Two astronomers from the University of Arizona concluded that NASA's Hubble Space Telescope actually observed an expanding cloud of very fine dust particles, originating from two ice bodies colliding with each other
From: University of Arizona. Translation: Ziv Adiki
What is thought to be a planet in a star system close to our own probably never existed, say astronomers from the University of Arizona; Their analysis points to a huge and spreading cloud of dust - which is most likely the result of a cosmic collision.
The disappearance of a celestial body, which scientists thought was a planet outside our solar system, raises the possibility that one of the first exoplanets discovered through direct photography - never existed.
Two astronomers from the University of Arizona concluded that NASA's Hubble Space Telescope actually observed an expanding cloud of very fine dust particles, originating from two ice bodies colliding with each other. Hubble encountered the phenomenon too late to record the collision that researchers believe occurred, but it may have picked up its results. The missing planet was recently seen orbiting the star Fomalhaut, which is 25 light years away.
"Such collisions are extremely rare, so the fact that we can see evidence of such a collision is an important discovery," says Anders Gaspar, an astronomer at the University of Arizona's Stewart Observatory and lead author of the scientific paper announcing the discovery. "We believe we were in the right place at the right time to witness such an extraordinary event using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope."
The video simulates an event that astronomers studying the Hubble Space Telescope's observations believe is the world's first photographic evidence of the results of a collision between two giant celestial bodies outside our solar system. In the image from the Hubble Space Telescope on the left, a giant icy debris ring envelops the star Pomelhout, which is 25 light years from Earth. The star is so bright that the obscuration disk/black eclipse is used to block its glow so that the ring of dust can be photographed. In 2008, astronomers saw what they thought was the first image of a planet moving in a far-from-the-Sun/Pomelhaut orbit. But, by 2014, the planet candidate had dimmed until Hubble could no longer take pictures. The most successful explanation for this is that the object was never a fully formed planet, but rather a cloud of dust spreading following a collision between two minor bodies, each about 125 miles wide. The diagram on the right is based on a simulation of the spreading and fading cloud. The cloud, composed of very fine dust particles, is now estimated to be more than 200 million miles across. It is estimated that such collisions occur in the Pomelhout environment once every 200,000 years. Thus, Hubble looked to exactly the right place at the right time to record this fleeting event. Credit: NASA and A. Gaspar and J. Reika/University of Arizona
The video simulates an event that astronomers studying the Hubble Space Telescope's observations believe is the world's first photographic evidence of the results of a collision between two giant celestial bodies outside our solar system. In the image from the Hubble Space Telescope on the left, a giant icy debris ring envelops the star Pomelhout, which is 25 light years from Earth. The illustrated diagram on the right is a simulation of a spreading and fading cloud, based on Hubble observations made over a period of several years. Credit: NASA V. A. Gasper and J. Reika (University of Arizona)
"The Pummelhout star system is the best laboratory experiment for testing all our ideas about extrasolar planets and developing star systems," adds George Reika, professor of astronomy at Stewart Observatory. "We have evidence of such collisions in other star systems, but a collision of this magnitude has never been observed in our solar system. This is a template [blueprint] of how planets destroy each other.”
In 2008, the existence of the body considered an extrasolar planet, named Fomalhaut b, was announced, based on information from 2004 and 2006. It is clearly visible in several years of Hubble observation, which revealed that it is a moving spot. Until then, evidence of extrasolar planets was mostly inferred using indirect detection methods, such as the subtle back-and-forth wobble of stars and the shadows of planets passing in front of their suns.
However, unlike other direct images of extrasolar planets, difficulties have arisen with Pommelhout b. The object shone brightly - an unusual fact for an extrasolar planet, which is too small to reflect enough light from its sun for us to see from Earth. On top of that, it had no detectable infrared heat signature—again, an unusual fact, because a planet should be hot enough to glow in the infrared, especially a young planet like Pommelhout B. Astronomers deduced that the extra glow came from a giant shell or ring of dust surrounding the planet, which may be related to the collision.
"Our study, which analyzed all the information available in Hubble's archive about Pommelhaut, revealed several features that alone painted a different picture: a planet-sized object may never have existed in this place in the first place," Gaspar says.
The group emphasized that the final nail in the exoplanet's coffin appeared when the analysis of the Hubble images taken in 2014 showed that the object had disappeared, much to their astonishment. Adding to the mystery was the fact that early images showed the object steadily fading over time, they said.
"Obviously, Pommelhout B was doing things that a real planet shouldn't be doing," Grasper says.
The explanation is that Pomelhaut B is slowly spreading from a collision that released a cloud of dust that disperses in space. Given all the information available, Gaspar and Rijeka think the collision happened not long before the first sighting in 2004. Today, the debris cloud - which contains dust particles whose size ranges around 1 micron, or 1/50 of the diameter of a human hair - is less dense than Hubble's ability to detect. It is estimated that the dust cloud has so far spread to a size that exceeds that of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
The group also reported that it is more likely that the object is on an escape route than on an elliptical orbit, as expected for planets. This information is based on later observations that the researchers added to the outlines of its orbits from early information.
"A huge dust cloud that was created recently and has considerable radiation forces originating from the Pomelhaut sun, is likely to be placed on such an orbit," said Gaspar. "Our model can naturally explain all the observed independent variables of the system [the celestial body/object]: its rate of expansion, its fading and its trajectory [its rate of expansion, its fading and its trajectory].
Because Pummelhout B is currently inside a vast icy debris ring that surrounds Pummelhout, colliding bodies are expected to be a mixture of ice and dust, like the comets found in the Kuiper belt at the outer edges of our solar system. Gaspar and Reika estimate that any such comet-like body would have been about 00200 km wide, about half the size of the asteroid Vesta.
The authors of the paper say that their model explains all of the observed properties of Pommelhout B. A sophisticated calculation of dust movement in the time series, done on a cluster of computers at the University of Arizona, showed that this model was quantitatively able to fit all the observations. According to the authors' calculations, the Pomelhout system, located about 25 light years from Earth, may experience such an occurrence once every 200,000 years.
Gaspar and Rijeka – along with other team members – will observe the Pommelhout system using NASA's next James Webb Space Telescope. in his first years of scientific activity. The team will directly image the system's inner hot regions, and for the first time in a system outside our own, they will obtain detailed information about the structure of the elusive Pomelhaut asteroid belt. Also, the team will look for actual planets orbiting Pommelhout, which may still be waiting to be discovered.
For the announcement on the university website
for the scientific article
More of the topic in Hayadan:
343 תגובות
And what if it is the possibility that another, giant, slow-moving body is now hiding the star, and in how long will the hiding body move (or, if it is a disappeared planet after all, then this planet will move) and the disappeared "star" will appear again? After all, if the observations showed that its light fades over time, then the possibility that it is hidden can also explain the disappearances
Israel/Anonymous
There is no argument that we do not understand what exactly is the connection between mathematics and physics.
I strongly believe in Max Tegmark's approach, that in fact they are the same thing. Let's assume that the world is simple, as they believed 100 years ago - there are 4 types of particles and laws of physics such as Newton's and Maxwell's equations.
So - why exactly 4 particles? What is their origin? Why do all electrons have exactly the same charge and mass?
I think there must be an answer to these things, and that the answer is that everything that can exist - exists.
Nice response, Anu.
Takes the chickens out to pasture.
Miracles
I remember from some program in Tambulizia, where they showed some ancient tribe from some remote jungle, in which the presenter of the program will return with a member of the tribe - and the presenter explains to us that those people from the tribe have not yet learned to count above the number 4 (something like that).
He explains that they know what one is and what two is. But they don't know how to describe in numbers, large quantities. They just say - "a lot".
The numerical (or mathematical, more correctly) expression gives us humans a closer, more accurate explanation to reality and truth.
That is, the mathematical expression describes the physical event.
The physical event can be translated into a mathematical expression.
The same with a wave function:
PG is a mathematical expression of a physical phenomenon.
But what exactly is this wave function? A fierce debate is now raging on this issue among researchers of the fundamentals of physics. Is a wave function an actual physical object, or is it something similar to a law of motion or an internal property of particles or a relationship between points in space? Or maybe it's just the current information we have about the particles? or what?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantic-threat-on-einstein-theory-060912
… physical meaning?
Israel
So you are saying that the root of probability has discipline
The wave function is not pure mathematics, it has roots in the world of physical reality and its square is the probability of finding the particle at a certain point.
Israel
Schrödinger
Who says he's not a real wave?
Israel
If an electron in an atom is a standing wave then there is no charge being accelerated. De Broglie thought that the electron was actually a physical wave, not a probabilistic wave.
And also allowed tracks in the atom despite the apparent acceleration..
Israel
It was de Broy who said that the electron is a wave.
Miracles
Of course you are right. I was just checking you out.. 🙂
And as Israel mentioned; The equation is:
||hf=|En-Em
"Circular motion is accelerated motion. It's early high school physics..."
And what about de Bruy? Does it not allow allowed paths for an electron in an atom?
anonymous
Circular motion is accelerated motion. This is early high school physics...
And no, an electron cannot emit an electron. An energetic electron can emit a photon and become a less energetic electron.
Miracles
Circular motion is not necessarily accelerated.
She can stay.. circular.
An electron that absorbs energy can emit a photon or a lower level electron.
anonymous
Circular motion is accelerated motion.
An electron cannot become a photon, of course.
Miracles
An electron in an atom always emits energy when it is accelerated - radiation. (unless he is in a constant circular motion that does not allow him to pass from one allowed track to another)
The question is when it happens.
When the event turns the electron into a photon and vice versa.
anonymous
An electron has no location in an atom. It is not a body that revolves around the nucleus. It is more correct to understand it as a spatial standing wave.
This wave changes when the electron absorbs a photon. If it had a physical location then the atom would emit radiation, which is not the case.
The point is that you cannot talk about the position of the electron.
In any case - my point is that you cannot describe a photon without time.
Miracles
An electron does not just revolve around the nucleus of an atom.
An electron moves in circles of a certain energy frequency.
When the rest of the frequency on which an electron is found oscillates, then the electron "rises" or "decreases" the level of the frequency on which it "rides".
And as a result, during its movement, it is either engulfed in another particle that is in its orbit or it 'emits' another particle.
Israel
The future is defined by the direction of increasing entropy. Another question is whether it can go up, or down, in both directions.
anonymous
An electron that absorbs a photon is not in a certain position. It somewhere revolves around the nucleus of an atom.
A free electron cannot absorb a photon.
Israel
Note that I have not determined the position of a photon, rather, the position of a photon is defined as an electron in space and time.
Once a photon is positioned, the photon 'becomes' an electron.
And once we determine the energy level of the photon then we can determine the place and time of the event, in space, where the photon became an electron.
Therefore the uncertainty principle is canceled in this case.
Only, please note, that one cannot be sure of certainty except after the fact, that is, in retrospect. Since we experience things in retrospect and not when the particles break down and determine situations and moves that will happen in the future.
Therefore the (human) being is always the side effect of the previous situations that happened in nature, in the close environment of that individual.
Philosophizes on a dime, and leaves Yarham...
Miracles
What you defined does not explain why entropy only increases towards the future. According to Newton's laws and random body movement, it should also rise in the past direction.
we
If you managed to place a photon at a specified point at a specified moment - then what about the uncertainty principle?
We determined this, probably because nature is always dynamic.
Even if we stop a queen - nature will continue to change.
Miracles
That's what I'm saying.
As far as we humans are concerned, we have determined that the arrow of time moves forward, to the future.
anonymous
Note that you needed t to define the position of the photon.
The direction of time is arbitrary, in a dink like the charge sign of the electron, or where it is left and right.
That is: at time t the photon is at position x,y,z.
And hence it becomes a 'tangible object'. electron.
Time is, in mathematical language - scalar.
Past and future are human expression the directional pressure of the scalar.
Miracles
Of course I can.
I simply define this energy as an electron. After I collapsed (fixed) the position of the photon.
anonymous
It doesn't go well with the light. You cannot place a photon in space.
…like time. Time is also the human definition of the changes that happen to bodies in space.
But the space itself is real.
And also the energy within the space.
These are the two real things in nature.
Time is meant to explain the change that took place in space. And we explain this through different entities.
like for instance:
If you stand in one place in space and the sun is in front of you, then we will call it: the sun in Gibeon Dom.
And if you stand in the same place but - the sun will be in the Ayalon valley... a sign that there is some change in the sun.
If you notice, from year to year, it will always be sunny here and sunny there...
There was someone wise once upon a time who noticed this and invented the clock (based mainly on the movement of the sun in the sky).
This is natural time. Like the natural time of decay of a particle.
'Time' is a human definition. It has no expression in nature as an entity like space and energy.
Israel
What I do agree with is that calling it "forward" is subjective. We decided that forward is the direction in which entropy increases. It's like defining that the charge of the electron is negative.
Israel
I disagree. If entropy increases then time moves forward.
If you show me a movie with no changes in entropy, like a collision at CERN, then we really won't know what the direction of time is.
It's a little more complicated than that, because there are situations where entropy decreases in a certain place.
Show me a film of a shell moving towards its target and tell you if it is projected forward or backward.
But this is a subjective feeling, I could be wrong. Your definition of time is also subjective.
Israel
Reverse gota, reverse. I define the direction of time according to the increase of entropy. Show me a movie, and I'll tell you the direction of time in the movie according to the change in entropy.
You take for granted that the arrow of time points in the direction of increasing entropy, but as you mentioned, Newton's laws are reversible in time and there is no reason why entropy should not also increase in the direction of the past.
The low entropy at the time of the bang is a logical conclusion but not the time pressure explanation.
Israel
An open question is why the universe started with very low entropy. Is that what you mean?
Israel
Green says that there is no basic law that determines the direction of time - and I used this in the explanation of the elastic particles. I don't know that Green says that entropy gives no direction to time
Israel
I asked you - what is wrong with my explanation?
Miracles, Brian Greene says this is one of the unsolved questions of physics and you already have a solution?
Israel
Entropy determines the arrow of time: time moves in the direction in which entropy increases.
Where is the time pressure reference?
Israel
What is wrong with my explanation?
The question is why entropy only increases in the direction of the future and not in the direction of the past.
There is still no clear answer to this question. In my opinion, the discussion here can point in a direction.
Israel
There is a certain probability that the entropy will indeed decrease. The probability of black is 5 times the probability of white. That is, the probability of raising the entropy is higher.
There is one situation of all whites out of 6 to the power of 100 possibilities….
It's easier to look at 100 coins that are tossed all together. There are 2 states of very low entropy, and a huge number of states of very high entropy (one in a hundred thousand trillion trillion...). Therefore from some intermediate state it is easy to understand that the chances are that the entropy will increase.
Let's take an example: let's say 25 trees. In the next toss - the probability of 26 trees is 10 times the probability of 24 trees.
Entropy will increase, but not necessarily reach a maximum.
