By Prof. Omri Vandel, The Hebrew University * A new discovery by senior astronomers from the USA (some of them from the team that discovered the accelerated expansion of the universe in 1998) published this month contradicts the detailed results of the most accurate background radiation measurements in recent years and calls the big bang model into question the big
Since the discovery of the accelerated expansion of the universe in 1998, there has been a revolution in the science of cosmology and the Big Bang theory, following which it seemed that now all measurements correspond to the revised theory, which includes acceleration by "dark energy" (see "Third Nobel Prize in Cosmology", Omri Vandel, Galileo, November 2011).
A new discovery by senior astronomers from the USA (some of them from the team that discovered the accelerated expansion of the universe in 1998) published this month contradicts the detailed results of the most accurate background radiation measurements in recent years and calls the big bang model into question.
The study, which is expected to be published in the Astrophysical Journal, is based on observations with the 10 m diameter telescope at the Keck Observatory on Mount Maunakea in Hawaii and the Hubble Space Telescope and presents the most accurate measurement to date of the current expansion rate of the universe. To the astronomers' surprise, the results were inconsistent with the rate of expansion calculated based on other data and our current understanding of the physics of the universe. The authors of the article found that the universe is currently expanding about 9% faster than expected. If this result is correct, there are two possibilities: either the measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation are wrong, or an unknown physical phenomenon accelerates the expansion of space, faster than astronomers have thought so far (see 'for more').
"If our result is correct - and we spent blood, sweat and tears to accurately estimate the uncertainty - we come to the conclusion that there is a problem with predictions based on measurements of the cosmic background radiation, radiation that is a kind of "echo" from the Big Bang," said Alex Filippenko , a professor of astronomy at the University of Berkeley and one of the authors of the article.
Filippenko's group measured the chemical abundance of gases near variable stars of the cupid type (used to calibrate distance measurements) in galaxies relatively close to our galaxy, where type Ia supernovae have also been observed. This combination allowed them to improve the accuracy in measuring the distances of these galaxies, thereby more precisely calibrating the peak luminosities of type Ia supernovae, which are used to measure the distances of distant galaxies. These measurements are also used to determine the rate of expansion of the universe in the distant past, from which the acceleration of expansion is deduced.
"The measurements we performed are the most accurate that have been done so far. We reduced as much as possible the uncertainty in the measurement of the expansion of the universe and estimated as much as possible the size of the size of the uncertainty in the measurements," said Filippenko, "and we still find that the rate of expansion we measure does not coincide with the rate expected from observations of the young universe, which indicates that something Important is still missing in our understanding of the universe. As if the universe is leading us astray, or that our understanding of the universe is incomplete."
The reason could be the existence of an unknown particle - perhaps a fourth type of neutrino (an almost massless particle with no electric charge that is created in nuclear decay reactions, and so far only three types of it are known - electron neutrino, muon and tau) - or that the effect of dark energy (the said to explain the acceleration in the expansion of the universe, and according to the basic theory it should be constant and unchanging with the expansion of the universe) nevertheless increased in the 13.8 billion years that have passed since the background radiation was created in the early universe. Another possibility to explain the discrepancy is that Einstein's theory of general relativity, which forms the basis of the standard model of the big bang, is not accurate.
"This surprising discovery may be an important clue to understanding those mysterious components of the universe that make up 95 percent of it but do not emit light, such as dark energy, dark matter and dark radiation," said Nobel laureate Adam Riess, head of the Space Telescope Institute and a researcher at the University John Hopkins, in Baltimore, Maryland. Reese was a postdoctoral fellow at UC Berkeley and a member of the research team that found the accelerated expansion of the universe in 1998, working with Filippenko.
The echo from the big bang
A few years ago, the European Space Agency's Planck space telescope measured the spatial non-uniformity in the cosmic microwave background radiation, to study the early history of the universe. Planck's measurements, combined with the accepted physical model of the universe, give a current expansion velocity of 66.53 (± 0.62) kilometers per second per megafarsec.
The mourning constant and the expansion of the universe
The American astronomer Edwin Hubble measured the distances to a large number of nearby galaxies in the early years of the 3.26th century and found that the galaxies are moving away from our galaxy at a speed v) ) which is directly proportional to their distance from us (r). This can be written in a simple beacon called Hubble's Law, v=Hor. The value Ho is called Hubble's constant, and it is measured in units of kilometers per second per megafarsec (km/sec / Mpc). A megafarsk is an astronomical unit of distance equal to 326 million light years. For example, according to the value of the Hubble constant above, which is calculated from the measurements of the Planck telescope, a galaxy 6653 million light years away from us is moving away at a speed of 62 (±XNUMX) kilometers per second. Hubble's constant actually describes the speed of expansion of the universe at any given moment. Its value changes with the evolution of the universe, and its value today is given by Ho.
In the past, the expansion rate of the universe, the Hubble constant, was determined by direct measurements of the speed of the galaxies moving away. The measured value was between 70 and 75 kilometers per second per megafarsec (km/sec / Mpc), plus or minus about one percent (± 5-10) km/sec / Mpc). This result does not match exactly with the prediction from the background radiation (which is, as mentioned, about 0.6±66.5 km/sec / Mpc) but due to the uncertainty in the measurement of the distances so far, it is within the range of what is possible within the measurement inaccuracy (1-2 standard deviations). In contrast, the new measurement by Filippenko and his group gives a much smaller uncertainty, 73.24 (± 1.74) km/sec / Mpc, only 2.4 percent, and therefore clearly contradicts the predictions from the background radiation (a discrepancy of about 4 standard deviations).
The team of researchers, some of whom were part of the Supernova High-z search team that discovered the accelerated expansion of the universe in 1998, perfected the measurement of the current rate of expansion of the universe by developing advanced technological methods that improve the accuracy of distance measurements to distant galaxies.
The team measured the distances of galaxies in which two distance measures are visible: both a type of star whose light intensity changes cyclically, called Cepheids (after the prototype for this type of star, a variable star in the Cepheus system) and Type Ia supernovae (exploding stars).
Cepheids, supernovae and astronomical distance measurement
The most common method for measuring distances of galaxies is called the Standard Candle method. The method is based on finding bright objects, such as stars and supernovae, in the galaxy whose distance you want to measure, whose amount of light they emit at the source (absolute brightness, absolute magnitude) is known or can be accurately estimated in a way that does not depend on the distance. When such an object is found, the law of the square of the distance is used, which states that the intensity of light as it appears to our eyes (apparent magnitude) characteristically decreases as the square of the distance to the measured object. From knowing the absolute brightness and measuring the apparent brightness, the distance can be calculated.
The length of the cycle time of the brightness change in Cepheids from characteristic to their absolute brightness. From the measurement of the cycle time the absolute brightness can be deduced, therefore the cupids can be used as a standard violin. By comparing the absolute brightness with their brightness as seen from Earth, it is possible to accurately calculate their distance and, therefore, the distances of the galaxies in which they reside. Abel used this method at the beginning of the twentieth century to measure the distances to the nearest galaxies which he used to discover the law named after him.
The type Ia supernovae are also used as a standard violin and a measure of distance since they all have a similar light intensity at peak brightness. Because supernovae are much brighter than a single star, they are visible for much greater distances and are useful for measuring the distances of very distant galaxies. Supernovas of this type were used in a study that found the accelerated expansion of the universe in 1998. The problem is that a supernova explosion is a rare event, which even in a galaxy as large as the Milky Way only happens once every hundred years. In addition, the supernova fades in a short time. To accurately calculate the peak brightness, it must be observed immediately after its flare. To find supernovae, astronomers are constantly searching millions of galaxies at the same time.
The researchers measured about 2,400 cupids in 19 relatively nearby galaxies that also observed Type Ia supernovae. By comparing the apparent brightness of the cupids and supernovae they accurately determined the true brightness of the type Ia supernovae. They then used this calibration of supernova luminosity to calculate the distances of about 300 Type Ia supernovae in distant galaxies.
"We needed the relatively close galaxies (whose distances can be measured using the cupids), to calibrate the brightness of the type Ia supernovae observed in them, and the more distant galaxies, in which type Ia supernovae were also observed, to determine the Hubble constant," said Filippenko. "The current article focuses on the 19 nearby galaxies and determining their distances with high precision, with little uncertainty, and a thorough understanding of the sources of uncertainty in the measurement."
"If we know the initial amounts of matter in the universe, such as dark energy and dark matter, and we have the physics right, then we can proceed from measuring the conditions shortly after the big bang (like the time when the background radiation was created, when the universe was 380,000 years old) and use the understanding This is to predict the rate of expansion of the universe today," Rees said. "At the same time, if we fail to understand the gap between the current expansion speed, predicted from the background radiation data, and the speed measured in the current work, it seems that we have not yet reached the correct understanding of the expansion of the universe, which determines the size of the Hubble constant today."
As mentioned, the discrepancy can be explained through an increase in the acceleration of the expansion of the universe by dark energy. In addition, an explanation is possible based on the existence of an unknown elementary subatomic particle moving at a speed very close to the speed of light called "dark radiation". Another possible explanation is dark matter with certain, strange and unexpected properties. Dark matter forms the backbone of the universe, upon which the galaxies were built and created the large-scale structures seen today.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
184 תגובות
I don't know how to explain it, but I think that the speed of expansion of the universe A is greater than the speed of light and B that in the expansion of the universe itself the distance between the large objects such as galaxies does not increase, but the amount of void between them increases. [Continued]
I claim that because of the expansion of the universe, which is greater than the speed of light as I claim because the distance is neither small nor increasing, if you take a spaceship and send it from galaxy to galaxy, the time it will take to reach a speed of five kilometers per hour will not change because the distance does not increase. On the other hand, if you send a beam of light or a laser beam, because the amount of void does increase and it is already a different dimension, then it will take a different time to arrive.
I don't know how to explain it, but I think that the speed of expansion of the universe A is greater than the speed of light and B that in the expansion of the universe itself the distance between the large objects such as galaxies does not increase, but the amount of void between them increases.
another question
It is a bit illogical that the rate of expansion increases with distance, because usually a small force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance
When measuring the speed of a galaxy millions of light years away
Is the speed measured not the speed as it was millions of years ago?
And maybe the universe in general is slowing down, only we won't be able to tell for another few million years
Maybe at this time he is even static or shrinking
And the more we look back in time, the more rapid expansion we see because that is indeed how it was back then
If the speed is 66.53 kilometers per second for a distance of 3.26 million light years and 6653 kilometers per second for a distance of 326 million light years
It comes out to be 66530 kilometers per second for 3.26 billion light years and 665300 kilometers per second for a distance of 32.6 billion light years so either the material I smoked is too good or in about 17 billion years the universe will expand at twice the speed of light which is 300000 kilometers per second
got it
rival
Exactly - the force that pulls the moon towards us, gravity, is a centripetal force. The word "search for the center" is used.
Centrifugal force is an imaginary force. A fly standing on a spinning record feels that it is being "thrown out" even though the friction with the record actually pulls it in.
I wonder what I said that I waited now.
"A wall in pushing is not the same as a wall of Newtonian mass" you probably meant a point mass.
Why?
"We will send Yehuda to receive a Nobel Prize" you probably meant to stand in the long line, after Patio, Lesage, Reuven Nir and their friends.
From what I've heard, people have been standing in this line for 300 years. They always tell them no, but the main thing is the romance.
Israel,
"Certainly it is possible to measure small differences in gravity, but if wall in pushing is the same as mass in Newton, how will you know if the difference you measured is due to pushing? In short, what is the experiment or simulation supposed to show?'
That's exactly the point, I claim that a pushing wall is not the same as a Newtonian mass wall, and that's how I can differentiate between them. We know how to easily calculate the pull that the split wall is supposed to create on the weight. If we measure and find that the actual pull is, say, only 60% or only 40% of what we expected to see according to the calculation, and when we close the opening in the wall, then the pull we measure will match the calculation we made, we know that theory The pushing particles are correct and Yehuda will be sent to receive a Nobel Prize.
The simulation was designed to test just that, to see if a theoretically expected difference in what the tiny weight feels like for either theory.
