This is what Prof. Zvi Piren says in an interview with the scientist website, adding that the discovery of gravity will also make it possible in the future to observe the merging of black holes and other phenomena that are not visible in light and radio * Stephen Hawking: The discovery will change the face of astronomy
Scientists have announced an amazing discovery in the study after the attempt to understand the phenomenon of gravity. They observed the ripples in space-time created by the collision of two supermassive black holes 1.2 billion light-years from Earth.
The study was performed by the LIGO Collaboration and accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters.
The partnership operates several laboratories around the world that shoot laser beams in long tunnels and try to sense changes in the structure of space-time. These signals are very subtle and it is very easy to interfere with the devices - interpreters in a particle the width of an atom.
According to Prof. Zvi Piren from the Rakah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University, the reason for the high probability of the discovery is that the gravitational waves were detected at the same time by two detectors about 3,000 kilometers apart.
From reading the research, it appears that this is a collision of two giant black holes with masses of 36 and 29 solar masses, respectively, which connected and created one black hole with a mass of about 60 solar masses at a distance of about 1.2 billion light years from us. This radiation reached us on September 14, a few days after the detectors were opened.
"Since these are black holes, this is the only way to see them because they do not emit any other signal but only gravitational waves. On the one hand, this is really a celebration because we are in the centennial year of Einstein's prediction of gravitational waves, on the other hand, the discovery opens a new window to the universe, and allows us to look at it in a different way and see phenomena that we have not seen until now.
What is the reason for the discovery now?
These detectors were built over several decades. Each such detector consists of two vertical arms, the length of each of which is about 4 kilometers. These arms measure small fluctuations of changes in space-time. In recent years, they underwent a technological upgrade that allowed them to detect weaker phenomena. The two detectors are 3,000 kilometers apart, but despite this they detected the signal together and this means that it came from outer space and not from some kind of local interference to one of the detectors. And this is a relatively strong signal.
This discovery opens up a way for us to look at the universe not only through light waves or radio waves but through gravitational radiation, it allows for phenomena that are not seen in any other way - such as the collision of black holes, so this is an important discovery also in terms of the future and not only in terms of the past.
In an interview he gave to the BBC Says Prof. Stephen Hawking, an expert in the field of black holes. He said that he believes that the discovery marks a moment in the history of science. "Gravitational waves provide a completely new way of looking at the universe. The ability to discover them has the potential to revolutionize astronomy. This discovery is the first discovery of a double black hole system and the first observation of a black hole merger," he said.
"Besides putting Einstein's theory of general relativity to the test, we hope to see black holes throughout today's history, perhaps even a picture of the universe right after the big bang - where extreme energies were at work."
added
More of the topic in Hayadan:
170 תגובות
Miracles
Thanks. Maybe we can work with that.
Israel
The resolution of GPS clocks is 200 nanometers. The accuracy is 40 nanoseconds, but I can't remember where I read that.
Miracles
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
Equation 136.
Do you know GPS watches that show the satellite time with an accuracy of nanoseconds?
Israel
Speed is in the end a ratio between coefficients, and the number you get depends on the units you chose. If the ratio between the coefficients is a result of the theory of relativity, then it doesn't matter which physical model you use.
Can you direct me to the calculation you are talking about?
Yuval, anonymous
Start reading Zen stories and you too will be able to write in this style. It's not in heaven. Successfully.
Haim, what did you smoke? I also want to
Life
Tell me... how were you born?
Yes, Rabbi Mishpad..
Israel
Genghis Khan was born in Kathrilibka. It is considered an elevation in the Ponibiz yeshiva. In two months he will be ordained as a Rabbi. It could be that he will be the chief rabbi of the State of Israel..
Life
Yiddish with a Lithuanian accent? I think you are confusing Genghis Khan.
Miracles
"Magnetism derives from the theory of relativity, so it is no surprise to receive the speed of light as a result of calculating the speed of an electromagnetic wave."
Nice, but how is it that you also get it from a hydrodynamic calculation of density and vorticity pressures?
Nissim, is it precisely from me that you want a lecture on the conversion of kinetic energy into heat energy? There are much smarter people here
Israel
I didn't say coincidence. I say (of course it's not my idea...) that magnetism stems from the theory of relativity, so it's no surprise to get the speed of light as a result of calculating the speed of an electromagnetic wave.
jubilee
You wrote "what is measured in an elastic collision is the conservation of momentum".
Israel
Salah al-Din also knew that Krakowiak had an aunt from Krakow. He also knew Yiddish with a Lithuanian accent.
Anu, entertaining as always. 🙂
My question is of the thought experiment type: Is it possible for a universe without conservation of momentum?
I think the answer should be negative. Otherwise, you tell me in what ratio a rubber ball and the earth will recoil in an elastic collision.
Did you get the point of YouTube?
Miracles! Why are you asking me about plastic collision? Don't have access to Wikipedia?
By the way, I think I discovered a way to bypass the comment system here:
Instead of writing obscenities, you can write twice 'thank you' (or once 'thank you'
and once 'please') - and thus you can easily bypass the tracking of the response.
☺
Indeed...the ways of the left are hidden..
Israel
Unlike you, I do not pretend to fully understand your question, you can reproduce and perform the experiment while pointing out the problems arising from the model as you see fit,
And film everything and upload it to YouTube?
I am sure that this way the discussion will be clearer and more interesting.
Thanks anyway.
Life
Balochistan? The legendary Saladin was a Kurd.
I wish them only the best, that they establish independent Kurdistan, and that they do not leave a stone upon a stone or a Turk upon a Turk in Turkey.
Miracles
The point is this:
Maxwell did not do the calculation in the opposite direction. Maxwell took Faraday's lines of force, the metal filings we played with in nature classes that line up in ellipse-like lines from one magnetic pole to another, and showed that if the medium between them is treated as a hydrodynamic medium, it is possible to calculate the speed of the wave within that medium.
To his surprise he got the speed of light.
There have already been incorrect models that yielded correct predictions - solar and lunar eclipses can be calculated from Ptolemy's geocentric model, the Almagest. But if you follow Maxwell's model you will argue that I believe that for such a model to predict the speed of light, it is very difficult to accept that it is just a coincidence.
Israel
I beg your pardon, please do not underestimate the Kurds. They are the ones who freed Balochistan from the hands of the Kazakhs in the 18th century.
Israel
The article I linked to describes magnetism as a result of electric fields and special relativity. So - doesn't it make sense that the speed of light would be a result of these two? Maxwell did the calculation in the opposite direction and reached the same result.
I mean that the paramiliarity of the vacuum can be calculated from the electric fields and the theory of relativity. Therefore, the result should not be surprising.
jubilee
In a plastic collision there is no conservation of momentum?
We are Kurds.
Do not pray with your nose. I know what primordial is. I just heard Ofra and thought it might be appropriate..
for our purposes. My point is - and it seems to me that you and Yuval miss it - that even without a mechanism, inertia and the law of conservation of momentum must exist.
I will explain: the big bang theory explains the moving away of galaxies and more. But this can also be explained without a bang. He does not commit.
If there was no gravitation, then we could put 2 heavy bodies - the moon and the earth - next to each other at a distance of a meter without attraction between them. The fact that it does not happen, i.e. that in reality there is an attraction, indicates the existence of a mechanism.
