The underground facility looking for particles suspected of being dark matter was activated for 90 days during 2013 but despite its sensitivity has not yet detected the elusive substance
Scientists may reach the final stage in the search for dark matter - the enigmatic component that makes up most of the universe.
Comprehensive tests done on the detector known as "LUX" showed that it is the most powerful detector of its kind. While it didn't detect dark matter in its first run, scientists say it should look deeper than ever in its second run in 2014. The experiment also made it possible to rule out previous hints for the existence of dark matter in other experiments.
Dr. Chamkor Ghag, a partner in the LUX project from University College London says: "If the dark matter is there and it interacts the way we think it interacts with normal matter we can start seeing it now."
"Not finding direct evidence of dark matter particles means that physicists will have to go back to the drawing board," he added.
Dark matter constitutes, according to theories and calculations, 27% of the universe. However, astronomers can only detect its existence through the gravitational effect it has on the visible matter in the universe, and no one has been able to look at it directly. Most scientists believe that dark matter consists of particles called WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), massive particles with a weak connection, and that millions of them pass through our bodies every second without leaving a trace.
There are three ways to try to capture the elusive particles. One, in the search in deep space using an Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) for the remnants that the dark matter particles leave behind when they collide with each other. Another way is through the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), where scientists hope to create dark matter when the particles collide, and the third method is to install underground detectors to try to capture the particles as they pass through the Earth. These experiments illuminate the rare occasions when dark matter particles pass through normal matter.
A Lux detector (Large Underground Xenon) is found in a deep mine at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in the state of South Dakota in the USA. During 2013 it was activated for the first time for 90 days. According to Prof. Richard Gartiskel from Brown University in Rhode Island, the operation was intended to test the components of the facility, and the result was satisfactory. "The first run illustrates that the sensitivity of the detector is better than any similar detector that directly searched for the dark matter particles."
The team points out that the lack of detections also excludes the possibility that other detectors such as DAMA in Italy and the American CDMS and CoGeNT have discovered hints of the existence of the dark matter. Due to Lux's high sensitivity, if these hints were correct, we should already be seeing dark matter particles. However, the scientists hope that in the next, 300-day run, planned for early 2014, Lux will be the first detector to observe dark matter directly.
212 תגובות
Obviously, but we're talking about the case where it doesn't stop.
Will the slow bullet then transfer more momentum?
If the target plate is thick enough that it stops the projectile then the amount of momentum transferred to the target plate by a fast projectile is greater than the amount transferred by a slow projectile.
So what?
The transfer of momentum due to gravity alone is zero.
That is:
The momentum of a particle that comes from minus infinity and passes through the hole to plus infinity will not change.
The part of the momentum that will change is solely due to the collision.
Yehuda
Now I saw your comment (moderated?)
In the plasticine case there is no hole. The bullets do it, if they manage to get through. This is just a simple visual illustration that fast bodies affect a body they hit less than the slow ones.
An example from everyday life: neutrinos are so fast that they can penetrate a million suns without slowing down or leaving a mark.
Or what we all know from experience: slow neutrons explode the U235 nucleus, fast ones don't.
Maybe the dark mass is also just too fast to react to light? You will know.
and…?
Do you not accept that above a certain speed the bullets will hardly affect the body?
Israel:
The momentum of the projectile can be divided into two parts:
1) assuming that the projectile passes through a hole in the target block:
There is a transfer of momentum between the projectile and the target as a result of the force of attraction between the projectile and the target.
2) If the projectile does not pass through a hole in the target, it collides with the target, then in addition to the momentum that passes as a result of gravity there is also momentum that passes as a result of hitting the target.
B, take the book PHYSICS by HALLIDAY AND RESNICK.
On page 349 there is the example of the tunnel through the country. There it is written that the movement of the stone is a simple harmonic movement, and everything else.
So please make complaints to them, not to me.
But I hope you got the gist: that beyond a certain speed slow bullets transfer more momentum than fast bullets to the ballistic pendulum. This is what matters to us.
What about my puzzles?
A rock that has enough kinetic energy will not be trapped in the Earth's environment.
She will fly back into space.
A stone that does not have enough energy will not be trapped in the Earth's environment for the simple reason that it is already trapped in this environment.
That is:
No body can be captured in the Earth's environment unless its energy changes during capture.
Meaning:
If a body is captured by gravity it must lose energy. If not in friction then probably in radiation.
Hence the conclusion:
No body can be captured by the force of gravity and move in a truly circular motion. The motion can be very similar to periodic motion but still it is not periodic due to energy loss.
CEL: The slow bullets are more effective than the fast ones.
we
You say: "As mentioned, if the movement is cyclical, then on average over the cycle time there is no transfer of momentum."
So what will happen to God if such a stone is captured by its gravity? Won't he acquire a certain velocity in the direction of the stone identical to the velocity he would have acquired if the stone had simply hit him in an inelastic collision? So where did the momentum of the stone go?
And I agree with you in the argument: the greater the speed of the bullet is greater than the threshold speed, the smaller the relative part of the momentum of the bullet that will be transferred to the log.
That's exactly the point. The slow bullets are more effective than the slow ones. Shoot the watermelons with fast and slow projectiles, see who does more damage.
Israel:
1) As mentioned, if the movement is cyclical, then on average over cycle time there is no transfer of momentum.
The momentum passes from the stone to the earth and from the earth to the stone in a cyclical manner.
2) A meteor collision is not cyclical.
3) The transfer of momentum from the projectile to the block of wood depends in addition to the speed of the projectile:
a) In the material from which the tree is made
b) in the thickness of the tree
C) in the shape of the bullet
conclusion:
If the projectile does not stop in the block of wood, then only part of the projectile's momentum is transferred to the tree.
If all other data are constant then there is a threshold speed at which not all of the projectile's momentum is transferred to the tree.
As the speed of the projectile is greater than the threshold speed, the relative part of the momentum of the projectile that will be transferred to the log will be smaller.
Israel
Not a good example. where is the hole
If there is a hole in the block of plasticine, then neither a fast bullet nor a slow bullet will move the block when passing through it
Good night
Yehuda
B, ok, ugh, so this is the special case, ok?
B and Yehuda.
The stone reached Israel at a speed of 11 km/s relative to Israel. It has a momentum that is times its speed times its mass. agreed upon?
Now it is in cyclic motion (for you, b), and it has no motion relative to Israel. So where did her momentum go? What is the difference from the case in which it would crash into Israel like a meteor?
This means: He moved to the earth-stone system.
And as I said, this is only an incomplete example intended to show that the fast bodies do not affect the body through which they pass, and the slow ones do.
Example B: The Ballistic Pendulum.
A log is hung on a string from the ceiling and bullets are shot at it from a rifle. The ball hits the ball, and according to the angle formed with the vertical, the speed of the ball can be calculated: a large angle means a high speed.
Question: What will happen if the speed of the bullet is very, very high?
Answer: The bullet will easily penetrate the log and barely move it.
Conclusion: only a certain range of speeds affects the log. Above a certain speed the bullet is "transparent" for him. (It will indeed make a hole, but if we use the stone and earth pattern, it is also possible without distortions). Those who do not believe, should try throwing stones at a block of plasticine hanging from the ceiling, and prove that only the slow motions move the block.
agreed upon?
Questions:
1. What is it: it has a yellow tail, it eats stones, and lives a meter deep in the ground?
2. How long will it take for a fallen stone to reach the other side of the Earth?
Israel:
The difference between formula and reality:
1) The stones will not move in simple harmonic motion.
at most in a circular motion.
2) The stones will collide with the walls of the burrow (except for a special case where the walls are in the direction of the Earth's axis of rotation.
3) A stone that moves in a cyclical motion, its average momentum over the cycle time is zero. Therefore, if it is a whole number of cycles, no momentum will pass to the earth.
I didn't think about the escape speed but what is important is that there is contact between the stone and the earth. If there is no contact and/or friction, why would momentum be transferred? The stone up to 11 km per second or less will continue in infinite harmonic motion, therefore no momentum will be transferred and the faster ones will transfer momentum and take it back in flight, again there will be no transfer of momentum whatsoever.
That's my opinion
Yehuda
Yehuda.
If a stone is caught in the earth's gravity, then as we have seen it begins a simple harmonic motion. The momentum it had therefore transfers to the earth-stone system.
But what will happen to a stone whose speed is higher than the escape velocity of the MCD, 11.2 km/s? Such a stone will also reach a peak speed in the center of the country and exit on the other side at the same speed as it reached it, i.e. higher than the escape speed. Therefore it will escape and will not leave momentum.
(The calculation is obviously abstract here on purpose, it aims to qualify the main idea).
Therefore, we accepted that the stones with a speed of 12 km/s and above will not transfer momentum, only the stones with a lower speed will capture and transfer momentum.
So far acceptable?
Dear Israel
Assuming that none of the stones are rubbing against the earth, why would momentum be transferred??
I bet zero.
Please respond gently.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The honorable Mr. B
Because gravity is directly related to the "inflating" of space and the connection between its dimensions, it is also able to cause bodies to rotate, respectfully
Well, Tuff..
In the first step turn to your favorite book, the one by Sears - Zimanski from high school.
Now, I don't have the book, but I believe that if it is a mechanics book worthy of its name you will find the following example in the "Gravitation" chapter:
They drill a tunnel from one side of Kada to the other and drop a stone. What will happen to her?
Now that I think about it, the example may not be in the book because it requires a prayer, but the answer is: the stone will reach the center of the earth at peak speed, continue to the other side and reach it at zero speed, and do the whole way back until it returns to the starting point at zero speed, ready and ready to return on the exercise until the end of days. Simple harmonic motion, elk.
What will happen if another stone reaches the mouth of the tunnel at a speed of km/s? It will also create the same simple harmonic motion, but this time each peak will be at a height of about 50 km above the surface of the earth, if I remember correctly.
Now Questions:
It is said that there are 20 stones that reach the face of the earth at speeds from 1 to 20 km/s, and pass through the tunnel.
1. Which stones will transfer the maximum amount of momentum to Israel?
2. The minimum?
3?
The friction with the air and the history of the stones before they reached the surface of the earth can be neglected.
Dear Israel
I would love to hear another solution to the friction problem!
Especially if as you claim it is simple and logical.
My head is open to suggestions, so open your mouth and let your words shine!
I am listening
Yehuda
Maybe take advantage of connections with Michael? He is angry with me because I called him Ashkenazi.
If you still encounter the problem of friction (and you will), contact David Israel. I believe that the solution is much simpler and more logical, you just have to open your mind.
and the space.
Israel
It doesn't seem to me that it will only cost a few pennies
But I'll see what can be done
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
If you understand programming, you may be able to use Mathcad. If you're as lazy as I am, drop a few pennies and they'll build the model for you.
Yehuda
I get it, you just can't admit a mistake. Plus it turns out that you are
I really don't understand the subject you claim to be an expert on...
First I agreed with me
"Of course G will now cease to be constant and it will be "constant" that will change for every distance in the galaxy and for every galaxy"
Then you came back and qualified yourself and claimed that your claim is mathematical
"The whole argument is that I claim that mathematically changing G is equal to changing M"
Then you repeated your false claim again
"If you think that the following equality is mathematically incorrect, then we have also found our disagreement
M*10*G = (M*10)*G = (G*10)*M”
And after I tried to get you back on track
"Come on, we've already passed this stage. You agreed with me that to explain the observations
We need to turn G into a function that is not simple to multiply by a constant."
