in the other direction it is a mirror image.
I still haven't been able to understand what the connection is, maybe because I don't know the structure of the bubble.
In any case, if you manage to use some model, bubbles, fish, Amaiyat, to explain the results of an assembly experiment without needing to transfer the polarization information at infinite speed, you will win the Nobel Prize. So to work.
Ah. I just didn't understand your question. What I said before is that the polarization on one side of the photon is always opposite to the polarization on the other side. I likened it to the difference in the direction of water circulation in Niagara between the USA and Australia. An in-depth breakdown of the bubble structure explains this.
I did not understand the connection.
Note: when polarizer A is at 0 degrees and polarizer B is at 30 degrees, the mismatch percentage is 25%. As above when A is 30 and B is 0.
But when both are at 30 degrees, the mismatch percentage increases to 75.
So how is this possible if they don't know about each other? And if the polarization is different after the photons are already on their way, how does this happen for more than 0 time?
One possibility that emerges from my model is that the speed of light established by law is an average speed and that the limitation on the speed of movement does not apply to individual particles that make up the medium. But I do not focus only on her, but look for additional explanations.
Michael, thank you.
Israel,
"Ordinary elementary particles are included in every separate system". so what?
The question is whether each of the particles has a tendency to stay in place (isotropic external gravity field) or move towards the center of the field (conventional gravity field). The particle is constantly moving randomly around its own center, but in a non-isotropic field the amount of movements towards the center of the field is statistically greater than the number of movements in the opposite direction.
When the particle encounters resistance to its tendency to move towards the center of the field (another particle in the system blocks its path) a compressive force f=dp/dt is created
It is true that the blocking particle also tends to move towards the center of the field, but it is also blocked by another particle blocking its movement and so on until the center of the field.
"Do you think we will get a different result than what Newton's theory predicts?" The difference is negligible as long as we are dealing with relatively small distance ranges (for example, in the solar system up to about 15 astronomical units).
How do you explain that changing the state of the polarizers triples the percentage of polarization mismatches without immediate transfer of information? For my part, you will use the Lewinsky College model.
The only attempt at an explanation I have at the moment is the story of the expanding bubble that I brought. I can go into more detail and analyze the structure of that bubble, but this detail, apart from being unnecessary for understanding the principle, invites additional tedious details. If my model is genuinely interesting to someone, I am ready to try to build it in partnership. Be that as it may, my model is not a Sinaitic Torah and there are probably no shortage of other explanations.
And by and large, the results of the Aspen experiment do not disprove the bubble assumption.
There is nothing more horrible and terrible than localism, everyone agrees on that, he asked Spooky.
Give me another explanation for the results of the Aspect experiment and I and everyone else will warmly embrace it.
A certain phenomenon was discovered, the analysis of which, while making certain assumptions, leads to a certain conclusion. If other assumptions were made, then the conclusion would also be different. Why did they make these assumptions and not others? Why did they jump straight to the conclusion that makes headlines in the tabloids instead of thinking that there might be a simpler explanation? We, as scientists (well, amateurs) must not jump straight into the Sitra after
And did you do the Manhattan Project experiment? Because probably not then does that mean there is nothing to fear from the Iranian bomb?
I have never performed it myself, and I cannot speak for it. I know the cat from the Schrödinger's trash can that until we opened the lid is maybe black and not red and maybe red and not black (tapu gp), but surely one of them.
So what to all the pharaohs and mummies is an aspect experiment? Isn't it exactly the same confirmation of non-locality and refutation of hidden variables that you claim there is no way to do?
Hebrew man!
How do you solve more contradictions like a grenade? Just count the grains. Mar and others have already done this and proved that they are not the SSA and not even the Ramach, but rather the Tarig exactly, to teach us that there is no Judaism but a collection of... I forgot what.
On the other hand, I do not rule out the possibility that we simply do not speak the same language. A photon has polarization, and we know it. There is no way to confirm or disprove the claim that it has no polarization until the moment the polarization is measured, and for that reason it is not scientific and I do not give it any weight.
The madman you say as you mad the Egyptian?
There is no sentence full of contradictions more than what you wrote above.
Polarization is not a hidden variable. On the contrary. The claim that it has no polarization involves a hidden variable, as if the measurement creates the polarization.
I also asked Jerry. He answered: NO SOUP FOR YOU, 3 WEEKS
So you believe: hidden variables? Or maybe like Meir, hidden variables lite?
He's just a clown. Are you sure you asked him and not Jerry Seinfeld?
"Every photon has a polarization before it is measured".
It's not really hidden variables?
I asked Barry from BEE MOVIE. He said there is no such thing as hidden variables, Deborah's word.
Israel,
This is a false claim. If it follows from Bell's theorem, then this theorem has a flaw. What the Aspect experiment showed did not prove it. Every photon has a polarization before it is measured. But you don't have to believe me. Ask the blue collar class in the beehives.
What is heavier, a pound of lead or a pound of cotton? The answer is not trivial: if you say they weigh the same "because a kilo is a kilo" I will ask you which one you would prefer to be dropped on your head.
Meir
Ordinary elementary particles are included in each separate system. If you mean external particles - Le Sage style particles - then your words about a velocity field make sense.
In any case, if we hang weights on precise force meters at different heights on the km tower in my unsolved puzzle, do you think we will get a different result than what Newton's theory predicts, namely a proportional force inversely proportional to the distance from the center of the country squared?
jubilee.
According to the quantum argument, the polarization of the photon is not only unknown, it does not even exist before the measurement. This is also what Bell proved and showed in the Aspect experiment.
What about the scales, the hammer and the feather?
R. H.,
You are absolutely right. The picture of the photon that I brought here is much simpler than the one in the model lying in my drawer, in which I also explain in detail how this structure was created
Michael, ☼
Israel!
What are hidden variables?
The polarization of the photon is known. It is not a hidden variable. On one side of the photon the polarization is opposite from the polarization on the other side for a reason similar to the one that the Coriolis acceleration in the left hemisphere ("north", in ancient Hebrew) is opposite to that recorded in the right hemisphere.
jubilee
https://www.hayadan.org.il/galileo-was-wrong-100513/comment-page-13/#comment-434215
Well done Colombo!
I liked your idea. This reminds me of my attempt to explain here about 'patterns of behavior' in nature of creatures, processes, etc.
but,
Note:
Except for Makhal, everyone makes a colossal mistake here:
You are referring to an ideal space.
There are none in nature.
There are only spaces that will end other spaces.
How do you find a photon in the lab?
All our interaction with nature is "two-sided".
jubilee:
True, but nothing there is accurate.
And you really see that the feather comes later.
By the way: what is important, of course, are the centers of gravity.
Meir:
Obviously.
I just wanted to give you a nudge in what seemed to me to be the appropriate course of action.
Successfully!
Michael,
"As long as you haven't done it, we can only conclude that you don't really believe in the truth of things."
Or it takes me some time to follow your correct suggestions. Several other people in history also took a long time to serve the well-made schnitzel.
Israel,
"But what moves? All the bodies are in the pattern of a donkey at rest, aren't they?"
Do you think elementary particles have rest?
"The polarization information spreads with the photon at the speed of light not from the moment of the photon's collapse but from the moment the photon set off".
ZA that the information was with the photon during the entire trip and was not determined only at the pole, what Einstein calls: "hidden variables"?
And so you don't think you caught me at my word: the polarization information spreads with the photon at the speed of light not from the moment the photon collapses but from the moment the photon set off.
speed of light
So what are you saying, that the transfer of the photon polarization information is not done at infinite speed? Is there a certain speed at which it does occur? what is it
There is no debate that the phenomenon exists, but the explanation for it does not have to assume infinite speed. Instead of going into tiring algebraic equations, I will list my explanation with your permission:
A photon propagates through space at the speed of light uniformly in every direction. For the sake of illustration, we will call its structure "shell". As long as the envelope is expanding, the photon is in its wave form. As soon as the shell hits an obstacle, it collapses. During the collapse the shell drains to individual points and then the photon is revealed in its particle form. Each and every point in the mantle drains to the center of the area where there is a large concentration of the remnants of the mantle. One shell half will drain to the point of impact. The second half will drain in exactly the opposite direction. The draining occurs simultaneously in each direction and therefore the transformation of the two halves of the original photon into independent photons occurs at the same moment.
In addition to propagation, a photon also has spin. This can be represented as the rotation of the spherical shell around an axis. When the shell drains in two directions, each half retains its original direction of rotation. Since the spin on one side is a mirror image of the spin on the other side, the two new photons will have opposite spins.
The above description does not require an unreasonable assumption. Although it is not a proof but only a hypothetical presentation, as long as there is no other presentation that illustrates the phenomenon I am not ready to dismiss it.
explain what? I hope you got the issue of non-locality. So the fact that the information passes at an infinite speed?
Come on! explanation. But don't give links to complicated articles, in general
I have given all the proof steps. If something is not clear, I will gladly explain.
Michael,
As you pointed out, the cameras used in July 1969 were not exactly state of the art. And yet you can see that the lower part of the hammer started lower than the feather.
You also said "M.S.L." without proving I just got hung up on three different trees while I presented one of my original models (which my fingers already hurt from typing it over and over again).
And as usual, I'll wait patiently until someone smarter than me solves your riddle.
jubilee:
In the video the feather came after the hammer.
I didn't understand what M.S.L.C.H is - where did you prove anything? A claim is not a proof.
And in the tower experiment you don't drop the objects together. You drop a hammer and measure arrival time, drop a feather and measure with great pleasure.
And the centrifugal effect in Ecuador is completely negligible in our samples.
And in short - no...
Israel!!
And Anochi - as opposed to Bell, Aspect, Meir and yourself - claims that the collapse of the wave begins at some point in the middle of the road and spreads in both directions at the same speed.
M.S. to you versus M.S. to me - mine makes fewer assumptions
Our mutual friend preceded us and offered NASA the experiment in a primitive version: a tower at the height of an astronaut's waist instead of a kilometer high, and dropping the objects simultaneously instead of at separate times. As I already commented to him (and you are welcome to repeat watching the video again and again) the hammer received a certain fur and therefore the feather did not overtake him.
The weighing experiment of two different masses that you propose to conduct in the area of the equator, although it will appear as if my claim is correct, but it is invalid for the reason that it is not devoid of additional factors - centrifugal force in this case.
thanks Michael. The truth is that I bet on sure after I already saw the video. Although the feather and the hammer arrived together, if you pay attention you will see that the hammer started a little lower than the feather.
Part B of the tower experiment - not a hammer, a feather.
jubilee.
"This assumption requires another assumption according to which there are entities moving at infinite speed".
You check the polarization of Photon A in Israel and Photon B entangled in Curiosity. They are the same.
You run the experiment another 100,000 times with other photons. same results.
The logic says: either variables are hidden, or the information passes immediately (explanation of why immediately - upon request).
Bell's Inequality theorem mathematically proves that the possibility of hidden variables is not admissible.
We are left with information that passes immediately.
Disclaimer - Meir showed very nicely that logically, island locality can only work for limited distances, without accepting a contradiction to an aspect experiment. But still, this is no proof that it does not travel to greater distances, except that Bell's theorem is mathematical regardless of distance.
Conclusion: in quantum entanglement information passes instantly, at least in the limited area of an aspect experiment.
parable.
trivia:
Exact description of the experiment:
You climb a tower a kilometer above the surface of the moon.
You throw a hammer and measure its arrival time before the moon using a clock as accurate as you want.
You repeat the experiment with a hammer.
Who will take less time?
Hints:
1. The times will not be the same.
2. No more than XNUMXth grade physics is needed to solve the riddle.
Riddle B:
On the scale of scales A - a ton of iron. On the other spoon - 19 lead balls weighing 50 kg each.
Who will decide?
Hint: It depends on where in the DHA you perform the experiment.
jubilee:
As soon as I read your words, I entered my time machine and offered NASA the experiment.
They did it as best they could (they didn't have cameras that fast) on the Apollo 15 mission.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
"In everyday quantum physics a field moves at infinite speed" is one formulation to present the phenomenon in which one quantum event occurs simultaneously in two different places. However, this wording contains a hidden assumption that these are two different events, one of which in some way caused the other event. This assumption requires the additional assumption that there are entities moving at infinite speed. And our sages have already said that there should not be too many discounts.
Even in the wording that I brought, a non-intuitive assumption is encapsulated, according to which the information for the photon collapse was created somewhere in the middle of the road and reached both places at the same time, but this is a single assumption that does not entail another assumption.
And as for the free fall speed of two objects, you can simply perform the experiment. We will simultaneously drop a feather and a hammer on the surface of the moon and film the fall in very slow motion. I'm betting the feather will arrive first.
Meir:
Anyway - if you believe that your theory is correct you must act in one of two ways: filing a patent or publishing in a scientific journal. You will benefit a lot from these two routes if the theory is correct and both will put it to the test and allow sites like "Hidan" to refer to it.
As long as you haven't done it, we can only conclude that you don't really believe in the truth of things.
Nice, beautiful, interesting, you deserve a star, but - no.
You don't need a mysterious mechanism to solve the trivial puzzles.
And also in everyday quantum physics that entanglement moves at infinite speed.
* But the assumption that information passed from side to side is unnecessary and forces William of Ockham to use his rusty razor.
The cat (me) is only gone for a few hours, and the mice are celebrating.
Israel, to the trivia questions you raised:
I solve them in terms of my (mysterious, not my fault) model. A block of matter (a sphere, in your example) applies not only to Newton's laws (Einsteinian standardized or not) but also to laws concerning its internal structure. During the mutual approach between the block and the earth ("free fall", in the professional parlance) processes take place inside the body which are manifested in the preservation of the relative position between the particles that make it up. The larger the block, the greater the number of connections between the particles within it and these delay its fall. Therefore, contrary to popular intuition, the more massive block will fall more slowly. The riddle of the scales, on the other hand, I would like to present in a different way: 19 iron balls weighing 50 kg compared to the 19 lead balls that you carried on your back all the way here. Instead of one weighing system, we will place 19 systems that each have a lead ball in one hand and an iron ball in the other. Because of the considerations I brought before, the iron balls will indeed fall faster than the lead balls, because the latter are denser, but they will eventually reach a static state and then they will stabilize. Now back to your riddle, where the iron spoon weighs more than the lead spoon. There may be fluctuations, but in the end the tone will overpower the 950 kilograms.
The quantum entanglement speed, again according to my model:
The electron (or photon) spreads in space equally in every direction, similar to an inflating balloon. The moment it hits a point barrier forcing it to give up its wavy property and display its particle property, half of it drains to the barrier and the other half drains in the opposite direction. Since the two halves of the electron moved at the same speed in each direction, the draining to the barrier and the draining in the opposite direction occur at the same moment. If we assume that the event on the other side was created using information created in the event on the first side we come to the conclusion that this information traveled at an infinite speed.
Meir
f=dp/dt
But what moves? All the bodies in Donkey's pattern at rest, right?
Also all the onions in Shrek's pattern.
trivia:
1. They fell at that moment.
2. Victory means who tipped the scales, ie Kosair, Syrians, Hezbollah, rebels, Chinese, Shoa'ites.
Michael, if your answer is not hypothetical and I decide to submit the patent application, I would be happy to forward it to you for review.
Israel,
"And they got an adjustment to Newton's laws."
Obviously. And where did I get the velocity field if not from Newton's laws.
"Can you explain the results of the velocity field experiment?"
Yes. A little more complicated than the explanation you get from the force field, but I'll try to explain briefly. If it is still not clear, you can continue with the details in more detail. Since the velocity field is derived from Newton's laws it is a chicken and egg question. Resetting speed means changing momentum. When the elementary particles try to develop speed in the field and are blocked (in this case by the fixation to the spring balances), pressure is created at the connection between the spring and the suspended mass. The pressure times the contact area is a force acting on the spring towards the Earth/Moon. The strength of the force is necessarily equal to the total change in momentum of the elementary particles that make up the mass, per unit time (f=dp/dt). The calculation is similar to the calculation of the force that gas molecules exert on a wall following collisions with the wall, which reverse the direction of their movement and thus change the momentum. Since dp=m*dv we get that
f=m*dv/dt, and since dv/dt=g we returned to Newton's formula f=m*g. This is a generic explanation that equates the earth to the moon and any planet you choose.
By the way, you write "the explanation of a gravitational field for the experiment is very simple and understandable". Note that "velocity field" is also a gravity field, and more correctly, there is only one gravity field, and the question is the chicken and the egg question: is the gravity field a velocity field or a force field. In any case, the equivalence of both is required from Newton's laws from which they derive.
Regarding the first puzzle, it depends on who fell first.
Regarding the second puzzle, it depends on what is considered a victory.
Meir:
I wouldn't invest alone but I'm pretty sure I'd be able to recruit a group to invest.
Meir
"Option A. Gravity is a force field in which you get the force acting on a hydrogen atom by multiplying the local field strength by the mass of a hydrogen atom.
Option B. Gravity is a velocity field in which the velocity of a hydrogen atom falling from infinity is obtained by multiplying the strength of the local field by a unit of acceleration.
If you let me hang from the branches of a tall tree, a donkey whistles:
Example?
If I hang a mass on a spring balance and measure, I will get a reading of a certain force. If I try the same facility on the moon I will get one sixth of the power. The explanation of the gravitational field for the experiment is very simple and understandable. Can you explain the results of the speed field experiment?
What's more, they have long since measured the effect of gravity on objects in the laboratory in a direction perpendicular to the earth's gravitational field and received an adjustment to Newton's laws.
Trivia riddle: If we neglect quantum effects and friction, which will reach Israel first: a ball that weighs XNUMX kg falling from an airplane, or one that weighs a ton?
The answer, by the way, is not trivial.
And another trivia puzzle: we put a ton of iron on one side of the scales, and on the other side 19 balls of lead weighing 50 kg each. who will win?
The answer is as above.
The million dollar question: would you invest in a company that owns such a patent application after you received a copy of it for your review and the review of your advisors and found it endless?
Meir:
Not only NASA - all the space agencies of all the countries of the world!
And now, when space is also opened to private companies - the sky is no longer the limit!
There is a lot (but a lot!) of money in it - and that's only when talking about communication!
Since it also opens the door to time travel then it is much more than interesting.
Michael,
I actually like the idea of registering such a patent as a gimmick.
I am not counting on buying the science site. Why would anyone want to pay a lot just to save a few hundredths of a second. All in all communication at the speed of light is good enough. My only potential client is Nasa, what a bastard..
Meir:
I am not actively participating in this discussion, so I ask that you forgive me for the brevity and for not reading everything you wrote.
In my opinion, there is definitely a contradiction between the immediate expansion of gravitation and relativity, and this is a contradiction that does not exist in the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.
The quantum entanglement does not transmit information nor can it be used for this purpose.
Any transfer of information at a rate that exceeds the "peak speed" (and also regarding light - there is no direct proof that it moves at the peak speed. I assume you know this) will be found in contradiction to the theory of relativity because it will allow the reversal of cause and effect.
An immediate spread of gravitation will allow the transfer of information immediately.
Oops - now I saw that you addressed all of this, but I already wrote it, so it's a shame to delete it.
I say again what I told you before: if you think you have a real innovation in theoretical physics - in my opinion this is not the place to publish it - I assume that the editors of newspapers like Science or Nature will be happy to publish it if they find it reasonable and then the science website will probably cite it and you will receive a Nobel Prize.
Besides - you shouldn't publish your information transfer methods anywhere right now: first of all - you should register a patent, then start a company that will make a lot of money and then buy the science website and publish everything you want on it.
Suri. Line 22 chel: Multiplication of the local field strength by a unit of speed.
Israel,
It's OK. Patience is there.
"What does "velocity field" mean"
If you were able to understand what a force field is, then in two lines you will understand what a velocity field is:
A velocity field is a field where when you multiply the strength of the field by a unit of velocity you get the velocity that would be at that point for an object falling freely from an infinite distance towards the center of the field.
"I can't comment on what I don't know - and in your case I know nothing: not how gravitation spreads non-radially, not how information can be transmitted through interweaving without contradicting relativity and not even what "velocity field" means.
All science is based on principles that do not know why they exist and why they are. Let's say I'm just a liquid and irritable child who jumps up and defies "I don't find out and I don't find out!" When in fact not a shred of information is hidden behind the defiance.
Let's say that like you, I personally have no idea how gravity spreads non-radially.
It would still not be a wise thing to bury our heads in the sand and say that the possibility that gravitation is a velocity field that decays according to the square root of the distance does not exist, and it would not be a wise thing to bury our heads in the sand by wondering why the discussion of this possibility never took place.