We deal with the inertial mechanism - Higgs, Primordial, Israel, Yuval, Anu, Ana Araf.
But it was said that there was no mechanism.
What would happen if a rubber ball hit Israel? Would he fly her at the speed of light to Andromeda? Would he himself have hesitated at all? Is there a relationship between the speed of 2 recoiling masses before and after the impact?
My conclusion: logic requires the law of conservation of momentum. Otherwise, everything would move in all directions at the speed of light or any speed, and any impact between an atom and the sun would throw the sun to Tiz al Nabi.
It sounds absurd, but you don't need a mechanism.
Do you see another option?
jubilee
Thanks. Honestly, I also don't understand how opposite polarities create mutual attraction. ☺
But that's what happens in nature. Opposite poles attract each other. Ask God why.. ☺ (or "better" you ask Nissim. The pilot without a plane, that one. He knows more than God).
Israel
Primordial - in the sense of "primordial".
But, leave. If you don't have the strength for long words, then I don't have the strength for brain bites.
And what is the "if there was no mechanism..."
Huh?
And if Grandma had wheels?
Huh ??
??
Is this science? We are in the Middle East.. and as they say in our country: Doggeri thing.
Persistence is only one facet of mass. The mechanism that produces it is the same mechanism that also produces gravitation, gravitational pollution, dark matter and other phenomena that will be discovered in the future.
What is measured in an elastic collision is the conservation of momentum. While persistence is measured in units of speed only and does not depend on the mass of the body in which it acts, momentum is the product of mass multiplied by speed. Therefore, in my opinion, the dependence of the elastic collision phenomenon on persistence alone is not correct.
Who underestimated? Did you hear a screeching sound? How does that relate to what I said?
I know this:
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Volume-2-David-Halliday/dp/0471401943
Israel
Before you underestimate - read the https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/mrr/MRRnotes.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjd4In8xJnLAhUU8GMKHVCXBVAQFggiMAI&usg=AFQjCNGQkniUYq-RrukGXt4JnWogAV-smQ&sig2=dKIE7kEm9r2ClhmZhTYvlA
So what?
Mr. Nachshon (you guessed it) of the tracker had a method for calculating the results of football games: he would count the bumps, multiply by the length of the walls and put the neighbors inside.
That's how he managed to win the lottery 7 times in a row.
In my opinion, the probability that Maxwell's model will link 3 seemingly independent constants, the permeability and the speed of light, and this from a wrong model built on hydrodynamics, is even lower than the probability of Mr. Nachshon's model.
Israel
What you say does not contradict what I said. Without understanding, I assume that the two coefficients, or at least the ratio between them, can be calculated from the theory of relativity.
I remember that in the very distant past I learned to calculate the strength of a magnetic field with the help of the electric field and the special theory of relativity. It must have something to do with Mayo and Epsilon….
jubilee
"There is no debate about the fact that there is a mechanism that creates all the known phenomena related to mass."
So let's create the argument:
If there was no mechanism like the Higgs field that creates inertia - according to what ratio would two masses repel each other in an elastic collision?
Israel
There is no debate about the fact that there is a mechanism that creates all the known phenomena related to mass, and also phenomena that are not yet known.
The question is not only what but also and above all how. Today, the last cry is the Higgs boson, which is tied to crowns of glory, but I find one main flaw in it: there is no proof (or disproof test) to link it with the virtue attributed to it.
Yuval, anonymously
Israel has no head for long words, and primordial is such a long word.
Israel asks a simple and fundamental question:
If there was no mechanism like the Higgs field that creates inertia - according to what ratio would two masses repel each other in an elastic collision?
This means: the logic, not the mechanism, requires the law of conservation of momentum.
Anonymous
You're right. If I were to write a stupid comment like yours, I would also sign "anonymous".
Jesus (anonymous)
"Forgive life and miracles, because they do not understand their actions", how do you say this in Aramaic? 🙂
First, when the whole universe is but one point then the big bang happened all over it.
Secondly, in your opinion it is very interesting but not clear "the medium is the radiation emitted by the primordial black hole. The radiation emitted from it is opposite in polarity to the radiation measured as cosmic background radiation. As such, it is attracted to the polarity of the primordial black hole”: I have no problem with radiation being able to act as a medium. The modulation of electromagnetic waves for the needs of transmitting information in a broadcast is a clear illustration of this. But I didn't understand how opposite polarity creates mutual attraction.
By the way, Israel
It's no wonder Nissim said that there is no specific point where the bang occurred. It was Einstein in 1927. It is a shame to attribute to miracles properties that do not exist in it.
Israel
Forgive life and miracles, because they do not understand their actions.
and for that matter,
There is no 'rest' system. There is an 'accelerated' system.
This medium is the radiation emitted by the primordial black hole.
The radiation emitted from it is opposite in polarity to the radiation measured as cosmic background radiation. As such, it is attracted to the polarity of the primordial black hole.
We cannot see or measure the medium because it is constantly 'getting away' from us.
At least this is my opinion, briefly and simply.
Life
Don't know the subject but find it boring?
interesting..
It is not about some dark matter that may or may not exist.
It is about a field that is around you right now, that will exert a huge force on any rotating body you try to tilt it, and that is miraculously synchronized with stars millions of light years away from you.
For me the subject is not only interesting, it is simply fascinating.
Miracles
Maxwell did not measure the coefficients of permeability and permittivity. They were known long before him.
Maxwell built a hydrodynamic model of the site
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
And from it he calculated the speed of light as one calculates the speed of a wave in water or the speed of sound in air from calculations of density and stiffness.
He did not assume in advance that this was the speed he would get, but this is what the calculation yielded (Equation 136).
Prof. Eli Ziperman once told me that the theory of relativity is actually Maxwell's model in another dimension. It's hard for me to see how, but I will meet him this year and ask.
Israel
Maxwell's calculation is based on the permeability and permittivity coefficients. These are coefficients that Maxwell measured. Maybe they can be calculated by the assumptions of the theory of relativity?
Israel
A. I don't know the subject.
B. If I decide to get into the thick of the beam, I'll find myself very quickly in Aberbanel. Not a great pleasure.
third. I'm not a masochist.
d. Let's leave it to the Great Light, the Rebbe, Raphael Shalita. He is at least the first deputy and maybe also the deputy to the creator of the world. After all, it is thanks to His grace and mercy that we exist at all. Praise to Raphael. I prefer Raphael.
Markets
You are right.. the trilogy was indeed called Alfer Bata Gamov.
(Which trilogy?).
Life
You are also right.. on occasion, soon, God willing.
There are those whose concern is the question of the existence of the Creator or free will, as evidenced by the majority of responses here, and there are those whose concern is inertia, gravity and the speed of light.
You can contribute to the discussion if you answer the following question:
There are two fans in space, each of which sees itself as stationary and the other as rotating. This is also what the video taken from each fan shows.
Why is one of them right and the other wrong? How to compare, if two spaceships see and camera each other, neither of them is actually moving or resting?
Also take into account Mach's principle, the synchronization of the rotation with the distant stars.
jubilee
I'm not saying that if the experiment had been successful it would have confirmed the ether assumption, only strengthening the dominant theory. At the end of the 19th century, belief in the site was like belief in the atomic model today: almost certain. But don't forget that the MM experiment was conducted many times in different seasons and in different directions, and this is to eliminate the possibility of dragging the site. Lorenz proposed that the site contracts in the direction of movement and hence its transformations.
