A team of researchers at Case Western Reserve University found that gravitational radiation - which is proof of the expansion of the universe - can be produced by an alternative mechanism
Physicists believe that after the big bang the universe is in the process of expansion (known as the "inflation" theory). At the center of the theory is a certain spectrum of "gravitational radiation". Gravitational radiation is created by a wave traveling through the fabric of space-time. Since the theory of inflation predicts the existence of gravitational radiation, scientists have not ruled out its existence just because they have not yet been able to measure it.
Inflation theory appeared in the 80s as a means to explain several phenomena that occurred in the universe that had no answer before, for example why is the universe so close to being flat and why is it so uniform? Today, inflation is the best theory that explains many aspects related to the beginning of the universe.
As mentioned, at the center of inflation theory is the prediction of the existence of a certain spectrum of gravitational radiation. As a result, in order to prove that the universe is expanding and establish the theory of inflation, it will be necessary to discover those elusive gravitational waves. And if indeed gravitational radiation is measured in the appropriate spectrum, this will be the first evidence that the expansion did occur over billions of years.
"If we see an ancient gravitational wave in the background, we can no longer claim that it originates from inflation," says Lawrence Krauss, professor of physics and astronomy at the university.
In 1992, Krauss, then at Yale University, argued that an alternative mechanism could cause gravitational waves, and not just inflation. The 1992 argument was based on a rough estimate. Last year, Kraus and his team at Case Western Reserve University performed much more precise calculations, and the findings showed that the result was much stronger than the initial predictions.
"It is amazing and surprising to discover that the result is 10,000 times greater than the initial estimate and it may be able to imitate the type of wave created by inflation," Kraus explains.
Gravitational radiation is a prediction of Einstein in the theory of general relativity. According to the theory, when a large amount of mass or energy is in motion, it disrupts time and space in the environment and emits gravitational radiation from where the mass/energy was. Gravitational radiation is so subtle that it cannot be perceived by human senses. At the same time, today special devices and satellites are being built that will sense the gravitational radiation and measure it.
However, gravitational radiation from the beginning of the universe can be measured indirectly through its effect on the cosmic background radiation (electromagnetic radiation originating from the big bang which is everywhere in the universe). In the presence of a gravitational wave, the background radiation will become polarized, and finding polarized light is the mission of the Planck satellite, which should be launched in 2009.
The gravitational radiation that originates from inflation or any other mechanism proposed by Kraus and his team will leave its mark on the cosmic background radiation. The prevailing hypothesis until now was that finding polarized light in the background radiation would be decisive evidence for the correctness of the inflation theory. However, the latest publication by Kraus and his team in the scientific journal Physical Review Letters raised the question of whether polarized light can be unequivocally attributed to inflation?
More information about Gravitational Wave in the English Wikipedia
70 תגובות
Rami Yoshobiev has a few questions:
1. You did not distinguish in your article between the "expanding universe" resulting from the "big bang" theory and the "inflationary universe", i.e. the "acceleratingly expanding universe", which results from the existence of "dark energy" whose nature has not yet been clarified. It is not clear from your article whether the gravitational waves confirm the "big bang" theory (the expanding universe) or the "inflationary universe" theory (the rapidly expanding universe). 2. Do gravitational waves created by the movement of galaxies, black holes, etc. also polarize AM radiation in general and the background radiation in particular?
3. Following on from the previous question, if the answer is "no" then why not? If the answer is "yes" then how can one differentiate between the gravitational waves originating from the big bang and the radiation waves originating from heavy moving celestial bodies?
4. Are gravitational waves electromagnetic waves?
Thank you for your answers. Thanks.
I look at the floor and see no gravitational waves.
It follows that there is no such thing as gravitational waves.
parable
Yehuda:
I am constantly where your mistakes are and satisfied if you ever understood my words.
I can't say that I ever understood you because it's not clear to me what motivates a person to defend a stupid and wrong idea and to use for that purpose even an untruth (what a strange way to express oneself in a politically correct manner) and self-deprecation.
I also don't know what is special about seven past twelve that you call my beautiful hour.
I suggest you wipe the tears and come to your senses.
To Michael
Tears stand in my eyes to see you in your beautiful hour.
I think we built each other up.
Now I'm going to prepare myself for a leaven meal
And maybe I'll be lucky enough to settle in some kind of land
only with a smile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
When will you start driving decently!
I have always claimed to know why the galaxies rotate and you have claimed that no one but you does.
Now you base it on the fact that I refuted your claim and try to twist the facts regarding another claim.
This is not a misunderstanding in physics - it is, how to say, an untruth.
My explanation is based on gravitation - not on vortices of particles.
It has nothing to do with the simplistic universe.
The speed of rotation is determined by the strength of gravity and if the gravity was that of your simplistic universe the speed of rotation would be smaller. That's what I've been saying all along.
Awwww!!!
To Mr. Michael
So I see that you were able to rotate the galaxy without the need for the Coriolis force, and instead I claim that all the time, the Coriolis force gives the direction but it does not have all the rights and other things can do it too.
And you also understand, Mr. Michael, that your explanation may be qualitative enough even in the case of the galaxies of the simple universe.
But, dear Michael (really), I was also enough to know you, you. Unlike me, you will never admit that you were wrong and will continue to justify your mistaken approach.
But it's also fun to watch you try to find excuses, it's even an experience!
Good luck Michael
And don't forget that it's all for the sake of science and cosmology, and that your bathroom won't get clogged
And the main thing is that Chelsea beat Manchester United
With a smile, and only with a smile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
No body is at rest and overall the amount of matter that makes up the galaxy has a certain angular momentum around its center of gravity.
This angular momentum is random and is preserved throughout the life of the galaxy as long as no external forces act on it.
As time passes, since the material that makes up the galaxy is in constant interaction, the movement of the material becomes more and more coordinated because any unruly body that moves in a direction that does not match the direction of the other bodies is expected at one point or another to collide with another body.
The set of collisions leads to a uniform rotation of the entire galaxy.
At the same time, there is another process of shrinking the galaxy due to the forces of mutual attraction acting between its components.
As a result, and as a result of the law of conservation of angular momentum, and just as happens to a dancer who gathers his arms towards his body to speed up the rotation, the rotation of the galaxy around its center of gravity is accelerated.