Think for a moment that you are a first-year student, and I am not the annoying kid, but the professor standing on the chair is the one explaining Newton's theory of gravity, and he refers to two possibilities:
Option A. Gravity is a force field where you get the force acting on a hydrogen atom by multiplying the local field strength by the mass of a hydrogen atom.
Option B. Gravity is a velocity field in which the velocity of a hydrogen atom falling from infinity is obtained by multiplying the strength of the local field by a unit of acceleration.
After all the students have understood, the professor continues to discuss option A, analyze it and explain it, and show how
use it to solve complicated questions. Then come more important professors than the first, and teach electromagnetism, and relativity, and quantum and nuclear, etc., etc.
After all the students have become professors themselves, they teach as above (with one difference: they already forgot that the first professor opened the year with a lecture talking about two options), and their students as above and their students' students as above.
In your opinion, didn't the first professor owe the first students some kind of small discussion in option B above? What a tiny little explanation why the continuation of their studies will be based on option A and not on option B, or why on option A and not on both options? If there is a good reason, and maybe there is, it should be said. No?
This is why I asked for your response: Is there a good reason not only to neglect option B from the agenda, but not even to mention it as an option as the aforementioned hypothetical professor, the father of the Capricorns who became obsolete, kindly requested?
Because if there is no good answer to this question, then there is a fallacy here (even if many days it turns out in retrospect that the correct option is indeed A, as long as it is not clear the fallacy is alive and kicking).
"If it turns out that the beautiful relativity will be replaced by a strange and non-intuitive theory like the quanta"
And if it turns out that the clear and intuitive crystal wheels of Ptolemy will be replaced by a strange and non-intuitive theory according to which the earth revolves around the sun without our crystals fluttering in the wind?
Meir.
Your last response to Michael makes redundant the previous response I was going to write, although the bottom line remains the same: I cannot comment on what I do not know - and in your case I know nothing: not how gravitation propagates non-radially, not how information can be transmitted through entanglement without contradicting Relativity and not even what "velocity field" means.
Anyway, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that your article will be published, preferably here, and that you'll be able to prove your thesis.
Although, as I have already said, if it turns out that the beautiful relativity will be replaced by a strange and non-intuitive theory like the quanta, then it is a sign that it really is time to close the basta and go back to the barn.
If [quantum theory] is correct, it means the end of physics as a science. Albert Einstein.
I do not like [quantum mechanics], and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it. Erwin Schrödinger.
Michael,
Thanks for the links. Apart from the researchers themselves who conducted the measurements, not many researchers agree with their measurement method and their conclusions.
As of today, the speed of the expansion of gravitation is an open question in science.
Contrary to what Israel wrote, Einstein did not "calculate" the speed of the expansion of gravitation, but guessed that it was expanding at the maximum speed possible for him. This is not a prediction of relativity, but a guess.
But when he guessed his guess, Einstein did not take into account that there are phenomena that propagate at infinite speed, such as quantum entanglement, since he has no choice but to admit that this phenomenon exists, there is no obstacle to claiming on his behalf that the same phenomenon itself is at the foundation of gravitation.
Although at the moment the adherents of the theory of relativity defend against the phenomenon of quantum entanglement with the excuse that "it is impossible to transfer information" through quantum entanglement, they feel prevented from making the same claim regarding the propagation of gravity since with the help of gravitational disturbances it is theoretically possible to transfer information, but the solution is much simpler than that they themselves think.
Although I am not a follower of the theory of relativity, I can prove mathematically that quantum entanglement does not contradict the theory of relativity and this without relying on the excuse of the inability to transmit information.
I can also prove that it is indeed possible to transmit information through conventional quantum interlacing, including radio and VOD broadcasts, and any type of information you may want, and all this without violating the sacred principle of the speed of light as an upper limit.
I guess that sounds like an oxymoron, so I guess this is the place to throw rotten tomatoes at me.
On the other hand, if the esteemed website agrees to allow this, I will be ready and willing to publish an article on it in which I will prove that this is not an oxymoron.
Since this is an article that will bring the theory of relativity to a better position than it has today in relation to quantum mechanics, and the discussion in it will focus on the speed of light versus the speed of quantum entanglement and nothing else, I suppose there is no reason to see it as an article that deviates from the mainstream.
Israel,
There are two equivalent ways and Newton and GR inadvertently referred to only one of them, or not?
Is it a failure or not a failure when a researcher follows one path without taking into account that there is an algebraically equivalent path but hints at a different mechanism?
And if surprisingly the quantum mechanics curve straightens out in return for gravity and quantum entanglement being the same, would it be worth paying the price, or would you still be disappointed that gravity does not propagate radially?
Thank you for your happiness.
At the University of Glasgow, where I studied until a year ago, experiments are being conducted to search for gravitons. One of the methods includes observing pulsars and measuring the change in gravity that occurs as they rotate. Although gravitons have not been found (yet), it has been found that the changes in gravitation are synchronized with the changes in the electromagnetic phenomena. This seems to me an overwhelming confirmation of the assumption that the speed of the gravitational waves is the same as the speed of the electromagnetic waves.
[A Google search for "gravitons pulsars glasgow" will not bring results bearing my name 🙁 but will confirm what I said 🙂 ]
This Einstein, it is impossible with him, he must always be right!
Well, at least you can add to the turbidity of Sabdarmish and an illuminating principle the Shapiro effect..
and also:
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2012/12/chinese-scientists-find-evidence-for-speed-of-gravity/
I don't want to spoil the celebration but:
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/556/1/L1/fulltext/015355.text.html
You surely understand that he has no choice. When he is in the company of Shuzari Paninin, he must adjust himself. It's all because of Oira Diroshlim and the vestibule.
Einstein did not speak in Alma. After all, Eddington's experiment confirmed his claim that there is an interaction between light and gravity. But the "expansion" of gravity is not similar to the expansion of light. In general, it is difficult and inaccurate to present gravity as pervasive (between us, have you ever seen it clothed in light or darkness?). But instead of just talking, I propose a simple experiment: we will carry out nuclear fission and measure not only the mass change but also the time that passed from the fission until the change was registered. Meir says "at the speed of quantum entanglement", Israel Einstein says "at the speed of light" and I say "Please be Kurdish. We will measure and see."
Meir.
You write well..
Come on, let's close Thabasta of alternative physics, let's start writing science books for children. Pluto, a star from Kibbutz Megiddo..
Oh, not anymore.
I'll be very disappointed if gravity doesn't decay radially. I will be even more disappointed if it fades radially plus or minus some factor. I've had enough of the crooked quantum theory with all its oddities. Let us enjoy such beautiful theories as Newton's theory or general relativity. If you manage to prove, even by experiment, that some constant or or additional function must be added to weight the gravitation properly, keep the dreaded secret forever.
And regarding the new ideas you brought up here, I actually started to dig into your alienation from Postulate A, but I saw that you were not surrendering, so I stopped.
Yuval - it's Einstein the snooze again with his nonsense. He calculated and found that gravity propagates at the speed of light. He will say anything so that the show of a private relationship, with the speed of light as an upper limit, does not spoil for him. digger.
Oops. From the refresher I learned that Meir had already insisted on it. I am of the opinion that the propagation of gravity and the propagation of light each occur in their own unique medium. These are two mediators that are integrated into each other, and each of them has its own unique characteristics.
I just have a question: on what basis did you take it for granted that gravity spreads at the speed of light?
Israel,
"not fair. "
Leave what I wrote in the articles. All in all, I tried to inspire you to distinguish between the main thing to treat. We are having a lively and long debate here about Mach's principle, even though persistence was and will be regardless of its correctness, and bringing justice to light will not shake the scientific agenda. On the other hand, I raised the question here from where Newton and GR took it for granted that gravitation is a universal force, and I also lifted the burden of proof and showed that algebraically this guess of theirs is baseless. To understand this, you don't need to read my articles and you don't need to know how the gravitational field is created. It is enough to show that from an algebraic point of view the possibility that it does not decay according to a radial model is equivalent to the possibility that it does decay according to a radial model, in order to conclude that it is impossible to build on this that gravitation is a universal force. Here it is no longer possible to say that the scientific agenda can continue. As I recall (and this is just one example of the many consequences) based on the assumption that gravitation is a cosmic force, there is a physicist or two who are looking for 70% of the mass of the universe that is supposedly hidden in the form of dark energy. That is why I wondered why, as a person with a sense of criticism that I greatly appreciate, you did not leave the preoccupation with the correctness of the Mach principle in favor of the preoccupation with the bomb I threw into the space of this thread. A human being comes (a scholastic or not a scholastic will judge the future cone of the center), surely it shows that the king is naked and that entire theories are built without a foundation, and what are you arguing with him about? What? About an elf?!
"Gravity also spreads at the speed of light."
no she is not. Another baseless guess. Why would it spread at the speed of light if it decays neither like light nor according to a radial pattern? Gravitation propagates at the speed of quantum entanglement.
"Raymond making claims similar to yours?"
Long live the small difference (which we already talked about).
"Experiment is another league"
sometimes. And sometimes putting the finger on a fundamental failure of Newton and GR is a different league, which for its part paves the way for many experiments, and also paves the way to examine and reevaluate the meaning of many observations.
Do you already have a budget for experiments?
how do you say? Give me $100K and I'll turn GR into prehistory..
Meir.
You write: "It doesn't move you because I'm the clumsy one who put the finger on the failure, or just because you don't see what can be done today with Newton's navigational error from 320 years ago?"
not fair. I believe I am the only one of all the writers here who seriously went and read all the chapters on your blog. As I told you before, this is not easy stuff, and I admit that I have not been able to understand how the mechanism you propose works. It seems to me that the main reason is simply how it is specified, probably because of the security of the situation. After all, you yourself say:
"I'm not going to waste this secret of how a field is created that fades according to the square root of the distance."
Do I believe in pushing gravity? not known to me. It just seems to me that Le Sage's theory is more intuitive than the curvature of space, and the solution I proposed at the time to the solution of the friction problem at Le Sage ("genius" according to you) also solves many other problems that I do not have a reasonable explanation for.
"You will not be able to prove anything because the electromagnetic reaction spreads at the speed of light, and in all the papers that France has already mentioned the flaw in Shima's work that assumes an immediate reaction."
Gravitation also propagates at the speed of light. Still, the field of long-gone stars is with us and will continue to influence for many years to come.
"In my opinion, there is no analogy between the mechanism of gravity and the electromagnetic mechanism."
There is no need to be connected. As long as the attraction acts between 2 bodies and decays in inverse proportion to the distance squared, Shima's derivation of inertia from gravity should work, since the formulas are the same for electric and gravitational attraction when the charge replaces the mass.
I have a practical question for you: what could be better than an experiment?
Did you write an article? Did you post on the blog? Mathematical proof? So what!
For every proof and every article you will find ten that prove the opposite. See our debate that has been going on for 300 years without a decision, and Einstein who switched sides. Remember the article I sent you by Raymond making similar claims to yours?
http://www.reocities.com/perfectfluid/
I also have a website where at least 10 new theories come out every week on any topic you choose.
But this experiment is already in another league. It is very difficult to argue with experimental results. By the way, this is what I try to do in my free time, apart from the correspondence I conduct here and elsewhere as Yuval from New Jersey knows.
Meyer,
Is there a mode for private correspondence?
ivrit.yuval00@gmail.com
to the conjured Newton,
See here
https://www.hayadan.org.il/galileo-was-wrong-100513/comment-page-8/#comment-430286
And here
https://www.hayadan.org.il/galileo-was-wrong-100513/comment-page-9/#comment-430997
jubilee,
The field does not pulse. This is a completely static field. His creation is in beats.
A. The pulses are a local manipulation of the particle on the fabric of space. No waves, no shots. Beyond that I'm not interested in detailing because I haven't published it in a neat article yet.
B. I can describe, but as above (in a neat article).
third. There is no conflict with conservation laws, since it is a manipulation that creates E=MCsquared, i.e. turns something immaterial (not in the mystical sense) into the thing we call matter. The laws of conservation we are familiar with refer to matter and energy (which in my opinion are not only equivalents, but actually were the same) other than they already exist, and not to physical elements that are not matter or energy. You can understand from this that according to my theory a particle without space, and space without a particle are immaterial elements. Matter (=energy) is an interaction between a particle and particles of space.
Meyer,
Please show me the algebraic proof that demolishes the premise that the range of gravity is universal. I just haven't followed all the comments here and I don't know where to look.
Thanks meer,
The particle creates its own gravitational field, and the creation is done in pulses. That is, there is a particle and a pulsating field around it. It suits me in principle. And below are new questions:
A. Can you describe the beats? Are they waves that propagate homogeneously in every direction, or are they particles (say, "gravitons") that shoot randomly in all directions, or maybe another possibility.
B. Can you describe the mechanism by which the particle creates the pulsating gravitational field?
third. Is there a conflict with any conservation laws here? And if so, can you justify it?
Apologies for the trouble
And thanks again
Israel,
The debate has been raging for hundreds of years, but only in the last two years has Ekron Meir entered the arena. In the meantime, I have not heard a single factual claim against the Meir principle (the Mach principle does not claim anything against the Meir principle, since even if we assume that the Mach principle is true, the Meir principle can still be true. For example, it could be that the Mach principle contributes a zillionth of a percent to persistence, and the Meir principle contributes the Everything else. On the other hand, the Meir principle makes a strong argument against Mach's principle: what is the rotational transaction between all the particles of the universe for, if each of them has everything needed to cause the phenomenon of persistence plus the advantage that its distance from itself is zero. After all, Mach also agrees that the source of The cosmic mass is in the elementary particles.) In the meantime, the thought experiment with an elf and the tube disk, which drops the ground under the argument in whose name Mach set out on his ass's path, also entered the arena.
Regarding an experiment:
In my opinion there is no analogy between the mechanism of gravity and the electromagnetic mechanism. Personally, I believe that even your method will not prove anything because the electromagnetic reaction propagates at the speed of light, and in all the papers that France has already mentioned the flaw in Schieme's work that assumes an immediate reaction.
Of course there are other experiments with which my method can be tested.
As a side note, I can point out that the amount of fantasies that physicists have adopted for themselves regarding electromagnetism far exceeds the amount of fantasies they have adopted regarding gravity and persistence, and even exceeds the amount of crystal wheels that Ptolemy adopted for himself in order to move the heavenly bodies. Since your agenda is pushing gravity, I assume that the concept of "messenger particles" is no less delusional in your eyes than it is delusional in my opinion.
In the meantime, while putting the finger on Mach's pispus, we managed to show that Newton pispus is an even more important point, which drops the ground from under the premise that the range of action of gravitation is universal, and we proved it algebraically. It doesn't excite you because I'm the clumsy one who put the finger on the failure, or just because you don't see what can be done today with Newton's navigational error from 320 years ago?
jubilee,
A. The particle creates the gravitational field.
B. Since A, then B is yoked.
third. It is possible, since the field is created in pulses. Between pulses the particle can change its position without the field changing its position.
Meir.
I don't think we'll make it. It seems to me that the only way to decide is through an experiment, because as we have already seen, the Nietzsche debate has been going on for hundreds of years, while the bucket continues to spin and spin us all. What do you think about the experiment I proposed with the electric charges uniformly distributed in a large volume and a charge of opposite sign accelerating relative to them. If we get a significant deviation from F=ma, will it prove anything for you?
Point - every time with someone else. why are you here Don't know if you will like the game. It's a variation of Hold'em where everyone sets the rules in turn. What's more, if someone loses $60 USD in the evening it is considered a lot.
Meir,
Every pot and its lid, every proton and its electron, every particle and its own gravitational field. While I know how to separate pots from chairs and protons from electrons, it is not really clear to me how I would be able to separate a fundamental particle from its gravitational field (or just a little bit move it from the center). Therefore, my questions are as follows:
A. What creates what, the particle the gravitational field or the gravitational field the particle?
B. If one of them does not create the other, who (or what) is mating between them?
third. If they are connected to each other in an unbreakable bond, how is it possible to move a particle without moving its gravitational field together with it?
From this it is understood that my questions are guided by the thoughts I have about the nature of the universe. Perhaps I will have more questions in accordance with the answers you will provide me, and perhaps in general I will have to go find another model for me to build and build upon. In any case, thanks in advance
What is this thing?
Your comment is awaiting moderation
Meyer,
Every pot and its lid, every proton and its electron, every particle and its self-gravitational field. While I know how to separate pots from chairs and protons from electrons, it is not really clear to me how one can separate an elementary particle from its gravitational field (or just slightly move it from the center). Therefore my questions are as follows:
A. What creates what, the particle the gravitational field or the gravitational field the particle?
B. If neither creates the other, who (or what) paired them?
third. If they are inextricably linked, how can you move a particle without moving its gravitational field along with it?
It goes without saying that my questions are biased by assumptions I have about the nature of the universe. I may have more questions depending on the answers you provide me, and I may even have to go look for another model to build and be built on. Anyway, thanks in advance
Israel in which region do you play poker?
Israel,
The experiment is perfect. Mach's motivation for depending on the persistence of the cosmic mass was the correlation between rotation and the distant stars. Mach realized that if the distant stars were only used as guides, he had nothing to argue with Newton. Therefore he turned to the cosmic mass as a refuge. The point is that my experiment with a dwarf proves that the really distant stars are no longer Melds.
Using this experiment you cannot pinpoint a point where the glass beads will change their behavior.
The only point that can be pointed out is the disappearance of the leds themselves, but in that case we are still left with a cosmic mass: the mass of the disc itself, of the elf, and of the glass beads. If Mach's argument is correct, then this cosmic mass dispersion will also do the trick. And since we have come this far, we are very close to the Meir principle: each elementary particle is its own private cosmic mass.
Any elementary particle whose self-gravitational field has perfect spherical symmetry is the true rest system.
In the first second of the bang all the particles were in this state. When the self-gravitational field of a particle deviates from spherical symmetry, the degree of this deviation indicates the sum of all the accelerations and decelerations it has experienced since that first moment, which in turn determine its absolute velocity relative to the real rest system (as reflected by every particle at that given moment whose gravitational field has symmetry perfect spherical).
Meir
Regarding your experiment with Elf:
The Eliba de Mach experiment is not perfect.
To complete it, you must connect to the spheres springs connected to the center and resisting their stretching with a force proportional to the length of the stretch in the square.
If Mach's principle is correct, then when you peel away layers of stars you will get that the springs stretch less.
This is the real experiment, a word from Nansanson, an experiment.
I didn't say there was a contradiction to observation, I said there was a contradiction to logic.
And logic says: if I can determine through two apparently independent observations - measuring a centrifugal force acting on a disc and photographing the stars from the same disc whether the disc is rotating or resting - it means that the phenomena are probably related to each other.
And regardless, can you tell what the real rest system is?
Israel,
Regarding section 4, what do you not accept? I claim that the acceleration of the spherules and their speed inside the tubes of the rotating disc will not be affected as a result of the peeling of the layers of the stars. This is simple algebra. What's not to get here?
As for all the other questions, do you want to claim something against me from unsupported basic assumptions of other theories, or from observations?
If from observations, then tell me how the assumption that each velocity of an elementary particle corresponds to a single-valued pattern of its self-gravitational field, contradicts any observation?
Meir.
Two days have passed, and there are no serious answers to the question I presented in the blogs. If you are interested, you can see
http://ofer-megged-phys-notes.blogspot.com/2011/04/blog-post.html?showComment=1369974414262
Near the end.
In any case, you opened a new front by challenging Postulate A. So let's move on to her and see what you say.
1. Do you get the very concept of inertial systems?
2. If the answer to question 1. is positive, do you think there is a difference between them?
3. If 2. is also positive, do you claim that there is one preferred system, Site Style, as implied by:
"Want to make sure: according to you there is a difference between inertial systems? That we can theoretically determine in some way that system A is really "at rest" and system B is "moving"?
Obviously. The message I opened with the words "Galileo". remember?
4. Can the same preferred and discounted system be discovered in an experiment such as the Michaelson Morley experiment that tried to find the preferred and discounted system of the site?
Except that according to Mach, in the experiment of peeling off the layers of the stars you proposed, you would need less and less power to accelerate a given mass. I don't get what you wrote:
"As mentioned, acceleration is acceleration, and it is measured in units of meters per second per second. Even if you claim that the mass of the balls is reduced with the removal of distant star shells, the radial acceleration will still remain the same, because the centrifugal force needed to accelerate the balls is equally small, since F=MA and if M (=the "resistance" to the acceleration) is small due to the removal of part of the cosmic mass, After all, the force needed to keep the acceleration A the same is proportionally smaller to M".
If you peeled back the layers of stars far enough away, then according to Mach you could grab Jupiter and Venus in each of your hands and press them together without difficulty (apart from the resistance of Mars Mars). You can also easily repel the entire Milky Way, as long as you lean on a heavy enough galaxy.