The ether, which apparently passed from the scientific discussion at the beginning of the century, is coming back in through the back door as Brian Green writes under the title: "The return of the ether".
My question comes from a different place as I mentioned several times:
How did Maxwell manage to derive the speed of light from a hydrodynamic model of the ether by using the constants of electricity and magnetism, as they derive the speed of sound from Newton's hydrodynamic modulus, if the model itself is wrong?
Israel Shapira: Alfer was once called Alprov? And Hans Beta, as we know, was not involved in the article and entered the list of authors as a little joke by Gamov. If I'm not mistaken, they didn't win the Nobel Prize because they made a mistake in the calculation and the background radiation they predicted should have been at temp. Much higher than observed.
Israel
If you are so bored, maybe read the writings of Tolstoy and the mathematician Lubachevsky in the original.
First, thank you for miracles.
Before the big bang there were no dimensions at all. Neither time nor space. The universe was then zero-dimensional.
Israel! You place a discount and immediately jump to a new discount. Get an insufficient grade for neatness and cleanliness. The words are stated in the sentence above: "Let's say that the experiment would have been successful, and Michaelson and Morley would have found the rest system of the ether. It is even said that it is the same as that of the background radiation." Well, if the MM experiment had brought the hoped-for result, it would not have been enough to jump to the conclusion that the rest system of the ether had been found. Indeed, in one of the attempts to explain the "failure" of the experiment, the assumption was made that the Earth drags a little ether with it. If this experiment is ever conducted in the empty space far from Earth and brings the same result, the descendants of those with this explanation will say that all
The entire solar system drags an ether with it or even the entire galaxy. Meanwhile, we discovered dark matter, and such an explanation is not far from reality.
This is how it is when you play poker until 3 in the morning..
The story of the background radiation is fascinating, since it was predicted already in the 40s of the last century by several scientists, among them Alprov and Gamov from the Alprov beta Gamov trilogy. To protect their hearts, the Nobel Prize for its discovery in the 60s actually went to a pair of Bell Labs engineers who discovered it by accident.
Radiation was predicted from the Big Bang model, and its discovery is considered the most serious confirmation of the model. It is also the "snow" you see in the old TV receivers.
It is important for our discussion because, like Newton's and Maxwell's site, it has a rest system. A system that moves relative to it at a speed of about 371 km/s towards the constellation Leo. This speed can be estimated by measuring the deflection of the background radiation into red and blue in different directions.
As Nissim said, there is no specific point where the bang occurred.
So you claim that the failure of M-M is due to two types of intermediary? Let's say the experiment had been successful, and Michelson and Morley would have found the rest system of the ether. It is even said to be the same as that of the background radiation.
The question is: why exactly this? If the universe is infinite homogeneous and aesotropic, then how is it that it has a preferred rest system? Where is the homogeneity?
On the other hand, if Newton Maxwell and Lorentz believed that this is how things are, there is probably a reason for this, but I don't understand it. I once asked Ehud and Zvi this question, but the only answer I received was that "a rest system is natural to us."
This perhaps fits with the assumption that the Milky Way is the only galaxy that exists as believed at the time, and also with the Olvers Paradox, but not with an infinite universe.
jubilee
The big bang happened everywhere. Don't think in three dimensions.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
California! What are you doing at three in the morning instead of sleeping?
I have a problem: how do we know that the cosmic background radiation system has a rest system? Can we calculate according to it the point in the universe where the big bang started?
My opinion is that the MM experiment did not lead to the hoped-for result because the experimenters assumed the existence of a "standard" medium made up of precise particles and ignored another type of medium. I assume the existence of two different mediators that share one space: one made of precise particles, which has to explain phenomena related to mass, and the other of non-precise particles - the "empty space" between the precise particles - through which the electromagnetic radiation passes.
Good morning 🙂
February 24th, 2016
My comment was also put in detention for a whole day and has not been released for over 12 hours. Probably because I sent it from another computer.
I remember that I gave an explanation for the fact that the results of the MM experiment were not as expected. I attributed this to the fact that the experimenters assumed a "standard" medium made up of precise particles and did not take into account two types of medium that share one space. But in any case, I have already said it on several occasions, so the loss is not serious
California! What are you doing at three in the morning instead of sleeping?
I have a problem: how do we know that the cosmic background radiation system has a rest system? Can we calculate according to it the point in the universe where the big bang started?
My opinion is that the MM experiment did not lead to the hoped-for result because the experimenters assumed the existence of a "standard" medium made up of precise particles and ignored another type of medium. I assume the existence of two different mediators that share one space: one made of precise particles, which has to explain phenomena related to mass, and the other of non-precise particles - the "empty space" between the precise particles - through which the electromagnetic radiation passes.
Good morning 🙂
willow flower
Divine particle or cursed particle?
As we see, the universe is full of fields - electromagnetic, gravity, Higgs, but they do not have a certain rest system. This is the accepted explanation for the "failure" of the M-M experiment.
Different from them is the cosmic background radiation system, which has a rest system, and we even know our speed and direction relative to it. Some claimed that background radiation is the lost site, but Einstein did not refer to it in his 1920 lecture, as he did not know of its existence.
My opinion is that the MM experiment failed because there cannot be a preferred rest system in an infinite homogeneous and isotropic universe. Finding a system at rest in such a universe is like finding the center of an infinite straight line.
On the other hand, Maxwell's ether model is so complex and precise that the obvious question is: if the model itself is wrong, how did he manage to calculate the speed of light from such a hydrodynamic model, of pressures, currents and eddies, if the model itself is wrong?
And not only the speed of light: the well-known Maxwell equations (recycling of Gauss and Ampere) were also calculated from a hydrodynamic model.
So how did it go? case?
Safra,
"The Higgs field gives bodies mass. The amazing thing is that the Higgs boson itself has a mass of about 150 proton masses".
Not for nothing is it called "the divine particle". This is because he poses to us a question of the type "Who created the creator of the world"?
As a general rule, if false assumptions are put into a well-constructed logical formula, there is a possibility of receiving false conclusions.
Yuval Zahara.
The Higgs field in the Standard Model gives bodies mass. It "sticks" to accelerated bodies like honey, and resists acceleration in a process called symmetry breaking. It is the one responsible for inertia and what opposes the fan rotating in a questionnaire pattern.
The amazing thing is that the Higgs boson itself has a mass of about 150 proton masses.
Bozonino was indeed discovered to be a suspected accelerator in Tsern 3 years ago.
I am interested in the following question:
It is possible to imagine a universe without gravitation - the earth and the moon a meter apart without any attraction between them.
But how can a universe exist without inertia? It is said that there is no Higgs field. What will happen if a rubber ball collides elastically in Israel? By what ratio will the two masses recoil if there is no law of conservation of momentum?
Dennis Schieme showed many years ago how inertia can be derived from gravity. From the development of his theory it is possible to arrive at a great formula:
GM=Rc^2.
where M and R are the masses and the radius of the universe.
Good morning Israel
What exactly does Brian Greene say about the Higgs boson?
There was a claim that the aforementioned boson gives mass to the world, but this has not been proven
Beautiful. I'm proud of you. We were asked this riddle in the army, and I hoped you would like it.
Back to physics, and riddles for which I have no answers.