It is certainly possible to measure small differences in gravity, but if wall in pushing is the same as mass in Newton, how will you know if the difference you measured is due to pushing?
In short, what is the experiment or simulation supposed to show?
Israel,
"The wall itself is also a huge opening... According to Pushing, the wall is a network with huge holes measuring a square meter..."
But it's a fact that they managed to measure even the gravity created by small lead balls, which means that despite the huge holes you keep talking about, the flow of particles is still massive enough to create a sufficiently strong "push" that can be measured.
rival
There is no doubt that one of the greatest fun is to conduct experiments. But I'm not convinced that your experiment has much chance.
You write:
"In contrast, in the case of particles pushing into the opening there will be a much greater effect, now many pushing particles will pass through the opening and push the weight away from the wall."
The wall itself is also a huge opening. According to Pushing, the wall is a network of giant holes the size of a square meter that blocks particles smaller than an atom. Almost everyone passes. The fact that you made an opening will allow a little more particles to pass, but the excess of particles that pass is exactly proportional to the mass of the missing part of the wall, because in pushing mass = wall.
So what is the difference between the measurement results between Newton's and Pushing's theories? After all, both predict the exact same result, don't they?
What's more, pushing makes it easy to see tangibly the principle of equivalence between gravity and inertia. After all, if those particles exist and they are the ones that cause gravity like a sail, then they will also resist acceleration like a sail resists its acceleration in any direction (this is why Yoda's old BSA remains stable even in rotations).
True, both pushing and acceleration require a certain rest system for the particles (No. 16 in the list of refutations in the link you provided):
16. Frame of reference. PG would create an absolute frame of reference, which means that the Theory of Relativity must be false. This is in contradiction to experiment and observation.
Which perhaps brings us closer to an interesting diagnosis: Pushing gravitation, inertia, and Postulate 2 in relations, the invariance of the speed of light for each measurer, have one common source.
Israel,
I have no problem explaining again but I am a little surprised because I have already explained several times before in a very simple and clear way.
1. The goal of the simulation is to show the feasibility of an experiment, to check if it is even worth performing it, whether theoretically a clear difference is expected between the result we will get in the state of Newtonian gravity and the result we will get in the state of pushing particles.
2. The purpose of the experiment is to try to disprove the pushing particle theory. My hypothesis is that in the split wall experiment a clear difference in measurement between the two theories is expected, if the wall "pulls" the weight according to Newton's theory then the small space that opens in the wall will have almost no effect (if the wall is large enough and massive) and it will function as one whole wall that will continue to pull towards it the weight Our weight.
On the other hand, in the case of pushing particles into the opening there will be a much greater effect, now many pushing particles will pass through the opening and push the weight away from the wall.
How did you say a few weeks ago? Even if I'm wrong it's still fun to investigate, and if we don't investigate how will we know?
rival
What is an experiment or simulation supposed to test? how?
That is, in the case of a satellite, the Earth's gravity is essentially a centripetal force.
Miracles,
In the case of a satellite orbiting the Earth, is there a difference between the centripetal force and the gravitational force? After all, in both cases it is a force vector with the same direction and the same intensity, isn't it?
Yehuda
Let's fix it once and for all:
1. The force that keeps a body in circular motion is called centripetal force and not centrifugal force.
2. .no centripetal force can balance friction.
Yehuda - this is XNUMXth grade physics...
"If the opening is too narrow, the attraction of the half of the right wall and the half of the left wall will be too dominant and will not allow the pushing particles that come through the opening to sufficiently push the barbell back"
It meant the gravity pushing particles that would be blocked by the two parts of the wall.
Yehuda,
1. "We don't need to measure gravity for nothing, but differences between gravity according to Newton and gravity according to pushing gravity"
Of course, this is exactly the intention, to see if there is a clear difference (for example 30%-40%) between a state of Newtonian gravity and a state of gravity pushing particles when creating an opening in the wall, I bet that the difference between the two cases really will not be tiny, and this is exactly the purpose of the experiment .
2. "I don't understand why you insist on distances of several meters and not on distances of several centimeters, or even millimeters"
First of all I do not insist on anything, in the simulation it will be possible to easily change all the parameters, the masses and distances and the size of the wall. It just seems to me that if the opening is too narrow (a few centimeters or a few millimeters) then the attraction of half the right wall and half the left wall will be too dominant and will not allow the pushing particles that come through the opening to sufficiently push the barbell back.
But again, all situations will be tested, it's going to be an interesting study.
rival
We don't need to measure gravitation for nothing, but differences between gravitation according to Newton and gravitation according to pushing gravity of a simple universe. These differences are tiny and I find it hard to believe that they are measurable. Secondly, I don't understand why you insist on distances of several meters and not on distances of several centimeters or even millimeters. So gravity will be greater and measurable?
Good Day
Yehuda
Well, of course it also depends on the distance of the measuring device from the mass, but it is certainly possible to build a wall massive enough to be able to measure the pull it produces, say, from a distance of 2-3 meters.
It will also be interesting to see what the result will be in the simulation, where you can set the mass you want and also easily change the size of the opening and the position of the weight.
Yehuda,
What is "hard for me to believe", they managed to measure in experiments (for example with the Cavendish device) much smaller masses of lead bullets, so what is this skepticism? Of course it is possible.
(Besides, you like calculations, so instead of guessing, calculate the gravity that creates a steel cube measuring 5 square meters, check the sensitivity level of the Cavendish device and see if the gravity that is created is measurable or not)
דניאל
Quote: Yodela, how many times do you have to be told that all of your basic assumptions are wrong? And as for mathematics, I forwarded your calculations to my friend Reuven Sela, who is a mathematician by profession, and his answer was resolutely one big bullshit. End quote.
Answer: It is impossible to answer this kind of response. What does all the assumptions mean? What does all the mathematics mean, one big nonsense??, give specific examples of failures and nonsense and I will refer to them. Your response is unfortunately just slander and I'm sure it's not like that.
Good Day
Yehuda
to the opponent
It's hard for me to believe that walls will stop my particles P.G. in the amount that can be discerned. Do a computer simulation and we will refer to the experiment again especially after I deal with the 18 "failures" of the P.G. In the link you gave.
Good Day
Yehuda
Yehuda,
In addition, if I find time for this (within two or three weeks I hope) I also intend to write a simple computer simulation that will show if there is any point in trying to carry out the split wall experiment I suggested, the truth is I am really curious to see what the result will be. Right now I'm betting that the simulation will show a distinct and clear difference between a pushing particle state and a Newtonian gravity state.
(In the case of pushing particles, the software will send the particles towards the weight from all directions - 360 degrees, and those that pass through the wall will slowly lose their power and reach the "weaker" weight, of course you need to calibrate beforehand that in the case of a complete wall, the weight is pulled with the same force towards the wall from every point X , Y in space, both in the Newtonian state and in the state of pushing particles, if we pass this stage successfully then we will start testing the effect of a partition wall)
Think Yoda, think, you are Seyed.
(Just trackers..).
And while you're thinking and pondering, consider what I've suggested: replace particles with radiation. You will see that most of the problems with pushing evaporate.
to Albenzo
I will think.
I will also delve into the list of failures of Pushing Gravity in the following link that Riv presented:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/30064-why-push-gravity-does-not-work.html
Then I will draw conclusions. It will take some time because I will be very busy in the next month.
Good Day
Yehuda
Albanzo
I really meant electrons, and also photons. Your explanation is clear to me - what is not clear to me is how Yehuda deals with this - he rejects quantum theory (and also denies that he rejects...)
So because no one updates the values in Hebrew, then reality should be ignored?
NASA has no role here - the problem was solved by research physicists, peer-reviewed by research physicists, and the solution reproduced by research physicists. All of them are qualified people, all of them are reliable, all of them have been tested and most importantly - everything is open and free. I have already sent you one sample article, but you can search for more if you want. You can read about the subject yourself, and see for example that the salvation in the end came not just from the engine's radiation, but from an accurate calculation of the power created by the reflection of the radiation. These are small things that are easy to overlook, but when you consider them they explain everything accurately.
But really it's pointless. There is nothing that can be said to you that will get you out of the loop you are stuck in. The only hope is to prevent others from falling into the same loop.
to Albenzo
All well and good, but, you know that I looked at the Hebrew Wikipedia, our holy language, and there, (yet!) there is no solution to the Pioneer anomaly. Despite your excessive confidence in the non-existence of the anomaly (and perhaps justified) I still think that the NASA researchers were wrong in their solution. Back in 2008 they were aware of the heat solution but they said:
Quote from the Hebrew Wikipedia: heat radiation from the probe's nuclear power generators (based on the decay of radioactive isotopes), or from its electrical devices, which was emitted asymmetrically, or which was emitted towards the probe's main plate antenna and thus caused an effect similar to photon pressure. In April 2008, it was hypothesized that these factors may explain 28-36% of the acceleration towards the sun." End quote.
Then a few more years pass and 28-36% of the solution grows to 100 percent of the solution, which seems a bit impractical to me. And of course there's also the Portuguese team and many other good ones, so again, I might be wrong.
Good day Albanzo
Yehuda
Miracles,
I think you'll need to elaborate a bit more. What particles are you talking about? And on what theory?
In principle, in modern quantum theories (field theory, and also string theory) there is really no such thing as a particle of zero size. The concept of the particle was replaced by the concept of the field, and "particle" is just a way we perceive a field under certain circumstances. As such, it can be very focused (what is called in physics, located or well-placed) but is never truly pinpointed. This is expressed in several ways - also in that there is always a probability of finding the particle within a certain area, no matter how small, but also in that as you get closer and closer to the particle, its properties change. For example, what we call an electron and are used to thinking of it as a particle, is actually just the manifestation of the electron field on certain scales. If we look at the same phenomena at much shorter distances, we will see a different charge, for example. This is also why the classical theories have so many problems with point charges (dissipating energy, self-interaction, etc.), which are solved in the quantum theories.
Maybe if you focus the question, I can try to answer more to the point.
wait wait wait. Let's get things in order - where did NASA even get the story?
So like this: you said that your "theory" explains the Pioneer anomaly and that's a point to its credit. It was explained to you that there was no anomaly in Pioneer, but you refused to believe it. So you were referred to the source on Wikipedia, and claimed that you couldn't find it. So you were specifically given a link to a peer-reviewed scientific article, and you said it wasn't convincing because it was just a single article. So again you've been brought a link that verifies that the results have been verified by several groups around the world, and even briefly details which ones. So you said it's still not reliable because if there really wasn't an anomaly, NASA would have reported it. So you have been brought an official NASA media release announcing that after years, the mystery has been solved and there simply is no anomaly. Now you say that NASA is not reliable.
So just to be clear - when you thought that NASA did not announce that there was no anomaly, you said that there was an anomaly because otherwise NASA would have announced that there was not. Now that you know that they announced that there is not - you say that there is an anomaly because NASA are liars. I mean, no matter what anyone says - the conclusion is that there is an anomaly. And after that you still have the audacity to accuse scientists of changing measurement results to fit their theories (which is of course a complete and disgusting lie), when you simply close your eyes, ignore everything that is shown to you, and loudly shout "a simple universe".
Yehuda / Albenzo
I have to ask something - how does your theory explain the weight of a particle whose size is zero?
Yodla
How many times do you have to be told that all of your basic assumptions are wrong? And as for mathematics, I forwarded your calculations to my friend Reuven Sela, who is a mathematician by profession, and his answer was resolutely one big bullshit.
to Albenzo
Quote: Yehuda "forgot" that when the solution to Pioneer's anomaly was explained to him and it was proved to him that it did not really exist, etc. End quote.
Answer: Pioneer's anomaly also appeared in other probes, and in each one that did not have the atomic engine, they found a reason why it was not well calculated, in one they activated the engines, in the second one it passed by a planet, and in the third one there is no reliability of the measured results, etc., etc. To me it looks like excuses and until a new probe is sent, which is her job, we will not come to a definitive conclusion. I believe that friction is the explanation for the anomaly and not 70 watts radiating exactly the right size in the right direction, which happen to be on Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11. And what to do, with all due respect and appreciation to NASA, it lost a bit of its credibility after some ridiculous announcements it made such as life and water on Mars and more. This is my personal opinion and of course I may be wrong.