"Waiting" due to holy names
Israel,
"According to Mach, if there are no stars there is also no inertia. Everything flies in all directions at the speed of light."
A very beautiful invention (yours privately, if thanks for the truth).
According to your invention, in the experiment with the upgraded disc that I proposed, at what point will the elf's balls start flying out of the bag in all directions at the speed of light? After downloading the first megafrack of stars? The second? the third?
After all, every Mach principle is based on the bucket experiment. Please put yourself in Mach's shoes and represent him in a debate with Newton who presents him with a thought experiment with a rotating disk, tubes, and an elf threading glass beads into the contents.
"I understand now that you are not only disputing Mach, but also Galileo Newton and Einstein and one of the sacred principles of physics: Postulate XNUMX, the equivalence of inertial systems."
At a superficial glance you can say so. Do you have substantive arguments against such a statement (which, as mentioned, is reasoned with good sense and logic), apart from the claim that it is said against a statement on behalf of the Church of Reason?
On a deeper look, and as I have already mentioned before on this stage in some of the previous giant threads, "inertial systems" is a fiction in the mind of a multi-particle researcher. Physics takes place not in the researcher's mind, but in discrete interactions between elementary particles that rush out of place at the speed of light. But an elegant coincidence is that in your message you made a statement that there is no connection between inertia and movement at the speed of light. I completely agree with you that movement at the speed of light is not inertial movement, and since there is no particle in physical reality that does not accelerate at the speed of light, what exactly do you want to understand the concept of "inertial system" in my theory, in order to contrast it with the concept of "inertial system" from the seminary of Mind Church?
The shattanz that you weave between my method and the method of the church of the mind is senseless also from another perspective:
According to my method, inertia is the free fall of an elementary particle within the field of its own gravity. According to the church's concept, free fall in a gravitational field is not perpetual motion. Since every particle with inertia is, according to my method, in free fall, there are no particles in the universe to which the name "inertial system" existing in the church's worldview can be applied, and hence even if I wanted to, I would not be able to challenge Postulate A which, according to my opinion, in our universe is not even false.
Meir
In your first response on the subject of the experiment you proposed, you did not write that there are no stars. Because of ADD and Asperger's, telepathy no longer works like it used to.
According to Mach if there are no stars there is also no inertia. Everything flies in all directions at the speed of light.
I understand now that you are not only disputing Mach, but also Galileo Newton and Einstein and one of the sacred principles of physics: Postulate XNUMX, the equivalence of inertial systems.
Alas for me, Alas for me, Allah istor! When did this change happen to you? You are the same Meir who once explained to R.H. That there is no difference between Jack and Jill because they both rest?
Well, let's go to poker, we'll discuss later. I put the question about the Mach principle simulation in several blogs, we'll see what came out of there.
Meir, seriously!
Your model is good, clean and accurate. It is simpler than all the known models and therefore has a good chance of taking root in the scientific mind.
I (the digger, the clown philosopher) am not satisfied with things at the level of the existing physical models and am looking for a model that shows how the universe developed from absolute nothingness - whether through your model or any other possible good model.
You hoped that I was able to show that there is a similarity between the image I brought and your creation. I did not make it. I will keep looking for ways.
And in the meantime, please don't waste your time on fruitless arguments but continue with your blessed work.
Why waste time? I've caught you with a few fine sayings here in the past few years enough to warrant a skirmish from time to time.
Meir! You are doing an excellent job. It's a shame the time you spend on a philandering philosopher like me
Israel,
(After seven hours have passed and my message is still "awaiting" approval, I found it appropriate to promote it by omitting sacred elements):
"why is not there? Maybe we just don't see them, like in the closed room, but they are there."
This is also proof of the existence of the Creator. Maybe simply Newton's absolute empty space is there?
In any case, the room is neither closed nor open. He doesn't exist. When I say "there are no stars in the Halide experiment. There is only a balloon with LEDs and disks", I mean a thought experiment referring to a universe where the only people present are the balloon with LEDs and disks.
"According to Mach, it depends on the mass - of the universe."
No, acceleration does not depend on mass. Acceleration is measured in units of mph.
Below is an accelerometer: each disc contains several radial tubes angled to each other from the center outwards.
A small dwarf inserts plastic beads one by one at the end of the tube near the center. In a disc that is really spinning, the balls move inside the tube outwards with an acceleration equal to the radial acceleration. In the discs that the LEDs rotate around, there is no outward movement of the balls. The experimental system measures the speed of movement of the balls, and deduces from it the angular speed of the disc.
The experiment begins when the distant stars isotropically fill the observable universe, and it proceeds in stages. At each stage, the innermost shell of distant stars is removed, and it is measured whether the speed of the balls that a dwarf injects into the tubes responds to the removal of the star shell.
As mentioned, acceleration is acceleration, and it is measured in units of meters per second per second. Even if you claim that the mass of the balls is reduced with the removal of distant star shells, the radial acceleration will still remain the same, because the centrifugal force needed to accelerate the balls is equally small, since F=MA and if M (=the "resistance" to the acceleration) is small due to the removal of part of the cosmic mass, After all, the force needed to keep the acceleration A the same, is proportionally smaller to M.
Since the obvious conclusion is that the measured radial acceleration will remain the same after removing the innermost layer of stars, it will also remain the same after removing all other layers.
Your (and Mach's) only recourse is to argue that removing the outermost layer of stars in the observable universe is what would disrupt radial acceleration.
This is a bad claim, because it makes the cosmic mass redundant, and is satisfied with reference points that have a negligible mass relative to the cosmic mass ("lights" as I define them), in order to use them to distinguish which of the disks is rotating.
In conclusion, the dispute between Mach and Newton boils down to whether there is enough empty space in order to attribute motion to it, or whether it is mandatory that some lights be set in it.
jubilee,
Input is something that is received. Perhaps it is possible to load more Pharisees on it, but the simplest interpretation is still there.
Output is something emitted. Perhaps it is possible to load more Pharisees on it, but the simplest interpretation is still there.
An empty space is an empty space. Perhaps it is possible to load more Pharisees on it, but the simplest interpretation is still there.
A change is a delta between states. Perhaps it is possible to load more Pharisees on it, but the simplest interpretation is still there.
Go for the simplest interpretation.
Do you have an explanation or an example to illustrate this sentence:
"The rules of logic are arbitrary in terms of drawing the target around the place where the arrows hit".
☼ Simply, "turbidity" reminded me of something from ophthalmology ☼
Sorry and sorry for the lame tone
The best wishes are sincere and from the bottom of my heart
And the coffee is a reminder of an old promise
Israel,
I did not notice that you performed a verification procedure.
"Want to make sure: according to you there is a difference between inertial systems? That we can theoretically determine in some way that system A is really "at rest" and system B is "moving"?
Obviously. The message I opened with the words "Galileo". remember?
What, is it not clear and unambiguous enough?
To Yuval Chaikin and others
Unfortunately, I did not understand your hints in your last comment about diseases and doctors, but I selfishly believe that your intentions are positive
And of course, without any connection, you can always meet for some Turkish coffee.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
"Sabdarmish turbidity" has put you on the same page as many famous doctors. Note who all the interesting diseases are named after.
May we all get to dance at your grandchildren's weddings
and drink Turkish coffee
Meyer,
On the tip of the fork more details from my model:
What we call a "baryon particle" is what I call a "colony" of dark matter particles. Two baryon particles, for example protons, are destroyed and rebuilt while approaching each other. This is what we call "gravitation". Below a certain distance, the density of the system that includes the two protons becomes so great that dark matter particles begin to "die" and disappear. The "game of life" (if you know, squares inhabited by germs with rules of birth and death) gives a good intuitive picture. Dead dark matter particles create an empty space that causes repulsion (and recently the name "Svardmish turbidity" was coined for it 🙂 ). This is because during the destruction and rebuilding the colonies will move towards areas inhabited by "living" dark matter particles. What you describe as "electrons from screens" is a private case of Sabradish turbidity. The electron that settles next to a proton to form a neutron is also such a private case, although the dynamics there are a little more complex. These two cases are discussed in detail in the chapters on the electric force and the strong force.
A question that has never been asked here is how all the protons in the universe "learned" to find electrons for themselves and unite with them to form hydrogen atoms. Well, the density at the center of a proton is so great that the dark matter particles there die and the empty space they leave flutters out and accumulates around the proton to form what we call an "electron".
So much for the fork. A more in-depth detail I prefer to convey in a serious private correspondence to anyone interested.
I think there is some terminology disagreement between us. You say the things you build are not arbitrary because they make sense. I have no argument about the logic in your construction, but the rules of logic are also arbitrary in terms of drawing the target around the place where the arrows hit.
And the claims you made are all arbitrary. You can find results of observations that contradict some of them and confirm some of them, but all of these are subject to definitions. Precise definitions of terms such as "change", "input", "output" and "empty space" are necessary in order to determine which of the claims align with which model.
Want to make sure: according to you there is a difference between inertial systems? That we can theoretically determine in some way that system A is really "at rest" and system B is "moving"?
"Deviation from F=MA? How much deviation? To an extent equal to the one you would measure for the same positive charge in a negative field?"
Do not know. I don't even know if there will be a deviation. I wish I could carry out the experiment, but there is one thing I can: this evening I will present the question in several forums. Obviously, if there is no deviation, then you are probably right.
"There are no stars in the Halide experiment. There is only a balloon with LEDs and CDs."
why is not there? Maybe we just don't see them, like in the closed room, but they are there, and the array of red LEDs is in a state of rest relative to them and to the disc that doesn't measure centrifugal force.
In general, your claim that there is no connection to the stars is puzzling. After all, we can easily arrange for an observer from a disc to be able to see only a certain color. So if we match a different color to each array of LEDs, then we can also easily arrange that an observer from each of the 10 disks will see only the LEDs that are comfortable relative to his disk.
So the observer from disk 9 will only see the array of mouse-gray LEDs relative to his disk, and the observer from disk 7 will only see the array of toad-colored LEDs relative to his disk, and the observer from disk 4 will only see the array of silver-colored stars LEDs relative to his disk, and from number 2 they will only see Leds the color of honey hedgehogs, etc.
Still, only in disc 4 will centrifugal force not be measured and in all the rest yes, and in the same proportion as before.
"Remember, radial acceleration does not depend on the mass but only on the speed of rotation and its radius:
a = V squared / R”
According to Mach it depends on the mass - of the universe.
"
Galileo and Co. assumed that in an inertial system "without windows" it is not possible to distinguish between a state of motion and a state of rest.
I claim that there is a clear distinction: the self-gravitational fields of the elementary particles that make up a system at rest have perfect spherical symmetry. The self-gravitational fields of the elementary particles that make up a system in motion suffer from an asymmetry in the direction of motion, the magnitude of which corresponds to the speed of the system. Hence it is possible to distinguish between a system in motion and a system at rest from within the system itself (without looking out the window, but from measuring the deviation from symmetry of the self-gravitational fields of the elementary particles that make up the system), and even know the absolute velocity and its direction.
Deviation from F=MA? How much deviation? To an extent equal to the one you would measure for the same positive charge in a negative field?
There are no stars in the Halides experiment. There is only a balloon with LEDs and discs.
And as you remember, radial acceleration does not depend on the mass but only on the speed of rotation and its radius:
a = V squared / R
Meir
"If we manage to measure a gravitational field around an elementary particle with good enough accuracy, we can clearly differentiate between A and B,
So let's measure this with a thought experiment. The conclusion of the experiment: Postulate A is incorrect."
??
I did not understand. Please specify.
"What do you think will happen in your electric field experiment if you try to accelerate a positively charged particle in a positive uniform field?"
Also a deviation from F=MA. Which means that the charge is related to the other charges, just as each mass is related to the other masses (gravitation), and because of this relationship inertia is caused by gravity, see the beautiful mathematical proof in the article I brought.
"If the red LEDs didn't enchant the disks, then why only one disk, the one that doesn't happen to be spinning also doesn't measure centrifugal force?"
This is because the red LEDs do not rotate relative to the stars either. The green LEDs do rotate relative to the stars, so the disc does not measure centrifugal force even though it rotates relative to them. The other disc, the one that is at rest relative to the green LEDs, does measure centrifugal force even though the only thing it sees is the stationary green LEDs, and is not even able to see the red LEDs or the stars.
Come on, let's go to work.
Israel,
"Postulate A of relativity claims that in the case of inertial systems, we cannot distinguish between A and B. Galileo, Newton and Mach also agree with him. (Does anyone disagree with Postulate A?).”
If we manage to measure a gravitational field around an elementary particle with good enough accuracy, we can clearly differentiate between A and B,
So let's measure this with a thought experiment. The conclusion of the experiment: Postulate A is incorrect.
Therefore, you are right that it does not turn out that both answers are correct.
What do you think will happen in your electric field experiment if you try to accelerate a positively charged particle in a positive uniform field?
If the red LEDs didn't bewitch the disks, then why only one disk, the one that doesn't happen to be spinning also doesn't measure centrifugal force? (By the way, if you fix the disk to the table and rotate the balloon around the axis of the disks, the disk is set, you will see the red LEDs rotating around it, and you will still not measure centrifugal force, except that this can be done with the balloon but not with the universe)
I thank you for all the congratulations on my daughter's wedding forever. All the best !
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Meir the offended.
I do dig. I don't rest until I reach an answer that puts my mind to rest. The question of whether it is bad or good is a subjective matter.
I give all the examples of discs and rods to visually illustrate the basic question: if A accelerates relative to B, why can't we say that B accelerates relative to A?
Postulate A of relativity claims that in the case of inertial systems, we cannot distinguish between A and B. Galileo, Newton and Mach also agree with him. (Does anyone disagree with Postulate A?).
So why are things different in the case of acceleration? Why can it be clearly established that A is indeed accelerating and B is not?
Mach Berkeley and Schieme gave a clear answer: acceleration is relative to the other masses in the universe. Your answer is different: acceleration has nothing to do with the rest of the masses, it is an intrinsic property of a particle moved from its own gravitational field.
Both answers are consistent, but it is hard (at least for me) to believe that both are equally true.
That's why I proposed a thought experiment to decide: take a body carrying a positive electric charge and accelerate it in a large enough space containing a huge amount of negative charges uniformly distributed at a certain distance from the body, so that the electric field whose value is equal to one part of R will be dominant.
Do you agree that such a case is the same for the positive charge as the gravitational force applied to the test mass/charge of the masses of the rest of the universe?
If you are right, then we will accept that the distant charges have no effect, and the force required for acceleration is F=MA.
If, on the other hand, we accept that the distant charges have an effect, then probably because of the identity in this case to a test mass without a charge in a gravitational field, there are good chances that Mach's principle is true, as was demonstrated mathematically in the article I cited.
I am of course aware of the fact that an accelerated electric charge radiates, but I don't think this could interfere with the thought experiment, and this is because of the spherical symmetry.
And regarding your question: the red LEDs did not illuminate the disc that does not measure centrifugal force. They have nothing to do with her, except for the negligible contribution of a valve. In your example, if the satanic plan causes the green LEDs to rotate relative to one of the rotating disks in such a way that they appear stationary relative to it, it will still measure the same centrifugal force as before, and this despite the fact that which red LEDs were transparent as far as it was concerned, it was at rest relative to the only LEDs that exist for it, the green ones .
Israel the proud digger.
jubilee,
"Two hydrogen atoms manage to get close to each other to the point of forming a molecule and maintain a constant distance between them"
Because two electrons mask the repulsion between them and each of them is attracted to this and that.
"Furthermore, if and when one of the hydrogen atoms turns into a neutron, they move closer to each other many times"
Because the single electron can be positioned in the middle between them, whereas when it had a friend they both had to stand slightly off to the side due to their mutual repulsion.
I didn't understand the connection to gravity.
Newton's laws are arbitrary because they are unexplained. Newton did not describe a series of actions that result in Newton's laws.
In contrast, I do give a series of operations whose result is Newton's laws. I understand that you want to claim that I determined the series of actions itself arbitrarily, so that at the end of the day Newton's laws will be encountered.
I claim that I determined the series of actions based on logic, even before I knew what would be obtained from them.
On the contrary, due to various and numerous errors in the calculations based on the principles, I have reached each time a discrepancy with Newton's laws and with astronomical and cosmological observations in general. It didn't make me change the rules, although sometimes it made me despair. It did make me try hard and understand what my calculation error was where I applied the basic assumptions incorrectly.
And to finish the exercise:
Below is a series of assumptions, which one do you think is arbitrary and why?
Note that they come in pairs, and claim opposite things. Therefore, if one is arbitrary (that is, not based on logic) the other is obviously not arbitrary (that is, logical), unless you can assert a third claim whose logic omits logic under the two opposing claims that I brought.
1. Something incapable of causing change in the universe does not exist.
2. Something that is unable to cause a change in the universe does exist.
3. An elementary particle is a black box that takes input from the universe and returns an output.
4. An elementary particle is a black box that takes no input from the universe and returns no output.
5. Objects can move in a complete void that contains nothing but themselves.
6. Objects cannot move in a complete vacuum that contains nothing but themselves.
Israel,
I performed your disk experiment on the model of the coins glued to the surface of an inflatable balloon that professors use to illustrate to students the expansion of space.
Instead of the coins, I glued red LEDs to the balloon, except for one coin, in its place I used a pack of rotating disks on a common axis fixed to the balloon.
I used motorized discs that rotate each at a different speed with the help of micro motors, except for one whose motor is OFF. Since your middle name is "Hofer" (I think you are infected with Miyval), I also added to the experimental system motorized green dimes that roam the balloon according to a satanic plan of your choosing, designed to confuse Meir and the micro-cameras (black and white that do not distinguish between green and red) that are attached to the discs.
Only the disk whose engine is OFF sees all the red LEDs at rest.
All the other discs see (and camera) all the red LEDs on the ball as if they were circling around them.
If you don't like that the red LEDs represent galaxies, that would represent distant stars within one galaxy.
Did the red LEDs attached to the balloon enchant the disks so that only those that do not rotate relative to them will not measure centrifugal force?
Question XNUMX: If the answer to questions A, B and D is negative, while C is positive, then how is it that there is no connection between centrifugal force and the red LEDs?
Thank you ♥ I took note. I'll try again tomorrow after I buy another disc 🙂 On the other hand, instead of buying another disc, is it okay to use the same disc and compare it to video recording? I think it can eliminate the phenomenon of FRAME DRAGGING.
Jason hasn't called for a long time either. I don't remember what I did wrong to him 🙁
So you do understand smoking and such! I would love to learn from you.
I didn't hold back and tried to leave the disc. I didn't get a negative reading but the puck and power meter broke 🙁 🙁 🙁
Yoda
Mabruk, Mabruk, lululululu……..
(cheers).
jubilee.
Glad you did the experiment. The continuation is simple: attach a shaft to a disc that is 10 million km long, and install another disc on it.
I believe that as long as you do not encounter the phenomenon of FRAME DRAGGING, the second disc will also not measure any centrifugal force.
Also, any disc mounted on axes parallel to our axis and rotating at the same angular speed will not measure any centrifugal force.
Disks that, instead of rotating from upside down and sideways, will measure a negative centrifugal force.
Maya Galili doesn't pick up the phone or text because of Jason, her husband, the one who always sings to her: Maya, Galili, my believer.
And in our neighborhood they wouldn't say FRAME DRAGGING, they would say DRUG FRAMING, especially after ambushes of the undercover.
Meyer,
A. True: the electric force is stronger than gravity. Protons really strongly repel each other. But two hydrogen atoms manage to get close to each other to the point of forming a molecule and maintain a constant distance between them. Moreover, if and when one of the hydrogen atoms becomes a neutron, they move closer together. The description of the movement between two colonies that I gave is very simplistic and is only intended to indicate a possible mechanism. In the detailed model, as in physics, things are much more complex.
B. I trust you with my eyes closed that the mechanism you propose gives a more successful explanation than the theories accepted today. But that has nothing to do with the question of whether your assumptions are arbitrary or not. Newton's laws are also arbitrary and so are the bills at the grocery store. These are all models that we build to fit the observations.
third. Penetrating the guts, for example, is my attempt to show that the proton and its gravitational field, considered two separate entities, are actually different aspects of one phenomenon. For example, to look for the only common factor for all six (?) intuitive basic features...
d. It's hard for me to think of an experiment that would disprove your model, mainly because I really love it. Of all the models I've read about, yours is the best I've found so far
God. "Digger" is my middle name
: )
Yehuda,
I join in the congratulations and best wishes. May you all be happy. This is more important than any theory and any cosmology.
