Comprehensive coverage

The Glast Space Telescope is launched

The satellite will orbit the earth in a circular orbit at an altitude of 563 km and will try to detect gamma ray bursts in space and find out what dark matter is made of

Glast space telescope - operates in the gamma ray field
Glast space telescope - operates in the gamma ray field

On Thursday, NASA launched a partial launch of the GLAST spacecraft on a Delta II rocket. All stages of the launch went successfully, including receiving confirmation that the engines of the second stage were ignited and after the burn of this stage was completed, it was disconnected from the missile.

Glast already operates alone on the power of the energy that comes from its solar collectors. It will be placed in a circular orbit at a height of 563 kilometers above the Earth and will monitor the universe and in particular gamma ray bursts.

GLAST is an extremely powerful space observatory and it will explore the extreme environments in the universe, and look for signs of new laws of physics, as well as try to answer the riddle of what makes up dark matter, how black holes accelerate giant jets of ordinary materials almost to the speed of light, and will also help solve the mystery surrounding the eruptions The giants known as gamma ray bursts.

Using its sensitive Glast instruments, it is the first gamma-ray observatory that will be able to scan the entire sky every day. It will provide scientists with a unique opportunity to learn about the rapidly changing universe of extreme energies. GLAST will detect thousands of gamma-ray sources, most of which will almost certainly be supermassive black holes in the cores of distant galaxies.

About Glast

Glast is a powerful observatory that will open a wide window to the universe. Gamma rays are a high-energy type of light, and the sky in the range of gamma radiation is completely different from what we see in visible light. With a big leap in GLASST's capabilities over previous spacecraft, it will enable scientists to answer fundamental questions on a wide range of topics including supermassive black hole systems, pulsars, the origin of cosmic rays, and search for clues to new physics.

This is a partnership between astrophysics and particle physics, developed by NASA in collaboration with the US Department of Energy, and in addition to important contributors from academic institutions in the US and other countries including France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Sweden.

Comments

  1. The article deviates a bit by assuming that determining the proton-electron ratio will prove something, it is possible that at such distances both are smaller although the ratio between them is preserved.
    It is hard for me to agree that such a statement will prove anything. The laws of gravitation, for example, can be different at great distances regardless of the size of the proton or electron.

    good week
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  2. Yehuda:
    He really needs no comments.
    I thought you needed them and you proved that you did.
    You actually proved that even with the comments you still don't understand.

  3. To Michael

    I replied to the cool commenter, if he has comments to say, he doesn't need a spokesperson to tell us what he means.
    Go rest, Saturday today.

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  4. Yehuda:
    I allow myself to add some explanations (which are probably not understandable to everyone) to the words of the cool commenter.
    "To solve" really means to solve - not to dismiss with a wave of hands.
    That's why I also suggest that you first equip yourself with the appropriate knowledge.
    By the way - this advice has already been given to you many times.

  5. to the cool responder

    I will go to the above sites, as you suggested, and browse them a bit.
    All the obstacles that exist in Pushing Gravity are oppressive, but beyond that, the theory gives beautiful solutions to many problems, so it's worth checking if there are solutions to these oppressive problems.
    I do not rule out an application to the theory of relativity but prefer to do so at a later stage. The theory of relativity gives solutions to many things, but I don't like the lack of logic in connecting the speeds, the upper limit of the speed of light and more.
    But I admit that it brings results.

    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  6. Yehuda, if I were you, I would now enter:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
    http://www.planetnana.co.il/sevdermish/YAKUM_PASHUT.doc
    Try to work on your theory. Check how you can try to solve the general problems of Pushing Gravity and only then try to solve more specific, specific and unique problems for your theory.
    My advice, try to give the particles their own unique properties so that they do not violate the law of conservation of matter-energy and so that they do not create drag and fulfill everything that is imposed on them. It is possible to use relative properties for particles.

  7. Yehuda:
    Just as I don't task job applicants with solving a riddle and for exactly the same reasons, I don't judge a person when they are grieving, so I won't address your last comment.

    However I will note that I learned something in this discussion.
    That is - something that I already knew intuitively before but it has now risen to the level of declarative knowledge (perhaps I will explain to you sometime - after you calm down - what is meant by the above description).
    My new understanding is: "complexity is the petri dish of demagoguery".
    In other words - the more complex the topic under discussion, the more demagoguery can flourish in the discussion because people shy away from the complication and think that the misunderstanding is theirs and not the speaker's.
    The first example of this - the one in response to which my intuitive understanding was still expressed is your false and misleading hand waving in all your "explanations" about "pushing gravity".
    The second example - the one that in retrospect made me enlightened - is your attempt to introduce rotational momentum into the discussion. Here, too, you tried to create complexity that would obfuscate things enough and expand the scope of your lie.
    Therefore, Judah, I am the one who is grateful to you.
    Thanks! Thanks! Thanks!

  8. To Michael

    Thanks! Thanks! Thanks! for bringing us this riddle so that we can see the extent of your buffoonery.
    Thank you for saving us from the "fraud" of Sabdarmish Yehuda.
    Your words are like oil in our bones.
    All we can do is shed a tear from happiness that we have you.

    "Again, thank you for your words. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!"

    Listen, your comment made my day.
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  9. To the cool commenter:
    Your words are like oil in my bones.
    I made an effort to write a detailed and comprehensive explanation that goes beyond the scope of the discussed problem precisely for people like you - those who are interested in the truth and know how to appreciate the effort invested in them.
    This is a refreshing contrast to the words of the contemporary heroes of the "mass uprising" who are only capable of words of hatred (or to paraphrase the nickname of one of them - Natza).
    The truth is that since I don't know all the commenters here, I didn't know in advance who my words would concern. I was sure that Roy would be interested, I thought you would be interested too (because you tried to deal with the question and asked for the answer), I hoped that Septem would also be interested and say something. I don't know if he follows this discussion but he seems to me like an honest, decent and intelligent young man.
    I did not study physics at university - my formal education is in the fields of mathematics and computer science.
    However, I acquired considerable knowledge in this profession because it simply interests me (actually what interests me in general is "understanding the world" and I spend time studying everything that contributes to this).
    I don't know if this idea is taught anywhere. I personally invented it, but it's certainly likely that I'm not the first - I just don't know. Since I came up with the idea many years ago I have not come across anyone who knew about it before I told them about it.
    During part of my service in the IDF, I served as the head of a software branch in a computer unit.
    Since it was the most professional branch in the unit, I had the right to be the first to choose my people from among the new recruits (of course - subject to the number of positions I could fill at any given moment).
    I knew the practice of high-tech companies to test new candidates by presenting riddles and I thought that this practice was wrong.
    The candidate is in a job interview with someone much more senior than him, and many times he simply "rattling". This is not the time to test his mental capacity.
    I tried to instill a relaxed atmosphere and still get the information I needed to sort the people.
    One method I've used is to tell people I'm interested in puzzles and ask them to show me an interesting puzzle they know.
    It is not stressful - as far as they are concerned, but for me it gives an indication of the degree of the person's attraction to intellectual challenges (related to the degree of his ability to deal with them).
    One day someone appeared before me in this context who had completed a post-doctorate in physics in the USA at the same time as working at JPL. This was, of course, an exceptional candidate in every respect because usually the candidates were already graduates of a bachelor's degree in computer science or young people who had just completed the programming course .
    He was also unusual in that he was actually a volunteer who came to check which position in the IDF was the most suitable for him.
    He wanted to study physics and in this field I could not offer him anything.
    Anyway - I followed the usual interview routine and the question I presented here is the question he presented to me during the interview.
    By the way, I should proudly note that I solved it more or less on the spot and he was quite shocked.
    Your analysis in relation to the situation in which an angle of 180 degrees is obtained is impeccable.
    Thinking back, of course I would have acted more wisely than I did if I had told Judah when he answered that the angle was 180 degrees, that his answer was simply incorrect. The fact that I pointed out that the body cannot be deterred caused him to limit his baseless statements to an area that is closer to reality and that is what allowed him to continue his fraudulent attempt. I'm glad you at least noticed that it was a scam.
    What you understood from Ramsey about the game of managers is exactly what I was hoping thinking people would understand and it really fills me with a sense of happiness.
    It is interesting to compare your words with those of the manatz who did not bother to understand that this part of my words is a bonus at all.
    The collision of the balls is quite elastic for two reasons - one is that the material from which the balls are made is very elastic in the relevant striking range and the second is that there is still a (microscopic) gap between the balls.