If the Higgs Ocean is the "new ether" as Brian Green half-claims - after all, it is something invisible that fills all space - how does it know to distinguish between accelerated motion and inertial motion?
A ship in normal ocean or an airplane in air will feel drag whether the motion relative to the medium is accelerated or inertial. How does the Higgs field know to distinguish between them? And since acceleration is a second derivative of time, doesn't the Higgs field define time in its very existence?
i solved I got exactly 40. The track goes through the ceiling, side wall and floor. A hypotenuse of a right triangle whose perpendiculars are 24 and 32. It turns out that I don't just need new glasses
Oops!
My eyesight is not good. I misread the numbers. I recalculated and found a route with a length of 40.17. 'I'm sorry
elbentzo: I was just kidding. Apologies for my twisted sense of humor
Israel: I did a simple calculation and even got a surplus
Questionnaire: Don't stop asking, because otherwise you won't know. Although you are not guaranteed that thanks to the questions you will know, but the alternative - to know without asking - is only suitable for converts.
good morning.
jubilee
How did you get 40m this way?
lion
True, but could you provide the layout and numbers to show how it works out?
elbentzo
So that we can improve our ways, can you point out in the whole long thread here where are the mistakes or deception?
Thanks.
jubilee,
I don't mean to offend, but there is something a bit disturbing about a person who is not an expert in the field but does not hesitate to step into the shoes of a teacher and try to educate others. When people who are not professional scientists exchange ideas and information is very nice (even if as a bystander, I can tell you that at least some of them are wrong), but I would expect people of integrity not to try to teach others, or at least to qualify their answers with a clear statement that they themselves are not experts in the field and not necessarily understand it. In this way, the correspondence will remain within the scope of a free exchange of opinions, and will not become misleading (whether knowingly or not) and spreading ignorance and lack of understanding of this or that person among people whose only sin was curiosity and the thought that a person who speaks confidently is necessarily a person who knows what he is talking about.
Israel Shapira's conundrum: for planning purposes, the hall box is laid out so that a straight line can be passed on it between the two electricity points.
Israel, you were right about me in the first riddle. To solve the second puzzle we will crawl through the ceiling: 36=5+30+1, and the extra four meters can be stretched diagonally.
Nissim: Thanks for the enlightenment about Galileo's experiments. At the university I did learn about the inclined planes, but a children's encyclopedia that I read 56 years ago said that the public illustration was made in the city of Pisa.
elbenzo: You're right, but why insult?
Thanks elbentzo for the referral.
I really enjoyed reading your answers in the past to some of my questions,
Mainly thanks to the depth of knowledge you turned into easy to understand explanations.
The forum here is full of ideas, there is no debate about that. Whether they are true or not is already
Another thing. For sure, it's not boring here...
Anyway, I'll take your advice. Thanks.
questionnaire,
I recommend you look for your answers elsewhere. If you are not interested in non-interactive sources of information (such as books, broadcast lectures, etc.), you might want to ask the questions on sites where there are professional respondents. This site contains a high amount of people who are more important to hear themselves talk than to say something substantiated. Some of the answers you received are one-sided and ignore (whether intentionally or out of ignorance) a lot of knowledge that physicists have today, and some are simply nonsense in the juice that the connection between them and reality is accidental.
Good luck later.
The hammers in California are compressed neutron hammers, every carpenter asked..
Speaking of which, a beautiful riddle that requires geometric thinking:
An electrician gets a job in electricity: to connect 2 plugs using a wire exactly 40 m long.
The plugs are in a gym that is 30 m long, 12 m wide and 12 m high.
Because of the children playing in the hall, all the wire must be attached to any wig in the hall: floor, wall, ceiling... it can pass between wig and wig, but no part of it must be loose.
One plug is on the wall of the 12x12 at a distance of 6 m from the 30x12 and at a height of 1 m from the floor, and the other is in front of it, 1 m from the ceiling.
All together 42 m.
Could you, kind engineers, help the electrician connect the plugs and pass the inspection?
Israel
My thought was this: if the body is very heavy then two things happen. The first is that part of the potential energy also accelerates the "stationary" body. The second, following the first, is that the "falling distance" becomes smaller.
Jubilee of miracles
negative.
The heavy body comes faster.
What if the hammer weighs as much as the sun? Who falls for whom then?
In fact, if you do the integration correctly, you get that the formula for the escape velocity between two bodies in space:
(2GM/Ri)√
You need to add m+ next to the big M, so that the formula weighs the sum of the two masses escaping from each other.
Israel
I think the answer to your question is no - in my opinion a heavy body will actually reach the ground a little less quickly.
jubilee
Galileo did not throw anything from the Tower of Pisa. He performed experiments on an inclined plane, where he rolled bodies of different weights.
And Galileo's conclusion was based on an error in measurement - on an inclined plane bodies of different weight do not fall at the same speed!
Israel,
This is another experiment. Drop a hammer from the top of a tower. Then he sent the hammer to another world and brought a feather to the top of the tower for that fall. I predict that in this format the fall acceleration will be the same.
In the format you suggest, the total mass of the moon and the bone on top of the tower varies according to the mass of the bone.
No.
Repeat the Apollo experiment of the feather and the hammer in the following format: first drop the feather to the moon from a tower and measure the impact speed, then return it to the tower and drop the hammer.
Who will arrive faster?
Israel
I will not sell my single kidney, but I am willing to bequeath it.
Today there are cheap drones on the market, and their price continues to drop. .
Israel,
Galileo also conducted a parallel experiment with a committee from the top floor of the Tower of Pisa, in which he simultaneously dropped two objects of different weights and they hit the ground together.
Comments are stopped if they include many links to web sites. Maybe this is the reason for the abuse?
And to your puzzle: after the fall (not the film) the mass of the body will be added to the mass of the earth. And by the way, a complete waste.
jubilee
My comment about poker mistakes Shasifa was ignored: thanks for the drone and if you lose you can always sell a kidney.
Oops!
questionnaire,
Definitely. Individual atoms also "warp" the "space-time" structure. The quotation marks are because I prefer to talk about a density gradient instead of a curvature, then the arrow of time can be considered constant.
As mentioned, the above-mentioned phenomena also occur with individual atoms, but our devices are not accurate enough to measure this.
Newton's explanation is too complicated for my taste. Your explanation is better in my opinion. Gravitation is a process that acts on each individual mass particle. Therefore the acceleration of the fall of small objects on a large body is the same for any object. By the way, when the Apollo 11 crew landed on the moon they successfully performed the hammer and feather experiment.
Dark matter is still mysterious, but not for much longer
questionnaire
There is no need for ratios to show that all bodies fall at the same speed, logic is enough.
Here is from an article by Marius Cohen:
Galileo was the first naturalist to apply empirical and mathematical methods in his studies, but he also devised thought experiments, including a thought experiment whose purpose was to disprove Aristotle's statement about falling bodies: Suppose Aristotle is right, and when two bodies of different weights are dropped together, the heavier body falls faster . We can ask: what will happen if we attach the two bodies and create one big body from them? On the one hand, the entire system is heavier than the heavy body alone, and therefore it should fall faster than it; And on the other hand, the light body, which should fall more slowly than the heavy body, will delay the fall of the heavy body somewhat, and therefore the (heavier) system will actually fall more slowly than the heavy body alone.