Israel,
I did the experiment, not with ten disks but with one disk that I rotated many times. I was also unable to darken and darken the room hermetically, and I hope that this does not significantly impair the quality of the experiment. Whenever I could notice rotation relative to the room I also saw that the centrifugal force meter showed some kind of positive reading. I was not able to rotate the disc relative to the room and in time get a zero centrifugal reading. The only times the reading was zero was when the disc did not rotate relative to the room. Another thing I was hoping to see but couldn't in any way is a negative centrifugal reading. Can you help me figure out what's wrong with the experiments?
Thanks in advance
P.S., greetings back. If you can, please ask her why she doesn't pick up the phone or at least text
Michael
Please tell us something smart
I will try one more time to get a serious answer.
You put a video camera and a centrifugal force meter on each one of the 10 spinning discs. The opaque room also rotates relative to the sky, but you cannot see this because you are inside the room.
Outside the room, in space, you scatter different arrays of LED lights, surrounding each array separately, at different angular velocities relative to the sealed room. From the point of view of the observer, or the photographer, the sky together with the LED arrays, there is no possibility to distinguish between real stars and LED bulbs.
Question A: Will you be able to tell just from the photographs which disc is resting relative to the sky?
Question B: Will you be able to tell just from the photos which disc is resting relative to a certain LED array?
Question C: Can you tell just by measuring the centrifugal force which disc is resting relative to the sky?
Question D: Would you be able to tell just from the measurement of the centrifugal force which disc rests relative to a certain LED array?
Question XNUMX: If the answer to questions A, B and D is negative, while C is positive, then how is it that there is no connection between centrifugal force and the stars?
And a bonus question:
In the link I brought:
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/killing-time.pdf
Formula 2.5 says:
Substituting A from Eq. (2.4) into Eq. (2.1), we find
That
F = -(¢/c2)dv/dt, (2.5)
and, if ¢/c 2 = 1, then the inertial reaction force on an accelerated body
experiences is just the gravitational force exerted on it by the rest
of the matter in the Universe.
which is actually Newton's second law, the law of inertia.
Can you point out any error in the article or in the development of the formula?
How is the discount disc different from the other nine?
In that it does not measure centrifugal force.
And why do the stars rest only relative to this disk?
Because she doesn't turn around.
So why does the video show them moving around only relative to others?
Because only they turn around.
Do not understand.
How is the discount disc different from the other nine? After all, each sees the other as walking around, right?
And why do the stars rest only relative to this disc? They are the same distance away from all the others, aren't they? So why does the video show them moving around only relative to others?
Israel,
Because the rest of the disc that does not measure centrifugal force is absolute (it has no angular velocity relative to the self-gravitational fields of the elementary particles from which it is made), and relative to absolute rest every distant star appears to be at rest because in order not to appear at rest it must move at an absolute velocity that is orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light , and there is no reason why he would want to do so.
Waiting.. Nah.. Nah...
Meir.
I am not so much in favor of the Meir Principle - that is why it is called the Meir Principle and not the Israel Principle.
But I know how to read, and my question was not answered even once, unless I missed something.
So here is the question once again: why if we take 10 disks rotating on an axis at different angular speeds in a room whose windows are darkened, then only one at most will not measure centrifugal force.
And why if we now open the windows, the only disc that did not measure centrifugal force is a discount relative to the distant stars, and all the others are spinning.
If you could just answer this question and not say that you have already answered it a hundred times, I would be very grateful.
Indeed, we have here a demonstration of the last paragraph: a mistake forever (but forever and ever!) repeats in an infinite loop
To Yuval Chaikin, to Meir and others:
The approach of "Sabdarmish turbidity" to expansion in space is a fundamental condition of any expansion in space and especially of those that are smaller than 1 divided by the distance squared. Claiming in advance that there is no turbidity to gravitation is like claiming that L - the distance that "absorbs half of the intensity, is infinite and then R divided by L will be zero, therefore 2 to the power of 0 is 1, meaning there is no effect. But we can never assume such a thing because we cannot make measurements at infinity. We can only assume that L is greater than the distance we tested. For example, I once proposed to do an experiment with a beautiful double-double star, Epsilon Lira - ADS11635 and see if Newton's formula is valid at a distance between the two doubles of the aforementioned double-double, about a sixth light year (about ten thousand astronomical units). In the article I proved that there is a basis for the belief that Newton's formula is no longer valid at these distances, which means that L is absolutely not equal to infinity!
You also probably know that I really like pushing gravity and in my simple universe I proved that L is not equal to infinity. It's her thing Sage didn't pay attention to with his gravity pushing..
I am also happy to say that I also proved that all those who claim the friction fallacy which in their opinion invalidates the theory of pushing gravity-le Sage-a simple universe, are completely wrong, but I am saving this publication for the sake of the Nobel Prize. On second thought,….. maybe I will share the proof with you my friends but you will have to convince me to do so.
To conclude, I will refer you to the passage in which Professor Richard Feynman explains in a simple way the theory of pushing gravity and another from Doshan Eon, and with a lot of self-importance, dismisses it outright to all the licked laughter of the students in the hall. No one notices that Mr. Professor Richard Feynman is talking (apparently) nonsense. And I will be careful not to be sued by the mischievous spirit of the aforementioned in my rosy dreams. Too bad I wasn't there.
Below, Professor Richard Feynman:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd0xTfdt6qw
Starting from the seventh minute of the lecture onwards
But maybe I'm the one who doesn't understand
THL
And finally, good luck to my daughter in her marriage with her chosen one, Omer
And that she will last in her marriage at least as long as I have - 42 years so far
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel,
"I have no intention of asking Meir or anyone questions if he is not interested in them. Meir proposed a principle that should replace Mach's principle. I asked him several times a question that was not answered. If he is not interested in my questions, I will willingly release him."
Your question has been answered at least ten times in the last giant threads.
In order to save time, I have no problem answering it for the umpteenth time, but in order to be sure that I am not missing any point, please kindly give me a description of a universe controlled according to the Meir principle and without the Mach principle, so that I know how it should differ in your opinion From the present wonderful universe in terms of your spinning discs.
jubilee,
Not an eye for an eye.
The electrical repulsion between protons is at least 40 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational attraction between them in any range you choose. In light of this, it is not clear what the approach movement is that you describe.
You write: "I have an argument with Meir... he proposes some arbitrary mechanism and I propose penetration into the bowels of that mechanism."
arbitrary?! I propose a mechanism consisting of a total of two elements in which each element is intuitively understood, supported by observations, and its properties are defined: what it takes as output, what it returns as output, and what is its schedule. From two elements I get an immediate explanation without tricks and without tricks for about 20 incomprehensible natural phenomena, about 15 of which the theory of relativity fails to predict.
What guts do you want to penetrate, after I penetrated the study of the phenomenon "energy" and explained it directly (not through the results that can be derived from it)? I got to the "ingredients" of the energy. Do you want to go down to something more basic than that? for what? I propose experiments through which my theory can be confirmed or refuted. Is there an experiment through which it will be possible to disprove what you claim?
True, I do not know the source of the most elementary particle in nature (which is nothing more than a photon with a maximum wavelength) and I do not know the source of the fiber from which the fabric of the universe is woven. I only know how these two with 6 intuitive basic qualities, are responsible for about 20 enigmatic natural phenomena. It's called arbitrary and you need to dig further into it?
Before I answer your question about the Fantastic Four, maybe you could answer my question about Mach's principle in the tiny enfin we got through electric charges?
Good night from Palm Springs, Regards from Maya Galili.
Nice, a question about the matter ☼
Electromagnetism is the other aspect of the medium. For that matter, let's see the medium as made up of vibrating particles (which I assume are the ones that make up what is now known as "dark matter" or "dark mass" which only about a decade ago saw its existence, but I predicted it already 35 years ago). Even the empty spaces between the particles have dynamics, which depends on the behavior of the particles but is different from theirs.
Instead of going into formulas, I will draw you a parable: imagine before your eyes a tray on which many beetles are walking in random motion. When a beetle is near an empty space it can enter it. If she does so, the empty place is filled, but the place where the beetle was before becomes empty itself and invites beetles to it. In this way many beetles traveled each in a limited space, but the empty space traveled a great distance. We will add a hole to the image of the tray at some point in it. A beetle that falls into a hole exits the game and leaves behind an empty space which begins to travel between the beetles. In this parable the empty spaces between the beetles are photons, and the hole that swallows beetles is a light source.
I'll stop here to give you some time to play with this model. Obviously, this model raises a lot of questions, but before you run to ask, please take a break to check a few things: check what happens in areas where many beetles congregate in great density and their freedom of movement becomes limited; What happens in areas where the beetles are not at a high density; What happens around the hole that swallows beetles. The input to this model is included in the form of the reproduction (birth) of a new beetle from an existing beetle when the density in its environment is low and the evaporation (death) of a beetle when the density in its environment is high beyond a certain threshold.
And what about electric attraction and magnetism? If, for example, we scatter a lot of strong negative electric charges in a certain limited volume, and we take a positive charge and accelerate it, will we not get a resistance to the acceleration greater than F=ma? Where did the excess resistance suddenly come from, not from the chargers?
As long as he doesn't force you to think like him - his article is just as legitimate as any other scientific article.
By the way, maybe Galileo was really wrong?
You started to understand. Get a medallion ☼
The stars rest relative to the medium, but not because of friction, simply because there is no friction. In fact, they don't rest at all but spin their tracks very fast. Only because of the great distance they appear stationary.
The disc, like any other bone, has nothing to stop it from moving through the media. The medium, by its very nature, causes bodies moving within it to maintain their momentum. The bodies are composed of the medium, their movement in it is undulating (perhaps it is more correct to describe it as amoeboid) and there is no foreign material in the medium to slow it down.
OK. Now everything is working out. The rotating disk measures centrifugal force because it rotates relative to the medium, and the stars rest relative to it, I assume because of friction.
But how does the rotating disk relative to the medium not slow down and stop? And by the same token, how does every movement relative to the medium not slow down and stop?
Those who stand on the spinning disc see the stars spinning. But this rotation is a simulated movement since they are stationary (to the extent of a minimal error, as mentioned) in relation to the medium. To me it seems extremely simple or maybe I didn't understand what is happening here
Please Aref, I probably didn't listen or didn't understand.
Regarding the stars: then they appear stationary because of their great distance. Sahtain But they are also the same distance away from a disk that measures centrifugal force... so why do they rotate here? What happened to the long distance?
Have we started again? To make a copypaste of things I wrote, I have to rummage through old sheets of science. And if you didn't listen (or just didn't understand) what guarantee do I have that this time it will be different?
Yet:
The identity of the speed of light for any measurer was already explained by Lorentz in the contraction of matter in the direction of movement, and the medium I came up with demonstrates how this contraction occurs.
Lord Voldemort already whipped me for saying that the centrifugal force stems from the phenomenon of persistence, and Meir talked about this phenomenon in his model (and I tried to give a plastic description).
It is not clear to me how a rotational rest speed produces a non-zero centrifugal force. In any case, the fact that the result of measuring the rotation of an object in space by observing the stars is fully correlated (to the point of a minimal error) with the result of measuring the centrifugal force is due to the fact that the stars appear stationary because of the great distance and the medium is stationary because it is its nature.
And as a chopper, please receive a short lecture on intermediaries:
A mediator, any mediator, does not block or oppose but the opposite. transfer agent. If there is something that opposes or blocks, then it is not part of the medium but a foreign substance.
Still in the date springs.
If possible, please explain how your medium does not resist motion, how we get the same speed of light in it for every measurer, and how the rotational rest speed of the stars is calculated in it with a centrifugal force equal to 0.
How was Palm Springs?
The ether hypothesis is an arbitrary premise, but with its help Maxwell found the laws that serve us faithfully to this very day. The scientific community decided to cancel the entire ether hypothesis because of non-business considerations. From the beginning, some simple mechanism was assumed about it, but in the experiment it was found that this is not true. There were attempts to perfect it, but these were unsuccessful. Einstein did not propose to deny the existence of the site but only to skip the hurdle and move on. I do not know when and with whom the decision was made to completely deny the existence of the ether. If you know, please share. In any case, the decision to completely deny the existence of the ether is even more arbitrary than assuming its existence.
The reason why I am careful not to call the medium that I hypothesize the existence of by the name "ether" is not because I am ruling out the ether, but because its structure and mechanism is not as simple as the nineteenth century scientists attributed to it. But the assumption of the existence of an intermediary answers many questions and for that reason it seems essential to me. All we have to do is understand its structure and how it works.
I also have an argument with Meir, except that it is a substantive and not a principled argument. He offers a mechanism arbitrary of some kind and I propose a penetration into the bowels of that mechanism. The medium I devised, like the mechanism devised by Meir, eliminates Mach's principle.
jubilee.
Unfortunately, I have no idea how your medium works, and how it synchronizes the centrifugal force with the rest system of the stars.
The problem with metaphysics, in my opinion, is that anyone can choose arbitrary premises for it. Axioms are indeed primary, but should also be self-evident. Can you show the axioms of your model?
I have no intention of asking Meir or anyone questions if he is not interested in them. Meir proposed a principle that should replace Mach's principle. I asked him several times a question that was not answered. If he is not interested in my questions, I will willingly let him go.
Israel,
The medium I propose does not oppose movement. He is the one on whose back the movement takes place. Unlike a jet plane that is separated from the air in which it sails, the bodies are composed of the medium and their movement is undulating. The electromagnetic radiation also rides on the same medium but through a different aspect of it.
Since we have been discussing this topic for many months, I assume that you are well aware of the importance I attach to metaphysics and the need to understand that the laws that are taken for granted by many are not at all like that.
And in your life, stop shooting in all directions. Don't bully Meir before you're done with me.
Shabbat reception in Palm Springs, great idea. count me in 🙂
jubilee
"The explanation I offered is the existence of a medium through which the movement produces the force."
So shouldn't the medium resist movement like air resists an airplane?
Meir
"Israel, what am I supposed to do with the spinning disks?"
Please, Mach explained the correlation between the rotation of the discs and the stars by saying that the inertia originates in those stars, Mach's principle.
So if you claim that the Meir principle replaces the Mach principle, explain the correlation as well. Otherwise it still remains a most wonderful coincidence.
"Is gravity a force field that causes the bodies in it to change their speed or a velocity field that causes the bodies in it to exert pressure on an object that hinders their movement".
Einstein and experience claim that when we are in free fall, neither force nor pressure acts on us. Even in a gravitational field of 1000g, we will not feel pressure or force.
And now the whole family is going to Palm Springs. Memorial Day Alec, Remembrance Day.
Meir, thanks for the clarification. Simply, I confused gravity with speed. And just to be sure I understood I will now place my model which is not much different from yours. As you remember, I present the proton and its gravitational field as a collection of particles in three-dimensional space. Two protons are two such collections that in the region between their centers the particle density is greater than the surrounding density. Each proton is constantly being destroyed and rebuilt. Since the region between the protons provides more particles than the outer region, then each proton is rebuilt in a position closer to that of the other proton. We call this "movement". The closer the protons are to each other, the greater the density ratio between the inner space and the outer space and the speed of approach increases accordingly. At a certain point this approach is stopped due to other reasons (which we call "electrical charge"), but at large distances these reasons are negligible. The phenomenon we call "gravitational force" results from the acceleration in the movement of protons towards each other. So far do you and I see eye to eye, sort of?
Yuval, I didn't understand what data you need. My theory does not change the math, and it is clear that Kepler's laws will continue to work with the square of the distance.
My theory asks the question of the chicken and the egg: is gravity a force field that causes the bodies in it to change their speed or a velocity field that causes the bodies in it to exert pressure on an object that hinders their movement.
Mathematically all formulas work the same.
Israel, (SAFKAN, I hope you will find here an answer to your question as well)
With your permission, I am quoting and pasting a physics professor's reference to the Mach principle as part of my correspondence with him:
"Meir Shalom
1. Mach's principle is a philosophical principle and not a physical one. It is impossible to derive physical laws or formulas from it. "
I asked him about this:
“Hello XYZ,
Regarding 1, it is still not clear to me how, if at all, Mach's principle is better on a philosophical level than Meir's principle (sorry for the megalomania, I just don't have another name to call it at the moment), so much so that Meir's principle, on the face of it, is the antithesis of Mach's principle, does not exist at all on a map The philosophy of science."
To this he answered me:
"
Hi Meir
There is no problem that you propose the Meir principle, but you have to formulate it precisely and then make sure that someone puts it to the test. This is how science progresses."
In light of the above, Israel, what am I supposed to do with the spinning discs? Will they help me put Mach's principle to the test?
Yuval, thanks for the encouragement.
I recognize Mach's principle only for one thing: the universal mass of prejudice is the reason for the persistence of science.
Judah, a numerical example?
Yes. A body falling to the earth from a great distance reaches the surface of the earth at a speed of 11,200 m/s. One second before the crash his speed is 11,195 m/s. You will get these results if you put in the formula to which the link leads in my previous response.
The change in speed within a second is 5 meters per second. This means the acceleration is 10 mph.
This means that the body behaves as if an accelerating force of 10 newtons acted on it.
Newton concluded from this that the Earth exerts a force of 10 Newtons on the body, and this causes it to accelerate.
My conclusion is different: elementary particles are sensitive to local differences in the strength of the gravitational field, and they translate these differences into movement at a speed relative to the strength of the difference. Since a gravitational field becomes denser as you approach its center, the differences in field strength on both sides of the particle also increase as the particle moves towards the center of the field. As a result, and not as a result of gravity, the speed of the particle in space is increasing.
Mathematically, Newton's interpretation has no priority over my interpretation.
To all the questioners, the best explanation I can offer in a Tikbook framework is to take the Newtonian formula for the escape velocity, which when you add a minus sign to its right wing, it becomes the formula for the velocity of a body falling in free fall from a great distance in the direction of the gravity-generating mass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
As you can clearly see, the speed of the fall at any point in the trajectory, is a function of the root of the distance of that point from the center of the field.
I claim that just as the gravity formula describes gravity as a force field that decays according to the square of the distance, so the fall velocity formula describes gravity as a velocity field that decays according to the square root of the distance.
Newton chose the first option, and more correctly he did not choose it. He simply followed one path and took all subsequent generations of physicists with him, not noticing that there was a second possibility.
Three hundred and twenty years later, one light came, and enlightened the eyes of everyone who wanted to open them, to the existence of the second possibility.
Simple algebra is not my job to teach. My role is only to illuminate and point out that we have two equivalency formulas in front of us, both Newtonian, and both used to calculate the trajectories of rockets and rotten tomatoes thrown at people who found the coin under a different streetlight than the one everyone bothered to look under.
I will change from my custom and this time I will speak in a parable: let's say that you are spinning following a divine promise, looking at the sky to count the stars and here they are spinning; At the same time, the crystals in the arches in your inner ears also dance. "A wonderful correlation", you say, "isn't it because the rotation relative to the stars is the cause of the delightful amusement park experience". "And if, instead of spinning, you smoked a joint," Yuval the instigator and dishwasher tells you, "wouldn't you feel the same?" "I don't know," you the geek replies, "I've never even smoked tobacco for nothing in my life," and spoils Satan's plans to show you that even smoking drugs can make the stars of the entire universe spin. And the analogy: there are other possible causes for "miraculous" correlations. In the case in question, we know that there is movement because we see the stars rotating relative to us and we know that forces are acting on us thanks to the reports of the sense of equilibrium. If we inflate the importance of the correlation, then the statement that the rotation relative to the universe is the cause of the centrifugal force is equivalent to the statement that the centrifugal force causes the universe to rotate.
The explanation I offered is the existence of a medium through which the movement produces the force.
I hardly remember my age...
Anyway, what is it? what is?
Good night.
Meir, I'm sorry.
I sat all night on my model trying to put your numbers on it. I did not make it. Among other things, I sat on Kepler's laws, and these work precisely with the square of the distance and not with its root. I may need more information, if you would like to release
Israel,
Not only Meir; I also offered an explanation for that "miraculous" correlation without enlisting Mach. Do you remember what it is?
jubilee.
Who is narrow eyed? What are we, Chinese? Why what happened, we have to agree with everything someone says? So first of all let them agree with me.
I asked several unanswered questions here: the following is a reminder of the most comprehensive and exhaustive of them: if we take 10 disks that rotate on a common central axis at different angular speeds, only one of them can be said to be truly at rest, the answer being that no centrifugal force is acting on it.
If we photograph the sky with a video camera from each of those disks, we will see it resting only relative to that resting disk.
So if you or anyone else can explain the same miraculous correlation between centrifugal rest and sabbatical rest without Mach's principle, I'll be the first to applaud.
Meir offered a tip to his explanation by saying that those stars were fixed in their special state as a result of the direction they acquired due to the big bang. But he did not elaborate, perhaps because of the secrecy of the security forces. But in order to replace Mach's principle with Meir's principle, we will need a little more than a few obscure hints.