You saw that there was no choice, you had to admit your mistake, but that didn't suit you, so you avoided it
"Truly the time has come to end a tzaddik in his faith will live"
And you again tried to evade by accusing me of believing in the dark mass after I claimed more
From several times she is not acceptable to me
"We are really moving in parallel universes
Continue to believe in the dark mass and rejoice that you are also the majority"
After you saw that this way you could not divert the discussion, you turned to be offended
All in order not to admit a mistake
"Understand that I'm quite fed up! stop that! It doesn't make you anymore
Smart if you're trying to download arrays. I will (regretfully) consider not answering your comments
If you keep it up"
I offered you to answer the matter, but you are again diverting the discussion
"You said in your response that I was a charlatan, you said that I don't understand
Was it necessary?
You must apologize
Good Day"
Yehuda, if there is a rule in science, it is that a scientific discussion is done objectively on the subject
I would love to hear a factual answer from you regarding whether M and G are mathematically equivalent
But you evade with various excuses. Those who are not ready to discuss things in them
He is a proper sex supporter who won't bring them up in the comments in the first place.
good week,
sympathetic
ב
Are you not interested in knowing how gravity works? Most scientists and I do.
Israel
There are so many particles that gravitation will still occur.
And about computer simulation. Great idea!, how to start?
Who would agree to do that? After all, everyone knows that Pushing Gravity is a lie and false and delusional and....
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
B:
A ninety year old man enters the priest and tells him that yesterday morning he met a beautiful young woman and could not resist the temptation and although he is not married to her he spent the night in bed.
"Say the Ave Maria three times," the priest tells him, "and you will be blessed."
"But I'm Jewish after all!" says the old man.
"Then why did you even come to tell me?" asks the priest.
"What do you mean, suddenly?", the elderly man replies, "At my age?! I tell anyone who is willing to listen!"
That's how it is with Yehuda and his Pushing Gravity which is nothing more than a variation full of logical errors, physical errors and calculation errors on a long-standing theory published by Le Sage in 1750 and refuted in many ways by well-known physicists and philosophers and here on the site (and you're right - she tries to explain the Newton's laws, and is therefore also in contradiction to the theory of relativity).
He tells about her at every opportunity to whoever is willing to listen.
Half a light year? So for all practical purposes there are almost no collisions in the solar system, right?
What's more, I don't understand why we won't accept the Feynman friction between the earth and Lesage particles, free or bound.
Why not do, or have someone do, a computer simulation?
I understand that pushing gravity is an attempt to explain exactly how Newton's laws are obtained. That is, detailing the situation as a result of which Newton's laws are true.
But if it doesn't solve the dark mass problem then why bring it up for discussion?
I repeat my previous response
To Israel
In all the research I did, I was able to get the mass of the elementary particle of the pushing gravity but not its radius, therefore I was not able to reach the average free path of the particles. Nevertheless, the figure is over half a light year, and please, this is not the place how I came to this. I hope that clears up your questions.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Israel
In all the attempts I made, I was unable to get the mass of the elementary particle of the pushing gravity but not the radius of , therefore I was unable to reach the mean free path of the particles. Nevertheless, the figure is over half a light year, and please, this is not the place how I came to this. I hope that clears up your questions.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
Nice, you continue on your own. Thanks in your error or if you think you are
You're right, justify yourself. It seems that you will do everything to divert the discussion when
You have no answer to the questions. You don't want to have a substantive discussion. You could partially
To fix your image in my eyes but it seems you can't admit it
Accidentally…
B'
Newton did not give any explanation for gravitation, only a formula. And gravity pushing is an explanation. Isn't a situation of explanation versus lack of explanation better than guessing a formula?
An investigation of the formula also reveals differences arising from pushing gravity to large distances. I did this in my simple universe, isn't it better than accepting Newton's formula for the entire universe without question? Just because it is true for a tiny part of the universe?
Do you care to know what is the tool that pulls/pushes the train (the locomotive) or do you get on the train without knowing what drives it? That's the difference. The pushing gravity is the locomotive.
Regarding your question about the direction of rotation of the bodies in the solar system, in my opinion, the force of gravity does not explain the direction of rotation.
The rotations in the solar system are explained in my opinion by the formation of the system from the large gas cloud in the galaxy that made a rotation around the galaxy once in 250 million years which also expresses one rotation around itself. When the cloud shrank as a result of the gravitation and/or pressure differences in the gas cloud, it kept its angular momentum therefore it rotates faster therefore in the solar system most of the rotations of the bodies must be largely in the same direction (as it really is). Not always because there were also conflicts between bodies that changed the statistics a little.
There may also be another explanation. But that's my opinion.
Why does the spiral galaxy rotate in a certain direction, it might be done randomly unless we find out that most galaxies rotate in the same direction and then decide that the whole universe rotates? You will know. Food for thought.
Please respond gently
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
I wrote you in the previous reply:
"But in order for the mean free path to turn Lasage particles into gas, it should be on the order of the size of the solar system."
And you reply:
"Two sheets of paper will not connect to each other in the air because the average free path of the air particles is tiny, on the order of a micromm, which eliminates attraction. If you do this under conditions of weightlessness and a thinner gas, then the pages should connect!"
It can be understood from your words that the mean free path of Lasez particles is much greater than a micromm, isn't it?
But attraction also exists between individual atoms, according to the same inverse squared distance ratio.
Please show me how you can use a thin gas to cause objects the size of planets to continue using gravity pushing and not encounter Feynman friction if the mean free path is not of the size of those planets.
On the same occasion, if you could show me how today's laser particles could also cause inertia.
Gravity can explain the movement of the Earth around the Sun.
But what about the rotation of the earth on its axis?
Is gravity an explanation for this movement?
And what about the movement of the galaxies around their axis? Does gravity explain this?
If the theory does not explain new things then what is its advantage over other theories?
If the heart of the problem is the force acting on the train then what do we care if the locomotive pulls it in front or pushes it in the back?
ב
Good question about pushing gravity
Pushing gravity comes to explain gravity in a simpler way. Newton did not know how gravity works although he guessed that it was supposed to do so with the help of a "messenger particle" Pushing gravity came to answer the explanation and it explains gravity well. I have a debate whether the explanation falls or not because of the friction.
If there is no friction as I claim then explanation 1, 3, is better but regarding 2 the quality of the explanation is the same
In my opinion, gravity pushing will also fail in galaxies. I claim that in general gravitation should not explain the movement of galaxies. I don't have the strength to repeat the explanation
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
According to the evolution of the theories:
A new theory will replace the old one if:
1) She will explain all the knowledge from the past.
2) Explain additional knowledge about the knowledge from the past, knowledge which cannot be explained by the theories of the past.
3) Be the simplest among the theories that fulfill sections 1, 2, above.
Does groovy pushing fulfill the conditions of the evolution of theories?
Mikel
right
There is no scientific proof and it seems to me that the word I should have used is confirmation
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to love
Interesting response
but
Wikipedia: "A charlatan (from the French charlatan) is a person who uses deception, lies and various techniques to present himself to the public as having a profession or other ability, and this in order to gain money, honor or favors dishonestly." End quote.
You said in your response that I was a charlatan, you said that I don't understand
Was it necessary?
You must apologize
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
Since all your claims have already been answered by me a thousand times, I see no need to argue with you.
You are welcome to continue making incorrect and unsubstantiated claims and I will only respond from time to time to flood their illogicality.
To the one who tries to claim that I see something as proof of the correctness of a theory, I will only go back and say as I have said thousands of times and as you find it convenient to suppress: there are no proofs for scientific theories. I always say this and as soon as you come to the conclusion that I see something as proof of a scientific theory - even you can understand that you misinterpreted my words.
Dear Israel
Two sheets of paper will not connect to each other in the air because the average free path of the air particles is tiny on the order of a micromm, which eliminates attraction. If you do this under conditions of weightlessness and a thinner gas, then the pages should connect!
I am planning such an experiment.
This will prove (or maybe not?) that the gravitational pushing model is a gaseous model.
Good Day
And in appreciation
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Hello Michael!
It is not true that I think that cosmological measurements cannot be taken from a distance. I think it is possible and even they are excellent! The only question is how to treat the measurements.
I believe that all the measurements made in the solar system are excellent even if they were made from a distance. We disagree about the mass measurements made in the galaxies, you claim that there is more mass that should be measured and I claim that this is what there is.
Suppose each planet behaved differently then would it be acceptable for you to add dark mass to each planet so that its behavior would fit Newton's holy formula?? This did not happen in the planets, so the formula is acceptable to me for distances of up to a thousand light years. Beyond that, she is not acceptable to me because she "stutters".
Regarding M94, it seems to me that we both agree that its discovery is an important cosmological milestone, but we do not agree on all the conclusions from it. What are things supposed to be?
As we know, M94 is perhaps the only known galaxy that works according to Newton's formula and has no need for dark mass.
We both agree that her revelations are a fatal blow to Professor Milgrom's MOND theory. We both disagree about the following conclusion:
You Mikal claim that this is conclusive proof of the correctness of Newton's formula in galaxies and I claim that it neither adds nor subtracts anything to the correctness of the formula. It's just like if we discover one perfect fruit in a tree whose fruits are all rotten, it does not prove that it is a good tree.
True, I don't agree with the cosmological "principle", and see it at most as an illusion of frustrated scientists who have difficulty with measurements. To decide that what is true here is also true at a distance of a hundred million times is an unacceptable decision for me and for philosophers such as David Yom (for others, yes)
The "principle" has another serious flaw! It is difficult for us to know what is true here, because there is always uncertainty in the measurements and it could very well be that the formula on which the "principle" is supposed to work should be different. If it's not clear then it doesn't matter.
I will not respond to your claims that I do not do the job of proof well and to your opinion that I am even intentionally misleading. Really Michael, your above claims are unnecessary. I don't have time for games.
Good Day
and in appreciation (really)
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
My intention in the first line was that the discussion between us is not about the dark mass yes or no
But about the way you come against the theory.
Yehuda
The discussion between us is not about a dark mass and I am writing for the hundredth time I am not a follower of the theory and I am not
Consecrate Newton's equations.
What I object to is charlatanism and an inability to admit a mistake. You go against the grain
The darkness but it is important to understand what it means before attacking it. in your letter theory
which is not suitable for physics (that's not how science is done) you have shown me that you do not understand the theory of matter
The dark one you attack. Physical theories consist of formulas rather than letters and organs
The equation has a mathematical and legal meaning and it is important to understand them before rushing to change letters.
My respect for you will increase if you simply admit your mistake and stop spreading the nonsense of change
the letters. My appreciation for you would be higher if instead of avoiding and twisting every time
If you were asked a direct question, you would respond to the matter. If you are still championing your letter insight
I would be happy to continue to convince you that you are all wrong in an objective discussion.
Israel
Unfortunately, I also do not understand much in the field and my claims against the dark mass theory are founded
For my personal opinions and feelings more than for in-depth knowledge on the subject.
