An Israeli researcher from Tel Aviv University, Prof. Renan Barkana, interpreted a surprising signal of radio waves from the early universe: the only explanation is the interaction of hydrogen atoms with dark matter - one of the great mysteries of the universe.
The world's astronomy community is abuzz these days following a double, particularly surprising discovery: first, the first reception of radio waves from an unknown period in the history of the early universe, when the formation of stars and galaxies began; And perhaps more importantly: the surprising properties of the radio waves that were received shed light on another great mystery - the existence of dark matter.
The explanation that the surprising findings of the radio telescope constitute the first actual evidence of the existence of dark matter was given by Prof. Renan Barkana, head of the astronomy department at the Tel Aviv University's School of Physics and Astronomy. The article was published in the prestigious journal Nature in February 2018.
"Dark matter is matter that we cannot observe directly, as we observe the physical world around us, which includes particles and atoms, as well as stars and galaxies," explains Prof. Barkana. "Until today, the only evidence for the existence of dark matter was the gravitational force it exerts, which explains a variety of phenomena in the universe. For example: Gravitational forces cause our galaxy, the Milky Way, to spin in a spiral at enormous speed. But the observed and measured mass of matter in the galaxy is not enough to explain such a high speed. The missing mass is assumed to be dark matter. In fact, according to astronomers' calculations, dark matter makes up more than 80% of all matter in the universe, and researchers all over the world are trying to discover actual evidence of its existence."
The now published discovery began with the reception of a radio wave signal at the EDGES radio telescope in Australia, as part of a study conducted by researchers from Arizona State University in the USA. "Such telescopes are designed to receive radio signals from the ancient universe," said Prof. Barkana. "According to the wavelength, we know from which period it came in the history of the universe. This particular signal is the first to reach us from an intriguing era, about which we know very little: the era when stars and galaxies began to form, 13 and a half billion years ago. However, the received signal was characterized by surprising data, the strength of which is significantly greater than expected, and the researchers wondered why. They directed this question to me."
Prof. Barkana estimated that the surprising measurement of the radio signal is related to the temperature of the hydrogen atoms that floated in space in that ancient era. This is a very cold temperature, about 10 degrees above absolute zero, i.e. minus 263 degrees Celsius - because the suns (stars) and their heating radiation have not yet been formed. Those hydrogen atoms absorbed radio signals originating from cosmic radiation, and the colder they were, the higher the level of absorption. The radio wave telescope, which today picks up the ancient signals, actually measures the same absorption.
"The intensity of the absorption of the received radio signal testified that the temperature of hydrogen in that ancient era was even lower than the minimum considered possible until now," says Prof. Barkana. "The only way for further cooling is to transfer energy - to a material that is even colder. And the only candidate for absorbing the excess energy from the hydrogen atoms is dark matter - whose temperature in the early universe was even closer to absolute zero." This is how the discovery proves that dark matter does exist, and what's more, that it is made up of particles - that collided with the hydrogen atoms and absorbed energy from them. Contrary to previous hypotheses, these particles are apparently light particles, not much heavier than hydrogen atoms.
Prof. Barkana concludes: "Research on the reception and interpretation of radio waves from the universe is an active and developing field. As of today, more sophisticated radio telescopes are being built in the world, especially the SKA, which will be the largest array of radio telescopes in the world. We believe that with them we will be able to pick up additional radio waves that indicate the existence of the dark matter, and I predict that they will have a distinct pattern, which is instantly recognizable. There is no doubt that many more observations and fascinating discoveries await us!"
For an article in the journal Nature
See more on the subject on the science website:
169 תגובות
Nonsense
Translation in the body of the film:
"Discovery of a surprising radio signal..." - what a sketch we sold you without any logic or scientific law
After all, how is it possible to receive radio signals that were broadcast 8.5 billion years before the creation of Doha, and scattered before us .. how ????
Another translation:
"Expect many more surprising revelations" - expect many more lies and inventions
Miracles
How about the following sentence:
there is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form.
for everyone
On Friday 13.4.2018 in the morning, the annual conference of the Israeli Astronomical Society will be held. There will be several interesting lectures, among them the lecture on the topic we are discussing here:
Dark matter and the first stars in the universe // Prof. Renan Barkana - Head of the Department of Astrophysics, School of Physics, Tel Aviv University
And in addition a lecture: When two neutron stars meet // Mr. Ilan Manolis - Weizmann Institute of Science
and more. I'll be there.
The conference will be held in Netanya - Planetarium Netanya. Address: 168 Sderot Ben Gurion, Netanya. Free parking is available.
You can arrive by shuttle or privately.
Details:
The Israeli Astronomical Society
http://www.astronomy.org.il
Miracles
Below is my email
Contact
Yehuda
SEVDERMISHY@GMAIL.COM
Yehuda
In my opinion, you are unwilling, or unable, to understand what is wrong with your approach. You have an (unoriginal) idea that does not fit reality, and even contains an internal contradiction.
You are not willing to learn or try to understand. I claim that there is a fundamental contradiction in what you say and what we know, and you make excuses.
Do you think there is any point in talking to you?
Yehuda,
Because you wrote that you want to change the formula: "Relativity connected to a different formula than Newton's"
It is not possible
Dear Nissim
You will agree with me that mass particles already exist in space without interfering with general relativity. (For example - neutrinos, Higgs bosons, gravitons, cosmic rays of all kinds and many more photons and more)
Why if I add my gravitational pushing particles to the space it will cancel the attribution?, what's wrong with them?
Is it because they produce gravitation? For gravitons, pushing is not allowed??
I think you are wrong. And it is clear to me that the theory of relativity will be able to live with my particles pushing gravity as well.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
You keep talking about the scientific method, but here you deny it:
I'm trying to show where your theory contradicts the successful explanations we have.
And you insist on showing that there is one point where there might actually be a match.
Yehuda
We need to distinguish between two things.
The special theory of relativity says that the speed of light is constant in any system of motion. It does not determine what the value of this speed is.
General relativity provides an explanation for gravity. Gravity does not spread in space - it is a property of space.
Your theory rules out, as I understand it, this explanation.
Dear Nissim
I'm trying to narrow down the problem in order to reach conclusions, and you, for some reason, are trying to expand on more and more topics.
My question is simple:- Is the fact that I state that there is a factor in space that interferes with the progress of gravitation, is that why the Michaelson Morley experiment will no longer show the same speed of light in every direction and therefore the theory of relativity will not develop??, the interference is very tiny. It does not seem to me that this will collapse the theory of relativity. That is, the theory of relativity will exist even if suddenly a disturbance is created in space that will damage the resulting gravitation. In my opinion, this has nothing to do with dark matter and it has nothing to do with quantum theory or how matter is defined. And don't put words in my mouth. I am not ruling out any theory. I simply claim that there is no proof that gravitation moves to infinity according to the square of the distance.
without interruption
Regarding light, for example, the turbidity of the space in which it moves is always taken into account, why wouldn't there be turbidity as mentioned for gravity??
Miracles do not deviate from the topic, and do not spread to other cases.
Will my formula destroy relativity or can relativity exist with it?
Good night
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
If space has properties, how does that affect your particles? And in general, why should the particles be added to the explanation? Just because of the dark matter? Throw all modern physics in the trash, because they still haven't "found" dark matter?
Yehuda
You yourself said that Newton's formula is an empirical result, so by the way, let's go with it - it does not explain gravity.
The theory of relativity claims that gravity is a result of space having properties. You claim that gravity is the result of particle collisions.
The theory of relativity does not explain what the origin of mass is, and you claim that your particles do explain mass. To explain the origin of mass, you need quantum theory.
That is - you dismiss the two successful teachings in the history of science.
I'm sorry to spoil the joy, but there is a theory that fails to explain even the color of the light of a simple light bulb: Maxwell's hydrodynamic ether model.
Worse, even Israel thinks it is wrong, and is looking for a way to fix it - and he is pessimistic :-)
Yehuda,
Reverse Gota, Reverse
The subject is not sacred but the opposite. A lot of thought was put into it. You are welcome to try to destroy whatever you want, but there are consequences. I think you completely missed the point. Newton wrote the formula but without providing an explanation for the exponent 2. 2 fit the results but 2.000001 also fit the results. The 2 with him is not holy at all. In the theory of relativity, the square is not there because it fits the results but because it is required by the assumptions of the model. If you change the 2, you destroy the model. From this model, among other things, the equation linking mass and energy was derived. So if you change the square, you lose the connection between mass (at rest or in motion!) and energy.
This is what Albantazo meant when he wrote to you, following your example, that if you destroy this building, you will destroy the whole neighborhood. Everything is very closely related. A stunning intellectual structure that took hundreds of years to build
I'll try to find you Weinberg's YouTube
Dear Nissim
Where did you see me claim that space has no relative properties??, I didn't say that anywhere! Space has properties as a conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment, all I am saying is that my assumptions should not damage the Michelson-Morley experiment, that is, the relativistic assumptions of space and certainly not for relatively small distances up to a few thousand astronomical units! I argued that the small changes I made to Newton's formula do not prevent the calculation of relativity at small distances, all I need to do is see how to construct the relativity so that my formula follows from mine. At small distances I was reminded that Albenzo called it a "weak field"
I wonder if it can be done. I have employment for the holiday.
to Shmulik
Send me a link to Weinberg again, I have to see where it comes from that Newton's formula is sacred and divine and it is forbidden to make any changes to it except G??
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
General relativity asserts two things - constancy of c and equivalence of reference systems. Your theory goes with that, I understand.
General relativity is not related to relativity at all (it's not a very successful name in my opinion). Rather, it is an explanation for gravity, as a feature of space that is affected by the amount of mass and energy within it. In particular, under suitable conditions, it corresponds to Newton's equation.
Your theory is quite different from this explanation. You claim that space has no properties, Einstein claims that it does. This.
Yehuda,
I wrote an answer that basically says that I understand G is fixed and you can play with it, but there are obviously observational restrictions on its value, but with possession you can't play (according to Weinberg) in any way except in basements
Miracles
So this is exactly what I want to find out. Will a casual change that changes Newton's gravitation formula in a tiny way, immediately require all the conclusions that derive from the theory of relativity to collapse? Will it be necessary to "withhold" from the Michelson-Morlay experiment his relativistic conclusions?? Why if I say that in my opinion there is a disturbance to the progress of gravitation in space, a tiny disturbance, it will collapse the theory of relativity and the Michelson-Morlay experiment??. When is the disturbance small enough for it not to collapse?
In other words, when will the change in Newton's formula be small enough not to damage all the things you said:-
"The contraction of length, the shortening of time, the lengthening of time (in a gravitational field), and so on"??.
You said miracles that my problem is not related to the speed of light, I believe it is also not related to the size of the gravitational constant G, so why is it related??
Maybe this is too difficult a question??
Please, I would love to receive a response from others as well. Thanks.
good week
Yehuda
Yehuda
In a simple way: general relativity claims that space has properties. You claim not.
Yehuda
The problem, in my opinion, in your theory is not related to the change in the speed of light. The problem is much deeper, and very simple. The theory of relativity describes, with the help of simple mathematical formulas, a huge variety of observations. These formulas are built on certain assumptions: the principle of relativity, the invariance of c, the principle of equivalence and so on.
These formulas give a complete description of reality. If your theory tries to coexist with the theory of relativity then you are actually claiming that the assumptions of the theory of relativity are incorrect! Of course you are allowed to say that - but then you must come up with another explanation for what the theory of relativity does explain: the contraction of length, the shortening of time, the lengthening of time (in a gravitational field), and so on.
These phenomena are no longer in the realm of philosophy and science - they are tools of engineers. Without giving a "beautiful" explanation for these phenomena, there is no use in your theory.
Yehuda,
G is a constant measured so that in principle you can play with its value. I don't know the studies but I guess there are theoretical limits to how much you can go wild with it.
Regarding the square of the distance, it is not possible to play with possession and this was explained explicitly by Steven Weinberg. He said that with Newton there is no explanation for the square and in principle you can play with the hold, but the theory of relativity is a much deeper theoretical model, with certain assumptions that the square is bound by and if you change the value, you overthrow the whole Torah. If you drop the Torah, good luck explaining the rest of the physics we predict so beautifully. E = mc2 is the relationship between mass and energy at rest that you need to explain, but don't forget to explain the relationship when mass is in motion between energy and mass that includes a term in the denominator (the root of 1 minus the speed squared divided by the speed of light squared).
I meant to have a good evening.
I'm sorry to cloud the joy (Staaam, this is the greatest fun perhaps, almost like joy for Eid).
There is a theory that explains the value of the speed of light amazingly: Maxwell's hydrodynamic ether model.
And there is an explanation for the value E= mc^2 that preceded Einstein and that apparently Einstein knew it and used it in 1905 without mentioning the source: the ether model and Lasage theory.
have a good evening We are going to a singing evening in memory of Naomi Shemer.