It is said for simplicity that only whites are directed upwards all 100. You shook and reached a certain intermediate stage between zero entropy (only whites) and maximum entropy (about 1 in 6 blacks). It is said that you have reached the condition of one in 20 blacks.
You shake the dice and take a video. You know that the amount of blacks will increase with time, but if Newton's laws are time-reversible, why wouldn't shaking in the opposite direction decrease the amount of blacks?
For comparison, a computer can calculate the position of the stars 10 years ahead, but also 10 years back.
So why not here? The amount of blacks will increase with each shake both towards the past and towards the future.
Israel
The question "The question was why the entropy does not also increase in the direction of the past if Newton's laws are reversible in time. So what is the explanation that distinguishes the increase of entropy towards the future from the direction of the past?"
Entropy can increase in both directions. Think of a row of a hundred dice. They are painted black, except for a single face that is white. Suppose they are arranged so that half show white and half show black. We roll all the dice.
It is not clear that the entropy will increase? And the reason is not clear?
Israel
Yehuda disagrees... that was my whole argument.
Why should they be moved? After all, we agreed that elastic collisions have no attraction.
Israel
Let's refine my explanation.
1 The box is empty for 20 minutes.
2 After 20 minutes, insert the 2 balls and release them for 20 minutes.
3 According to Yehuda - the balls will approach each other.
4 After 20 minutes, grab the balls again and find them.
5 and again - the box is empty for 20 minutes.
Now I'm showing you 20 minutes of the movie, but you don't know if it's from the beginning to the end or from the end to the beginning.
You see the particles moving, and after 20 minutes you put in 2 balls.
Can you tell me which way the balls will move?
"Your example is different from mine."
With the same degree of determination you can also write "your example is not different from mine" and to the same degree without explaining why.
Although not related to pushing, my example illustrates a central problem with the concept of entropy - why should it not rise towards the past but only towards the future?
"And in my example - it is not true that there are more balls hitting outside than inside."
Here you are right. The example of the phantoms and the infidels shooting tarps that cling to each other is incomplete. We need to add another squadron - say the Skyhawks from 118 - that operates between the tarps and balances the pressure.
Since the collisions are elastic, if, as in pushing the tarpaulins, say 90% of the particles move, the external pressure on them decreases by 10% and is balanced by the 90% that penetrated from the other side, of which 90% (81% of the original pressure) is applied to them in the opposite direction, and the remaining 9% returns because the 81 The repelled % are caught in an elastic ping-pong between the canvases where they dwindle until they run out.
It can be said that their speed decreases due to penetration, but this creates heat and is no longer considered elastic.
In short - elastics don't work.
Israel
Your example is different from mine.
And in my example - it is not true that there are more balls hitting outside than inside.
Don't forget 'fields'.
This 'field' is very important..
No, not demons.
fields..
Electric field, magnetic field, such...
Did you know?
In fact, the contact between particles is a contact between their fields.
One magnetic field interacts with a second magnetic field. When two particles 'collide', e.g.
And one more thing, don't forget Higgs Field..
The field that exists within a vacuum.
... taking the horse out into the field...
I answered you about that. Here again in detail:
The same setup you described, only without the balls. The chamber started from a state of low entropy, i.e. there are many more particles on one side of the chamber than on the other.
We know that at the end of the room it will reach a state of equilibrium where there are no concentration differences, i.e. maximum entropy. That's why we'll start shooting in the middle of the process.
What does it look like? The particles are in random motion and the concentrations are getting equal.
Now we will project the film in the opposite direction. What does it look like? The particles are in random motion and the concentrations are getting different.
That is: equal conditions and different behavior.
Or maybe the conditions are not really equal with or without balls? The particles are not in random motion. According to pushing, they move from the area where the pressure is high - in the case of pushing, on the outside of the balls where more balls hit to the inside area where the pressure is low.
In fact they don't need to flow, simply more particles hit the outside than the inside, see the example of the planes that shoot tarps.
What does it look like?
Israel
So here we go again….
1 – Imagine a box in space that is empty. The size of the box is 2 meters by 2 meters by 2 meters.
2 - Place two balls with a radius of 20 cm in the center of the box at a distance of 60 cm between the centers of the balls.
3 - Take a picture of what is happening - with the help of a camera that sees both the balls and the particles.
We should see the balls approaching each other, and the particles in random motion.
4 - Now - watch the movie from end to beginning. what will you see The two spheres move away from each other, and the particles are in random motion.
5 - meaning identical conditions and different behavior.
"I showed why it is impossible for gravity to exist."
You keep saying I showed. Could you please repeat the explanation instead of saying I showed and I said?
Israel
Entropy as a principle always increases, but there are cases where it decreases (in the formation of a star for example) - but this is not related to my explanation.
I really don't understand what the discussion is about here. As long as there is no heating, that is, as long as the collisions are elastic, I showed why it is impossible for gravity to exist. It's a shame to repeat it again and again.
I thought the question of entropy reversibility was the one that killed poor Boltzmann..
This is still an open question in physics. But I think the discussion here can offer a certain solution.
Israel
Entropy has nothing to do with Newton's laws. Isaac probably did not understand...
Israel
I explained that it is not possible for the movement of the bodies to be different with the particles in the same state.
Entropy has nothing to do with matter, unless there is warming.
what did you explain
The question was why entropy does not also increase in the direction of the past if Newton's laws are reversible in time.
So what is the explanation that differentiates the increase of entropy towards the future from the past?
Israel
Newton's laws assume that there is no friction. So, the entropy does not change.
Israel
What is unclear in my explanation?
Nothing to do with warming. Elastics also do not work in the case of the tarpaulins and cornices.
Take a given state in which the entropy is given. Since Newton's laws are reversible in time, it should also increase in the direction of the past, right?
Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Schrodinger..
It's fine if you don't provide an explanation, not sure if it exists.
Israel
Exactly, because there is no warming in elasticity...
In Newton's, Einstein's, Maxwell's and Schrödinger's equations - time has no direction. Reverse t and the equations still work.
Add heating... and it's no longer true.
You let me down. Elastics do not work in any case regardless of warming.
And why doesn't entropy also increase in the direction of the past?
I came back from Grisha. 3 cats stated they were Democrats and 7 said they were Republicans.
Grisha explained that by now most of them had their eyes opened.
Israel
Don't think of the extreme case of two close boards, because that is misleading.
Think of two heavy balls at a certain distance between them.
Israel
Think about the experiment I described. It is not possible for a random movement of particles to once create an attraction and once a repulsion.
Except, if something heats up in one direction.
Nice, I'm already old and senile, could you repeat the explanation of why elastics do not produce gravity?
And why does a system produce heat if the entropy increases in the direction of the past? After all, everything is reversible, so why doesn't entropy increase in the direction of the past?
Yoda Ach Selo, the pushing particles explain much more than gravity soup and it doesn't matter at all what they are made of.
But let Nasimov stew in his own juice and come up with explanations about elastic collisions and the direction of the arrow of time.
Grisha says his cat has given birth to 10 kittens and they are all loyal Democrats. going to see them
Israel
If no heat is generated then the physics is reversed.
Elastic collisions do not create gravity. Lasag also understood this. One explanation is in the experiment I described. Another explanation, consider, is energy conservation.
Because Newton's laws are reversible in time, so if we take a situation where the entropy is given, it should increase both towards the past and towards the future, right?
Israel is my friend but mine
I have a dilemma that Nissim presented to me, what would we build the pushing particle from?, Nissim claims (and is apparently right) that he cannot be a bully. I know you are a photon devotee.. is there another option?
Waiting for your reply
Yehuda
Yehuda
I have said all along that I think there are no such particles, for many reasons.
The direction of time is according to the direction of entropy growth. But, this means that in the experiment I described the entropy must increase. That is - something needs to be warmed up. So what heats up in the experiment I described?
Why miracles, no preferred direction for time?
Can you explain one more time why elastic collisions do not create gravity?
Were you able to save the details on your computer?
Anu, how do you save on a tablet?
Going to the barn to consult with Yafim and Boris..
Miracles
You asked three questions that I don't understand:
Direction for time?, there is always . When I go to sleep I usually wake up later and not before sleep, I learned that the direction is from yesterday to tomorrow and also the measured entropy shows that there is a direction. What am I missing?
Is the movement of my pushing particles random? Yes. After all, this is the essence of gravity pushing.
What is the pushing particle made of? Well you've convinced me he's not a bully.
So what could it be?, something like a neutrino but much smaller?, or a photon?
Nissim, since you said ages ago that I'm rude and since we haven't fought in a few hours, so I'll take a risk, and let me ask you a cheeky question:-
What would you suggest regarding the nature of the pushing particles??
Good day miracles
And please respond gently.
Yehuda
Wait, did you say there is a preferred direction for time??
Yehuda
Is the movement of your particles random?
Yehuda
The mass of a baryonic particle is at least 6 times that of an electron, because the lightest quark weighs 2 times that of an electron, and a baryon consists of 3 quarks.
If we add the binding energy then the mass is even greater.
Miracles
Newtonian calculation speaks of pushing particles of the order of 10 minus 40 kg. It is much smaller than a neutron or neutrino
And for two bodies in a vacuum, they will attract each other (gravitation)
And there is a preferred direction for time.
Nissim, sorry I don't understand why all this would show that poshing doesn't work
going to watch news Our prime minister is accused of dark matter hahaha
Yehuda
Yehuda
This means that their mass is about the same as that of a neutron. Shouldn't we have discovered such a big thing a long time ago?
Yehuda
My experiment is 2 bodies in a vacuum. If we take a video, we will see a random movement of your particles, and the two bodies move in each other's direction.
If we then look at the film from the end to the beginning - we will see a random movement of the particles, and the two bodies move away from each other.
This means that time has a preferred direction - contrary to Newton's laws.
In the absence of friction - the sign of time can be reversed in any Newton's formula and the equation will still be correct. Otherwise, there is no conservation of energy.
for miracles
The pushing particles are not dark matter. Hope they are bully material.
Yehuda
Yehuda
You're right!
Milkovski! And not Malikovsky...
and yet…
Why tell Newton (the righteous Gentile) so far?
Just because?
After all, everything works... why fix it?
I did not understand..
…the evening has come.
Hope everything works out.
kissing a mezuzah…
Miracles
Newton's laws work in your room. There is no doubt. Please explain again what your thought experiment is? Do you mean that plastic collision won't work in case of pushing?
Yehuda
Yehuda
Are you claiming that your particles are baryonic matter?
To anonymous
There are two options:-
Continue to use the good dark matter and add it as the king's hand to Newton's holy formulas, cook and immerse it with dark energy which is very cheap to mix and knead and it will almost explain everything and hope that one day they will really find out that it exists, and shout hallelujah! …
or….
To tell Newton so far, the great distances are out of bounds, to be satisfied with little, and to use only what we have, just a little bully material, and try to explain everything with it?
Which of these two ways is better?
I understand that you, as a Milkovski fan of sorts, may have stuck with you a sympathy for darkness and you will naturally prefer the dark matter and energy, hallelujah!. your right
I prefer the good old bully stuff.
So we will cross our fingers, you win, and I must, and we wish Milkovski justice, and the dark mass a discovery.
All the best
Yehuda
post Scriptum. There are no hidden intentions in this response
Yehuda
As for dark matter, the evidence for its existence is not only spiral galaxies. Here is one example, and there are several other examples, which do not talk about gravity at all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/09/the-bullet-cluster-proves-dark-matter-exists-but-not-for-the-reason-most-physicists-think/#671d0c161738
Yehuda - according to your approach - to say that there is no dark matter you have to disprove its existence. did you do it
Yehuda
I mean - do Newton's laws apply in my room? Because if so - my thought experiment proves that pushing cannot work.
Yehuda
Swan… ahhh… sorry.
Obviously!
And genius scientists found that the only thing that explains this anomaly is a substance that exists, about which we know almost nothing.
This material - which we know almost nothing about - matches the observations when it is taken into account, in the equations.
Newton's laws are also preserved and better explain the observations.
From here, the conclusions regarding the observations are also closer to reality and the truth.
Still, the fact that the amount is greater does not indicate that the known laws have expired.
There is no evidence of this.
The difference can be reflected in the general behavior of the group, but does not indicate the composition of the group as such.
I just can't figure out where the problem is.
... Benjamin Malikovski, may the people be strong with you..
Hanging the Israeli flag on the window...
To anonymous
Please read accurately. I have written:-
"... But, to assume that the galaxy with a diameter of 100,000 light years, 100,000,000 times the diameter of our solar system, will move according to Newton's laws of gravitation?, that is already in doubt." End quote.
Bigger than the solar system and not our galaxy!
But your honorable question is in its place, - why should Newton's laws not be in such a constellation?
The answer is simple, every physical formula is defined on a certain range of mass distance and more. Beyond that, there is no guarantee that it will work.
For example, the acceleration of gravity is 9.8 meters per second squared on the surface of the earth, do not expect this to be the acceleration of gravity at an altitude of 100 km.
Another example:- if anonymous threw a bottle in the trash then do all anonymous throw a bottle in the trash?
There are small differences in the formulas that are not revealed in small sizes but the difference can have a great meaning beyond the range of the formula, for example my window is transparent would you expect that a hundred million windows that will be placed on top of each other will also be transparent??
The English philosopher David Hume wrote about it:- You only know what you have measured, nothing beyond that. If you have seen a hundred swans and they are all white, you must not conclude that all swans are white. The next swan could be black.
And with this normative philosophical discussion we will finish.
Good Day
Yehuda
Judah, in addition:
Even if I publish my picture - I will remain anonymous.
Therefore, I consider your request as irrelevant.
...comes back from the beach, throws the bottle in the trash.
A normative citizen…
Yehuda
A galaxy that is 100 million times bigger than our galaxy might or probably could move differently than our galaxy.
But why would Newton's laws of gravitation not be valid within such a constellation?
It's the same matter and the same energy as in our galaxy, only... on a larger scale.
That is, the same rules. Only larger quantities.
It is true that this amount can affect the 'mobility' of the galaxy, but this does not indicate that Newton's laws or other well-known laws are no longer valid.
Can't make up your mind...
…going down to the beach, opening a bottle of beer… enjoying….
To anonymous
The philosopher Popper stated that a claim is scientific if it can be put to the test of refutation.
Newton's gravitation forces have been put to the test of refutation, tested and found to be correct in the solar system up to a distance of tens of astronomical units. Less than a thousand light years (a light year = 63,240 XNUMX).
Therefore, if I see a solar system the size of our system, in a neighboring galaxy I can assume, with a high level of confidence, that it will move according to Newton's laws known to us in our solar system.
But, to assume that the galaxy with a diameter of 100,000 light years, 100,000,000 times the diameter of our solar system, will move according to Newton's laws of gravitation?, that is already in doubt.
Attempts to test Newton's formulas for large cosmological distances such as galaxies only validate the formulas with a massive addition of dark matter.
Nissim, as well as the best scientists in the academy, sees this as a legitimate confirmation of the formulas. I see this as an arbitrary change of the measurements to fit the formula, an act that will not be done. In my opinion, this is even a proof of disproving the formulas in distances.