Please Araf, you mentioned Shakespeare and Bialik, so I remembered Tschernihovsky's "pancakes".
I don't think anyone is particularly excited about the dark mass, not even Michael.
The galaxies are not behaving properly, and they are trying to find an explanation for this. Dark mass is one explanation. Strange, forced, but consistent.
Your explanation cannot be correct, at least in the field of gravity pushing.
Do you really not understand that "La Sage particles are not allowed to rotate"? Of course not! If they are, then no gravitation will be created, and this is their role in the system: to cause gravitation.
And you really don't understand that the gravity pushing model is not a gas model? After all, if it were gaseous, then if you brought two sheets of paper together, they would stick together because of the gravity provided by the air, wouldn't they?
You say "the mean free path actually determines an additional decrease in gravity over that of the square of the distance".
But for the mean free path to turn Lasage particles into a gas, it should be on the order of the solar system.
Now, I'm not saying that the Lesage model is wrong because of Feynman's reservation about friction - in fact I proposed a natural and logical way in which the Lesage model works smoothly without friction and I also suggested that Michael build a computer model if only to prove me wrong, but it overlaps.
But if you build such a model - and indeed you built and even dedicated a blog to it - you cannot ignore all the existing physics. Because then it is not "provocative science - the science outside the box" but simply scientific provocation, science with the intelligence of a box.
Hello everyone
You are all skeptics but continue to cling to the dark altar horns.
I hope that the dark night passed you in your sleep as well and not just in the comments
to Arya Seter
The phenomenon of severe lack of mass was already discovered in 1933 by the astronomer Zwicky. Details on Wikipedia - also in Hebrew. Exactly eighty years ago.
To Israel
I'm not arguing, I just raised my voice a little (lucky that in science you don't see the voices (:)))
I am only referring to the facts. does not make any selection. There is no friction in gravity pushing. point. Deciding that particle clouds don't behave like any other body around the solar system is your fault. Planets, asteroids and just comet dust that awaits us in the meteor showers that await us every year in the orbit of the earth, they are allowed to move around but my La Sage particles are not allowed?? . What is the minimum particle size that is allowed to rotate?, asteroids? Allowed!, Meteor dust??, Allowed!, Just clouds of hydrogen gas??, Allowed!, La Sage particles,…. It's not allowed???, it's true that you need some imagination to understand this, but I'm sure you have it. And again, this is only about their average speed. The particles themselves move in all directions.
And besides, I liked the "hearts-pancakes" connection, and when I eat them in a little while, I will also have a sad smile for my science-supporting friends,
I will give a separate response to Michael
Amazing Saturday!
In appreciation to all of you
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel:
First of all - I'm not enthusiastic about the dark mass either.
I just think it's the best explanation we have right now.
I think that all the other explanations (and in particular those that Yehuda talks about) are inferior to this explanation.
It is interesting to reverse the logic that Yehuda uses: we cannot directly measure what happens at great distances (if we bury our heads in the sand and ignore some of the data like M94) and therefore what happens at these distances is different from what we measure at distances where we are able to measure.
It should be remembered that before we conquered the space within the solar system we did not even have direct measurements of gravitation in this range and therefore, as I have already explained, Yehuda's line of thought had to be captured in this space as well and we were not allowed to deduce the mass of the sun. Nevertheless, we concluded and the observations we made many years later confirmed the conclusions.
Yehuda deals with the facts that contradict his theory by simply ignoring them and he denies the cosmological principle - not gently - but by accepting its opposite.
And what is most important for this discussion: He makes an argument that lacks any logic As if the ability to adjust the dark mass is a disadvantage and when it is shown to him that this ability to adjust is also the property of the bully mass then he ignores the contradiction in his words andTrying to defend this argument with arguments (also unfounded) which do not touch him at all And they are all directed against the dark mass and not in favor of the far-fetched argument
Mr. Sabdarmish As for the dignitaries
The gravitation formula predicts that at distances tending to nothing to zero, there should be an infinite attraction, meaning that the particles stick together, which requires reference
Yoda, what's the fuss? Once again are you making generalizations and ignoring the details?
You write: "Dear friends, in the secret of your heart you know that your solution may be kosher but it stinks."
And ignores the fact that apart from Michael, no one here is particularly enthusiastic about the dark mass. Even the disappearing deer sounds a little skeptical.
So why did she scream?
What everyone (maybe except B) says, I believe, is that your solutions are... well, how do you say gently? interesting…
I show you that pushing gravity runs into the friction problem. You answer with a decisive "no" and the world will be destroyed. Ehud shows you that M is a function while G is constant. You answer with "night" and the sea will burn.
And we are both skeptical about that unknown mass, and Ehud, unlike me, even understands the subject.
So that's how it is between us, Yoda, you're not really keen on facts. The most important thing is that the mother-in-law is delighted with the successful groom who even has his own blog where he teaches everyone cosmology and zoology.
Because what is really important is not what we think in the secret of our hearts - but what the mother-in-law is frying in the secret of pancakes..
Happy Hanukkah.
Yehuda - Where did you get that the dark mass was already "invented" eighty years ago?
To all respondents
The gravitation formula has been proven to be correct at small distances. point.
The examples you gave are in the small distances. There were deviations of two percent particles from the formula and they influenced the discovery of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. All the measurements were in the solar system up to a distance of several tens of astronomical units, which is about a thousand light years
but
Hence to draw similar conclusions about a hundred thousand light years and try to explain a deviation of several tens of times and not two fractions of a percent???
And to do this for eighty years without discovering the illusory mass??, nothing?, nada??
Tell me, what are you doing to yourselves???
How unserious and even childish you seem. When you cry over your fate for what Yehuda "does" to you
Arguing about who said what he said before.
Dear friends, in the secret of your heart you know that your solution may be kosher but very stinky..
So believe what you want - dark mass, hallucinatory mass or stinking mass
I don't believe in it and I also have the audacity not to believe in the formula that creates it in intergalactic cosmological distances.
I wish you that in a year, after Lucas finishes his examination, an announcement will be made accompanied by di nour fireworks, that it exists and I will invite each of you to ice cream at my expense and I will apologize to you for the dark injustice I have done.
So good night my friend
And don't forget it's all just science
And a man by his faith shall live
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel:
I was several years ahead of you.
I have already pointed out the matter in previous debates with him.
That's why I'm also sure that it won't bother him in the future.
Michael - you got ahead of me..
The field data from Uranus observations did not match Newton's formula either.
Therefore, it was immediately decided to use Ockham's razor and Newton's law of gravitation was canceled!
Just... not only was it not cancelled, they even managed to find Neptune and Pluto thanks to it and thanks to the observations.
But it is true that because the observations on Mercury did not match either, the formula was changed to Einstein's formula, well the one with the perihelions..
What Yehuda says is obviously nonsense.
The distant planets in our solar system and most of the planets of other suns were discovered because of "motion that does not conform to the formula".
The neutrino particles were also discovered by a discrepancy between the results of the formulas and the results of the measurements.
As we know, a formula works on data and long before changing the formula, you should check if the data entered into it is correct.
The planets that were discovered were such a figure that was missing and that is why the formula gave predictions that did not match the observation.
Same goes for the dark mass.
It should be understood that nothing in the various theories of gravity requires the mass to be violent and the existence of the dark mass was deduced because the formula indicates that there is mass there and the electromagnetic radiation indicates that there is nothing there that interacts non-gravitationally with that radiation.
The obvious conclusion is that there is a mass there that does not interact with electromagnetic radiation.
Now - all the experiments to "discover" the dark mass (which was actually already discovered through its gravitational interaction) are based on one and only one thing: the hope that in certain situations there will be a non-gravitational interaction (even if indirect - through the nuclear forces) between the dark mass and electromagnetic radiation.
So what if these experiments never work? The obvious conclusion would be that dark matter really does not have any non-gravitational interaction with electromagnetic radiation. This will not say that it does not exist because we do observe its gravitational interaction with matter and with radiation.
As mentioned - all proposals to solve the dark mass issue by changing the formulas are refuted by M94
So = take (take yourself a few more days)
Dear Ehud
There is one rule that is the most important in science:- If the data in the field does not match what is calculated from the formula, who should replace the formula or the data you measured in the field??, the answer is that the formula should be thrown away. point. So please throw away Newton's gravitation formula in the cosmological intergalactic distances and don't get clever with all kinds of illusory physical productions that you nevertheless add to the data measured in the field just to keep the sacred Newtonian formula that is so hard for you to separate from it. For eighty years I have given you the opportunity to philosophize and play with illusory mass (perhaps from today you should start calling it "illusory mass" because that is exactly what it is, an imaginary substance whose only function is to add gravitation). I know it takes eggs to renounce Newton's holy formula and not everyone has them. You have to be a bold person with independent thought and confidently stand up for your truth. I understand that you have to act carefully and think ten times, and if eighty years don't satisfy you, then so be it for a few more days, but leave me alone for now.
It's true, I'm a bit blunt in my response to you, but maybe it's time for you to understand that it's only because your every response discredits me and my knowledge. Understand that I'm quite fed up! stop that! It doesn't make you any smarter if you try to download values. I will (regretfully) consider not replying to your comments if you continue.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
First I want to point out that I don't believe in the dark mass theory either
This does not mean that everything goes. It turns out that Yehuda who goes against the dark mass theory
Does not understand what she is saying and has difficulties in understanding basic mathematics and physics.
Yehuda
I will try again do you understand that the dark mass formula does not change the equations
Newton? She also doesn't change the letters in Newton's formula. The letter M in Newton's formula indicates
Gravitational mass and the dark mass theory does not change that. no letter change,
Is this trivial fact clear to you? Which the dark mass theory does
It is a change of the property of that M externally to the equation. We got used to that
When there is a concentrated grotational mass it heats up and radiates and therefore will be observed
through the photons it emits. The dark mass theory claims that there is matter
A different type has a grotational mass but does not emit electromagnetic radiation.
What is simpler than the one who thinks that the dark mass theory changes the equations
Newton does not understand basic mathematics and physics, I'm sorry and I'm even more sorry that people
Such people lecture on fields they do not understand and pretend to be experts who do
More than scientists that is their field of business.
ב
Below is an article I published here on the science website about the evolution of theories
https://www.hayadan.org.il/%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA/
We are on the same page!
Good day to you
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Call it how you want.
Even in the formulas that describe the behavior of nature (the formulas of physics) there is evolution.
The appropriate formula survives.
The inappropriate are extinct.
If nature does not behave according to the formula then another formula needs to be found that describes the behavior of nature.
The invention of the dark mass out of an attempt to preserve the formula is certainly understandable.
But what if they don't discover any dark mass?
B'
Dark mass was proposed as a solution in the XNUMXs
For eighty years they have not found any serious candidate for its existence
They should have abandoned her a long time ago but they didn't
I am very pessimistic about wanting to abandon her
Don't forget that it enables thousands of jobs,
You have a good head, and the right attitude, you don't buy this delusional solution without doubts, you are not ready to have the data changed to fit Newton's "holy" gravitation formula.
You came up with a solution - to change the formula to match reality. Unfortunately, this is not the solution either, because each galaxy will need its own formula. The only solution is to throw away the gravitation formula at galactic cosmological distances and look for something else to move the galaxies instead of gravity.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What will happen if the detector does not detect any dark mass?