Thanks to Shmulik, I understand that changing the speed of light will not damage the principles of relativity. I'm really looking for what is the thing whose change will collapse the theory of relativity? . I understand that changing Newton's gravitation formula could be problematic so let's be more specific. Will, for example, a tiny change in the G member of Newton's gravitation formula collapse the theory of relativity?, for example, changing G a billion years ago by one percent?, or maybe changing the power of R will collapse it, let's say the power of R at that time will be 2.0000000000001 instead of 2?
At that time does it contradict the theory of relativity and collapse it?
It does not seem to me that such minor changes will completely collapse the attribution!
Please respond gently. Thanks.
Yehuda
Albantezo should answer this but here is what I understand:
The speed of light is one of the constants of nature and there is no Torah that explains the value. The speed of light is measured directly and also calculated through the constants: the dielectric coefficient and the magnetism coefficient. At least that's what I was taught at university and the value in English and Hebrew of the speed of light agrees
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8
I don't think the value of the speed of light matters for the theory of relativity, but other observations put limits on the value that the speed of light could have had in the past, although I have read that there are many other ideas on the subject
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/was-speed-light-even-faster-early-universe-180961233/
In any case, understand again: (in my understanding) there is no way to play with the theory of relativity and for the E=MC2 formula to be correct (or explained). If you change the theory of relativity, you will not be able to arrive at this formula and successfully explain why it works so well
to Maya
good evening and good week
I would love it if you shared with us what was funny. In these sad days, healthy and liberating laughter will not hurt us either
Thanks in advance
Eliezer
albanzo,
I laughed loudly. Thanks.
Leshamulik, Albanzo, Nissim and others:
It is clear to me that you are more experts than me in the theory of attribution, so I will challenge you with a (perhaps imaginary) question:-
Suppose the speed of light was different in the past. Can we continue to hold the formula E=MC^2 even then,
Or will this change collapse the theory of relativity?
I would love to hear your answer
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
I think you should consider the possibility that the building is actually in really good condition and fulfills its function properly (it's fine if it has like walls that haven't finished plastering them and even one interior plaster wall that hasn't been built yet), and that you just want to destroy it because you just don't understand what its function is in the neighborhood . If you talk to the people who live around it and use it on a daily basis, you will understand its importance and that if they destroy it the whole neighborhood will collapse. Besides, before demolishing you need plans for the construction of the building that will replace it, and in particular plans for a better building. If you have no plans at all (or you have plans but an architect who looked at them tried to explain to you that your plans are a death trap because the building will collapse 10 minutes after being erected), then there is absolutely no justification for destroying the old building.
Yehuda
In principle - I am always in favor of preserving the past. You can learn a lot from how they worked and built in the past. The question is the cost - what else could be done in the conservation budget? If the answer is to give to the ultra-Orthodox, then surely keep it. If the answer is to establish a school - then the options should be considered in depth.
Avi,
I wrote a response to Yehuda and it seems she is in the basements.
is that so?
for everyone
I have to tell you a story from life, on a slightly different topic, about what happens to us in our holy land.
Well, an act that was like this was:-
We have in Herzliya the Holy City, an old building that has existed for over three hundred years. To remind you, for those who are not familiar with the subject, there are several improvement programs in Herzliya that are called "Tama 38" programs for short. These plans are plans to improve buildings from a certain strengthening to "clearing the building" which involved the demolition of the entire building and its rebuilding.
The building in question above is really dilapidated and has undergone several serious repairs in the past. It underwent a serious and fundamental repair about a hundred years ago, nevertheless it still has many maintenance problems, broken windows, cracked walls, and the roof leaks, the plumbing leaks and in addition, the sewage flows and emits a dark black and smelly substance, which submerges every good agricultural plot around. And any gravitational movement (an earthquake that is known to come sooner or later) could collapse it.
One fine day someone appeared and offered to do a "construction evacuation". A shout immediately arose: - He will not do such a thing! The greens and environmentalists argued that there was no need for this and that the building must be preserved, the vegans said that the dark material from the sewage improves the surrounding fields, and the ultra-Orthodox in the area said that they might agree to the eviction of a building on the condition that they be given kosher supervisors in the surrounding fields, build a synagogue, and ban Lamudi The evolution.
The old men who took possession of the building and refused to leave it, or even explore the possibility of renovating it.
What do you think should be done? Destroy, or, leave the entire structure unpleasant to say the least?
Please respond gently and with a smile.
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda,
What I write may be completely tattooed by Albantazo, but as far as I understand, you cannot agree with general relativity but ask to be corrected by what you wrote: "Relativity connected to a different formula than Newton's". As I showed you on YouTube with Steven Weinberg, Newton's equations derive from the theory of relativity in the required approximations and there is no way to touch the relationship without destroying its basic logic.
If you want to destroy relativity, please explain E = MC2. This equation comes from the special theory of relativity which is a special case of the general theory of relativity. It is impossible to destroy parts of these teachings without destroying all the equations we know which give predictions at such high levels.
Here is a derivation of E = MC2 from special relativity:
http://www.emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Derive.htm#.WqobtX–nRY
Here is a proof that special relativity derives from general relativity:
https://www.quora.com/Is-special-relativity-a-special-case-of-general-relativity
It's clear to me that you won't read it (too much English) but Nissim will 🙂
Yehuda
The apple didn't give Newton any formula. All he deduced from the apple is that there is a central force. that's it. He deduced the formula from Kepler's laws, and these are indeed observational laws.
But then again, who is talking about Newton's gravity formula?
You claimed that you could show Mercury's ejection from your theory. If this is true - you basically rule out general relativity.
Can I have this explanation please? And can we also please have an explanation as to why Einstein's explanation is incorrect?
Oh, and also - why does time slow down in your gravitational field? I checked back and couldn't find any explanation from you.
And why does he "slow down" as a function of the relative speed?
And why do the lengths shorten as a function of speed (relative elongation... not so simple to understand 🙂
Miracles
Newton saw the apple fall and got an idea of how his formula should work. He immediately tested it on all the planets known at the time - the universe known at the time and determined that the formula was true for every point in the universe. Newton didn't think there were galaxies at all and for him the comets were astronomical phenomena! And the stars of the Sabbath are just holes standing in the dome of the sky through which you see the shining of Shekinah and they don't move at all! That is, he made a formula that would fit the entire known universe at the time. He did not use dark matter to "complete" the need for gravity, because he had no such need. - It is necessary to multiply the gravitation formula for distances billions of times. Everything with him was perfect.
We need to multiply billions and here the formula stutters.
Nissim, please face reality. Address the questions and stop fortifying yourself like a little child, and in addition invent facts. No measurement contradicts my theory. For me, measurement plus dark matter is not measurement, it is a distortion of reality. The universe must relate to what it has and not be entrenched in an old formula. The first law in science says: when the measurements don't fit the formula, throw the formula to hell!, look for another formula, don't distort the measurements to fit the formula. This is the most idiotic thing that has been done in science for eighty years.
It is the greatest scientific disaster of the XNUMXth century to stick to Newton's formula at billions of times distances
So Nissim, the conclusion is that we do not agree and that is what it is.
Please respond gently and without fitting the results to any formula
Good night
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
You wrote "Do you dare to say that the force with which I push a table (the force of my hand) is the same type of force with which the moon is pushed?" I wouldn't dare to say it - but that's exactly what Newton said 🙂 He just used the sample of the apple. So - if it is permissible to multiply a billion times once, why not multiply a billion times again? And again?
I mentioned Newton's laws, but his gravity formula is not one of those laws. Your theory already contradicts Newton's first law - otherwise there is drag on bodies in motion.
All the measurements contradict your theory, Yehuda. But, it doesn't bother you. You are simply funny - you pride yourself on using the "scientific method" - but deny the conclusions that follow from this method.
And I will say again and again and again - your theory contradicts the theory of relativity. Completely contradictory, not a little... Relativity explains things you don't know how to explain, and your theory doesn't even explain what it is supposed to explain (drag).
Please face reality. Address the questions and stop fortifying yourself like a little child.
for everyone
You like Newton a lot, but, like it or not, Newton doesn't explain gravitation! He only gave a formula that, in his opinion, accurately expresses the behavior of bodies under gravity. This is an inductive formula. He got it from the collection of data he had from Kepler and others on the solar system, to remind you at distances of up to a few astronomical units, less than a thousand light years. But in every inductive formula derived in this way there is uncertainty, which will increase with the large sizes of masses and distances. You cannot arbitrarily decide that a formula that was measured and found to be correct for distances of a thousand light years (distances in the solar system), will also be correct for a distance of billions of light years! Gentlemen, these are trillions of times distances!!!. Do you dare to say that the force with which I push a table (the force of my hand) is the same type of force with which the moon is pushed?, and it is only billions of times!
The dark matter required to explain gravitation in the far reaches of the universe only shows that something is very lame in Newton Einstein's formulas. The solution in my opinion must be relativity connected to a formula different from Newton's, a formula that will show that there is a disturbance in space for the progress of gravitation just as there is a disturbance in space for the progress of light. You can't just say that there is no interruption forever. It's not scientific to say that, science should be backed up by measurements that we can't do ad infinitum.
For me, it is impossible to line a universe with frictionless, transparent, tasteless, odorless dark matter that swallows radio waves just because it is required in someone's opinion.
And maybe... I'm wrong, it's the nature of science where maybe in the next measurement you might find out that you were wrong, hahaha
good day everybody!
Please respond gently
Yehuda
Hawking died tonight. sad
Yehuda, they explained to you that it is impossible to simultaneously agree with relativity and on the other hand try to change the mechanism of gravity in a way that does not agree with Newton in the presence of weak gravity and low speeds (I think Albentezo called it in the presence of a weak gravitational field). I brought you a YouTube of Steven Weinberg saying this.
You said you were going to study relativity. what happened with that
Yehuda
Don't explain anything. If your theory does not explain the slowing down of time, then it is less good than the accepted theory.
And by the way - apart from Newton's law of attraction, it doesn't explain anything.
stop getting angry If you can't handle the simple questions of a layman like me, then how will anyone who does understand take you seriously?
Miracles
I explained and I'm not going to explain again. And regarding the theory of relativity, my theory does not replace the theory of relativity, it agrees with it at the time of mass and with all the conclusions arising from the Mikkelson Morley experiment.
Good night Nissim, I have work tomorrow
Yehuda
Yehuda
According to your theory - why does time seem to move more slowly at high speed? This is an unexpected result. How do you explain this observation?
Miracles
I explained and I'm not going to explain again. And regarding the theory of relativity, my theory does not replace the theory of relativity, although I showed that it can explain the precession of the planet Mercury, but it determines some things that I think are true, loss of weight, slowing down the speed of light, and more. But my theory, for example, accepts the results of the Michelson Morley experiment, so you will also accept the slowing down of the clocks, but everything that needs dark matter is not accepted.
I had a tiring day today so I will say goodbye
Good night
and respond gently and not wake me up with hurricanes
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
Your explanation rules out the general relativity explanation for gravity. Great - now explain to me, how your theory explains the lengthening of time and length as a function of speed (relatively private) and the lengthening of time in a gravitational field.
The last one is very interesting to me - how do you explain that clocks run slower on the ground than at height (a few tens of meters are enough).
A scientific theory is measured by the fact that it explains a set of phenomena. I'm waiting.
Yehuda
It's really that simple - and so wrong. Think of a cloud of gas (as thin as you like). If a body moves in the gas, then the gas will resist the motion.
You want to invent that the gas rotates around the sun, so you have to explain the rotation mechanism. Saying "it's like a hurricane" is not called a scientific explanation - and you know it!
And after you explain it - how are there bodies that make upside down? How is the milka plane at such a large angle to the galactic plane?
(nuts).
Tafdal Yoda, from cloud to cloud, our situation has improved.
Israel is my brother
I will take your words to heart... but:-
I am also sure that there is a solution to friction in the movement around the sun and it is my solution. Simply, if you agree that the particles gravitate (and even Feynman does not oppose this!) then you have to agree that they create gravitation as well.... on the particles themselves, therefore there is no friction because their average movement will be like the movement of the planets. He who moves against the general movement, his time is short.
The direction of rotation is determined by the primordial cloud.
So simple that you want to cry!
Good day everyone and please don't reopen the debate. Anyone to believe what they want.
If you do respond then gently.
Yehuda
I didn't say that. There is an elegant solution in my opinion that solves the Feynman friction. This is the same solution for integrating non-locality in relations and the source of inertia.
Israel
As Feynman said "so that's the end of that theory".
A hurricane is a funny image - a combination of central force + Coriolis force. But as far as our friends are concerned... If it rotates then it solves the problem...
Yoda his brother
We'll take advantage of the grace minutes before the details disappear and we'll have to re-enter them.
Pushing is a beautiful theory with a main noticeable flaw: Feynman friction.
There is a solution for this, I believe, but not the solutions you brought (hurricanes around the sun? In which direction?).