At a certain point, all the processes reach equilibrium: both all the bodies move more or less in the same direction, and their speed of movement is such that it matches the distance they are at (the centrifugal force balances the gravitational force. It must be understood that the same contraction process I spoke about earlier is due to the fact that the centrifugal force was too small relative to gravity).
that's it.
To Michael
Instead of talking a lot, why don't you explain to the readers of the science and its commenters (which you claim everyone knows), why the galaxies rotate.
in your free time
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
You don't read the things because you don't want to learn. Otherwise you would understand something about the sink.
Every sane person has his own idea about the reason for the rotation of the galaxies and also on the speed at which it is expected to rotate and it is this concept that allows those sane people to understand that there is dark mass.
Not bad. Keep enjoying yourself.
Dear Oren
Beware of Judah, he is a prostitute, trying to deceive you, etc., etc.
Not only Yehuda is wrong, the water in your sink is also wrong that it circulates in the exit, they are really breaking the law, they should be arrested and put in jail.
What a bad boy Yehuda.
Besides that, I actually have a set of rules that will give the direction of rotation of the galaxies of the simple universe and it is the linear movement of the galaxy relative to the direction of the expansion of the universe. In one of my lectures I explained how it gives the direction of rotation.
The truth is that I tried to check data regarding the direction of rotation of the galaxies and I could not confirm the idea of the direction of rotation of the galaxies.
In general, Michael has an idea about the direction of the galaxies? It doesn't seem to me that anyone has an explanation for why Andromeda, for example, rotates in the direction it rotates,
Except me of course with the simple universe idea.
But Oren, it doesn't change the fact that the water in your sink broke the law! (It's a shame it can't be emphasized).
And in these scorching and hot days of water shortage, water must not be allowed to violate the law.!!!
And maybe you should also break the sink for sharing to talk about a crime.
What a pleasure to have you Michael.
And how fun it is to have me!
Bye Oren
with a smile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Pine:
Yehuda is trying to mislead you.
The Coriolis force is a simulated force acting in any rotating axis system and its effect is enormous.
It is not for nothing that it is taken into account when calculating the trajectory of shells.
If you look up the term on Wikipedia you will understand how it was created and how it is calculated.
The sink is small and the Earth is a sphere and not a disc and these two things add up for those who understand the phenomenon to the fact that the Coriolis force in this environment is small or non-existent.
The rotation in the bathtub was created by the combination of two things, at least one of which does not exist in Yehuda's gravity model - one is some kind of unevenness in the structure of the exit opening (this is something that Yehuda can claim exists in our case as well) and the other is a very strong interaction (it's a shame that there is no possibility to emphasize with color or underlined below the words "most powerful") which is based both on many collisions between the separate waters and on their mutual attraction to each other, which causes them to cooperate in determining the direction of movement.
Therefore, there is no general law that determines the speed of water rotation in the sink and there is no law that determines that there will be rotation at all. If the sink opening is completely uniform and if you completely eliminate the effect of the Coriolis force, there will be no rotation at all.
A strong interaction of this type between the particles - between themselves and between them and the rest of the material completely contradicts Yehuda's model.
To pine
The question is, do we need the Coriolis force in addition to the pressure differences for rotation? My argument is no, because if not, how do we explain the swirling of the water in Michael's bathtub when he opens the outlet valve. Obviously, this is not the Coriolis force.
According to me, the Coriolis force will give the direction of rotation, but it is not necessary. And something else can give the direction of rotation.
It is clear to me that usually the movement will be from high to low pressure. It is clear to me that the Coriolis force increases the chance of rotation and on Earth it is the cause of rotation in metrological systems, but it is not necessary for rotation and something else can give the impetus for rotation and its direction.
I remember a number of tornadoes that occurred in the United States several years ago and what was noted about them that they did not rotate in the expected direction due to the Coriolis force.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
My mistake, the direction of the tangents does not have to be in the direction of the pressure difference.
Hope I didn't confuse something else.
Dear Mr. Yehuda,
The definition you gave in your previous comment is quite confusing, the Coriolis force acts on bodies moving in a rotating system. In this case, the air is moving due to the pressure difference. If the earth did not rotate the air would move in the shortest straight line.
Because the air moves in a rotating system (the Earth) the Coriolis force acts on it.
In the tangential direction (in the direction of the pressure difference) no force will apply (at least not Coriolis), but in the radial direction a Coriolis force will act which will cause rotation. Therefore Coriolis will cause both the direction of rotation (right or left depending on the hemisphere in question and the direction of movement) and the rotation itself.
And in general, in the bathtub and sinks, this is a common mistake - in theory there should be a difference, for example, between England and Australia in the direction of the water flow, but due to the geometrical structure, the drainage method, etc., etc., in practice it doesn't work - they really checked it on Channel 8.
Yehuda - you don't understand many things and Atta is the one who is wrong and misleading, but I assume that anyone who is sane has already noticed this.
To Michael
Again you are wrong and misleading
The Coriolis force gives the direction of rotation, but the rotation itself is given by the pressure differences.
In your bathtub, the water circulates and does not need the Coriolis force for that.
You obviously enjoy being deceptive!
I told you, go get a book on meteorology.
I don't understand why I keep replying
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
Needless to say, you are repeating the same mistakes again.
What rotates - both the air and the winds is the Coriolis acceleration and I have already said this before. You must have gone looking for what it was and learned about the bathtub.
You actually confirm my claim that what causes the movement is the pressure difference (equal to the force of gravity) between the circumference and the center and ignores the meaning of this claim, which is that your "theory" (which you have not even proven within its internal framework, any of your claims regarding it) that I have explained to you precisely is that this pressure difference cannot support such rotation speeds.
I have no doubt you will continue to ignore.
To Michael
Although I'm already tired of your insults towards me, I'll try, for the last time, to explain to you.
In a hurricane, the pressure difference between the center of the hurricane and its edge causes the winds to rotate and the clouds in the hurricane to more or less keep their place. They will not throw out almost!!
You can do an experiment. The next time you bathe, do it in the bathtub:- fill it with water, then open the water outlet. The water will come out and will do so in a round. In addition, if you put a match there that will float, you will see that it will turn and not throw to the sides,
In short, I'm tired of answering your "knowledgeable" approach!
Go learn a little about weather, elementary things about air pressure, winds and cyclones. Play in the bath for a bit then come argue with me.