Hope I explained myself.
In addition, I would appreciate it if you appeared not as anonymous.
Yehuda
Israel
So why should it have an end?
... Fuk be Lia in Kankaniya...
we
The space and the continuation.
Taking the fish out for a walk in the park..
Judah (the brave)
A force of attraction exists between two bodies.
At any distance, where there will be two bodies there will also be a force of attraction.
Even if there are two bodies 13 m light years from here - there will inevitably be a gravitational force between them.
That's why I don't understand your statement "large cosmological ranges".
You mean large distances between bodies? Or do you mean a place in space (farthest)?
Thanks.
Have a nice day.
...covers the pool with a tarp and goes to rest...
Miracles
If you mean your response from May 24, 2020 at 01:26
I will point out that you and I agree on the correctness of Newton's laws in short cosmological ranges, where they have been measured and found to be correct. We have a debate about the large cosmological ranges, and mainly, whether a proof immersed in a lot of dark matter and energy, which changes the measured measurements, is a legitimate scientific proof.
But I don't want to get dragged into a debate about the validity of Newton's laws.
Let's reduce pushing - does it exist, or not?. It will also solve many of the Newtonian dilemmas for us.
good week
Yehuda
Yehuda
I don't understand why you ignore my explanation. Do you accept Newton's laws, or not?
Israel
Why is the universe finite?
What is a universe?
...taking the Chevy out for a spin...
Don't forget the Higgs effect (the zebra field and all).
Good Day.
...watering the begonia at the entrance to the havilah..
Miracles
I already thought about the Casimir effect and my experiment will disprove the possibility of the Casimir effect.
But of course there will be a legitimate discussion on the subject.
Israel
Doesn't the last example with two tarpaulins a cm apart prove the possibility of pushing for the elastic case?
What would happen if, instead of bombs, two soccer teams moved on both sides of the tarps and kicked completely elastic soccer balls towards the tarps, would the tarps get closer?, even if they were half a meter away (the tarps), and every now and then a ball would penetrate between the tarps.
But again, I was dragged into the treatment of the elastic or plastic or radiation problem, without intention.
So I just escaped!
Have a good week, and elastic
Yehuda
Israel
What you describe is not similar to Judah's particles. There are no elastic collisions here.
Concentrated gas on one side is not what we are talking about.
Even in random directions the targets will get closer. Two tarps an inch apart that you shoot at from all directions will get closer and closer.
Take your tank and fill it with gas that is more concentrated on one side, you will see the concentrations compare. An increase in entropy that will also be captured on video.
The problem is that if you reverse the direction of the video, you will see a decrease in entropy, which does not happen in reality, contrary to Newton's time-reversible laws.
Put the cruiser on the name and other details and click. The details will appear if you have saved them. If it doesn't work I will send YouTube.
Israel
I emphasized that this is a situation where there is no change in entropy.
The Korans projectiles are not like an ideal gas. They have a preferred direction, and of course the projectiles will move the targets (let's assume elastic projectiles).
If you shoot in random directions - you will not see movement of the targets.
And if you add friction, the targets will heat up.\\
Even on the computer, the details are not saved...
Yehuda
Your experiment can disprove your idea, nothing more. That there is an attraction between two near surfaces in a vacuum says nothing about the source of the attraction. In particular - there is a phenomenon called the Casimir effect that causes a blanket between adjacent plates. And there are other phenomena that will cause what you see as attraction (electromagnetic radiation for example).
In any experiment in which there is no increase in entropy - time has no direction. Take the equations of Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Schrödinger... and replace t with t-. The equations are still true. Only Boltzmann spoils us….
Yehuda - this is high school physics and up to CERN - any process in which there is no heat loss is reversible. It is even proven mathematically.
To Israel
You brought two squadrons of the Israel Defense Forces to prove pushing gravity. I couldn't expect anything more from you my friend!
Thank you for a challenging response (in A of course, not as I accidentally wrote for miracles)
good week
Yehuda
Miracles
If we take your argument about the symmetry in Newton's laws, then the entropy should also increase in the past direction, no? After all, Newton's laws are time-reversible.
Take two huge tarps (like the targets in the 58-barrier range) and put them facing each other. Now let bat squadron fire on them from one side and 101 from the other. Won't the tarps get close together?
Regarding elasticity, read my previous comment to the end..
Does anyone know how to save the details on the iPhone?
Israel
The pushing, in my opinion, will only work where the mean free path of the pushing particles is above the distance between the gravity-creating gopips.
And regarding elastic collision, you and Nisim may be right and pushing does not exist in elastic collision. It won't change the nature of my experiment but the explanation (radiation?, plastic collision?, or something else?), so right now I don't want to address the issue.
good week
Yehuda
Miracles
I'm realistic enough to know that I have to show first that Pushing Gravity works. If not there is no point in me continuing with my simple universe idea.
I have to conduct an experiment that I am currently planning. But I lack the knowledge to do the complicated and precise calculations to see how the experiment will go. The experiment will be conducted under vacuum conditions, but I do not know how to calculate its strength.
Is it a small vacuum of a few hundredths of an atmosphere, or will I need a vacuum of extreme strength, then the cost of the experiment is beyond my means. I have to find a way to reduce costs. In such moments I envy those who have the knowledge to accurately calculate the performance of the experiment. Know anyone??
I am currently directing all my energy towards the experiment. There is no point in trying anything else.
And regarding the example you gave, we have an agreement that the universe is expanding and this still does not contradict the laws of physics, the question is where does the acceleration for the expansion of the universe come from, is it from dark energy or in some other way?
There is also agreement on a preferred direction of time (from yesterday to tomorrow) and does not understand why this contradicts the laws of nature.
So have a good week
And Chen Chen for your constructive and provocative responses.
Yehuda
Israel
Take a photo at a random time. Does it matter if the particles collided or not? In any case you will get a random distribution of particles with random momentum, won't you?
Beyond that - if you get gravity then you will also get drag. Aren't you afraid the moon will fall on us?
Israel
"But in the case of pushing, the movement is not random: the bodies shield the particles, so there are more particles that hit the outside of the bodies than the inside, which creates pressure on the bodies in each other's direction."
This is exactly the mistake. Certainly the bodies affect the particles, but their movement is still completely random. Take a random group and add to each member a non-random value - you will be left with a random group.
True - the direction of time is the direction of the growth of entropy. But, there is no increase in entropy in elastic collisions. As long as no heat is generated - the system is reversible.
Except, of course, if you throw away Newton's laws... But, pushing is not based on Newton's laws?
Israel, it seems to me that you also agreed in the past that there is no gravity in elastic collisions. I'm wrong?
Note to the previous comment: in a normal gas where there are collisions between the molecules there is no pushing, otherwise we would get an attraction between 2 parallel sheets of paper in air.
For there to be an attraction, the collisions between the particles need to be eliminated. Yehuda's idea to my understanding is collisions at great distances.
"It means there is a preferred direction for time. And it contradicts all the laws of physics, including all Newton's laws, and the laws of conservation."
Time does have a preferred direction, a.k.a. entropy.
And entropy relates directly to our discussions. It was the Big Bang that created entropy.
Let's take your example: put 2 bodies in an empty container and shoot for an hour on video. We see, according to you, random movement of particles and movement of the two bodies towards each other.
Let's watch the movie from end to beginning - what do we see? Random movement of particles and distance between the bodies.
But in the case of pushing, the movement is not random: the bodies shield the particles, so there are more particles that hit the outside of the bodies than the inside, which creates pressure on the bodies in each other's direction.
Yehuda - If you are interested, I will try to explain to you why elastic collisions do not create gravity, but it will take some time.
Yehuda
What you say makes sense, but - the acceleration should have decreased with the distance, right?
But - the acceleration increased. The conventional wisdom is that the acceleration started about 4 billion years ago.
Now for my explanation. From what you say, gravity is created from an ideal gas-like particle cloud. Let's do an experiment. We will put 2 bodies in an empty tank and take a video for an hour. We see, according to you, a random movement of particles and movement of the two bodies towards each other.
Let's watch the movie from end to beginning - what do we see? Random movement of particles and distance between the bodies.
This means that time has a preferred direction. And it contradicts all the laws of physics, including all Newton's laws, and the laws of conservation.
your opinion?
we
If the universe is finite then where does it end?
Miracles
You asked - how does this fit with the observation that the universe is accelerating?
Answer:- The formula that expresses V - the speed of expansion of the universe outwards
She:-
V=V(0)+a*t
V(0) initial velocity, a acceleration, t time.
Note, even if the acceleration a decreases, V will increase.
Regarding Zenon, your comments are interesting, but I don't want to get into them at this point.
Regarding your comment about elastic collision, I'd love to hear it!, if it's convincing, check out what it means about my theory idea…
Shabbat Shalom.
Yehuda
Israel
What is this infinite universe you call that?
Yehuda
By the way, there is a very simple and beautiful way to understand why elastic collisions cannot create gravity.
Yehuda
I understood what you were saying, and it fits what you described. How does this square with the observation that the universe is accelerating?
Regarding Zenon - what you described is the accepted explanation, but it is not true. To this day, the paradox has not been resolved! We have always learned that an infinite queue can converge and this is of course true (as in the example you described). But, today there is no proof that this is what is happening. Democritus used this method to show that there must be atoms. Today there are many physicists who conclude from this that space-time must also be discrete, meaning that there is a basic unit of distance and a unit of time.
Miracles
The gas does not have to contain infinite energy to always lose acceleration over an infinite amount of time.
The gas universe expands and cools, but there is always energy left to create more outward acceleration.
Remember the Greek philosopher Zeno. Half and a quarter and an eighth... will always be less than one
Yehuda
Israel
I know there are galaxies that do not have any anomalies.
One link, and there's more.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/galaxy-without-dark-matter-shakes-astronomy-180968628/
Yehuda
The spring stops accelerating the material because the amount of energy stored in the spring is finite.
Now I understand that your gas contains infinite energy, and you see no problem with that. great.
But, this means that the acceleration at the beginning is infinite. Which, in my humble opinion, doesn't make sense.
Israel
I decided to take a slightly different approach and that is to first show in an experiment (which I am planning), the existence of the pushing gravitation, and only then, if necessary, check whether the collisions are elastic, plastic or radiation, in your opinion.
Miracles
Your example of the spring (May 22 at 4:30) is an imperfect example. According to your example, at a certain moment the spring starts acting on the spring = negative acceleration, and the speed will get smaller and smaller and tend to zero.
In my example (bodies inside the gas) there is always a pressure difference to the outside, therefore, the speed of the bodies in the gas will increase and aspire to a final velocity magnitude, and the outward acceleration will always be greater than zero.
Of course it will be different if gravitation exists at large distances as you claim.
Hence, to your second question - what is the source of the spring's energy? I don't know, (in reality the spring doesn't exist), but, regarding the gas example, the source of energy is, apparently, its compression.
The gas explanation corresponds to reality and is clear. I will stay with him.
Good Day
Yehuda
Not necessarily, but we digress.
I have seen no evidence that Hubble's and other observations contradict Aristotle's infinite universe.
For me, the issue has been summed up.
Yehuda.
The elastic collisions pose a tough challenge to pushing. Until you solve this problem, it will be difficult to move forward.
I have a question for you and Nisim: Is the rotation anomaly at the edges of the galaxies typical for all galaxies, both near and far? Is there some formula that links the size of the anomaly to some parameter?
Israel
Radiation of what? The word "radiation" usually means electromagnetic radiation - is that what you mean?
And radiation? Will it create gravity?
Israel
According to my understanding, elastic collisions cannot create a force. This is true at any concentration of gas.
Nor can it, again to my understanding, create gravity on individual atoms.
Yehuda
I understood what you are saying. It is similar to a compressed spring - as soon as you release the force of the spring, everything on it will accelerate, and the value of the acceleration will decrease over time.
So she asked, if it's allowed. What is the source of the energy that went through the spring?
Israel
In my understanding, the observations show that the acceleration increases as a function of time. And again to my understanding, this contradicts what you say.
Israel, but mine,
I saw your comment, and you explained my intention well.
The particles that create gravitation (in my opinion) are also the ones that interfere with it at large distances, and gravitation is getting weaker than according to Newton/Einstein (the square of the distance).
Therefore something else has to rotate the galaxies, and that something is…. The same pressure differences that determine the accelerated expansion of the universe. They are the ones that also rotate the spiral galaxies.
So simple, no dark matter, no dark energy, and only the universe that is seen and found!
Thanks again to Israel
Good night!
Yehuda
for miracles
First of all, my response was not directed to you but to Israel.
You will understand miracles that you cannot call a person by pronouns:
"Insolent, lacking any knowledge, you have no idea what academia is, a hypocrite, medieval thinking, rabbis who deny evolution are exactly you, disrespecting people who understand better than you, clown", (your response from May 15)
And expect me to take you seriously.
But since there are others who read the science comments, I will explain everything so that even ordinary people will understand.
I state unequivocally: "Bodies that are inside a gaseous cloud spreading into the emptiness around it move outward, and do so with outward acceleration." point.
Note: the bodies spread outwards with acceleration and not the cloud itself. I don't know about him. It will be thinner but will not stop spreading.
It takes a little imagination to understand that the pressure acting on the bodies from the center of the cloud outwards is always greater than the external pressure inwards. That's why in my high school they explained that the pressure difference will create acceleration.
Regarding gravity in distant bodies, we have a debate about whether it is preserved, and I don't want to get into that again, especially not with people who lack elementary manners like you.
Good day to science readers wherever they are
Israel - waiting for your response.
Yehuda
OK, I saw that fixed.
Come on, now we've started to reverse comments? Maybe we write upside down?
Miracles
You are missing Judah's point. The particles according to him are the source of gravity which simply does not exist without them. Therefore there is no inward pull on the bodies in the shell but only on bodies inside the shell.
Yehuda
If you say from the surroundings of the universe there is emptiness, then I assume you mean that the void outside the gaseous region is what I call the infinite universe that contains the observable and finite universe within it, and the gaseous region is the observable universe or the observable universe is contained within it.
What we learned from the discussion here is that there is probably no observation that contradicts this description, even though it is impossible to know if it is true.
Yehuda
If you blow up a balloon in space, the gas will spread out at a decreasing speed. The fastest particles will be the outer ones and no pressure will be exerted on them.
Gravity will cause a slowdown and eventually everything will stop, and even gather back (depending on the amount of gas).
Pressure, like temperature are so-called "emergent" phenomena. There is really no pressure on gas molecules.
To Israel
I forgot to add that since this collection of particles defines the entire universe as a gas containing stars, it is easy to prove that the outward acceleration will decrease because it spreads out and becomes more and more rarefied.
Israel is my friend but mine
Our universe is a universe whose entire spaces are full of particles or particle-like particles such as neutrinos, photons, gas bosons and other cosmic rays of all kinds. If we assume that there is emptiness around the universe, it is clear that it expands into the emptiness around it.