And before you find an adequate solution, pushing has no chance of producing stable gravitation in a dynamic universe.
Yehuda, our dears, even to distinguish between "I have no patience" and "I have no time", you have difficulty distinguishing, how will you deal with modern physics?
Yehuda
Maybe you will use the time you have now to study? Maybe, maybe, then you will understand that I am not attacking your theory because I insist on dark matter. I attack it because it does not conform to Newton's laws (contrary to your opinion).
I'm glad miracles that you don't have time to read nonsense because it's already starting to burden me to respond to you. So we'll say good night
Yehuda
Yehuda
A soccer ball is affected by the Magnus phenomenon - you're right! Lifting a discus is not related to the Magnus phenomenon. The lift is like on a wing (I won't explain why there is lift on a wing, because it's a bit complicated). The rotation of the disc is intended solely for the stabilization of the discus in space.
The lift on the boomerang is also not the result of the Magnus phenomenon. The lift is just like the lift of a wing, like the lift on helicopter blades. Here - the rotation produces longitudinal speed for the blades (along the chord of the wing), and also produces spatial stabilization.
The zodiac plane is exactly the Milka area! The angle is between this plane and the galactic plane, and it's a big angle.
There is no Magnus phenomenon in space. Your particles cannot orbit the sun without breaking the most basic laws of physics.
I apologize for not having the patience to read nonsense. And certainly not when the nonsense is an insult to intelligence.
Dear Nissim
Every soccer player knows the Magnus effect when he spins the ball with the kick and the ball flies in an arc, and not only that, every discus thrower also knows that if he spins the discus while throwing the discus will fly in an arc and an angle and of course (!) let's not forget all the Australian boomerang throwers who throw and spin the The boomerang is happy and cheerful, and we know and believe that the boomerang will come again! Therefore, our dear solar system also knows this and when it moves in a circle it will actually move in an arc. And so you justified miracles, and the inclination of the zodiac will not match Milka, and if of course you say that the galaxy also rotates, then remember that it does so little by little in its movement through the universe until the day of its meeting with its beautiful neighbor, Andromeda.
Therefore, dear Nissim, the Magnus effect was right on point and can well explain the clever incompatibility you brought up (Zodiac - Milka) but unfortunately all your ambition is to discredit. So why does the insulting Mr. Nisim write:-
"You (meaning I} are throwing out concepts without understanding what you are saying. You have no interest in the discussion. There is a phenomenon that interferes with your theory, so this phenomenon does not exist. Very mature." End of an insulting quote. I think I deserve an apology.
And by the way. On second thought, the Magnus effect is only effective in a universe full of particles like mine, and the advocates of an empty universe will not be able to use the Magnus effect to explain the anomaly of miracles (Zodiac-Milke), but.... On a third thought, maybe we will give the Mangosian effectivity attribute to the dark matter and in the spirit of the article maybe this is even a proof of the existence of the dark matter... .
Please respond gently and apologetically
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
Magnus effect? Maybe the reason is the Coanda effect? Hey – maybe the Casimir effect? Wait, maybe the Saniac effect?
Yehuda - the only effect you should know is the Denning-Kruger effect...
I'm not allowed to throw questions about your theory, but you throw concepts without understanding what you're saying. You have nothing to discuss. There is a phenomenon that interferes with your theory, so this phenomenon does not exist. very mature
Miracles
We don't have to just throw questions into the air. And it seems to me that you have enough common sense to think on your own about options for a solution.
For example, you give an example that the Milky Way is not in the same plane as the Milky Way, so what?, nevertheless, my opinion is that it gave the initial direction to the direction of rotation of the solar system. You actually want an explanation for the strange angle between Milka and Zodiac, think for example of the Magnus effect. It won't be easy to explain this with the Magnus effect and you need an imagination but it seems to me that you have it.
And you will understand miracles that it is also legitimate for us to disagree. There is a lot of uncertainty in cosmology and hence the debate in various solutions.
Yom Tov miracles are all good and it was fun to confront.
Please respond gently
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
A hurricane has an eye pull that comes from the low pressure in the center. The air circulates around the eye due to the Coriolis effect.
Your particles... you have not explained in any way why they orbit the sun. "It's like a hurricane"? Why? (1) Is there an attraction to the center? (2) Is there a Coriolis effect? If you don't answer "yes" to these two questions, then you have no (legitimate) reason to claim that there is an analogy.
The reason for the angular momentum of the cloud that created the solar system is not the angular momentum of the Milky Way. To see this - note that the Milky Way in the sky is not in the zodiac plane. The angle between them is 63 degrees!
So if your particles are rotating in the galactic plane, how are they also rotating in the Milky Way?
for miracles
You said:-” – your same particles will not continue to revolve around the sun. Newton's first law... familiar?” End quote.
You're right, they generally move in a straight line until the next collision, which is on average very far away, apparently over a light year, but the collection of all their movements will be around the sun, just like in a hurricane, all the particles (air molecules) move at a speed of about six hundred meters per second in a straight line until the next collision, but The result of their movement is the rotation of the entire hurricane at a speed of only a few tens of meters per second around its center. Regarding the planets, you are right and the reason for the chosen direction is the primordial cloud, therefore most of them move in the chosen direction. But this is true for both Newton and Pushing Gravity. Pushing gravity only gives the gravity.
But you wrote that the angular momentum of the gas cloud is the angular momentum of the molecules, each of which has its own angular momentum. This is not true. The cloud has angular momentum due to its being in a galaxy that rotates once every two hundred and fifty million years, when the cloud contracts its speed increases. And this without referring at all to the angular momentum of each molecule in the cloud, which rotates around itself without any connection to the primary cloud. That's my opinion.
And regarding the dark matter, I do not omit details that contradict the theory. It bothers me that dark matter is given any property that is missing in the Newtonian explanation. Now in the article the feature is radio wave reception. I at least try to manage without the dark matter. also not. Ben Ner was annoyed and he was looking for another solution.
Good night miracles
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Albanzo
As far as I remember, Cardano used imaginary numbers to solve a third degree polynomial - even though both the coefficients and the results are real.
Yehuda
By the way - your same particles will not continue to revolve around the sun. Newton's first law... familiar?
Yehuda
You wrote something else... you wrote that without your explanation, half of the planets would have to rotate upside down. You didn't get "my" explanation about the momentum of the Haber cloud...
And regarding the dark matter - you always omit details that contradict your belief. In this case - there is no contradiction between the same properties attributed to dark matter. So what we actually have is more and more and more details about that dark matter. This is how it works in science...
to wave
I agree with you that apparently the direction of rotation of the solar system is the product of the rotation of the primordial cloud that created us. I also wrote this in one of my previous comments.
Good day Gal
Yehuda
No. Son of the lamp of peace and blessing,
Accept my sincere apologies for your criminal negligence.
In the storm of argument with others I neglected your comment. But it seems to me that you are wrong by several hundred million years. The inflation you are talking about happened in the first fraction of a second after the big bang. It seems to me that Prof. Renan Barkana is talking about the situation several hundreds of millions of years after that. So inflation could not solve Renan's problem.
But you are right in your approach, because the situation in those dark days of the universe, just a few hundred million after the big bang is completely unclear. Prof. Renan accepted the conventional wisdom that what was then was hydrogen and helium and a lot of dark matter. So who is left to solve the problem? Only my very "favorite" dark substance to which you can easily attach any property and any size of particles and come to Zion Goel, such miracle solutions are not acceptable to me and I see a problem in injecting different and unusual properties into the area. Why not define inflation B (by Ben Ner) in this period? Inflation has been defined once, so shall we define another one again?!. After all, this can also be a good solution no less than Renan's solution.
In short, there can be many other possibilities for solutions, such as: the laws of physics were different then, the hydrogen behaved differently, want more?, a parallel universe separated from our place and left what we see, in short we have no tools to rationalize problems like these. This is my opinion and maybe yours too.
Good day Ben Ner
Yehuda.
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Gentlemen of the debaters
On March 5, 2018 at 10:08 am
The very interesting response of A. Ben-Ner of the Israel Defense Forces was published.
None of you saw fit to refer to her. what? Are you completely stupid?
You have a second and last chance.
Please take it seriously. You too Yehuda.
"What is troubling in the conclusion that Prof. Renan Barkana makes is the statement that the existence of dark matter is the "only possibility" to explain the low temperature of hydrogen in the era in question.
Namely:
If additional hypotheses are raised, then the Barkana hypothesis is undermined and may even fall.
Therefore:
I would like to raise another hypothesis and that is the "inflation hypothesis". After all, in the era in question, supernovas have not yet occurred. Therefore, they are not visible, and therefore it is not possible to measure inflation with the usual accepted tools.
I speculated where it is, because inflation is the cause of the rapid cooling of hydrogen. It seems that the degree of cooling makes it possible to calculate the (acceleration) inflation figures in that era."
Thanks.
interesting…
In other words, what Hawking is saying is not that our universe is a ball with no beginning and no end. He says that our universe and its beginning at the Big Bang can be mapped to a static geometric problem in 4 regular space dimensions. There he hypothesizes that the geometry will be a closed shape without a rim. When we translate the solution back to three dimensions of space and one dimension of real time we will no longer get a closed form. We will get something that is impossible to imagine (because we are not able to imagine pseudo-Riemannian geometries with negative distances), but what is certain is that the ill-defined feature "time before the big bang" will be preserved. When we imagine time as an axis, it is impossible to imagine that there is nothing before. You can always take a step back in the axis, right? So the Euclidean approach basically gives a very simple tool to understand a very complicated solution in the language of our real universe (with real time). Whether this solution is correct or not, who knows. But it exists and if you look at it with the right tools, it is very aesthetic and simple.
Yes, the imaginary numbers play a huge role not only in mathematics, but also in physics. Unfortunately, when explaining physical ideas to a person who does not have an in-depth acquaintance with the subject (to laymen or even undergraduate students sometimes) then using the term "imaginary" or "simulated" greatly impairs the ability to convey the idea. The video you sent also refers to this, which is a very unfortunate choice for the name of something so relevant to the world that surrounds us and even to our daily lives.
It is important to note that the confirmation is not that time is simulated - but the fact that if you look at a problem in physics that has real time (that is, d dimensions of space and one dimension that appears with a minus sign when calculating distances, which Einstein showed us plays the role that the time parameter had in classical physics), Then the time is replaced by simulated time (a problem with d+1 dimensions is obtained that appears with a plus sign when calculating distances, i.e. a static problem in which there is no time and is only geometrical), the geometrical problem is solved, and then the simulated time is replaced back in the solution for real time, so the final result It is indeed a solution to the original problem (the one with real time). What I'm trying to say is that no one is claiming that time is simulated, but only that you can take a problem with real time, map it to simulated time, solve it, and then map back. Despite the amazing beauty and the tremendous importance of the trick, it is important to remember that the problem we started with and the solution we ended up with have real time. No one claims that the time that flows in our world is simulated.
albentezo,
thank you for the answer. Mind blowing ideas. I heard about simulated time years ago, also from Hawking (who also accepted the fact that he didn't see this idea in the movies because the screenwriters don't really understand it. Today I was able to understand it a little better 🙂
The words simulated or imaginary do an injustice to this idea because if it has confirmation in all kinds of models, it is no less real than *normal*
Yehuda
You don't need anyone to send you a link to the article, there is a link to the article on Wikipedia (in English (I don't know about Hebrew, I didn't check)) all you have to do is click the mouse a few times, and we've already told you that several times.
Yehuda
"Do you really think that the angular momentum of the solar system is due to the angular momentum of the gas molecules that built the primordial cloud that created it?" - Yes, that's how I learned.
"The sum of the angular momentum of all the gas molecules is zero" - all the gas molecules? I checked again, and our solar system does not contain all gas molecules.
I gave you the example of the water going down the sink. Do you have another explanation for why they are moving around? If so - the whole world will be happy to hear. If not - how is it different from the formation of the solar system?
Venus rotates opposite to the direction of its orbit. According to your explanation, it can't be. According to "my" explanation, there is a simple explanation for this.
Yehuda - you constantly have to justify things to justify your theory. You don't see any problem with that?
for miracles
You said in your response: "Every high school graduate knows that every molecule has angular momentum, that there is a conservation principle for angular momentum, and that the angular momentum of a system is the sum of the angular momentum of all the components" End quote. Do you really think that the angular momentum of the solar system is due to the angular momentum of the gas molecules that built the primordial cloud that created it? After all, the sum of the angular momentum of all the gas molecules is zero!!. The angular momentum of the gas cloud that created the solar system is, in my opinion, due to its being in the galaxy and together with it it rotates a complete rotation once every 230 million years. It rotates just like the moon locked to the earth and every time it rotates around the earth it also rotates around itself. Same with the gas cloud. Its diameter was at least a few light years. When the cloud contracted due to gravity most of its rotational momentum was concentrated on the much faster moving sun. That is why most bodies in the solar system rotate in the same direction.