I think the classic Machian explanation can be found in the following article:
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/
And there are exact formulas and calculations there, as you like. Pay special attention to formula 7.
Meir
Esron Meir is named after you?
Meyer,
The spirit of the reactions of Sabdarmish and Shapira (and Michael and Studitechnion and Kamila the last one and more) in the face of a breakthrough, mainly indicates narrow eyes but takes the wind out of the sails of those who want to have a serious discussion over the pages of science.
I saw the calculations on your site and found them to be accurate. Therefore, I trust you that when the day comes you will publish a good proof also for the hypothesis you just expressed in our ears. In the meantime I am studying the new point and looking to see if it matches my conception of the cosmos.
Successfully
jubilee
"Does the "inertia field" stand on its own or is it derived from other fields, for example like the gravity field?"
Einstein deduces: it has been decided, decided, the carrot has been sealed. Gers - and from this position he did not return.
AA: The principle of equivalence.
Meir
I did not understand your explanation according to the root of the distance. Are you ready to give a numerical example that will explain this?
good evening
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Meir
please
Consider only the square of the distance. point. Garden field I don't care. The chopchick of…. the square of the distance.
And I argue that it is not so. point.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
"Here I proved (let's pay attention, this is a mathematical proof), that a model according to which the range of gravity is infinite has no priority over a model according to which the range of gravity is limited to the boundaries of a galaxy."
The original Mach principle does not claim to operate beyond the boundaries of the galaxy. Mach and the young Einstein did not even know about the existence of other galaxies. If you followed my discussion with Michael, the issue I brought up is that the rotational system may vary from galaxy to galaxy, and then the question arises as to what happens in between.
The Chinese people are nice, it's just a shame that they are so narrow-minded...
Meir
The field in the ring does not have to be uniform. It is also possible that the inner ring is the one that will rotate.
Yuval, like Sh.R. Note, this forum is not the place for scientific publications.
In any case, in short, the explanation that the range of gravitation is finite begins precisely with the fact that inertia is the reaction of an elementary particle to its own gravitational field.
I found that this definition fulfills Newton's three laws of motion only in a very specific mechanism that took me a long time to model (but as with any discovery, in hindsight it is so simple that you don't understand how it was not thought of before, see the entry Copernicus/Galileo vs. the geocentric model ).
Finally, I checked algebraically to see how this beautiful mechanism that obeys the laws of motion responds to an external gravitational field. To my great disappointment and astonishment, the guy behaved like a disobedient son and a teacher in everything related to free fall in an external gravity field.
After a lot of searching I found out that my mistake is exactly Judah's mistake, which is exactly Newton's mistake, which is exactly the mistake of everyone who adopts the approach that gravitation decays according to the square of the distance.
The trick is that a gravitational field is not a force field, but a velocity field.
The difference between them is that the velocity field decays according to the root of the distance, not according to the square of the distance.
From the calculation of the change in velocity per unit time in free fall in a field that decays according to the root of the distance, it is possible to calculate the force supposed to cause the change, and the result is of course a (simulated) force that decays according to the square of the distance. When the body is not in free fall (ie its movement is inhibited by an external object, such as a table that inhibits the fall of the vase on it) a force is obtained (real this time) resulting from the pressure of the body trying to develop a speed appropriate to its position in the field.
The next step is to understand how on earth a field is created that decays according to the square root of the distance.
Since all my research started from certain basic assumptions which are the ones that led me from the beginning to the very hypothesis that persistence is the reaction of an elementary particle to its self-gravitational field, I was able to reach even more than the previous one, to drop all the pieces of the puzzle into place.
This secret of how a field is created that decays according to the root of the distance, I am not going to waste here. As you already mentioned Yuval, after all what is important to physicists is the mathematical modeling and not the physical factors that make it possible.
Mathematically, there is no priority to the hypothesis that a gravitational field is a force field that decays according to the square of the distance, over the hypothesis that a gravitational field is a velocity field that decays according to the square root of the distance. Therefore, the right of existence of my model as a mathematical description of reality does not fall from the right of existence of Newton's model (and does not fall from the right of existence of the model of gravity according to the theory of relativity, because it predicts at least 15 phenomena that the theory of relativity fails to explain).
Now let's get back to our topic, the finitude or infinity of the range of action of gravitation:
It is unequivocally clear that a radiation-like mechanism does not create a physical field that decays according to the square root of the distance. Therefore it is unequivocally clear that gravitation according to my model does not spread through space in a radiation-like mechanism.
Given that no one has a clue (because as mentioned, for now it's my private secret) what is the physical mechanism that causes the field to fade according to the square root of the distance (and that's the only thing anyone knows for sure: it's not radiation), based on who this someone is, let's say he's Newton or Einstein, Can assume that the range of this field is infinite? guess? Gut feeling?
One should pay attention to an interesting fact: at this stage it is no longer important who is right, Mach or Meir. The claim that gravity can be treated as a velocity field and decays according to the square root of the distance is a claim that stands on its own. Although I came to her following the investigation of the Meir Principle, but after she came into the world, she was a legitimate claim according to any method.
Here I proved (let's note, this is a mathematical proof), that a model according to which the range of gravity is infinite has no priority over a model according to which the range of gravity is limited to the boundaries of a galaxy.
Yehuda, you have to distinguish between the field and how it spreads. The field is static and is a mathematical description. Each point in the field has a certain intensity that is kept at that point. This power is a number. How do you get this number from the physical reality at that point in space. This is a question that needs to be answered.
Spreading is something dynamic. If you claim that something physical that comes out of the mass moves in space in straight lines from the mass to the outside and is the one that determines the strength of the field wherever it reaches, then my question is based on what you claim that.
Israel, regarding the magnetic ring, I don't think it will rotate the iron ring. According to Newton's theorem of shells, the sum of the magnetic force acting on each point in the inner iron ring is zero. In any case, it is a bit problematic to make the comparison you did and it is equally a bit problematic to use the shell illumination, since it is not clear in which direction the outer ring is magnetized. It is not possible to magnetize a ring in such a way that we get a 360 degree field symmetry of the type that exists in a gravitational field.
Meir
You asked on what basis you hold the opinion that gravitation spreads according to the square of the distance, and my answer is that measurements in relatively close systems such as the solar system prove that this is the form of the spread. Of course with reference to a possible measurement error. My claim is that with respect to distance it is not so and gravitation disappears at a greater rate so that for very distant or very large bodies we must think of another force.
Waiting for your words to Yuval.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yuval, my response has been sent for a long time and is "pending"...
Meir, I see you are preparing material for me. Therefore I will not write now things that I have prepared for you. Now I'm going to run errands and will be back in just a few hours. Goodbye and thanks in advance
The decrease in the intensity of the gravitational force is proportional to the square of the distance. This is similar to other phenomena and raises the suspicion that gravity has other properties similar to these. And since the others propagate in waves, then it is possible that gravity also has wave properties. There are still those who are looking for the particle that carries gravity, known as a "graviton", and assume for the purpose of the search that its motion is undulating.
Israel, thank you for opening your heart. For your persistence in the field you deserve special praise.
And seriously, does the "inertia field" stand on its own or is it derived from other fields, for example like the gravity field?
Yehuda, I did not address the concept of radiation in your words. I only meant the question on what basis do you hold the opinion that gravitation spreads according to the square of the distance. I believe that if you read the response that I will send to Yuval in a few minutes, it will make my reference clear to you.
It is indeed an exaggeration to call gravitation radiation. And by the way, I didn't see where I wrote that, but it's possible. What was important to me was that it is accepted as spreading according to the square of the distance. What about the scriptures? Is there a response?
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
jubilee
I suppose that just as there is a magnetic field, or a gravitational field, which if the sun disappeared would still hold us by force for another 8 minutes, there is also an inertial field. You can use the image of particles or radiation, but there is no evidence for this yet.
Meir.
If you take a magnetized ring and spin it around an iron ring on a frictionless surface, won't the iron ring start rotating until it reaches the same angular speed as the magnet ring?
So why would it be different if instead of a magnet ring we simply put a very heavy ring? The force is much weaker, but if we wait long enough, the inner ring will also rotate, won't it?
Yehuda, I understand what you are saying. I ask again, on what basis do you claim that?
In order to avoid unnecessary repetitions, I will explain myself:
The force of gravitation, whether it is virtual or real is (at least in certain ranges) decays according to the square of the distance.
Mathematically, you can imagine a field where a number is attached to each point so that the numbers in the field fade according to the square of the distance, so that when you multiply the local number by a unit of force, you get the gravitational force at that point.
From here to the rash conclusion that gravitation spreads like radiation, the road is long.
For example, according to the theory of relativity, gravitation is a curvature of the center. If we adopt John Wheeler's brilliance "matter tells space how to curve", do we have evidence that the instructions that matter gives to space spread like radiation, or that everything we have is the result of the instructions?
This question should be asked by anyone who is interested in ever picking up the trick of gravity, and there is a simple reason why you hear it from me, but you won't hear it in any university lecture.
Now I ask again: on what basis do you hold the opinion that gravitation spreads like radiation, and this time it is a rhetorical question.
A specific example? The one you and Meir exchange blows because of: Mach's principle. Phenomenon A is the acceleration relative to space, Phenomenon B is the resulting forces. Does the acceleration relative to the entire space cause the forces to appear or is the entire space, including the body moving relative to it, located within a medium that creates forces in response to the acceleration?
jubilee
Inal drabcom all of you. Maybe instead of letting us search through all your comments and try to understand what you meant, just write? Filled with Alzheimer's and senility, but we haven't mentioned amnesia and dyslexia yet...
Not to mention Parkinson's!
I assume you meant:
Inertia and its connection with the masses in the universe: if you said that the connection is direct, I would immediately attack you with "prove it". But since we see that the phenomena happen at the same time, it is difficult to ignore the possibility that a connection exists. The question is only what type of connection, let's say: does phenomenon A cause phenomenon B or does there exist C that acts on A and B at the same time.
Can you give a specific example that we can refer to? Something like this: Jack tries to attract Jill to him, and to his dismay he finds that the closer he gets, the farther away she is and vice versa. Yaani relations of attraction - repulsion.
Conclusion: Jack and Jill are quarks, and he just exerts too strong a force on her.
To Senili who has Alzheimer's syndrome (I forgot your name. Please forgive me).
A few hours ago I offered my version of the connection between phenomenon A and phenomenon B. To remind you (please contact me with a handkerchief), I hypothesized that A does not affect B, but that there is a C that affects A and B simultaneously. Your opinion on the matter, if you are willing to express it, will be received with deep feelings of gratitude and appreciation.
Yehuda Sabdarmish!!
You ask "what do I understand?", you must be laughing. You understand a lot. So far we have not taken into account the turbidity of the medium, and you have pointed out a very important point (hereafter "Sevdarmish turbidity", if you wish to receive the honor [see this in a circular for the occasion of your daughter's marriage]). But we don't know the medium and we don't know how it works. I certainly accept that there are disturbances in the medium that transmits gravitation and that gravitation is weakened more than required by Newton's formulas; But since we still do not know the mechanics of this medium, we do not know what makes it cloudy and what is the rate of delay that is obtained as a result of the cloudiness.
Meir!!
I guess other people here besides me are waiting for explanations.
Israel,
I cannot respond to your words this time, since I do not know Chinese.
Admittedly, not accurate.
He said: Ching Chang Chung - Mao Tse Tung!
Israel Shapira
It's nice that you quote us in Chinese, but unfortunately the translation is wrong. And so that we don't make a mistake, God forbid, I will give you the correct translation: in the word Ching the translator asked to pee, in the sentence Ching Chang he asked to pee urgently, and in the final sentence Ching Chang Chung the translator stated that he no longer needed to.
Just for good measure.
Wet dreams
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Meir
Gravitation spreads by one part of the square of the distance, like light, electricity, magnetism, etc., and I claim that it is not perfect and the result should be multiplied by 2 to the power of minus R/L. Where R is the distance, L is the disturbance constant of the space which is the distance where the intensity is reduced by half. Today, in gravitation, L is considered equal to infinity, therefore R/L is equal to zero and two to the zeroth power is 1. But to assume that L is equal to infinity is like assuming that the medium has no interference with gravitation and this is unacceptable to me and seems to me to be illogical as well. But this is what the academy believes, which does not allow the mediator to have any effect on the flow of gravity in space. Unlike the flow of light.
But maybe I don't understand
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
jubilee.
"I found places in the world where you can talk nonsense and win applause."
I heard that during Bibi's last visit to China, he spoke in Hebrew in front of the Chinese Congress. After an hour of speech, the translator comes and says: Ching!
Huge applause in the hall.
Bibi is enthusiastic, speaks for another two hours, and the translator says: Ching Chang!
Skyrocketing returns.
Bibi concludes with a passionate three-hour outpouring on the Jewish origins of the Chinese, and the translator says Ching Chang Chung!
Bibi is carried on his hands to the hotel, where he asks the doorman to explain what the translator said, and he explains: Ching - nonsense. Ching Chang - big nonsense. Ching Chang Chung - an end to the big nonsense.
Meir
Due to senility and Alzheimer's, I don't remember things that well. Could you perhaps repeat the questions? Thanks.
Israel, Mach's principle is incorrect period.
Before you ask more questions, maybe address the questions I asked you for a change?
Yehuda, on what basis do you hold the opinion that gravitation spreads like radiation?
Yuval, do you think I would claim such a thing when I have no explanation?
Meir
"It is clear that every mass affects every other mass in its vicinity. This is true up to the range of the galaxy, or the cluster."
Well, Tuff..
So what about Mach's principle. Is it also true up to the range of the galaxy, or the cluster?
Correction: at a distance L half, 2L a quarter, 3L an eighth, 4L one sixteenth, etc.
jubilee
Let us start from the point of view that any physical phenomenon such as radiation that spreads by one of the parts of the square of the distance must also refer to the disturbance that may act on the phenomenon/radiation as a result of the reality of the medium. For example, common light from Migdalor does this by one part of the square of the distance. it is known. But what is not noticed is that in addition it fades according to the turbidity of the medium - the air in which the light flows. So that there is a certain distance, L, that transmits only half of the light-radiation-phenomenon that would pass according to the square of the distance. Hence, at a distance of 2L only half of the radiation will pass and at a distance of 3L a quarter will pass, and likewise at a distance of 4L an eighth of what was supposed to pass by the square of the distance and so on. This is the case with all phenomena that spread according to the square of the distance, and this is also the case with gravitation. To say that gravitation is not affected by passing through the medium is like stating casually that L is equal to infinity. How can such a thing be said when we are required to add enormous amounts of mass to "upgrade" the data in order to "satisfy" Newton's gravitation formula?. And if the mass is "fat" above and beyond what is required?, there is no problem and without any reluctance we add to the universe the energy that will help us break into the required cosmic acceleration.
But what do I understand?
A good day for laborers
Y.S.
post Scriptum. I made some changes to the writing to prevent sudden stops.
The range of gravity: In my opinion, the truth is somewhere in the middle between Meir, Israel and Judah. The gravitational field of a single proton and the like has a finite volume. But there is no limit to the number of protons collected in one area and therefore there is no limit to the volume of the gravitational field of the entire collection. Meir's claim that the range of gravitation is not infinite needs a more convincing explanation than "I repeat that". Also, the mention of dark energy in connection with the issue of the limits of gravity is out of place, mainly because we do not know where dark energy comes from (and I am generally presenting a model according to which the observations from which they deduced its existence are nothing but an optical error).
Meir
In my opinion the range of gravitation is infinite but much smaller than one part of the square of the distance. One simply has to add a possible disturbance of space itself to the gravity flowing through it. The decline will be exponential. Just like light moving in a foggy environment
Good Day
si.
I once again sent a response that disappeared into the space of the cosmos and became part of the Philae and I'm trying to think about what I wrote to Tommy that my response faded away. So peace to Israel. Your words filled my eyes with tears, but I do not agree with your harsh words, but I will write my opinion another time to avoid delays.
Good Day
si.
P.S. Let's hope I succeed in the response task.
Israel, please do not insert words according to. I did not present Shaima as far from the mainstream. The farthest thing from the mainstream that I pointed to is his PhD thesis on the Mach principle. The mainstream does not accept this particular work of his. It needs to be clarified whether he himself continued to see her as great and surrounded later in his career in light of the criticisms she received.
It is clear that every mass affects every other mass in its vicinity. This is true all the way to the galaxy, or cluster. This ceases to be true where the dark energy is mobilized. Newton was wrong. Einstein was wrong. The range of gravitation is not infinite. I repeat: the range of gravitation is not infinite.
I hope you are relieved now, although it is not clear why it was important for you to know this. If Mach's principle is true, it will remain true even when our galaxy remains alone and enveloped when all the others disappear beyond the limit of the observable universe.
If we conclude, then on the one hand you gave too much importance to the parentheses in my words, on the other hand you did not address any of the really important questions I asked.
Yehuda, may you have very good luck 🙂
Thank you for the support, and only the tiny aeronaut: the one that I said about it that has stood up to all the vicissitudes of time so far is the general one, not the private one. And it is true that my particle model resembles a gas, but its mechanics are different from the gases we know.
Please come back soon. And if I don't get to drink Turkish coffee in Herzliya, consider yourself invited to cross the Atlantic to New Jersey (I'm not in Scotland anymore).
Israel, I have no idea if you studied philosophy or not. And if so, wouldn't you agree with me that even if it wouldn't hurt you to learn a little of this material, it wouldn't be useful either. And my embarrassment because it wasn't complete, I only became aware of it after I found places in the world where you can talk nonsense and win applause.
Inertia and its connection with the masses in the universe: if you said that the connection is direct, I would immediately attack you with "prove it". But since we see that the phenomena happen at the same time, it is difficult to ignore the possibility that a connection exists. The question is only what type of connection, let's say: does phenomenon A cause phenomenon B or does there exist C that acts on A and B at the same time.
Israel Shapira my friend
Moved me to tears
and added to MacArthur's words
Old megives never die, they just fade away.
And regarding Mach, I didn't understand your Mach reaction, but maybe the end of wedding preparations and the urgency of the last particles will help me on the matter. That's what there is.
I will come back again
The sun will rise again
spinning or not
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yoda, congratulations! May you have many grandchildren.
Well, then, if Mach's principle is illusory, why is it that when you feel dizzy and your head spins, then we also see the stars spinning to the same extent? As Meir claims, does this mean nothing because the trees and houses are also spinning? Because you can easily arrange for the trees and houses to spin just like us, so that we don't see them spinning, and the head will still spin.
Except that's the way it is between us, Mach's principle is perfectly suited to the simple universe. Because if you build a model of gravity pushing, you will see that each mass must affect the other according to the blocking of the particles. If you try to push and accelerate a mass, then the particles will resist the acceleration. And the bigger the mass, a black hole for example, it will block a larger amount of particles and thus change the rotational rest system, what the society in the neighborhood would call: FRAME DRAGGING, right?
And that's why Mach's principle refuses to die. Like General MacArthur who said in his speech to Congress: Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.
jubilee.
Aristotle, the great philosopher of logic, would tell you: check your assumptions.
Or in simple words: why do you think I didn't learn?
And I agree with you XNUMX%: you are not completely Ahabal.
like..
Well, let's not start another war now. What about the energy? Related to masses in the universe or not?
I came The debate is interesting. I was busy with other equally important things (my little one's wedding the day after tomorrow - Friday) and in addition, and no less important than the wedding - submitting the annual report to the income tax.
I must point out that I did not imagine that an article with this title would bring about 150 responses so far. I must point out that most of them are of interest to us,
Here is my humble opinion:
Erez, Roni, Shaul Shai, Yuval Chaikin: You are right. Even if the topic sounds fantastic and I spent a lot of time conceivable, I would like to know what it is based on.
Avi Blizovsky: No scientific topic is ever closed. What to do, this is the nature of science, it is always defined as "temporarily unfounded". As soon as you say "closed subject" you turn science into a religion (with which everything is always closed)
Regarding those who accept Mach's principle: it is delusional in my opinion. To rotate the whole universe just so as not to rotate the earth? And remember one more thing, the Earth does not exactly rotate on a stable axis, this axis also moves left and right according to the reality of the other planets, so hence an upgraded Mach has to move the entire universe to the right and left in addition to its rotation. Why not use Ockham's razor and cancel Mach's principle outright?
Yuval Chaikin 14.5: I do not agree with the claim "Meanwhile, the theory of general relativity has successfully stood up to all the vicissitudes of time. End quote. The theory of relativity will not be able to explain what is happening in the universe without the dark mass and energy that was created just to justify the serious deviations received from Newton-Einstein and Co. in the study of the universe.