I will later refer to the link provided by a rival about other failures in pushing gravity besides the friction and then I will be smarter..
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Okay, I think it's simple, you need to calculate the total sum of all the attractive forces exerted by each pixel in the rectangle on the point X, Y.
I'm really curious to see what the result will be...
albenza,
I completely understand what you are saying, although my intuition says that if the gap between the two parts of the wall is wide enough, and the weight is close enough to the center of gravity (the center of the gap, the hole) then in the case of pushing particles the particles that will be blocked by the parts of the wall on the right and left will be Negligible effect compared to the particles that will pass through the hole/gap and push the weight away from the wall.
I really feel like building a simple computer simulation to check this matter, I hope I will find time for it in the next two or three weeks, it doesn't seem that complicated to me.
Question - if I have a solid rectangular body, how do I calculate the gravitational force it exerts on some point X, Y in the space next to it? What is the formula? I think this will be enough for me to build the simulation.
First we will create pushing particles that come from all directions and create an attraction force equivalent to a Newtonian attraction force created according to the calculation, then we will open an opening in the wall (in our rectangle) and see how it affects in the case of pushing particles, and in the case of Newtonian attraction.
Cool.
Yoda
Yes, you made a mistake here and there..
"The centrifugal force is of the order of 0.039 meters per second squared"
So what units do you measure acceleration in? kilograms?
And if Mercury falls into orbit with a small radius of 20 meters, will it change anything in principle to friction?
Try replacing particles with radiation. Pushing will work the same, just without the friction problem.
Good night.
I meant proportional to the mass of the missing part of the wall.
This is what happens when you write from the iPhone.
rival,
What a body feels at the end of the day (and what we measure) is a balance of forces. The Newtonian case will be equal forces in the direction of the hole (attractive force from the right part of the wall and an attractive force from the left part, and their balanced symmetry came out exactly in the middle - towards the hole). The only difference between a wall with a hole and a wall without a hole would be that the force would be a little weaker because the wall with a hole has less mass, and assuming the hole isn't huge, the difference would be small.
In the mechanical case, there will be two sections from which much fewer particles will reach the pendulum - the sections that are hidden by the two parts of the wall. The negative pressure from these directions will create an effective force in these two directions, and its balance will be exactly the same as the balance in the Newtonian case. So even though the particle flux coming from the direction of the hole is large (because there is a hole there), there will still be a force pushing the pendulum in that direction.
To Israel
Quote: The conspirator admits, according to your calculation, today Mercury slows down by about a meter/year every 300 years. So 300 million years ago its speed was a million m/s higher (without taking into account the integration that would make it much higher)?. End quote.
Answer: The one who has no patience and engages in conspiracies is you my dear friend! Why don't you wait and accept the solution as a whole. Then you would understand that there was almost no difference in the rotation speed of the planets for millions of years (maybe there was a difference but it was not due to friction. So be patient.)
What's more, I see that you read the text and also probably understood.
I hope we understood how, for example, in the planet Hema, moving in its orbit around the sun at an average speed of 47,360 meters per second, the deceleration as a result of friction will be expressed as minus 1.346 multiplied by 10 to the power of minus ten meters per second squared. Let us compare this force to the centrifugal force exerted by the planet in its orbit. The centrifugal force is the speed of the planet in its orbit, squared, divided by the radius (the distance from the sun). In the case of the planet Mercury, which is about 58 billion meters from the Sun, the centrifugal force is of the order of 0.039 meters per second squared, which is about three million times the friction.
Have you understood Israel so far??, I hope so.
What now happens to Mercury as a result of the friction?, it slows down, and as a result moves forward and falls into a more inner orbit towards the Sun. In an inner orbit, of course, there is a greater gravitational pushing force that will offset part of the friction!. In this way it will continue and move to a more and more internal track until all the friction is offset. And where will this trajectory happen?, in the fall of one part three millionth of the distance to the sun where the added centrifugal force of the pushing gravity will be offset by the friction!!. 58 million km divided by 3 million is approximately 20 km per hour, that is: a fall of only 20 km of the planet Mercury towards the sun, will definitely be enough to offset all the friction of the pushing-gravity-universe- simply - Richard- Feynman- Israel- Shapira. Here I have also included you in the friction followers. Note that the speed in the inner orbit will not increase and 300 million years ago it was more or less the same as today.
(There was a certain difference because 300 million years ago the concentration of gravitational pushing particles was greater then in the universe due to the expansion of the universe)
What about the other planets? Well, in order to overcome the gravitational pushing friction, our dear earth will move in a more inner orbit of 134 km, Neptune will move in a more inner orbit of 122,000 km (well, it is about 4.5 billion km away from the sun. ) and I also made a calculation regarding our cute moon and it should move only 75 meters closer to the earth to prevent its possible fall on... Herzliya.
Did you understand, Israel??, Is there anyone who understands??, Is there not one righteous person in the cosmos who understands me??, who sympathizes with my sincere efforts?? Will I be able to watch the Wells - Belgium game today with peace of mind??, or will my explanation fall on deaf ears, who do not understand the depth of my explanation, and the friction sends them to areas that belong.... For evolution and not for cosmology.
So far, I've tried, I must have made a mistake here and there (centrifugal and centripetal for example), so in summary, please respond gently, refer only to the data specifically, and no psychological analysis please.
Good day, and with a smile
Don't forget it's just science!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
rival
What is the use of the small gap in the wall that is almost entirely a gap anyway? It will allow particles whose number is proportional to the mass of the wall to pass, reducing its attraction just like in Newtonian attraction.
Note the following paragraph from the standard model entry on the wiki:
"The standard model is unable to include gravity, because its structure is different from the structure of the other three forces."
Good night.
albenza,
I sent a response to Israel two minutes before you, please read it, especially the last paragraph:
"In a state of real gravity the small space between the 2 parts of the wall will have almost no effect..."
And explain to me why it won't work referring to the explanation I wrote down.
"The experiment I read about in the past in which they measured the horizontal gravity of a mountain with the help of a small weight hanging on a string..."
rival,
The origin of the idea of mechanical gravity (gravity created as a result of mechanical interactions, such as what some of the commenters here call push gravity or the LaSage theory) was that it correctly mimics the results of Newtonian gravity in cases like what you propose in the experiment. The idea is a constant flow of particles coming from infinity, so the large masses will hide the weight from an observer from infinity, and reduce the pressure coming from their direction in exactly the right shape. Unless I missed something (and I don't think this is the case), then an explicit calculation will show that following the hiding of the masses, the pendulum will feel a force as a result of the pressure difference that is exactly equal to the Newtonian force.
That is, no one disputes that mechanical gravity can reproduce exactly the Newtonian force (the dependence on one part of the square of the distance simply arises from the surface area of a sphere, because the flux of particles is constant). This is actually what made her interesting and the reason they once thought she might be true (a *lot* of time ago). But as you probably already understood it really doesn't matter - because there are other ways to disprove it, and it is undoubtedly a disproven theory.
By the way, it is claimed here that only it provides an explanation for gravity, which is not true. Quantum theories that contain gravitons (such as string theory, for example, but not only) also provide an explanation for gravity - and even a better explanation. This is because mechanical gravity explains gravity, but the explanation does not stop at particles - that is, we simply have to assume that they exist. String theory, for example, knows how to explain gravity (also with the help of interactions of particles called gravitons), and in addition it also knows how to explain why they exist, how they interact, how they are distributed in the universe, etc. (of course up to a certain level - the scientific theory has not yet been born that You get stuck somewhere if you keep asking "why").
A difference between the explanations is that the explanation of mechanical gravity has been experimentally disproved, and the explanation of the quantum theories is not experimentally overturned, but also has not yet accumulated enough evidence to be considered true. He has a lot of evidence, but they are all within the framework of theory and have not been verified against reality (apart from a few specific cases that are debated).
Israel,
Our body is also mostly empty space between the atomic nuclei and the electrons and we are still unable to pass through walls which are also mostly empty space.
Although I am not a physicist, I am quite convinced that this is a good experiment and that it will work. What makes me convinced of this is the experiment I read about in the past in which the horizontal gravity of a mountain was measured with the help of a small weight hanging on a string, meaning it is definitely measurable.
And today we have much more precise measuring devices, there are laser beams that measure angle differences of a millionth of a degree, and there are very very sensitive Cavendish torsion balances. I think it is possible to perform the experiment I suggested and even quite easily with the help of two castings of compressed metal (the physicists here probably know how to calculate what size wall is needed for the force of gravity to be measurable).
In a situation of real gravity the small gap between the 2 parts of the wall will have almost no effect on the general gravity of the wall and the surveyor will see that the wall pulls him towards it, on the other hand in the situation of "pushing particles" the gap must have a dramatic effect on the result because now the pushing particles will push the weight To an equal extent (almost) along the vertical axis of the wall, therefore the measuring device will show a value close to zero.
I think we (humanity, not me personally) have done much more complicated experiments than this...
rival
I do not believe that the split wall experiment can confirm or disprove pushing.
Your logic means to my understanding that the wall will block most pushing particles and the opening will allow free passage. But that's not how pushing works. The vast majority of particles pass through the wall anyway, like a neutrino passing through 1000 suns without a problem, and only one in a million is stopped by one of them. Even in the case of a wall a million kilometers thick, most of the particles will pass and the part that will be stopped is exactly proportional to the mass of the wall. (By the way, a neutrino is a favorite candidate to be used as a lasage particle in one of the dozens of popular pushing theories).
There is only one real wall that blocks the passage of all particles and that is a black hole.
But as I said, there is almost no doubt that pushing works in static systems with no movement. You can prove this if you imagine jets of water splashing from all directions with two sails in the center. The sails will stick together because a relative vacuum is created in the space between them.
In poshing, the masses are not sails but huge networks with huge profits. Most tennis balls will go through the gaps but some will hit the strings and apply pressure. If you add another net, the two nets will stop twice as many balls, and 1000 nets 1000 times as much, just as happens with a 1000 times larger mass that also weighs 1000 times.
Well, now I can't stop myself. Yehuda "forgot" that when the solution to the Pioneer anomaly was explained to him and proved to him that it did not really exist, he not only received a "message from NASA" which amounts to a conspiracy theory, but also peer-reviewed scientific articles that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that except for the tiny correction of the radiation , Pioneer moved exactly according to Newton (technically, they moved exactly according to general relativity, but where the measurements were made there is no difference between the two theories).
I mean, if you categorize the explanation of the "anomaly" as a conspiracy theory, it is equally possible to do this for electromagnetism, the structure of the atom or DNA. All you have to do is close your eyes...
But this is all in theory, I think that the practical experiment I proposed (the split wall experiment) is a simple experiment to perform (especially with such a sensitive measuring tool like the Cavendish gravimeter that Nissim mentioned earlier) and will show in practice whether this theory is true or not.
Israel,
Thanks for the link (the English there is not complicated) I think that yesterday I already came across this link, I was looking for information about the Pushing Gravity theory (I imagined that it was not an original theory of Judah) by the way one of the first results I got in the search was a long list of claims showing why this theory is not can be true:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/30064-why-push-gravity-does-not-work.html
Yoda the conspirator
According to your calculation, today Mercury slows down by about a meter/year every 300 years.
So 300 million years ago its speed was a million m/s higher (without taking into account the integration that would make it much higher)?
20 times or more than his speed today?
Let me also disagree on your friction calculation.
If you read the article on Lesage, there are two types of friction:
1. Kelvin - thermodynamic. The particles collide with the atoms of the masses and heat them.
2. Feynman - dynamic mechanic. This is what we are dealing with.
Note that according to Pushing, the force acting on each mass from each side is enormous but offset. A mass of one kilogram near a black hole is acted upon by a force of many billions of kilograms/force, and on the side facing the opposite direction from the black hole this force is exerted by the particles.
But as with fish in the depths of the ocean, this force is balanced by the force from the opposite direction.
And those masses, like those fish, when they are in rapid motion must overcome the same inhibiting force that the ocean of pushing particles exerts.
And as we have shown, this force is billions of times greater than the force acting on fish in the depths of the ocean.
Not to mention elementary particles moving at almost light speeds.
So how does the trick work?