I'm sorry to tell you, but I'm tired of your contempt for me, especially when you back it up with erroneous, arrogant and stupid explanations. Fed up!
So live with your arrogant "rare" knowledge.
I hang up. I just don't have the strength for your nonsense and repeated teasing.
Live with your truth, I with mine, we understood each other. Hello.
At least until the next comment.
Really fed up. Climb another tree.
Happy holiday, and lucky that Chelsea and Grant drew with Liverpool
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I accidentally wrote "Ami" instead of "Roi"
Yehuda:
You haven't answered any of the questions yet.
You probably just don't know what the word "answer" means.
I don't have the energy to repeat and detail for the thousandth time, but there is nothing new in your words except the surprising insight that you may be talking nonsense.
The explanation about ghosts is illusory because I didn't claim that there are no ghosts, I have always asked (rhetorical, one should say) how it is that the spirits move consistently and orderly in a way that would rotate the galaxies.
You also refuse to understand that any tangential component in the movement of the winds is not suitable for increasing the rotation speed because it will also cause the stars to escape from the galaxy and no amount of your nonsense will protect the unfounded theory from the need for more mass to increase the gravitation in the radial direction.
When I wrote about the fact that you never described the calculation leading to the attraction formula, I was aware of the contradictions you wrote in "Tashva" to Ami, and that's the only reason I raised the issue. There is nothing there that resembles the analysis of the movement and the calculation of gravitation from it - no nothing - nada - just a claim that "There! I answered!"
Not only Fibonacci understands the effect of pressure and temperature differences better than you - almost everyone understands it better than you - of course I and your words are just nonsense.
I say again - I'm not trying to convince you. You are adamant about this. I am writing this for others.
Oh Michael, dear Michael,
When will you learn that I don't just write things?, but despite all your learned words I will try to satisfy your request..
So you want the proof of the exponential addition to Newton's formula and no, then everyone would know I was just kidding. Fortunately, I explained this to Roy Cezana a few comments ago, read the comment there and if you want more I will explain to you if possible
My comments are not numbered and appear on the date
April 22 at 18.28:XNUMX p.m
And as for the second claim that you call "illusory explanation of vortices" (to explain the movement of galaxies), well, for your information, particles exist in the vastness of the universe if you like, and if not, not to consider that they behave like gas is absurd. So if we have gas in the universe, then it has volume Weight of wave speed, diffusion and so on and everything that contains gas, and in this gas, you won't believe it Michael, but there must also be winds and eddies, and this has nothing to do with my theory or pushing gravity. Even if you "only" assume the existence of the neutrinos, they are a gas with all the properties of gases that I wrote, and you know what... the neutrinos will even produce a small gravitation, hmmmhhhhhhhhh!!! Those who don't want to agree to this - zabsho! , really petty gravitational pushing. Listen, I feel that I am surpassing myself.
And to your question:- What drives these eddies?, the answer:- What drives every hurricane on earth and these are temperature and pressure differences. In this matter, Magich understands Fibonacci better than I do and I would be happy if he would give us a lecture on the subject and if he is really well versed in the subject I would be happy to write a joint article with him on the subject of "an alternative possibility for propelling galaxies and clusters". The question is whether he will be brave enough.
What can I tell you, the main thing is that Chelsea ended in a draw with Liverpool.
Good night
I'm already yawning
And probably exaggerating with nonsense
So good night Michael, restful night Ami Bachar, good night Cesana, and bye, bye Fibonacci, don't forget my proposal for an article on the subject: "The Spirits of the Galaxy"
and to all the others
Appreciate everyone and good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Apologies, the response went through twice, please read the second one after proofreading
And Michael
I will search and read and respond to what you claim I avoid
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Of course, the process can be optimized:
Since in response 47 you read response 45 again, read response 46 again
To Roy Cezana
Peace be upon you,
Your mistake is in the sentence:-
"The method that works in our solar system" end quote.
And what's the mistake?, apparently we have a simple method that works very well, so what does this Sabdarmish want??
Well, dear Roy, the mistake is that there are endless methods that work in our solar system and they are all correct! It's hard to believe, isn't it? So please some of them:-
.
Newton's formula where power will appear instead of R^2
R ^ 2.0000000001
It is also a correct formula in any scientific experiment we will not be able to prove that it is incorrect because the results will always fall within the uncertainty of the measurements.
Maybe the example seems illogical, arbitrary and casual to you, but does the following power also seem like this to you:- R^2.00000016 ? FYI, this power is able to explain the precession of the planet Hema!
And what do you think about the formula I brought up in my simple universe idea, then even there all the measurements that are currently made only in the solar system will be correct, that is, within the measurement error.
In this way it is easy to prove that there are an infinite number of correct gravitation formulas within the measurements made in the solar system.
The question arises, we will not use all the infinite formulas in every exercise we do and we will use only one. Who will be the "approved" formula?
Well, for reasons of convenience, but only for reasons of convenience only, we will use the simplest one. (Occam's Razor)
But remember it is a correct formula only in the solar system and beyond the solar system, for greater distances and/or larger masses and/or denser masses the formula may be different.
There are no privileges to our simple formula beyond the range of measurements in which it was measured.
To summarize: we have an infinite number of correct gravitation formulas in the range of measurements made in the solar system, it can also be said that some of them will be correct beyond this range of measurements. Which of them will be the "happy" ones?, the answer: - we don't know!, only measurements that are beyond the range of measurements will be able to show this.
If you agree not to "consecrate" to infinite distances any "local" formula, however beautiful and simple it may be, you will understand how casual and arbitrary the approach that tries to explain the motion of galaxies according to Newton is, reaching non-binding conclusions of dark mass, dark energy and the like.
In the article I wrote: "Proposal for a gravitation formula - a thought exercise", (here on the science website) I gave an example of a strange gravitation formula, the use of which would prevent the need for dark mass. I do not pretend that this is the alternative formula and I mentioned it in the article, and I am sure that it is not correct, but as a mental exercise it is nice.
We were born and raised on the story of the apple that fell on Newton's head. It is clear to me that to make conclusions about the movement of the galaxies (which were not known in Newton's time) is a bit excessive.
And about the cute teddy bears you mentioned in your comment, so please, if you see one in a nearby galaxy then bring me one too, my cute granddaughter would love to have one.
good evening
And rejoiced in the joy of Abram Grant in the draw with Liverpool
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Roy:
It's lost.