Since Aristotle's assumption that the heavier a body is, the faster it falls leads to a contradiction, we have no choice, argued Galileo, but to reject it and replace it with the assumption that the speed of the fall of bodies does not depend on their weight.
And now a puzzle for the forum:
Is this assumption completely correct? If we take a heavy body whose mass is not included in the mass of the earth and drop it, and then take a lighter body and drop it, will the speed of impact on the earth be the same?
Thanks Yuval for the answers.
I tried to understand if general relativity describes the environment of masses and interactions
between them? But I did not find where it refers to the composition of the mass, the internal connections,
Are individual atoms also warped from the fabric of time / space? It is what binds atoms
is an electromagnetic force, but they also have mass and should have gravity?
I will give a similar example. For example, when a hammer and a pencil are dropped at the same time, from a height of a meter in a vacuum,
They will reach the floor at once. So Newton explained the principle of the force acting on the hammer
It is stronger but also takes more time to accelerate its mass than the pencil, so they
In the end they compare. But perhaps there is another explanation for the phenomenon, but from the internal side.
For example, all materials are composed of those elementary particles that respond to gravity
Equally, therefore, it doesn't matter if there are 1000 of these in an iron atom or only one in a wood atom
230, because the same force of gravity will attract each of them and accelerate the body in a manner equal to the other bodies.
So even if the explanation is not precise, this is my intention for the field that general relativity left open.
Regarding dark matter, the more I learn about it, the less I seem to understand it.
The subject itself is certainly challenging and fascinating.
It's already getting ridiculous the thing of suspending and eliminating comments. I have no power to restore. Pop up once - nice. You will not emerge - even more beautiful.
Israel,
Tell us more about poker mistakes. Maybe I'll get an incentive to move my tranny body to Vegas.
* And on this occasion: congratulations
questionnaire,
Your questions are beautiful and definitely to the point. Currently, we do not know what mass is, but we know that it is related to the phenomena of gravitation, persistence, inertia, and perhaps we will discover other phenomena.
Today we are aware of the existence of an essence that has been nicknamed "dark matter" or "dark mass". In the three-dimensional world, the one we are built to sense and perceive, the phenomenon of the curvature of space can be explained by changing the density in which that dark matter is found. Its density increases as you approach the visible massive body. From this I tend to think that the entire universe is populated by dark matter in varying densities. Beyond a certain density it forms visible bodies that do not transmit electromagnetic radiation. Below this density we refer to it as "empty space" that transmits electromagnetic radiation. Since its existence has been proven by "gross" observations within galaxies, and as of now we have found evidence of its existence near our sun (Eddington experiment, etc.), it is possible that subtle observations will also reveal it in our immediate environment (and among other things will explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment).
I did not cancel or fold.
Your link did not prove that there is no website.
As I mentioned, if he had proven it, why did so many scientists continue to claim that there was? Do you think they didn't understand the proof? Do you think I don't understand the experiment? Do you think I brought Yoda as an authority?
Go to the thread. You are the one who attacks first and responds accordingly. If you tone it down, it won't be a problem to argue with you. If you open here - you will be kidnapped again.
After I provided a link and you casually deleted it, I'll leave you to search on your own. And since you have moved to the edge of the street, I leave your environment to deal with the trouble in the form of a troll called "Israel Shapira".
Classically, it can be proved that from the assumption of symmetry laws, conservation laws follow. I haven't checked, but I'm sure that the corresponding key exists also non-classically.
Now you will also ask where the laws of symmetry come from or attack the proof or claim that it does not prove it. You can't win with a troll.
You troll because
You invent a connection between a light and a site when there is an explanation between several hundred years. Without understanding the connection between conservation and symmetry. Year XNUMX in physics.
Dismisses Morley Michaelson without even understanding the experiment.
Brings Judah as an authority. Yehuda himself says that these are ideas and does not pretend and does not claim that it is something beyond
Yufi was released on half-reaction bail, we'll try the rest:
But this is not good enough. I need to be able to measure it from at least 1km with 100 ps accuracy.
For this I will need a square wave with a period of about 1000 ns, rise time of around 1ns and a pulse width of around 5 ns or less, which will be transmitted from a strong laser and received with a fast rise time photo diode.
If you are interested in the subject, I did an experiment which supports my idea, but does not prove it:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3l8u1qm_0Og&persist_app=1&app=m
Hope to hear from you soon,
Israel.
Sent from my iPad
Conservation of angular momentum elk..
And why is there any momentum, angular or linear?
Or maybe you also have a simple explanation for inertia, like your proof that there is no ether?
I think there is a confusion of concepts.
Is the theory of the "curvature of space" not a result of the curvature of light waves near a mass
Because light waves are mass?
Are the gravitational waves also mass?
In my opinion,
If you don't know the correct answer, you can't decide on the "curvature of space" issue.
questionnaire
I was in a lecture a few years ago at UCLA. The lecturer, head of the physics department at MIT, presented a slide that read:
scientists don't know the source of nature's most obvious phenomena: gravity.
So who am I to explain?
For an intuitive but full of holes explanation, see Lesage's Theory of Gravitation, or Yehuda Sabdarmish's Simple Universe (who still owes me a Turkish coffee and two rahat lokum).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
A vacuum fan resists rotation due to conservation of angular momentum. You learn it in high school. Classical principles from the 18th century…
Israel, sorry for jumping a topic and still staying on the same topic.
Do you think it is possible to describe the "radiation" or the effect which
Creating a mass, without movement?
Unlike Newton and Einstein, who used movement to describe gravity
(without understanding the essence of the mass) Is it possible that it exists
A way to explain (not describe characteristics) the mechanics of gravity?
well not going WordPress has revealed my true face, half of my comments are moderated for a few days.
Maybe it's better that way.
It doesn't seem to me that my father intends to release my reaction from the clearly illegal detention, we will try to smuggle it in sections through the tunnels:
Well, let's try to reproduce:
We are back from Vegas.
Card counting is dead - long live poker mistakes!
Mistakes poker is based on a variation of hold'em played against the dealer. Because the game is relatively new, dealers often make mistakes, especially novice dealers who are tired late at night. Pairs are paid when they have a suit, show their cards and more.
The mistakes against us are pointed out to them, but for our benefit - our secret is well kept.
His remains and his remains Inel Drabcom Where did you go?
We continue to work tirelessly on the experiments, but it's not easy, after all - c..
I actually sent an email today to a professor from Northridge University who showed interest and willingness to help. If anyone has any ideas to share to do a slam dunk experiment, we'd love to hear ideas.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Israel
Date: February 17, 2016 at 7:04:14 PM PST
To: ….@csun.edu
Subject: Speed of light measurement - Israel Shapira.
Hi Nagwa, it was a pleasure talking to you.
For my experiment I will need to be able to measure the exact arrival time of an electromagnetic pulse from as far as possible distance.
You can see in the following YouTube:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6YG8nuv4EJY
Around 6:40 that it was done from a short distance with an accuracy of 10 ps, with simple equipment. Such an experiment is ok, if it could be performed from a much larger distance.
My problem is that I don't know how to build or where to get the equipment. I can measure the arrival time with my scope with an accuracy of around 100 ns:
questionnaire.
Let's continue the experiment. Instead of a saw, use a fan and try to move it vertically in the direction of rotation.
Note that if the fan rotates in a vacuum, there is nothing to oppose it.
In air, resistance increases.
in water, much higher.