Yehuda
You wrote, "For 30 years, a NASA team researched and came to the conclusion that heat emanating from their atomic engine with a power of about 70 watts is what slows them down. But we here at the science site know that they had to find something to justify the expenses. We know it's because of the gravitational pushing friction."
Are not you ashamed??? Do you even understand how serious what you just wrote???
Israel Shapira, and others
Feynman friction, time 88.
We will check how much pushing-gravity-universe-simple -Richard-Feynman friction there is in space. This we can easily do if we look for a spaceship sent beyond the planets. When she reaches a distance of at least 50 YA from the sun, we will turn off her engines and let her move away from the sun in her free time. If it continues at a Newtonian speed, my theory is correct. But if it slows down additionally (due to friction), Newton has gone.
The truth is that NASA has two such spacecraft that were sent into space in the seventies: Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11, which are just gliding through space at these distances. And see it's a miracle, the spaceships slow down more than expected according to Newton. This anomaly is called "Pioneer's Anomaly".
For 30 years, a NASA team researched and came to the conclusion that heat emanating from their atomic engine with a power of about 70 watts is what slows them down. But we here at the science site know that they had to find something to justify the expenses. We know it's because of the gravitational pushing friction.
The data from NASA is as follows:
(The science site is not friendly with listing formulas, but we will still try to transfer the calculations.)
suggests using a sheet of paper and writing down the numbers
The measured friction force is in the direction of the sun, with a magnitude of minus 8.74 times 10 to the power of minus ten meters per second squared. (with a possible deviation of about twenty percent)
From Pioneer's anomaly data, it was obtained that the spaceships are moving at a speed of about 12,000 meters per second when the above-mentioned spacecraft is discovered in them.
Gravitational pushing friction will act on every atom so it doesn't matter what the mass of the spacecraft is it will slow down just as much (almost) if it is heavy or light or even if it is a planet. In addition, the friction is of course proportional to the square of the speed like any friction in gas movement.
We will divide the yaw by the square of the speed of the Pioneer spaceship and then we will get what the yaw will be for a spacecraft speed of XNUMX meter per second. This will be the friction constant and its magnitude obtained is:
Minus 6 times 10 to the power of minus 18. About.
Now we can easily find the friction force acting on each planet simply by multiplying the friction constant by the square of the planet's orbital speed.
For example, in the planet Hema, moving in its orbit around the sun at an average speed of 47,360 meters per second, the deceleration as a result of friction will be expressed as minus 1.346 multiplied by 10 to the power of minus ten meters per second squared.
I will stop here because I would like to see if this is clear. If not then there is no point in continuing. If understood, then I will continue.
Of course, you can always go to my blog and delve deeper there, article number 60.
Yekumpashut.net16.net
Please don't get angry.
Yehuda
rival
not known to me.
But if you are interested in learning a bit about the theory, look at the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
Note that it has been tested by almost every serious scientist for 300 years, including Newton Maxwell Lord Kelvin and Feynman. None of them claimed that gravitation would not be created in the way Lesage proposed, but that other difficulties would be created, first and foremost the friction that Feynman spoke of.
(How is the English?).
Israel,
Has an experiment been conducted that parallels the split wall experiment that I proposed?
Yoda
"Does anyone have any specific questions on the subject?"
Yes, Feynman friction..
(time 87)
Please, no references, no "I already explained", no "you don't understand", and no "go learn".
Just explain how the planets don't slow down and stop because of the friction with lasage/pushing/cosmic particles.
To your credit, most of the objections of Yariv and Nisim have already been tested by every fat and basket of physics. Pushing works except for the main friction problem and a few other minor problems.
"As much as I don't like Albenzo's way of speaking - he's just right!"
Nissim is just a joke, don't you like Albenzo's way of speaking?? Do you think your way of speaking is better? Have you ever looked at yourself from the side and how do you talk to other commenters here? You could make a fat encyclopedia of the insulting phrases you used against commenters on this site.
You can say that Yehuda may not be particularly smart and may not understand physics and mathematics either, but at least he is a cultured person who maintains a culture of speech, something that unfortunately you don't really see.
Really, talking about Albenzo.
Apart from all the slanderers who enjoy defaming in general, does anyone have any specific question on the topic in question? If so, please, I would be happy to answer, if not then I will go about my business.
Good night
Yehuda
Miracles
I'm giving a link to one of the chapters in Yehuda Sabdarmish's celebrated Mishtan, look at the calculations and you'll see how delusional it is
http://yekumpashut.net16.net/60-%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%9A-%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A2-%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%92-%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%99%D7%98%D7%99/
If you want, give him private math lessons.
...
How did I get involved in this discussion? :).
Yehuda
As much as I don't like Albenzo's way of speaking - he is simply right!
Yehuda
Forgive me again, but you are rude!!!
http://yekumpashut.net16.net/40-%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%A9%D7%A8-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94/
A. It is customary to attribute the constancy of the speed of light to the Michelson Morley experiment which showed that the speed of light is the same in all
B. The Michelson-Morlay experiment could not say anything about the size of the speed of light in the past or in the future, because of necessity
Because.
Thus, a measurement is required at at least two time points, and to compare them. This was not done experimentally.
third. It is known that: the speed of waves in a gas is proportional to the root of the absolute temperature of the gas,
Therefore, until he determines otherwise:-
d. The speed of light changes and is proportional to the root of the background temperature of the universe T.
That is, if K is a proportional constant, then the speed of light at the background temperature T will be:
CT K T
CT K T 2 2
Say - do you think everyone who reads is an idiot???
דניאל
Do you notice that you only speak in general so that it is impossible to respond to you?, if you want them to respond to you, give an example that you don't like and then confront, but, if everything is not true then it is really a waste of your time and mine.
Yehuda
Yehuda
Your entire theory is based on a basic lack of knowledge and dishonesty. Except for slandering those who invest their lives in research, you said nothing! In my opinion, you are very cheeky, and very hurt when someone catches you being spoiled.
Send it to me - but to say that "general relativity is only true in short ranges" is simply stupid.
Yodla
Not bad for health. You sound very very very pathetic. Your misunderstanding of science, to put it mildly, is extremely small. I also checked your calculations. I went to your website which you mentioned in one of your comments. completely delusional. You are making fun of yourself. I feel sorry for you.
We're back to the original experiment I offered you!
And I was wrong about a change in the trajectory of a ball, the moon will indeed slightly reduce the flux of the gravitational pushing particles, but it will be so negligible compared to the obstruction that the sun creates with its mass...
for miracles
Quote: Yehuda, you really didn't understand what I said! No offense, but you really don't understand basic things in science! End quote.
Answer: Miracles I warned you. If I don't understand basic things in science then why do you need my response??, I don't feel like answering you. Enjoy your wisdom a lot.
Yehuda
Yehuda…
In fact when I recall now the discussion I had here not long ago with Nissim regarding the accelerometer, I come to the conclusion that you will not see any weight change during a solar eclipse.
Think of a closed elevator with an accelerometer inside it that is dropped from a satellite and begins to accelerate towards the ground towards the earth, although it is undoubtedly accelerating its speed the accelerometer will show zero acceleration because not only is the weight inside it pulled towards the earth but both the spring and the base of the accelerometer are equally pulled towards the earth …
I think that a similar problem will also appear in the experiment that flashed in your head earlier, during a solar eclipse the flux of the pushing particles will indeed decrease with respect to the weight, but it will also decrease equally with respect to the weight and to the Earth... therefore the reading of the hand on the weight will not change.
Yehuda,
Will you be an Einstein? 🙂
Sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't seem to me that until today no one has noticed weight changes during a solar eclipse... In fact, the Earth's orbit was supposed to change dramatically during each solar eclipse...
Yehuda
You really didn't understand what I said! No offense, but you really don't understand basic things in science! Do you even know what the word "based on" means in the context of the philosophy of science?
To say that general relativity only works at short distances is arrogant folly, and you must understand that, Yehuda!
Relativity is the result of a number of simple assumptions, and a lot of complex mathematics. Either the assumptions are correct or they are incorrect - there is no third option.
Think Regat, Yehuda, our only reason to believe in the big bang, black boys and the shortening of time is the theory of relativity - you dismiss all of this????
Regarding the point brought up by Ariel - I explained to you a long time ago that you are wrong. The measurement was made by comparison to other masses, not by an "electronic scale".
A rival and miracles
I don't mind doing this experiment and it can be an unusual experience. Several calculations need to be done if the differences are measurable. It seems to me that a whole mountain is not enough for this purpose.
I just got an idea.... How about using a solar eclipse???, as soon as the moon hides the sun, less gravity pushing particles will come from their direction and therefore a mass that will be weighed on the earth, its weight will change until the end of the eclipse.
Maybe it's more measurable?? Just measuring iron plates in a basement or tunnel??
In short, we need to find the investors for the experiment and I am ready to recommend you as scientific assistants.
Good day Rival and miracles
Yehuda
Ariel
In the video you linked to, they found a "solution" to the problem by defining the kilogram in a new way: the mass of 2.15 times 10 to the power of 25 atoms of silicon 28. Needless to say, this will not help them, and if the simple universe is correct, then, also the This c will continue to lose weight. We'll wait a few years and see what happens.
Good Day
Yehuda
Yehuda,
Ariel gave you a short and effective answer.
Nissim and I have offered you two relatively simple experiments that will allow you to determine whether your theory is correct or not, don't you feel like checking?
Ariel
Quote: Yehuda Here is a claim that you rejected and you use it afterwards to prove your point:
The claim that you invalidated or rather an idea or the cosmological principle that everywhere and at all times things behave in the same way, but nevertheless you use the cosmological principle when you approach to solve the problem of the rotation of the galaxies. Etc. etc' …. End quote.
Answer: You asked a good question! Indeed, I must not say that based on the behavior of pushing gravity and the simple universe in the solar system, it must also be true in the entire universe!!. If I did, I sinned! But still everyone has the right to come up with ideas to explain cosmological behavior. It should only be noted that it is a limited liability. Indeed, I can only offer the explanation as a proposal to explain the behavior of the galaxies, and the commenters will decide which is more suitable for them, Newton's explanation with dark matter and dark energy or the explanation of the simple universe with its pressure difference.
One of the goals we do in posting ideas for a response on the Internet is to overcome failures of this type that Ariel mentioned. It can happen in the heat of the debate.
All the best Ariel!
Yehuda
Here is a video that explains this and explains what was done to solve it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMByI4s-D-Y
Yehuda, if you do a short search on the internet, you will find a scientifically confirmed explanation of mass loss. In addition, the standard kilogram is measured in relation to others, which means that only he lost mass (or others gained - dust, fat, etc.) and this is because if there really is a loss of mass at a constant rate, then no change should be seen because everyone would lose the same amount.
rival
Quote: Yehuda, so what are you waiting for, are you organizing an experiment or not?. End quote.
Answer: Here is your experiment: In 2003 an article was published in the New York Times on this topic. According to the article, the standard kilogram kept in Paris loses its weight. The data are:
A. 114 years have passed since the casting of the standard kilogram in Paris (from 1889 to 2003, the date of the article).
B. The standard kilogram weight loss measured in Paris is about 50 micrograms.
According to our calculation 0.4234*114= 48.2 micrograms, an error smaller than 4%.
This loss in weight actually proves that the global gravitational constant G changes with time.
We note that in the article it is written that this is relative to other standard weights. It seems to me that the testers didn't exactly understand what was happening and where the weight loss was. The change must be checked on electronic scales and not compared to other weights.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/169448-good-news-dieters-the-kilo-is-losing-weight-changing-all-of-science-but-unfortunately-we-dont-know-why
(Article 65 on my blog. Yekumpashut.net16.net)
Good day rival!
Yehuda
Yehuda Here is a claim that you rejected and you use it after that to prove your point:
The claim that you invalidated or rather an idea or the cosmological principle that everywhere and at all times things behave in the same way, but nevertheless you use the cosmological principle when you approach to solve the problem of the rotation of the galaxies. explanation:
You dismiss relativity at large distances by claiming that the laws of gravity are not the same at large distances.
However, you are using the cosmological principle (not directly) to assume that the gravitational pushing particles behave the same way everywhere. Please put this logical contradiction to rest before you continue to preach the theory of a simple universe but full of logical contradictions.