When he thinks that someone forgets then he ignores a borrowed galaxy and in any case he ignores that his alternative proposals have been refuted.
The only reason to continue answering is only for the benefit of others because if only Yehuda speaks here, other people who do not understand enough may be tempted and believe his words.
To Roy Cezana
Hello to Rani,
Your mistake is in the sentence:-
"The method that works in our solar system" end quote.
And what's the mistake?, apparently we have a simple method that works very well, so what does this Sabdarmish want??
Well, dear Roy, the mistake is that there are endless methods that work in our solar system and they are all correct!.
Newton's formula where power will appear instead of R^2
R ^ 2.0000000001
It is also a correct formula in any scientific experiment we will not be able to prove that it is incorrect because the results will always fall within the uncertainty of the measurements.
Maybe the example seems illogical, arbitrary and casual to you, but does the following power also seem like this to you:- R^2.00000016? For your information, this strength is able to explain the antics of the planet Hema!
And what do you think about the formula I brought up in my simple universe idea, then even there all the measurements that are currently made only in the solar system will be correct, that is, within the measurement error.
In this way it is easy to prove that there are an infinite number of gravitation formulas that are correct for the range of measurements made in the solar system.
It can also be said that some of them will be correct even beyond this range of measurements. Which of them will be correct?, the answer. Only measurements you make beyond the measurement range will be able to show this.
The question arises, we will not use all the infinite formulas in every exercise we do and we will use one. For reasons of convenience, but only for reasons of convenience, we will use the simplest one. (Occam's Razor)
But remember it is a correct formula only in the solar system and beyond the solar system, for larger stars and/or larger masses and/or denser masses the formula may be different.
Our simple formula has no privileges beyond the range of measurements in which it was measured.
If you agree not to dedicate to infinity any "local" formula, you will understand how casual and arbitrary the approach that tries to explain the movement of galaxies according to Newton, which reaches non-binding conclusions of dark mass, dark energy, and the like.
In the article I wrote a derivation of the gravitation formula - a thought exercise, (here on the science website) I gave an example of a gravitation formula whose use would avoid the need for dark mass. I do not pretend that this is the alternative formula, and I am sure that it is not correct, but as a mental exercise it is nice.
We were born and raised on the story of the apple that fell on Newton's head. It is clear to me that making conclusions about the movement of the galaxies from this is a bit excessive.
I'm not asking you to pick cute bears I'm just telling you that there are an infinite number of formulas and consider that at ranges larger than the solar system, another one can be in a subset of the infinite number of correct gravitational formulas.
Yehuda,
Let me summarize your point of view somewhat simplistically:
1. You claim that we cannot know how the universe behaves beyond our solar system.
2. You want a method by which we can understand how the universe works at that distance.
3. Michael offers you a simple method, perhaps too simple. He offers you the method that works in our solar system.
4. You object, arguing that we cannot know that the same method works outside our solar system.
5. Instead, you propose your own method, whose internal legality contradicts itself... again, according to the laws we know in our solar system.
6. So basically your whole argument is that we don't know that we can apply our laws to the rest of the galaxies, and that's why you feel free to propose your own method, which has no internal logic behind it, according to all the laws of nature known to us to this day.
7. So... why don't you also believe in the big and cheerful Teddy bear band who play inside the black holes the melody of the end of existence?
You once asked me if I saw the 'Teddy Bear Band of Black Holes' as logically equivalent to your idea of gravity. The answer is still yes. You dismiss all the laws of nature known to us, blindly claiming that other laws work at a distance. So, let's take the idea one step further, and join the fans of the cosmic teddy bear band. This seems more plausible to me than the idea that the laws of thermodynamics disappear into the distance, side by side with the conservation of matter, energy, momentum, the Neuer-Stokes equations, quantum theory and relativity.
Greetings friends,
Good night,
Roy.
Yehuda - just one more thing (actually it's more for the record - for those future Canaanites):
You say in response 39 "I was asked a question and I answered"
In my response 36 and 38, I pointed out a few of the elements of the question you claim you answered that you did not refer to them at all and I repeat and challenge you and say that you have no reference to them.
That's why you didn't answer the question that was asked and the reason for that - again a challenge - is that you don't have an answer.
Below is a quote from your response to the discussion taking place at the same time at
https://www.hayadan.org.il/big-bounce-theory-220408
"I'm still waiting for proof.
Not about an infinity of stars, not about an infinity of galaxies, just about one, one whose motion can only be explained according to Newton."
There is such a "proof" and therefore you allow yourself to underestimate the fact that it is one and suddenly demand a lot.
Although all galaxies behave this way, you do not see all the matter in them (do you disagree with this claim?) and therefore you are not ready to accept it. In other words - as long as our ability to see does not improve to such an extent that we can see billions of galaxies in all their details - including everything that you do not know exists such as dark mass and black holes - details that will probably never be seen but can only be inferred from their influence on the environment, exactly As is done today - it will not be possible to provide you with the proof that you now (after changing your requirements following the fact that you received the "proof" you demanded in the first place) require.
The beautiful thing is that at the same time as this illogical aggravation that you are taking towards the accepted theory, you continue to champion a theory that not only did not pass these types of tests but failed much simpler tests.
You have convinced me that there is nothing in the world that will move you from your mistake, so I will not continue arguing with you on the subject.
At most, I will refer other people to the discussions that have already taken place so that they can judge for themselves.
To Michael
In short, you have no proof.
Take comfort in the fact that no one has
I'm going back to the Chelsea-Liverpool game
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
As you know, and I'm tired of repeating it, there are tens or hundreds of billions of such "proofs" (for which the correct term is, as I said, confirmations and not proofs) in the Shaul galaxy and if you are willing to compromise a little and give up reality in the face of your firm opinion then also in all the other galaxies , assuming there is dark matter.
I've said it a thousand times but that's no proof that you've caught it even once (read the end of the sentence to the tune of what's changed).
to Fibonacci
I'm not a weather expert and can't answer your claims, but galaxies come in different shapes and it's clear that they've been rotating for tens of revolutions while generally maintaining their shape.
To Michael
I'm not trying to sell anyone anything!!!!
I was asked a question and I answered. Many articles are written about pushing gravity and besides Richard Feynman there are many others who are still trying to integrate the ideas mentioned in the above theory.