Yuval Chaikin 14.5: True, "There are no proofs in physics." Only rebuttals and confirmations. A Mercury strike confirms the general theory. End quote.
I would add the word "temporary" to the end of the quote.
In addition, I agree with you that there is an intermediary in the universe. The countless moving particles in it must be defined as a gas, because this is the definition of a gas "particles moving from place to place"!
I reached 15.5.2013 in your exciting responses, and I am currently stopping. Interesting debate. My old friend Michael has started to appear vigorously in the comments and it is necessary to prepare before responding to his instructive comments.
So, as McCarthy said when he left the Philippines, I also say:
"I will be back!"
But what a beautiful day
And in appreciation to all the debaters
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael, 🙁
Israel, it won't hurt you to study a little philosophy. I took several courses in this profession at two highly regarded universities (Jerusalem and Glasgow). The important lesson I learned there is an orderly way of thinking. My personal gain is the happy knowledge that I'm not completely miserable.
Meir, you correctly understood the general structure of the model I proposed: many particles, each of which is an entity in itself and there is no connection between them - a long evening, if you will. But because of their proximity to each other, and only because of this, together they create one new entity. If you followed things I wrote here a year or more ago, you may remember that I called this entity a "cluster", "a structure" or a "colony" and compared it to a proton. So far is it clear?
Meir
First, to present Denis Schieme, Dirac's outstanding student and lecturer at Harvard and King's as an eccentric far from the mainstream, sins against the truth.
Second, I don't understand what the fundamental argument is here: don't you accept that every mass affects every other mass through gravitation?
Or you don't accept that the inertia is a result of the mutual influence of the masses.
Or maybe both?
Because if you don't accept A, make it very easy for us, just say.
But don't build on the fact that there won't be a high tide tonight, because what about the distant moon and the water here on earth?
Yuval, I didn't understand how many particles are one entity. Don't each of these particles have their own properties?
For me, one entity is one of two minimalistic possibilities: either a black box that knows how to receive something as input and return something as output, or the thing-what itself that serves as input or output to black boxes.
What is not a black box or is not an input or output to black boxes, does not exist, because it cannot affect anything in the universe. What does not affect does not exist.
A lot of black boxes is a lot of entities.
A lot of input and a lot of output is a lot more black boxes.
Whether the many particles that for you make up the proton are black boxes, or whether they are what a black box knows how to receive or return, they are many entities.
Israel,
Allow me first to intervene in matters between you and Yuval. When your head spins with vertigo at an amusement park, the street lights also spin in perfect correlation. How is this possible without Mach's principle? This is possible according to the Meir principle.
But also without an illuminating principle, and beyond the matter of the role of the lights that the distant stars play:
The universe started from one point. The distant stars are distant not because they moved away in a chaotic motion through space, but because space itself has expanded. On what basis do you expect the distant stars to revolve around you given that Mach's principle is incorrect? Thanks to what were they supposed to acquire orbital speed during the bang? We have already talked about the fact that in order for a distant star to revolve around you at a distinct angular speed, its orbital speed needs to be the product of the angular speed multiplied by two times the distance between you, that is, way beyond light speed
On a cosmic scale the universe is static except for intergalactic drift. You don't need to conjure up Mach to explain why everything around seems to be standing still. After all, even if all the galaxies were moving around you at the speed of light, you would see them standing still.
And now for your questions to me:
Let's assume that every particle gravitationally affects every other particle in the universe (in my opinion, absolutely not, but for the sake of discussion, let's say), it still has a smaller effect on it than 1 divided by the square of the distance between them, divided by 1 divided by its distance from itself.
What makes you think that this effect of his, which is wasted across all of empty space and only fractions of it meet the particles themselves to make life difficult for them, is better than the self-centered effect at zero range?
And let's digress for a moment: Mach threw out an idea that he thought could be the tip of the iceberg for understanding the phenomenon of inertia in contrast to the absolute empty space that Newton deduced from the bucket argument. Mach had no idea how it was supposed to work, and he didn't get to hear about Shaima's dubious work (which, regarding this definition, I can wash clean, because I'm not the one who doubts it) that later came to plant content in his abstract words. Here is the place to try to understand why a hundred years had to pass for this debate that we are conducting to take place. Couldn't Mach spare us that? Did he have a problem saying: It is not possible that the source of the inertia is the self-gravitational field of the particle for a thousand, one, two reasons, so there is no choice but to assume that the source is the self-gravitational field of the particle precisely when it is divided among all the particles in the universe?
And since Mach didn't spare us that, why didn't someone after him spare us that? Why didn't Dennis Schieme begin his work by negating the simple possibility, before drifting into the cosmic mass?
It is certainly possible that sooner or later it will become clear to me that the Meir principle is wrong. Even then, the question will still be valid: where was Mach, and where are all the physicists who have dealt with him in the last hundred years regarding the Meir principle? What was your position about it? There are things that physicists are supposed to discuss even if they are not true. Also for negation needs.
True, there are things that are not even untrue, and in such cases one should not expect someone to express a position for the sake of negation.
After discussing the matter with a famous physics professor, it is clear to me that the Meir principle is far from being included in this category.
Therefore, the absence of the very discussion from the days of science, in my opinion, is a big, flashing red light: here was a spoof.
Finally, I have no interest in convincing that Mach's principle is wrong, or unnecessary. I am only interested in convincing that there is a possibility that the phenomenon of persistence is a special case of the phenomenon of gravity. If that's true, then we've got the greatest unification in the history of science: all of Newton's laws of motion are covered under the universal law of gravitation.
Michael, your streamlining proposal in blog 1 against religion was tested and found worthy of implementation.
We are pleased to inform you that not only will it save us a significant amount of storage space, but it will also allow us to unite the Sky Accounts Department with the Dynamics and Kinematics Department, which applies similar principles following the recommendation of the investigative committee that examined the collapse of the systems at the Shemesh events in Givon Dom and Hirah in the Ayalon Valley.
Sincerely,
(-: (Place of the BDC seal)
Meir
"That everyone will contribute to themselves everything they have to contribute instead of engaging in global accounting".
Indeed, it is time to put a little more free market spirit into the universe. But what to do that socialism is gnawing at the sky in every mouth? How else can you explain the fact that every particle is bound to every other particle by gravitation, and this also includes the mass of every elementary particle in my computer mouse.
You don't doubt that all particles are bound together by gravity, do you?
And what about the electric power? Aren't all the charges related to each other? Isn't it time to change the oppressive colon law? Introduce a little more liberalization in all kinds of conservation laws, who needs all this conservatism?!
jubilee
"It is true that my senses provide me with an image of physics, but the senses themselves are also a physical entity. My thinking ability (and all of us, apparently) is nothing but a function of neurons and chemistry and in fact a physical being."
"I wonder if physics is all mathematics or if it has a non-mathematical core. If this nucleus exists, I would like to put my finger on it."
It seems to me that we are drifting a bit into philosophy, aren't we? Kant and Plato would be proud of you.
I would be happy to try and answer, if the answer to this ancient question exists. But I'm currently interested in the question of why when my head spins like a vertigo in an amusement park, the stars also spin in perfect correlation, and how is this possible without Mach's principle.
In short, since now God also enters the picture, it is time to return the discussion to physical lines.
wipe out all the smiles. Plato, Nietzsche, Tzwicki, a group of commands in Sheva in Hmal. And that someone will get me the boss in NLAN.
Wipe that smile off your face!
: )
😛 😛 😛
jubilee:
You overdid it! I wrote the things because of the reason I mentioned and I refuse to get into a polemic here about the question you are trying to drag me into because it really wouldn't belong in the article (neither the current article nor the article I voted on)
That's right, Michael. Not really relevant. It seems that you are mostly taking a ride and making an advertisement for yourself.
When I am asked if I believe in God, I ask for a definition of it before I answer if I believe in him or not. Are you willing to give a definition of this entity so we know how to "eat" or vomit it?
And yet, Meir,
How about presenting a proton and its gravitational field as a collection of many particles (whose mechanics I won't go into in detail right now) which are arranged in increasing density as you get closer to the center of the collection? In this way the proton and its gravitational field are one entity.
My current response really does not belong to the topic of the discussion, but the spirit of Meir's last response reminds me of an article I wrote on the blog "The Wheel of a Secular" which I manage on the website "One Against All Religion".
You are welcome to read and notice the similarity:
http://1vsdat.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=575:%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D&Itemid=189
Bookkeeping, bookkeeping...
Meir! Get a strong like ☼ (y) ☼
By the way, you write "It is Yuval and especially Meir who claim that there is no connection between inertia and distant masses."
And I wondered: if the inertia of one of those elementary particles from which your computer mouse is made is a result of the mass of an elementary particle of which a gas molecule is made at the other end of the universe, then the inertia of that elementary particle at the other end of the dust universe is a result of the mass of an elementary particle in the mouse your computer
So, if every elementary particle has to contribute its mass effect to all the elementary particles in the universe in order to give them inertia, then what is the purpose of this circular transaction? That everyone will contribute to themselves everything they have to contribute instead of engaging in global accounting.
Israel, before we talk about equations 2.1 we will talk about the "onwards" of the article. The article refers to Shaima's model in all its interpretations as a "toy", and there are good reasons why this model has not captured the hearts of the mainstream. The basic model requires that the speed of gravity is infinite. The alternative excuses that try to maintain the model hypothesize a speculative hypothesis that the effects of cosmic gravity in the present are the result of the propagation of gravity from the future to the past and from the past to the future (ie from the future space-time cone to the present and the past space-time cone to the present). That doesn't solve the problem either, and so on and so forth. Bottom line, the article sums itself up in a humorous way.
Actually equations 2.1 2.2, they are based on Einstein's field equations. How does this concern me?
As you remember, my role in the force is to establish a more accurate theory than relativity. As such, it is not based on the principles of relativity and does not come to correct them. A deformed thing cannot be repaired, but an unfinished thing can be completed. Therefore, it is based on Newtonian mechanics, which it corrects against the background of the discoveries of quantum mechanics. The so-called relativistic phenomena emerge and appear of their own accord (if the wonders of quantum mechanics were within Newton's reach, it turns out that Einstein would not have appeared on the stage of history, at least not in the context of the theory of relativity).
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A5
I don't disagree and I don't agree. I'm a skinny dipper. Before I agree or disagree, I want to know what it is all about. It is true that my senses provide me with an image of physics, but the senses themselves are also a physical entity. My thinking ability (and all of us, apparently) is nothing but a function of neurons and chemistry and in fact a physical entity. This is physics that sees itself and thinks for itself and adds nothing to understanding. We learned that there is a super-reality that we call "Mathematika". From time to time we discover physical phenomena that we did not know about before and immediately seek to quantify them mathematically and succeed. And I wonder if physics is all mathematics or if it has a non-mathematical core. If this nucleus exists, I ask to put my finger on it. And if there isn't one, I want to know how physics was created out of mathematics. Only after that will I decide with whom to form a coalition...
In the summer, categorizing me on some side of the fence is not a wise action
Michael
There is indeed a difference - but not a big one. Otherwise we would see the stars spinning if we were on a disc that doesn't measure centrifugal force, wouldn't we?
But I think we pretty much agree. It is Yuval and especially Meir who claim that there is no connection between inertia and distant masses. I would recommend them to read the
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/killing-time.pdf
and look at equations 2.1 onwards.
Israel,
So that's it, I didn't get it. But please don't bother too much, because my interest in beautiful proofs is purely aesthetic.
But if you (or anyone willing to get involved) can point to the missing link between mathematics and physics, I'd love to see
Israel:
But if you followed the explanation of the Frame dragging phenomenon, then you saw that the rotation is caused by the difference between the degree of space drift on both sides of the reference point.
If there is such a difference between the two sides of a single point - surely there is a difference when you move a million kilometers apart
Michael.
Because of the frame dragging I wrote a million km and not a million light years. If on our imaginary axis, which is a billion light years long, one disk does not measure centrifugal force, then under normal conditions, even a disk at a distance of a million km will not be measured relative to it. It is different if the distance is 3 million light years, and the disc is now in another galaxy.
jubilee.
If you accepted that the persistence comes from the masses in the universe, then you accepted Mach's principle, and there is no need to reproduce Scheima's proof. Thanks for the release.
thanks Michael. get a like (y)
Meir, I was there too. From my correspondence with Michael you can understand where I am aiming
Yuval, I can describe and we were already there:
http://tinyurl.com/distorted-in-motion
I don't know of a scientific breakthrough that was achieved without the use of logic.
The simplicity argument in the name of which they try to simplify things works up to a lower limit beyond which the abstraction becomes complicated.
jubilee:
The mass probably came from the Heitges field.
Yes - I know - "but where does the Higgs field come from?, from Higgs particles? But where do they come from?" Do not know
thanks Michael,
I guess you already understand what I'm asking for in my private Villa Dolorosa. Does persistence come from the masses in the universe? I am ready to embrace it into my bosom with love, but the birth father of the mass in the universe still remains unknown.
Israel:
I didn't really follow your words, but it seems to me that they are based on an incorrect assumption regarding the fact that all the systems that are equivalent to some kind of rest system, are the rest systems themselves.
This is exactly what is refuted by the Frame Dragging and it is precisely this that suggests to me the correctness of Mach's principle (because it shows that huge masses can determine what will be called a "rest system" and therefore certainly the mass of the entire universe can do this.
And in relation to the elderly Einstein - I say again: my interpretation of his words is that if in his youth he was quite sure that Mach's principle was true, then in his old age he was less sure of it - but he did not renounce it completely. He merely said that it may not be true.
jubilee:
The Frame dragging story, which I hope you will finally read, demonstrates the claim that the persistence comes from the masses in the universe (therefore if there is a significant deviation from the average mass distribution in a certain area - the persistence also changes in this area)
Meyer,
The place of logic in scientific thinking is highly respected, but history shows that significant breakthroughs have been achieved through challenging it.
Below is a quote from your words that moved me very much because I claim something remarkably similar to him: "Acceleration of a particle by means of an external force displaces the particle from the center of the field and thus encounters the resistance of the particle (which strives to fall to the center of the field, i.e. to remain in its place) and at the same time forces a tiny distortion in the spherical symmetry of the particle's gravitational field which is built every time anew, and this time in a slightly different position from its previous position and The ruins of the field that existed just before. The tiny field is therefore stretched in the direction of motion according to the strength of the acting force. The particle now continues to fall in its asymmetric gravity field, thus perpetuating the asymmetry, and the movement in the given direction."
Besides pointing out the existence of a distortion, can you also describe it?
Israel,
I asked him (the scaly bully whose name must be punctuated in order not to be detained) about the source of his persistence, because he mocked me for not understanding, even though in doing so he showed that his mind was as opaque as mine. "The rotational movement translates into a centrifugal force because of the persistence", another idiot jumped in as a way to whip him and said the obvious. But I brought the centrifugal force as a special case of a general phenomenon that he did not bother to refer to. The more general phenomenon I was referring to is the persistence revealed in movement (which can be measured as relative), and the question of how the mathematical phenomenon turns into a physical phenomenon still remains.
Shaima did not study in the same class with me, but even if his proof is correct, the question of the origin of gravity has not yet been solved (which does not relieve you from bringing the beautiful proof 🙂 ).
Yuval, I think the distinction between a particle and its field is clear, since particles have separate properties from their fields, for example spin. Apart from that, quantum mechanics directs us to a discontinuous universe. A non-continuous universe is made of discrete and tiny "bits", and therefore, in my opinion, a model in which physical entities extend over vast distances is not acceptable. If that's not enough, the intensity of the fields of particles changes with the distance from the center of the field. In my opinion, it is not accepted that something will change quantitatively without the amount of units changing within it, and if we have already come to the conclusion that the "something" is composed of discrete units with varying density, then it is no longer the same autonomous "unit" whose simplicity was a reason to give up the separation between a particle and its field.
Michael
"Rotary rest system" is the disk system that does not measure centrifugal force. If you take 10 disks, pass a central axis through them and rotate them at different angular speeds, then just from a video of those rotating disks you will not be able to determine which of them is resting, which is rotating, and at what angular speed.
If, on the other hand, you measure the centrifugal force acting on the circumference, you can determine who is really resting.
As soon as you have identified the disk, any other disk that does not rotate relative to that disk, even at a distance of a million kilometers, will not measure centrifugal force. Any other disk that is at a distance of a million kilometers from each of the other disks and is in a state of rest relative to a certain disk, will measure the same centrifugal force that that disk measures.
As far as I understand, every disk that is at rest relative to a discount disk is in a rotational rest system. It rests relative to the stars of the Sabbath.
The question is what will happen if we pull the imaginary axis of the resting system to a great distance so that we reach another galaxy. It is possible that here the rotational rest system is different, and a disc that is at rest in the Milky Way will actually measure centrifugal force in that galaxy, and this is because the rotational rest system there is different from ours.
In any case, it seems to me that we agree on the basic principle, that the inertia originates from the surrounding masses. Like us, so did Mach and the young Einstein. Those who are not convinced are the elderly Einstein(?), Yuval, and Meir, who claims that the distant masses have nothing to do with inertia and are actually "LED bulbs" as defined by him, and the inertia comes from the gravitational field of a particle that resists changing the position of the particle's center of gravity.
jubilee
You ask "And the persistence, what does it come from?"
Denis Shaima claims - to a certain extent it can be said that he proves - that inertia originates from the gravitation of all existing matter. I couldn't find a suitable link, but if you insist I will bring you the beautiful proof in his book.
Meir, of all the debaters here you give the closest picture to my vision of the universe. so cheeky
But sentences I will speak to you: you present the particle and its gravitational field as two separate entities. Is there not a simpler picture in you, one that contains fewer assumptions? Can you view the particle and its gravitational field as a single entity?
Michael, for your response this:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/galileo-was-wrong-100513/comment-page-4/#comment-425975
"As a physical phenomenon, we feel rotation (in addition to the mathematical definition) also through the centrifugal force and this force (and here is a serious misunderstanding of yours, Yuval) derives directly from persistence!"
And the persistence, what does it come from?
Israel:
I didn't understand your words.
What do you know about the galactic rotational rest system that others don't?
To remind you: the galaxies do not exhibit a resting system (among us - if they did, they would collapse in the absence of centrifugal force).
They also don't exhibit a coated angular velocity with constant addition (which you would expect from a rotating system whose rest system is rotating.
They exhibit, more or less, a uniform linear velocity of most stars (which is different from all of the above).
It seems to me that dark matter is by far the best explanation we have for the subject.
Meir
First - a shameful confession. GM=RC^2 is obviously speculative. You won't find her anywhere. Who like me knows, I derived it myself from Shaima's theory. Your company's formula from the blog is not the same.
On the other hand, if you check the data that appears in Wikipedia, you will see that there is no big mistake. Perhaps a deviation of a few tens of percent, and not 100 orders of magnitude as could be expected from a speculative formula based on a liquid and unknown figure: the mass of the universe, which changes every moment since the big bang (due to the expansion of the universe that part of its mass goes outside the range of influence at the speed of light, and according to Mach should entail a continuous decay in the persistence mass) and that the estimates regarding it take into account a speculative idea that we still don't know how to eat it: dark energy.
So how did we get such a good approximation? Coincidence?
Michael, speaking of coincidence: the rotational rest system relative to the stars is not even approximate - it is absolute. So how does this happen without Mach's principle?
And is the same rest system the same in all galaxies? If we take a disk on which no centrifugal force acts and stretch its axis of rotation to Andromeda and put another disk on it, won't centrifugal force also act on it?
So it is true that we do not have empirical findings, but logic (my) says that one of the two: either the rotational rest system is the same in all galaxies (unlikely) or that in the intergalactic medium the rest system is different, which changes all the rules of the game.
Michael, you are right that this is not the place to go into more detail. In any case, regarding the comment you already made - when the particle is in motion, the center of the field does not coalesce with the center of the particle, because the field is created under asymmetric conditions (I assume that the field is created by quantum pulses. When a current quantum pulse is carried out in the same place where the previous pulse occurred, that is, at the center of the field, the field will have Spherical symmetry. When the current pulse occurs outside the center of the field created in the previous pulse, the strength of the field in the direction of motion will be stronger than its strength in the opposite direction, that is, the center of the field will be outside the center of the particle).
Israel, why? Why? Why are you amazed by a speculative formula that is based on a liquid and unknown figure: the mass of the universe, which changes every moment since the big bang (due to the expansion of the universe, part of its mass goes outside the range of influence at the speed of light, and which according to Mach should entail a continuous decay in the mass of persistence) and that the estimates regarding it take into account an idea Speculative who still don't know how to eat it: dark energy, and on the other hand you are not excited at all by the alternative, which is based on pure and simple algebra, and according to which Newton's three laws of motion and the universal law of gravitation were the same (because if persistence is self-gravitation, then the three laws of motion are special cases of gravity).