    Again, thanks for your words. Thanks! Thanks! Thanks!

  10. to Fibonacci
    You are right, the explanation is irrelevant and unnecessary.
    People forget that this is a space telescope that was launched, among other things, to study the dark mass and gravitation. Mr. Michael pushed a riddle, we answered him: - strives for 90 degrees, but he was not satisfied with that and wants a set of formulas. Listen, this is a site for amateurs who come to laugh and smile, not to pass exams, but Mr. Michael must show the extent of his education and expects comments on his wonderful masterpiece
    Michael's solution is to divert a legitimate debate on the subject of the article to the subject of his puzzle and expect to receive compliments, so fine, I'm sure there are riddle sites, he will go there, and smell his own juice. Here it is a site for science enthusiasts and not Michael's site.
    And note the intensity of the contempt for those who do not swim with the Michael current.
    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  11. Fibonacci:
    For the sake of all of us, I suggest that from now on you just let your "Pivo" part do the talking.
    The second part only darkens the atmosphere and it's a shame.

    To the cool commenter:
    I'm in a hurry right now because we have a family event tonight but I'll read your words carefully later and address them.
    In the meantime I just caught the spirit of things and of course I liked it.

  12. The cool respondent
    According to the picture and wording you have several copies here.
    The software that analyzes word combinations and idioms and modes of expression indicates this.
    Regarding the relevance, you should check again.

  13. Fibonacci, I would suggest you keep the cynicism to yourself and go comment on Ynet and not here.
    There is no connection between your message and the question, the solution and the topic of the discussion. It can be said that your message is completely irrelevant..

  14. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    There is no need to exaggerate, there are not dozens of commenters but a few individuals with different names who argue with themselves and flatter themselves.
    The complicated calculation presented above is completely irrelevant to thermodynamics calculations, especially not according to your theory in a gravity-free space and at a temperature close to absolute zero. Of course, I would be happy to hear more details. The calculation regarding the game of managers is not relevant because the wire outlines a completely constant plane. For example, try cutting the wire while Its movement when it is at a small distance before the impact, the result will be different.The particles are also not connected as we know.

  15. I'm sorry I only got on the site now. I should have logged in yesterday at 20:44, right after Michael posted his answer and then I could have read this cool solution sooner. The solution is full of creativity, and I am very happy that I was able to understand it step by step until the solution. I'll write it one more time to emphasize: "The solution is very creative", and that's not obvious.
    The idea of ​​copying the system from the initial state to a state where it is on a plane moving at a constant speed, throughout the experiment, equal to the total momentum divided by the total mass of the system solved many problems. First, it made the momentum of A equal to the momentum of B, so the problem of momentum being shared between the two after the collision was solved.
    I would not be surprised if this is a common method at the university in physics/mechanics studies. (Did you come up with the idea for this transformation in your head? Or did you already see this idea in use during your studies? (If you studied physics.. I don't know..))
    From what I understand, if the mass of A was greater than the mass of B, then the speed of B after the collision (which in the plane of the center of gravity is the same as before the collision) was greater than the speed of the center of gravity relative to A (which is the "normal" plane) and then the radius of the circle shown in your drawing (which is VB) was greater than the vector that transforms the system into reality (to the normal plane) and then the speed of B in the normal plane (which you called VBN) could even be in the opposite direction and then the maximum angle was 180.
    I hope my surgery is ok..
    In the event that you later presented the "managers game", what you actually wanted to say is that because the mass of all the balls is equal, so when you look at the collision of only 2 of them, what happens is that the speed of the center of gravity is half the speed of the moving ball at the time of the collision (after extracting the potential energy of the height) and therefore its speed after the collision is half of its speed (which is the speed of the center of gravity) in relation to the speed of the center of gravity and in the direction opposite to it, so it follows that the speed of the ball after the collision is 0?
    What I personally never understood in this section, is how it is that even though the balls are tight, the collision between them is elastic and not plastic..

    To Yehuda, I think you took too much for the heart and less for the lungs. There is criticism, and burying your head in the sand like an ostrich will not make it go away. Don't take criticism of your theories personally or as "slanders". I expected you to be a man and say that his solution is excellent, creative and requires deep, rational and spatial thinking. You now came like a serious rabbi (but a really serious one, like Amnon Yitzchak, such a big idiot) and you said that his answer is one big and complicated mess without even trying to understand the solution (I also wouldn't be surprised if you tried to understand and didn't succeed, that's for sure A creative and complicated solution.) You said, like from the Bible (as above), that the answer, you had already come up with before (after all, the Bible already wrote about atoms and electrons..) and you didn't notice that you didn't answer the question at all.
    Allow me to give you a quote from Michael's question: "To avoid hand waving, I will simply ask you a question whose answer is a formula. I just ask that you write down the formula."
    And your answer (the first one you answered 90 degrees) is: "If we assume the possibility of a large enough rotational momentum for the small body, the maximum possible angle will be 180 degrees.
    If we do not assume the possibility of rotational motion for the bodies, then the maximum possible angle will aim for 90 degrees.
    That's my opinion."
    This is considered a wave of hands and there is no formula in it as requested.

    Take my advice to you, read Michael's solution line by line, and don't skip any line without understanding it. If you would admit that his solution is "excellent, creative and requires deep, rational and spatial thinking" you would be seen in my eyes as a much smarter person who is willing to learn from mistakes. But the fact that you behaved like an idiot (among the many behaviors I presented earlier) made you seem like an idiot who wasted time. Remember your old article "evolution of theories"? If a theory doesn't work, it means that you should try to change it (not insist on it, but also not cancel To be clear, read the left side of the table in your article https://www.hayadan.org.il/ideasevo.html.

    I hope you don't take me personally and try to look inside yourself and see why you are the only one driving in the direction of traffic on a busy road.

    Fibonacci, Fuck You.

    And finally, I really enjoy being a regular reader of the science website 8)!

  16. And I'll try to refine a little...

    I appreciate you very much as a thinking person who always tries to find the weak points in theories. Without people doing this, science would freeze to death. At the same time, every 'unbeliever in theories' should also recognize the existing facts that have already been proven. If we try to disprove the Mendelian theory of inheritance by claiming that DNA does not encode hereditary information, we will be laughed at by many and for good reason. It has already been proven many times that DNA indeed encodes hereditary information. This is a well-founded fact, and you need to bring evidence that will be above and beyond to propose a new theory that refutes it.

    By the same analogy, if you propose a new theory that invalidates the known laws of conservation of energy and mass, why is it that no one is willing to accept it? We have never encountered the repeal of those laws, so why should we accept the idea so easily?

    As I wrote, I greatly appreciate your healthy skepticism, but you need to base it on facts and data and take into account the knowledge that exists today when you propose a new theory. Your theory contradicts the knowledge and laws we know, so it is impossible to accept your idea.

    I hope to see your skeptical and enlightening responses (and sometimes comments) in many articles in the future, but I would be happy if you would get off this topic. You just don't have a case.

    have a nice weekend,

    Roy.

  17. Indeed, it is difficult to confront commenters who insist on getting down to the depths of the truth. It's especially hard for people who claim they can explain all the motion of particles in the world with the wave of their hands, but can't even explain what happens when two particles collide with each other.

    Yehuda, your theory is based on faith and not on explanations. With all due respect to your former kindergarten teacher, the spirals you described Magen Ester do not give you the tools to analyze the movement of particles in the universe. Your only recourse is to assume that these are particles with completely different laws than anything we know and have ever seen. And why should we believe you with such a big claim, without a shred of evidence?