It is easy to prove that the stars in it will spread outwards with acceleration because the pressure from the inside out to the void will always be greater than the pressure from the void in.
So why does it take an illusory addition of dark energy/cosmological constant to create this acceleration that already exists naturally??
Note that I did not invent anything, everything I said exists, and cannot be debated!
Waiting to hear your learned opinion!
Yehuda
Israel
No Gauss, no mass and no shoes.
energy.
Energy of a vacuum.
..I'll go take the horse out, to the camp....
Bottom line is we don't know enough.
I still believe that all observations also correspond to receding masses of which we call the observable universe, which in turn is contained in an infinite universe whose properties, if they exist, we do not know.
Ruth end.
Israel
General relativity does predict acceleration, this is precisely the cosmological constant - which creates a force that opposes gravity.
I think the acceleration exists up to the background radiation.
But - it is possible that this acceleration actually does not exist - here is a link that claims this: https://www.sciencealert.com/no-the-universe-is-not-expanding-at-an-accelerated-rate-say-physicists
(There is a link to the original article).
Observations? The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is a relatively new observation, long after the big bang theory and Einstein's equations that did not predict the acceleration.
So maybe in the future there will be a new observation that the universe actually slows down its expansion at certain distances?
We don't have enough data and certainly not laws that describe the expansion of the universe. Energy and dark matter are controversial theories.
Israel
I can't know anything.
I can make observations, think of explanations, and check if the explanations are good.
I will choose the explanation that explains the most observations.
If I'm lucky, the explanation will also predict future observations. It is possible that an excellent explanation is wrong, and thus I can strengthen the belief in that explanation.
So there will be an unusual explosion. How do you know what the properties of the explosion are if the explosion created the laws of physics?
Israel
I don't, it's beyond my understanding.
This is why I accept the idea of "dark energy" - I have never heard a more convincing idea.
This acceleration rules out, to my understanding, the idea of a normal explosion in featureless space.
Right Gauss, I forgot..
Do not know. Do you have any idea why the expansion of the universe is accelerating?
Israel
The visible universe is very uniform (a few thousandths of a percent). If there is mass on the outside as you suggest, then it sounds like a relatively uniform shell.
Beyond that it implies that we are at the center of our universe.
I am of course ignoring the minor fact that inside a shell of mass there is no gravity at all....
The masses do attract each other, and if 50 billion light years away from us there is a lot of mass that we cannot see, then the masses in the visible universe will accelerate towards those unknown masses.
Israel
I don't care how gravity works. I just thought that gravity makes masses attract each other…. Are you saying we're not sure about that?
No one knows how the mechanism of gravity works, that's what Feynman says.
Maybe the expansion is really slowing down beyond the observable universe?
Israel
If so, wouldn't we expect the rate of spread to decrease over time?
Please explain how I know? Let's say yes.
and…?
Israel
At any distance we see - within our own private universe
big? A light year is not a big distance?
Israel
Do you accept that gravity exists even at great distances?
Really miracles, once again morality and education?
As someone who often talks about integrity, perhaps you should admit to yourself that you simply do not understand the issue, that sentences such as "If you move in any direction for any length of time - you will not reach any roadblock. I think it's similar to the velocity space" do you also perceive if you move towards galaxies that move faster than light due to the expansion of space but no one claims that they are infinitely far from us?
In books and wikis it is written that the observable universe started from a finite and very small size, maybe even a point. You still haven't been able to come up with any link to it starting at infinite size but only your puzzling insights.
So stop trolling the net. If you don't know something don't pretend you do.
Israel
If you rule out the principles of cosmology in advance then how will you see evidence?
So the universe was pointless.
And Sophie too.
And also infinite.
Everything at that moment.
And there are multiple worlds.
and parallel universes.
and curled dimensions.
What about the earth, isn't it flat? If you only go around the perimeter you will return to the same point, won't you?
Or our interpretation, that everything will be in his word?
I have yet to see any evidence that the Big Bang simply scattered a lot of mass in all directions at any point in the infinite space, the so-called observable universe.
Israel
1 - If you move in any direction for any length of time - you will not reach any barrier. I think it's similar to the velocity space. Let's say you are in a rocket with an engine running. As far as you are concerned, you will be at a constant acceleration and if you calculate your speed then it will increase without limit. To an outside observer, it would appear that your speed tends asymptotically to the speed of light.
2 – The center is at x=0,y=0,z=0,t=0
3- A "double size" ring will look double size to you. From "outside" it will aspire to the radius of the universe at that moment.
So it was a light minute in diameter.
And he was also infinite.
Questions:
1. What is infinite in the universe with a diameter of a minute of light?
2. If there is a diameter, there is also a center. Where is the center of the universe?
3. What about a double diameter ring, where is it?
Israel
I answered it….
After a minute the universe was about a light-minute radius. And he was infinite.
This does not contradict….
annihilation Ayon - in Hebrew.
From this action, a point with energy was created that was accelerated (the energy) in a vacuum.
i.e. "The Big Bang".
Then came the gerbils, the soups, inflation and other vegetables.
"Universe" is a definition of all matter and energy.
All that the universe consists of is all the energy and matter including the dark ones and including those that have not yet been known (if they exist).
It is very possible that, in the future we will discover, that our accelerating universe will end up dispersing within the edge of the primordial black hole (event horizon) within which our universe resides.
And the universe born of Hawking radiation will disappear like matter and energy disappear from a black hole.
That's my opinion at least.
I didn't see an answer.
What is the size of the universe one minute after the bang, finite or not?
Israel
And if our universe is truly infinite - it could still have a finite and small volume.
Where is the answer? It should be in units of distance or infinite or not.
Israel
You asked me a question and I answered. Please address this.
The infinite universe was not created from our big bang.
Of course you said, maybe not on purpose.
So please clear answers to clear questions:
What was the approximate size of the universe (in meters)
A minute after the big bang.
An hour after the big bang.
A year after the big bang.
You can also simply say if at some point its size was infinite in meters, and when.
Israel
Max Tegmark explains how this infinite universe can be formed in his book.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/27/there-was-no-big-bang-singularity/#2ab9e8607d81
Israel
And please, stop distorting what I said.
I didn't say (at least not on purpose) that the universe was infinite in size at the big bang. I said that the universe is infinite - that is, it has no end.
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-universe-infinite-in-space-and-time-at-the-moment-of-the-Big-Bang-If-not-when-did-it-become-infinite
They are successful, not successful.
Big bang, universe..
Israel
Do you agree that relativity and quantum theory are very successful?
Allow link?
Maybe from the same place where it was said that the universe was infinite in size at the big bang?
Israel
"What evidence suggests that the Big Bang created the universe?"
The amazing successes of general relativity and quantum theory.
Yes Nissim, you are right, as always.
And I - I have hypotheses. I do not accept the principle of equivalence. I have some theory that I don't accept being shown the big holes in it. I don't believe what I'm saying. I'm a hypocrite. I throw away Newton's laws. I do not accept the opinion of most physicists. I choose to accept the observations that confirm my theory, and ignore those that do not. reminds you of someone Responds dishonestly. Rape Quotes Disgracefully. digging holes for you. wrong. wrong wrong..
All direct quotes from you.
This is only in the last comments, there are more and more and more..
I'm interested in technology Nisimov, not psychology. I have no intention of confronting a person who doesn't stop attacking every second sentence he utters even if his knowledge or understanding exceeds mine, which is quite clearly not true in your case.
I asked a simple question: "What evidence indicates that the Big Bang created the universe?"
https://www.hayadan.org.il/hubble-observes-aftermath-of-massive-collisio-0605202/comment-page-2#comment-732951
You're using my question which you clearly just don't understand as your repeated entanglements show ("I think the universe was infinite", "I'm not saying the universe was infinite in size, just that it had no end") to embark on your eternal and ridiculous crusade of science detractors . So shouldn't you at least understand what your interlocutor is saying and study the material a little in depth before you start bashing people?
You're making fun of yourself, Nisimanio.
Israel
Right, I don't understand. Anyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand.
Nissim Ya Hamar, for the sixtieth time: what hypothesis?
And maybe enough with the conspiracy theories? I told you a long time ago, you just don't understand. point.
Israel
We talked about it. In ancient times there was a firmament and everything was inside, or on the firmament. Until 100 years ago, they thought that the Milky Way was the entire universe.
Einstein's saying had a continuation "and about the universe, I'm not sure".
I didn't understand - you assume that your hypothesis is correct, and that's it? So what is all this discussion for? You dismiss and/or ignore everything that doesn't fit your hypothesis. I really think we sold out.
What hypothesis? The theory of the infinite universe was dominant from the days of Aristotle until 100 years ago.
Don't you know Einstein's saying "There are only two infinite things, the universe and the stupidity of man"?
The Big Bang theory is different from Aristotle, but I do not yet see any evidence to confirm that our dimensionally finite universe is not simply contained in Aristotle's infinite universe.
Elk hypothesis..
Israel
So we have 2 hypotheses for the formation of our universe, and we need observations to tell us with one of them, or they are wrong.
Does your hypothesis predict that time will run more slowly in a gravitational field?
The universe that 13.8 billion years ago was 0 or almost 0 meters in size according to Wiki and Prof. Kirsch, is today also a billion billion light years away from us?
The accepted argument is that it is not. The universe does not expand in a vacuum but creates space and time as it expands.
My question has always been, is there any evidence that can distinguish between this claim and an infinite universe, that the finite universe that consists of all the matter that was in the primordial atom and has been expanding ever since, spreads within it?
Israel
At any given moment the size is finite. The analogy I have in mind is an inflatable balloon. Not very original…
So if it had a finite size and it expands at a finite rate and the time that passed from the bang is also finite, then even today the universe has a finite size, doesn't it?
Israel
I already said that wiki in Hebrew is not something...
I am not claiming that the universe was infinite in size, but that it had no end.
Please clarify, since Wiki says that the universe started with a point of dimensionless energy, my understanding is that it started with a very small size, maybe even a point.
This is also what is written in Yoram Kirsch's book "The Universe According to Modern Physics", page 383.
Can you provide a link that the big bang started with infinite size?
Israel
I think the universe was infinite, and the mass was also infinite.
So what was the size of the universe one second after the big bang?
And his death?
Israel
As far as I can remember, until the 20s they thought that the Milky Way was the entire universe. There was even a heated discussion about it - between Scheifley and Curtis.
General relativity came before they knew the universe was expanding.
History, as I understand it, is exactly the opposite of what you say. General relativity is a result of the principle of equivalence. The Torah predicted a number of things that fit it - the bending of light, the extension of time and the expansion of the universe, for example.
The equivalence principle is not an observation of our universe. This is a principle…. And your right not to accept it.
Developments of the big bang theory predicted other things that it adapted, such as the concentration of the light elements in the universe and the cosmic background radiation.
I have already said my opinion many times: the idea that the big bang is an explosion of a finite amount of matter contradicts the observations, assuming that the laws of physics we know are valid in our universe.
A little history as I have already brought:
Until the 20s of the last century, the popular belief was that the universe was infinite.
My question was and still is: What in the Hubble observations contradicts the picture of the infinite universe? Are the observed galaxies moving away from each other? So what? They were created in the big bang, a primordial atom at some point in infinite space, but why does this mean that those galaxies are somehow related to the infinite universe?
General equations? So what? After all, they are built on the laws of the private universe created by the Big Bang, so what is their connection to the infinite universe?
What questions are still unanswered?
Israel
And again - you assume that there is an infinite universe.
There is evidence that the Big Bang is not an explosion within space (either finite or infinite).
I asked if there was any evidence by which one could distinguish between the universe created by the Big Bang and the infinite universe.
What is my theory, Nice? I am curious to know.
Israel
You said, as I understand it, that the big bang cannot be distinguished from the explosion of ... something ... in an infinite and featureless space.
So far right?
Mmm.. Tell us miracles, tell us what my theory is.
Full disclosure: I have no idea what theory you are talking about. I only know that every time someone dares to ask a question or express an idea that you don't like, you immediately get angry and start blaming.
So show me what my theory is and also one wrong thing I've said or found "dishonest", your new phrase instead of just calling me a liar.
And if you don't find such a discovery, think a little about what makes you attack people.
Israel
If you are shown a big hole in your theory and your response is "please kill" then you probably don't believe what you are saying either.
There are two sides to the discussion. You can't keep demanding answers without answering questions.
Quit if you want but stop blaming others for your problems.
I believe everything I say, and believe I understand the material *at least* as much as you do.
So stop getting angry every time someone disagrees with you. You are wrong many times, see for example the circles that are cut from today. The list goes on.
Israel
you are a hypocrite
we are done
I imagined that was the problem, you just can't imagine..
Why would two masses be attracted to each other in an empty universe? Why don't they just find a meter away without attraction?
I know Newton's and Einstein's laws but I know of no evidence or reason that they hold a billion billion light years away.
And you?
Chalas Tneflaviyot. Your knowledge and understanding do not surpass mine. It is allowed to disagree with you without you starting with personal papers.
Israel
I did not understand. Something contradicts your idea and you ignore it? Didn't we say we were talking about science?
The attraction between the 2 distant bodies will be for the same reason that there is attraction in our area. The warping of space-time, the particles of Yehudah... please go away.
In any case - I have no reason to think that the laws here are different from the laws there.
Please Eraf, how do I know? Why would anything be wrong in our private universe?
Let's see if we are intertwined:
1. Can you imagine an empty space cube of any mass a billion billion light years away from us that is a billion light years across?
2. Do you accept that in that empty cube of space gravity must not exist? Can you bring the earth and the moon to the middle of the cube and put them a meter apart without any attraction between them?
3. If you don't accept 2, explain why you think there should be an attraction between the 2 bodies.
Israel
I said earlier that I am talking about our universe. Try to concentrate more and get less angry 🙂
Israel
I did not understand…
We see in our private and finite universe that the "explosion" is accelerating.
So I will ask again - is the observation wrong or is Newton's first law wrong?
Yes, there is (time 29):
What laws apply in our private and finite universe. It is impossible to know if they are valid in the infinite universe that contains our private universes.
Israel
I told you that we see that the spread is accelerating. It is within our universe.
So, either the observational analysis is wrong, or Newton's first law is wrong.
Is there another possibility?
Most scientists who do this believe that the universe is infinite.
Not throwing out Newton's laws but what evidence is there that they are valid outside our universe? Why would two masses be attracted to each other in an empty universe? Why would inertia exist?
Don't get mad, Nisimov..
Israel
"It's just hard for me to understand why anyone would choose the latter option except as a mental exercise." - maybe because it is more suitable for observations (that's how they claim it's their profession).
Only, I don't understand why you also throw Newton's laws in the trash. can you explain
Shoin I choose the first option. I believe the majority will choose her.
It's just hard for me to understand why someone would choose the latter option except as a thought exercise.
In no way do the circles cross each other.
Take an example from Yoda, sometimes what seems simple is just simple, even if it turns out..