By the way, how does the gravitational pushing theory explain the lengthening of time near large masses?
Yehuda,
So what are you waiting for, are you organizing an experiment or not?
Miracles
Quote: Another possibility to check - perform the Cavendish experiment twice - once in a relatively open place, and a second time in a shelter with thick walls. I can hear Cavendish chuckling in his grave…. End quote.
Answer: Let's upgrade the experiment a bit and instead of a receiver we will do the second measurement inside a tunnel that runs inside a mountain. We will also place the plates at a small distance of a few millimeters, so that the force of gravity will be more significant. Indeed, inside the tunnel in the mountain, less gravitational pushing particles should arrive from all sides, therefore the force of attraction between the squares will be smaller. The difference will be tiny but maybe measurable.
You can also do a simpler experiment: - just weigh one square and come back and weigh it after a year when the universe has expanded a little and the pushing gravity particles are a little less concentrated in space. I was even able to calculate the annual weight loss. For those who want, a little more than 0.4 micrograms per kg of mass per year. Weighing must be done only with sensitive electronic scales. Newton's formula does not predict deviation in weight and gravity pushing does!
Whoever laughs last laughs!
Good Day
Yehuda
for miracles
Quote: I didn't think for a second that you would understand what I'm talking about...let's try another way. End quote
Answer: Nissim and others, how am I supposed to treat a response that begins in such a dismissive way?, perhaps, respond in the same way?? This time I'll ignore the snub but don't think I will if the poor style returns.
Quote: If you accept general relativity, then you must accept Newton's formula as it is.
So - do you accept general relativity? Yes or No?. End quote.
Answer: Of course you continue in your arrogant style and are not precise in what I said. So I'll come back and say it again. I have no objection to the theory of relativity at small distances (the solar system for example). At such distances there is almost no difference between Newton and the simple universe in the calculated results. Regarding the great distances of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, Newton and relativity have a disconnect with the conclusions of pushing gravity - a simple universe because I already said that the simple universe rules out the force of gravity as a dominant force for galaxies and more. Gravitation actually does not exist at the great cosmological distances.
Good Day
And hope for a more pleasant response in the future
Yehuda
to Ariel
Quote: Yehuda you said that you can explain the strong force by pushing gravity. Come on... end of quote.
Answer: We will think about it.
Quote: Question, if there are huge amounts of pushing particles everywhere and they are moving in every direction, then theoretically we should see some kind of Brownian motion on small to medium sized objects. End quote.
Answer. Indeed so, but it seems to me that it will not be seen in "giant" bodies such as asteroids, comets and meteors. It should show in small particles like atoms or my opaque particles, it seems to me that it is also visible there.
Good Day
Yehuda
Nisim, thank you, really interesting!
Yehuda,
Practically, it is clear that the walls will not completely block the gravity pushing particles, but if you use the Cavendish device that Nissim mentioned in his message, which according to my understanding is super sensitive, then you should see a clear and distinct effect between the situation of one continuous wall and the situation of a wall built in two halves with a gap smaller between them, in the case of pushing particles and in the case of a real pull of the wall mass.
It's a simple experiment that will clearly show if your theory is correct or not, and with the sensitive measuring device Nissim mentioned it will be even easier to measure and with smaller walls.
rival
In theory, maybe your experiment will work, but in practice you have to remember that the walls hardly stop gravitational pushing particles and therefore they hardly stand up and it is not possible to make walls that would stop the particles at all because then the walls would be similar to a black hole. In short, impractical
Also, there is currently a problem with my blog and it is difficult to enter it. Trying to handle it. patience
Good Day
Yehuda
rival
I agree your experiment is good. A simple practical experiment is also possible. Thus two steel squares, a centimeter thick, and each side is a meter long. Tie a string to each square in the corner, and hang them at a distance of 4 meters between them. You can measure the force of attraction between them - Cavendish did a similar experiment more than two hundred years ago!
Now - tie the boards from their center so that they are horizontal. According to my understanding of Yehuda's argument, the attraction between them should now be much less.
Another option to check - perform the Cavendish experiment twice - once in a relatively open place, and a second time in a shelter with thick walls.
I can hear Cavendish chuckling in his grave….
Miracles
What explanation? There is only a description, not an explanation.
Newton did this too, but he never claimed to have an explanation.
Israel
The fact that they haven't found the graviton (yet) doesn't rule out the explanation. And regarding magnetism - you surely know Feynman's explanation.
Yehuda you said that you can explain the strong force through gravitational pushing. Come on, I'm sure there's a Nobel Prize waiting with your name on it.
Question, if there are huge amounts of pushing particles everywhere and they move in every direction, then theoretically we should see some kind of Brownian motion on small to medium objects (from tiny artificial satellites to comets and meteorites). Am I right?
Miracles
"There is no explanation for gravity... There is also no explanation for the photon, for magnetism, for spin, for radioactive decay... why exactly is there an explanation?"
The answer to the question.
An explanation of magnetism - a photon, the carrier of the electromagnetic force. Its properties are known. A single one can be measured.
And what does gravity carry? Graviton? Have you ever measured one of these?
What causes space-time to warp? how?
And I didn't say that everything has an explanation. This also includes gravity. Pushing is the only theory I know that offers a mechanism to explain gravity, not just a description of it. Of course, this does not mean that it is true, according to our discussions.
Miracles,
You are absolutely right, an error of momentary inattention, but what do you think about the experiment itself?
Israel
There is no explanation for gravity... There is also no explanation for the photon, for magnetism, for spin, for radioactive decay... why exactly is there an explanation?
rival
100 x 100 is 10,000....
Yehuda
I didn't think for a moment that you would understand what I'm talking about...let's try another way.
If you accept general relativity, then you must accept Newton's formula as it is.
So - do you accept general relativity? Yes or No?
Judah again,
In my opinion, you are slightly underestimating the ability of such an experiment to disprove your gravity pushing theory.
To understand this, try to think of a really dense and massive wall that completely blocks the passage of gravity pushing particles, now think once more (the 2 sections in the previous message) what effect will closing the gap have in the case of real gravity of the walls (almost completely negligible effect) compared to the case of pushing Gravity (now pushing particles will not arrive at all from the direction of the wall) so the effect will be much, much stronger...
Yehuda,
I'm pretty sure you're wrong, in the case of gravity pushing your particles will easily pass through the gap and push the weight away from the walls, it's true that the weight will be slightly pulled towards the gap, but much less than in the case of true gravity of the walls.
Try to think of it this way, we will close the gap between the 2 halves of the wall:
1. In the case of real gravity this will have almost no effect on the experiment because the gain is small and negligible and the barbell will still show the same angle of inclination towards the wall.
2. In the case of gravity pushing, closing the gap will have a much more dramatic effect because now there will be almost no gravity pushing particles that will push the weight away from the wall (the ones that previously passed through the gap) now the weight will be "pushed" towards the wall in a much more significant way...
You are slightly underestimating the ability of such an experiment to disprove the theory of pushing gravity.
Yehuda
I showed Newton and Einstein your theory. Their reaction was the same. What is confusing us?
rival
It is now clear.
But your conclusion is wrong. In both explanations (the Newtonian and the pushing gravity) the point will move towards the center of mass of the walls.
The explanation of gravitational pushing:- always, as long as the point is outside the fences, it is hit by more external gravitational pushing particles than from the direction of the walls. Only between the walls is the equilibrium point where particles hit from every direction as from the opposite direction. Therefore the final result is just like in Newton.
Good night opponent
Yehuda
Yehuda,
Is the drawing clear? This is a view on, do you see a wall divided into two halves, half right and half left? Do you see a gap between the two halves (that Pushing Gravity particles can pass through) Do you see the tiny weight on top, right in front of the center of the gap?
________________. ________________
##############################
##############################
Here's the drawing again, the bottom line is air.
By sending the profits I made were reduced…. The point above should be exactly in the middle in front of the center of the space (and it should also be a little wider...)
.
#########################
#########################
Yehuda,
It's so simple, I tried to draw, I hope it will work, this is an overview, do you see two masses with a small space between them? Their common center of mass is exactly in the profit center, do you agree?
The small dot at the top is a tiny weight hanging on a thin, almost weightless string, right in front of the gap between the two masses.
1. According to your theory, pushing gravity particles will pass through the gap in the wall and push the dumbbell away from the wall, and others coming from the other side will push it in the opposite direction, i.e. towards the wall, which means there will be a balance and the dumbbell will hardly move.
2. If, on the other hand, the massive wall really creates a real gravitational force, then it *will* pull the tiny dumbbell towards the center of the gap, because that is the common center of mass of the two parts of the wall.
Look at the drawing, is it clearer now?
rival
Unfortunately, I read your experiment explanation, and I did not understand the experiment.
But in my blog there is the case of the kg that loses its weight that can only be explained with the pushing gravity.
After all, it is known that the universe is expanding, therefore, the number of gravitationally pushing particles per unit volume is small, and hence the weight they can create is also smaller. That is, if we accurately weigh a body, and come back and weigh it again after a year, its weight will be smaller. Such a measurement was measured for a number of standard kilograms and it appears that the decrease corresponds exactly to the expansion of the universe. Article 65 on my blog.
yekumshut.net16.net
Good day opponent
Yehuda
Na
since when
Yoda
Since Feynman friction is the main problem in pushing and due to the gravity of the subject - is there a situation perhaps that you simply explain instead of sending us to the blogs?
Coffee is for Turks. Here in Windsor we sip a cup of tea.
rival
There is no need to prove pushing - it has been tested by all the mythological physicists, starting with Newton himself. There is no doubt that the theory works, and if you build a laboratory model you can prove it, just as you can see that as soon as you move the masses - the sails - you will encounter friction.
The problem you describe was described in Reuven Nir's book "Attraction" including its solution. The main problem is the problem of friction, and we are all holding our breath to see if Yoda will come up with a solution.
But Yoda is right in that there is currently no explanation of how gravitation works, only a description of it, as you can see in the link I provided earlier.
clarification,
If it is a gravitational force then the small gap between the two masses will be negligible and they will function as one big mass that pulls our tiny weight towards it.
If, on the other hand, your theory is correct, then the spacing should have a dramatic effect on how much the weight is "pushed" towards the center between the two masses.
Yehuda,
After a little thought about the experiment I proposed, maybe it is a bit problematic, let's say that our theoretical weight is a square metal plate consisting of 100 x 100 atoms (a total of 1000 atoms) with each atom hitting one pushing gravity exerts a slight downward push on it, the measured plate weight is The sum of 1000 such weak pushing forces.
Now, if we stack the 1000 atoms into a tall tower the width of an atom, still a single pushing gravity that hits the top atom will give it a slight push, work on the atom below it and give it a slight push as well, and so on with the next atoms in line... until it reaches the bottom and it still exerted 1000 pushes on the tower Lightness so that we still measure the same weight, which in my humble opinion corresponds to what happens in reality.
But... I came up with a much better idea that I think could definitely confirm or disprove your theory. A relatively simple experiment, although not for an individual, but it is certainly possible to organize something if you have enough money and desire for such a project.
The experiment is like this, as far as I remember there are measuring devices (laser based I think) that are able to measure quite easily and accurately the gravitational force that a large mountain exerts on a weight hanging on a wire located at the foot of the mountain (that is, the angle that the wire makes relative to the vertical) and I even remember that experiments were done such
To test your gravity pushing idea, place in a large flat area two massive blocks as possible (you need to calculate what size is "enough") of metal castings, or if that is not possible then even huge water tanks placed on top of each other, and place the blocks side by side so that there is a small space between them, say 2 meters.
Now, inside a transparent and sealed container (to avoid the effects of wind and air movements) right in front of the space between the two massive blocks we created, and a little in front of them (say 5 meters in front of the center of the space) we place a tiny metal weight (which will be affected as much as possible by the masses we created) on a long, thin wire , and measure the gravitational force that the masses exert on our weight, that is, the angle of the wire.
1. If your theory is correct the weight should hardly be pulled towards the masses because the spacing between them allows the pushing particles to push the weight equally towards the masses and also in the opposite direction ie from both directions.