What would happen if a ten times more sensitive detector did not detect any dark mass?
What would happen if a hundred times more sensitive detector did not detect any dark mass?
What will happen if …….
Even then, will you continue to believe with complete faith in the formulas or will you try to change the formula to fit reality?
to all my friends
Sorry I can't get down to the subtleties of your claims
So sorry
We are literally moving in parallel universes
Keep believing in the dark mass and rejoice that you are also the majority
I don't forget that I still owe Michael an answer regarding the "health" of galaxies
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For the sake of good order, I state here without elaborating (I've done it enough and it has been mentioned in the past) that Judah's cosmological theories seem to me to be completely unfounded from every angle and from every aspect that you look at them.
It's really embarrassing to me how many misunderstandings can be concocted together but it is what it is.
Yehuda:
You explained what you were thinking and the explanation shows that you did not understand my intention.
You can argue for another million years about the gravitational constant and although we have already seen that M94 disproves this argument, you are welcome to continue doing so to your heart's content.
Of course I've already pointed out to you and others that a different gravitational constant shouldn't cause a gravitational swirl around a space that has nothing in it (which is what happens in the Slingshot cluster) but that's not the argument here.
My previous response was intended to point out one and only one thing: the same flexibility in adjusting its mass that you so despise when it comes to dark mass you get in other places and in other words - what seems to you to be a huge disadvantage of the dark mass idea is a "disadvantage" of everything you do believe in and therefore I wonder what the criterion is that makes it a disadvantage.
Of course, you added the story about the weights of the jugs only to obscure the problem and I see no reason to refer to it beyond this sentence.
Yehuda
A researcher and especially a scientist should be decent and know when he is wrong and admit it.
You agreed with me that
"Of course G will now cease to be constant and it will be "constant" that will change for every distance in the galaxy
And to every galaxy" and then you write
"If you think that the following equality is mathematically incorrect, then we have also found our disagreement
M*10*G = (M*10)*G = (G*10)*M”
When I remind you that we have already agreed that in order to explain the results a function is needed
And not in a number as you wrote above. You answer me "It's really time to finish
A righteous person in his faith will live." Isn't it time for the righteous man to admit his mistake? do you really
It is not clear to you that the dark mass theory does not change anything in Newton's equation itself
And in particular, nothing mathematical matters?
I thought it was on the order of one percent.
If it is a tenfold order of magnitude, it is a completely different situation.
incidentally:
If it is ten times, then most of the mass in the universe is actually the dark mass.
heart'
As if not
First of all, the difference between Newtonian gravitation and the actual situation is several tens of times, so it does not seem to me that a small change of the distance is the solution
That's my opinion
We will keep trying
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What I am trying to say is that it is possible that the matter of the required dark mass is the result of a distortion in the measurement of distances.
I don't understand this, just making a hypothesis:
Suppose :
The viewer is in the center of a circle.
There are two galaxies on the circumference of the circle.
The observer and the galaxies are at the vertices of an isosceles triangle.
At the apex where the calves meet is the viewer.
In the other two vertices there are two galaxies.
The observer recognizes the distance between the galaxies as the length of the string connecting the galaxies.
But it is possible that the distance is actually the length of the arc connecting the two galaxies.
Could this be the correction needed instead of dark mass? Or maybe a similar fix?
If indeed this is the necessary correction, then the smaller the angle at the vertex where the observer is located, the less dark mass will be needed.
It's really time to finish
A righteous person in his faith will live
Good night to those who lie down to sleep
Good day to others
Sabdarmish Yehuda
No problems our brother, do you believe that Lasage particles can also cause gravitation between themselves and themselves? Is the Lesage model a gas model? Then you will be separated. But that's not what appears in the article on Wikipedia (have you read it, by the way?).
I really need to go to sleep. The second law of thermodynamics states that there is a limit to the amount of nonsense that the human mind can digest in one evening. I think we are on our way to passing it.
Good night.
Yehuda
Come on, we've already passed that stage. You agreed with me that to explain the observations
We need to turn G into a function that is not simple to multiply by a constant. It seems that you do not differentiate
between a function and a constant. The dark matter theory doesn't just say that the total amount of mass
It is different from what we see, but also its distribution in space is different. Now read
Repeat my previous comment and be serious or are we once again back to the pie stories?
Israel
The purpose of the billiard balls is not gravity but to push black and other balls into a dark hole in the table. It will also happen to the common people among them without the need for small balls, tiny, nerdy little balls!
And a note: don't insult Israel, but you should only talk about basic rules if you understand them and not just yell bitterly about things you don't understand
In appreciation
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The key to the basic rule of billiard balls
But billiard balls are not attracted to each other by an inverse square ratio. They can, on the other hand, cause larger bodies to be attracted to each other in an inverse square ratio, according to the Lesage model.
It seems to me that he left Zeus and moved to Jupiter.
Indeed, a cool particle.
(Reminds me a little of Ilanit).
Good night.
I was actually just venting but not answering your instructive questions
I apologize and correct the wrong
Question: If so, then is there an attraction between the particles and themselves? By what ratio? distance squared?
Answer according to Newton's formula according to the square of the distance plus my addition on the turbidity of space
If you incorporate Lesage's original argument about how gravity works into his model, doesn't that require smaller particles? which in turn need even more tiny particles.. which in turn..
Answer: We will not need smaller particles and this is according to the "basic law of billiard balls" which claims that billiard balls do not need smaller balls to move towards their goal (this law is a basic law that was just invented by me and let's not claim otherwise!)
Where is Zenon when you need him?
Answer: I don't know, maybe he repented?
Good Day!!!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Dear Israel
Really, sometimes I don't understand what the problem is.
When your feet are leading you, are they not participating in the task?, are they being left behind?
When the spiral in my toaster heats up the toaster, does it not heat up?
And your precious car when its wheels drive you, are the wheels left behind?
When the helium gas makes the meteorological balloon rise, does the helium stay down?
When the La Sage units take care of rotational motion for the planets, won't they also do it for themselves??
Why accuse it of a circular argument??? Why?, why?, whyhhhhhhhhh??
(Why does this remind me a bit of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice??)
But, what a beautiful day!
The sun shines, the method flourishes and the particle slides!
(Why does this remind me of Bialik?)
Today I apparently rest on the muse!
Good day my friend!
And the particles of the simple universe that will continue to push you forever
And God forbid they don't stop!
Good Day (:))
Sabdarmish Yehuda
If so then is there an attraction between the particles themselves? By what ratio? distance squared?
If you incorporate Lesage's original argument about how gravity works into his model, doesn't that require smaller particles? which in turn need even more tiny particles.. which in turn..
Where is Zenon when you need him?
Dear Israel
What are you saying that the movement of the particles, for example, in hurricanes (the gas molecules) does not affect the particles themselves? You are wrong, big time.
Sorry, it's not circular and if you think so then those are the differences between us,
Lahud: Sorry,, if you think that the following equality is not mathematically correct, then we also found the disagreement between us
M*10*G = (M*10)*G = (G*10)*M
Everything else and the claims of misunderstanding are yours!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
You really, really miss the point. You go against the dark mass but you don't understand
the idea at the basic level.
The idea is not to fit Newton's Grotation formula to the observations by what you call
Change letters. Turning G from a constant into a function changes the equation like changing the meaning of R
or V. At the basis of the theory behind the dark mass is the desire not to change Newton's equation
And not to change the association of the objects in the equation with the physical sizes. Distance remains distance
Power remains power and it decays like one divided by distance squared, speed remains speed and so on
A mass remains a mass. Exactly what you read - a mass remains a mass. What does change is a feature
Not related to Newton's equation for gravitation is a property that says that mass interacts with
electromagnetic radiation. The dark mass theory is exactly the opposite of changing the "letters" in the equation,
It is the desire to maintain the equation at any cost. Adding dark mass doesn't change the equation but
She changes something out of the equation. I would love to hear if you have another theory that preserves equations
Newton as they are and fits the observations. Adding the dark gravitational constant means changing the equation, in Eq
Newton's constant of gravitation as it is called is constant (I have already explained to you the physical meaning of constant).
In addition and in particular from a mathematical point of view, the equation does not undergo any change so that a claim like
"The whole argument is that I claim that mathematically a change in G is equal to a change in M." She is complete bullshit
and lack of understanding. Again dark mass does not change M in the equation!
"Gravity acts on everything and also on the La Saz particles themselves that make up the pushing gravity".
Ahh?
How can gravitation act on the tiny and cute Lasage particles if it is made of them?
How do you say circular argument in Turkish? In Shiki, will I despair?
Dear Israel
I also explained that there is no friction problem in gravity pushing because the particles also revolve around the sun just like the planets or any gas cloud that revolves around the sun. For the sake of good order, he is precise and says that only the average speed will be the same as the speed of the planet and therefore the planet will hardly feel any friction. This is absolutely not what Richard Feynman explained that as we move against the rain, no no, the rain also moves with the storm and we will not feel the friction with it in our movements. Leaves moving in the wind do not feel friction with it.
Gravity acts on everything and also on the La Saz particles themselves that make up the pushing gravity. It is not fair to ignore the gravitational effect on them just because they are tiny. You would not do this injustice to our beloved atmosphere.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Dear Yehuda.
Your penultimate response to me was summed up in the words "the righteous shall live by his faith". This is after I brought up the main problem that arises from the theory of pushing gravity, the problem of friction as presented by Feynman. I have clearly shown you that your solution to the problem solves nothing.
Since you did not address my explanation at all, I began to wonder if the simple universe model is not a cosmological model but a psychological model.
I also disagree with the idea of dark matter for all the same reasons you mentioned and because of its strange and dark properties. But if I come up with an idea for my own solution - on the topic of dark matter or any other topic - I would be happy to hear any relevant criticism and I will try to answer it to the best of my ability. If I fail, I will seriously consider giving up on the whole idea.
What's new with Eli Cohen?
Dear Ehud
First of all, I will go back and say: I do not agree with changing the gravitational constant by a dark gravitational constant just as I do not agree with changing the mass by adding the dark mass. The whole argument is that I claim that mathematically a change in G is equal to a change in M. (I agree that physically it is not the same) so I do admit and maybe I should have qualified myself because really G is defined as a constant. And it should be treated differently from El M. But this is not fundamental because what is important is the change that needs to be made. In my pie example, there is no difference between doubling the matzos tenfold or doubling the cheese tenfold. Both methods will give the same solution.
And by the way, instead of changing M, we could change R or V, and here you wouldn't be able to claim that these are constants!
(The change is different because these are members found in the denominator of the formulas!)
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
But again, these solutions are not quite as good as the dark mass solution
Dear Israel Shapira
In my last response to you I was serious. I'm sorry that you're finding criticism where I didn't mean to.
I don't think gravity has a role in the rotation of the galaxies and the changing quantities required to fit the motion to the gravity formula prove it. The required amount is from zero dark mass (galaxy M94 for example) to ten thousand dark mass (in the dwarf satellite galaxies around the Milky Way)
Therefore, we must look for something else to rotate the spiral galaxies)
Good night
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to Michael
You'll be surprised, but I think about your problem non-stop, but... I'm having trouble!