And regarding the proof of gravitation that I am asking for, well here is an example of proof in small ranges:- The movement of the planets in the solar system.
This is proof!
But if out of all the planets in the solar system only one behaved according to Newton's formula and all the rest were slower than stated according to the formula, would this be proof of the correctness of the formula, is one planet that behaves as an exception proof of the correctness of the formula??
One galaxy (which by chance) behaves according to Newton, so this is proof of the correctness of the formula?
After all, a thousand galaxies do not behave according to the formula.
What is so hard to understand here????
Does the fact that we have one commenter named Michael prove that this is the name of all commenters??
Therefore, since we have exhausted the subject, and for the sake of good order, when there are responders like you and me, there is no point in insisting and endlessly trying to convince, you will continue with your uncompromising opinion and so will I. point. It is clear to me that I am right and you are clear that you are right. So that's it, as long as you don't add new facts, I'm mine and you continue yours.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
.
And a few more words:
I also showed that if gravity decays faster, more dark matter than is required in normal gravity is needed to explain the rotation speed of the galaxies.
For this - as for everything else, Yehuda pulled from his waist a delusional argument about turbulence.
You probably won't be surprised to read that no proof was ever presented for this argument and I'm sure there is no such proof because the argument is simply wrong but again - Yehuda - you are welcome to show a calculation showing how the eddies are formed and how they cause the claimed result. In my opinion, none of these things are true.
It is advisable to emphasize the difference between what I demand when I ask for proof of what Yehuda demands - so to speak in the same words.
When Yehuda demands proof of accepted gravitation, he demands the impossible because what he is actually asking is for him to be shown that all the stars in the whole world do indeed obey the formulas - this is not a proof of a mathematical claim, but a proof of the connection between the mathematical model and reality.
When Yehuda makes claims about the gravitational pushing model that is supposed to explain certain observed phenomena and I demand that he prove it - I simply demand from him a proof that it is all in the field of mathematics - is such and such a model really supposed to behave in such and such a way as he claims.
In other words - Yehuda demands a physical proof (and such a thing does not exist at all) while I demand a mathematical proof of a mathematical claim asserted by Yehuda.
A small addition to Yehuda
The salient feature of the gravity model you presented should have been the cyclical behavior of weather. Similar to what we experience on Earth or similar to larger scale cycles on the sun sunspots and solar wind.
It was expected that we would see periodic gravitational storms sweeping through the galaxies. How, then, are such phenomena avoided? Where does the stability come from?
Friends:
The matter is simply exhausting and unnecessary.
There may be those who prefer to forget, but many scientists have examined the issue that Yehuda keeps trying to sell and have come to the conclusion that it is nonsense. Nice gibberish, but gibberish nonetheless.
We mentioned Feynman who talked about the drag that Judah has already forgotten or is trying to forget, we talked about the energy that I have already shown which is not little but one that was supposed to vaporize the entire earth in a fraction of a second (and everyone saw the calculations - it's not that I say what the result I came up with for the calculations and expect them to believe me that I calculated. I, for example, do not believe that Yehuda did any serious calculation on the subject even though he is waving some result with E - ask him how he calculated and he answered something else because he cannot show how he calculated. Yehuda - if I am wrong on this point, you are welcome to refute my mistake on by showing the calculation. It won't make your physical claims correct but at least it will back up your historical claims).
Kant showed that the whole pursuit of this kind of solution is philosophically pointless (because there is no escaping the assumption of the existence of gravitational forces and the whole motivation of Pushing Gravity is to avoid gravitational forces) and on and on.
Wikipedia has a comprehensive explanation of the subject and many other aspects of it were revealed in my discussions with Yehuda (and one of these aspects is that until my conversation with him and after he claimed many results Yehuda did not understand at all that the issue of inelasticity in collisions is fundamental. This says something about the seriousness of his other claims).
As part of his ferocity in defending this dead horse, Yehuda is even willing to humiliate himself and demand proof - no less and no more - of another physical theory just to end up abandoning a theory that, as mentioned, has been disproved many times and in a number of independent ways.
To Judah
If so, according to your claim, gravitation is a by-product of the collection of turbulent movements of these particle streams. What is the nature of the energy source that drives these particles.
The main problem with turbulent flows is that they are unstable over time both because their energy absorption is not the same in all directions and for other reasons.
Turbulent movements behave according to chaotic characteristics. That is, they are stable within a range of strange attractors (STRANGE ATTRACTORS). It is a bit difficult to explain the stability over time of all the systems together within one solar system, let alone within an entire galaxy. We should have seen galaxies in very different shapes modified according to the various chaotic movements. I also feel that if we build a simulation of a solar system like ours. And if we run it throughout its lifetime, we will get a very uncharacteristic form of what we are witnessing today. It is not certain that it would have allowed life to exist if the orbits were not fixed as they are.
In addition, how can the smoothness of space be explained at large distances. After all, from various observations we can learn that the curvature of space is quite smooth on large scales. There is also another problem. According to the turbulence model, infinite small turbulences should be created and disappear. This had to be manifested in continuous changes of gravity in the entire region of space. It is assumed that such unexpected changes would be manifested in unexpected trajectory changes of meteorites or worse, of entire stars.
It is also interesting how this model reconciles issues such as constant speed of light and constant curvature of light as well as the slowing down of time for high speeds.
This is due to reference to the concept in gas theory called "mean free path" of the particle.
Let's explain Le Sage's gravitation again (pushing gravity)
Suppose two bodies are located next to each other. Particle bodies are hit from every direction, except the ones they understand, because some of them are restrained by the other body, therefore they are pushed towards each other by the force that Le Sage has already proven to be proportional to the masses of the bodies and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
But what, Le Sage forgot to take into account that the particles can actually also collide with each other. The greater the distance between the bodies, the greater the chance that the particles will collide with each other, and the greater the chance that particles will arrive from the side as well, so that if the distance is large enough, all "information" about gravitation will be lost.
Newton's formula will receive a multiplicative addition of a dependent factor in the free path as well. If we mark the mean free path with the letter Lamda, and if E is the natural number and R the distance between the bodies, we will get that Newton's formula must be multiplied by the term: E to the power (minus R divided by Lamda). If, for example, the average free path is one light year, then in bodies whose distance is about a light year, the calculated gravity will be only 37% of that calculated according to Newton. Hence, at the enormous distances of the galaxies there will be no gravity and the forces will be mainly forces of pressures.