2. On the other hand, if the weight is pulled towards the spacer (the common center of mass of the two masses) to the extent expected by a simple mathematical/physical calculation for masses of this size, this will of course disprove your theory.
Do you understand the experiment? What do you think ?
I understand an interest in physics, what do you think?
Yehuda
I showed your theory to Newton and Einstein. The reaction of both was the same. What is confusing us?
Israel Shapira (dear)
Quote: Can you tell me who said it: Quote: As above, the situation is similar with sailing ships, as long as there is wind, a sailing ship will sail despite its friction with the water and the air. End quote.
Answer: All I wanted to show with the example of the sailing ships is that as long as there is wind, a sailing ship will sail and in the context of gravity pushing, as long as the particles reach the system, gravity and movement will continue and it does not matter if there is friction.
I'm sorry if you understood from this that even in the case of pushing gravity there is wind. I have sinned, and I apologize.
Quote: Hint: Starts with B and ends with B. End quote.
Answer: Who could it be?, maybe Isaiah?, maybe Israel Shafira?, interesting.
Quote: Can you admit that you don't understand what the Feynman friction problem is? Because if you do understand, then either you haven't explained yet how the planets overcome it, or you were talking about a spirit, right?. End quote
Answer. Please enter my blog articles 55, 60. There it is well explained. If you don't understand, then there is nothing to do.
Good Day
Yehuda
Aryeh Seter
Quote: Yehuda: "Problem with electricity, that is, how to explain positive or negative electricity." Haven't you heard Yehuda about the lack or excess of electrons in electrostatics, or the direction of the flow of electrons in electrodynamics? End quote.
Answer: We all know this and know that an electron is negative and a proton is positive, but, what is it about them that they are like that??, what is it about a proton that is positive and therefore it cannot be near another proton?, the same with the electron. And why do they "love" each other so much and are attracted to each other.
Good day Leo
Yehuda
Ariel and others
Quote: Yehuda I will repeat my question even though you have "evaded" it for almost a year. End quote.
Answer: Since I have been told several times that I ignore questions, I adopt a new method of quoting the questions and responding to them so that there is no ignoring. But please, please, be patient.
Quote: How are you so sure that it is not the strong force or the weak force, (since they were only measured in the laboratory at distances smaller than a hair's breadth) and are not the ones that affect vast distances? End quote.
Answer: Good question! I'm not sure, but I actually checked something else: can gravity pushing at tiny distances fill the place of the strong force and the weak force. And I even managed to explain the cases of repulsive power that appear in them. An interesting result but I didn't promote it and maybe there is a place to promote it. It would be nice if the gravitational pushing also explained the strong and weak force. You have to understand that I do other things besides "playing" in science.
Quote: As it appears in your blog, you use your theory whenever you want and indiscriminately dismiss things that you yourself claimed or use claims that you dismissed. End quote.
Answer: I think you are just a conspiracy, but if you bring examples, I will address them.
good day everybody
Yehuda
Yoda
Quote: Answer: Sorry, but you don't understand how gravity pushing works. The gravitational pushing particles only push the masses towards each other. No wind! No wind is created!, therefore there are no wind directions. End quote.
Mmm ..
Can you tell me who said:
Quote: As above, the situation is similar with sailing ships, as long as the wind blows, a sailing ship will sail despite its friction with the water and the air. End quote.
Hint: starts with B and ends with B.
Can you admit that you do not understand what the Feynman friction problem is?
Because if you do understand, then either you haven't explained yet how the planets overcome it, or you were talking about a spirit, right?
Yehuda
I showed your theory to Newton and Einstein and the answer from both was the same: what is confusing our heads?
Miracles
Quote: Yehuda, are you claiming that "Newton's formula" is not based on general relativity? End quote.
Answer: It seemed to me that Newton's formula preceded the theory of relativity. But this could be a good question if the theory of relativity could have developed even without Newton's formula. I don't think so, but that's an interesting question. What's more, Newton's formula is a special case of the theory of relativity in cases of relatively small velocities and not particularly large bodies.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda: "A problem with electricity, that is, how to explain positive or negative electricity." Haven't you heard Yehuda about a lack or excess of electrons in electrostatics, or the direction of the flow of electrons in electrodynamics?
Yehuda, I will repeat my question even though you "avoided" it for almost a year.
the question:
How are you so sure that it is not the strong force or the weak force, (since they were only measured in the laboratory at distances smaller than a hair's breadth) are not the ones that affect vast distances?
As it seems on your blog, you use your theory and indiscriminately dismiss things that you yourself claimed or use claims that you dismissed.
rival
Quote: Yehuda, 1. How does your theory explain observations of a huge amount of particle gas and dust swirling into a tiny, dark region of space? I understand that you do not accept the existence of black holes (which in my humble opinion somewhat contradicts your theory). End quote.
Answer: Good question. Regarding your first question, I see the vastness of my universe as full of particles :- apart from my gravitationally pushing particles, they also contain neutrinos, photons, masses of cosmic rays and more. different (as in any gaseous body), and of course also pressure differences and hence also a flow of matter to low-pressure areas in the universe, so that there will not be a problem of "swirling areas" in low-pressure areas. My blog has articles on the subject: Yekumpashut.net16.net go there and if necessary respond and ask.
And regarding the "black holes" in your question, each formula is defined only where it can be measured and tested. Beyond the scope of its measurement we can only speculate how it will behave. Therefore, the same with Newton's formula and gravitation. I think that Newton's formula in general is not defined where it could not be measured and therefore it is not defined at infinity, or in the vicinity of singular points and near "black holes". Pushing gravity and a simple universe that derives from it, explain well why there are actually no singular points and why there are no black holes, and why gravity is not defined at large distances and actually fades beyond a few tens of light years.
Quote: 2. How does your theory explain that light (which is massless) bends near a massive star?. End quote.
Answer: The explanation can be just like the Newtonian explanation. After all, the gravitation at small distances of individual astronomical units is of the same order of magnitude as the Newtonian, my theory has no contradiction with the theory of relativity at these distances, therefore the explanation of the theory of relativity can be acceptable to me as well. There is a contradiction with the theory of relativity at large distances on the order of light years.
Quote: 3. Do your theory pushing particles slow down when they pass through a mass?. End quote.
Answer. No, they don't slow down, they are barely aware that they are passing through matter. Most of them are not inhibited by the star. I said, most of them, because the few that are braked determine the gravity according to the pushing gravity.
Quote: 4. Let's take a round metal dumbbell that weighs 20 kilograms, and change its shape to a thin rod that rests vertically on the weight (scales). End quote.
Answer: A nice question that shows you understand the gravity principle of pushing gravity. What will happen in the case of the vertical rod above the weight is that there will be atoms in the rod that will be hidden from the gravitational pushing parts by other atoms, therefore a vertical rod should be lighter than the same rod that will lie on the scales or a thin sheet of the same mass that will lie on the scales. But in advance I tell you that the differences in weight will be extremely small and I don't think they are measurable. My blog has several articles on the subject such as the expansion of the universe and the loss of body weight, for example article number 65 on the blog.
All good, rival
Yehuda
Yehuda
Are you claiming that "Newton's formula" is not based on general relativity?
דניאל
If I get a heart attack from your bullshit, I will file a tort suit against you.
3. Are the pushing particles according to your theory...
Yehuda,
1. How does your theory explain observations of an enormous amount of particle gas and dust swirling into a tiny, dark region of space? I understand that you do not accept the existence of black holes (which in my humble opinion somewhat contradicts your theory).
2. How does your theory explain that light (which is massless) bends near a massive star?
3. Do the pushing particles in your theory slow down when they pass through a mass?
4. We will take a round metal dumbbell that weighs 20 kilograms, and change its shape to a thin rod that rests vertically on the weight (scales). Now it is hit from above by far fewer pushing particles. Shouldn't the scales now show a much lower weight?
rival
Quote: Good day to you too Yehuda and thanks for the detail. End quote.
Answer: Nice, nice, and I will always be happy to answer your questions.
Quote: How about two magnets that are attracted to each other, are there pushing particles there as well? End quote.
Answer: I really don't know. My gravitational pushing particles are probably there too, but, I don't know how to explain the difference between the poles in the magnet. I mean, I don't see a possibility how in case A there would be repulsion between identical poles and in case B there would be attraction between different poles, that is, I would be happy if I had an explanation. Do you, opponent, have any idea?? I don't have one, but I haven't thought about it in a long time and it's time to think and delve into it again. It seems to me that we both agree that magnetism must have a more substantial explanation and not just magnetic north and magnetic south.
The problem is also the same problem with electricity, that is, how to explain positive or negative electricity.
Good day rival!
Yehuda.
Yehuda,
Good day to you too and thanks for the detail.
How about two magnets that are attracted to each other, are there pushing particles there as well?
rival
Quote: I understand, you claim that the pushing gravity particles come from all directions, end of quote.
Answer: Yes, from all directions and all the time, in huge quantities. They are very small, and most of them pass a star without colliding with it. A calculation I made that it weighs just on the order of ten minus 37 grams, about twenty-five orders of magnitude smaller than the proton. Even smaller than the estimated mass of the neutrino. Their mean free path is probably over a light year.
Quote: But is there any evidence for their existence any more than there is evidence for the existence of dark matter and dark energy that you constantly defy that there is no evidence for their existence? End quote.
Answer: There is a fundamental difference between the gravitational pushing particles and the dark mass. The gravitational pushing particles with their momentum and kinetic energy are supposed to be the creators of gravity. And it is well explained, and everyone knows what momentum is and what energy is. It is possible to deduce from the explanation the behavior of gravitation at large cosmological distances, and it is true, there are also differences between the results from the Newton-Einstein calculations at large cosmological distances.
Newton's explanation of gravitation is only a mathematical explanation that explains what should be obtained in the calculations. Everything is based on the measurements that Newton had up to the distances of the planet Saturn, about ten astronomical units, which is much less than a thousand light years. To conclude from here to distances of billions of light years that... A bit excessive. No cosmological principle can bridge these distance differences.
And to your question: Is there evidence for their existence?, I can give a clever answer: Yes, there is evidence and it is gravity, which is the only explanation that exists for it. The truth is, I don't know how they would discover a particle of such a small size, but belief in its existence only requires belief in elementary things in physics such as momentum, kinetic energy, etc., belief in Newton, transfers belief to other things such as: every substance has gravity?, maybe it is also necessary to twist space-time?, is there dark matter?, is there dark energy?, in short, it seems to me that belief in pushing gravity and the simple universe requires fewer basic assumptions - only momentum and kinetic energy, which everyone knows what they are. Occam's razor principle (choose the simple), would love it!
Good day rival!
Yehuda
for miracles
Quote: Your explanation for friction is not understood at all! According to your theory, a star rotating on its axis had to stop at the end.. end quote.
Answer: Maybe this is really what will happen to him.
Quote: You haven't explained why your explanation is better than the dark matter explanation. End quote.
Answer: The dark matter explanation is changing the results measured in the field to fit your "holy" Newtonian formula. I have already said many times that if the data measured in the field does not match what is obtained from your formula, you should throw away the formula and look for another one. What is this nonsense of changing the data with dark matter or dark energy, so that they match what is obtained from your formula???, this is a fundamental thing that every high school student knows this. Even my wife won't accept that I bring ten kilos of potatoes, nine of which are black!
Quote: Do you really think anyone would think that your theory, which rejects both general relativity and quantum field theory,... end of quote.
Answer: Where did you find that my theory rules out relativity and quantum theory??? It can live with them very well at the relatively short cosmological distances. My theory can live very well with the Mickelson-Morlay experiment. Although it is true, in the long galactic and intergalactic distances there is a disconnect between the theory of relativity and the simple universe because the universe simply does not think that gravity is the controlling force in the universe.
Everything else in your comment about my knowledge and how much the existing theories explain the universe, is not worth a comment.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
To Israel
Quote: I don't understand because there is nothing to understand. It is not possible that the same wind will help the ships sailing in opposite directions to overcome the friction with the water, which is what Feynman is talking about. End quote.