But what opposes our saw in the vacuum of space if there is nothing there?
But it is possible that the saw itself creates the inertia, not the intermediary, right? (Where is Meir and Yuval?).
This is where Mach's principle comes into play. The rotation is somehow synchronized with the rest of the masses in the universe. If you are on a vertigo at an amusement park, your head spins as the stars above spin. The same will happen in space: you can always tell if you are "really" spinning, at what angular speed and in what direction by measuring the centrifugal force acting on you.
And that rotation you measured will be synchronized with the distant stars.
So how does this happen if there is no connection between all the masses and there is nothing between them but only a vacuum? There has to be something in between, right?
This something Brian Green refers to as "the new site", although not in the same words.
Israel Shapira Thanks for the answer.
If I understood correctly, then you showed two experiments with the rotating circular saw,
One demonstrates a gyroscope and the other when turning on the arrow then in time
The acceleration should hold it tight so that it does not turn against the direction of the arrow.
In both cases there was a mass in motion responsible for the phenomena (in the system
closed) That's why I didn't understand where the middle ground is here? If you could explain.
Another thing is that it is possible that the discovered gravitational waves are only a characterization
Without the answer to the question of what a mass is and why exactly it deforms you
time / space?
Question: How can a mass curve space?
Answer: There is an interaction between a mass and the space around it.
Question: How is such an interaction possible?
Answer: Mass and the surrounding space are made of the same essence.
Question: But mass is observed while the space around it is not observed. How can you say they are made of the same essence?
Answer: The difference between them is only in density.
may be…
At a simple level of understanding: every substance (at least with mass) distorts space. If it is in motion, the curvature changes. And since the impact moves at the speed of light, the page of the impact is created, which moves at the speed of light. If you watch the video, you'll see that when two stars rotate around each other - the repeated push that is created really resembles sea waves. You don't have to be Einstein to understand that.
It is possible,
The video is in simple Hebrew, without subtitles.
I suggest you look, maybe when you see things visually it will be easier for you to understand them.
rival
I haven't heard the video yet (I prefer writing rather than listening to the text)
I assume that if the matter of the "curvature of space" falls due to the latest discovery,
His staunch followers will not give up on him so soon...
I understand from your response that since space is "curved" due to gravity,
It creates gravitational waves. not like that ?
the question is :
Where do these waves begin?
And what is their direction? Do they change direction?
It is possible,
As far as I understand from the video I linked to, just the opposite. Gravitational waves are created as a result of the gravity of a massive object warping space, similar to a stone that creates waves in water, or creates a vibration around it if you throw it hard on a rubber mattress.
Can we get a clear answer here?
Is the confirmation of the existence of gravitational waves,
Is the theory that gravity distorts space removed from the agenda?
Gravitational waves are explained simply, for anyone interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx4rs2E6etU
questionnaire.
This was also Einstein's answer, that there may be a medium but that a particular rest system should not be attributed to it.
According to Brian Green in his book "The Fabric of the Universe" the knowledge that prevailed at the time that there was no ether is giving way to a new image of a medium that is largely reminiscent of the ether of Newton and Maxwell.
To see why, conduct a simple experiment: hold a spinning chainsaw in your hands, and try to move it sideways while it's running.
You will feel a strong force opposing you and trying to turn the saw.
If there is nothing in space, only vacuum, what exactly opposes you and tries to turn you in the opposite direction to the direction of rotation?
Maybe someone can explain to me. In Michaelson Morley's experiment they found
that there is no intermediary in the movement (in a certain direction) that the light passes through and what if
That medium is not in motion, similar to the fabric of space / time
allowing gravity waves to pass through?
Father, who uploads all the comments to me? Planted?
Well, let's try to reproduce:
We are back from Vegas.
Card counting is dead - long live poker mistakes!
Mistakes poker is based on a variation of hold'em played against the dealer. Because the game is relatively new, dealers often make mistakes, especially novice dealers who are tired late at night. Pairs are paid when they have a suit, show their cards and more.
The mistakes against us are pointed out to them, but for our benefit - our secret is well kept.
His remains and his remains Inel Drabcom Where did you go?
We continue to work tirelessly on the experiments, but it's not easy, after all - c..
I actually sent an email today to a professor from Northridge University who showed interest and willingness to help. If anyone has any ideas to share to do a slam dunk experiment, we'd love to hear ideas.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Israel
Date: February 17, 2016 at 7:04:14 PM PST
to: ….@csun.edu
Subject: Speed of light measurement - Israel Shapira.
Hi Nagwa, it was a pleasure talking to you.
For my experiment I will need to be able to measure the exact arrival time of an electromagnetic pulse from as far as possible distance.
You can see in the following YouTube:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6YG8nuv4EJY
Around 6:40 that it was done from a short distance with an accuracy of 10 ps, with simple equipment. Such an experiment is ok, if it could be performed from a much larger distance.
My problem is that I don't know how to build or where to get the equipment. I can measure the arrival time with my scope with an accuracy of around 100 ns:
https://youtu.be/rV2lIOMrPzI
But this is not good enough. I need to be able to measure it from at least 1km with 100 ps accuracy.
For this I will need a square wave with a period of about 1000 ns, rise time of around 1ns and a pulse width of around 5 ns or less, which will be transmitted from a strong laser and received with a fast rise time photo diode.
If you are interested in the subject, I did an experiment which supports my idea, but does not prove it:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3l8u1qm_0Og&persist_app=1&app=m
Hope to hear from you soon,
Israel.
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
My entire reply was gone, not even pending.
We'll wait to see if she suddenly pops up.
Israel
Peace to you too. How is the project progressing? Has NASA contacted you yet? Were you able to contact aliens? ☺ No, seriously. how is it going?
By the way, Neta, there are no proofs in science.
jubilee
How can the two mediators 'get along' together?
By the way, it is worth noting that "refuting the site" is not the same as "refuting the medium"...
That is, the broker does not have the features of a website. But this does not mean that there is no such thing as a mediator.
What a writer, barely digging.
You can't count anymore. All the maniac casinos today have biometric facial recognition systems. As soon as my ugly face was absorbed in one of these, the Gestapo appeared with Dobermans and tortured and threw me out.
Israel card dealer?
Everything is moderated.
The "pumpkin poverty" is strong.
In Vegas, writing from the iPhone.
Or maybe Philphilon's..
There are no proofs in science, only evidence. If the MM experiment was proof of the non-existence of the ether, why did Lorenz Michelson Morley and even Einstein to a certain extent continue to claim that it exists? What, they don't understand the proof?
Let's hope that Neta has morals about his arrogance.
Oops!
Israel
I entered the article from the link suggested by N. His proof is "after Einstein published the special theory of relativity in 1905, the Mikeslon*-Morley experiment is interpreted retrospectively as confirming it and refuting the existence of the ether, although at the time it was not perceived as such at all."
To Aniei Deleati, an interpretation is not a proof.
* But maybe this is another experiment, not by Michaelson but by some Mikeslon ☺
Miracles, well done. You said that you don't know precise particles, and in this matter I agree with you. I don't know such creatures either ☺
The precise particles and the empty space between them are a parable and an example of a space containing two different mediators. Whether this is also the situation in reality or not, only time will tell
This is not proof. Lorentz, Michelson, Morley and many others continued to believe in the site after the M-M experiment and even after Einstein published relativity.