I think I will finish my set of responses to you for today
Good night miracles
And please don't underestimate the physics I know! When you will be Albanzo or Israel then maybe.
to Albenzo
I enjoyed reading your comment.
I don't believe you would do a scientific experiment as unreliable as the scientific experiment that was done about Pioneer. If there were thermometers in every area of the probe, it might be possible to accept as reliable all the calculations made. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
In addition, you require me to express an opinion on scientific material that is not under my control. You write: "The article has an explicit calculation, black and white. First accept it (or you will find the error in the garden, it is not correct), then we will address the adjustment to the measurement results." End quote. Please send me a link to the article in question and I will refer to the calculation. I hope I understand him () I would also appreciate it if you express an opinion on my previous reaction to the miracles about the reason for the angular momentum of the solar system.
So good night Albanzo
And I'm happy (tap tap) that we exchange opinions without arguing.
Yehuda
Yehuda
I read your answers. Maybe you will read a physics book? Or an article on the internet? something??
Here, for example, is the first sentence (!) from Wikipedia about the formation of the solar system
The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.8 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud
Now - every high school graduate knows that every molecule has angular momentum, that there is a conservation principle for angular momentum, and that the angular momentum of a system is the sum of the angular momentum of all the components.
That is - the solar system has a single angular momentum. This is the reason (combined with gravity) that the cloud concentrates into a disk that rotates around a fixed axis (to cause a clouding you need an external force - see the entry "spinning").
So you ask, and rightly so, how come there are bodies that rotate upside down? Well, but probably bodies that came from an external source. An example of this is Neptune's moon "Triton".
So Judah, why hasn't Triton fallen to this day? Why aren't the orbits of "Ofek" satellites inexplicably small?
Yehuda,
1. Indeed, another field of numbers - for example modulo 24, does give 18. That's why I made sure to ask you if you agree that the laws of thermodynamics are valid. To say that the calculation is correct but the system in which it was performed is wrong (in the analogy that the calculation of 6 times 7 is correct but you performed it over the wrong field) is a legitimate claim. But if you claim it, you must find the error in the thermodynamic theory (in analogy to that, if you want to claim that the calculation must be done modulo 24, you must tell a proof for it and not just decide it arbitrarily).
2. You are evasive again. Forget about the Hebrew Wikipedia. When I was in high school me and some friends were working on a friend of mine and we wrote in a Star Wars article that the movie was co-written by George Lucas and the father of one of the friends. Instead, please refer to the article. The article does not say percentages, nor does it say maybe, nor does it say an opinion or a guess or a hypothesis. The article has an explicit calculation, black and white. First accept it (or you will find the error in the garden is not correct), then we will refer to the adjustment to the measurement results.
Hi Shmulik,
I'm fine, thank you, how are you?
Regarding your question, it is a good one. I will first answer the first (regarding the method of testing the hypothesis) even though there is less to say about it, and then I will refer to the second (regarding Euclidean geometry).
1. In principle, this hypothesis can be tested. The model proposed by Hawking has implications for the very early universe and these can be compared to the implications of other models. But there are three problems with this. First, the implications are (as far as I know, maybe someone will discover something I don't know) only for the very early universe. That is to say, after cosmic inflation most of the unique features of a universe without language are "washed away" and it is already difficult to distinguish it from another model. So we need information about the very, very early universe, long before the formation of stars or the ionization of the gas in space. But in this early period, the universe was very small and therefore quantum effects were not negligible - which brings us to the second problem. To formulate these consequences in a quantitative way comparable to experiment, one needs a theory of quantum gravity. We need a set of laws that describe the evolution of the universe with the help of quantum processes, and currently we do not have such a complete theory. There are candidates, primarily string theory, but we still don't have the tools to produce an accurate numerical prediction that matches the beginning of our universe (most of our computational ability in string theory today concerns simpler models of a universe that is a little different from our universe). The third problem is that we cannot initiate experiments in cosmology, so we depend on measurements of things that happened naturally billions of years ago. But most of our measurements are carried out on electromagnetic radiation - photons - and these began to be emitted long after the period in question. The cosmic background radiation is said to be a remnant of the big bang, but in fact it was released long, long after the bang, and cannot provide us with information about the quantum nature of the small universe. Therefore, a test of the hypothesis will require either a tremendous technological advance (less likely in my opinion) or a theoretical refinement that will introduce a parameter that distinguishes this idea that "survived" until a later period and can be tested with the help of observations of the more mature universe. Anyway, hard.
2. There is a non-trivial use of the term "Euclidean" here. In fact, the clarification that needs to be made is whether the sheet (the surface on which the geometry is defined) is Riemannian or pseudo-Riemannian. What is the difference between the two? A Riemannian canvas is any surface on which geometric shapes can be drawn (distances can be defined on it) and the distances are always positive. We all know from the Pythagorean law that the space between two points in a square is equal to the charge on the x-axis in the square plus the charge on the y-axis in the square. Of course, the square of a number is always positive, so there is a sum of two positive numbers here, and the total distance is positive. In a pseudo Riemannian sheet you can put a minus sign. Imagine that the Pythagorean law would say that the squared distance is the difference between the squared charge on the x-axis and the squared charge on the y-axis. So suddenly we could have negative distances. This is exactly what happens in modern physics - the whole theory of relativity can be summed up by taking time and making it one of the dimensions of space (instead of a separate parameter) but it comes with a minus sign when measuring distances. That is, time is part of space (=space-time) but it is a pseudo-Riemannian sheet.
The trick Hawking talks about is "What would happen if time were not a real number but a pure imaginary number?" In this case its square was negative, so when you put a minus sign in front of it (because the sheet is pseudo-Riemannian) a positive number is obtained. That is, we are back to normal geometry where all distances are positive. This time is called "Euclidean time" even though the geometry itself certainly does not have to be Euclidean. Geometry is defined by a metric - a law for measuring distances - and it is certainly possible to still look at non-Euclidean geometries. The name "Euclidean time" is a bit confusing and perhaps a better name would have been "Riemannian time", because it turns the pseudo-Riemannian sheet of space-time into a Riemannian sheet. So the whole gravity problem basically becomes a geometry problem. True, space is still curved and the problem can be hard, but it's a geometry problem we can all imagine. In particular, one can speculate that perhaps this geometric shape that now represents the universe is a closed shape - like a sphere for example. This form has no language. It has no starting point. From this point of view, it is not at all possible to define what it is before the big bang just as it is not possible to define what it means "south of the South Pole". The south pole is arbitrary on top of the canvas and the north direction is defined relative to it. The same goes for the Riemannian sheet that represents the universe (after the assumption we made that time is an imaginary number and not a real number). The question "what preceded the Big Bang" becomes a nonsensical question.
Is there any reason to believe that this trick is not just nonsense? Yes. This trick of replacing the time with an imaginary number, solving the problem, and then after having a solution translating it back into a language where the time is a real number, is a super useful trick that has proven to be accurate in many cases, both theoretically and experimentally. In fact, most of quantum field theory is based on it, as well as quantum thermodynamics - two fields with many confirmations and amazing contributions to our understanding of nature. The trick doesn't always work, and you can definitely find simple examples where it's clear that it can't work, but it's definitely a legitimate and even very reasonable direction of research. There is every reason in the world to believe that it can be used. Note that using this trick (called the Wick rotation, after the physicist Wick) is only the first part of Hawking's idea. The second part is to claim that the resulting Riemannian sheet has no rim, meaning that it is closed, like a ball, donut, etc., and not like a disk or strip. This is the non-trivial part to check.
albentezo,
How are you?
I have a question that is not related to this unique and one-time debate with Yehuda, and it concerns Neil Tyson's interview with Stephen Hawking. Hawking was asked what was before the Big Bang. The segment begins at about 14:04 and ends at about 17:50 with Jenna Levin's comment that Hawking's answer is a hypothesis. The obvious question that has not been asked is whether there is a way to test this hypothesis. is there a way
https://youtu.be/NRrzkSHbTsg?t=844
In addition, Hawking chose to attack the question with Euclidean geometry. Doesn't this abstraction invite problems given that we know that relativity uses non-Euclidean geometry?
to Albenzo
Why a heat of 60 or 70 watts that will make us fight in the yellow submarine that we all live in? Let's send the probe and we're done.
But I will still refer to your response. You mentioned the beloved beetles with their amazing songs. So let's not argue and happily remember their song related to our topic "Lucy in the sky with diamonds (and friction and dark matter)"
So what did we have?
First we will address your problematic question:- How much is six times seven??. Everyone will say it's 42 ("The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" - remember?) but 43 really doesn't make sense, but what would happen if Albazo said it was 18?? What would I answer then??, since I already learned that Albanzo's knowledge is a bit above average, and Albanzo is not everyone, therefore, I would not dismiss his answer outright. After thinking deeply, I understand that the result depends on the field of numbers in question, for example in the modulo 24 field (a 24-hour clock for example) the result will only be 18 (am I right Mr. Albanzo?) so even that things seem illogical at first glance, or insane as you said (of course only in the joy of the debate and not with bad intent) there is still room for thought.
The calculation is correct because a radiation intensity of a few tens of watts really solves the problem, but don't expect me to accept that because of the probe's antenna all the heat radiation crawls from the probe's rear motors to the antenna, and this was discovered only after thirty years. And you expect Albanzo that I will chant like our beloved prime minister - Anomalyahu: "There is no friction because there never was any friction"?.
Here is what they wrote in Wikipedia on the subject:-
"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 of quote from Wikipedia.
So what did we have?, little by little, over the years, during an amazing evolution, the 28-36% crept up to 100%, and the isotropic radiation direction became anisotropic, in exactly the right direction! And a Redeemer came to Zion, and anomaly to anomaly!
Sorry Albanzo, this is not acceptable to me!
Maybe it's because of decades of experience in streamlining businesses and learning how things and excuses are conducted in the field. So again I accept that the calculation is correct such as 6*7=42 (at least usually) but something squeaks in the conduct of the accepted explanation of the anomaly. At most you can say that the explanation is kosher but stinks! In my humble opinion, "Occam's Razor" was not as patient as I was in this case and threw this explanation away immediately!
So we disagree Albanzo, and I may very well be wrong.
Please respond gently
Yehuda
Yehuda,
What you are doing is called "eating the cake and leaving it whole". Let's say I ask you how much is 6 times 7. You sit, calculate, and come back with an answer - 42. I answer you, "You have no mistake in the calculation, but the answer is 43." That's logical? is it sane There is an explicit calculation here that shows that the emission is *not* isotropic and causes a leak. You say that you do not find an error in the calculation and believe that it is correct, but his result is wrong because the emission is indeed isotropic and will not cause acceleration. Tell me, where did you learn logic? Maybe from the movie "yellow submarine"?
Enough dodging. If the calculation is correct, then there is a rush. This is exactly what the calculation proves. If you claim that there is no momentum that results from thermodynamics, you must find an error in the calculation. You can't say that there is no miscalculation, but there is no mistake in the calculation. I hope I have repeated it enough times so that you can answer without evading - is there a mistake or is there an error in the calculation? These are the only two options.
Yehuda,
Sorry to interfere in the debate, if I'm not mistaken the planetary nebula from which the solar system developed, rotated in the direction that the planets then rotated in the same direction, and not
As you say, correct me when I'm wrong.
For miracles you will sometimes read the responses to your questions:
March 7, 2018 at 21:48 p.m
for miracles
You asked: What is your explanation for bodies that orbit the sun in the opposite direction, for millions of years?" Well the answer is that we should have seen half of the planets rotate in each direction, and since this is not the case and all the planets rotate in one preferred direction it says Darshani. Something makes all the opposites disappear.” End quote.
In other words, Ofek satellites and the "insolent" asteroids will last less time in their orbit relative to satellites moving at the same speed at the same altitude but in the opposite direction.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
So you claim that the frictional effect of your particles is not negligible? great. Now explain to me the orbit of those cheeky asteroids that rotate upside down.
And so on - regarding "Ofek" satellites. They also turn upside down….
To Albenzo Nissim, Israel, and others
To your question Albanzo:- I don't think there is a mistake in the thermodynamic calculation. I don't understand him but I believe that if you say he is accurate it really is. I just don't think it's going in exactly the right direction. Regarding the heat exchangers, the heat spreads in every direction, and it affects equally in every direction, so that its effect is almost completely canceled out. Understand Albanzo that not only Pioneer is slowing down, the same phenomenon was also seen in other probes. which do not have heating facilities.
Obviously, there is only one possibility to determine which of the two accounts explains the Pioneer anomaly. Is the NASA heat explanation accepted by 99.9999999 percent of academia, or my simple universe explanation accepted by the rest (me). The only possibility to check this is to send a probe without heat sources on it to an empty area in space, in a straight line from the sun and outward, at a high speed, say 12 km per second, and then check whether the probe slows down according to Newton only or something else slows it down.