Answer: Sorry, but you don't understand how gravity pushing works. The gravitational pushing particles only push the masses towards each other. No wind! No wind is created!, therefore there are no wind directions. Therefore, all your comments about what will happen with counter movement do not belong to the topic. The result of the masses pushing each other is one of two: either the masses will fall towards each other and collide/combine, or a centrifugal force will be created that will reset the fall.
Quote: The reason the planets are all moving in the same direction is historical, an ancient gas cloud please destroy. But one satellite moving in the opposite direction is enough to collapse the wind explanation. End quote.
Answer: As I said, there is no wind as an explanation in gravitational pushing, therefore a satellite that rotates in the opposite direction shows nothing, only its chance of crashing is greater than those that rotate like the majority.
Quote: I am not saying that there is no solution to the friction problem, but it is neither ghosts nor demons. End quote.
Answer: I agree.
Quote: Join us for a cup of tea and a piece of dark matter? End quote.
Answer: I prefer coffee, but I will settle for tea too!
Good Day
Yehuda
Yehuda,
I understand, you claim that the pushing gravity particles come from all directions, but is there any evidence for their existence any more than there is evidence for the existence of dark matter and dark energy that you constantly defy that there is no evidence for their existence?
Miracles
"To remind you - the existing teachings explain our whole world".
So do you believe there is an explanation for the cause of gravity?
From a NASA-sponsored website:
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question30.html
Question:
What is gravity?
Answer:
We don't really know. We can define what it is as a field of influence, because we know how it operates in the universe. And some scientists think that it is made up of particles called gravitons which travel at the speed of light. However, if we are to be honest, we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves.
Yehuda
Your explanation for friction is not understood at all! According to your theory, a star rotating on its axis had to stop at the end.
But leave this rebuttal - you have not explained why your explanation is better than the dark matter explanation.
Do you really think that anyone will think that your theory, which rejects both general relativity and quantum field theory, and which was invented by someone who does not differentiate between centrifugal force and centripetal force, is worth discussing - without you giving a convincing explanation of what is wrong with the existing theories?
Remind you - the existing teachings explain our entire world, except for the corners that do not change anything for anyone?
Yoda
I don't understand because there is nothing to understand. It is not possible that the same wind will help the ships sailing in opposite directions to overcome the friction with the water, which is what Feynman is talking about.
The reason the planets are all moving in the same direction is historical, an ancient gas cloud please go away. But one satellite moving in the opposite direction is enough to collapse the wind explanation.
I am not saying that there is no solution to the problem of friction, but it is neither spirits nor demons.
Join us for a cup of tea and a piece of dark matter?
To Israel
If you have not yet understood the solution I am giving to the friction problem, then we will wait for some kind of enlightenment to come and you will suddenly understand, I am at my wits end, and I am sorry that I was not able to explain. You can always go to my blog and ask there and I will be happy to answer you and others
Good night
Yehuda
Yoda
And reaching the quarterfinals isn't something for a country with a population like Petah Tikva?
Not only do the planets move in the same direction - they are even all in the same plane.
And not only did we notice, we even wrote to you about it a few years ago when we mentioned that the time the moon orbits the Earth is the same as its self-rotation time, about 28 days.
So what?
If you want to assume the central problem in Lasage gravity/pushing gravity/a simple universe, namely Feynman friction, then divide, multiply and rest.
But there is a much simpler explanation for gravitation and it doesn't even have the problem of friction or any other problem: that it's all up to him.
Happy Independence Day.
to Israel, Nissim, Yariv and others
The question you ask about the identical direction of rotation of all the planets should also be asked in the Newtonian case: why do all the planets and other bodies of the solar system - asteroids and comets, (almost?) move in the same direction??
It's interesting that none of you noticed that all the planets rotate in the same direction and it doesn't matter if it was tested by Newton's method or by the Pushing Gravity method. The reason is apparently the primordial cloud from which the solar system was formed which was at least one light year in diameter and which revolved around the center of the galaxy (and also around itself!) once every 250 million years. As it contracted, it maintained its angular momentum and direction and its self-rotating speed increased like that dancer contracting her arms. Therefore all the planets (almost) should rotate in the same direction. Here we have finished the section of the direction of the planets' orbits.
Now it remains to get the force that activates the system using the pushing gravity method, because you don't care what the source of the gravitational force is according to Newton's method, who knew in advance that he was not explaining the essence of gravity and knew that he was only giving a mathematical formula for the calculations. Those who have not yet understood how gravity pushing works, can enter my blog and understand there.
Yekumpashut.net16.net
There is a file of articles on gravitation there and it should be well explained. No point in explaining it again here.
There are no spirits created here, but a force is created here that acts between two cosmic bodies that can be reset by the free fall of matter towards matter (this is how the stars and planets were created) or by a centrifugal force of rotation, the direction of which has just been explained. These moving particles, the gravitational pushing particles, contain a lot of (kinetic) energy and are probably a product of the big bang. The vastness of the universe is full of them. Their size is about ten to the power of minus 37 grams and they are very penetrating. Everything on my blog.
There is no point in explaining again why a more internal motion of 20 km closer to the Sun will help the planet Mercury overcome the friction resulting from the pushing gravity.
Heat will be generated here but it will be relatively small and will be radiated into space or will be reset by exchanging kinetic energy with other gravitationally pushing particles.
I will also add that once a better direction is given to the rotation of the initial cloud from which the solar system was formed, as I explained above, any planet or comet or asteroid that moves against the aforementioned direction has a high chance of colliding with those who maintain the consensus on the direction of rotation and hence also being destroyed .
Pushing gravity is a good explanation for gravitation, I hope I explained the friction problem. I would love to know about other logical difficulties in the explanation besides the friction.
Good night
And please respond gently. I'm still sad about Iceland's loss to France in the quarterfinals.
Yehuda
Yehuda,
The truth is that I too would be happy to understand how according to your theory the planets move in two opposite directions during their orbit. In order for a sailboat to move against the wind, it needs to perform slalom (zig zag) maneuvers. Do the planets also perform such maneuvers?
And what part of them is equivalent to a sail and lifting power?
Yehuda
I don't see the connection between a sail and a planet. A sail moves into the wind thanks to the drag of the water, not in spite of the drag.
According to your explanation, a planet is compared to a stone immersed in a viscous liquid.
I will ask you a question - are you familiar enough with the idea of dark matter, to the extent that you can say with certainty that it does not exist?
!deutschland deutschland über alles
Perplucht Schwinns, they won on a penalty kick..
Yoda (in a pinch, not in purple), you still haven't answered the questions:
1. Where does the energy come from?
You write: "Does a sailing ship sailing in the ocean burn from the heat of friction with the water and the wind?" But if you trace the source of wind energy, you will see that it comes from the sun. But in Lasage gravitation the sun itself and any other body is the sail, so what about the law of conservation of energy?
What's more, you didn't answer the repeated question (time 86):
"Not to mention that the same problem exists in the inner circle that exists in the outer one: what about a body orbiting the sun in the direction opposite to the direction of the earth in the inner circle? Will the wind help him or oppose him?"
"Pushing gravity and the simple universe are very good explanations of the essence of gravity and are the only explanation at the moment!"
Pushing gravity is indeed a good explanation, but it suffers from several problems, Feynman friction being the main one, but not the only one.
Dear Israel
You think the friction has nothing to do but heat up the planets. Does a sailing ship sailing in the ocean burn from the heat of the friction with the water and the wind? There are enough things that cool it down, likewise in the pushing gravity, the heat evaporates, is radiated, or is removed by the pushing gravity particles themselves! Don't forget that all the time new gravitational pushing particles enter the system and take care of its existence.
Pushing gravity and the simple universe are very good explanations of the essence of gravity and are the only explanation at the moment!
Please respond gently
today is saturday
And a little more the interesting game Germany Italy
Yehuda
Yehuda
overcome the friction..
But even when friction is overcome, heat is still generated, isn't it? And heat is energy, so where does the energy come from?
Not to mention that the same problem that exists in the outer circle also exists in the inner circle: what about a body orbiting the sun in the opposite direction to the earth in the inner circle? Will the wind help him or oppose him?
You are all floating in the ship of fools
Miracles and Israel.
It may be that a sailing ship is not a successful example, but that does not change the fact that the inner orbit allows the planet to continue moving and also to overcome friction, and that is what is important!
Yehuda
Yehuda
A sailing ship can sail with a velocity component into the wind because of the friction with the water, not in spite of the friction.
There is no analogy here with your theory.
Or I understood..
So the earth - or the satellite - do slaloms against the wind..
Happy holiday and a blooming wreath.
To Israel
I once forwarded you to a site that explains how sailing ships are crap against the wind. It seems to me that apart from that you don't understand how gravity is created from pushing gravity. It is explained in my blog
And there is no point in repeating it.
Happy Holidays Israel
Yehuda
Yoda
"As above, the situation is similar with sailing ships, as long as the wind blows, a sailing ship will sail despite its friction with the water and the air."
And what about a sailing ship sailing in the opposite direction to that ship? How will that wind help such a ship? Does the wind blow in both directions at the same time?
After all, just like the earth goes around the sun, a satellite can go around it in the opposite direction, right? So won't the particle wind that helps the Earth collide with the wind that helps the satellite?
To Israel
What will happen if the ball of our country feels friction?, it will fall into a more inner orbit (about 100 km) where there are more gravity pushing particles that will help it to constantly hold up against the friction. As long as there is a flow of particles into the system, there will be no problem. The simplest in the world. As above, the situation is similar with sailing ships, as long as the wind blows, a sailing ship will sail despite its friction with the water and the air. If still not understood, it is well explained on my blog
http://yekumpashut.net16.net/
Article number 60. Come in and comment here or there if you understood.
It's really simple even for a Turk like me.
Happy Holidays to you Israel, and to all the people of Israel!
Yehuda
Yoda
Restoring my moderated response.
Israel Shapira
Well comprands.
But do not fear - maybe Yossi Comprands.
If DC encounters friction, then it will slow down over time as Feynman claims, right?
June 3rd, 2016
Yehuda
Happy holiday!!
Albanzo
I apologize but I looked for an explanation of the anomaly on Wikipedia, but... In Hebrew. There the anomaly still has no solution and the possibility of a solution of the heat from the atomic engines can in their opinion explain less than 40 percent of the anomaly. In Hebrew, our sacred language, they have not heard of the Portuguese team or others. So I apologize for my adherence to the holy language and will try not to adhere to it in the future.
And as for the heat solution of the anomaly itself, is it really supposed to contradict all my faith in the simple universe?, I'm sorry but that's not the case. The only conclusion will be that the friction is smaller than the anomaly and it will set an upper limit to the friction, so that the problem of the planets will be even smaller and the planet Mercury, for example, will have to move closer to the sun with a deviation smaller than 20 km.
I woke up early to give you this because I'm sure you'll be happy with my happiness.(:))
In short, assuming that the brown solution is correct, it does not change my belief in the simple universe.
But, (please don't get angry) but...., NASA's solution doesn't seem credible to me. (And by the way, this is appropriate for NASA, who occasionally come out with explosive statements) The reason for the unreliability is mainly because they have difficulty receiving data from the second probe or other probes, and it also does not seem to me that there are no photons that move against the direction of motion of the probes and actually accelerate them.
Of course, in the near future, raise all the topics in this discussion and they will appear on my blog. I will also put in a better explanation on the subject of high tides as well, for miracles.
I would love to get your opinion, which you must say gently
Because today is a holiday!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
I copied the email from NASA's response, which Albenzo gave a link to.
Does it not appear on Wikipedia?
really?
This is already a stage where I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
In the second line of the first paragraph it is written that the "anomaly" has been resolved and they explain how. In the fourth paragraph it is written how several different groups have reproduced the calculations (including links).
Miracles
The email in your comment is not responding.
Albanzo
Drawing conclusions as if I deliberately do not find the articles on the subject was unnecessary. I was really looking!!!, it doesn't appear in Wikipedia and it's strange. Please do not draw conclusions about imaginary intentions.
late
Good night
Yehuda
As I told you from the beginning, the specific article I linked to at the beginning was just one example (of many). There is no reason why the example I chose at random should actually be cited in NASA's reference to the subject.
And just so that I understand - are you saying that you are surprised that they once did not know something, and now they know it? What exactly do you think scientists do all day?