In the conversation I had on this subject with Michael, who strongly opposes gravity pushing, we came to the conclusion that the problem is that the collisions of the particles must be somewhat inelastic, meaning that there is an energy transfer here that should manifest itself in radiation. In Mr. Michael's opinion this demolishes the theory, in my opinion it is a problem that must be solved and there is no need to rush and demolish the theory mainly in light of the beautiful explanations it gives even for the accelerated expansion of the universe.
On the other hand the theory opposes singular points such as the big bang or black holes.
I hope I understood
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
You say that, "Continuing to his proof I proved that this gravitation behaves slightly differently from Newton's formula and in fact it decays with distance."
How did you prove it?
for fibronaci
The thing is simple
You just have to accept that in the vastness of the universe tiny particles are moving in huge quantities in any and every direction. Examples of such particles are the netrins for example, but here we are talking about particles much smaller by several orders of magnitude.
If you agree to this fact then everything follows from that.
In the eighteenth century, a scientist named Georges Louis Le Sage proved that particles of this kind when colliding with bodies push them towards other bodies in their surroundings so that to an outside observer this movement would look like gravitation according to Newton's formula. Following on from his proof, I proved that this gravitation behaves in a slightly different way from Newton's formula and in fact it fades away at distances.
In addition, it is possible to prove that we actually have gas here - because this is the definition of gas - particles moving from place to place. Hence this gas has turbulent pressures, temperatures, etc. The movement of the galaxies can be explained by the eddy movement of the gas, just like hurricanes of various kinds. Gravitation is not needed to explain their movement, therefore there is also no need for dark mass and dark energy.
One of the main arguments against this particle theory called "pushing gravity" is the problem of friction that is created as a result of the movement of the bodies that should have already stopped them. Since the above theory explains a lot of known facts, including the accelerated expansion of the universe, I think it should not be dismissed outright and has many fans
Even hurricanes spin dozens of revolutions without "getting tired". There is probably a mechanism that "fuels" them.
So far in short, if you want you can search on Google for sites about Pushing Gravity. And also about my simple universe theory.
For example
http://www.redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/PushingGravity.htm
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Judah
Notwithstanding the above opinions please satisfy my curiosity by describing your perception
Thanks
Another thing for Ami:
If I may interpret Fibonacci, his words were written, in my opinion, ironically because Judah never (but never!) presented a complete concept and I have no doubt that he does not have a complete concept. All he does in front of every question is wave his hands and say that the simple universe solves it (he doesn't know how but he's sure of it). Have you ever seen one of his calculations?
Ami Bachar:
Do you really think that this theory that was conjured up after it was practiced in 1750 and disproved by the findings is interesting and that contemporary articles that are based on less understanding than those who first proposed the theory had are "historical"?
Part also part and with great success, if I may.
Look for the two historical articles by Sabdarmish here on the site.
They are definitely interesting.
Yehuda, if you could provide a link - it would make it easier for our readers.
Happy New Year and Fall to all readers,
Ami Bachar
To Judah
I read your words with my eyes, it means that you have an alternative whole concept about gravity, maybe you can share it with the readers in this section
Thanks
Another shekel theory without any foundation
Enough to believe these things
thanks Michael
In order to invalidate the only Torah that stands the test and what you don't like about it is the assumption of the dark mass, you bring a theory that does not stand the test and that everything in it is dark mass.
You too can thank Yehuda
Proof is proof but I smiled anyway.
Here is proof of a smile 🙂
To Michael
You brought me proof that is not proof, so you expect me to treat your non-proof as proof?
So what will this prove?
I am waiting for more proven proof, and you will live with the certainty of your proof. When the real proof comes everything will be proven.
Please accept these words of rebuke with a smile.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I cannot try to convince you without exposing you to the errors of judgment you are making. It is indeed a debate, but what to do - I do not agree with you - not even in the fact that the Shaul galaxy together with all the other findings that exist do not confirm (again - do not expect proof - there is no such thing in science, and from one who allows himself to side with a theory that has been disproved, the demand for proof is not only impossible to carry out also unfair).
Why don't you address the arguments I made?
Maybe instead of demanding from me proofs for what cannot be provided proofs, you will delve into the proof that I have proven - the proof that your claims are wrong.
To Michael
Instead of arguing, show me proof of the correctness of Newton's gravitation formula at distances of XNUMX light year. Unfortunately, the Saul galaxy does not fit my criteria for the reasons I listed in my previous comments..
In the meantime, it seems to me that there is no point in continuing the debate. We are just repeating ourselves. We will wait and see if new data is received from the cosmological research and then we will come to conclusions.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael, if you didn't understand Yehuda behaves exactly as the creationists behave. They don't let the facts destroy their theories.
Yehuda's theory is that Einstein was a little less smart than him.
Yehuda:
That you still offer the particles that clearly contradict reality is simply unfathomable. There is almost nothing to argue with someone who brings up a theory that has been rejected as an argument against a theory that in his opinion has not been sufficiently proven.
All your words seem to me to be minimally baseless.
It is clear that if there is a mass that we do not see, a different result will be obtained from the calculations, and it is absolutely clear that in the galaxies where we still have difficulty discovering planets, there are many things that we do not see.
As I have said many times - the method by which even certain stars in the solar system were discovered was the same as the method by which the existence of the dark mass was deduced. If you lived in those days you would say that Newton's formulas were not proven at such distances and these stars do not exist.
I don't know if there were people like you at that time, but if there were, it's good that they weren't listened to.
All our experiments on earth show the correctness of the theory of gravitation and particles, as mentioned, not only are they not proven here - they are clearly hidden.
The Saul galaxy proves that Newton's laws work even at great distances and that any theory that increases gravitation at great distances compared to the one given by the accepted Torah is incorrect.
A theory that gives a gravity smaller than Newton's will encounter more problems than the accepted one because the whole reason for the assumption of dark mass is that the existing theory of gravity needs it to amplify gravity because the gravity calculated based on the observed mass decays too quickly without it. Therefore any reason you come up with to invalidate the existing Torah will come up even more strongly with a theory that assumes a faster decay of power.
And then - since theories with gravity that decays less than the cold have already been rejected and theories with gravity that decays faster will require more dark mass - you repeatedly bring up the particles (which are nothing but dark mass!) and also require them to be dispersed in space with an uneven density and direct their movement in certain circular orbits for no reason .