It was a rhetorical question.
Israel:
The "nice" thing about the Mach principle is that it is all about hand waving and not a theory that allows for prediction, so even if there was a situation like the one you describe (and as far as I know there isn't) we wouldn't be able to derive the answer to your question from it.
Meir:
Personally, I think that the gravitational field is indeed attached to the particle as a shadow. Although a shadow in the distance is subject to the constraints of the speed of light, but to the point where the particle is, it comes with it.
It is also not clear to me how in the particle system, the position of the center of the field merges with the position of the particle and in another system this center precedes the particle.
Anyway - if you are sure you have something to say and you know how to write it clearly, try sending an article to some professional newspaper because with all due respect, the science site is not like that.
Michael.
If absolute rotational rest according to Mach is different between the galaxies - what will be the state of rest at the midpoint between two galaxies that each have an absolute rotational rest that is radically different from the other?
Meir.
What about GM=RC^2? If there is no connection between the masses, then how is it that the mass of the universe appears in one formula that links four different constants?
I don't know if this is related, but if you do a dimensional analysis of the formula, you will get F=MA.
If you take a large and massive ring and rotate it, then the state of absolute rest inside it (which in a normal state is synchronized with the stars of the Sabbath) will not change? What about FRAME DRAGGING? What about Scheima's mathematical development that directly links inertia to the mass of the universe?
And on the other hand, Einstein was disappointed with Mach's principle at the end of his life, so the lack of understanding is probably on me.
Michael, I'm not kidding. On the contrary, I have extended the explanation to show that perpetual motion is free fall in an asymmetric self-field. After the particle is forcibly deflected from the center of its self-gravitational field, an asymmetric gravitational field is created whose center precedes the particle in the direction of movement, in a way that perpetuates the movement (as it is called, the movement of persistence).
The examples from Wikipedia do not excuse for Mach or for us the question of the particle's self-gravity. There is only one way to escape this question, and that is to assume that the particle's gravitational field does not affect the particle because it is adjacent to it like a shadow, that is, there is no time difference between the moment when the particle is detected at a certain point in its trajectory and the moment when the center of its gravitational field hovers in miraculous spherical symmetry around that point.
If this is so, then Mach can rest easy on his bed (although he did not point to anything concrete in the cosmic mass that could cause the persistence phenomenon). But if this is not so (and I find no finding that compels a physicist to think that the particle and its gravitational field are an inseparable entity, and that they have no mutual influence) the question arises, what is the mutual influence of a particle and its gravitational field, and could it be that the source of the phenomenon of persistence is this mutual influence.
I will clarify this: in what is the mutual influence of a particle and its gravitational field expressed if not in the phenomenon of persistence?
I will refine it further: assuming that it can be proven through simple algebra that the mutual influence of a particle and its gravitational field (as separate physical entities) is the phenomenon of persistence, what is the favorite option: Mach's principle (a particle and its gravitational field are one entity that lacks reciprocal effects among themselves), or Meir principle?
Meir:
I guess you're joking. Right?
After all, your definition shows resistance to movement in general (relative to what?) and not resistance to acceleration.
By the way - the examples I brought from Wikipedia show that Mach's thinking is not disconnected from reality.
Machel
You're right. There is no simple way to put things. I tried all kinds of variations and all I get is a whole book of formulas and explanations.
You understand what I'm talking about even though you don't know it yet 🙂
I'll put things as simply as possible later, thanks for now.
For the sake of historical accuracy, the Mach principle has a competitor named the Meir principle. According to the Meir principle, persistence is the self-gravity of elementary particles, which is nothing but the free fall of each particle in the field of its own gravity. Acceleration of a particle by means of an external force displaces the particle from the center of the field and thus encounters the resistance of the particle (which strives to fall to the center of the field, i.e. to stay in its place) and at the same time forces a tiny distortion in the spherical symmetry of the particle's gravitational field which is built up every time anew, and this time in a slightly different position from its previous position and its ruins of the field that existed a moment before. The tiny field is therefore stretched in the direction of motion according to the strength of the acting force. The particle now continues to fall in its asymmetric gravity field and thus perpetuates the asymmetry, and the movement in the given direction.
Therefore, according to the Meir principle, Mach's principle is unnecessary. The speed of a particle is absolute relative to the degree of its deviation from the center of its self-gravitational field. No external reference point is needed for movement. Even in a universe where a single particle exists, it can have a speed, which will be expressed in a small asymmetry in its self-gravitational field.
One can only marvel at Mach who suggested that the cosmic mass ("the distant stars") has a greater effect on the particle than the effect of its own gravity (which according to Newton tends to infinity as the distance from the particle tends to zero).
And following Michael's wonder, one can wonder about Mach even more: in Mach's opinion, in an empty universe of any material in which there is only one photon, the speed of the photon would be zero, just because there is nothing to attribute it to, or would the speed of the photon always be the speed of light, even in an empty universe?
Israel, I wonder about you too, and this time after a famous physics professor confronted the Meir principle and found no fault in it.
Israel:
It's not just different places, but different places that are in close proximity to an extremely massive body, like a black hole, which is rotating.
This does not provide even the beginning of a solution to the dark matter issue.
ghosts:
I still don't understand what you are asking.
Please detail without back references and in full.
Say, among other things, what a and b are and avoid confusing phrases like the point is a circle (because in this sense, a point is both an ellipse and a triangle and a pith) and what is the value of the circle (do you mean the radius?).
If the question is "What does a shape that appears in its rest system as a circle look like to someone moving relative to that system" then the answer is "an ellipse" where the axis perpendicular to the direction of motion is the diameter of the circle and the axis in the direction of motion is shorter according to the formula of relativity.
Accordingly, a ball will look like a pita whose sections perpendicular to the direction of movement are circles and whose sections parallel to the direction of movement are ellipses.
M'
I attributed to the question you asked a few comments ago.
I don't know either, I'm just guessing.
If you draw a Cartesian system of axes, and there is a point on it at the origin of the axes, then the point is the canonical circle.
How to correctly write the expression if I want to say that the value of the circle has changed (ie different from zero)?
Michael
If "in different places in the universe - the rotation/rest speeds are different!" So what is the wonder then that the outer stars in the galaxies rotate faster than expected according to Newton? Even in the article you cited it says:
In this example, the distant stars seem to be revolving faster and faster as one moves further away.
So what is the dark matter for if this is what the theory predicts?
Summon Ehud Yehuda and Yuval immediately for a discussion!
Ghosts:
It is not clear to me what you are asking about, are you talking about the pills in the experiment I linked to?
In any case, it seems to me that my answer to any variation on the question would be "I don't know"
M'
Thanks.
In your opinion, how would the cosmological constant be manifested in the entire system. Is this the center of sphere a? Or is the constant the background of a and b?
And by the way, Israel:
The above clearly demonstrates the phenomenon you feared was missing: indeed - in different places in the universe - the rotation/rest speeds are different!
By the way, I recommend to those who are not lazy (and it seems to me that up to this point everyone has been lazy) to read the section I talked about in the link to Mach's principle and then to go even deeper and read the subject mentioned there under the name Lense–Thirring effect.
When he enters this section he will learn, among other things, that one of the phenomena of frame dragging caused by a massive rotating body is that near massive rotating bodies - the rest system - the one in which you do not feel acceleration is a system that rotates relative to a distant observer (in other words - precisely when you are rotating relative to that distant observer you do not feel centrifugal force).
I certainly understand why Einstein saw this as confirmation of Mach's principle.
point:
I'm sorry but you wore me out.
I really tried to explain to you what is known and what is not, but you probably know what no one knows.
The fact that acceleration affects different things differently is obvious and you don't need the twin paradox for that.
When I'm sitting in a car at a traffic light next to cafe tables that are on the sidewalk and the traffic light changes - I press the gas pedal and for some reason - I'm the one who sticks to the back of the chair and has no effect on the company sitting in the restaurant and not even a drop of coffee spills from the cup and all of that - it's just not relevant.
Velocity is the time derivative of place and acceleration is the time derivative of velocity and these things - by definition - are relative to the axis system.
The fact that acceleration affects differently those who change speed in relation to the medium of persistence is clear from the definition of the medium of persistence.
Many things written here are not true.
Acceleration is not relative. The most obvious example is the twins paradox.
Therefore it would not be correct to say that the person moves in relation to the blood corpuscles. The forces acting inside the human body accelerated the spheres, not the human body.
Michael,
You can say anything. I can say that the fact that I am lying in bed can be interpreted as that I am standing and that the universe is lying down, any common postmodernist will tell you.
Reporter:
"If the universe is the medium in relation to which persistence exists, then the entire universe has no persistence at all, and in other words it can be moved (as a whole) without applying force"
And it was precisely in my post that I prefaced a cure for the blow and wrote in the commentary:
"The Earth rotates relative to space. And space is defined by the distribution of mass in the universe.
We can ask "is the universe rotating" and then we will have to ask, rotating relative to why.
"
And I wrote that the universe is absolute and not relative, so what you wrote that you can exert force on the universe is not true at all.
That is, contrary to what you deduced, the fact that there is no frame of reference that the universe refers to is exactly what makes it absolute.
Oh, well, it's clear that intuition doesn't affect the laws of nature - I thought you implied that it's really not related to our case either.
In any case, I roughly understood the rest of your response. I'm not asking you to keep explaining. But I just want to thank you for opening up another area of interest for me to study.
Intuition plays a role. I only said that it does not affect the laws of nature.
The situation is that no one knows if there exists an absolute medium independent of the distribution of mass (and energy) with respect to which the motion (and persistence) can be defined.
This does not mean that such an intermediary does not exist (but it also does not mean that it exists).
If intuition does not play a role here - then neither do I.
I did not study physics beyond Newton's laws. So I have nothing to add except - apparently the definition of displacement as I know it is different from the definition you know. I never say that a body moves (goes from place A to place B) only if the particles that contain it move (go from place A to place B). But the mathematical definition may be different.
Thanks for trying to explain (and sorry for wasting time).
In relation to Einstein in his lifetime and Mach's principle - the subject has come up here several times and all of them are interpretations.
In the book "Einstein" by Dennis Bryan there is an exact quote of Einstein's words on which all the above speculations are based and it seems to me that the words speak for themselves:
Write a name:
Asked about Mach's principle (that the resistance of bodies to acceleration is determined by the effects of distant matter in the universe), Einstein admitted that he had lost his enthusiasm for it and "perhaps there wasn't in nature anything corresponding to Mach's principle after all"
In other words - he did not rule out Mach's principle at all but admitted that there is a possibility that it is not true.
As for the things about blood cells - intuition has no influence on nature.
We are used to interpreting displacement as an absolute thing and the whole theory of relativity is based on the understanding that such a thing does not exist and only relative motion exists, therefore the movement of blood corpuscles in relation to a person is exactly the same as the movement of a person in relation to spheroids. It is not "either the person moves or the spheres move" because the word "move" has no meaning without the relative context and there is only the relative displacement between the person and the spheres.
Flowing with you, so be it. Let's raise a toast, and let's eat a bee.
LET IT BE.
I already picked this up for you :)
At least we all agree on the physical law that no one wants to be Bibi (and not just because of Sarah)...
I will stay with Deborah (the prophetess). Thanks
About the kickback BB, but what do you say about it Sarah?
Israel, I changed the name of the path to match your description.
Thanks. It made me laugh a lot and I also remember it from somewhere.
In any case - a gap is not a gap, it shouldn't change anything.
Miracles:
Indeed - I did not use the expression "to move the universe" just like that and in my response it says "to move the universe in relation to the earth"
Adon wants to be a bee:
The gap between the masses of the stars and the blood cells is like the gap between the rich and the poor in Israel.
Maybe I exaggerated, but not sure in which direction.
I didn't understand the concept of "moving the universe". For this purpose, an absolute reference system, outside the universe, is needed. And, the universe needs to exist, regardless of the material that makes it up.
Do the blood cells that move in my body move me? Intuition says no.
How is the universe that contains stars different from my body that contains blood cells?
You are quick..
Michael, Brian Grice 🙂 holds that this is what relativity holds - he does not hold his own version.
Israel:
Brian Green believes so but actually doesn't know.
We don't know either.
no one knows
I think this is the situation at the moment.
The matter = interesting
"The force you exert on the earth to move it in relation to the universe can certainly be interpreted as a force that actually moves the universe in relation to the earth."
This is the most interesting sentence I have read in a long time.
Does the universe move itself all the time (when it moves stars and planets)?
point:
You still don't understand, unfortunately.
If the universe is the medium in relation to which persistence exists, then the entire universe has no persistence at all, and by definition it is possible to move it (as a whole) without applying force (for force is what is necessary to overcome persistence and in its absence is not necessary just as in another interpretation the curvature of space outside of space has no meaning).
The force you exert on the earth to move it relative to the universe can certainly be interpreted as a force that actually moves the universe relative to the earth.
Michael.
Brian Green Gores: According to general relativity, even in a universe empty of anything else we would feel the centrifugal force. The medium in front of which we move is space-time.
And that's exactly what I can't understand: why if we take two round plates that rotate relative to each other, we can safely say that one is at rest and the other is rotating. And not only can we say that it is rotating, we can even measure the centrifugal force and use it to determine what is its angular speed of rotation and whether it is rotating clockwise or counterclockwise.
So why does space discriminate time between two successes? Why is the second plate the one that rotates and not the first?
At least Mach's principle gives us a clear answer: the rotation is relative to the stars of the Sabbath. But here too a question arose: those Shabbat stars are not "the universe". If only the stars of the Milky Way - one galaxy out of billions. So why wouldn't another galaxy have an angular rotation speed, or absolute rest, different from ours? Is the absolute or rest rotation speed the same in all galaxies?
Newton thought that space is absolute and time is absolute.
Leibniz, on the other hand, saw space as defined by the stars that exist in it.
General relativity unified these 2 concepts.
Michael, you didn't read everything I wrote. I wrote that locally you can really say that the rotation is relative and that is clear.
But, the history of the forces acting on the body is not relative. If spaceships come with cables and drag the earth, it will not be possible to say that the universe is moving backwards. Spaceships do not have enough momentum or energy to affect the universe.
And as for Einstein, the later Einstein no longer accepted Mach's principle, at least not in its entirety.
jubilee:
You really didn't understand.
Regarding your claim that you are in good company, I say: maybe, but I am not in this company. I realized.
I will go ahead and say that I do not know if there is an absolute space and that is not the subject of the discussion. I even say that I don't know if Mach's principle is true (and it really raises very strange intuitive questions in me that if I have the strength I will detail later).
What I am saying is only that Mach's principle is consistent with all observations and that in the absence of any fixed background against which things can rotate "absolutely", the rotation (this time, but only this time - as a mathematical term) is relative because there is simply no other meaning for the word rotation.
As a physical phenomenon we feel rotation (in addition to the mathematical definition) also through the centrifugal force and this force (and here is a serious misunderstanding of yours, Yuval) derives directly from persistence!
That's why the only one who really talks here about the physical factor and not about prejudices is me.
Treating rotation as an absolute thing is simply a matter of convenience - it is convenient for us to define the medium of persistence as absolute. If there really is an absolute space we cannot know and for all practical purposes - when we say that something rotates, we mean that it rotates relative to that space.
And a few words about what basically bothers me from Mach.
Imagine that the principle is true, and imagine in addition, a very simple universe (more than the "simple universe" 🙂 ) where there are only two identical spherical stars pointing a fixed side towards each other.
If there were a constant background (other than the distribution of mass in the universe) they could rotate around each other (while moving relative to that background) in such a way that the centrifugal force keeps them at a constant distance.
What happens if there is no such background?
Do they have to fall for each other and have no way to turn around?
Michael and Point, please allow me a light footing. It seems to me that the lack of understanding is mutual. Michael points to a mathematical description of the phenomenon, while Point tries to understand the causes of its physical results. It is true that "the conservation of momentum is relative to the medium in which the persistence exists", but this does not explain how relative motion translates into physical phenomena such as, for example, centrifugal force. And if I didn't understand either, I'll take solace in the fact that I'm in good company. Shabbat Shalom ☼
point:
You did not understand correctly.
As I said - conservation of momentum is relative to the medium in which persistence takes place (which is a private case of conservation of momentum).
If this medium is the dispersion of all the mass in the universe, then the movement of all this dispersion together does not change the movement of the bodies in relation to the medium (because the entire medium moves), and therefore no problem of persistence arises and momentum is preserved despite the change.
Michael, maybe I misunderstood.
The change in momentum/energy of a universe slowing its rotation around the Earth is much greater than the change in momentum/energy of an Earth slowing its rotation within a universe.
Therefore these are unreasonable claims. And so self-rotation is absolute.
The earth rotates relative to space. And space is defined by the distribution of mass in the universe.
We can ask "is the universe rotating" and then we will have to ask, rotating relative to why.
We say that space itself expands, and one may ask, relatively why. Here the answer will be, relative to particles whose size does not change. or relative to the distances between particles (as in an atom). But the question of containment will still remain, what is the universe contained within that it can expand to. After all, it is impossible for there to be any dynamic without an intermediary within which this happens. So what is the medium within which time passes and space expands. There is no answer to that. Most theories take space and time as a given frame.
Or in other words, the universe as we know it is absolute. The sizes in it are not relative to anything else (if only because there is nothing else).
☼ Thank you Israel ☼
♪ ♫ But it's crowded in my ear anyway ♫ ♪
Ghosts:
It is impossible to mathematically prove anything physical or scientific at all.
Science is based on observations and mathematics serves us only as a way to link phenomena and formulate laws that allow prediction.
This does not mean that the formulas are not correct but it means that we have no way of knowing if they are correct.
Therefore the answer to your question is negative.
In addition to this - if the theory of relativity is correct, then the shape of the universe may appear different to observers at different speeds and what appears to one as a ball may appear to another as pita.
point:
The law of conservation of momentum holds only in relation to the factor in relation to which the persistence holds and therefore the considerations you present are wrong.
jubilee
But they didn't know about the universe yet what its shape was,
If it's square, if it's round, or whatever he likes.
But one thing they knew,
And that was immediately determined -
If she refused - there is no hope,
That is what happened.
I gave her my life... Hi Yuya, Hi Yuya...
R.H. Rafai.M
I'm actually interested in your opinion and would love to hear from you by email as well
ivrit.yuval00@googlemail.com
And as for the shape of the universe - is it critical if it is round or not?
It is not really true to say that the universe revolves around the earth.
On the one hand there is the law of conservation of momentum and on the other hand the speed of the earth's rotation has changed and changes over time.
It's like it's not really true to say that it's the earth that's traveling in the opposite direction while we're traveling in a car.
This may be true locally, at this point in time, but it is not really true, if you take the whole space of time. and all the forces that worked to get something going.
M'
Peace.
I wanted to write something here that I at least think is interesting, but since no one asks my opinion, I see no point in doing so. What I did want was to ask you a question. And I would love to learn your interpretation: can you prove mathematically why the universe is not round?
(Seriously, yes? Not with answers like 1-1 equals zero and zero is round..shhhhhh)
Avi:
You can also do this:
material bully
🙁 🙂
A lot of people are made of bully stuff.
Michael, your question is correct
What I'm looking for is not something complex like "who created the intelligent designer" but something simple like how the universe was created ex nihilo. For example, what is in the baryonic matter that causes it to both maintain momentum and create gravitation. Indeed, when the cause is found (for example, the Higgs boson was a candidate at some point) I will continue to look for the cause of that cause in the hope of finding something even simpler
Israel:
In Avraham Fais's book, similar things are written in English, but there it is only written that his enthusiasm for the Mach principle disappeared and not that he denied it.
In my opinion, the source of the decrease in enthusiasm is the ambiguity of Mach's principle, which is written in a rather vague way.
However - the fact that the persistence of a body depends on the distribution of mass in the universe and the movement of the body in relation to it he could not deny because as mentioned - this is also what the theory of relativity predicts in the same thought experiment mentioned in Wikipedia.
Michael.
Evidence of magnitude 0:
Brian Green, Fabric of the Universe Mater Publishing 2006, p. 71:
"In the beginning, Einstein thought that the theory of general relativity fully embodied Mach's view... he called it Mach's principle. In 1913... He sent Mach an enthusiastic letter... but general relativity is complicated and convoluted... the better he understood its implications, he realized that it was more and more difficult for him to fully integrate Mach's principle into general relativity. He became increasingly disillusioned with Mach's ideas, and in the last years of his life he denied them."