Israel
There are 4 options. In an unblocked and infinite universe, such as the one you describe, it is possible to enlarge the circles without limit.
In a finite and blocked universe - we simply encounter a barrier at a certain point.
In a finite and unblocked universe - the circles will reach a maximum size and then start to decrease.
In an infinite and blocky universe, it depends on where you look. For those inside the universe - the circles can be enlarged without limit. Outside the universe - the circles will asymptotically approach the limit.
I've seen a lot of asteroids.
Oh miracles, when will the circles intersect each other? Doesn't that mean that in the previous step the distance between them decreases?
Israel
Here is an example of an infinite flat space
http://www.kevs3d.co.uk/dev/asteroids/
Israel
If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then there is a probability that it is a duck, right? But I wasn't really talking about multiple worlds.
Fly in a straight line for endless years - will you encounter any barrier? So it's possible that if you fly in a spaceship for endless years you won't encounter a barrier either.
Note the meaning of "infinite". Infinite space has no end, and you can move through it in a straight line without reaching a barrier. This does not mean that the volume is not blocked. And what is amazing to me - an infinite space can be inserted into a finite space 🙂
"Your circles at a certain point will start to intersect each other."
At what stage? After all, each time we got another circle that can be claimed to be the first, right?
Once again multiple worlds?
Israel
Space can be finite and unblocked, and it can be infinite and blocked.
Even if the universe is flat - it can still be finite and not blocked 🙂
If I understood your process correctly, it will not stop - your circles at a certain point will start to intersect each other.
examination
Accepts what makes sense.
You explain to me: you take a ring that circles the equator at a distance of a kilometer.
And a ring a kilometer away from that ring.
If the universe is finite, when will the process stop? Where and why?
Israel
A finite universe does not have to have a limit. There is no problem with a finite universe.
Israel
I didn't understand - do you accept the opinion of most physicists?
There is no problem with a round earth or evolution. There is a very serious problem with a finite universe - where does it end?
I have no theory, most scientists believe in an infinite universe.
And please avoid the educational tone and in general try not to use the words I and you. A science thing. You're starting to sound like a scumbag, a bunch of absolute idiots who were here once and understood everything, especially moral preaching and bullying, but not a single thing in science.
Israel
A flat earth is a natural choice. Species constancy (ie, no evolution) is natural selection. A sun orbiting the earth is a natural choice. As you said (in my understanding) - as long as there is no corroborating observation, then natural selection has no meaning.
A static universe is a natural choice, and as I wrote, it can be argued that there is no observation that contradicts it.
You choose to accept the observations that confirm your theory, and ignore those that do not. reminds me of someone…
Two antennas on the line connecting them with the transmitter do not measure distance.
That's what I do.
An infinite universe is the natural choice, otherwise where does it end? in the wall? So what's after the wall?
If I remember correctly, most scientists believe in an infinite universe.
Israel
right. One antenna is enough to measure direction. Two antennas give distance - like measuring distance to nearby stars with the help of parallax.
Why do you think there is an infinite universe?
Two antennas, one in very fast motion.
There is no problem measuring direction with a walkie-talkie and a Yagi antenna, but what about distance?
Israel
You said there was a single antenna, didn't you? If the antenna is large then it is not a problem to measure direction. Modern radar measures directions very well from a fixed antenna.
So how come I get different measurements from different distances? The method I use is TDOA - time differences of the arrival of the electromagnetic signal to two antennas independent of strength.
I should get the same measurement at each distance, shouldn't I?
Israel
"Is there an observation that shows that there is some connection between our private and observed universe and the surrounding infinite universe?"
Your question contains a not so hidden assumption - that there is an infinite universe around.
No - I don't think it is possible to measure the distance to the transmitter from one point. I said it already, didn't I?
Nice weighty questions, weighty!
But I'm only interested in one (time 18):
Is there an observation that shows that there is some connection between our private and observed universe and the surrounding infinite universe?
And another question that occupies me at these very moments: I receive different measurements from different distances to the relay station on Mount Wilson. How is this possible and is it possible to find a correlation between the measurements that will allow me to know its distance from me just by looking at the devices?
Israel
not exactly. Because the speed of the objects does not depend linearly on the distance, then - from this aspect alone - it is impossible to conclude that everything started at a point.
Maybe the reason for the red shift is simply because the light "gets tired"? Maybe our universe is static at all?
Measuring the distance is also problematic. The distance to the stars is checked with the help of parallax and it can be assumed that it is reliable (or maybe the light is bent because of the site...). But all these chapadais...can they be trusted to measure distance??
On the other hand... why does gravity slow down time? Why is she bending the light? Why is it harder to accelerate faster particles? How can it be possible to convert between mass and energy?
Apparently the reality is not exactly simple, isn't it?
It seems to me that we need to intercede.
We see the galaxies moving away from each other, the further away they are, the faster they are moving away.
Calculation shows that they were all once concentrated in one point. Klalit confirms this and hence the bang.
The popular assumption is that the bang created the universe that did not exist before it and also created the time that did not exist before it.
Israel comes and says: the exact same observations also apply to an infinite and empty universe in which an atom in the beginning exploded and created the matter and the laws of nature known to us.
That empty universe where there is no gravitation, inertia or laws of nature is a subject that preoccupied Newton and Mach a lot when they wondered about the nature of inertia.
And my question: is there an observation that says this is not the case? Is there any evidence that at a distance of a trillion trillion light years there is any gravitation or inertia at all?
Israel
"Maybe our universe is infinite? he is not. It started from size 0 or almost zero and accelerates definitively. It is estimated that their diameter is about 100 billion light years."
This is the assessment of the visible universe, not ours.
Israel
"You have empty and infinite space - it has no masses, no gravity, no laws of physics, nothing. Nada not.”
Is this a discount? determination? Name of a movie??
It sure looks like it, doesn't it?
And the big bang theory was dominant long before acceleration was discovered.
I despair of repeating myself, you don't get the point. point.
You have empty and infinite space - it has no masses, no gravity, no laws of physics, nothing. Nada not
This is the infinite universe.
In the infinite universe there are primordial atomic seeds or whatever. One of them exploded and created our universe. the final the limited.
To us who live inside the shell of the explosion, it seems as if this universe is the universe of knowledge and its laws apply to the infinite universe, but there is not a single piece of evidence that confirms this. That was my question and it still stands: Is there evidence?
Now start: maybe our universe is infinite? he is not. It started from size 0 or almost zero and accelerates definitively. It is estimated to be about 100 billion light years in diameter.
What about gravitation, Einstein's equations, Lameter, Zbirber, Sandy Bar - what about them really? How are they even related to the infinite and empty universe? Perhaps some primordial atom somewhere else in the infinite universe exploded and created laws completely different from the laws of our universe. So why don't we apply the laws of that other universe to the infinite universe?
Did you jump?
Israel
"And why should I be interested in the accelerated expansion rate of the observable universe? Did I say anything about him? What insight am I disputing about the observable universe?”
You said the "big bang" looked like an explosion, didn't you? What explosion do you know whose shrapnel accelerates?
Really miracles, have you lost touch with reality that much?
Yoda - a clown.
Me - I raped in a shameful way, without integrity, and of course wrong wrong wrong..
So come on tell me what is written in the quote you brought, not that the observable universe started from a very small size and certainly not from an infinite size?
And why should I be interested in the accelerated expansion rate of the observable universe? Did I say anything about him? What insight do I dispute about the observable universe?
Israel
How do you explain the accelerated expansion of our universe?
Israel
"You brought a quote where it was said that the universe started with infinite density, i.e. size 0 as I said"
That's not what the quote says.
Israel
Where did I say clown, cheater or rapist?
A miracle worker, apparently words like clown cheater rapist and now "dishonesty" - liar - are words that express sympathy and not anger.
I believe in what I say and unfortunately you just don't understand. You claimed - look at the thread - that our universe is possibly infinite. When I said it was impossible because it started at a singular point and is expanding at a finite rate, you gave a quote that said the universe started at infinite density, i.e. size 0 as I said. The equations of relativity do not hold at a size smaller than the Planck size, so it is impossible to know what was when the universe was very small. But he certainly didn't start with infinite size as you said.
So where is the rape here?
You return once again to gravity and relativity, which shows me that you haven't grasped the point of an infinite universe where you don't know if there is gravity at all or what the laws are, and that the universe you keep referring to is our private universe, which you can't project from onto the infinite universe.
If you don't accept this point and continue to wave irrelevant laws, then there is really no point in the discussion.
anonymous
How does this contradict what I said?
Israel
What are you talking about? You responded with a lack of integrity, as it now appears.
What you understood is not true, again….
At first you responded "The only infinite thing in your quote is infinite density, i.e. size 0." What exactly does this have to do with??
Now you say "according to the big bang theory the universe started from a singular point in size" - and that is not what is written there. It says that general relativity provides a singularity, and therefore is not a model that can describe the beginning of the process. A model of the Big Bang today does not start from "0", but from the end of the inflation process.
But where did I express anger?
In general,
Who said that - if electromagnetic force can be interwoven then universes cannot be interwoven?
Our Israelis
Hait Hait and Chen Chen.
Another thing:
The universes do not have to be bigger than 13.8 m. years
They can be short in time and space.
AA - String theory, for your information Nisimino.
we
The formula for calculating the relationship between the mass and radius of a black hole and that of the universe is the same except for factor 2.
TLS for TLS.
Temper Nissim, Temper.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a cheater clown and rapist. I believe in what I say but am absolutely ready to hear a different opinion and be convinced if necessary.
What is written in your link to my understanding is that according to the big bang theory the universe started from a singular point of size 0, but the equations of relativity cannot be valid below the Planck size, about 35-10 meters. A little smaller than an infinite position in size.
Was I wrong?
Israel
Einstein introduced his constant to produce a static universe, a universe in which objects stay in place. My mistake is that no value for this constant creates a stable universe. This is true for both a finite and an infinite universe.
We know from quantum theory that the universe did not start from a point - this is also what is written in my quote (which you attempted shamefully).
What you are suggesting is unlikely. Gravity should have caused the expansion to slow down and the universe should not have been isotropic. Unless you throw away all relativity, both special and general.
The big bang does not mean that the universe is infinite. But he also does not say that he is final.
What does imply an infinite universe is quantum theory and the idea of inflation.
indeed..
So here's how I see things:
The Aristotelian picture of an infinite universe dominated the world until the 20s of the last century. It did not fit the equations of general relativity, therefore Einstein, who believed in an infinite universe at the time, introduced the cosmological constant into generality, which was, as he said, "the biggest mistake of my life."
Hubble's observations showed that the galaxies were moving away from each other and calculations showed that they were all once at the same point. This worked out with general relativity without the cosmological constant and gave birth to the big bang theory. The discovery of the background radiation made the Big Bang the dominant theory.
And here's my question:
What does the bang have to do with the infinite universe? Ok, he dispersed all the material that was previously concentrated in one point. So there was a primordial atom somewhere in the infinite universe and it exploded, perhaps like many others, and its fragments are still scattered in the infinite universe like grenade fragments 26.
To us inside the explosion shell it appears as if this is the universe. But this is our private universe, finite and limited but expanding rapidly, but it is only a zero particle of the infinite universe in which it exists.
The big bang did not create the universe and if there is a big collapse all the matter in our private universe will return back to the primordial atom, it has nothing to do with the infinite universe.
And this includes the dark matter, the object of Judah's hatred.
Israel
OK
The only infinite thing in your quote is infinite density, i.e. size 0.
Israel
So your wiki is wrong. In mine it says:
"Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[17] This irregular behavior, known as the gravitational singularity, indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. Models based on general relativity alone cannot extrapolate toward the singularity — beyond the end of the so-called Planck epoch”
Wiki believes:
In its beginning the entire observable universe was concentrated in that singular point, therefore every place in today's universe is the place where the big bang happened.
And the size of a point by definition is.. 0
Israel
What made you think that? The singularity is a mathematical concept. This means that the formula is not valid at this point.
I thought the observable universe started from a singular point of size 0..
The multiverse The cosmic universe over the local universe?
Answer:
Chazalesh said: There is nothing new under the sun..
(Full Answer).
The only idea they thought of was that everything we call the universe is inside a black hole.
The black hole itself may be part of another constellation of.. things.
But, all this, they are what Israel means when they say "the infinite universe", for your information, miracles.
Israel
If at the moment of the big bang the universe was infinite, then it will always be infinite.
The probability that it was final is zero.
What kind of infinite universe started with a bang 13.8 billion years ago and is expanding at a finite rate? Where can he go already, certainly not to infinity..
Israel
Why do you think our universe is finite? I think that our universe is infinite, and also, that there are infinite other universes.
Miracles miracles, deep breaths.
I'm not digging a hole for you. You just don't understand what I'm saying, that there is no observation that there is any connection between our private universe and the infinite universe.
All the observations we have are of our universe, the individual and the finite, but it should not be concluded that the big bang is the one that created the infinite universe, only the observable universe.
There can be infinite other universes in the infinite space with different age, different composition and different laws of nature.
that's it.
Player?
Israel
What does what you said have to do with what I said?
I believe the universe is infinite, because I believe that is what our models show.
You asked if there is an observation that confirms that the universe is infinite and I explained that I think there is not, and that there cannot be.
I'm sorry I don't fall into the hole you dig for me... and move all the time.
I thought you believed the universe was infinite.
You can't even know that I exist, maybe I'm even a computer program..
The essence of the cosmic discussion.
Israel
The infinity is in the models that fit what we see.
There is no observation that can confirm that the universe is truly infinite.
Nor is there any observation that can confirm that Newton is a real person, or that dinosaurs roamed the world.
Is that what you mean?
Forgive me miracles, you just don't understand what I'm talking about.
How does the observation of the acceleration of the expansion of our universe relate to the infinite universe? This is our universe, isn't it?
Perhaps in some corner of the infinite universe, a trillion light years away from us, a bang occurred where there is no acceleration of expansion - so this indicates something different about the infinite universe?
Or a bang 2 trillion away in which the private universe collapses, or moves in harmonic motion, each one indicating something different about the infinite universe?
Israel
Me: "What is related to an infinite universe, and also rules out the idea of a classical explosion - is the observation of the acceleration of the expansion of our universe."
You: "Then I understand that there are no observations that link the observable universe to the omniscient, infinite universe."
What exactly did you try?
I didn't say there was a classical explosion, I gave an example.
So I understand that there are no observations that link the observable universe to the omniscient, infinite universe.
Can't say I didn't try..
Yehuda
I have no idea about dark matter.
Yes, I have a very negative opinion about your idea - and you explained why it can't work.
Yehuda
Enough with the bullshit, okay? It's not respectable.
Except for you, Yehuda, no one speaks of absolute truths.
"We do not fully understand the nature of dark matter, dark energy and cosmic inflation, and without continuing to investigate we cannot be sure that cosmic inflation did happen, and that dark matter and dark energy are real and not ghosts of our imaginations." - Right!!! Does anyone claim otherwise???