    So come on, Yehuda, stop playing games with Michael. Why don't you claim that it's simply God, or I don't care if the black guys dance and we'll end the discussion?

    Have a good day everyone,

    Roy.

  18. to Fibonacci

    The knowledge site includes dozens of commenters who are fun to interact with. So there is someone who sees this site as a place for his frustrations, and for imposing his opinions. He will be perfumed.
    It is insignificant, and it will not prevent me from participating in the site.

    Have a good and calm day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  19. Sabdarmish Yehuda
    You might want to consider avoiding this site. There are many sites with an adequate level and a more interesting and less coercive level of dialogue.
    I think you will come to this conclusion yourself if you bother to go through the history of the current dialogue and others.

  20. And I said that this whole discussion was not intended to convince Yehuda but to let others understand what is happening here.
    Therefore Yehuda's retirement does not bind me.
    On the other hand, it seems to me that the goal has been achieved and at this point I see no reason to continue.
    So good night everyone

  21. Yehuda:
    I find it hard to believe that I am still bothering you, but I repeat:
    I asked for a formula.
    You didn't give a formula.
    I asked for an explanation.
    You gave no explanation.
    I asked you to say what is the maximum angle that can be accepted and you try to distort the whole question so that your wrong answer is interpreted as correct but you do not succeed and as the maximum angle that can be accepted you give an angle that cannot be accepted at all.
    Then you say that I did not refer to the fact that you said "aspire" when there was no need for me to refer to your aspirations. You have given as a maximal angle that is obtained - an angle that is never obtained - in any combination of A, B and V and as we know a maximal angle among the angles that are obtained is never an angle that is not obtained.
    All along you refused to back up your words with formulas even though that was the whole point of the question and now you demand that they believe the lie that you arrived at things by formulas.
    I hope that everyone who didn't understand what you are made of, now understands.

  22. Yehuda:
    What do I say and what will I speak?
    You say "trust me" and I can't bring myself to believe you.
    You lie all along.

  23. Excuse me Michael, all the times I wrote striving for 90 degrees. You understood. Not 90 degrees, but aiming for 90 degrees. But that doesn't stop you from telling stories about "Yehodius". I knew the solution and it's enough for me and believe me I checked it through the momentum and speed formulas.
    But defaming the person who responded to you is in your blood. What a blabbermouth, Yehudius. and tell that it's like I told lies. The comments are recorded, anyone can go back and see if I said 90 degrees or strive for 90 degrees. Go to my previous response and see how many times I used the word "aspirant". Your behavior is really disgusting.
    fed up
    I quit.
    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  24. Yehuda:
    A fool like you has never been created.
    Why did I write, when I presented the question, the sentence "I just ask that you write down the formula"?
    Why did I give A, B and V as variables?
    For hundreds of years mathematicians have worked to find the solution of a quadratic equation.
    I guess there wasn't some Judius Nodnikus there who told them that he knew the solution and that it was actually some number they wanted. Yehudius Nodnikus would say to them, after the formula was found: "Did I tell you?! With an appropriate choice of A, B and C, you can get any result you want!" Vatz told the company that he had immediately solved what all scientists had been struggling with for centuries.
    By the way - if you refer to the nonsense to which you have just tried to change the question, then even then it does not help you because 90 degrees is never accepted for A which is smaller than B and by the way, even if I say A=B it is not accepted because this angle is obtained as a result of the calculation of the angle only In the case of a complete stop of the mass B and the stop, as we know, has no direction.

  25. Well, in short, when the size of A aspires to the size of B, then A/B aspires to 1 and then (Arcsin) A/B aspires to an angle pi divided by years, that is, aspires to 90 degrees. Just like I said.
    point.

    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  26. Impressive, really impressive, I didn't understand anything but really really impressive.

    Question: Can his honor say in clear numbers what the size of the maximum possible angle is?

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  27. Okay Yehuda.
    I guess you've said enough for everyone to understand that you can't say more and all the threats in the formulas were idle threats.
    I allow myself, therefore, to publish the correct answer to the question.
    I hope the editor of the site doesn't screw it all up.
    I've already seen that he turned my subscript letters into normal letters, but with this disruption you can live.

    I will return, first of all, to the question itself:
    We have two particles whose shape is unknown.
    The one particle is stationary and has mass A,
    The second particle - with mass B - moves towards the first particle with speed V.
    Mass B is greater than mass A.
    At a certain moment the second particle hits the first in an elastic collision and both are thrown from the point of collision.
    The direction of their movement cannot be predicted because their shape is unknown.
    The question is what is the maximum angle that can be formed between the direction of movement of the second mass after the collision and its direction of movement before the collision.

    The cool commenter asked for a qualitative explanation and a quantitative explanation.
    The truth is that when the question is understood properly, there is almost no need for calculations and the two explanations come together.

    I will try to do a little more here than presenting the solution to the question, by presenting some important principles that can also be used on other occasions.

    First of all, it is useful to understand that in the analysis of elastic collisions between two bodies it is convenient to look at the event from a system of axes that starts at the center of gravity of the two colliding bodies.
    The reason for this is that in this system the absolute magnitudes of the bodies' velocities are preserved.
    This can be proven by solving (quite complex) the relevant system of equations (the energy equation and the momentum equation) but it can also be done without any calculation.
    How?
    It is a system of two equations with two vanishings (we call them VA and VB).
    One (the energy equation) is quadratic,
    The second (momentum equation) is linear.

    The constants that must be placed on the right side of these equations (respectively) are those obtained from the calculation of the energy and momentum of the bodies before they collided.

    The advantage of the center of gravity system is that the total momentum in this system is zero (in the center of gravity system, by definition, the center of gravity remains motionless before the collision and therefore must remain so after the collision as well).

    According to the momentum equation, VA can be extracted as a function of VB (using the constants A and B - this is a calculation that we still have to do but I will postpone it at this stage to clarify the current point), place the extraction result in the energy equation, and get a quadratic equation with one variable.

    Let's go back for a moment.
    If the distance of A from the center of gravity is XA, and the distance of B from the center of gravity is XB, then according to the definition the center of gravity exists at every moment: A*XA+B*XB=0
    Therefore, since velocity is the derivative of distance, A*VA+B*VB=0 also holds
    From this it follows that VA=-B*VB/A that is - VB times any constant.
    When we place this value of VA in the energy equation (which initially only contains squares of VA and VB), we get a quadratic equation in VB where VB appears only in the square power.
    Such an equation has two solutions that are symmetric (ie - if one solution is X then the other is -X and in other words - both solutions have the same absolute value)
    But - and this is where the "trick" comes in - we know that VB that was before the collision is a solution to the equation (after all, we built the constant on the right side according to the energy from before the collision and this was calculated according to VA and VB that were before the collision - and before the collision, the equation according to which we extracted the VA as a function of VB)
    And so we can conclude that the absolute value of VB after the collision is the same as its value before it and the same goes for VA.
    Now let's complete the calculation of VB before the collision (we know it's worthwhile because we've already seen that it's also the value after the collision). I will now, for the sake of convenience, talk about absolute values ​​and not about directional values.
    We have shown that in absolute value, VA=B*VB/A
    On the other hand we know that VA+VB=V (actually, to write this equation this way I said we would talk about absolute values).
    If we place and extract we will get (VB=V*A/(A+B
    Symmetrically, of course, (VA=V*B/(A+B
    magnificent.
    Now let's go back a moment and look again at the axis system in which the problem was presented.
    In this system the mass of magnitude A is at rest.
    This means that the center of gravity in this system moves with velocity VA (the magnitude of which we have already calculated) towards A.
    No external force acts on the system, therefore even after the collision the center of gravity will continue to move in the same direction and at the same speed.

    Now we can calculate the velocity of mass B in the system where the problem was presented. We will call it VBN
    We will get it by connecting the velocity vector of the center of gravity with the velocity vector of B in the center of gravity system.