The appropriate probe is a tiny probe such as those currently being developed in Israel.
Since I need my modest financial resources for other needs, then maybe we can convince, for example, Elon Musk, who likes to have fun sending cars into space, to help test the disturbing problem??
Does anyone have contacts that can help??
Please respond gently
and smile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda,
it's not difficult. Set aside the measurement results. A question in theoretical physics. you ignore Please answer directly and clearly - did you find an error in the calculations of the thermodynamic speed loss (if so of course you should point them out and explain them and not just say "yes, I found it")? Did you find an error in classical thermodynamic theory?
Assuming the answer to both questions is that you found no error, do you accept that the predication of theoretical physics should not simply be Newtonian acceleration, but Newtonian acceleration minus the deceleration that results from thermodynamics?
Answer that first and then we'll talk about fit to measure. And just to clear the air, the measurement error is really not 15%. 15% is the ratio between the error and the gap between the prediction and the measurement. The measurement itself has a relatively small error. But forget it now, answer the super simple question that everyone asks you over and over and over and you just ignore it. Did you find an error in the thermodynamic calculation?
And that this is a false belief I tried to prove to Prof. Chase, without much success.
So did you see the video about the plane flying using the Magnus effect?
In my opinion, it is possible to build a much more efficient plane. We're building one right now in the lab at Foothill.
Israel
A helicopter, like an airplane, lands very nicely even without engines. The only condition is that the engines do not turn off in the so-called "death graph" - a combination of low speed and low altitude.
What did you bring up to a certain professor? How does that relate to what I'm saying?
I don't understand why you insist on the Magnus phenomenon. All I wanted to say is that the popular belief that the lift on a wing is due to the increase in air speed due to the curvature of the wing is a wrong belief.
Miracles
How about sometimes reading what I write?
are you:
"In one of the links - NASA explains why the "accepted" explanation for the ascension is not correct. The accepted explanation is that the track above the wing is longer than the track below, therefore the speed is higher, and therefore there is lift.'
And I:
All the reservations from the conventional explanation for lift that appear in the videos, namely that there is no need for the air currents above and below the wing to coalesce and that any inclined wing will create lift like a kite as long as it pushes the air downward, I brought up to the legendary Prof. Chase.
Not nearly the same?
And what does "the Magnus effect is not related to lifting on a wing" mean. "No one uses it for (manned) flight for the simple reason that if your engine goes out, you will die."
Why if the engine goes out in a helicopter you won't die? Right, you can maneuver a little, Big Deal, do you know anyone who didn't die at the end? And didn't I bring you a link to a plane based on the Magnus effect that the European Union is now investing money in building (waste of my life)?
30 submissions.
Israel
In one of the links - NASA explains why the "accepted" explanation for ascension is not correct. The accepted explanation is that the track above the wing is longer than the track below, therefore the speed is higher, therefore there is lift.
The Magnus effect is not related to lifting on a wing. No one uses it for (manned) flight for the simple reason that if your engine goes out - you will die.
I didn't understand what argument you were talking about, or what the connection was between the videos you brought to Magnus.
Israel
I didn't understand what you brought up before Prof. Chase. Do you also now want to argue with NASA? Maybe they don't understand thermodynamics, but in aeronautics I think they understand a little....
Yehuda
It is your duty to prove that the thermal analysis done by NASA is wrong. You remind me of Michael Beehy who claims that "irreducible complexity" is proof of God's existence. 1) There is something that you don't know how to explain (wrong), so the explanation I came up with is the right one (even more wrong).
And beyond that - your explanation doesn't work because of the drag. Just doesn't work.
to Albanzo and others
After the speed and position data of the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes as measured by the instruments on them arrived, it was discovered that even when taking into account all the forces acting on the probes, an unexplained acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33)×10^-10 meters per second squared remained , towards the sun. (From Wikipedia
Here we have an uncertainty in measurements of over 15%!!! And all you have to say is that I say my words "to allow myself to make unsubstantiated claims" Excuse me Albanzo, when will you learn that Yehuda is not like that?
You accept what the scientific establishment determines as the truth, and do not take into account all the years of scientific history have proven to us that this is not the case, we have here in the Pioneer measurement system a great uncertainty, you can be wrong by ten ounces and still get a potentially correct result. There was a Portuguese group that proposed the idea of the heat from the engines and it seems to me that NASA covered the explanation without justification.
Sorry Albanzo I do not agree with the analysis you made in your previous comment.
Tired, going to rest.
Yehuda
Miracles
The link has been released, I still don't understand what it has to do with the Magnus effect.
I've been devouring the literature of aerodynamics since the age of 11. After the six days and following the great victory, we built gliders in the kibbutz with a 7-meter wingspan and with a rudder for direction and height and we flew them with a tractor as a driving force. We built 4 models: Hera 1 which crashed on the first flight, Hera 2 which crashed on the first flight, Meshon 1 which made 11 flights and crashed, and Hera 3 which crashed on the first flight (the names were given retrospectively).
After that I tried to build a motorized plane. For this I took an engine from an old and unusable fire engine and we renovated it throughout the fifth grade. But when the kibbutz saw that the engine was finally working, they confiscated it and I was left with a pile of books from the Technion.
All the reservations from the conventional explanation for lift that appear in the videos, namely that there is no need for the air currents above and below the wing to coalesce and that any inclined wing will create lift like a kite as long as it pushes the air downward, I brought up to the legendary Prof. Chase. Over 20 years ago I built a model of a machine based on the Magnus effect in the kibbutz which today has evolved into what appears in the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlXNEefLXz8&t=43s
An initial model of the machine is still at my parents' garden in the kibbutz. I didn't finish it because of stabilization problems and the relatively high costs.
Which link?
A kite also has lift, what does it have to do with Magnus?
Israel
Because I know you won't search alone:
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/airflylvl3.htm
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/how-wings-really-work
Israel
I know what the Magnus effect is….
Read the link I gave. And explain to me how there is lift on a straight wing.
Wookie, isn't it a bit of a joke that you call our Yoda a liar? are you? Whether he's right or wrong, Yoda goes through a truth machine with no problems.
And you? You solemnly promised not to respond to me anymore, are you in denial? So where is your integrity, the pedagogical educator?
What a useless person. Go back to being a smiley face flying in the sky and free everyone here, leech.
Miracles
The Magnus effect does not lift a rotating body only, otherwise in which direction would the lift be? The body rotates uniformly.
You also need to add movement to the body in a certain direction relative to the medium (say air), then the lift will be in the direction of 90 degrees in relation to the direction of movement, and up if the body turns "backward" and down if it turns "forward" (right hand rule twice).
The explanation is that when the body rotates and moves forward together, the air on both sides of the body (say a cylinder) moves at different speeds, in one direction the rotation speed adds to the direction of movement and in the opposite direction it subtracts from it.
Hence Bernoulli, underpressure, lift.
Do you know the Plattner ship?
Israel
The Magnus effect is a phenomenon of lift on a rotating body. This is not the explanation for the phenomenon, but the phenomenon itself. There is a mathematical theorem that describes the phenomenon called the Kota-Jukowsky theorem - and it does link the speed of the flow to the lift.
But - this is an approximate model that is correct for inviscid flow. The model is correct provided that the flows above and below the wing coalesce without turbulence, and there is also an assumption that there is flow along the wing. In practice - the air that actually touches the wing does not move relative to the wing.
This model is an excellent approximation, but it is not correct. Think about the fact that the board also has a lift...
Yehuda,
I am not idealizing science. I'm just doing science. I think I know pretty well what the gaps are between theory and experiment. You are just using them as buzzwords to allow yourself to make baseless claims. When you do an experiment, you know exactly what the errors of the devices are and what the errors of the data processing are. It's not magic, it's math. A discrepancy that may seem small in the perception of a celestial body can be very significant if measured with a small enough error (and the relative error relative to the discrepancy to theory is small). In other words, if the theory says that a certain size is 100 and the measurement gives 99.9, it is admittedly a difference of only one tenth of a percent, but if the measurement error is ten minus 6, then we are very, very, very sure that there is indeed a discrepancy. It doesn't matter at all that she is small, because she surely exists. Something's wrong.
Of course this has nothing to do with anything I said to you and is just an excuse for you. Forget about the experiment for a moment, we are currently only dealing with theoretical physics. In theoretical physics there are no errors, everything is accurate (the errors come from the measuring tools and processing methods). Several groups of scientists have presented you with a theoretical calculation of the drift experienced by a probe as a result of the thermal behavior of its engine. If the thermodynamic theory is wrong, you must point out where and why. If the calculation is wrong, you must point out where and why. If thermodynamics is correct and the calculation is correct, then all your denial of the phenomenon is just fear of finding out that you are wrong and clearly anti-scientific.
Zvika
So how then does the Magnus effect work?
Yehuda
The reason that almost all bodies in the solar system orbit the solar system is conservation of angular momentum. This is the same reason the water circulates in the sink...
Here is an example of what I said:
https://gizmodo.com/this-backwards-orbiting-asteroid-has-been-flirting-with-1793818462
There are also satellites that rotate upside down. This is rare, because it takes a lot of energy to reach the necessary speed in the opposite direction to the Earth's rotation.
The Israeli "Ofek" satellites rotate upside down, for various reasons, and there are more.
But don't let reality change your mind. Be strong!
for miracles
You asked: "What is your explanation for bodies that orbit the sun in the opposite direction, for millions of years?" Well the answer is that we should have seen half of the planets rotate in each direction, and since this is not the case and all the planets rotate in one preferred direction it says Darshani. Something makes all the opposites disappear.
And by the way miracles, I don't know such "cheeky" planets or bodies, and if you know one or two, I'd appreciate it if you let me know.
Good night
Yehuda
Goodbye to Albenzo.
Thank you for your learned response.
In my opinion, you are "a little" idealizing science. Science is not black or white and we are usually not 43% sure of the result obtained. In every measurement there is uncertainty and when we connect all the measurements in a certain phenomenon, the conclusion is not one single and defined graph. On the contrary. We get endless options for the formula. Therefore the conclusion is not unequivocal. Therefore, the scientific method does leave room for "I don't feel like agreeing with your opinion". Pioneer's engines have long since stopped working and we actually don't know where she is, and there is a lot of uncertainty in location. and quickly. I'm not trying to upgrade my thermodynamics calculations, but something has creaked there in the Pioneer movement and when the most important foundations in science creak a little, we should check it so that our perception of the cosmos is not mistaken. Most likely it's a false alarm and it's really possible that the heat of the engines or some other reason will restore the lost dignity of Newton's laws. The progress of science is found in explaining all those little deviations. Let's remember, for example, how precisely the investigation of the precession of the planet Mercury and the tiny deviation of XNUMX seconds of arc in a century, and the insistence on explaining it, is what ultimately led to the theory of relativity. In my opinion, until an experiment is carried out with the help of a probe whose entire function will be to check the Pioneer anomaly, we cannot be sure of the conclusions. I'm sure you think it's unnecessary, I disagree.
Thanks again for your interesting comment.
Yehuda
Yehuda
My comment also disappeared...
WD and Albenzo say what I said, so I won't repeat it - except for one point: you are the one who has to prove that NASA's explanation for the Pioneer anomaly is wrong.
And regarding your hurricane - what is your explanation for bodies that have been orbiting the sun in the opposite direction for millions of years?
"But that's your opinion and whoever wants to agree with it, and whoever wants to agree with my opinion or any other opinion. It's science." No, it might be the humanities like literature and philosophy, or maybe art. The scientific method leaves no room for "I don't feel like agreeing with your opinion". If an experiment yields a certain result, then either you will find the error in the experiment (either in the execution or interpretation of its results) or you will accept that this is what reality shows us. If someone does a thermodynamic calculation and shows that the emission of heat results in a certain speed loss of a probe, then either you will find the error in their calculation (so far no one has found, and the calculation has been reproduced by several different people, all peer-reviewed) or you will explain why and how it is that thermodynamics suddenly You will be wrong (good luck with that) or you will accept that there is indeed such a loss of speed. If you want to add another flux that comes from another source, go ahead, but be prepared for it to be hidden in the experiment - because when you consider the thermal flux, you see that there is an exact match to the data and that there is no more flux in the system.
Yehuda
Stop building straw men, no one tried to silence you or force you to think a certain way. You don't have to agree with or accept any explanation.
But when you say this is NASA's explanation and present it as if NASA chooses this explanation to make their lives easier or to hide the truth from people or some open question mark you put in front of them when you write this, when you have been made clear many times that it is not The situation and that it is an explanation that is the result of a significant number of studies from a number of sources, so what you are doing is lying and spreading conspiracy theories. And that, to put it mildly so you don't get hurt like other sensitive people here, is simply not acceptable.
'Nipponei hands are only yours'
Absolutely not, I just presented the things you said in clearer words. That's what you actually said in your previous comment. So yes, definitely hand-waving, and it's nice that you agree that these are hand-waving, but they are completely yours (I just wrapped them in shiny colors).