You actually said that if you adjust a medicine for each person and that's fine (we both surely agree that it's fine and even excellent!) then why when you adjust dark mass as required for the "health" of each galaxy, it doesn't seem okay to Judah.
Seemingly an excellent claim, and I'm having trouble finding a solution to it.
I just know that if I go to the market and buy potatoes, I will want the whole amount sold to me to be bully and not dark smooth. That is, sometimes matching the required results is okay and sometimes not okay.
I admit that right now I don't know where to draw the line. I admit that it is difficult for me to explain why adding dark mass to galaxies is not "healthy", but I am sure that there is something different in spiral galaxies that makes it "unhealthy"
I'll find it eventually. promising!
And about your new questions
1. If the empty jugs are of different and unknown weights we cannot know how many water molecules we have.
If the weight of the empty jugs is negligible we can know how many water molecules we have
2, 3. We can measure the mass of the sun according to the gravitation constant which was measured and found to be correct from a distance of a few millimeters up to a distance of several tens of astronomical units which are about a thousand light years. But to draw a conclusion from this that it will also be true for millions and trillions of times is already excessive. So if the measurement obtained in the field corresponds to the formula, then we will discuss it, but adjusting the measurement in the field to match the results obtained from the formula for distances of a hundred million times (in galaxies - the diameter is about one hundred thousand light years) is not acceptable to me.
Hope I explained
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions in which proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries.
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
Yehuda
Thanks, finally an answer to the matter. You claim that changing G is equivalent to adding dark mass and you
I agree that in order to change G to match the observations, it must be turned into a function:
"Of course G will now stop being constant and it will be "constant" that will change for every distance in the galaxy and for every galaxy just like the mass has to change for every galaxy and every distance."
We started the discussion in general with your claim that there is an equality between all the letters in the formula and as if you change one, you can change
Otherwise, "for an algebraic reason there is no reason to give the letter M protection over all the other letters in the formula, so
Let's not underestimate the first year of high school because it is the foundation for everything and we tend to forget it."
First I assume that you understand now that your mathematical claim is nonsense because there is no "algebraic" equality between the letters.
One of the letters denotes a function while the other is a constant (number), i.e. "algebraic" the letters as you read
They have no weight.
Now for physics. When does physics use constants? When we have a relationship between sizes (usually linear) according to the theory
Let's enter the constant whose purpose is to connect them for example (high school physics) the constant of the spring that connects the force acting on
the spring for its elongation. The constant in this case is not universal (it depends on the elasticity of the spring) but it indicates
Because the theory believes that there is a linear relationship between the force and the elongation of the spring (this is within a certain stretching range, then there are
non-linear effects). Now the Grotation constant comes to indicate that the theory believes that the Grotation force depends linearly
in the mass (of the body producing the force) and goes as one divided by the square of the distance between the bodies. Adding dark mass
does not change this functional behavior, it leaves Newton's laws intact, only stating that not the entire mass
We see. Changing the grotation constant and turning it into a function is basically equivalent to throwing Newton's laws in the trash we say
Because we have no information on how the grotation depends on the distance because the "constant" has become a function of the distance and therefore there is no theory.
There are many theoretical reasons to assume that forces decay like one divided by the distance squared (behavior that we
we encounter it with electrical forces) and we apparently have no reason to throw this dependence away.
From a physical point of view, there is no equality between the members of the equation and a permanent change to the function like an injection
The equation for bin. I'm not a fan of dark mass but the beauty of adding dark mass is that you don't have to
To change Newton's laws they act on both the mass and the dark mass and it is possible through Newton's laws
(Simulation because the computational problem is extremely difficult) to determine what the dark mass distribution will look like and how it will be distributed
the apparent mass. So in conclusion a little modesty before you think that dark mass is just changing letters and all
They are wrong and only you came up with the solution.
This discussion seems extremely stupid to me.
I brought the question of the medication to Yehuda and he said he would think about it.
I don't know if he thought or not, but he certainly didn't draw conclusions.
So now I will give him some situations closer to the subject of the discussion and ask him what he thinks about science's attitude to them and what his alternative proposal is:
1. We want to know how many drops of water are in a jug of water. Today we weigh the jug and then, according to the molecular weight of the water, we give the answer. The jugs on which we perform the measurement are many and different and therefore - for heaven's sake - we get different results. If we continue Yehuda's line of argument it is ridiculous because we simply adjust the number of molecules so that the calculations turn out well. Why not actually change G?
2. We want to know how much mass there is in the sun. We measure its gravity and calculate the mass based on it. Again - according to Yehuda this is ridiculous because we simply adjust the amount of mass so that the formulas work out and we don't even consider changing G.
3. We want to know how much mass there is in the galaxy. Let's say there is no dark mass and all mass is bully. what are we doing? Again - measure gravitational effects such as rotation speed and gravitational acceleration and deduce the amount of mass in the galaxy. This is of course ridiculous according to Yehuda because we again adjust the amount of mass (bullying, right) to get the observed result and we don't even think of changing G.
After all, all these scripts use the same method that Yehuda rejects all the time and all the reasons that Yehuda gives for disqualification exist in them, so what will change?
What has changed is that the mass is called "dark mass". He has already gotten used to the phrase "bullying mass" and he agrees that its quantity should be calculated, but if the mass is dark, that is another matter. Why? Obviously! So!
Mr. Shapira and his high status
I don't want to get into stereotypes of speech though
What is beautiful about force and there can also be point forces, which is that if it pulls on one axis, the particles converge to infinity and because the surface also becomes point-like (and it depends on R) time reverses and a duplication of the particle is also created on another axis and this is what gives you the three-dimensional space
. All of this is related to dark matter in a way that the force begins to push as time turns around at the edges
. Hope I'm clear - a princely poker streak
Mr. blowing
What you call a point force is actually the force acting as it were from the center of mass. The center of mass does not have to be any body, it is just a weighting of all the masses and their distances from it that make up the body in question.
poker.
Mr. Shapira
It is clear that if you are right in the middle and there is an equal pull around you, then the force is zero, but... if the pulling force is point-like and you approach it, you are in a big mess, and if the force is spread out in three dimensions, then you also cannot play on AR without changing it a little, but again, even with that, there is a deviation From the simple formula, you will hear that Newton is an approximation. This is seen especially in the near and far parts
water
Have you heard of blowing integrals?
Listen, Shapira, you have to connect all the small gravitational forces according to their place, and if they don't line up on the shell, you also have a deviation in the distance
water
From the formula of the force of gravity, we see that in the center of the earth the force of gravity acting on a body is equal to infinity, while in practice it is equal to zero. That's why in short distances the force of gravity has turned into a blowing force and some even claim a swelling force.
Yoda
I'm not sure if you'll eat us a pie - but I'm sure you will..
(I know you know how to appreciate laughs, regardless of the discussion).
When you are interested in a substantive discussion about my simple universe, let me know.
Something about groovy pushing
From the formula of gravity, you see that when you approach without end until contact, the force should pull without end, which does not happen. That's why gravity starts to push a little there. It is possible to close a circle with the distances in the far parts, a circle that closes with the reversal of time in the small part because it is in zero area and therefore reverses and in the large part cyclically
Dear Israel Shapira
After so many years it is impossible to be angry with you.
The problem is not so simple and pushing gravity - a simple universe is not a miracle solution. First of all, gravity according to the simple universe loses its value faster than Newton's formula because of the turbidity phenomenon, so the relationship between the amount of matter in the galaxy and the centrifugal force is definitely microscopic, so you have to look for another solution for rotation and the only thing left if you give up gravity is the essence of all the particles moving in the universe such as neutrinos and other rays Cosmicists in the BSA define the vastness of the universe as a gas with everything that results from it - jets, pressure differences, winds, and the like.
Please, please respond gently
Think I fed you a pie
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic
Of course G will now stop being constant and it will be "constant" that will change for every distance in the galaxy and for every galaxy just like the mass has to change for every galaxy and every distance. Apparently we both agree that such a solution that adapts itself to the requested answer is not acceptable to me and you and therefore I am against the dark mass and against all other dark RVG.
So if that was your intention, it seems to me that we agree.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic
Forgive me for intruding. What Yehuda says is simple: the dark mass was "cooked" so that the data would fit the equations.
By the same token, he continues, we could cook G. It doesn't matter whether G is a constant or a function, it's just an analogy.
(By and large, isn't that also what you claim?).
The alternative he offers is gravity pushing. So it seems to me that if you want to contradict his theory, you will have to talk about pushing gravity.
One problem: it is impossible to contradict Yehuda's "simple universe" model. Any relevant comment will always be met with answers along the lines of "a righteous man will live by his faith" and "have a good day." (Yoda, you don't get hurt by pressures, eh?).
Please respond without subtlety.
Michael
Dodi Amos (national champion in freediving 1958) was the CEO of Betzim for many years.
V burned
Yehuda
Yehuda I asked you to answer me a simple question but you insist on confusing V (sorry Israel al
the unsuccessful use).
Do you think the problem is algebraic? Is a function law, M, a constant law (number) G? you are rambling
Instead of answering, I would appreciate it if you answered the matter.
Do you understand that adding dark mass is a change of function in particular an addition of function
added to her?
Do you understand that the constant of grotation is a constant and therefore we only have one degree of freedom to change it,
multiply it by a number?
Do you understand that these two changes are not equivalent?
I would appreciate it if you could explain to me how you intend to change G so that it simulates the action of mass
darkness.
Another explanation from the kitchen to clarify the point, adding a dark mass is not a change
The number of pies, not only the total mass is important, but changing the density differently everywhere in the pie.
By the way, I would love to receive a factual answer (not with analogies from the kitchen) instead of V confusions from a person
who claims not only to understand the problem but also has an innovative solution that no one has thought of before.
Matzot - M. OK. Cheese -G. Acceptable. Sugar -R. rhymes
But eggs - V?
Have you heard of the Obama pie?
Same as Napoleon pie, only without eggs.
Cosmological Statement:
B, I am fascinated by your answer to Ehud. That's my opinion too.
But let's advance the subject a little further.
My friends may surprise you with their knowledge, but the problem here is completely non-cosmological. This is an algebraic problem of which gravitation is only one of its possibilities. And I explain.
My late mother-in-law, very much loved to make me, her beloved son-in-law, sweet pies made from matzah, cheese, sugar and eggs for Pesach, and so that you can better understand what it is, I will give you the recipe, well: M is matzoh, G is the cheese, R is the sugar, and V is the eggs And what you think of as Newton's gravitation formula is actually the pie formula of my mother-in-law, Manuchata Eden, who always made me the delicious and beloved pie. But fate had its way, and the last time there was a glitch and instead of one pie we got ten pies and I ask you, my cosmological friends: - How could the glitch happen. Shall we accept the insistence of our friend Ehud, who insists that only the amount of matzah M is the one that is possible for this kind of error? (To be honest, a happy and delicious error!) Why not check the possibility that the amount of G cheese we used was ten times greater?, and perhaps the change was actually in the amount of sugar R Or the eggs V??
The matzahs M and the cheese G are found in the pie formula counter. And increasing each of them will affect the amount of pies in the same way.