The *Morley Michelson experiment* proved that there is no ether. Do you want it bigger?
**The Morley Michelson experiment** proved that there is no ether. Get even a link:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%99_%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9C%D7%99
It is a short, clear text in Hebrew.
"The first solid evidence against the correctness of the ether theory"
In short, neither proof nor plaster.
The world is disappointed and dejected.
And you still dare to talk about charlatans? You said there was proof, so why don't you bring it or admit you're just bullshitting?
jubilee
You make assumptions and use them to disprove your claim. You assume that empty space moves to where a solid body used to be.
I personally do not know any "observant body". All the bodies I know are built of seals, and they are not meticulous. I also have no reason to think that the parts of the atom are accurate.
The precessive = the precessia
The Morley Michelson experiment. The world really went crazy because everyone (including Morley and Michaelson) assumed there was. They also showed exactly what the speed of light should be perpendicular to and parallel to the momentary vector of velocity as a dva - if indeed there is an ether as an absolute frame of reference and calculated the phase difference that such an interferometer would measure.
I don't have to prove anything because great scientists have already proven it. Assuming and then doubting and changing their minds is exactly their job. And then of course present predictions that match or not. Einstein also made a mistake in calculating Nega's precessive. A calculation that should incidentally demonstrate general relativity. He showed the effect but was wrong by a factor of 2 in the calculation.
And where is your proof? We will probably wait a long time. The only thing you know is to reduce "abandoned" "go to mother" etc. or claim that I am insane. And I don't have the strength to repeat all the examples.
What makes claims of faith and presents them as scientific claims is a charlatan. Whoever claims that I cursed every reader sees that you are lying.
Forsaken.
You wrote that there is proof, in the negative way, that there is no site. From your words:
"Greater and wiser than me have proven that there is no ether."
You also wrote that I am a charlatan and a liar.
Where is the proof for both?
The world wonders and is bored.
The key word in everything you wrote is "believe". Newton believed (and wrote) that gravity is created by God. As one of the greatest scientists there is ever, there is no doubt that if Newton believed that gravity is from God, he is surely right...
Everything that a scientist (small to huge) writes and *proves* is without science and science in its greatness. Much bigger than me as I already wrote so your attempts at snickering are unnecessary and more than anything else about you.
I REST MY CASE. Now disdain. Do you have any more or are you done venting your frustration?
Is this proof that there is no site you claimed existed? interesting.
Run home to Imala, boy. Stop bothering the big guys.
Israel Shapira also turns out to be lying. A transparent lie that any reader can read. Where did I curse? Perhaps one really has to make an effort to consider the word "charlatan" as a curse for those who hold their eyes. Or some other lie you made up.
You, on the other hand, claim that I am not normal. So the low level you're on can be read by anyone.
It's silly to claim that I have to prove every baseless claim you make after decades of research. I can spend a lot of time revealing what kind of person you are. On the other hand the rudeness, lies and inability to argue logical things (which leads you to dirty talk) I don't have to try.
I did all the work for me and you showed everyone to what sub-level Israel Shapira can reach in speech. The incompetent turn to violence (verbally in your pathetic case).
Nte
You claim there is proof that there is no site? bring her
And you didn't explain what I asked for, namely the derivation of the speed of light from Maxwell's ether model.
So what is left for you to do? curse.
Maybe you should relax a bit, go home, maybe go on vacation for two or three weeks, breathe fresh air, read, wait...
It's just that you should perhaps double the dosage of the pills at this time, no?
Goodbye.
post Scriptum. I thought about it for a bit -
Doubling will not be enough -
triple!
Miracles! Nice of you to ask
Within one space there can be one mediator. For example: the medium in which longitudinal waves pass (like sound waves) is made up of fine particles. But the empty space between the particles is also a medium that transmits waves. When a particle moves from one place to another, empty space moves from the second place to the first. Since the empty space is not precise, the waves passing through it can also be of a different nature - for example, transverse waves
jubilee
If a wave is a cyclical movement of a medium, then how is it possible that all types of radiation are movements of the same medium? For example - a light wave and a gravitational wave? If I "shake" the medium, what kind of wave is created?
It's a shame you're looking for blood. The argument is unnecessary without proof until that moment that will not come I withdraw from it. When there are proofs here I will return to him. I mean never
Israel
Even if Neta says sensible things (and I purposely do not go into analyzing their content), in my state of health I cannot afford to get into fights with him. Please numb both of them in my name too
☺
The water is easy!
In general, waves propagate within a medium. The medium can, according to a common assumption (though not on me), also be empty space.
Waves can also be a medium, as evidenced by the modulation of radio waves.
And thank you for calling Israel to speak up
Older and wiser people than me have proven that there is no site. If you claim the opposite from many dozens of studies the burden of proof is on you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof that you cannot provide.
You are much worse than ignorant or just not successful. You use the knowledge you have to make pseudoscientific arguments and are guilty of truth.
Einstein's opinion? which one? He claimed several contradictory things.
Similarity to other models. You yourself know that you are perverting and there is no logic or science in what you say. Know that imagination and inspiration from a model does not indicate a fundamental connection. A charlatan who knows he is a charlatan and knowingly deceives.
You argue against the accepted - which is fine - but without any arguments and using knowledge to sound scientific. You have not provided and will not provide such proofs.
Why are you doing that? It is already taken from the behavioral sciences.
Nte
You are the one who decided in rulings: no site.
And you are the one who claims that Einstein's opinion is just another opinion.
So the burden of proof is on you.
In the meantime, take a look at Maxwell's site model:
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
And explain to me how he was able to derive equation 136 - the derivation of the speed of light from a hydrodynamic model of pressures, density and turbulence - if the model is completely wrong as you say.
Successfully.
Shapira has not yet brought and probably will not bring proof of the website's existence. I say let's continue the discussion when you have them. Or in other words never
Israel Shapira, you are once again returning to *Diot*. The science of a great scientist is great science. The opinions of a scientist are opinions. Whether it's your opinion, Einstein's opinion or anyone else's in the world, you brought nothing but *opinions*.
Einstein claimed a cosmological constant. Once he claimed it became a reality?
Then he claimed it was the mistake of his life. Has the reality of physics changed as a result?
And today they are again trying to explain dark matter/dark energy with the constant.
So the fundamental forces in the universe depend on who said? And Einstein said "Let it be constant" and let it be constant? It's just ridiculous.
What about this thing that... what do you call it in science? Oh yes evidence. As long as you don't bring something like that then it's a living room conversation. Interesting or not is subjective. But "Einstein thought" (then the opposite and today they think the opposite again) is not a logical argument.
Neta, Einstein actually thought it had meaning, and this is 5 years after the publication of general relativity.
What is the meaning of an object without a reference system? Physically meaningless. And if I understood correctly, also according to Einstein, there is no meaning to an object or a speed without a reference system. Maybe there are particles without any interaction with the particles in our universe. Maybe there is a god/spirits/aliens without any interaction with the particles in our universe. It is equally meaningless.
Neta, not necessarily.
Logic says, and so did Einstein, that a site can exist as long as a certain reference system is not attributed to it.
Yuval (no miracles) The non-existence of the site was proven in the negative way. If there is an ether, then *the very existence of the ether* (or *any* "real" reference system) will cause the speed of light measured in the direction of the earth's movement to be measured at a different (and known!) value in relation to the speed of light in a perpendicular direction.