Clown - what more thinking outside the box:
1) There is a finite speed, space is curved, the rate of time depends on the rigidity of space, mass can become energy and vice versa, "particles" are neither waves nor particles, our universe did not start with the big bang but with an inflation process, an infinite universe can be contained in a finite universe.
2) We will copy and slightly refine Lesage's Torah, and ignore the fact that it has long been shown that it cannot work.
I stand behind what I told you, Yehuda.
Yehuda, a Nobel Prize is not given for a general hypothesis - dark matter is exactly (!!) - "we don't understand".
Higgs was awarded for the discovery of his particle, not for the idea
Perlmutter, Schmidt and Rice were awarded for the discovery of the acceleration of the universe, not for the idea
Raines received for the discovery of the neutrino
Penzias Wilson received for the discovery of the background radiation
Segre and Chamberlain received for the discovery of the antiproton.
Yukawa received the award for the food he envisioned after eating it.
Anderson received for the discovery of the neutron
Chadwick received for the discovery of the neutron
Yehuda - maybe you will be the first to receive an award for an idea??
Israel
The big bang in particular, and general relativity in general, are not related to an infinite universe.
What is related to an infinite universe, and also rules out the idea of a classical explosion - is the observation of the acceleration of the expansion of our universe.
Miracles
For my part, continue to believe in the dark wonderful works, and see them as absolute truths.
It's a shame that too soon after the enigmatic elements of standard cosmology were confirmed by observations they acquired an unjustified status of absolute truths in your eyes and in the eyes of budding cosmologists. This must not happen.
We do not fully understand the nature of dark matter, dark energy and cosmic inflation, and without continuing to investigate we cannot be sure that cosmic inflation did happen, and that dark matter and dark energy are real and not ghosts of our imaginations.
Dear Nissim, people who try to think outside the box come across people like you, and it's a shame.
Look at what nicknames you called me: "Insolent, lacking in knowledge, you have no idea what academia is, a hypocrite, medieval thinking, rabbis who deny evolution are exactly you, disrespecting people who understand better than you."
And I will not refer to the other things you stated as if I said or did.
And by the way, dark matter has been known for over eighty years and the Nobel Prize committee has not yet found it appropriate to award a prize for it. They know something stinks about this stuff.
I wish you the day when they discover the dark particle.
All the best
Please respond gently. I may have used the learned opinion of others in my response.
Yehuda
"The Big Bang is a prediction of the same theory that explains all of this. Probably not a bad theory..'
An excellent theory, no doubt. to explain the visible universe.
And here's what you're ignoring:
What observation demonstrates that everything you talked about, gravity, particles, background radiation, zebras - have anything to do with the infinite universe?
You are in the space shuttle and you are videotaping the explosion of a nuclear bomb at a height of 20 km above the earth. A rather marginal event on a global scale. But for the observers inside the shell of the explosion this is their entire universe and they have no way of knowing that in Israel only a few saw the explosion, in the solar system they didn't even raise an eyebrow, the milky way didn't move a wrinkle and there are zero zeros in the universe.
But the observers inside the mantle developed a whole theory about the big explosion that created the universe, when it happened, what was its volume, what was the composition of the materials in it (a lot of uranium, but if it was a right-hand explosion, a lot of helium) and more.
But what does the private universe of universe dwellers have to do with the surrounding universe? Which of their measurements is valid for Neptune's environment?
Or in short, what observation connects our finite and limited private universe to the infinite universe around it?
last try.
Israel
Gravity will affect the speed of objects. Objects will slow down over time.
In every explosion I know of, a hollow sphere is formed, because there is a range of speeds for the particles - a minimum speed and a maximum speed.
You need an energy source for the explosion. Otherwise, the explanation is less good than the Big Bang explanation.
It is also desirable to explain the concentration of particles in the universe. The Big Bang provides an explanation for this. If you don't know how to explain, then again the more comprehensive explanation is better.
Perhaps you will also explain the uniformity, as well as the non-uniformity of the background radiation.
And also the slowing down of time in a gravitational field.
and also the bending of light near mass.
The Big Bang is a prediction of the same theory that explains all of this. Probably not a bad theory.
What did I ignore?
Israel
I don't understand why you ignore what I write. I won't write it a third time.
I gave in.
If you still haven't accepted that all observations are only of the observable universe and are not related to the infinite universe, then we will end the cosmic discussion here.
Israel
It's true what you say about the size of the universe, roughly.
But what I explained shows why you are wrong. We cannot see the same thing in every direction. And it cannot be that there is no slowdown in the rate of expansion.
Yehuda
Since when is reality a program at your request? Ockham's razor is not a physical law, it is a philosophical principle. At the end of the 19th century, the universe was thought to be simple. There are 3-4 particles and that's it. Add to that 2 powers - and you explain the whole world.
But, it turned out not to work. There are many experiments that this theory cannot explain.
"Your" idea was also developed in the past, and as I explained to you, not only does it give a better explanation than the existing one, not only does it not explain very many observations that the other theories explain - your approach simply does not work. In elastic collisions no forces are created between objects.
High school physics, Judah... it just doesn't work.
You are told that the evidence for dark matter is much more than an explanation for spiral galaxies. But you scoff, as you scoff at anything that doesn't match your universe.
"Scientists of the Academy precisely because they are elevated from the people. They have shortcomings," - you are rude and lack any knowledge!!!! Scientists are also lecturers for young students and are constantly being asked difficult questions. You are really cheeky! You have no idea what an "academy" is...amazing 🙂 You really surprised me now
A scientist receives a Nobel Prize precisely for thinking outside the box. What's happening to you??? The discovery of accelerated inflation is thinking inside the box, Yehuda?
You are such a hypocrite it is unbelievable. Dark matter, dark energy are exactly thinking outside the box. On the other hand - to think that Newton's laws explain the whole world is medieval thinking... Really, what's wrong with you?
Rabbis who deny evolution are exactly you! You have your own opinion, and the real world kibinimat.
Your right to prefer your simple universe. But you have no right to look down on people who understand better than you.
If the universe is infinite then all the measurements we have are on a zero particle from the universe and do not require what happens at a distance of a billion to the power of a billion light years from us.
There was an explosion, the big bang, but it has no consequences for the infinite universe.
Yehuda.
The question is not about the satellite but about any source of electromagnetic radiation. Physics does not allow you to know its distance from you unless you know its strength. A close and strong source will be picked up just like a distant and weak source. The sun and moon look almost identical and triangulation is required to know their distance from us.
Unless..
To Israel
Let me confront the problem of the satellite located above the earth and the transmitter located on the surface of the earth.
It is clear that if the satellite knew exactly from which direction the transmission was coming, then it would know exactly from which point on Earth the transmission was coming from.
What didn't I understand that makes you and Nisim argue so much?
Please respond gently
Yehuda
for miracles
On the one hand, I show you a simple universe full of particles - something that exists and is known, that does not need proof,
And it's miracles that explain everything from gravitation, the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and more. For this purpose, he is satisfied with the existing baryonic material. point.
You don't need dark matter or dark energy.
Whereas you prefer a universe that requires, in addition to the normal baryonic matter, the existence of undefined and illusory things such as - dark matter, dark energy, strange singular points, black holes, the curvature of space, and gravitation is a property of matter or space, depending on who you ask, and other inventions, something that inflates Just him.
Pardon my miracles but I prefer my simple universe despite all the missing parts that still require a lot of thinking.
You brag about the wonderful collection of scientists (really) that exists in the academy and who am I compared to them?
Well, I deal with factory optimization, when I was asked to optimize a factory I always made sure to share and ask also the simple workers toiling between the machines. I got a lot of information from them. I never underestimated them!
The scientists of the academy precisely because they are elevated from the people. They have disadvantages, and the main one, the fear of the changes. Don't expect a scientist who is all about dark matter and is currently building a facility with thousands of kg of xenon for the purpose of research to give up his job easily. Another example:- Do not expect a great majority of the Torah to agree to the idea of evolution
Few have the courage that Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Newton, Einstein, Mordechai Milgrom, Dan Shechtman and others have to go against the conventions of their generation and think outside the box.
Dear Nissim, there is no way that any of us will be convinced.
All the best!
Yehuda
Israel
Obviously that's not possible.
All animals know that triangulation is required... What are you, boy?
Well, when there is a quantum computer that will show us how Maxwell's demons communicate...
In any case, an intriguing question that will not put my mind to the end
Miracles
It is clear that the explosion of Ramon 26 is not similar to the explosion called the 'Big Bang'.
But the process that happens during the explosion is the same process. This is the same event - only with changes, which belong to the structure of matter and energy itself.
Our (private - thus, Israel) universe also started from "Remon 26".
Only that, "grenade 26" in the above case (context) is a point that has no size and power... that is -
"Singular point".
If we trace the atoms of "Rimone 26", after the explosion - we will find that the atoms made up a "Rimone 26" type material.
Likewise - if we trace the process that created all the matter and energy in our private universe - we will find that everything was created from
"Something" whose size is smaller than any known small.
And his power (or "strength") is lower than any size.
Mathematicians define this "something" as a "singular point" (referring to the origin of the creation of the universe).
Miracles
In a vacuum (vacuum) as long as there is no second body affecting the first body - which is in motion - the first body will persist in its motion.
(Today we know how to say - that the first body will even accelerate!).
Israel
I agreed with you a long time ago that Hirom is infinite...
And no - the comparison is not at the moment of the explosion. The explosion you describe must slow down and eventually reverse.
I also said a long time ago that I don't think it is possible to measure distance to a ray from a point in space.
"There are points in space that momentarily have no gravity. Happy old age. This does not mean that there is no attraction between Andromeda and the Milky Way.'
What attraction was there between which masses at the moment of the explosion? That's the topic, no, a comparison between a bomb explosion and the big bang, isn't it?
From Wiki:
The definition of the concept "universe" is problematic, since the question that the mind cannot avoid is always asked: So what is beyond the universe?
So as I said, if you don't see the clear difference between our private and finite universe and the infinite universe, you're done.
Player?
Israel
There are points in space that momentarily have no gravity. Happy old age. This does not mean that there is no attraction between Andromeda and the Milky Way.
"She's not supposed to explain either. If you still haven't understood the difference between our finite private universe and the infinite universe, then the cosmic discussion has probably been summed up."
I didn't understand what you were trying to say. You bring a partial explanation and try to replace it with a much more comprehensive explanation? Did I become Judah??
Maybe the gravity on the ISS is against the Earth, maybe even towards the Earth, but near Jupiter it will be towards Jupiter and at the point of equilibrium between the Earth and the Moon there is no gravity.
And it is certain that there is no gravity in Tiz al Nabi, that abandoned place in space where you can pass hundreds of light years without a single star for medicine.
"The possibility you describe does not explain the origin of matter in the universe, or energy. Nor does it explain the uniformity in the universe.'
She is not supposed to explain either. If you still don't understand the difference between our finite private universe and the infinite universe, then the cosmic discussion has probably been summed up.
What about my device? It shows different measurements at different distances from the same station. how is it possible?
Israel
The possibility you describe does not explain the origin of matter in the universe, or energy. Nor does it explain the uniformity in the universe.
Israel
Gravity on the ISS is Earth's cards. No problem to measure it (with the help of a gyro).
I also think the universe is infinite. But it doesn't make sense to me that we don't see objects from other explosions.
And yet - gravity should have slowed down the objects
Yehuda
Itai? What do I have to do with it? You disagree with Nobel laureate physicists and decades of study and research
Miracles
I received your response. I don't agree with you. Sorry.
Good night
Yehuda
Gravity in space? Which direction?
But you are missing the point. The question was what is the connection between the bang and the universe.
Simple logic says that the universe is infinite. If it was final, then what is after that end? Most scientists also believe that the universe is infinite.
So let's say that at one of the points of that infinity the big bang happened and created our private universe with all its properties. What is the connection between our private universe and the infinite universe where infinitely more private universes with private properties can exist? A distinction must be made between our finite universe, and the *universe* of God, the infinite.
Is there any evidence that points to something else, namely that our private universe at its 13.8 billion years and its final volume and mass is indeed the *universe*?
Yehuda
Miracles: No one claims that the universe started from a singular point.
Yehuda: It is written in most of the books I have read.
That's not what it says. What it says is that Einstein's equations have a singular point, so they are not valid at that point.
Nissim: On the other hand, you didn't explain why it couldn't be.
Yehuda: Because all the matter in the universe cannot be so crowded, not even a kilogram of matter...
That's what you say. This is your claim, not a fact. Both theory and observations show otherwise.
Miracles: Can dark matter turn into hydrogen? Who claims such a thing?
Yehuda: Dark energy will turn into a (permitted) substance that will turn into any element you want.
Where did you find that? Are you dismissing all conservation laws? Or maybe you just don't understand them??? All quantum theory in the trash?
Nissim: But the scientists' explanation is "there is material in space that is affected by gravity but not by electromagnetic radiation - and we have several independent observations of this material."
Yehuda: What we have are mainly measurement discrepancies with Newton's and/or Einstein's gravitation formulas and not necessarily a lack of material
No Yehuda... that's just not true. Again, either you lack knowledge or you lack integrity....
Nissim: Well – our observations show that our universe looks the same in every direction. For example - we see the law of grief. For example - we see the cosmic background radiation.
Yehuda: Not true!, there is a deviation of the size of 1 divided by 100,000 when looking in different directions. This deviation corresponds in our universe (14 billion light years) to a deviation of 140,000 light years - the size of a medium galaxy.
So, no - the deviation is closer to 2 in 100,000. And the deviation is not radial, but transverse, and it corresponds precisely to 380,000 light years, which is the age of the universe at the distance of the background radiation (this is related to the subject of the poles I mentioned).
In any case, it's a small deviation, and it proves that the universe is almost homogeneous, exactly homogenous (!!!) as far as we can see. It turns out that the mass distribution in the universe corresponds to the same 2 in 100,000 that you see in the background radiation.
Yehuda - you cannot invent new physics that contradicts what we see with our eyes. I'm sorry
Israel
1. They are not in any gravity. They are in free fall along with the spacecraft. If they look at their Rolex they will see that it lags behind their GPS.
2. They are the same age - but they won't look the same age. Let's say I am on a fragment at a speed of 0.5 of the speed of light and you are on a fragment very close to the speed of light. I will see the explosion site at almost my age, and you much younger.
3. Which Newton's equation predicts a spontaneous bomb explosion?
4. And the source of the explosive is?
5. So you claim that there is no limit to the speed of light?
6. But you said there is no gravity in space….
Yehuda's response to Nissim's words, from May 13 at 02:57:-
Miracles: No one claims that the universe started from a singular point.
Yehuda: It is written in most of the books I have read.
Nissim: On the other hand, you didn't explain why it couldn't be.
Yehuda: Because all the matter in the universe cannot be so crowded, not even a kilogram of matter...
Miracles: Can dark matter turn into hydrogen? Who claims such a thing?