If you understand Ehud, I will invite you and others to eat a pie, and if not, then we will continue to remain hungry
Thank you, my mother-in-law, that from your dark place today you illuminate for us the depths of the dark mass
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The attempt to draw conclusions from general formulas without going into the small details of the formula breeds mistakes.
A good example is the escape velocity formula. It appears on Wikipedia and in most textbooks as: root 2GM/R.
In practice, the mass of the fleeing mass must be added to the mass from which it escapes.
Therefore, Galileo's claim that all masses fall at the same speed, a scimitar and a pin will reach the ground at the same speed if they fall from the same height, is not mathematically accurate. If we neglect quantum effects, the semitrailer will arrive first.
ב
I am waiting for an answer from Yehuda to explain the difference between adding mass and changing the grotation constant.
If the "required correction" does not meet the experimental (observation) test, then there is no point in insisting on it.
It is quite possible that the required repair is a completely different repair.
You have to adapt the theory to reality and not try to adapt reality to theory.
This is what happened with the theory of relativity and I assume that such things will continue to happen.
If there is no mass to match the formula then you can look for "dark mass" but if no dark mass is found then you have to look for another correction.
Do you have proof that the "gravitational constant" is really constant? Is it not possible that it is also a function that accepts values very close to a constant under certain conditions but accepts other values under other conditions?
And do I even have a completely different explanation for the whole matter?
ב
First I know very well what the letter M means in Newton's formula. Yehuda tries to claim that
Changing the mass by changing the M in the formula is equivalent to the change that can be done using
The grotation constant and I try to explain to him that this is not the case. To try to convince him I am forced
asking trivial questions otherwise he claims that he does not understand my intention.
Secondly, unfortunately there are no experiments in astrophysics, there are observations and the correction you are talking about is intended
Adapt the observations to the theory so that it cannot fail in the definition. On the other hand
Such a correction assumes some kind of dark mass that can be searched for or its traces in experiments
On Earth, i.e. accelerators and detectors. The candidates for dark mass are particles of the type
New (not thugs and not even neutrinos) while they are despite decades of searching yet
They were discovered, which in my opinion indicates that the theory of dark mass is problematic (but not that
the discussion at the moment).
sympathetic:
The letter M stands for mass.
The total mass inside the shell of a sphere is a function of the sphere's radius, but this is only provided that the mass density is given as a function of the sphere's radius.
Since the mass density requested from the formulas does not match the measured mass density, someone came along and suggested adding a mass that had not been measured in the accepted ways so far.
This correction can be good provided it is real, that is, it corresponds to the experiment.
But if it does not match the experiment then it is no better than any other correction (or any other belief).
If there is another correction that matches the experiment, then there is no doubt that it is better.
Yehuda
If we can't understand each other how do you think we can understand what
Scientists do in the field of cosmology and astrophysics?
Let's try simply, step by step,
First do you agree that although M and G are letters that appear
In Newton's gravitation formula, their physical and mathematical meaning is different
completely. While G is a constant, i.e. a number, M is a function and in particular
A function of the distance R from the center of the galaxy (for simplicity we will discuss galaxies
having spherical symmetry). Do you agree and if not please explain why
You think that a function is valid as a number.
Yehuda:
You are one and Ehud is the other.
sympathetic
We probably won't understand each other
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
I don't need a link to decide if you understand because it's quite clear to me that you don't understand a fact
simple I will try again because it seems that you refuse to understand. Although in the gravitation equations
Newton's is written with the letter M, but it's a bit confusing, it's not a constant, it's a function
The mass acting on a star of a given radius is the mass of all the stars of that radius
is smaller than the center of the galaxy (this is a result of Gauss' theorem) i.e. every R has M or M
is a function of R but not an arbitrary function but any mass in the mass distribution
Follows Newton's laws whether it is visible or not. How would you perform the same action?
For the grotation constant which is constant? What I explained to you is that you will have to let it be determined
A different value for each radius and this function will not be universal every galaxy will need
its own function so that the number of parameters you will have in such a theory is infinite.
It is useful to understand the problem before rushing to explain the solution to others.
Dear Ehud
I think you don't understand
If in Newton's gravitation formula you multiplied the numerator by the number 10 and added it to the mass and claimed that there is ten times the mass, I can add the numerator 10 to the gravitational constant and decide that there is ten times the gravitational constant. The calculation result will be equal in both cases. It's simple algebraic math.
But it seems to me that there is no point in continuing the debate. I'm also tired of you saying I don't understand the problem.
Take a link and decide if I understand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAo5BQQpBqQ
Have a good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
deer.
What you write "all four of Maxwell's equations were known before Maxwell decades before he published them".
interesting. Is there a link? And why then are they called Maxwell's equations? And why, when he presented them to the Royal Society in 1864, did he choose the cumbersome version, the one containing 20 equations, and not the compact version of 4 equations? And why in the site model from 1861 does it not include the same 4 equations if the model is based on them?
And to the point: are you claiming that Maxwell did not believe in the physical reality of his ether model? that he believed that the model is a kind of virtual "wave function" that does not describe a physical reality?
To the best of my knowledge the ether model was established in the 19th century at least as the atom model is established today. Lorenz, Michelson, Morley, and many others continued to believe in it many years after relativity was published.
Of course, the last response was a bad wording (a typo), but the intention is clear:
Maxwell's four equations were not invented or discovered by Maxwell but long before that - he simply (and it's not simple) noticed that these are the four equations required to describe all of electromagnetism.
Israel,
Again, all four of Maxwell's equations were known before Maxwell decades before he published them.
This is why his model is after the equations.
sympathetic
I don't think you read what I wrote.
Maxwell published the site model 3 years before he published the equations.
And so he could not base the model on the equations, simply because they did not exist when he published the model.
And I don't think you looked at the model either.
If and after you do, we'll see if you can continue to claim that the model is "tailored" to fit the equations.
Sincerely.
Yehuda
I did not say what the solution is in my opinion. I wrote what the problem is which I think you don't understand. cannot be explained
The speed of the stars in a single galaxy by changing a parameter like the gravitational constant that as already
I explained that inside the galaxy the velocities correspond to Newton's formula with visible mass and outside as a function of radius
An amount of dark matter (depending on the radius) must be added to adjust the velocity distribution. I do not think so,
If you've read my comments, dark mass is the explanation for the observations not matching Newton's laws but me
Yeah think you don't even understand the problem you are trying to solve. There is a fundamental difference between mass
dark which is a function of the radius from the center of the galaxy ie distribution and the gravitation constant which is
A number is not a function.
Dear Ehud
If you think that adding a dark mass that you can't see that has no friction is tasteless and has no smell, that all it has is just gravity, it makes more sense than adding a dark and cute gravitational constant, then to each his own preferences.
I repeat that in my opinion none of them is the solution.
Good night Ehud
Sabdarmish Yehuda
deer
Thank you very much for your answer about the size of the universe. It's a bit hard for me to understand how this fits
with the big bang but I hope to find time to think about this topic a little more deeply.
Thanks again.
Israel
You just insist on not understanding the difference between the mathematics of the equations in the description and experience
base the same equations on a mechanistic model. Zvi wrote to you that the site was acceptable before Maxwell
And he didn't need Maxwell to get his differential equations either. I guess after
That Maxwell received Maxwell's equations from the knowledge that existed in his time, he turned to the second step, experience
explain them according to the site model that existed in his time. I'm excited that at least I've done enough
on this subject.
Yehuda
You write,
"Why is it allowed to add dark mass and not allowed to add a dark gravitational constant?? After all, if you add a dark gravitational constant G then every galaxy will have its own gravitational constant just like every galaxy has its own dark mass. Mathematically, it's the same thing, isn't it?
Your question proves that you do not understand the problem you are trying to solve. Velocity distributions cannot be explained
the stars in the galaxy by changing the gravitational constant for each galaxy. When looking at a single galaxy the velocities of the stars
In the inner part of the galaxy, Newton's laws are obeyed, while as you move away from the center (relatively large distance), deviations are obtained. The observation cannot be explained by changing the total amount of mass in each galaxy, the distribution must be changed
The mass in space. The change is not simply to change M to M' but a dark mass distribution must be added. in the galaxy
The mass distribution can be written as a function of the radius (if angular symmetry is assumed) and therefore at any given radius add
The mass has a different amount of dark mass, because the dark mass is also distributed according to the radius. How exactly did you want to achieve the effect?
This with the help of the Apple gravitational constant? Sometimes to review high school material before rushing to correct all the scientists
The researchers on the subject.
From the train's point of view, it is a synchronized system and the platform clock moves relative to it. That's why the time on the platform clock moves slower, and this is also what the photographs will show: with each car that passes the time on the platform will fall further and further behind the car clock.
And it is true that the obvious question is: how can the platform claim that time on the train moves slower? After all, the photos show the opposite!
The answer is complex and mostly mathematical.
Laboratory report on thought experiment A.
The place: the desolate steppes in the twilight zone between the end of the universe and infinity, the same area that was named in the history of the site "Tiz al Nabi"
Time: 300,000 years after the Big Bang.
Participants: Twin A and Twin B.
Course of the experiment:
1. Both twins measure the background radiation temperature. Reading with both: about 3000K. Both rest relatively to radiation.
2. Twin A remains in the spaceship.
3. Twin B sets off at sunset and takes with him an old dream, a map of the day, a cesium watch, a radiation meter, a doppler meter, a video camera, and a Macintosh computer.
4. Twin B accelerates sharply and reaches speed V in zero time, almost the speed of light.
5. Twin B stays at this speed for 5 minutes. The video camera captures the display which shows the weighted temperature of the background radiation outside. The video shows a steep drop in temperature, up to a temperature of 500K.
6. Twin B turns around and quickly returns to his brother who is waiting for him. When they meet, twin B's watch shows that only 10 minutes have passed, while for A, 400,000 years have already passed. The temperature dropped to 350K.
Thought experiment report B:
The same as in A, but this time with twins C and D who start the journey at a speed V relative to radiation.
1. Twin D accelerates rapidly and reaches velocity V relative to its brother, which is velocity 0 relative to radiation.
2. He goes through the first 5-minute track according to his watch. The video shows that there is almost no drop in temperature.
3. Twin C, the remaining twin, knows that he must wait 400,000 years for his brother, so he takes out Einstein's book and reads:
Postulate XNUMX: The principle of relativity:
"The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. Thus, for example, a person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or standing at rest."
Since he knows from Twin B's experience that at a speed V relative to the radiation the temperature drops by 2500 degrees Kelvin in five minutes, and since his situation is now the same as that of Twin B, that is, he is moving at a speed V relative to the background radiation, he knows that according to Postulate A in 5 minutes The temperature will drop to 500K.
Twin C immediately realizes that if in 5 minutes the temperature drops to 500K, then in the 400,000 years he has to wait for his brother it will already reach almost absolute zero, and runs to get a sweater out of the spaceship's compartment.
On his way, he thinks bitterly that if it weren't for the Big Bang theory, his condition would have been symmetrical to the condition of Twin A in Experiment A, who was leisurely vacillating during the journey. He curses Abel, Lameter, and Gamov, who came up with the damn idea that spoiled his trip.
Details:
There is only one platform. (one point, one camera in a row).