    The angle whose maximum I asked about is actually the angle Z in drawing A in the following link:
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgz8mg3w_281rq6sgbtw

    This is true because, as mentioned, the center of gravity continues to move on the straight line connecting the starting points of the two masses.

    So what is that maxim?

    VB goes out in a random direction from point W and therefore, if we describe all the locations where point T can be found, we will get a circle centered at W.
    As seen in Figure B, the maximum angle will be obtained when VBN launches into this circle.

    And so we get (since the tangent is perpendicular to the radius) (Z=Arcsin(VB/VA
    And when we place the values ​​we calculated for VB and VA the expression will be reduced to
    (Z=Arcsin(A/B

    I said that the mental tools I will present can also help in dealing with other problems and perhaps it is appropriate to give an example of this:
    Everyone knows the "managers game" which consists of several balls hanging side by side so that when you pick up the left one while moving to the left and release it to move freely (subject to the ropes on which it hangs) it stops in place when it hits the second ball from the left which hits the third ball from the left and so on until the right ball jumps out of its place, rises to some height (while moving to the right) and begins to fall back causing all
    The process works in the opposite direction and God forbid (see drawing c).

    Now you can understand how and why this happens.
    Calculate again the center of gravity system moving at the same speed before and after the impact, for the fact that the speeds of the balls when measured in it are the same before and after the impact and take into account the fact that the masses of the balls are the same. It's really easy but you should think about it and understand it to the end.

  28. to the cool responder

    By the time I responded, you had already entered a comment.
    FYI - during an elastic collision, the energy maintains its size, just like the momentum.
    Come on, show him. My answer is correct, you can check yourself.

    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  29. I will join the discussion at this point to verify the fact that Michael did send me the answer last night. I have already skimmed through it and it looks reliable and grounded.

  30. To Michael

    Again you avoid and do not answer.

    So no need. I gave my answer:-

    180 degrees with rotary motion, and without - aims for 90 degrees.

    The cool commenter, where are you?, in which we relax and relax from each other's troubles,
    There is calm in the country.

    Good evening and continue to relax
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  31. You have to sit on it for a few minutes with formulas..
    The most important thing is to know the energy distribution in the collision. And that I still don't know

  32. I'm sorry Yehuda, but your answer was according to the standard "The rays of light are refracted in a prism because the length of the red color is greater than the length of the purple color and therefore it is more curved and as I saw in my childhood in the rainbow, this causes the color"

  33. Yehuda:
    I relate to your words even though they do not deserve any treatment.
    As mentioned, I sent Roy the answer even before you started ranting about not knowing it - simply because you are completely predictable.
    If you want to see what I will do if you bring a proof with (correct) formulas, you have no choice but to try it.
    Know that you have just now convinced me not to publish the proof yet. You imply that you are able to provide a proof with formulas and I want to give you a chance to do so.

  34. To Michael

    In short, this is your method. Not to address what the people say but to discredit them just so as not to admit that you, the questioner, do not know the answer to your question.

    I didn't want to answer your question beforehand because that's who you are!
    What will you do if I bring you the proof with the formulas? Say someone else must have helped me? People like you will always find something to say, contradict and slander.

    I'm sorry but your response is poor.
    And of course my answer is absolutely correct and satisfactory and includes all the possibilities
    Am I right the cool commenter?
    Have a good day.
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  35. Yehuda:
    This, by the way, is proof of the nature of what you call "your opinion" which is not based on any knowledge or calculation. I hope readers will understand this.

  36. Yehuda:
    I'm sure you don't know how to do any calculations on rotational momentum, so the question assumed the existence of some kind of rotation just as cowboys riding on the balls and shooting were not assumed.
    Your opinion doesn't matter.
    Answer your question accurately or say you don't know how to do it.

  37. To Michael
    I assumed bullets because they are a private case that is easy to calculate. Obviously, if they are not spherical, the result can only be more random, meaning the angle is closer to 180 degrees.

    If we assume the possibility of a large enough rotational momentum for the small body, the maximum possible angle will be 180 degrees.
    If we do not assume the possibility of rotational motion for the bodies, then the maximum possible angle will aim for 90 degrees.
    That's my opinion.

    Good Day
    And may there be calm in the south
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  38. Yehuda:
    I only responded to the last comments.
    I didn't notice that your fevered mind also came up with the idea that I said zero was the answer.
    I wonder where you got that from.

  39. Yehuda:
    What is this nonsense?
    Is that how you know me?
    The truth is that I actually know you and I knew you would write this, so I sent a copy of the solution to Roy.
    I asked him if it should be published as a response (it's a bit difficult because there are several drawings because I also want to explain as the cool guy asked and not just answer) or as a separate article or maybe let you stew a little in your own juice.
    He hasn't answered me yet. Maybe he wants to see what kind of stew came out.
    Why did you suddenly start talking about pills?
    I said that the shape of the bodies is unknown.
    Why did you suddenly start talking about a round?
    I wasn't talking about any rotation - you will soon start telling me that you forgot to take into account the possibility that they are bipolar magnets.
    Dahil Rabak!
    Wait patiently.
    Regarding the answer - just so you can sleep peacefully, it is in front of you:
    (Arcsin(A/b

  40. For some reason I got confused and took into account that the total momentum is (zero??)

  41. To Michael
    We forgot that balls can have rotational momentum!
    I go back to my first answer-

    180 degrees.

    proof:
    I believe that at the moment of collision, the two rotating bodies will recoil. Conclusion - 180 degrees.
    Admittedly, I didn't prove this with formulas, but only from the experience of spinning games during Hanukkah when I was in kindergarten.
    It's a bit exciting to think that the life experience I had with the children in kindergarten, helps me today after more than a thousand years in my academic debates with Michael here on the Hidaan site,
    Thank you Kindergarten Esther!

    So what do you say Michael?
    Be a man and respond

    And my cool commenter friend, what do you say, will he comment?
    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  42. To Mr. Michael

    I'm afraid you threw a question into the air that you don't know the solution to
    Prove to us that it is not so. Will the 24 hours you allotted me be enough?

    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  43. To Michael

    On second thought... zero is also not a correct answer because if the bodies do not hit in the direction of their center of gravity both will deviate from the straight line and the angle between the direction of movement of the heavy body before the collision and that after the collision will be different from zero.

    To the cool commenter - we still have hope!
    I run to work
    Have a good day everyone and may the relaxation in the south come quietly.
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  44. to the cool responder

    We ate it!
    So we take solace in the fact that we were only 180 degrees wrong.

    good day everyone
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  45. Yehuda:
    1. The cool commenter is not called Michael.
    2. He did take a risk and the answer is incorrect. If the heavy body hits in the direction you talked about, it will continue to move forward (at a slower speed) and will not recoil backwards (it is heavier - remember?) and the angle will in this case be zero and not 180

  46. to the cool responder

    You took a big risk when you joined, in my opinion, before Michael expressed his opinion on the matter.
    I appreciate your courage.
    But I'm glad I have a friend in one of my stressful times.

    We will get through this together hopefully

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  47. Yehuda, you are indeed right..
    It turns out that what I calculated was what would be the deviation angle that would cause it to deviate to the side the most.

  48. The question was:

    We have two particles whose shape is unknown.
    The one particle is stationary and has mass A,
    The second particle - with mass B - moves towards the first particle with speed V.
    Mass B is greater than mass A.
    At a certain moment the second particle hits the first in an elastic collision and both are thrown from the point of collision.
    The direction of their movement cannot be predicted because their shape is unknown.
    The question is what is the maximum angle that can be formed between the direction of movement of the second mass after the collision and its direction of movement before the collision.

    Answer: Maximum 180 degrees.