You are welcome to switch from hand waving to complete whenever you want.
But that's your opinion and whoever wants to agree with it, and whoever wants to agree with my opinion or any other opinion. It's science.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
No,
My response disappeared into the depths of the dark matter. I wrote it again from memory and now there are two of mine but you can only read one.
and besides that
Dear Woking
I don't understand what conclusion you are leading us to? Is it because there are endless other opinions that we should shut our mouths and not raise our opinion? Are we supposed to accept without any reaction, in total agreement, everything the academy says? The scientific world is structured differently, with an exchange of opinions, and I am not obliged to accept an opinion that is not acceptable to me. Those who are looking for such a world will go to the religious world. There are dictators of opinion, which all the flocks of their shepherds do and receive.
Is this a lie?, is this a conspiracy??, well, that's your opinion,
And the fact that you laugh at the explanation of the wind only detracts from you, and the hands are only yours.
But that's your opinion and whoever wants to agree with it, and whoever wants to agree with my opinion or any other opinion. It's science.
Yehuda
Yehuda
'This is NASA's explanation and it is not acceptable to me.'
And this lie again
And again this conspiracy theory
In my life you have already been told many times and anyone can go to Wikipedia and find there links to several articles which is their explanation from people who have nothing to do with NASA.
Miracles
What is not clear about a magical wind whose direction always moves with whatever body it is no matter in which direction the bodies move, even if two or more bodies pass very close to each other the magical wind will still move with the bodies so that no body ever moves in a direction that is not the direction of the wind around it moving You have to admit that this is a wonderful solution. It sounds so good that there is simply no need to elaborate more than that or explain how it even works or can work. Some hand waving and hop physics.
For miracles and others
The Pioneer anomaly was tried to be explained with the help of the heat generated in its atomic engines, NASA tried to explain it during thirty years of research. The heat explanation seems to me "very forced" to say the least. And true, this is NASA's explanation and it is not acceptable to me. Don't blame NASA. You will understand miracles that the existence of friction in space as stated by pushing gravity, contradicts large parts of science.
And regarding the satellites that rotate in different directions, I promise you miracles, those that move against the "natural" direction of the moon will last less time in their orbit.
And to your question, where do the gravitational pushing particles come from? The answer is I really don't know, apparently some of them are at least from the big bang, but they may also be formed today in the stars themselves.
And regarding the friction - you are the one who is simply wrong. First thing - I won't stop calling it friction. And for rotational force I will continue to call centrifugal or perhaps centripetal force. This is what I was taught in my high school.
You say that there must be a drag force on a body moving in the same cloud of my particles, otherwise there is also no force of attraction between bodies??, what's the matter?, is it true, for example, that the particles of the atmosphere move from everywhere to everywhere, nevertheless if you move at the speed of the wind you will not feel friction, Drag, or whatever. Logic of elementary school miracles! You can't change basic physics what happened to you miracles there will be no friction if you move at the speed and direction of the wind.
And as for the gravitational pushing particles that move at the speed of light (apparently) they travel in our solar system for an hour or two and leave us forever and most of them are not even aware that it exists. Their mean free path is over a light year. Only a tiny part of them collides with the material found in the solar system (baryons and the gravitational pushing particles themselves) and creates the gravitation!
And don't worry, miracles forbid, we won't be short of gravity particles for many years to come. The galaxies visible from a distance of over 13 billion light years prove to us that we have stock for at least another billion years. For one thing, the particles become more sparse due to the expansion of the universe, so the conclusion is that bodies lose their weight over time.
We will end with the words of our beloved Prime Minister Hiktiyohu who says: There is no friction because there never was any friction!
In conclusion:
Friction, drag, or whatever, does not rule out my theory!!
And we will end miracles on an optimistic note:- At this moment two gravity pushing particles are passing our way that will arrive in eight minutes and twenty seconds to our dear sun, let us say hello to her and say goodbye to them forever, and don't worry, others will come.
All the best miracles!
Please respond gently
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
For miracles and others
After 30 years of research they came to the conclusion about heat coming out of Pioneer engines that it was what slowed it down, and I don't accept that. Why because the simple universe explains otherwise.
There is a direct analogy to the movement of a hurricane and this is the only way to explain the movement of spiral galaxies without dark matter. and the expansion of the universe without illusory dark energy.
And all the time particles pushing gravity penetrate and there is no shortage of ideas from where.
And regarding friction, you are the one who is wrong and I am sure without doing any calculations that a satellite that orbits opposite to the moon will last less time in its orbit.
And for the rotational force, I will continue to call centrifugal or centripetal force and drag friction, why?, that way, because it is more understandable for high school students.
And there is no friction if you move with the speed and direction of the wind. point. what's up with you miracles It's something almetric that every high school student knows. You can't change basic physics.
My particles reach the solar system apparently at the speed of light, travel there for a few hours in the region and disappear forever. Most of them pass through the solar system without even being aware of its existence, only a tiny part of them participates in gravitation. Their mean free path is apparently over a light year!. So don't worry there is a new supply of particles to come from the depths of the universe. Galaxies orbiting 13 billion light years away prove to us that there are gravitationally pushing particles for at least another 13 billion years. Did you understand that Nissim?, this is elementary school math.
But it is true that the expansion of the universe will cause them to arrive more sparsely therefore... bodies lose their weight over time. Fewer particles = less weight.
Dear Nissim, friction does not rule out my theory because according to the words of our dear Prime Minister: there is no friction because there never was any friction.
But again, I repeat the words of our friend "the walking dead", who, although he doesn't like me the most, is right in that we repeat ourselves. You didn't convince me of miracles, I'm sorry. But I really don't mind that you and many others believe in delusional dark matter and energy.
In eight minutes and twenty seconds, the gravity pushing particles that pass through us will reach the sun, we will say goodbye to them with pride and say hello to the universe through them!
And on this optimistic note, I will separate.
Please respond gently
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Well Wookie, so maybe you should really stop playing the trolls' stupid games and go back to the barn?
You said - without provocation and after you promised not to take care of me anymore -
"You try not to understand or misunderstand what they are telling you (or at least make it seem that way)."
So here you will show everyone what I am trying not to understand, or you will go back to the stable.
Oh I forgot, you're not there ****..
Or maybe this is really the problem with you, **** is much smaller than the ego? Maybe that's why you have to catch #### on everyone here?
Israel Shapira:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFO4PBolwFg
The speed differences are a small part of the explanation.
Miracles
Seriously, how many times have I had this conversation?
There are some companies here who are stuck in fantasy no less than religious people who are stuck in their fantasy about their God.
Just like the religious, they live in a fantasy that they have special knowledge that is in their possession, but instead of the knowledge that God has given, their fantasy is that they are engaged in groundbreaking science and that only they have special knowledge that only they manage to understand and that somehow this understanding is hidden from the eyes of everyone else.
They lie just as much as the religious people who fool here with the pseudo scientific knowledge of ancient Judaism.
So one of them lies more when his lie is exposed, a second ignores and repeats his own once again, a third continuously attacks anyone who exposes the fact that he is a mystic charlatan and not a scientist, a fourth disappears only to return half a year more united with the same tune, and more.
At first you can still try to talk to them and argue about their words, but after a few times you have to recognize the reality and stop playing their stupid games.
Miracles
So what is the source of the lift on the wing if not the speed differences?
Yehuda
"Of course they will try to explain it in other ways, for example, by heat emitted from the spacecraft's engines." Yehuda - you are the one who now has to explain why this scientific explanation is not correct. Please, don't confuse cause with effect.
It has nothing to do with the hurricane - there are satellites that circle the earth in different directions. They can't all be spinning in the same direction as your hurricane, right?
Do particles constantly penetrate? from where Where do these particles come from? How are they created? You are just making stuff up to fit your theory, without any substantiation.
And regarding friction - you are simply wrong. First thing - stop calling it friction. And at the same time, stop calling rotational force centrifugal force. High school physics, Yehuda...
There must be a drag force on a body moving in the same particle cloud as you. Otherwise there is also no force of attraction between bodies. You can believe what you want, but you can't change basic physics. Do you not accept Newton's third law? What's happening to you? There must be friction.
If your same particles orbit the sun then over time they would move away from the sun (law of conservation of momentum) and after billions of years this effect will not be negligible.
Yehuda. Friction invalidates your theory.
Miracles the injured
Pioneer is slowing down, whether we like it or not. It's tested and measured. Of course they will try to explain this in other ways, for example, by heat emitted from the spacecraft's engines. But she is slowing down. I think it's because of motion like gas. Even in a hurricane if you move against the direction of its rotation then you will feel friction.
Contrary to your opinion, particles are constantly entering the system and therefore energy is constantly being added that affects the rotation, but I showed that the change has to be very small so that there is no effect of friction and not only that, in the end I understood that there is no friction because my gravity pushing particles also push the... my gravity pushing particles around the sun Therefore, there will be no friction between them and the planets moving in the same area, just as leaves in a hurricane rotate together with the molecules of the atmosphere in a hurricane.
In other words, as our venerable Prime Minister says: - There is no friction because there never was any friction.
Are you really offended Nissim??, I apologize
Good night miracles.
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
That was downright insulting to the intelligence of a high school kid! You took a number that has nothing to do with the subject (Pioneer's "anomaly") and you decided that it was the cause of the friction.
After that you said - let's reduce the turning radius a little - and see a miracle - friction has no effect! If I spin a stone on a string above my head it will fall on me because of the friction - and you say - miracles!!! Short a drop (a drop!!) the string and the stone will not fall!
and after that …. You say that the radius of rotation of the moon should decrease by 75 meters. But … but …. Yehuda - we measure the accuracy to the moon in a few cm.
I was really offended…..
Miracles
It took me a long time but in the end I proved that there is no drag just like a leaf rotating around the center of a hurricane will continue to rotate without feeling any friction or drag. You can read a better explanation on my blog and I don't have the energy to explain again. Richard Feynman spoke like you in a lecture he gave in the sixties at Cornell University. He was wrong.
So keep believing in the illusory dark mass, and I'll believe in my simple universe.
Everyone fortifies his position. With four eyes I would try to explain more but I'm tired.
Goodbye, good night
Yehuda Sabdarmish
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
1) I am not a physicist and have no understanding of dark matter
2) To understand that your theory falls due to drag you don't need to be a physicist.
I don't have the energy to go into the explanations again. I have already explained the accelerated expansion of the universe and the frictionless gravitation several times on my blog.
So bye miracles and I wish you success in your dark ways
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
And there are other reasons... one of them is certain properties of the previous background radiation. An even stronger reason is the large-scale structure of the universe. There is no other explanation for this today.
I mean - we agreed that the idea is not so stupid, right Yehuda? On the contrary - the dark matter idea explains the world better than any other explanation, including yours!
80 years of not finding the dark matter? Maybe …. Maybe because it's dark? Yani, don't you see him? Could it be, Judah? Just a thought that came to my mind.
Now - your theory. You have a problem you haven't solved, the drag problem. If there are particles that exert a force on a body then this force must depend on the speed of the body.
Once upon a time, it was taught that the reason for lift on a wing is that the speed of the air above the wing is lower than the speed below the wing. It's a nice and simple solution, but really wrong. And the reason - the drag...
for miracles
The answer to your question is that there are other reasons for the determination of dark matter, for example gravitational dusting and also the movement of stars in elliptical galaxies, and there are certainly other reasons, so any other solution will have to give an answer to all the other cases as well. I will give you, for example, one additional solution (which I do not accept) that gives a solution to all other cases, at least for Idus and elliptical galaxies, and that is to change the gravitational constant for large distances, that is, in the gravitation formula, instead of changing M by a factor of ten, change G by a factor of four for the large distances. Mathematically it will give the same result.
I apologize for answering in a little more than one word(:))
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
I have a question - and I want an answer in one word: Is what you described the only reason many scientists think there is dark matter?
After that we will continue the discussion.
for miracles
You asked "Which measurement exactly did they change?" Who do you think changed the measurement data? Who do you think is lying here?"
The answer:- They arbitrarily changed the amount of matter in the galaxy. And I will explain: - The matter in the galaxy can be measured in two ways. The first is according to the visible light of the galaxy, which measures the order of magnitude of the number of stars in the galaxy, and we got
A mass that we will mark with the letter M, and it can also be measured according to the rotation speed of the galaxy, and then we get an order of magnitude of 10M Conclusion: A contradiction, so what did the wise men do? They arbitrarily added another 9M of matter with special properties to the galaxy: the matter is dark, meaning that it is not Illuminates and therefore the light coming from the galaxy does not change, but the dark matter has been given the property of gravity. Now everything is perfect, in the galaxy there is a luminous material of size M and a material that gives gravity of size 10M which corresponds to the fast rotation of the galaxy. Did you understand that, Nissim? Now Professor Renan Bartana also introduces another property to dark matter, which is the absorption of radio waves, and then the problem the article talks about has been solved. This does not change the fact that for over eighty years they have been looking for the dark matter particles and have not found them. If someone still doesn't understand the ridiculousness of dark matter, I'll give another example. Let's say tomorrow they find out that the galaxy stinks, what do we do?, how do we explain this stench?, please don't worry, there is a simple explanation and it is that, in addition to the property of gravitation and reception of radio waves, the dark matter will also be given the property of stench. And we will declare together with a committee that we have another real proof of the existence of the dark matter, a smelly proof indeed, but only Yehuda will protest, but that's all there is.