At a certain point in time the locomotive passes in front of the platform.
At this point in time the platform clock shows 0 and the locomotive clock also shows 0.
At this moment, the series of photographs begins.
The locomotive takes pictures of its own clock and the platform clock.
And the platform also takes pictures of its own clock and the locomotive clock.
The first car arrives in front of the platform and takes pictures of its own clock and the platform clock.
And the platform also takes pictures of its own clock and the clock of the first car.
And so on for each additional carriage that passes.
the question:
Will the self-clock and the moving clock show the same reading in all the photographs?
Note:
On the platform there is a series of photographs of the same clock, while on the train each time a clock of a different car is photographed.
ב
You write: "Suppose the locomotive clock is reset with the platform clock".
Did you mean synchronized? I think so, don't you?
You cannot according to relativity synchronize the two clocks, because what inertial systems are different. You can synchronize the train car clocks with each other or the platform clocks with each other, but not which with which.
You can indeed "reset" the clocks at a certain moment, that is, when the locomotive passes in front of a certain clock on the platform, then a joint photograph of the clocks of the locomotive and the platform will show 0 in both (or any other time in both), and this from both directions, the locomotive and the platform. However, this is a unique moment, in the following photographs the locomotive clock will show a lower time than the platform clocks, and the same in the other direction, that is, if a photograph of car No. 17 showed a certain time when it passed platform clock No. 17, then when platform clock No. 18 will pass by Car 17, the time at the platform will be lower than that of the car.
confusing? Welcome to the world of shortened times.
Israel:
Suppose :
A train passes by a platform.
From each car on the train, the self-clock and the platform clock are photographed.
And from the platform, the self-clock of the platform and the clock of the car passing in front of the platform are photographed at the same moment.
(Assume the locomotive clock is reset with the platform clock).
Are you claiming that in every photo the photographed pair of watches (the watch itself and the watch that is in relative motion) will show the exact same reading?
Well, section 11 is a bit redundant, but the idea is hopefully clear:
In the original paradox, the age of the remaining twin is always higher than that of the accelerator, but cannot exceed the age of the background radiation, which is also the age of the universe.
If we reversed the formation, meaning that the remaining twin moves relative to the background radiation at a speed close to the speed of light, while the accelerating twin spends most of its time at rest relative to the radiation, then the age of the remaining twin is still higher than the age of the accelerating twin, which is also the age of the universe.
Therefore it follows that the age of the remaining twin is higher than the age of the universe.
He must be terribly cold, isn't he?
deer
You write: "The site in Maxwell's model only gave an interpretation to the equations he discovered earlier and this interpretation is wrong".
According to the Wikipedia entry:
"He related everything in 20 differential equations with 20 variables. The equations, known as Maxwell's equations, were presented at the Royal Society in 1864. They explain the relationship between the electric field and the magnetic induction field."
Since the ether model was introduced already in 1861, it can be understood from your words that he kept the secret of the differential equations for at least three years, right?
Reason gives, and history also shows, that the order is reversed: first he built the site model, and from it he deduced the equations.
And regarding the extension of time:
As mentioned, I have no problem with slowing down clocks in accelerated systems. Only in inertial systems that are at rest relative to the background radiation system.
However, according to relativity, in my understanding of the twin paradox, most of the difference in times is created while the twins are in inertial motion and not in acceleration, and here the collision with the absolute time of the bang.
The "paradox of the twins" can be demonstrated through the following thought experiment:
1. Three twins A, B and C are on the earth.
2. B and C accelerate in a fraction of a second to high speed. Another fraction of a second after they reached it, B immediately turns around and returns to Israel after a short time (20 seconds) according to A's watch. (They will not meet, of course, but they are now in the same inertial system so that both clocks are ticking at the same rate).
3. C continues his journey at a constant speed.
4. According to the assumption of relativity, for every minute that now passes on C's clock, a billion years pass on A's clock.
5. Since B accelerated relative to C, then according to the same assumption of relativity, for every minute that passes on B's clock, a billion years pass on C's clock.
7. It therefore follows that for every minute that passes on B's clock, a billion square years pass on A's clock, who is in the same inertial system with him and can also compare the time of the clocks with him, which are supposed to tick at the same rate.
Allegedly, there is a contradiction in proper relations. I assume that the contradiction can be resolved, but there is another problem that will be difficult to resolve:
8. When B and C have reached a constant speed, the twins paradox can be started from this point, with B in the role of the accelerating twin.
9. According to the paradox, when B returns and meets with C, he will find that C has aged a billion years for every minute that passed by him.
10. If B spent one hour on earth, when he meets his brother C he will be 60 billion years old.
11. Therefore, if the agile B accelerates in the blink of an eye in 2013, photographs C without delay and immediately returns to Israel, then because he did not spend almost any time in inertial motion, he will also return to Israel in 2013. The photograph, on the other hand, will show C 60 billion years old, i.e. a future twin.
And this is already a problem, because the universe has not yet reached this age.
No?
By the way: all the experiments that confirmed the lengthening of time - airplanes, GPS, clocks with different gravity, ions - to the best of my knowledge were done in accelerated systems or in systems that move against the background radiation, and therefore are in the loop, which can speed up the clocks.
B',
I understand that you insist on being wrong.
If so, I'll stop bothering you.
A more correct definition is:
The total distance from a certain point divided by the total time this distance took.
And it's good even if the movement is not steady. That is, even if during the movement there were accelerations and decelerations. Distances and approaches.
In order to solve the twin paradox, it is necessary to talk about an average of the path over time instead of talking about steady movement.
If we talk about an average of the road over time, this also includes situations of steady movement.
for example:
If a body moves for 10 second 9 meters forward and 19 meters back then it moves at an average speed of XNUMX meter per second. Although it actually travels XNUMX meters every second.
If we replace the fixed speed in the Michaelson and Morley experiment with the average speed over time, we will get the same results of the experiment.
The same goes for all the formulas of special relativity.
And this is how we will solve the "twin paradox" and it is possible that other paradoxes will be solved this way.
In the system of A:
The time you see on B's watch is between the actual time on A's watch and the time you see on C's watch.
In the system of C:
The time you see on B's watch is between the actual time on C's watch and the time you see on A's watch.
These calls happen at any time. Especially after returning to the starting point.
The obvious conclusion is that after returning to the starting point the time differences are zero.
Aryeh Seter,
I agree with you that it's strange that he didn't get it.
My guess is that he was convinced (like all his contemporaries) that the universe is eternal and therefore assumed that this instability is not real (I never tried to prove that the universe is indeed unstable and it is possible that the proof of this is not so simple even though it is very intuitive).
To his credit, he adopted the Big Bang model very quickly after observational evidence arrived (Hubble discovered that the galaxies are indeed moving away), which confirms that he was not completely satisfied with the cosmological constant solution.
B',
The answer is simple: B (you?) will feel that the longest time has passed.
The test is very simple - if during the entire time that passed from the parting to the meeting you did not feel acceleration (that is, you did not feel an attraction to one of the walls of the spaceship) - then you must have had the longest time. Accordingly, the more severe accelerations you experienced during this time, the shorter the time you spent from parting to meeting.
Needless to say, in the case of the trio, a meeting will not be possible if at least two of the three twins have not experienced any acceleration since the separation.
Zvi - This response of mine intended for you was pushed to the old responses page, so I am uploading it again: - Thank you for your response. I thought the accelerated expansion dictated hyperbolic geometry. Another question that has been bothering me for a while. A static universe with a cosmological constant (Einstein's) is unstable - a small disturbance is enough and the stability is violated therefore the universe must be either contracting or expanding. If I understand it, then how did Einstein not understand it?
If twin B left the Earth and returned to it then its average speed relative to the Earth is zero.
If its average speed is zero then it moves at a constant speed of zero.
If it moves at a constant speed whose magnitude is zero then the time difference should be zero.
Needless to say, my opinion is not an expert opinion.
I'm just expressing my opinion.
I ask if there is a mistake to show me where the mistake is.
Israel Shapira,
Regarding Maxwell, I think that Ehud and I clarified the matter sufficiently.
There is nothing to be surprised at the correctness of a conclusion that can be easily derived from laws that are not related to all the dynamics of the ether and that were known before Maxwell - the ether in Maxwell's model only gave an interpretation to the equations he discovered earlier and this interpretation is wrong. It is important to note that the site was not invented by Maxwell and was talked about long before (Wikipedia), so in this respect Maxwell simply tried to explain an experimental result using an existing theory that later turned out to be wrong.
Regarding the age of the universe (and here the response is also relevant to B)
As soon as you left the CMB system you inevitably accelerate (otherwise you will not separate from this system which is the ultimate inertial system), therefore you will measure a different progression of time. Even later, when you return to the CMB system, this fact will not change - there was a time when your clock moved differently from the CMB clock, and therefore you will discover gaps that will not be corrected until you readjust your clock. If half of a person goes on a trip, he will speed up and slow down, he will come back and find that the other half will age faster - that's how it is - this is general relativity and there is no paradox here.
deer:
What about the "paradox of the trio"?
Suppose a trio:
A goes in one direction.
b remains on earth.
C goes in the opposite direction than A.
A, C are symmetrical with respect to B. (same speed in opposite directions).
Then everyone returns to the starting point.
According to B:
Clocks A and C are the same.
According to A:
B is retarded, C is more retarded.
According to C:
B is retarded, A is more retarded.
In order to reconcile the generations:
All watches must be the same after returning to the starting point. (The lag of the clocks is zero).
conclusion:
The twin paradox can only exist if there is no return to the starting point.
If there is a return to the starting point then the lag is zero and the twin paradox does not exist.
sympathetic,
As for the finitude of the universe, I don't think the picture is that simple and it is certainly possible that it has an infinite size if the density is constant (if you want, call it infinite mass - I will discuss the problems of this definition later).
The universe you suggested, the analogy to points on a balloon is a good analogy overall, but it fits a closed universe (k=1 in the Friedman equation). This idea of a finite universe certainly sounds nice but apparently someone up there thinks otherwise (….). It is true that the evidence indicates that our universe is flat (k=0) and this means that it is absolutely possible that it has infinite mass, that is, infinite size with a constant density.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Size.2C_age.2C_contents.2C_structure.2C_and_laws
Apparently, a flat universe with a finite size (torus shape) is possible, but such a universe would not be isotropic and this raises other problems, which causes that, as of today, the accepted statement is that the universe is infinite, homogeneous and flat:
"the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the universe is infinite and flat"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe
So how does this stack up against the infinite tower bans?
The best explanation I found for this is on this forum
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1915/what-does-it-mean-that-the-universe-is-infinite
They refer there to MTW page 457 (Misner Torne & Weeler) and there they do make the quoted argument.
By and large (with my interpretation, since MTW is actually discussing the mass of a closed universe and even in this case they claim that it cannot be defined) the theory of relativity does not talk about mass but about density or pressure (energy momentum tensor). When talking about an object such as a star, you can talk about total mass because when you are at point X that is outside the star, the total mass of the star has meaning and you can learn about it from the mass at point X. On the other hand, when talking about the entire universe, the mass is not a relevant figure in the context since its mass cannot be measured (because for that you have to be outside).