    Explanation: in an elastic collision the momentum is conserved and its magnitude after the collision will be the same as the magnitude of the momentum of the large body before the collision.
    The maximum angle that can exist in a collision is 180 degrees (movement in the opposite direction) and the question is, can there be a private case where the heavy body will do this.
    That is, will the heavier body continue straight or is there a possibility that it will recoil backwards.
    Since both bodies are in space, the question will be the same if we give the motion to the small body, that is, from the point of view of the large body, a small body approaches it with speed V and collides with it. As a result, since momentum must be conserved, the heavy body will recoil backwards! The maximum possible angle in this case is 180 degrees!
    Regarding the shape of the bodies, it is important, but you talked about a maximum, so the particular case of 180 degrees is the maximum.
    THL

    It remains to analyze Michael, your future response.
    If my answer is not correct, it will be fun to see your joy, your joy and your happy hand waving. They will be even bigger than the joy of the Italian fans who just beat France and advanced to the quarter-finals of the Euro!
    But if I am right….., it will be interesting to see how you react.

    Nice response
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  49. The cool commenter, is your name Michael?
    But, the answer is really 28, well I'll try not to be ashamed and solve Michael's riddle
    bye for now
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  50. Friends:
    Sorry. I just returned to the site. 28 is the correct answer (it took me half a minute to calculate by heart and I hope I wasn't wrong).
    In the meantime, I will delay the answer to the question about the two particles because Yehuda promised to solve it

  51. To Michael
    You gave me a question about 2 particles, I will ask you about one and a half. If you know how to answer then maybe I will sit down to solve your problem, even if it is completely worthless in almost gas theory.
    I asked:
    A hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half. How many eggs will six hens lay in seven days?
    I also understand the difficulties a vegetarian like you will have while solving this brutal culinary problem dealing with chicken halves, therefore,
    I give you an hour and a half to answer it (until the end of the Euro games today)

    pleasant watching
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  52. Michael, I'm still curious what the answer is.. and you are the simplest way to get to it. I would appreciate a qualitative explanation and a calculated explanation

  53. Some fundamental mistakes on which I found it appropriate to repeat and point out:
    All the phenomena in our atmosphere are fed by a constant and stable source of energy in the form of the sun.
    There is no such factor in space.
    Therefore the comparison with the atmosphere is wrong.
    In any case, to explain behavior one must point to laws that cause it - especially when it comes to regular behavior. There is no example in the world of a permanent process whose cause is not permanent.
    It is not possible for the centers of galaxies - the densest places in the universe - where there are even black holes and all the phenomena that exist in them actually require an enormous pressure of the particles - to be the place where the pressure is actually the lowest (after all, this is what should be used as an explanation for the continued flow of particles towards those centers) and will remain so on Even the constant flow of particles into the content.
    Of course, if at a certain moment there is a flow of particles towards the center of the galaxy, then at that moment the pressure of the particles here is greater than that in the center of the galaxy, so we must turn into a black hole immediately.
    The simple universe idea is just….delusional.
    By the way - regarding the rice for example - my answer was incomplete.
    Predictability can also be proven by experiment.
    Even if a cook didn't know how to cook two grains of rice, he could convince me - in an experiment (rare, of course) - that he could cook a bowl of rice.
    The situation with the universe is of course different because it is not possible to conduct an experiment on such a scale.
    Therefore, it is possible that Yehuda will continue to live in his faith, but I hope that those who draw conclusions based on logic will understand that Yehuda's faith is unfounded.

  54. To Michael
    Look, I tried to give an example that even a vegetarian guy could understand, but I don't think I succeeded.

    I think we will continue to live each one in his faith.

    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  55. Yehuda:
    You can give them what you want but they don't do the job.
    If you want to claim that they do it, you have to explain how they do it.
    For this you must be able to analyze their behavior.
    You admitted that you are unable to analyze even the behavior of two particles.
    Know that those who know how to cook rice know how to cook two grains so your parable is simply irrelevant.

  56. for everyone

    A simple question for Michael and others

    Space is full of countless particles moving from place to place, netrins, axions and what not.

    So for the hell of it, why not let them do the work?, why insist and invent mass and even energy for this purpose?

    I really don't understand the resolute opposition of certain commenters on the subject!

    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  57. To Michael
    June 16, 2008 at 17:36 p.m

    So what?, you decided to test me if I know how to calculate the movement of two particles in outer space?
    According to the same principle, if you ever look for a cook who knows how to cook rice, you will demand that he first cook two grains of rice??
    Dear Michael, don't exaggerate, let the poor cook cook you one grain of rice first! Then double the amount.
    In short, Michael, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but, I'm not preparing to calculate the movement of two particles, nor a million particles, and I'm sorry for the cool reagent that fell into the trash that you prepared for me.
    The reason I don't do this is because there is no need for it, the atmosphere around me which is made up of countless particles (the gas atoms) shows me the principle of the behavior of particles in space, and according to the same principle I expect my particles to behave in the vastness of the universe.
    Simple and easy.

    And don't forget to eat rice.
    We will continue to the next response
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  58. Yehuda:
    If you are unable to analyze the behavior of two particles I am really amazed that you present yourself as someone who "takes for granted" how trillions of trillions of particles behave.
    As one who knows how things are calculated I tell you that what is obvious to you is simply not true

  59. What's new:
    I have already explained that I cannot give answers regarding the effect of those illusory particles on almost any subject.
    Almost all the demands that Yehuda places before them are in mutual contradiction or in contradiction with reality.
    How can you even predict what they will do?
    Since these are particles that only exist in Yehuda's imagination, those who want to know what they do must ask him.

  60. The game is over, Germany in the quarter finals.
    We will return to the real players - the galaxies and the responders of science.
    To Michael
    For your response from 16.6 at 9.42 am
    We've already heard the story of nipponing the hands, you don't have to repeat yourself, the second time you could renew for example - nipponing the feet.

    As for how the pressure differentials are created, then use your imagination. There is so much radiation and energy emitted into space from the activity of the stars and galaxies and even remnants of the Big Bang, super novae, gamma ray explosions, galaxy collisions and more. These are things that never end and renew themselves endlessly.
    You don't have to be fed everything Mr. Michael, as a knowledgeable commenter a little above average you should know such things.
    And about the rest of your words
    The galaxies spin like hurricanes spin without your permission.
    The universe expands into the void around it like any gas expands into the void around it,
    And the natrines and stars of all kinds endure just as the showers of rain and hail endure. I leave the calculations for why this is so to someone else smarter than me. It's obvious to me.
    And regarding the ideas expressed in Pushing Gravity and the idea of ​​the simple universe - as I said, I'm sorry that I got dragged into a debate on this topic here, and there's no point in wading through it again. We'll leave that for another time.

    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  61. To the cool commenter:
    First of all, you failed to read because I asked to leave the answer to Yehuda.
    Then you fail the solution and your answer is incorrect, but in this case it is good that you gave an incorrect answer because it allows Yehuda to show his ability.
    I will take this opportunity to remind you and others not to continue sending further solution attempts.

    To Judah:
    The particle pressure does not explain anything and does not solve any of the problems that the dark mass solves.
    I will not ask you again to show how he solves the problems because again you will tell me that you have already shown even though you did not.
    I'll be content with you solving the question I gave and showing that you even understand something about the subject you're talking about (I hope you don't suddenly say you've already solved it thousands of times).

  62. The cool respondent
    If they have no energy content, there are no laws of thermodynamics, and if there is, then the exchange for this energy has mass and there is gravitation, and at such distances the range of gravitation is immeasurably greater than the other known types of forces. Unless you throw in a factor of dark energy. So all that remains is to check what the range is and what is the essence of this energy content in the equation.

  63. There is a break in the Austria Germany game so we might blush to respond to someone.
    why new
    Regarding your response from 16.6 at 19.55
    There are particle winds and there are storms. Don't know what particle rivers are.