As for myself, I do not understand how it is possible without the Mach principle.
jubilee:
I don't understand what you mean by the expression "mechanisms" and why (assuming you find some - and it doesn't matter what they are) you wouldn't call them fundamental laws and look for what is behind them.
Michael. It is clear that the representations of the relative motion of our earth and the universe give an accurate description of rotation, but that is not what I am dealing with. I am looking for the mechanisms behind the fundamental theorems of the various physical theories. The description of the rotation, as well as the definition of the acting forces, is familiar and well known but does not contribute anything to me.
Miracles, as usual you say correct and accurate things. And I really have nothing to add to Israel's words.
Israel! I take back my thanks and apologies to the rest of the body of the benefactor (whose name must not be pronounced) and convey them to you accompanied by a bouquet of flowers
☼ ♥ ☼ ♠ ☼ ♣ ☼ ♦ ☼
jubilee:
I don't know what you mean by "complete information".
All relativity in the theory of relativity is based on the fact that the movement of things is one relative to the other and not something without context.
Therefore - the statement that the earth rotates means one and only one thing: it rotates in relation to the universe.
The earth and the universe are not in the same position because the universe is much more massive and it determines the background within which the law of persistence exists.
In developing his general theory of relativity, Einstein drew inspiration from this principle and the example that led Einstein to write the passionate letter is an example that shows that given a large enough mass that rotates relative to a body that apparently does not rotate relative to the rest of the universe, that body feels (in terms of persistence) as if it is rotating.
In other words - if the theory of relativity correctly predicts the behavior of nature in this extreme situation (and probably - this has not been tested directly because it is impossible to build such a sphere around a star, but many other evidences indicate that the laws that gave this prediction work well) then it predicts the principle Mach.
It is easy to see why this excited Einstein.
Israel:
I did not hear that Einstein stopped believing in the correctness of Mach's principle. Do you have any evidence of this? How did he reconcile the claim that Mach's principle is incorrect with the fact that the theory of relativity requires it?
Yuval Chaikin
I aspire to nothing. I say - the fact that a calculation matches the observation does not mean that the calculation is correct.
Moderate I waited.
jubilee
We are not just anti-Chilba - we are squarely anti-Chilba!
Which, as we know, only turns the negative sign into a positive one, so we are both in the same situation.
Miracles
In physics, nothing is a proof. Halley's comet and Pluto confirmed Newton's theory, and here came Einstein and corrected it.
Maxwell built the spectacular ether model with almost 200 equations, including deriving the speed of light hydrodynamically from the constants of electricity and magnetism. Today his site is considered a fasa.
It is clear that it will be difficult to disprove relativity in the same way that the theory of Ptolemy or the caloric was disproved. Warmth is one of the confirmations of a relationship.
And regarding the twins, the paradox I pointed out (if it is indeed a paradox) will exist to the same extent even at low speeds.
Michael
Einstein was indeed enthusiastic at first about Mach's principle and even wrote Mach the same passionate letter you mentioned (the senile Mach did not answer him). But later he broke away from that principle and at the end of his days he completely denied it.
Michael,
First, thanks for the correction and sorry. I failed my tongue.
Second, I talk a lot about metaphysics (not the one that calls to Sitra Achra) and I'm looking for a model that explains how the laws of physics were created. In this framework I make a distinction between a body and the universe that surrounds it. For many years now I have been examining a universal medium which must be treated as stationary and from which it follows, among other things, that a statement like "the universe rotates in relation to the body as the body rotates in relation to the universe" does not give complete information.
jubilee:
Mach and Einstein actually see the universe eye to eye.
It was not for nothing that I referred you in my previous response to a section on Wikipedia where it is about an enthusiastic letter that Einstein sent to Mach when he realized that relativity indeed conforms to Mach's principle and provides predictions that conform to this principle more than they do to competing assumptions.
ghosts:
I think I explained things clearly.
Rotation does not exist except in relation to something and therefore - to say that the earth rotates in relation to the universe is just like saying that the universe rotates in relation to the earth.
That's about the rotation setting.
It does not yet say what the effect of the rotation is on the spinner.
The effect of the rotation of the earth in relation to the universe (which, as mentioned, is exactly the same as the rotation of the universe in relation to the earth and therefore also causes the exact same effects) is evident in the centrifugal force that acts on the earth and not on the universe and this is because the principle of persistence maintains the speed in relation to the entire universe and not in relation to the earth Country
Syntactically there is no flaw in this sentence. Practically, Einstein showed that the degree of oscillation of Mercury corresponds to the calculation made with the assumption of the postulates of general relativity. What are you rowing for?
Yuval Chaikin
I quote "Do you think Einstein would have been able to correctly calculate Mercury's tilt if general relativity was wrong?"
This is a wrong sentence.
In physics there are no proofs. Only rebuttals and confirmations. A Mercury strike confirms the general theory
Israel Shapira
Staring Mercury is not proof of the theory of relativity. What if relativity is an approximation, like Newton's theory?
And about the twin, I told you I don't know……. There is a problem with the concept of temperature at high speed. At least I have a problem with it 🙂
Leave Kanapo (and Vicky too). Have you seen pictures of her naked? Nothing. People make claims and charges and torture people all the time just because they want to waste time. The only thing in the private teh'i that the Bashkak can pretend to contradict is the finality of the speed of light, but that's not what the general teh'i will rise and fall on.
So one of us is Chileba and the other is anti-Chileba. who is who
No, we're just anti-Chilba, like anti-matter.
And APR argued in an article from 1935 that non-locality contradicts relativity. At least that's what Wiki (Kanapo) believes.
And I live in the heart of New Jersey's Tiz-al-Nabi. So we are almost…
Miracles! The problem is really with you. Don't you understand that R.H. Refai.m put us all in his little pocket? Again you are preaching to the convinced.
Israel: In the meantime, General Relativity successfully withstood all the vicissitudes of time. It is true that Einstein did not like non-locality in quantum entanglement, but this is not related to relativity but to other things he was dealing with. To remind you, he was looking for, among other things, what everyone is still looking for - a unified field theory. Non-locality in quantum entanglement neither confirms relativity nor contradicts it. It belongs to another field altogether. If you will, the ALBSHK is concerned with the micro while the A and B are concerned with the macro.
And wonder: if I am your ex-chileba and you are my ex-chileba, isn't that a paradox?
belong, belong 🙂
What about the twins? They are still waiting for you at:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/new-crew-aboard-station-after-express-flight-010413/comment-page-14/#comment-419798
Israel Shapira
Do you understand that the sentence "Do you think that Einstein would have been able to calculate Mercury's tilt correctly if general relativity was wrong?" - Not relevant, right? 🙂
Ex-Chileba.
The fact that there are some things that don't add up in our heads yet, doesn't mean that they don't have a good explanation within "proper physics".
Do you think that Einstein would have been able to correctly calculate Mercury's tilt if general relativity was wrong?
Do you know a single contradiction to relationships?
Even non-locality in quantum entanglement fails to contradict it, although the maestro himself claimed that the contradiction exists. So maybe before we try to invent a new wheel, we try to understand how the old one works.
R.H. Rafai.M
I'll explain better, the problem must be with me...
Let's say you take a photo of the starburst twice six months apart. Now try to place an image on top of an image so that you get an overlap. Step 1 - You can place the North Star in one image above the North Star in the other image (let's assume for the moment that this star is really in an exact position in the celestial north). Step-2 Rotate the top image until there is a full overlap.
But - you won't succeed!!!! Why? Because you will find that certain stars have moved slightly. These are the nearest stars. Alpha Centauri for example, will move in a little more than a second (1 divided by 3600 degrees).
Now - if you make several such measurements, you will see that the displacement is circular, meaning that the position of the earth changes along a circle during the year.
Oh, and where (in the US)? I'm here, a little far from you, but not far from Wadi Dilav (it's not far from Tizalnabi) 😉
"You don't see the center of the universe, so they say there isn't one" - which is true.
And my bonus for poets is that the ball is also round.
Good night.
🙂 Hello and greetings 🙂
So late and you're awake, what country do you live in? I'm not in Scotland anymore. I moved to the USA.
M won't tell us anything the mainstream doesn't know. He is one of the herd: eyes for them and they will not hear, ears for them and they will not smell...
On the other hand, our situation is not alarming either. As mole scientists, we must refrain from any innovative model. I remember Archimedes saying "Give me a point G and I'll show you what it is", and I didn't understand what he was talking about. And then even today we have no point of support. and why? Because we are afraid to put our finger on what we don't see. You can't see the center of the universe, so they say there isn't one. Look at my bulldozer X-Chilva how much fuel it burns in neutral just because it is trying to stay in "proper physics" when it knows for sure that it is not.
There is a stationary medium on which the light rides and at the same time it is also responsible for the existence of Newton's laws. And when a body rotates, the rotation is relative to this stationary medium. It also happens to rotate relative to the stars that appear to rotate relative to it, but this is a bonus for the poets who tell us that it is the rotation of the stars that gives the body its flattened shape...
I feel the need to apologize for talking nonsense. It's almost midnight now and my eyes are closing over them. Good night. See you on ☼
By the way, miracles:
"Changes in the star map during the year show that we revolve around the sun." - exactly the opposite.
This shows that God is standing and the heavenly bodies are moving around him.
jubilee
Obviously!
First of all, hello.
It still does not answer the question of whether the universe even rotates, and how the universe can even rotate.
Your words are about an absolute turn. You will not find an answer to this in reality. It will be easier to look for the answer in the reality we live in if we treat rotation as relative and not absolute. But what do I understand..
Maybe M. can explain the matter better (surely he will also mention the "envelope" 🙂 )
R.H. Rafai.M
Mach and Einstein do not see each other's universe eye to eye (that's right. They haven't seen anything for a long time). Physics is full of theories that each separately explain a certain phenomenon, but together they contradict each other.
And a suggestion for an experiment: it is known that non-solid bodies expand under the influence of their rotation around themselves (for example, the planet Jupiter); We will take two hollow rubber balls, a small and a large one, and put the smaller one inside the larger one; If we turn the inside, it will expand; If we rotate only the outer, the outer will deflate but not the inner; But an ant that walks on the inner side of the outer sphere will see the inner one not as if it is flattening, but exactly the opposite - because because of the flattening of the outer sphere, it will move away from the inner sphere. In short, he attributed all the theories
Does the universe revolve around the earth relativistically?
I thought that according to Einstein the universe was flat..
I couldn't understand what you mean about how the flat and infinite universe rotates relative to KA?
I understood from your words that KA rotates within the universe, therefore the universe relative to the earth also rotates but "less" than KA. But it is not clear to me how the flat and infinite universe can even 'spin'.
Thinking back on the wording - I think there is something misleading in it in the sense that it is not that there is no difference between round A and round B, but rather that there is no such thing as "just a round".
The rotation is always relative and therefore the earth rotates in relation to the universe and the universe also rotates in relation to the earth. It's simply the same phenomenon, but the one who suffers more from it is the earth that has blown up.
According to Mach principle There is no difference between the earth rotating in relation to the universe and a universe rotating around the earth.
The rotation is a relative phenomenon, but its relativity is not in relation to a particular body, but in relation to the medium that creates the phenomenon of inertia, which is the entire universe.
It is particularly interesting to read in the link above the phenomenon that Einstein saw as evidence of the correctness of the principle.
Read the Modern General Relativity chapter
R.H.R., thank you
Miracles, you explain the obvious to those who understand anyway, and mumble words to the ignorant ears of those who will never understand. not haram?
PRT
No - that's not true. We know how to definitively show that the earth rotates around its axis and also around the sun. This is not a relative movement - it is an absolute movement.
For example - the direction of rotation of a hurricane shows that the earth rotates around its axis. And changes in the star chart during the year show that we revolve around the sun.
The sword appears on the flag of Saudi Arabia. The sword symbolizes justice, and above it is written the "Shahada" (declaration of allegiance to the Prophet Muhammad).
The symbols of Islam are the color green, sword, lion, crescent. They appear in different variations (for example a flag only with green color and a sword with a verse from the Koran written on it).
Since when is the symbol of Islam the sword?
Islam
The symbol of which religion is the sword?
Another one: the status of some religions decreases and the status of others increases. In every generation, humanity is required for some kind of actions, and these are directed by the religions. For example, in our generation the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere has reached a terrible peak and this requires an urgent thinning of the human population since it is probably responsible for this ecological disaster. And who is the best religion for the task, if not the one whose symbol is the sword?
I'm interested in knowing the arguments (however delusional) that the holder of the degree brings, but I won't waste money on buying the book. Does anyone have a link?
Could he be right? If the attribution point for everything that happens in this universe is as a
There is no problem in seeing Kaha as the center, the sun revolves around it but the other planets revolve around the sun
Jubilee outside the Muslim world - the status of the religion is only going down. If you haven't noticed, Shas is not in the government.
Father - everything you say is not related - this whole box is not related. The man is delusional even by Catholic and evangelical standards - why do you use him as an example? Don't you miss enough?
Regarding warming - it's not that we have 400 warming particles - it's a matter of the Federal Ministry of Defense. that if this is a landmark for anything it is a landmark that the entire green movement has failed to do anything about it.
Tell me - if you were running the country - what would you do to reduce the FDAH.
Another one, not only evolution, but also global warming, which today we are at a landmark - 400 parts per million dtp.
This is just another confirmation that religion controls humanity, rule without Egypt. For now we can still talk about it, but it's possible that very soon we will be censored ☻
This is a simple Nora - a Catholic (who converted to Protestantism and back) who is also an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier and oppressor of Israel.
A "scientific" research writer at a "university" let him bring some kind of argument in favor of geocentrism - even the Catholic Church disavows it.
And my father uses this old and irrelevant story that he does not go into the scientific details of to get in American evangelicals and men who have nothing to do with him! - Evangelicals are not Catholics - not even close.
And it is true that many evangelicals are politically right-wing - but that is not a necessity either.
So in short an unrelated case six years ago is a starting point for my father to complain about a group that in this case is not related in any way! What exactly is the point here? Some decency! That some of the religious in America have problems with science (especially evolution) is well known
- but what is written here is completely unrelated to them. And also completely unrelated to now.
Why I brought it up - because these morons control the science budgets through their majority in Congress.
So why did you bring up for discussion an issue that has been closed for 400 years?
Political reasons? Social agendas?
I agree with the criticism of the article. His scientific claims must be brought and their scientific refutation demonstrated, just as they did with intelligent design. If the subject has already been closed for 400 years, this should not be a problem then.
Galileo was also told that the issue was closed - not 400 years but 10,000 years.
Father, please, your approach in your article and your answer will shoot us (lovers and people of science) in the foot in addressing the public.
The public today has access to the Internet and is no longer ready to accept "the Ministry of Health determines, etc." but wants and needs to know why.
If he does not receive a detailed and clear answer here as to why the scientific argument is wrong, he may still believe the other side.
Best regards
Roni, it has already been explained that there is no point in discussing an issue that has been closed for 400 years.
A non-topical article, instead of presenting his arguments as to why and why the sun revolves around the earth, the distinguished writer burdened us with dreary political problems.
Life
The sun does not revolve around the earth. Neglecting the other bodies that orbit the sun - the earth and the sun orbit a point called the barycentre and in the case of the sun and the earth, this point is very close to the center of the sun.
It should be emphasized that rotational motion is absolute and not related to the theory of relativity. There are ways to tell who is hanging around who.
I wonder if "the sun did not revolve around the earth" (according to Sanginis), then what would be the length of the day on
The bullet? - 4 hours? 6-7 or…
point
You are right - but to be precise: the Earth rotates around its axis in 23 hours and 56 minutes. A rotation relative to the sun is 24 hours. This is a phenomenon that you see and it is one of the evidences that we revolve around the sun and not the other way around.
The theory of relativity does not negate this thesis. In our cosmic neighborhood, the Earth from our perspective revolves around the Sun.
Relative to the entire cosmos, the earth is always at the same distance from its end. (since the cosmos has no boundaries). So it can be assumed with absolute certainty that the sun revolves around the earth. That is, the cosmos with the sun rotates in a circle with a diameter of about 300 million kilometers around the earth.
Another basic lack of understanding that only shows the ignorance in the population.
After all, this is not the dispute as to whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa (the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun is a year).
But does the earth rotate around itself or does the sun rotate around it (which happens in 24 hours).
Thank you Joel.
Galileo has empirical proof that the earth revolves around the sun.
The proof is based on a different predicted appearance of Venus according to the two heliocentric and geocentric models.
See figure 17 on page 79 in the book The Big Bang by Simon Singh (recommended book regardless)
and Phases of Venus on Wikipedia (although the explanation there is not much)
Ehud, please correct a small mistake in the article. The heliocentric theory claims that the sun is at the center of the universe (and so on). The version that Sanjanis claims to be correct, according to which Earth is at the center of the universe, is known as the geocentric theory.
Pine
I will give you a simple answer. Rotation is an accelerated movement. That is - a rotating body is not in a fixed frame of reference. From this it can be understood that it is possible to measure the rate of rotation in an absolute way.
How do you measure? In 1851, a Frenchman named Foucault built a high pendulum and demonstrated that the pendulum rotates according to the rotation of the Earth. You can find the pendulum to this day in several science museums, and also on Wiki of course....
Erez, if you are so interested in knowing who this Sanjanis is and what he bases his claims on, there is an entry on him on Wikipedia, in English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis. To save you from reading the entire article, he tells you that he bases his claims on his extreme Catholic view, and by the way, he also doubts the existence of the Holocaust (although he doesn't really deny it, really nice of him) and is also anti-Zionist but claims that he is not anti-Semitic. Regarding the content of the book itself, the title "Galileo was wrong" is enough for me to understand that it is garbage that is not worth reading.
There is also the Flat Earth Society which is still alive and kicking with all kinds of delusional arguments that supposedly prove that the world is flat. Are you interested in having a serious discussion about this as well? I do not!
To my father, I have not read any article or book by this delusional person, but I am satisfied if you have indeed read his book or any of his articles, that is why I asked for a more serious consideration, for example if I describe such a delusional person to you with the following details: Even as a child, he had difficulty speaking in school, the teacher said About him "This plant will never make flour" and one called him a "lazy dog" and he said about himself "I am only a burden on my family members,,, surely it would have been better if I had not been born" This delusional man was recently seen sticking out a long tongue with a poor, round, silly smile He wears a mask on his face and usually walks with wild hair, based on this data there is no need to refer to the articles in which he formulates his theory of relativity, due to it being delusional, all in all I am asking for a scientific treatment of a theory that I don't even think you have had time to review
They are fanatics in rejecting science and not relative to anything, by the way they inspired the fanatical Muslims.
OK:
A Catholic - anti-Semitic Holocaust denier - wrote five years ago a thesis for a doctorate in some Catholic university that I have never heard of - a delusional scientific theory.
From this you conclude that most of the United States is a fanatical nation.
Panti is something relative.
They are fans relative to who?
us? For Europeans? For Asians? Africans?
In relation to who exactly are they fans?
Who needs logic when you have the Creator of the world
Erez, there's no point in that, we've known for 400 years that it's not true and that's not the point. You don't have to deal with the claims of every delusional person.
I read the article and I don't see a reference or citation of sources from the book itself, is there any reference to the subject itself as presented by the book, i.e. a reference to the scientific claims
(or so-called scientific) that in the book itself,
What is the problem. God's hand holds them in place
My father - there is a significant difference between evangelicals who are Protestants and Catholics.
Not all Christian currents in the United States are on the right side of the political map.
-The father of the Hotch system was clearly intended to give people more choice in which school to send their child to.
If they were to receive a voucher for buying books and were to buy a Bible, would that also be a violation of the American Constitution?
-Abby- As a secularist I prefer religious people who support us than secularists who buy the narrative of our enemy
The fact that they believe that I will become a Christian on the day of judgment that their Messiah will return - I can live with that.
Answer to Oren:
In a system of axes attached to the Earth, indeed all the bodies of the sky circle around us and the farther they are they move at a higher speed, much faster than the speed of light. This does not contradict the theory of relativity, according to which a speed higher than the speed of light cannot be possible in an inertial system (an unaccelerated system) because it is a rotating system, i.e. a non-inertial system. Therefore, according to the theory of relativity it is possible to decide, that is, to choose a system of axes according to which the sun and the other heavenly bodies circle the earth at the rate of one revolution per day. There is only a "small" problem with this model: how is it that all the heavenly bodies that celebrate at crazy speed around us are not thrown due to the tremendous centrifugal force far, far into space.
I heard an argument from a person of faith who wrote in one of the forums that according to the theory of relativity it is actually impossible to know whether the earth revolves around the sun, or whether the sun revolves around the earth, because to an observer on earth the two situations will look exactly the same and cannot be distinguished between them.
what do you think ?