In other words - to disqualify the only Torah that stands the test and what you don't like about it is the assumption of the dark mass, you bring a theory that does not stand the test and that everything in it is a dark mass.
sad.
Mr. Point
A. There is no need here to solve formulas in the theory of relativity in order to understand my words.
B. If I repeat my words it is only to emphasize them.
third. In short, you are just slandering and not referring to the written things.
d. A person who calls himself a point, cannot expect that his words will be appreciated, that you will identify with the name and respond to the data that is said, and then maybe they will treat you seriously.
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda will first learn to solve equations in the theory of relativity. And only then maybe someone will start to take your things seriously. You write a lot and on the go to say the same little.
to the cool responder
You also agree that what is explained by the gravitational damping, can be explained by the phenomenon known as Fata Morgana - the movement of the light beam through areas with different density of particles.
In addition, there is no obstacle to gravitational repulsion at small distances of the passage of the rays near stars, that is, near the sun and the like, because I agree with the correctness of Newton's formula for small distances. At greater distances it will be a matter of combining Newton with particle density. Regarding larger distances, the contamination will only be determined by particle density.
The difference between my simple idea of the universe and the idea of that eighteenth century man named Le Sage, by chance, is that he assumes the existence of gravitation throughout the universe, similar to Newton's formula, and I claim that it "dissipates" over distances.
My arguments stem from the fact that the collection of particles that expresses La Sage's gravitation is actually a gas with everything that comes from that, pressure waves, temperature and more.
And as I said, the pressure differences will give the same phenomenon as Idus.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Michael
Thousands of galaxies were measured and different amounts of dark mass were found in them. Gaussian normal distribution of dark mass. That is, the average is ten times the dark mass, but there are spiral galaxies with an estimated dark mass of twenty times and there are also those with zero dark mass - the Saul galaxy.
This normal distribution is the most natural thing in the world. But does the fact that there is one galaxy that does not have a dark mass prove the correctness of Newton's formula? After all, even a formula that gives half gravitation will be considered correct if we only add enough dark mass to the galaxy system. That is, there are countless formulas that will give correct results, simply, we will add enough dark mass.
Saul's galaxy does not prove Newton's correctness, but "states" that Newton can still be a possibility there as well. On the other hand, if we find a galaxy whose Newton's formula gives more gravitation than is required for rotation, then Newton has a serious problem that can be explained either with a negative dark mass or by Canceling Newton and choosing another option to drive the galaxies.
If I am right, then the normal-Gaussian distribution of the movement of spiral galaxies must eventually find us a spiral galaxy that will move at a speed smaller than the said force obtained from Newton's formula.
I believe we will eventually get to read an article titled:
"A galaxy was discovered moving at a lower speed than expected according to the accepted gravitation formulas".
I believe such a galaxy will be found!
And about the article you referred me to, which assumes it proves the existence of the dark mass. His basic premise is that gravity exists in the vastness of the universe, at least according to Newton he in no way dares to believe that maybe gravity almost does not exist in the vast reaches of the universe.
Once you have assumed gravitation, the path is short to prove the existence of dark mass, and of course dark energy.
I assumed that something else drives the galaxies - the pressure of the many particles moving in the universe.
Therefore, everything said in the article is not true.
So let's have a good and quiet night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Michael,
So what you are basically saying is that gravitational waves are created by the motion of massive bodies.
Are these waves like what happens when a source of electromagnetic radiation accelerates back and forth? And because the speed of light is constant, the waves are created.
This is indeed possible even in masses, after all the gravitational expansion is also constant to the speed of light..
to Judah,
As someone who read your theory (um.. sorry for that one from the 17th century) without any disdain. There is no replacement in sight for a dark mass.. What's more, you can't say that this is a very strange chicken.
Is it just an invisible mass? transparent? black? No light?
I don't know what the official definition of "darkness" is, but it doesn't really matter for the sake of proving it.
I know one of your least favorite pieces of evidence is that of spiral galaxies. Indeed, it is debatable. Are the measurements correct, does gravity have a short range, does the MOND theory explain better..
But with the proof of the gravitational cooling one cannot argue.. it is something that is seen and measured directly and not indirectly like many other phenomena. No theory can explain it, including MOND and including your and your 17th century friend's simple universe theory. There is nothing to talk about the theory of the simple universe since it is unable to explain the gravitational contraction as a phenomenon at all (correct me if I am wrong, and there is an explanation in the style of Snell's law in a particle space with optical density, or an elastic collision between particles that excites the photons)
Lila Dov and Happy Passover to all commenters and readers 🙂
Michael
To your first answer - from the article you can understand and it is almost explicitly written that there is a direct measurement technique for gravitational waves. Then it is written that it is possible to measure indirectly by the polarization.
To your second answer - you are right and yet the wording is a bit vague so I was wrong - but all the other points I raised still remain.
I want to read, expand and base my knowledge and not ask questions - even though now is Passover.
lion:
The article is indeed not detailed, but it actually answers some of your questions.
It is written in the article that gravitational waves polarize the background radiation and the intention was to discover this polarization and thus prove the existence of powerful gravitational waves created during inflation.
The article claims that it has recently been proven that there is another mechanism - in addition to the inflation mechanism (which the article, unfortunately, does not specify) that can cause gravitational waves that can be detected through the polarization of light and that the detection of the polarization of light will provide confirmation of the existence of gravitational waves but will not be able to confirm the claim that they were caused by by inflation because there are other processes (as mentioned - ones that unfortunately were not detailed) that could have an effect in the same way.
Hebrew correction:
space – time = "time – space"
And not space time…
The article is not clear, gives them the wrong idea and leaves many question marks.
1. Inflation is not just an expansion but an accelerated expansion at a tremendous level beyond all imagination.
2. Inflation happened a fraction of time after the big bang and lasted only a fraction of time - does not exist today.
3. Gravitational wave spectrum? Spectrum means a range of frequencies and from this it may be implied that they know the nature of gravitational waves. It is also written that the gravitational radiation may be measured in the appropriate spectrum and this reinforces this erroneous conclusion.
4. The fact that there may be an exchange mechanism to explain the gravitational waves is something qualitative and not quantitative and it does not agree with the fact that in 1992 it was a rough estimate and current calculations show that the result is ten thousand times greater. what result What are the parameters of the above assessment and calculations?