    And regarding your assertion that the galaxies must in this case twinkle. The answer is positive, only that such a sparkle can only show in the long term. All that needs to be done is to go outside the atmosphere and photograph the same area of ​​the sky once a night for a long period of time and then show all the photographs in sequence. I believe we will see sparkles. The more interesting question is, whether a long period is a year or two thousand years. I didn't calculate that, but your statement is interesting and can possibly confirm the idea of ​​particles.
    Let's get back to the game. We'll see if the draw is zero in the meantime, will change.
    We will continue the comments after the game
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  64. Yehuda,
    May you have a happy euro
    Nevertheless, if the Hubble Space Telescope picks up stable images from distances of more than a billion light years (and not frenzied images due to barometric changes of your particles - see my comment one before the previous one) then the simple universe theory is simply not correct.

  65. for everyone

    I'm running to see the Euro but after that I'm preparing to answer all the topics except the simple universe and it's a shame that I was dragged into it unintentionally by the cool commenter. That's not the point. The question is whether gravitation is the force that moves the cosmological bodies or the pressure differences could be a good explanation and maybe a good one More than gravity for this drive.
    There is no need to enter into another debate about the correctness of the simple universe or pushing gravity and we will leave their advantages and disadvantages to another debate if at all.
    That is, it is possible to believe in the usual gravitation explanation and still agree that the addition required for the movement of galaxies will come precisely from the pressure of particle movement. that we all agree that many of them move across the universe. This explanation, in my opinion, is better than an explanation that only believes in gravitation, that is, from the addition of dark mass.

    Euro is happy
    and see you after the games
    Please don't go crazy for now
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  66. There is one thing I don't understand in all: "winds of particles, storms of particles and maybe rivers of particles (I am quoting you from an answer to one of the questions I asked you)"
    If these particles lack gravity (because they create it), and lack charge, what reason exactly do they have to create any shapes and things? According to the laws of thermodynamics, they should disperse uniformly.

  67. The intention was to know whether, according to Yehuda's theory, this is what it should be.
    That's why I wanted to see reactions from Yehuda and Michael.

  68. Haha I loved the ending:
    "Yehuda, am I right?
    Michael, am I right?"

    What an imitator in the shekel

  69. To Judah
    If you say there is galactic scale pollution according to your method
    So you also say that there are winds of particles, storms of particles and maybe rivers of particles (I am quoting you from an answer to one of the questions I asked you)
    Therefore according to your method at a distance of about 10 billion light years we will see the galaxies blurred and shimmering if at all, and this is because of random pressure differences or like seeing them through the atmosphere.

    Yehuda Am I right?
    Michael Am I right?

  70. |V|*|V|=|V|*|U2|*cos(a)
    |V|=|U2|*cos(a)

    "B*V^2=A*U1^2+B*U2^2
    I meant scalar speeds here
    V^2=A/B *U1^2+U2^2"

    |U2|^2*cos^2(a)=A/B *|U1|^2+|U2|^2
    (cos^2(a)-1)*|U2|^2=A/B*|U1|^2
    We will convert to vector velocity
    (cos^2(a)-1)*U2^2=A/B*U1^2

    V=A/B *U1+U2
    U1=(V-U2)*B/A

    (cos^2(a)-1)*U2^2=A/B *B^2/A^2 *(V-U2)^2
    (cos^2(a)-1)*U2^2=B/A *(V-U2)^2
    (cos^2(a)-1)*U2^2=B/A *(V^2-2*V*U2+U2^2)

    In short, I failed.
    When there is no numerical data, it is better to give a qualitative explanation that the deviation cannot be more than 45 degrees because subtracting the vectors when they are equal in size will give a deviation of 45 degrees, and as long as the velocity vector of B is greater than the velocity vector of A then the deviation will be less than 45 degrees.
    This can be seen as a right triangle

  71. B*V=A*U1+B*U2

    V=A/B *U1+U2

    Assuming A faces 90 degrees: V*U1=0

    V^2=V*U2

    B*V^2=A*U1^2+B*U2^2

    V^2=A/B *U1^2+U2^2

  72. Yehuda:
    As I mentioned - I despaired of the possibility of convincing you.
    However, it is important to me that other readers are not confused.
    Why am I afraid they will get confused?
    Because our conversation is about things in the universe and most people - even those who know quite a bit - are afraid to express themselves on such a complicated subject and if they read that you write something they don't understand, they assume that the problem is with them (because they know high school physics, but cosmology is already a lot Beyond that).
    I have come to the conclusion that we should show these readers that although you actually allow yourself to talk about cosmology, you do not know more than they do.
    It wouldn't be fair to just put you through a high school physics test, but it would certainly be fair to ask you a simple question that is very relevant to your theories and see how you deal with it.
    The whole idea of ​​a simple universe rests on collisions between particles.
    Masses of such collisions.
    So many collisions that you propose to treat the particles that create gravitation as you treat gas - that is - statistically.
    Our understanding of the behavior of gases stems from our understanding of the kinetic model of gases - a model in which we go down to the smallest details and look at the gas as a collection of particles colliding with each other.
    That is - you look at what happens in a collision between two particles, understand it, then say that there are many of them and do all kinds of statistics that define terms like pressure and temperature as a function of the momentum and kinetic energy of the particles.
    Why am I rowing?
    The simplest problem on which the idea of ​​the simple universe is based - the problem of a collision between two particles.
    Before you wave your hands and tell us that you explained what happens with all the particles in the universe (although you don't explain, but when you say that you explained, there are, as mentioned, modest people who believe you) - let's see if you can explain what happens with only two particles.
    To avoid hand waving, I will simply ask you a question to which the answer is a formula. I just ask that you write down the formula.
    Before I continue with the description of the question, I would like to emphasize: according to my estimation, one out of ten readers of the site knew how to solve the question. I ask these readers not to send the answer. After all, we want to see if Yehuda knows how to answer it - not if there is someone who does (and there is someone for sure - I know how to answer the question. I only ask it so that Yehuda can prove that he understands at least something elementary in the field he is talking about).
    So let's go back to the question:
    We have two particles whose shape is unknown.
    The one particle is stationary and has mass A,
    The second particle - with mass B - moves towards the first particle with speed V.
    Mass B is greater than mass A.
    At a certain moment the second particle hits the first in an elastic collision and both are thrown from the point of collision.
    The direction of their movement cannot be predicted because their shape is unknown.
    The question is what is the maximum angle that can be formed between the direction of movement of the second mass after the collision and its direction of movement before the collision.

    This is, as mentioned, a simple question and I'm pretty sure you know someone who can solve it. I ask, however, that you do not use others and, just to be safe, I also add that if more than a day passes before you answer, I will already begin to suspect that you have used others.

    I assume that everyone understands that the ability to analyze the motion of billions of billions of particles requires the ability to analyze the motion of two particles.

    I am aware of the risk I am taking by asking this question.
    After all, there is a chance that you will find someone who will help you in less than a day and it still won't be proof that you explained your claims.
    If that happens, I'll have to find another way to make it clear to people that you didn't give any explanation, but in the meantime the possibility of saving all this effort beckons me.

  73. For a cool commenter
    On large scales in space mainly the gravitational forces and their family thermodynamics and gravitation are still not well connected in the opinion of the great arbiters of the various scientists. There is a dispute in matters and different opinions, see the books of Hawking and others discussing the matter. As we know, thermodynamics has four heads/laws.
    While the second law is mainly relevant in relation to gravity, it has had many versions over the last 200 years. Apparently there is no proven truth in this matter. Until the black and white gravitation forces and their family are understood, and especially until the theory is found that will unite them with the other forces in the small fields, there will be no real answer to these issues.

  74. The glass of water was just an analogy.
    A galaxy that is next to it (not in its territory) the light rays are bent due to optical distortion, for me it is like saying that a glass of water can cause optical distortion to the light that passes by it.

    To Judah, what you are actually saying is that where there is stronger gravity, there are more particles, and where there is weaker gravity (outside the galaxy) there are fewer particles?
    Why would the simple universe actually behave this way? And won't it simply balance according to the laws of thermodynamics?