Yehuda: Dark energy will turn into a (permitted) substance that will turn into any element you want. In general, I heard that there is hot and cold dark matter then: "hot becomes cold and more hydrogen". List before you the copyright I have on this formula.
Nissim: I will explain the subject of isotropy to you for the last time, and if you don't understand... then it doesn't seem to me, by all means, that you have what it takes to criticize real scientists.
Yehuda: No offense, I have my advantages.
Nissim: If you have a better explanation than the scientists' explanation, I would love to hear it. And maybe you didn't understand -
Yehuda: Waiting with respect, appreciation and patience for your explanations.
Nissim: But the scientists' explanation is "there is material in space that is affected by gravity but not by electromagnetic radiation - and we have several independent observations of this material."
Yehuda: What we have are mainly measurement discrepancies with Newton's and/or Einstein's gravitation formulas and not necessarily a lack of material. The discrepancies can be explained by 21 other possibilities (I counted and checked!) and not necessarily dark matter.
Nissim: There is another small thing that you can easily ignore - changing Einstein's gravity formula doesn't work...check it, but it contradicts the observations.
Yehuda: You won't believe in miracles, but I agree with you, correcting the formula will not be enough, but there are still more than ten options left.
Nissim: Well – our observations show that our universe looks the same in every direction. For example - we see the law of grief. For example - we see the cosmic background radiation.
Yehuda: Not true!, there is a deviation of the size of 1 divided by 100,000 when looking in different directions. This deviation corresponds in our universe (14 billion light years) to a deviation of 140,000 light years - the size of a medium galaxy.
Nissim: I mean - we see the universe as made up of spherical ballot boxes.
Yehuda: You saw shells, I saw a galaxy.
Nissim: Now - there are two options. One is that we are in the center of a sphere made of spherical shells.
The second - that the universe looks the same from everywhere - is the Copernican principle. If so - the universe is also homogeneous (in addition to being isotropic) - this is the cosmological principle.
So - either you will find a mistake in my explanation, or you will decide between a homogeneous universe and a geocentric universe.
Yehuda: There is only one possibility - we are in a huge universe whose small part visible to us (14 billion light years) contains a deviation of 1 part in 100,000 between its visible parts.
An example for explanation: Let's take a large cloud that is currently passing in the sky. It is built with different densities for all its parts. But if we take a tiny ball of it, for example, with a radius of 14 cm, from wherever we choose in the cloud, it will be (almost) uniform in all its parts.
Dear Nissim, you won't believe it, but I enjoyed responding to your comment!
Hope now you also understand my ideas.
Of course you don't have to agree with them.
Good Day!
Yehuda
1. Yes, you were wrong. Look at the astronauts in the shuttle, they are in zero gravity.
2. All the fragments of the bomb are the same age - the age of the explosion.
3. We asked about observations. I'm sure there are Newtonian equations that predict the explosion of a bomb.
4. The explosive.
5., 6, the same observations will explain the explosion of a bomb.
Israel
1. In a normal explosion in a vacuum, the speed of the fragments is not small with time.
I thought there was gravity in space…. was i wrong
2. We see objects of the same age at any distance. If it was a classic explosion then I would expect to see different ages. It seems to me that the blast center should have looked much older.
3. The universe cannot be static (Einstein was wrong here, and his constant does not solve the problem). The universe can be expanding or contracting, there is no other possibility. Friedman and Le Matra predicted the Big Bang from the equations of relativity.
4. A normal explosion requires an energy source. What is this source?
5. A normal explosion does not explain the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation (GR cannot explain it either...)
6. A normal explosion also does not explain the existence of galaxies. Or the percentage of light elements in the universe, or the background radiation itself...
Israel
1 - Of course it gets smaller over time.... Gravity, you know?
2 - If so, then we would expect to see objects whose age exceeds the time of the explosion, and this is not the case
3 – Non static binding or explosion or convergence. Do you know of a third option?
So the big bang is one of two possibilities of relativity. This Torah has other predictions that we have seen - the slowing down of time in a gravitational field, the bending of light in a gravitational field, black holes, and much more.
In a classical explosion you need things that are not needed in the theory of relativity: existing space, existing time, a certain place for the explosion and a reason for the explosion (source of energy). We would expect, for example, that there would be a preferred direction in space - towards the point of explosion.
I think point (1) is enough to disqualify the idea of a classical explosion.
Israel
1 - Of course it gets smaller over time.... Gravity, you know?
2 - If so, then we would expect to see objects whose age exceeds the time of the explosion, and this is not the case
1. In a normal explosion in a vacuum, the speed of the fragments is not small with time.
2. Which observation shows that you can identify what the mantle is? Maybe she is 100 billion light years away from you?
3. The big bang is not a prediction of general relativity. She predicted a non-static universe, ie the cosmological constant, but not the big bang.
All other griefs are correct.
In short - I am not aware of any evidence that the Big Bang created the universe. All observations are also suitable for detonating a 26 grenade.
Israel
I didn't understand the problem. True, the same distribution of velocities is also seen in bomb fragments.
But first - in a normal explosion - we would expect to see that the speed of the particles decreases with time. The observations show otherwise.
But second - in a normal explosion there is an envelope for the explosion and each fragment can detect this envelope. The observations show that we are in the center of the "mantle". And it is very unlikely.
But third - the big bang is a prediction of general relativity, which predicted many other things we see. I don't know of any other theory that begins with a classical explosion in a three-dimensional world. In particular - in a normal explosion we would expect to see objects that existed before the explosion.
I did not understand the connection between the observations and the universe.
You see the galaxies moving away from each other and conclude that they were all at the same point 13.8 billion years ago.
But the same observation would also be about bomb fragments that move away from each other, wouldn't it?
Are there other observations that link the bang to the universe?
Regarding the device - how will you do this with equipment for $1000? And what if the transmitting antenna is also a meter thick?
Everyone I asked said it was impossible.
Israel
I don't think the big bang created the universe. The big bang is one event in the evolution of the universe. We see back up to 380,000 years from an imaginary "0" point - this is the cosmic background radiation. Before that - we have quite well-founded hypotheses. For example - the explanation for the creation of atoms before this time corresponds to the concentration of hydrogen and several other elements that we see today.
Before that - the extrapolations are more speculative... and it "gets worse" as you go back in time.
There is speculation as to what happened in this process, but we don't know.
In the situation you described - the angle between photons at the edges of the board can be measured, but it is no longer a single measurement point.
"Hubble's law implies that our universe was in the past more "concentrated"
Obviously, but how do you conclude from this that the bang created the universe or is even related to the universe? In every explosion of a bomb the shrapnel moves away from each other, what is the difference here?
"You can get a range from show differences".
How would you measure with this method or any other method the distance to a radio station that is 10-100 km away from you using a device measuring one meter by one meter?
Israel
Hubble's law hints that our universe was in the past more "concentrated", if we assume that time is symmetrical and that the laws of physics have not changed recently (say 13-14 billion years).
Another reinforcement is the observation of the cosmic background radiation.
The Big Bang did not create our universe - it is simply the farthest point at the time our universe existed.
Regarding range measurement. For sound, or for electromagnetic radiation in a range, it is possible to obtain a range from differences in incidence.
Beyond that - I don't think it's possible to measure distance without additional data
Miracles
What evidence suggests that the Big Bang created the universe?
And why don't you refer to the device I built? Is it possible to know the distance of a radio station without knowledge of its strength and without triangulation?
Yehuda
No one claims that the universe started from a singular point.
On the other hand, you didn't explain why it can't be.
Can dark matter turn into hydrogen? Who claims such a thing?
I will explain the subject of isotropy to you for the last time, and if you don't understand... then it doesn't seem to me, if it's all right, that you have what it takes to criticize real scientists.
If you have a better explanation than the scientists' explanation, I'd love to hear it. And maybe you didn't understand - but the scientists' explanation is "there is material in space that is affected by gravity but not by electromagnetic radiation - and we have several independent observations of this material".
There is another small thing that is convenient to ignore - changing Einstein's gravity formula doesn't work... check, but it contradicts the observations.
Well - our observations show that our universe looks the same in every direction. For example - we see the law of grief. For example - we see the cosmic background radiation.
That is - we see the universe as made up of spherical ballot boxes.
Now - there are two options. One is that we are in the center of a sphere made of spherical shells.
The second - that the universe looks the same from everywhere - is the Copernican principle. If so - the universe is also homogeneous (in addition to being isotropic) - this is the cosmological principle.
So - either you will find a mistake in my explanation, or you will decide between a homogeneous universe and a geocentric universe.
for miracles
My response is awaiting confirmation
Yehuda
Dear Lenisim
Ignoring is also on your part.
I explain to you why the convergence cannot continue to a singular point and you respond??? Nada!
I explain to you why the mistake, and emphasized, every mistake in the world of physics should not exist completely when there is as much dark matter and energy as you want and wherever you want, and you react??, nada!!
Look at the title of the article you sent me to:-
This Is How Our Earliest Picture Of The Universe Shows Us Dark Matter
What a wonderful theory! All that needs to be done is to take the "no photography" of "no universe" and we will get the "no matter" we will be amazed! charming!!!
Approaching your very difficult question: - What is the percentage of hydrogen in the universe according to my theory?
My answer :- I never thought about it, but I know exactly how much hydrogen there is in the universe according to the conventional theory and the answer is”…… how much do you want it to be?? Understand miracles, after all, I have as much dark matter as I want that can be turned into hydrogen at a suitable exchange rate (when Sabdarmish is not around). When I'm around, the dark energy is rampant!
But let's move on to your next (really difficult) question:
Still waiting for an explanation of how there can be an isotropic and non-homogeneous restoration that does not require us to be at the center of it??.
Dear Nissim, I really don't understand what the connection is between the fact that the universe has certain properties and my place in the universe? Like I will ask how it is that Herzliya is beautiful proves my place in Herzliya. I'm serious and I don't understand! But maybe it's because of the late hour here in our holy land.
I'm sure you're waiting for my response, so I'll send it to the public and promise to discuss the unresolved issue again the day after tomorrow. (I'm busy tomorrow)
Good day miracles
Please respond gently
Yehuda
Yehuda
I await your answer regarding the cosmological principle.
Your silence is very thunderous....
Yehuda
The 12 digits refer to the accuracy of the quantum theory equations. It has nothing to do with dark matter 🙂
I would appreciate it if you would please explain the percentage of hydrogen in the universe according to your theory.
Dear Lenisim
Responding to your comments is a big challenge!
It is mandatory to do a lot of homework before responding. But I changed my waist and went to the original article you referred me to and I don't understand why the accuracy is only 12 digits??” Why don't you add a little more dark matter and get a perfect result???- zero from zero of deviation!???? Do you have a shortage of dark matter in America???
Understand that the biggest advantage of dark matter is its low price - zero from zero!
And what's even better is that it doesn't have side effects such as friction, opacity to light, and the like.
I will of course compare the above theory with the Sabdarmish (Promitative) theory:-
The universe started out the size of an average galaxy. point.
You don't need dark matter, not even dark energy God forbid, and it will give you all the deviations of 1 part 100,000. And perhaps also the "musical" nature of the deviations.
But it will take me a few days
patience
Brother, what a beautiful day today!
Yehuda
Sages to cheer or benevolent will inform
Yehuda
As you mentioned, the cosmic background radiation is not completely uniform. But - the lack of uniformity is not just random noise. If you think of this map as a musical sound, then you can identify several harmonies in the sound. The strength of each harmony depends on the composition of matter in our universe.
These frequencies arise from "waves" in the matter that existed before the background radiation was created (ie - less than 380,000 years after the big bang). The big wave created a frequency that creates short cuts in radiation of about one degree. The Standard Model shows that such a wave would be created by matter that is affected by both gravitational and electromagnetic forces.
The second wave, with a higher frequency, corresponds to matter that is affected by gravity but not by electromagnetic forces.
The size of these poles shows a flat universe so we can calculate the mass density in the universe. And in these calculations we get that the general mass density is much higher than the baryonic mass density.
We call the difference "dark matter". Unlike you - scientists do not know what dark matter is.
If you have a model that is better than the standard model - I would love to hear it. The precision of the standard model is 12 digits….
Here is an article that explains better - https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/this-is-how-our-earliest-picture-of-the-universe-shows-us-dark-matter-3d990f8b5621
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how there can be an isotropic and non-homogeneous restoration that doesn't require us to be at the center of it.
Yehuda
The reason I understand that pushing can explain the rotation anomaly in galaxies is the distinction between our finite universe and the infinite universe.
Think about a 26 grenade that explodes in space. Its shards are scattered everywhere and to the viewer inside the volume of the shell, the shards are his entire universe. The moment of explosion is the Big Bang and the fragments are the galaxies and stars.
But this has nothing to do with the infinite universe. Our observable universe is sixty infinities void relative to the infinite universe.
If we see pushing as the cause of gravitation, then it seems that different laws will act on bodies inside the mantle that are affected by the bodies in the mantle - the distant galaxies - than on those distant galaxies on which a force outside the mantle does not act.
Regarding GPS - I built a device that tries to determine the distance of distant radio stations without information on their strength, without feedback from other bodies and without triangulation.
As far as I understand, the physics known to us forbids the construction of such a device. This is the answer I received from all the experts, but I would appreciate it if someone would challenge me and save me precious time.
The device links directly to the questions presented here on the site in recent years, and indirectly to pushing.
Well, going to work and measuring the distances of distant stations..
Dear Nissim
I don't understand what it is :-
"The poles of the cosmic polar radiation"
And so why is this a problem that requires dark matter and dark energy.
I will patiently wait for an explanation and try to deal with it!
Yehuda
Yehuda
I'm a little shocked by your response, and maybe more amused...
Dark matter is not only "intended" to solve the problems they discovered in gravity. It solves many more mysteries that you ignore in "elegance".
I would love to hear how you solve the many observations of cosmic polar radiation poles without dark matter and dark energy.
I will wait patiently.
Dearest Israel
I read your sympathetic response, and my eyes overflow with tears of happiness, each tear like jubilant grapes, drowning in clear sounds, like tinkling.
I read and can't believe here is a person who gives me the courage to continue on my path despite the corona virus and who joins in fighting and fixing the world of the distance square. And all for the sake of good science.
In these sad moments, I remember the fundamental law that my kindergarten teacher Esther taught me in the first lesson in kindergarten:- If the data measured in the field differs from the data obtained from a formula, then who will we throw away the formula or the data measured in the field?? My kindergarten teacher taught me that the formula should be thrown away!!! God forbid that we throw away the measurements, we must throw away the formula and we must do so with courage and attach it next to the phlogiston, the caloric and all the other idols and not be afraid if someone claims that the formula is holy, and not be afraid even.... of Newton and Einstein!!
The data measured in reality are different from what is obtained from the formula???, it is absolutely forbidden to change them with the wretched methods of dark matter and insult them with dark energy and all this just to preserve the "sacred" formula.