This value *or any value* that is not measured by the interferometry method. A method that is quite accurate and was used, for example, to... detect gravitational waves. The very nature of *any* medium should cause this regardless of the actual Lorentz contraction solution. Even without this solution, they proved to the extent of the (minimum) measurement error that not only is there no intermediary as they thought, but there is none at all.
By the way "unthinkable" is an opinion. And the genius of the generation like Einstein changed his mind several times about several subjects (cosmic constant anyone?) and even made a mistake in the calculations by a factor of 2 when he calculated the precession of Venus. Quoting what he thought at a given moment is not proof. Einstein's greatness was the ability to bring ideas out of nowhere like a magician, ideas that break conventions and vice versa *and then prove them*
Nissim, Neta, Yuval and his remains:
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general
theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable
Albert Einstein, 1920.
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
jubilee
And this convention only receives confirmations over the years. And now - we received another confirmation.
I don't understand why you have to go back...
jubilee
Can gravity waves be, in some way, a medium?
(And where is your friend Israel, why isn't he joining?)
Miracles and Neta!
The assumption that preceded the experiment was that there was a medium (called a site). Another assumption was about the nature of that intermediary. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the behavior of light is not as expected in a medium of the type they assumed.
Explanations for this incomprehensible behavior have been suggested. One of them (the most famous, I think) is the "Lorentz contraction", according to which the medium actually exists.
Einstein's greatness was in jumping the hurdle. He formulated his theory (the private divinity) regardless of the question of the existence or non-existence of the medium. He formulated things to fit Lorentz contraction. Since he ignored the existence of the mediator, the consensus that there is no mediator was accepted in the scientific community.
Nte
Was it meant for me?
Nissim, you didn't understand the experiment. The experiment proved that there is no middle ground and that they did not find one. Read again about the experiment and you will understand why
jubilee
Indeed the same experiment. This is the conclusion that physicists drew from the experiment.
Arya seter!
Are you asking if my name is Yuval Gefen?
(The answer is no. My name is Yuval Chaikin)
Yuval - is it a vine?
Miracles!
By "proven" do you mean the conclusions from the Michaelson Morley experiment?
jubilee
It's not that we didn't find a middle ground - we showed that there is no middle ground! These are two very different things.
Miracles!
It's true that we couldn't find the middle ground,
A hundred years ago we gave up trying to find him and got along just fine without him.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
In the last generation, the reality of an entity that has been nicknamed "dark matter" has dawned on us. He is my candidate for the mediator through which gravitation processes and the wave phenomenon of light occur. So far we have only found it in distant galaxies, but given sensitive and accurate measuring devices I believe we will find it everywhere.
jubilee
We have known for over 100 years that light has no medium...
Yeftah Antimatter has mass and not antimass. Antimatter is basically matter with an opposite electric charge. They could also define matter as anti-matter and vice versa.
Gravity does not have 2 opposite charges
Does anyone know if there are gravitational properties opposite to antimatter?
And to David Kfarri's question, I already said that 3 times the mass of the sun was not dispersed in space but disappeared and became pure energy. Since Einstein, mass and energy have been discovered as one - two sides of the same coin
Stunning !!!!!!!
A question that still requires clarification is what is the medium in which the light waves travel, if such a medium exists at all. Assuming that such a medium exists, and its density changes according to the mass in its surroundings (proved for the first time by Eddington and confirmed repeatedly in the gravitational cooling phenomenon), then the recently discovered phenomenon indicates changes in the density of this medium as a result of a change in mass.
To David Kfarri's question, where did 5 solar masses go, this mass was dispersed in space, increasing the density of the medium and causing the observed phenomenon
Maybe ..
I know you are a bit challenged so I will help you. The measured wave had a variable frequency, around 100 cycles per second. Divide 300,000 by 100 and get 3,000 km.
One problem we solved?
Only in quantum cases or events close to strong gravity is it possible to exceed the speed of light. It is possible that gravity waves are created in a similar way to electromagnetic waves - acceleration. But they are completely different, passing through planets like nothing, their great weakness that requires the most violent events in the universe and the most powerful instruments for detection, they are not like an electric and magnetic field that move perpendicular to each other, they are a space-time distortion. The questions about them will only keep piling up, so wait like me and like everyone else..
Oh well…
If the destination of miracles is certain that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light,
So you can stop researching the issue...
So all that remains is to find out:
What is the wavelength?
What can block the gravitational wave (if at all)?
may be…
Gravitational waves travel at the speed of light.
The big unanswered question
Do gravitational waves travel at the speed of light?
How did they manage to find out the distance of the black holes? According to my understanding, two measurement points allow you to know only the direction, they needed another measurement to calculate an intersection between two directions.
Rural uncle
The two black holes in the rotational motion lose energy in the form of a gravitational wave. And as we know E=MC^2 their mass/speed decreases (the energy changes forms) and in the last 50 fractions of a second the two black holes circled 250 times a second! And in the violent collision energy equal to 3 solar masses was released in a fraction of a second.. (unfathomable) 50 times the energy emitted by all the stars of the universe..
To the best of my knowledge, the last time they announced that they had discovered gravitational waves, it was based on an analysis of cosmic radiation (I think they noticed differences in the polarization of the radiation from different directions, and they assumed that the gravitational waves were the source of the differences in polarizations, and after a few months they realized that dust particles in space were probably the source linguistic in polarizations).
The current discovery was determined based on the effect on laser beams - a change in the pattern of interference between two light sources towards each other within a system of tubes inside of which there is a vacuum.
Because the radiation moves within a controlled system (relatively protected from shocks, and without the influence of the medium due to the void) the chance that some random factor that was not thought of is responsible for the change and not the gravitational waves themselves is smaller than last time. Of course, there is still a chance that it will be discovered in the future that once upon a time the discovery was wrong and there was something that was not taken into account during the experiment.
Regarding the discovery of gravitational waves from the big bang, it seems to me that in general it is very difficult to discover gravitational waves, and probably that relatively speaking the intensity of the gravitational waves from the big bang is lower (because the waves were supposed to spread throughout the universe), so it should be very difficult to discover gravitational waves from the big bang but maybe In the future they will still be able to discover them
In what way may the visible gravitational rays contribute to promoting the formulation of the theory of everything?
proofreading:
Joint military joint ventures
Interferometers CEL interferometers
They turn to the Israeli army
"It is a collision of two huge black holes with masses of 36 and 29 solar masses respectively that connected and created one black hole with a mass of about 60 solar masses" - where did five solar masses go?
It is not clear to me as a layman how to correlate the collision of objects a billion light years away with tiny experiments on Earth. Unless it is a continuous event... and then the question arises, how do we know that the hole is the source of waves or changes in waves and not other objects/objects
a question:
Is the speed of propagation of gravitational waves the same as the speed of light?
The irony is that in 1936 Einstein (together with David Rosen) submitted an article to the monthly "Physical Review" entitled "Do gravitational waves really exist?" in which he came to the conclusion that they do not. The editors rejected the article…
How is the current discovery different from the erroneous discovery of gravitational waves that was reported in all the headlines just a few months ago and in the end it turned out to be a mistake?
Another question, in the same publication from a few months ago they said that this is a clear proof of the big bang theory, weren't the detectors that we are talking about now supposed to detect the gravitational waves of the big bang?