  75. To Judah:
    You did not explain anything and in your words you repeat and show that you do not know what an explanation is.
    An explanation is not hand-waving.
    Whoever says "pressure difference" should explain how this pressure difference is created and maintained over time.
    Whoever says that the pressure difference creates vortices needs to understand something about the mechanisms of creating vortices.
    Those who return to the simple universe theory after it was disproved both by the very existence of movement in the universe after such a long time (despite the drag), and also by the fact that the earth does not evaporate in an instant should... well, it doesn't matter what.
    I was already hoping that you understood that the simple universe is simplistic and that you are only trying to defend a limited version of the nonsense in it but I see that you have returned to it in a big way.
    I have noting to do. I can only explain to those who are willing to understand that a contradiction with reality invalidates the theory. Anyone who does not understand this - to paraphrase a certain incorrect phrase you use - is outside the scope of the definition of the laws of logic.

    To the cool commenter:
    Although Yehuda has already "explained thousands of times" his theory - I cannot answer your question based on it because it is between us - he did not say one true thing.
    I don't know why simulated particles that move randomly but always towards the centers of the galaxies will cause them - to create excess gravitation, and at the same time, actually not in that direction because they also have to take care of the expansion of the universe. Those particles that can easily move the stars but cannot stop them - those that for some reason choose to compress the atomic nuclei of a neutron star but avoid doing so to the nuclei of other atoms, those that lose in one second energy that was supposed to break the entire universe into elements.
    I don't know how these paradoxical particles will behave next to a glass of water, so I can't answer your question.

  76. to the cool responder

    The particle clouds are supposed to be found everywhere and not only within galaxies so your claim that they are only found within a galaxy is incorrect and I never said so.
    That is, the particles are scattered throughout the universe everywhere inside the galaxy and outside it. I believe that where there is a large and concentrated cloud of particles there will also be galaxies and stars in one quantity or another. But the dusting is done without anything to do with the presence of a galaxy and the gravitation involved in dusting is marginal.
    The theory of the simple universe is built on the same principle that particles moving in the spaces of the universe move from place to place and collide with each other, just like gas with all the phenomena of pressures and winds, and the explanation of dust and the movement of galaxies is the same explanation.

    Good morning to the Mishkaim.
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  77. Tell me, what am I a goat?? My questions are not being answered on purpose or is the answer simply causing too many contradictions in the beautiful simple universe theory?
    I will repeat the previous comment:
    "To Judah,
    You wrote: "I claim that a concentrated cloud of particles can distort the movement of light passing through it and concentrate it as in the phenomenon of clouding. The role of gravitation in the phenomenon is secondary, because in my opinion it almost does not exist at galactic distances."

    According to what you write, the gravitational cooling is measured by the light rays that pass through the galaxy. As far as I know, the gravitational cooling is measured by the light rays that pass by the galaxy (in the void next to the galaxy).
    That's why the explanation you wrote down that the particles cause the gravitational cooling is not valid for the official measurements."

    Continuation to my current response: Yehuda, how can the simple universe theory explain the measured gravitation !around! to the galaxy

    Is it possible to cause the distortion of light !Near! Glass of water?

    Michael, if you feel like it, I would be happy to hear from you as well

  78. To Michael
    I explained exactly all the things you said that I didn't explain and it doesn't matter at all what you say, but everything is explained in detail.
    And in addition, you need dark energy that will be greater than the forces of gravity so that the total will be a force vector towards the outside and according to Newton's second law F=M*A we will be left with an acceleration A which is the accelerated expansion of the universe.
    And as for the refraction, the refractive index of a compressed gas is greater than that of a thin gas, therefore, a spherical and compressed area of ​​particles in space will behave like a focusing lens (simple optics). A similar principle also works in the Fata Morgana phenomenon.
    What's more, there will also be spherical areas sparse in particles and they will behave like a diffusing lens (minus diopter). This phenomenon is only in the explanation of the particles and it is necessary to look for it. Galaxies that are scattered in space will be seen a second time when they are concentrated in the center.
    It is not possible to explain such a phenomenon with the gravitational method which can only concentrate.
    In conclusion:
    We have already discussed this issue many times. You are left in your mind and I am in mine.
    So we will try not to repeat ourselves and will only really answer if a new problem has arisen.
    Of course you will continue to assert your poor claims such as one must be wrong to understand my words. So I'm not wrong here. And you??
    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  79. Yehuda:
    The popular opinion does not require dark energy for the needs you raised but only to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
    This does not belong to the topic of dark matter at all because it is about the galaxies moving away from each other and not about something that happens inside the galaxies, so even if it could explain (and it does not explain) the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (because at most it can very narrowly explain its expansion but not the acceleration) no It was related to the dark mass thing.
    To explain the other phenomena you mentioned using the interstellar gas, you just have to be... wrong.
    There is no way to explain the phenomenon as you are trying to imply to us with hand waving and we have already stood on this point.
    It's not enough to say that the pressure differences cause this and I don't have the energy to repeat all the explanations I already gave when I showed you that pushing gravity doesn't work.
    You just don't explain anything and for some reason you expect us to believe that you explain everything.
    Besides - you did not address at all the point that I asked you to address many times even in this report. How do you think dusting (gravitational or not) is formed in massless regions.
    You can add more and more questions but there is no point because even when you think you are answering you are not answering and the discussion with you is simply discouraging.

  80. Gravitation will never be able to prove the existence of a negative gravitational cloud (dispersion of light instead of concentration of light.

  81. Note that in my assumption only the existence of particles moving in space is assumed. From this everything follows.
    Whereas in the conventional view, like Michael's, there is a need for a dark mass, and additionally a dark energy to explain everything.
    Note that according to the particle theory, there is also a negative emission at the same time as the positive emission, but I don't know how to prove their existence?

    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  82. No. Ben Noor
    There is no doubt that there are many particles in the universe.
    Dark matter has the property of gravity, with which it attracts galaxies and gravitational lensing.
    My particles achieve the movement of the galaxies and the dust by the very fact of being particles without attaching to them the property of gravitation.
    To Michael
    Many times we argued without understanding exactly what each was saying this time I hope that is not what will happen.

    Regarding the role or not of the dark matter, this is a philosophy for its own sake. Is it clearer to say that the theory of dark matter comes to explain the movement of galaxies and dust?, everyone will understand if I say the role of dark matter, etc.
    But, now for the opinion of both of us.
    Both opinions have the right to exist until one of them is hidden by measurements. Well, in the first step, the two opinions answer the explanation.
    The opinion that gives the addition of gravity added by the dark matter the explanation of the large rotational speed of the spiral galaxies seems to be perfect and it also gives an explanation for the gravitational acceleration. This view has two drawbacks
    A. It requires inventing a dark energy that would be against the great gravitation created by the dark matter to justify the accelerated expansion of the universe.
    Another thing, the movement of galaxies in a certain direction requires a source of gravity from that direction. which we will not always see in space.
    My opinion, which treats the collection of particles as a gas, explains the movement of galaxies and the gravitational contraction by the existence of a pressure difference and does not require dark energy to justify the accelerated expansion of the universe. In addition, the movement in a certain direction does not require the existence of a huge mass that will exist in that direction. Just as it is not necessary in explaining the flow of spirits.

  83. Yehuda:
    You said you wanted to answer my question. You didn't say you wanted to argue with me, so decide. If you want to argue with me and you're just looking for a topic for debate, then why exactly on a topic where you claim that my opinion is unknown to you?
    I don't think there's any point in just arguing.
    It's time to present an argument that supports your claim and you don't for some reason (I think I know for some reason but we'll leave it at that for now).
    Dark matter has no role.
    A role is something imposed on someone by someone else. No one has assigned any role to dark matter and yet it is there and what it does there is not its role.
    I explained what he was doing there in my previous response and it, as mentioned, does not belong to the position.

    In my words I describe the existing phenomena and attach to them the accepted explanation. I do not rule out another explanation - after all, this is what I am asking you to give from the very beginning of the discussion and instead of doing that you are interviewing me.

  84. A question for Sabdarmish Yehuda
    In your first comment you claimed that dark matter does not exist. In your second response you claimed that dark matter is a bully.
    A. Why?
    B. So he still (maybe) does exist?