5. The gravitational radiation is so subtle that it cannot be perceived by human senses? What kind of radiation, besides electromagnetic waves in the field of light and heat, can be perceived by human senses?
6. Devices and satellites are being built that will sense the radiation and measure it. how? Is the essence of radiation known?
7. Is this a direct way to measure this radiation? This is what is interpreted, because later on it is written that its effect can be measured by measuring the polarization of the cosmic background radiation.
8. And finally - if we don't attribute the polarization of the background radiation to inflation, then why do we attribute it?
A particularly interesting link for Yehuda:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/
To the cool commenter:
No wonder you didn't understand the theory because it doesn't appear in the article at all. What is in this article is only a little of her conclusions and very general lines for her character.
What you were able to understand (because it also appears in the article) is that gravity waves are created by the movement of masses and when there are no huge masses moving quickly no serious gravity waves are created. Therefore, no disruption of this kind is expected.
What is expected - and even happened in the past - is that noises of a different kind - even such as the shaking of the building as a result of a truck driving nearby - will disrupt the measurement, but this is exactly the reason why the devices that are built today to directly side-by-side gravitational waves are so expensive.
However, the other method - the one they want to use in the follow-up study described, which is based on the polarization of light, is not expected to be disturbed so easily. On the other hand - what the current article claims is that if in the past it was thought that gravitational waves that would be discovered would confirm inflation, then the latest research shows that there may actually be other reasons for significant gravitational waves and in this sense, these reasons are indeed a kind of background noise that will prevent the proof of inflation in this way.
Yehuda:
Your words are really incomprehensible.
The Saul galaxy (billions of stars) obeys the known gravity formulas and you say it "happens to be true"?
Dahil Rabak!
With such an approach, of course, you will never agree to any confirmation (as I recall, there are no proofs in science, only refutations, and as I have explained in addition, and as I have explained many times - all theories of gravity other than the one we are familiar with - even those that we have not yet invented - are indeed refuted by the Saul galaxy)
I didn't quite understand the theory..
What is the source of gravitational waves? (From the center of the universe? From any existing mass?)
What is the effect of gravitational waves? (Pushing? Pulling? Reducing the density of bodies?)
What does it affect? (Essays? Space itself?)
When was she released? (In the first fraction of the universe? During the Big Bang? Or to this day?)
Let's assume that gravity moves in waves and there are gravitational waves.. How can you identify them?
Anyone who is interested in photography knows that in order to photograph infrared waves emitted by hot bodies, the camera needs to be frozen (liquid nitrogen and such). Otherwise the self-heat of the camera creates a lot of noise that overcomes the original recorded waves.
Is there a camera (figuratively speaking) that is zero gravity? Let's just say I don't expect an answer to this question...
To dear Michael
Of course I take everything in good spirit.
And for our purposes
Saul's galaxy does not prove that Newton is right just as one redhead in the class does not prove that the whole class is redheads, just as one righteous man in Sodom-Lot did not prove that everyone there is righteous and in the end the city was destroyed as it would happen in the end also due to gravitation in distances.
But why get involved, bring me one small proof of the correctness of the formula in distances, and please not one that happens to be correct like the Saul galaxy.
I like to go to my sister's for lunch and will be back in the evening to see what Einstein understands about fashion or not.
Please respond gently
Happy holiday.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
In many fields of cosmology, huge capital is needed in order to finance experiments that will not necessarily give unequivocal results (and I assume that it will continue to be so because all extraterrestrial research funding is very expensive and especially that includes very expensive equipment), in many cases there is a huge waste of money, but on the other hand Second is the sacrifice that needs to be made to confirm information even if it is partial.
I was not aware of the Pioneer anomaly until now, certainly an interesting thing from what I have read is that it is not yet known what the cause is - whether it is really an inaccuracy in the theory of relativity that requires correction, or measurement errors in the statistical range, or alternatively deviations due to the other systems in the spacecraft.
Yehuda you are great. You understand science like Einstein understood fashion.
Friends:
I am ready to testify that these things do not stem from the four cups and that Yehuda has always been a drunkard and did not drink.
This is of course a joke told in a good spirit and I hope it will be accepted as such, but we all know that he has always been saying these things and that he has a tendency to ignore all kinds of things such as a Saul galaxy that is not exactly in our yard nor in its dimensions.
This tendency to predict based on what we haven't discovered instead of what we have discovered seems strange to me in general.
It is like discovering, for example, that on Earth there is an attraction between masses and concluding that in other places there is not. In general, we really have physically reached a small fraction of what we call the universe, and it is possible (and according to Yehuda's method, I should say very likely) that it turns out that the light of the distant stars nevertheless comes from some spherical shell that is around us at a great distance from what we have ever reached (and who knows if we even got there - it could To be that the spaceships we sent were trapped in some space with completely different properties and only the fact that it distorts their transmissions makes us think they are roughly where we thought you would find them.
What I understand from this article is that they are looking for the gravitational waves, and not exactly finding them. But the funniest thing is that in the article there is a method that is supposed to discover them, with the help of polarized light, but at the end they add the sentence:
"Can polarized light be unequivocally attributed to inflation?"
In other words, even if they spend billions for the purpose of the test, there is no guarantee that the conclusions will be clear.
Your faithful servant has often said that although in the science of cosmology they talk about gravitation at distances of millions and billions of light years, there is no proof of the existence of Newton's gravitation formula, with or without the relativistic additions, beyond a thousand light years.
That is, already as we approach the edge of our inner solar system, about a thousand light years, we encounter deviations from the calculated in the phenomenon called "Pioneer's Anomaly" which Darshani already says about gravity.
I do not believe that gravitation is the one that moves the galaxies and I had hope that this would be expressed in the article entitled: "New theory, etc."
And I was disappointed.
Here we have reliance on a formula that was proven to be true only in our "inner courtyard" in the solar system and no cosmological principle can allow its conclusions to be extrapolated to the entire universe.
I'm afraid there are no gravitational waves at intergalactic distances, and it's a shame to waste time and money trying to find them.
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
post Scriptum. And for those who think that my words about gravity stem from the four glasses of wine I drank on Seder night yesterday, in addition to the hearty meal, then please, bring one proof of the correctness of Newton's gravity formula with or without relativity, beyond... say, a light year, and come to Zion Goel.