Indeed, gravity pushing is the solution if only the subdermal correction of interference with pushing is introduced as the distance between the bodies creating the gravity increases
And here is my younger brother Israel, whom I love, and I wish we would both be enlightened like those generations of Leg B'Omer who do not allow us to see them in these dark days of Corona, as dark as the dark matter
Here the tears are flowing again
Good night
Yehuda
post Scriptum. "GPS of one satellite".???? Book bro, book!
My friend will thank me.
Shlomi is excellent, enjoying the quarantine in the bosom of the family and is busy building a facility that our Nisim once defined as "GPS of one satellite".
For years I have been following your struggle for different laws of gravity at great distances. I don't understand how this is possible - where exactly does the law of the inversion of the squared force change and why - but most of the physics books that deal with Coulomb's law for the electric force proportional to the distance squared emphasize that it is impossible to know if this law is true at large distances.
And of course there is the strong force in the atom that not only weakens with distance but suddenly changes its direction.
So who knows, maybe the same applies to the laws of gravity?
Pushing of course, explains it quite nicely in my understanding.
Israel my friend
Peace and blessings to the Corona countries
how are you elm
"According to Popper who claims that a claim is scientific if it can be tested".
I want to measure, minutes and seconds,
I want radiation and I don't want you,
I want observations, and I want conclusions,
I'd like to try flowering."
Of course he understands, miracles.
Yehuda Sabdarmish is not stupid.
He must be trying to tell us something else and we just don't understand him.
Mr. Yehuda
What is it that you wanted to say, actually?
Yehuda
Do you understand what is meant when they say that our universe appears to us to be isotropic?
Dear Nissim
Can't understand you, don't agree with your words in your response.
I'm sorry you think I'm not paying attention to what you're saying.
But, it was nice to discuss my creation matters with you
All the best and we will take care of ourselves.
Yehuda
Yehuda Sabdarmish - the man;
Sometimes, we 'humanize' things we don't understand.
Thus, in your case - Sabdarmish...
Please be flexible.
Lest you absorb a 'disgraceful business'...
Yehuda
There is no point in this conversation if you have no intention of referring to what I say.
You explained that regardless of the big bang - the visible universe requires either that we are in the center of the universe - or that the universe is homogeneous.
I explained to you that the evidence for the Big Bang is much more than an extrapolation from Hubble's law.
I explained to you that there is no claim that the universe started from a singular point.
I explained to you that we have no way to define units of time and distance without introducing the speed of light.
You're always late for a day and a half - but blatantly ignore them when it's convenient for you.
Take care of yourself.
There is no singularity. When there is a division by 0, an interrupt is triggered and it transfers the execution to the interrupt management routine, and at the end the system is returned to normal operation.
The details of the administration of the ruling are simply not known at this stage, and would require creating divisions in 0 in the laboratory, or finding them in nature, bringing them to the laboratory (or, more likely: bringing the laboratory to them) and investigating them.
Some claim that the routine for dealing with divisions by 0 includes the possibility of transferring information out and in, or to another area in the simulation space, and this will also need to be tested and understood the benefit that may be involved.
for miracles
But the universe is not homogeneous and has a deviation of 1 part in 100,000!. Of course you can ignore that and say it's nothing, but you can also not ignore it and do a little calculation such as.... 1 divided by 100,000 of the size of the universe is a little more than 100,000 light years which is... the size of a galaxy, so here I refuted Gambov, as you requested!.
What's the "joke" about a singular point - "a mathematical concept that derives from the equation of general relativity", that's what I'm talking about, these beacons have a "lust" to continue their operation without any restraints, to continue operating even where they are not defined according to David Yom. Then they race to a singular point. If they had some restraints they could understand that they cannot define themselves on the whole world. Such a definition is a mistaken approach by many scientists. For example, our friend Newton, peace be upon him, who stated that gravitation acts on everything in the world, but we can forgive Newton, the world known to him was small, the solar system up to the planet Saturn when comets were apparently atmospheric phenomena...
If I'm still not understood, I'll give you an example from the recent past that might convince you:-
In the days before Corona it was customary for children to go to school. Among other things, they would go out to the school yard during breaks. The "grief constant" of the children's spread in the yard was half a meter per second.
You will agree with me that it is a miracle that you can of course always know according to the above-mentioned rule of mourning when they left for break and you can also know the place of departure - the classroom.
Question:- Would it be correct to assume that the children left for recess from a singular point or would it be more correct to demand a permanent correction of the grief when they approach the classroom??
Good week miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
No physicist claims there is a singular point. This point is a mathematical concept that arises from the equations of general relativity. We have known this for almost 100 years.
The reason we think the big bang didn't start out galaxy-sized is observations that support Gamow's big bang theory. His theory has been disproved, as you like, but, unfortunately, the observations strongly confirm the theory.
Yehuda
You don't want the definition of a meter to be constant?? Isn't that the whole idea in the standard??
Why are you still ignoring the conclusion of your statement? I will explain again…
We see that the universe is isotropic, meaning we see the same universe in every direction. So random direction and look. At any "distance" you will see the same thing. I put the distance in jest because it doesn't matter what the distance is absolutely - the main thing is that at X distance in some direction we see the same thing.
Therefore, necessarily, the universe is built like an onion, at every distance there is a sphere (hollow) if certain properties.
It follows that we are in the center of the onion, sorry, the ball.
If you accept the Copernican principle, that we are not at the center, then the universe should be homogeneous…..
Miracles
I didn't talk about any of my theories, I explained why I support David Yom and his idea of measurements, and I don't accept anything that contradicts it. Show me one rebuttal that David Yom is wrong and I'll throw up my hands.
Second thing, I don't understand your question, how do you know that the meter is fixed, after all we are looking for a measure that will not change in the future??!
Good week miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
There are many possibilities to contradict the "big bang". I don't understand why you claim there isn't.
And on the other hand - not only are there possibilities to disprove your theory - it has already been disproved several times.
As I already told you - handsome demands, handsome fulfills
Yehuda
Regarding the meter - where do you get the fixed length?
Yehuda
You didn't understand me, or you ignored me knowingly....
We see an isotropic world, and you mentioned it too (unless you copied things from Wikipedia that you disagree with).
It follows that if the world is not homogeneous then we are at the center of the universe.
for miracles
You asked: Are you (Yehuda) claiming that the cosmological principle is wrong?
My answer:- I claim much more than that!, every claim that states something about the entire universe is built on a contradiction. It is impossible to prove such a thing because there are no measurements that are carried out endlessly to test such a claim, it is not scientific according to Popper who claims that a claim is scientific if it can be tested.
Another example:- Gravitation works on bodies throughout the universe... Unscientific!
And of course the claim you wrote in this response:- All the laws of the universe are isotropic and homogeneous……again, unscientific.
But I claim that already at large, but finite distances, we see (sometimes) measurable deviations in the fundamental laws of science. It is not necessary to strive to infinity to notice this. Sorry, but no amount of dark matter can cover that up…
And regarding your question:- Do you have a way to define a meter and also a second without the speed of light??
My answer: the old and good iridium rod in Paris, will be able to faithfully fulfill the function of the meter for at least the whole millennium. (If they didn't throw it away, God forbid)
And for a second?…. If Big Ben is still under repair, I'm willing to donate my watch.
Finally, give an example of something scientific:-
.. I did it today on the fire on my roof in Herzliya... scientific!!
We will check this:-
Today = final time, testable according to Popper.
The roof in Herzliya... Final point in the globe, as above.
Fire... finite energy, scientific!!
kosher?…. Not so….
Please respond gently, Saturday today
Yehuda
Yehuda
Do you have a way to define a meter and also a second without the speed of light??
Yehuda
I didn't understand - are you claiming that the cosmological principle is wrong? I mean, the universe is not uniform? If so - because we see uniformity in every direction - it follows that we are at the center of the universe. Is that your claim?
for miracles
The subject: Sad thoughts about the speed of light (response to your comment May 8, 2020 at 09:09)
You don't have to dig too deep to discover the overwhelming scientific consensus on the speed of light:-
The speed of light is constant in every direction from time immemorial and forever and ever, and its absolute magnitude is always exactly 299,792,458 meters per second.
So precisely that this was a reason to determine the meter and the kilogram based on it. And this belief is backed by countless proofs! Chief among them was the Mikkelson Morley experiment somewhere in 1886, which showed with a really nice proof that the measured speed is the same in every direction.
This is how it is accepted, so... why do I decide to disagree on such a beautiful proof????
The reason is simple - it is impossible to determine time constants in one measurement!
The speed of light is constant in all directions but not for all time. David Yom "hinted" to me that in order to measure constancy in time one should make several measurements at different times and compare them. This was not done either in the Michelson Morley experiment in 1886, nor in the General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1983 when they determined the size of the meter based on the "constant" speed of light (the distance a light beam travels through a vacuum in a time of 1 part of 299,792,458 seconds). In my humble (private) opinion, since 1983 the speed of light has decreased by at least a third of a meter per second!
But miracles are true, I don't have proof, but such proof can be obtained if you have connections at the LIGO facility, the change in the speed of light in my opinion is on the order of a centimeter per second per year and it seems to me that the LIGO facility will be up to the task.
So Naa demands and Naa fulfills, the ball is in your court.
Good night miracles midnight here in our holy land.
Please respond gently.
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda
for miracles
Let's start with your first comment (from 9:03 am)
You bring me a number of the best scientists and tell me that they measured correct things. Nice, but what can we conclude from the fact that everything that is measured is correct???, if for example Levitt measured the correct distance to the Cepheids then I cannot have doubts about the measurements of others, is there a contradiction here??, what will I conclude from this regarding the correctness of temperature measurements the background? What is the connection?
Let's check the background radiation measurement shall we?
(from Astropedia)
"Observations of the cosmic background radiation show that the universe began its life when the density of matter and radiation within it was uniform, with the exception of disturbances at a rate of about 1 in 100,000. The origin of these disorders is still not fully understood. Various models link the density disturbances with quantum disturbances in very early times, when the universe was a fraction of a second old (10-35 seconds). Other models link the aforementioned disturbances with the inflation model". End quote.
Now we will examine cosmic inflation: (from Wikipedia)
"Cosmic inflation is a hypothetical physical process that occurred in the early universe, a fraction of time after the Big Bang. According to the version devised by the astronomer Alan Goth in 1980, inflation occurred from minus 10 35 seconds after the Big Bang to minus 10 32 seconds after it. In this period of time, the universe underwent a process of infinitely rapid inflation, which increased the volume of the visible universe from a tiny size to the size of a medium-sized galaxy."
End of quote.
Well miracles, will we conclude from this that the cosmological principle is true or will we cast doubts on it and/or the inflation model??. And in general, faith in the cosmological principle and the existing laws made us come to a strange conclusion that the universe started at a singular point instead of assuming that the bang started at the size of a galaxy and save additional strange determinations of a singular point, inflation on the ory, dark matter, dark energy and other strange things all just because of the cosmological principle that lacks conceptual flexibility .
Please respond flexibly
Yehuda
post Scriptum. I will answer about the speed of light in your second comment later.
Yehuda
I have no idea what you meant about background radiation. The cosmological principle states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. The uniformity of the background radiation is a strong confirmation of this.
And regarding the speed of light. Didn't you claim earlier that you only had what you measured? Handsome demands, handsome fulfills 🙂
Yehuda
So what do you think we measured?
Did Aristotle measure the radius of the earth?
Did Aristarchus measure the distance to the moon?
Did Tycho Brahe measure the positions of the planets?
Did Henrietta Levitt measure the distance to the Cepheids?
If your answer is yes, then how is the measurement of background radiation temperature different?
And if not - then do you rule out all astronomy? And what about physics? After all, we've never seen an electron - they don't exist?
for miracles
I act according to the statement of the philosopher David Hume who simply states:-
You only have what you measure. Beyond that you only have unfounded hypotheses.
It is much more fundamental than a casual assertion of a cosmological principle.
What is meant by?
I accept that we are not at the center of the universe. point.
If the background radiation was radically different from a certain direction then it is clear that we were not at the center of the universe. But here is the fact that the background radiation is the same (almost) from every direction you take as proof that we are not the center of the universe?
How does it fit with the speed of light which I think was different in the past?, how does it fit with the initial inflationary universe that might have been dispensed with at a greater speed of light in the past??, how does it fit with the determination of the singular point of the big bang, which I think requires correction?
My alternative opinion (based on David Yom) is that fundamentally different regions of the universe in terms of density, radiation, time and other physical laws and constants in them will be different from the usual 13.8 billion years after the big bang at a background temperature of 2.73 degrees Kelvin, speed of light of 299,792,458 meters per second (exactly), And a few more "physical constants".
I must state that a full response to your (short) response will require me to think a lot and delve into it, and it is very possible that you are right in your claim that the identical background radiation (almost) from every direction is proof of a universe with a cosmological principle free of extreme anomalies.
I admit that I said some unusual things then..
Please respond gently
Yehuda
Yehuda
Take care of yourself too!
The best evidence for the cosmological principle is the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation.
Except - if you assume that we are really at the center of the universe... even the ancient Greeks knew better...
Hello miracles!
I'm not saying that relativity doesn't predict correctly everywhere, but I'm a bit skeptical about it at the far and great cosmological distances.
At large distances, the proofs usually require changing the measured data with the addition of a lot of dark matter and/or dark energy.
Indeed the phenomenon of Fomalhaut b shows us the need for extra caution.
The approach of the "cosmological principle" that what is true here must be true there must also require secondary proofs to strengthen it. The principle alone is not sufficient.
In short - sad thoughts about science in these boring corona days.
Have a wonderful day and take care of yourself
Yehuda
Miracles there are better explanations if you want I can send you links. But don't say there isn't, because maybe you don't have but I do. If you don't want to know it doesn't mean there isn't, just stick with what you like.
You know really mysterious?
Whoever writes regrets of this kind -
https://www.academia.edu/42941028/%D…A7%D7%95%D7%9C
Yehuda
No one is saying that anyone has proven anything. General relativity predicts many things - and the same phenomenon you described is a reinforcement of this prediction.
In the meantime, we do not have a better explanation for all of our observations, and certainly there is no theory that has received as much evidence as the Core Theories that exist today - general relativity and quantum theory.
If so, the question arises :- in how many cases should we expect the phenomenon of Fomalhaut b ??, out of the thousands of exoplanets in the sky, how many of them may "disappear" like Fomalhaut b ??, after all we have not really seen most of them, so maybe many of them are clouds Dust or sunspots and more like these are cyclical phenomena that will be ignored in the future. What is the reliability of the measurements made at distances of tens or hundreds of light years and even more?
And hence, is the phenomenon recounted in the article from 3/5 here on the science website about the star dancing around the black hole and the far-reaching "proofs" of the correctness of the theory of relativity, - the conclusions of a revolution and a half around the black hole not too exaggerated? Isn't drawing the financial goal here as a conclusion?
So… please respond gently
Good night
Yehuda