You understood that miracles?, no?, not bad, no one feels that these are smelly solutions.
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Raphael
I did not attack. Gal said something, and I clarified that he was wrong.
Do you notice that the "battle" here is between religious belief and scientific truth? Why do you always start fighting again?
What I said is true - deal with it.
Raphael
You're probably talking about your own ignorance, given that there is nothing ignorant about my question. And there is nothing wrong with my response.
Wd don't bother me to answer your ignorant question. Do a Google search.
Raphael
Do you really want to play the game Give me the number of stars that Judaism has ripped (or rather that some Jew has shredded) there are and when and you will be told by how many orders of magnitude they were wrong?
It is ridiculous at all to claim that Judaism knows or even claims that there are any number of stars given that there are all kinds of people who claim all kinds of different things at different times.
Miracles
Regarding your response to the wave...
Since when do scientists know that there are so many galaxies and stars?
How many stars was commonly thought to exist before?
Is the number of stars, galaxies and stars according to science an exact number or an estimate?
Of course these are rhetorical questions just to show how much your hatred of Judaism sometimes makes you look so stupid.
What is troubling in the conclusion that Prof. Renan Barkana makes is the statement that the existence of dark matter is the "only possibility" to explain the low temperature of hydrogen in the era in question.
Namely:
If additional hypotheses are raised, then the Barkana hypothesis is undermined and may even fall.
Therefore:
I would like to raise another hypothesis and that is the "inflation hypothesis". After all, in the era in question, supernovas have not yet occurred. Therefore, they are not visible, and therefore it is not possible to measure inflation with the usual accepted tools.
I speculated where it is, because inflation is the cause of the rapid cooling of hydrogen. It seems that the degree of cooling makes it possible to calculate the data (acceleration) of inflation in that era.
Yehuda
What measurement exactly did they change? Who do you think changed the measurement data? Who do you think is lying here?
The dark matter is the changing of the measurements so that it suits you for what you want, for example the results from the gravitation formula, or the constants you require. Sorry, this approach of arbitrarily changing the measured results is unacceptable to me. In my humble opinion this is not science, it's like adding a higher power to the measured results so that it matches what is required.
That's my opinion.
Yehuda
Yehuda
Different constants mean different physics. In my understanding, current physics predicted many observations that matched it.
So I'll say it again - if you plan to contradict the basis of all modern physics, then you have to bring a theory that explains everything that the current theory explains.
This is exactly the reason (!) that physicists insist on dark matter: it is the only explanation (probably) that does not invalidate everything we know how to explain today
Miracles
Not sure it is that significant. First of all, a greater speed of light in the first seconds will help us pass them without inflationary expansion. It is true that regulars will be a little different in the past, so what? Is it so problematic if the speed of light changes by one cm per year?, that the gravitational constant G will change by the same order of magnitude? There will be less need for dark matter and energy. But still what you said is food for thought.
And by the way, I would like to refer you all to the book by Avi Leib, head of the Astronomy Department at Harvard University. His book: "From the first star to the last days - thoughts up to the sky". In his book, Professor Avi Leib deals with exactly the issues dealt with in this article by Professor Renan Barkana. There in chapter 21 of the book - "First Light", and further on, he discusses exactly the subject of the article, the study of radiation at a wavelength of XNUMX cm. It is interesting how he approaches the problems of radio radiation.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
wave
In the context of the number of stars, Judaism was 100 times wrong.
Not something to be proud of...
Yehuda
If the speed of light was different in the past, then the age of the universe is not 13.8 billion years. And in addition, the whole big bang theory is very wrong. This means that probably the other constants of physics have changed over time. And then - all the explanations we do have - everything is wrong.
If you want to invent new physics, please, but you will have to explain everything that existing physics can explain. And that's a lot!
wave
If by any chance you are not just a troll then you are infected with severe ignorance. Everything you wrote is not true.
Herzl
1) No. That's just not what this article says.
2) In addition to this, there is the link that I added to a previous comment regarding the matter that you are welcome to read.
3) It is not clear to me what I wanted from Yehuda that did not touch on the article you brought but on the one that the article deals with.
Nice to meet you, we are Judaism, we have known for 1850 years exactly how many stars there are, and the fact that our sphere is the only one where life can exist permanently beyond certain amoebas in certain cases and changing conditions, we also know that there is no dark matter or whatever you call it, there is only God And it has been scientific for a long time
There are phenomena that we have not yet discovered, dark matter is one of them, it sounds mysterious and raises all sorts of theories
To Judah and the dead move: simply, if they had written in the title that there is no dark matter, they would not have succeeded in publishing the article. So they write around. You need to read and especially read the explanation for drawing 3.
Herzl
That's not what this article says
I entered the English abstract of the article. He was a little less pretentious:
Possible interaction between baryons and dark-matter particles revealed by the first stars
"A possibility of an interaction between baryonic matter and dark matter was discovered in the first stars". End quote. This is a bit far from what appears in the title of the article in Science: "First tangible proof of the existence of dark matter in the universe" end quote.
The article talks about possibility and not certainty - something tangible. I would like to bring another possibility to the phenomenon besides the dark matter. The possibility is a different speed of light while the universe was warmer. Could a greater speed of light explain the phenomenon??, just a question that requires a response only from people who understand so please be considerate and respond gently. Thanks
Yehuda
https://www.google.co.il/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/10/26/dark-matter-rises-to-its-biggest-challenge-and-succeeds/amp/
You are not updated. The dark matter issue stemmed from a measurement error that is now beginning to become clear. Open the https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05917
(On the upper right side there is a button to download a PDF) and look at figure 3. In the figure you can see that the rotation speed of stars in the discs of the galaxies is completely Newtonian. The thing is that the measurement was made with infrared light, which penetrates the interstellar dust. The measurements 30-40 years ago that showed a deviation between the Newtonian calculations and the mass of the galaxy were made with visible light, which cannot see all the stars because this light is swallowed by dust.
Regarding the bulge in the centers of the galaxies, you still don't see about half of the mass (not 80% as in visible light), but I assume that is because there is much more dust there, or because there are black holes of medium masses (several tens of solar masses).
There's just one small problem: there are thousands of scientists whose entire careers are based on the search for dark matter, and it's hard for them to change direction. As the saying goes: science advances when scientists die…. (Max Planck).
And regarding the current article: to say that the measurements prove the existence of dark matter is a hallucination, and shame on those who claim so. He just doesn't understand what science is.
Joseph
What exactly are you claiming?
That the status of dark matter in contemporary physics is equal to the status of the electron in contemporary physics?'
Are you trying to create a straw man?
I remember when I wrote this - in some things we have more confidence and in others less but the principle is generally the same. ?
Is it not clear from this that what I am saying is that the principle is the same principle and that our level of confidence regarding each theory is different depending on the amount and quality of evidence we have for it?
'about the electron'
You did not address in any way how there is a fundamental difference here. Is it because you realize there is no such difference?
'But you may be making an argument of the sort of – the best explanation available at the moment.'
Well done, the problem you're missing is that this argument is always true for all science.
'It is a reasonable argument but it is not a scientific proof of the existence of dark matter but a theoretical assumption.'
There is no such thing as scientific proof. All there are are more convincing and less convincing claims that correspond with some degree of accuracy to the evidence we obtain through observations and experiments.
'It is also not particularly fruitful since explaining an incomprehensible phenomenon by a phenomenon that is even more incomprehensible does not really provide an explanation.'
It is more fruitful than all the other ideas we have on the subject given that, unlike other ideas that currently exist, it explains and fits a greater number of observations.
In principle, quanta are not understood to us to the same extent, but they work and explain things that we see as beauty. Also open a front there to abandon this fruitless idea and start from the beginning 100 years back?
However, this claim has existed for several decades without being able to confirm it experimentally. Particles such as neutrinos and the Higgs boson were theoretical particles until experiments were carried out that proved their existence.'
Their existence was confirmed in experiments, not proven in experiments.
The existence of dark matter is confirmed by experiments, these experiments are observations we make with telescopes. There are also experiments that try to confirm the existence of dark matter (and understand more properties about it) using all kinds of facilities in Israel, but so far they have not been successful. Maybe they will succeed one day and maybe not. time will tell
'What I claimed in general (a very unoriginal claim), that it is possible to give up the dark matter and re-examine the theories of gravity.'
Wow really? It certainly does not appear to be what you claimed in your previous comments.
See for example:
The assumption that 80 percent of the matter of the universe is unobservable is a very problematic assumption to say the least. It is more likely that there is something wrong with the way we understand the laws of gravity and also that the big bang theory and the calculations and assumptions derived from it are wrong.
'Scientific conservatism does not allow the neglect of a scientific paradigm so easily and the scientific community will make every effort to preserve it.
This, in my opinion, is what has been happening in recent decades regarding dark matter.'
'A simpler and more fruitful solution is to return to the theories of gravity and re-examine why its prediction is so fundamentally wrong. '
'It takes more than observation, which differs from prediction, to make such a far-reaching speculative assumption that has no justification.'
If really all you were saying was that it might be possible to give up on dark matter and re-examine the theories of gravity, you wouldn't get a single response from me at all.
Is there a situation where you are referring to the questions I asked you sometime ago like for example in this response?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/israeli-research-has-found-first-tangible-evidence-of-the-existence-of-dark-matter-in-the-universe-01031803/comment-page-1/#comment-724555
Or to treat the matter as closed?
Just a correction, the temperature is lower than the minimum that is considered possible (and not as I wrote by mistake, by 10 degrees less)
"The intensity of the absorption of the received radio signal testified that the temperature of hydrogen in that ancient era was even lower than the minimum considered possible until now,"
Hi Yehuda,
I think the claim is (interpretation of the observation and certainly not proof) that the dark matter absorbs energy from the existing matter and further cools the universe. The radio waves from the early universe only reveal the temperature of the material, a temperature that is 10 degrees lower than the theoretical prediction.
As far as I understand, there is no attempt here to attribute another property to dark matter, which is the reception of radio waves.
for everyone
You all probably know my opinion on the subject of dark matter, and my opinion is completely in line with commenter Yossi's opinion. But in this study the new idea that dark matter is able to absorb radio waves was introduced. This is a new thing for me and I will devote the weekend to this topic. I have a feeling that the dark matter is SA taking the role of the antidote to all science patients and everything that "pains" in science is thrown at it as needed. But I will study the subject and respond.
Please respond gently
Yehuda
walking dead
What are you actually claiming?
That the status of dark matter in contemporary physics is equal to the status of the electron in contemporary physics?
I don't think there is a single serious scientist who would agree with this claim. (Such a claim is throwing the water out with the baby since it reduces scientific activity to speculative science and ignores basic science that conducts experiments to confirm or disprove)
Regarding the electron, there are a large number of experiments in particle accelerators that can:
1. To confirm or refute its existence.
2. Describe the properties of the electron. What is its mass, what is its electric charge and what are its interactions with the other particles in the standard model.
Regarding the dark matter, science has no idea how to start (they tried but it didn't work). There is no theoretical structure regarding dark matter and there is no scientific experiment that can confirm or disprove its existence. The site, the existence of which scientists assumed for a long time, turned out to be a theoretical entity that has no reference in reality. This was proven in the famous experiment of Michelson and Morley. As long as there is no scientific experiment that can confirm or refute the claim: there is dark matter in the universe, then this claim is speculative.
But you may be making an argument of the type of - the best explanation available at the moment.
This is a reasonable argument, but it is not a scientific proof of the existence of dark matter, but a theoretical assumption. It is also not particularly fruitful since explaining an incomprehensible phenomenon by an even more incomprehensible phenomenon does not really provide an explanation.
However, this claim has existed for several decades without being able to confirm it experimentally. Particles such as neutrinos and the Higgs boson were theoretical particles until experiments were carried out that proved their existence.
What I claimed in general (a very unoriginal claim), that it is possible to give up the dark matter and re-examine the theories of gravity. Maybe there, the scientific reason for the difference between the theoretical prediction and the scientific observation will become clear.
Joseph
1) I sent you to Wikipedia so that you can understand that this is not just one phenomenon that led to the concept of dark matter, but several phenomena.
2) I meant Wikipedia in English. Many times you can't trust what is written in Hebrew and I don't bother to check which value is OK and which is not. But it doesn't matter because I didn't understand the point of bringing the quotes you brought from there anyway.
The problem is that the dark matter theory still gives us more accurate answers and matches the observations than these other theories.