  85. To Michael

    I'm short of understanding your words. You don't claim that "dark matter has a role"? , so what is he doing there?. Isn't this your explanation for the phenomena we mentioned?

    Regarding your recurring question, why do I insist on knowing your opinion, it is simply to understand it and not to make it happen that I am responding to claims that you did not say. If we respond to someone, we should know what they think because if not, it will be a dialogue of the deaf.

    As for my opinion, I have always maintained that there are particles in the universe just that they work in a different way than your dark matter. While for you and the scientists what is important are its gravitational properties, for me what is important is that this substance has the properties of a gas with all that implies. Its gravity is negligible.

    Now for your opinion.
    At first glance, by defining the cosmological problems, you are actually defining a direction for their solution. A matter of semantics.
    I see a problem with the galaxies in their rapid movement, you see the abnormal movement of the galaxies as a gravitational phenomenon. a quote :-
    "One of the gravitational phenomena I'm talking about is the rapid rotation of most galaxies." End quote.
    In advance, do you rule out another possibility for an explanation?
    The same goes for Idush. I see it as a bending of the light rays and try to explain it.
    Whereas you:
    "Another phenomenon is a larger-than-expected gravitational dusting" end of quote.
    Previously defined this curve of the light rays as gravitational. And again the question is if you rule out another explanation in advance.
    I hope this is not the case and you give the possibility that there may be another explanation. If not, there is no point in continuing the debate between us. And each one will go his own way in his faith.
    I admit that I don't know about the phenomenon of abnormal movement of the center of gravity in a collision between galaxies and I will read it later on the site you refer me to and then I will respond.
    Now I have to run to work.
    Have a good day.
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  86. to Judah,
    You wrote: "I claim that a concentrated cloud of particles can distort the movement of light passing through it and concentrate it as in the phenomenon of clouding. The role of gravitation in the phenomenon is secondary, because in my opinion it almost does not exist at galactic distances."

    According to what you write, the gravitational cooling is measured by the light rays that pass through the galaxy. As far as I know, the gravitational cooling is measured by the light rays that pass by the galaxy (in the void next to the galaxy).
    That's why the explanation you wrote down that the particles cause the gravitational churning is not valid for the official measurements.

  87. Yehuda:
    No.
    Although I repeated the things several times - your description of my opinion is not accurate.
    Again - I don't understand why my opinion is needed to describe a theory that explains all the phenomena, but I have no problem correcting your description of my opinion.
    First of all I am not claiming that dark matter has a role.
    I claim that we conclude that it is there due to the existence of gravitational phenomena that it causes (just as we deduced the existence of the distant planets in the solar system and as we later deduced the existence of many planets in other solar systems - we did not see all of these when we deduced their existence and they were dark the same size).
    Just one of the gravitational phenomena I'm talking about is the rapid rotation of most galaxies.
    Another phenomenon is a larger-than-expected gravitational sedimentation in two places:
    One is that various structures in space lens more than they should.
    The second - which is actually a special case of the first - is that there are places where we notice the freshness without noticing normal material.
    I repeat - from my point of view and from the point of view of all scientists - Apple is one that we do not see - also a bully.
    It is true that there are reasons to assume that there is a lot of dark matter that is not baryonic and in the absence of a better explanation for the fact that in a collision between galaxies the center of gravity moves in a different way from the visible parts of the galaxies, it seems that dark matter is required that does not interact with normal matter other than the gravitational one.
    Whenever you forget my opinion, you are welcome to read it here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

    The truth is that your interpretation of your opinion has also changed compared to what I know and this is the first time I see you giving a chance to dark bully material but since you still bring up the idea of ​​gas and storms in it - an idea that I think has no hold on reality and you have no explanation of how it is verb I am willing to accept your description and your opinion as authentic and not as the beginning of a descent from the tree.

  88. To Michael

    If I understand you correctly then:-
    We both agree that matter exists in the vastness of the "empty" universe.
    Only while I claim it can only be bully you claim it can also be non-bully stuff.
    From here we will move on to another difference in our opinions:-
    You claim that the function of the above material is actually to add gravitation in the right places in the cosmos to justify the movement of the galaxies.
    I claim that in the large structures of the cosmos there is no need for the existence of gravitation, the particles behave like a huge gaseous body, and the pressure differences created in this huge gaseous body are what move the galaxies.
    And regarding the gravitational pollution:-
    You claim that the gravitation created by the dark matter (but also the normal) is what causes the decay.
    I claim that a concentrated cloud of particles can distort the movement of light passing through it and concentrate it as in the phenomenon of condensation. The role of gravitation in the phenomenon is secondary, because in my opinion it almost does not exist in my opinion at the galactic distances.

    Needless to say, your opinion is the opinion of most scientists.

    Did I define your opinion correctly? If so, we can move to conclusions and express our opinion on the opposing opinion.
    If I have not defined your opinion precisely, please define it again precisely before we start a deaf debate on the subject.

    What is important is that we fully understand the disagreement between us.

    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  89. Yehuda:
    In my opinion there is dark matter at least in the sense that there is matter with mass that we cannot see.
    I have no opinion on the nature of the dark matter and I do not rule out the possibility that it is an ordinary matter that for various reasons does not emit radiation itself that we are able to absorb with the existing technology.
    Although I don't have a solid opinion, I do tend to believe that this is an unfamiliar type of material and this is because in a collision between galaxies it behaves differently from normal material and also because somehow it manages to avoid falling into the plane of the galaxy.
    I've said this before and it's not at all clear to me how my opinion is important to the formulation of the theory, but so be it.

  90. To Michael

    Before I answer your question, I want to know clearly what your opinion is, is there or isn't dark matter?. This is to avoid a future argument.
    And for it to be ambiguous, then my opinion on dark matter is that such matter, with strange properties, does not exist.
    Likewise with the dark energy, it also does not exist.
    But, I also say that the universe is full of other baryonic particles (such as neutrinos and other cosmic rays)

    All the best
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  91. = GLAST
    Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope
    There is an ambiguous nod to the concept
    GLASTNOST (openness in Russian) remember
    From the days of Gorbachev's civil revolution in the USSR in the early 90s of the 20th century. And probably not by chance.

  92. post Scriptum.
    Unfortunately, there is also a certain error in Yehuda's words that I did not notice in my first reference.
    Non-disclosure is still not a disclosure of absence, as we know.
    I suggest you, Yehuda, in any case, since you are sure that there is no dark matter, to propose a set of rules that will deal with both its absence and the findings.
    In my opinion, there is no such system in existence, but if you propose it, you will be able to disprove my opinion.
    I repeat and mention that this system also needs to account for gravitational dusting around regions devoid of visible mass.

  93. Lesbadramish Yehuda
    You say "not discovering the structure of dark matter will require new laws". This is certainly true, but the discovery of dark matter (if indeed it is discovered) will require new laws, although, probably, new laws different from the ones you are aiming for.
    Either way, it's going to be interesting.

  94. Yehuda:
    What you say that we finally understand is something that we have always understood and the launch of this telescope now - after many years of planning and building it indicates an understanding that is at least decades old.
    Of course, this understanding is older because all science is based on the idea that if an experiment disproves the theory, the theory must be changed.

  95. I predict that physics will develop in the coming years with the help of projects of this kind, as well as the new particle accelerator in Geneva which should be fully operational this year.

    Maybe in a few years black holes, dark energy and Higgs bosons will no longer be dirty words...

  96. Quote from article:
    "Glast is an extremely powerful space observatory and it will explore the extreme environments in the universe, and look for signs of new laws of physics, as well as try to answer the riddle of what makes up dark matter"
    in brief
    Glast will look for new laws of physics and also check what the dark matter is made of.
    Finally starting to understand that the two things are related to each other. Failure to discover the structure of dark matter will require new laws.
    I have a feeling this is the beginning of the end of the dark mass and energy cycle.
    Successfully
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.