Albanzo and miracles
Indeed it is a response to the point.
Still, it amazes me that they have no reference to the measurements of the Portuguese and they bring it as their measurements.
It amazes me that it took them decades to reach this conclusion even though they raised the problem of heating the plutonium engines in the past.
In the first step I will enter the answer in my blog and in a few days I will draw conclusions.
I may contact NASA and others about it.
Happy holiday
Yehuda
Yehuda
Contact in Pasadena – Jia-Rui C. Cook 818-354-0850
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
jia-rui.c.cook@jpl.nasa.gov
Taken from the link that Albenzo gave...
Meanwhile, apart from disdain for those who study dark matter, you have no argument for your theory. Did you notice?
Yehuda,
Is an official announcement on NASA's website good enough? By the way, I really don't understand how you managed to not find evidence that the study was successfully reproduced. As I told you, even on Wikipedia it is written (with sources). The only possible conclusion is that you simply don't try, because you don't want to know the truth.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-209
Albanzo, Israel Shapira, Avi Blizovsky and others
I have an idea. How about we send an email to NASA Pasadena and simply ask them if they think the Pioneer anomaly has reached a final and acceptable solution? My English is not good so you will have to do that. I am sure that Avi Blizovsky will be happy to publish their response here on the science website.
Please respond gently.
Yehuda
for miracles
Why do you say I ignore? After all, I have already raised both problems in my article.
Regarding my reaction to the moving away of the moon - I already wrote in the article that it is ignoring the tides. This still leaves an explanation in gravity pushing. Don't forget that gravity pushing will transfer the low tide change to its particles and from there only this will pass between the moon and the earth. I don't know what will remain of it after the passage of 300 or 400 thousand km. But I did not ignore that there is an inaccuracy here. If the Hubble constant is over 70 km per megasec per second there is still room for tidal influence.
Don't say I ignored you.
Regarding the mass changes of the correct kilogram - they are also not sure that the weight loss is relative to other masses, and they do not provide exact information on how they measured it. I believe that now they will measure more accurately and in a relatively short time an article will be published on the subject.
And in the rest of your comment you upset me as an intelligent person you think I'm talking nonsense. Forgive me for this but maybe it's you?... It's a personal limitation of mine that I ask to respond gently, and I'm aware of it.. Remember, I raised all the problems you mention.
If you comment again in a dirty way about my qualifications, I will respond accordingly.
We will maintain restraint, after all it is only science.
Happy holiday
Yehuda
to Albenzo
I'm sorry but I couldn't get confirmation in the article from Pasadena that their test confirms what the Portuguese discovered. I also did not find another recent article that confirms a solution to the anomaly. Unfortunately, the probes have long ceased to transmit data and it is difficult to reach an acceptable solution. What will happen is that it is necessary to send a spacecraft, which is its purpose, but it must reach a distance from the sun of at least a few tens of astronomical units - preferably about 100. It seems to me that this is a solution for a few decades and apparently not for my time. Two weeks ago I celebrated my seventieth birthday. It seems to me that we will have to wait. Each of us will apparently stick to his own solution. I would be happy if you have a more optimistic solution besides sticking to the Portuguese solution and if there is please in a good spirit, please show me.
Good day and happy holidays Albanzo
And I'm glad that we had a non-aggressive debate so far despite the disagreement between us.
Yehuda
Yehuda
Regarding my reaction to the tides - you ignored it.
Regarding the mass changes of the correct kilogram - you ignore that the weight loss is relative to other masses, so it is not at all clear whether there is a loss. And if there is a decrease - why didn't the mass of the other masses also decrease?
It annoys me that an intelligent person talks nonsense. Forgive me for that... it's a personal limitation of mine and I'm aware of it.
Miracles
Regarding your speculation about 9/11, we should also not forget that the number 9 looks, with a little imagination, like an airplane so it should have turned on red warning lights in the USA.
I will ignore the dismissive attitude of your comment, and say only that they do not really understand what exactly is happening there in the weight loss and it is a very small loss, about fifty micrograms per kg for over a hundred years. I believe that the next step will be to check the situation with electronic scales and then we will wait and see, if I was right in my assumption.
Then
Please do not lash out at nasty comments
Happy holiday today
Yehuda
You can check, but it's really not as complicated as you make it out to be. Do a Google search, or go to Wikipedia. You'll see that their solution has been independently validated by lots of different groups. The Pioneer anomaly simply doesn't exist, and if your theory predicts such an anomaly, that's just one more nail in its coffin (not that nails are missing...).
Albanzo
I read the article you gave from beginning to end
It is not certain that the Portuguese group in question has reached a stable solution. It is hard for me to believe that in the USA years of research did not reach a result. The article ends with the words:
Of course, other groups will want to confirm these results and a team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, which has gathered the data on the probes, is currently studying its own computer model of the thermal budgets.
It'll be interesting to see whether they agree. If they do; problem solved. Probably!
I will check what your conclusion was in follow-up articles because several years have passed since then. Remember that both probes slow down, so the Newtonian explanation should fit both. Gravity pushing is suitable for both and any other probe that has been sent or will be sent to these distances.
At this point the fourth game now televised Cleveland and Golden State which was an interesting game, is a bit disturbing but I will keep looking. I will not deny if I see a solution other than the friction. I will also see what the conclusions are about the simple universe.
Happy holiday!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
You wrote "But you will understand that if the decrease in weight is exactly as calculated in Pushing Gravity and the simple universe and really corresponds to the expansion of the universe, this means a sermon."
Tell me, what exactly are you smoking right now?!? How in the world do you use the word "exactly" in a finger-sucking calculation???
I haven't heard such a wrong argument in a long time. How do you explain that 9/11 actually fell on the twins - which look like "11".
Forgive me for being a bit blunt - but you really are talking nonsense. I explained to you that the moving away of the moon is explained simply in Newtonian physics. I explained to you that it is not at all certain that the same mass is small (and if so - why didn't they also just reduce the masses that were used for comparison???).
Do you have more examples like this?
And by the way, Yehuda - Brooks's book (which is indeed not a scientific source but a popular book) - was published in 2008. It's been a few years since then, hasn't it? If you would just spend 6-7 seconds searching on Google, you would find that the mystery is solved. Even in Wikipedia - the easiest and most available source of information in the world - it is already written in the first paragraph that the anomaly was fully explained in 2012.
You'd think that when someone told you that the anomaly had been solved, you'd at least take a moment to *check* whether they were right or wrong, instead of blindly quoting a nearly decade old popular science book.
When you say "no one has yet explained the anomaly", do you mean "if the anomaly were solved and found to be non-anomalous then I could not use it as an argument and therefore I prefer to shut my ears and pretend that no one has explained it"?
There is a link to the scientific article itself at the end of the page (there are many peer-reviewed scientific articles, at the end of the page there is a link to one for example).
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/423504/pioneer-anomaly-solved-by-1970s-computer-graphics-technique/
Miracles
I think you meant a container from the word inclusive and not from the word forgiving (:)) but I'm happy if you meant otherwise and I apologize for my honor. But regarding your response. You should have seen that I gave some thought in the article because even there I wrote that it was said that it might be a weight loss relative to other bodies. I didn't ignore it. But you will understand that if the decrease in weight is exactly as calculated in pushing gravity and the simple universe and really corresponds to the expansion of the universe, this says Drashny. Understand that if it looks like a simple universe, smells like a simple universe and sounds like a simple universe then maybe it is a simple universe after all??
In summary: the pushing gravity defines a friction that explains the Pioneer anomaly, that explains the weight loss of bodies, and that does not cause a problem in the movement of the planets. Just food for thought. I can't ignore so many reasons in favor of pushing gravity a simple universe. For your attention, all the things I wrote are measurable and subject to the proof required according to Popper, therefore, in the (near) future we will know if I am right.
So as you requested, I gave it a few more seconds of thought and I stick to my mind.
Happy holiday to Nisim and everyone
Yehuda
Albanzo
No one has yet explained the Pioneer anomaly. point. There are all kinds of attempts to explain but all are unsuccessful. It's annoying that Pushing Gravity explains it in a simple way with the friction that exists in Pushing Gravity. To remind you, this does not appear at all in Newton's formulas or Einstein's curvature of space-time, the most successful explanation that is received according to Newton is an engine that gives several tens of watts of heat found on the surface of the probes and can explain this. I recommend that you read Michael Brooks' book: "13 scientific nightmares", where in the second chapter he writes about the Pioneer anomaly when he defines it: "Two probes mock the laws of physics". But this is of course a book that, in your opinion, is suitable for high school students or, at the most, for Shankar graduates, and it probably won't move you.
Good day Albendzo and happy holidays!
Please respond gently
Shavuot today!
Yehuda
Yodla
Following your referral to the site you opened and I started looking at it. What can I tell you, Nissim is right. I focused on your mathematical developments. You can clearly see that the use of presumptions is not familiar to you.. these are things you learn in high school and you don't know them at all or you have forgotten how to use them. I'm sorry but all your calculations are wrong.
Yehuda
To reject the applied nonsense of "65" you need to use 10 seconds of thought. Because you don't do it - I will think for you 🙂
The cockroach kilogram loses its weight relative to its copies. You tell me - who said that the copies do not increase in weight?? After all, they are not kept under the same conditions as the real kilogram!!
Really Yehuda, are you basing an entire theory on such errors?
Yehuda
If you had a minimal background in physics, you would know that the tides, combined with the direction and speed of the Earth's rotation, transfer momentum from us to the Moon.
The meaning - the moving away of the moon and increasing the length of the day.
If you are right - then where is the error in the explanation I gave?
There is no such thing as the Pioneer anomaly. They thought there was an anomaly, discovered its source, and explained the "anomaly" to a very high degree of accuracy. You can read about it in every ten second Google search (and of course in relevant scientific articles, but why complicate in this case?).
Miracles
Nevertheless, you will notice that the distance corresponds to the Hubble constant. I wonder what you will say about the weighing, through which it is also possible to arrive at the Habel constant, article 65, there is also the tide there?, what other explanation will you find there? And what about the explanation of the friction and the Pioneer anomaly?, think about it, I think you are quick to dismiss things out of hand.
But that's your right
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
I read your "Explanation 50". You assume that the tide does not affect the distance to the moon and from that deduce the Hubble constant.
Say - are you kidding yourself? Leave the fact that you mention "centrifugal" force, something a high school kid knows doesn't exist 🙂
In article 65 on my blog you can... if you get bored, learn about a collection of gravitation formulas according to the various constraints of the universe.
Yehuda
I don't behave rudely. I will watch a movie. I know that for years you claim that gravity is not according to the formula gm1m2/r^2.
Joseph
I actually show that pushing gravity and the simple universe can be a perfect explanation for the activity of gravity, especially after I show a completely satisfactory explanation for the "problem" of friction, which would completely eliminate the excellent explanation of the simple universe. See the link to my blog in the previous comment.
The Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman explains pushing gravity and the problem of friction arising from it in a lecture he gave at Cornell University, and later, disproves the idea that pushing gravity can be an explanation for gravity (min. 8-11 in the lecture.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ZYEb0Vf8U
Please respond gently
Yehuda
What is happening is a misunderstanding of gravity and the origins of gravity. Newton and Einstein left us an understanding of short-range gravity and gravity as a macroscopic principle. From it were derived wonderful concepts such as a black hole and the big bang and relativity.
Science has its own rate of progress.
Although it is customary to measure the Hubble constant from the distance of galaxies as stated in this article, I proved the strange thing that it is possible to measure the Hubble constant from the distance of the Moon from the Earth and even in an experiment on the surface of the Earth. For those who are interested
http://yekumpashut.net16.net/ Articles number 45, 50, and even in normal accurate weighing, article 65.
Article 65 is based on the fact that the expansion of the universe according to Hubble causes the weight of bodies here on Earth to decrease!
Please, please respond gently!
Saturday with warm sun so please don't depress.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel
What second article are you talking about?
Yehuda
Stunning
Yoda
Did you see my moderated response in the second article?
Sahtain on the site.
Accurate measurements made in the study in the article on 19 nearby galaxies already have a large deviation because they are only nearby. The expansion of the universe needs to be measured to many megafarsecs to be accurate,
Yehuda