It's really good that I don't have the energy to comment on this cherry picking because it's really irrelevant.
'All the quotes don't say anything different from what I've claimed so far'
I understood that you claim that it is better for us to abandon this theory and follow other paths that you think will yield more fruits.
No?
'You have not yet answered the question:'
You haven't answered any of the questions I asked you yet, so it's better not to write it later because I probably won't want to answer
'What is the verification criterion for the claim: there is dark matter in the universe.'
What is the criterion for verifying the claim that electrons exist in the universe?
The situation is that the theory that best fits the observations and evidence we have is the one we prefer to hold at any given moment. As soon as we have a theory that fits the evidence we have in a better way, with the result of finding a better idea and/or discovering new evidence, it will be time to move to it. This is the standard of verification for any claim in science. In some things we have more confidence and in others less but the general principle is the same.
'Regarding the existence of particles like an electron…. There is no shortage of physical experiments that prove its existence.'
Are you sure? how sure are you Unlike dark matter, an electron has never been directly observed. All we have is evidence based on our ability to observe the impact of this concept on the things we are able to examine and our ability to generate theories and draw conclusions from this evidence. Can you be absolutely sure that there is no other theory that would better explain the observations or that would better explain to us what the electron actually is?
Interesting, the way I sent the response it suddenly stopped.
Avi Blizovsky,
When reading the article through a smartphone, the text in the article and in the comments jumps up and down every few moments because of the running subtitles at the top of the page, it's really crazy and makes it impossible to read normally! Can you please fix this bug? Please confirm that you have read.
Thanks.
walking dead
Directing you back to Wikipedia 🙂 (and please don't get angry, it's not personal 🙂
First quote:
In physics, dark matter (or dark mass) is a hypothetical substance whose existence is assumed as a possible explanation for certain gravitational phenomena. Other theories, such as modified Newtonian dynamics, give an alternative explanation for the same gravitational phenomena, often without assuming the existence of dark matter.
Second quote:
The researchers hope that deciphering the map and the conclusions that will be learned from its analysis will help science understand the nature of dark matter and its role in galaxy clusters and in the formation of the universe and celestial bodies. However, this is only a database, and using this method to find the dark matter or even prove its existence will require many more years of research.
Third and last quote for now:
The meaning of the current theory is therefore, basically, that "dark matter" is an unknown substance, consisting of unknown particles, with unknown properties.
All the quotes do not say anything different from what I have claimed so far.
You have not yet answered the question: what is the verification criterion for the claim: there is dark matter in the universe.
Regarding the existence of particles like an electron…. There is no shortage of physical experiments that prove its existence.
Joseph
First of all, start with Wikipedia. It seems to me that this is the best start for those who are able to claim that the behavior of galaxies is the only reason we hold the idea of dark matter.
Second, what is the gist of your response? *
Dark matter is a theoretical entity that we use to explain phenomena that we notice.
Okay, great beauty. How is it different from the electron?
*And I'm really sorry that I treat your entire response this way, but I think it's only fair considering its content and your attitude to my previous response, which doesn't really encourage me to write at length.
Joseph
First of all, start with Wikipedia. It seems to me that this is the best start for those who are able to claim that the behavior of galaxies is the only reason we hold the idea of dark matter.
Second, what is the gist of your response? *
Dark matter is a theoretical entity that we use to explain phenomena that we notice.
Okay, great beauty. How is it different from the electron?
*And I'm really sorry that I treat your entire response this way, but I think it's only fair considering its content and your attitude to my previous response, which doesn't really encourage me to write at length.
Interesting, if these are particles and are affected by gravity, is it possible that some of them were trapped in the Earth's gravitational field? Has anyone estimated the deviation in mass from the expected mass?
Of course, it depends on the temperature of the dark matter, but if it happens in galaxies, why not in the Earth?
The "proof" is highly speculative.
It does not rely on knowledge of possible causes of the phenomenon, but on initial ignorance of any factor as a possible cause. Then she takes something whose existence or the possibility of its existence is actually unknown, and turns it into a cause, as it were, by elimination, and as if it were really one of the possible causes. There is a "must on the campaign" here - the assumption of the claimed thing is proven.
Based on the phenomenon that was discovered, at most it can be argued that if dark matter existed, then it could
be considered as one of the possible causes of the unexplained phenomenon. Ha and Tu Lao.
walking dead,
thanks for the detailed answer. For a start I would love to hear about more interactions attributed to dark matter.
As far as I know and read so far, no attempt to establish a physical profile (what it is composed of, types of particles, etc.) for dark matter has been successful.
I will refer to one of your words:
"More people will look where they will find more evidence and confirmation that this is the right direction, but no one has closed the door on other directions as long as they are in line with the observational and measurement evidence."
On what scale of evidence, observations and measurements does dark matter stand?
Note, dark matter is not a phenomenon that is studied like a neutron star, a galaxy, etc. Dark matter is only a theoretical existence whose existence is assumed in order to explain an observation that is inconsistent with a theory.
Note the difficulty in arguing for the existence of dark matter in the following two cases:
1. Theory X assumes rotation speed of galaxies = Y .
2. Observation reveals that the speed of rotation is Z
3. Conclusion, there is a reason - dark matter that explains the gap.
4. Another conclusion - we are only one universe out of many universes and interaction between the universes affects the rotation speed of the galaxies.
What is the verification criterion (verification) of one of the two conclusions. What is the tool by which you can determine that one of these claims is true and the other is false? (I have no idea)
Example 2
1. Theory X assumes a temperature Y of the early universe.
2. Observation reveals that the temperature is Z
3. Conclusion, there is a reason - dark matter that explains the gap.
4. Alternative conclusion - Theory X is wrong in its prediction. It is possible and necessary to make a theoretical change.
In both cases the dark matter is not a phenomenon that we want to explain, but there is a theoretical one with which we want to explain. However, as long as there is no scientific criterion for verification (such as a particle accelerator that proves the existence of the Higgs boson in order to preserve the standard model), then dark matter has been nothing more than speculation for several decades.
Joseph
'Firstly I'm glad you accept that there are issues that require resolution regarding….'
Apparently there isn't a scientist in the world who doesn't accept it, so why would mine have a problem accepting it?
There are problems that require a solution that is the cornerstone of science. As long as there is science there will always be problems that require a solution, this is its whole purpose and essence. Regarding which field exactly do you think there are no problems that require a solution?
'There was supposed to be a prediction for the behavior of galaxies (their rotation speed), but the observation showed that in practice they rotate faster.'
It has long since passed the point where this is the reason for the assumption about the existence of dark matter, there is still a lot of additional evidence for the theory that it is alive and breathing.
'Now there is a dilemma'
Not true, there is no such dilemma. Looking for all the solutions we can think of in all possible directions just like before. More people will look where they will find more evidence and confirmation that this is the right direction, but no one has closed the door on other directions as long as they are in line with the observational and measured evidence.
If you don't see that this is what is taking place then allow me to enlighten you with examples.
1. See Beloved and Relinda
2. Well for that I don't think you need an example
3. What exactly do you think all the scientists are doing trying to find ways to measure gravitational waves, all kinds of different particles, etc.?
'Scientific conservatism does not allow the neglect of a scientific paradigm so easily and the scientific community will make every effort to preserve it.'
First it's not such a bad thing as you think. And secondly, history shows that this fanatical adherence to paradigms is not as rigid as you try to paint. When a better explanation comes along, the less good is abandoned for it very quickly for religious fanatics trying to preserve their paradigm.
'This is, in my opinion, what has been happening in recent decades regarding dark matter.'
It's nice that you think so. How much but do you really master the material? Do you think your knowledge in the field is so good that it allows you to form a well-founded opinion? If so, what do you base this opinion on?
'The price, which does not meet the standard of Ockham's razor, is a heavy price.'
How do you say in Hebrew can you qualify this statement?
'whose only interaction is the effect of its mass on the speed of the galaxies.'
Absolutely not, want a link to a list of evidence/observations/measurements for which we maintain this theoretical concept of dark matter?
'Science has no idea what particles it is supposed to be made of and what dark matter means anyway.'
Why is the idea of the existence of matter that does not interact electromagnetically with the rest of matter in our universe so implausible to you? Why is it so problematic for you that it makes up most of the mass in the universe? Do you also have a problem with the idea of antimatter?
' A simpler and more fruitful solution is to return to the theories of gravity and re-examine why its prediction is so fundamentally wrong.'
What in this claim is beyond your personal feeling? How is your solution (which is not really a solution) more simple and fruitful?
Well, I think we've already touched on all the points in your summary paragraph before, so I won't go back again.
Response to walking death,
First, I'm glad that you accept that there are problems that need to be solved regarding the theory of gravity and also regarding the big bang theory which has been updated and refined all the time because of new findings.
What is the role of any scientific (physical) theory?
First of all its role is to provide an explanation for physical phenomena and based on this explanation a prediction is formulated for the state of affairs in reality. According to physical theory and a calculation based on our understanding of gravity, there was supposed to be a prediction for the behavior of galaxies (their rotation speed), but the observation showed that in practice they rotate faster. Now there is a dilemma:
1. Abandon the theory of contemporaneous gravity and look for another that explains the gap between prediction and observation. Such a change may cause a fundamental paradigmatic change (in the words of the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn)
2. To look for an explanation such as dark matter in order to preserve the current paradigm. (In the philosophy of science - Apitzkel who "saves the phenomena")
3. Re-examination of the way we make an observation.
Kuhn claims that scientific conservatism does not allow the neglect of a scientific paradigm so easily and the scientific community will make every effort to preserve it.
This is, in my opinion, what has been happening in recent decades regarding dark matter. The price, which does not meet the standard of Ockham's razor, is a heavy price. Not 10 percent, not 20, but 80 percent of the universe is made of matter whose only interaction is the effect of its mass on the speed of galaxies. Science has no idea what particles it is supposed to be made of and what dark matter means in general. To me, this is a classic epic where a simpler and more fruitful solution is to go back to the theories of gravity and re-examine why its prediction is so fundamentally wrong. (Einstein also corrected his equations according to observations that did not match them).
It takes more than observation, which differs from prediction, to make such a far-reaching speculative assumption that has no justification. For several decades they searched for evidence of the existence of dark matter and did not find it. Claiming that only dark matter can explain temperature change in the early universe is not enough.
Joseph
The electron is a theoretical entity that so far has no direct proof of its existence.
The role of that theoretical entity is to explain any findings.
It is not impossible that there is another explanation that explains the same findings.
Or in other words, the same can be said about a great deal of the knowledge we have accumulated.
The assumption that 80 percent of the matter of the universe is unobservable is a very problematic assumption to say the least. '
Why is no observation given? The reason this idea of dark matter exists is observations.
If you mean an observation in the electromagnetic field then it is a bit ridiculous to hope for such an observation when the hypothesis is that this material is free of this type of interactions.
'It is more likely that there is something wrong with the way we understand the laws of gravity, as well as the big bang theory and the calculations and assumptions derived from it are wrong. '
There is no question that there are gaps in our understanding of the behavior of gravity and other points in physics, but why exactly is it more likely that this lack of understanding leads to a solution other than dark matter?
'Assuming that only the existence of dark matter provides an explanation for temperature changes is not direct proof but a speculative assumption.'
Not that it's not true but how many of the things you are convinced of their existence and way of working do not have direct proof (as you call it)?
Dear Rival,
I don't think I told a joke 🙂
Dark matter is a theoretical existence that so far has no direct proof of its existence. The role of that theoretical entity is to explain any findings including those described in the current article. It is not impossible that there is another explanation that explains the same findings. The assumption that 80 percent of the matter of the universe is unobservable is a very problematic assumption to say the least. It is more likely that there is something wrong with the way we understand the laws of gravity as well as the big bang theory and the calculations and assumptions derived from it are wrong. To assume that only the existence of dark matter provides an explanation for temperature changes is not direct proof but a speculative assumption.
Joseph and Yossi,
Doesn't it seem a little funny to you to continue to claim that the existence of dark matter is a lie precisely in an article in which it was said that the existence of dark matter has been proven? If you have a better explanation for the findings received, you are invited to publish it in the usual ways and maybe you will win a Nobel Prize.
The article describes what the professor wrote as 'proof' but in my understanding it is simply a theory that best explains the findings and nothing more,
If predictions of the theory come true, it will be closer to the degree of proof...
All the breakthroughs in recent years seem to be additions to the king's new clothes. They are incomprehensible to the vast majority of scientists. These articles testify to something puzzling and I spent a lot of time believing.
Proof is also required on the negation drill. Charlila
To Joseph,
Totally agree. The end of the dark matter is the end of the ether, the phlogiston and other theoretical applications that tried to save physical theories and in this case the physics understanding of what gravity is.
For hundreds of years they insisted on the existence of a site
It is interesting how difficult it is for Professor Eric Worlind to promote the entropic theory of gravity and insist on dark matter