The quantities relevant to the relativity that are part of the energy-momentum tensor do not diverge, therefore there is no problem - you decided to look at an integral over the density and it can diverge.
I'm not sure I like this conclusion, but what is clear is that a flat, isotropic, homogeneous universe is indeed of infinite size and "mass".
deer:
It is about a twin who left a measurement system but returned to it.
The measurement system is not the twin.
The measuring system is the Earth.
In order to explain the ear we will describe:
Suppose the earth were to be divided into two equal parts.
One part would have remained in place with a twin.
A second part would fly in orbit with a B twin.
And then the two parts would come back and unite into one ball.
Were two different times from the big bang measured in this ball?
And if indeed two different times were measured, then what would happen if, after returning, we mixed the material of the two halves until a uniform paste was obtained? Was a different time measured for each grain of the pulp?
deer
You write: "Finally the mathematical formulation made it easier for Maxwell to notice an interesting phenomenon - electromagnetic disturbances may propagate in a wave form. The speed of propagation of the disturbance as calculated from Maxwell's equations (as mentioned, equations that were discovered experimentally even before him)
As told in the popular literature, and if I remember in Maxwell's biography as well, first he built the hydrodynamic ether model and only then he discovered to his surprise that the speed of light derives from this model from hydrodynamic considerations. From Wikipedia:
Maxwell used this ratio in Isaac Newton's equation for the speed of sound, as applied using the density and transverse elasticity of his sea of molecular vortices. He obtained a value which was very close to the speed of light
Not pure mathematical considerations, but the application of a hydrodynamic model (density and elasticity of a gas, from which the speed of sound in that gas can be calculated) to the ocean of molecular vortices in his model.
You write: "Those who accelerate experience a sensation equivalent to being in a gravitational field and time passes more slowly for them."
Which I definitely agree with. What I don't understand is how there can be a slowing down of times in a system that is not accelerated.
Israel,
As for Maxwell - again, I think this is not a strange case. The story is much simpler:
The practice of electricity began even before Maxwell's time. When Maxwell sat down to write what would become known as Maxwell's four equations, all four equations (Coulomb's law, the absence of magnetic sources, Ampere's law and Faraday's law) were known. Maxwell's achievement is that out of all the laws relating to electrodynamics, he understood that these are actually the four equations that dictate physics and, moreover, he formulated them in a mathematically appropriate way.
Maxwell also noticed the problems arising from the formulation of the existing laws and thus he corrected Ampere's law (one of the equations) by adding a "copy current" which clarifies how a change in the electric field effectively functions as a current and causes the existence of a magnetic field.
Finally, the mathematical formulation made it easier for Maxwell to notice an interesting phenomenon - electromagnetic disturbances may propagate in a wave form. The speed of propagation of the disturbance as calculated from Maxwell's equations (as mentioned equations that were discovered experimentally even before him) is exactly the speed of light and therefore Maxwell hypothesized that light is nothing but an electromagnetic wave.
So far Maxwell was right about everything (and many other things). Now he turned to the question with light being a wave how does it spread through space? He brought up the vortex theory on the site which, according to what we know today, is not true. However, since the theory tried to explain the propagation of light as an electromagnetic disturbance, it is no wonder that in this regard it gave correct predictions - simply because it was built in advance to explain the behavior of light as an electromagnetic wave.
As for the background radiation,
I think you are missing a very important point. In terms of relativity, the "cosmic background radiation" system is not special in any way. I agree that subjectively it seems to be an important system (see my comment to B below) but in terms of the theory of relativity, the fact that this system was chosen by us to be more important than others does not require it to be special also in terms of the theory of relativity.
Thus, if you live in system A which is not static with respect to the CMB system (like the two twins you suggested) it will appear to you as if the expansion of the universe is slower. If one of the twins sets out on a journey where he speeds up and slows down (or slows down and speeds up - it doesn't matter) and finally comes back to live in system A, he will find that time has passed more slowly for him and what the universe has done in the meantime simply does not matter - the one who speeds up experiences a sensation equivalent to being in a gravitational field and time passes slowly for him More.
B.
Apparently it is true that "it is impossible to talk about time since the big bang without mentioning which measurement system is involved" and it is always possible to measure in some system in which a different time will pass. But if so, note that it's not that Andromeda has its own system, the Milky Way has its own system, and the galaxy at the edge of the universe has a completely different system - all these systems measure more or less the same time since the Big Bang.
Although relativity does not choose any system, most galaxies move at a speed close to 0 relative to the cosmic background radiation system (all their movement relative to it results from local disturbances - suppose the existence of a large cluster at a not great distance from them). As a result, if we refer to the age of the universe as the time that has passed since the big bang in the background radiation system, it will be found that in every galaxy in which time is measured, the same time has passed, up to a ratio of one in a million (if we assume that galaxies move at a speed of one thousandth of the speed of light relative to the CMB) . So apparently the argument is correct and there is no preferred system and the whole issue of the age of the universe is system dependent, but in practice it is clear that there is a system in which it is wise to define the age of the universe and that is the CMB system.
As for the twin paradox - your conclusion is wrong - there is no problem for a twin that was in accelerated motion relative to the background radiation system to claim that only 10 minutes have passed since it set off even though the "universe" claims that a billion years have passed. Once you left the system, you lost sync with it.
sympathetic
I just asked
Why is it allowed to add dark mass and not allowed to add a dark gravitational constant?? After all, if you add a dark gravitational constant G then each galaxy will have its own gravitational constant just as each galaxy has its own dark mass. Mathematically it's the same isn't it??
Please answer at a high school level
Thanks
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic
You write: "You don't need density and elasticity to get a wave equation. A wave equation is defined
Mathematically, when there is equality between the second time derivative of a function and the second derivative
The space of that function is multiplied by some which is constant. From the solution of the equation it is obtained that the constant
is the wave speed squared. From Maxwell's equations we get the constant which is the speed of light".
Historically, Maxwell's equations were developed only after the ether theory (1861) and appeared only in 1864. You may not need density and elasticity to get wave equations, but according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
Maxwell used this ratio in Isaac Newton's equation for the speed of sound, as applied using the density and transverse elasticity of his sea of molecular vortices. He obtained a value which was very close to the speed of light
So it may be true that in retrospect the speed of light can be derived directly from the equations, but how exactly did it arrive at the equations? Not from molecular eddy theory?
Be that as it may, Maxwell as written applied Newton's equation to the speed of sound to find the speed of light.
Half past two in the morning in AL - good night.
a) Is there proof that for any point in time the universe is limited by some finite radius?
b) If there is a proof then how is the contradiction to the theory of relativity explained?
Yehuda
How do you want me to take your knowledge or your weird letter theory seriously.
Did not change the letter M to M' but added a distribution of dark matter how would you make a change
Such in G for example will you make G a function of the radius from the center of the galaxy? You are welcome to try
But you won't get such a universal function. The beauty of MOND is that Milgrom was able to change the
Newton's researcher for a different universal law. Again dark dark mass is not a change of the letter M but an addition
Distribution of mass that depends on the distance from the center of the galaxy. Now you understand why I doubt
in your knowledge? The equality between the centrifugal force and the gravity does not require the mass change in the galaxy
Until you start to reach a certain radius from which the mass change is required, but this is a distribution
the mass I suggest you think a little about the subject before you develop theories.
Israel
You don't need density and elasticity to get a wave equation. A wave equation is defined
Mathematically, when there is equality between the second time derivative of a function and the second derivative
The space of that function is multiplied by some which is constant. From the solution of the equation it is obtained that the constant
is the wave speed squared. From Maxwell's equations the constant which is the speed of light is obtained.
There is no need for elasticity or density. This is a mathematical equation and its solution. now
When we want to give the equations an explanation in a physical sense and Maxwell was looking for an explanation in the sense
of site fluctuations, it is necessary to link the constants appearing in Maxwell's equations and properties
the site. This link is not necessary to obtain the equations and to obtain the mathematically obtained wave speed
from the equations. In science, a distinction must be made between the resulting theory that mathematically reproduces experimental results
and the interpretation that is given to the mathematical equations. The problem of interpretation in physics emerged
In full glory when you get to the quantum theory.
sympathetic
Zvi writes:
"A. If the universe is flat (as the measurements show as of today) then it is infinite - what has an end is the visible universe and the truth is that this is the relevant thing for every practical need since what is outside the boundaries of the visible universe cannot affect the visible universe."
I interpret this literally: the universe is infinite in volume always, even one second after the bang.
What is finite is the universe relevant to us, i.e. visible and containing the mass relevant to us.
Am I wrong?
Dear Ehud
When I said letter change, I didn't just mean a letter change, but for the same letters that appear in the equation of motion of the spiral galaxies, on the one hand I have Newton's gravitation formula and on the other hand, the centrifugal force formula, since both were supposed to be equal, but unfortunately for cosmology, they were not, so Zviki And others decided that the dark mass should be added, that is, the letter M (the mass of the galaxy) in the gravitation formula should be changed to 10M and then the two parts of the equation are equal. But in fact the same result you will get if you decide to change the letter G to 10G even then you will get the required gravitation.
Likewise, you can change the letter R (radius) or the letter V (velocity) that appear in the formulas instead of the above letters. So maybe it's time you start taking me a little more seriously and don't slander my physics knowledge every second
Thanks
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic
You write "a wave equation can be obtained in a simple form from the ratio between the variation of the magnetic field during the variation of the electric field in space and between the variation of the electric field in space. From the constants in the equations it is possible to extract
The speed of the waves' progress, so far there is no need for a hydrodynamic model".
In my understanding, it is not possible to extract the speed of light just like that from those constants. Can you show how to do it without a model? This is why Maxwell (an expert in hydrodynamics) built the same hydrodynamic model of molecular vortices. If you take a look at the model you will see that he writes right after equation 131:
To find the rate of propagation of transverse vibrations through the elastic medium of which the cells are composed, on the supposition that its elasticity is due entirely to forces acting between pairs of particles.
By the ordinary method of investigation we know that
V=\sqrt{\frac{m}{\rho},} (132)
where m is the coefficient of transverse elasticity, and \rho is the density. By referring to the equations of Part I., it will be seen that if \rho is the density of the matter of the vortices, and \mu is the "coefficient of magnetic induction,"
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
He simply replaced the density and elasticity in his hydrodynamic model with the constants of electricity and magnetism and got - much to his surprise, so he claimed - the speed of light as the speed of the wave's progress.
So if there is no ether and no molecular vortices, then how does such an elaborate but wrong model give such accurate results?
It can be said that Newton was also wrong despite his accurate results at low speeds. But in Maxwell's case there is no model like relativity at low speeds that gives the same results. After Einstein the model simply disappeared. Everyone studies Maxwell's equations, but does anyone teach about the hydrodynamic way he arrived at which equations?
A bit of trivia:
Hertz's teacher, Helholmetz, questioned those hypothetical electromagnetic waves proposed by Maxwell. He prepared a lecture that he was going to deliver at the University of Berlin in which he denied Maxwell's theory.
When he heard about Hertz's metal marble experiment, he immediately changed the topic of the lecture and opened it with the words: "Gentlemen, I want to tell you about the most important discovery of the 19th century."
Israel
The universe is infinite in terms of time, meaning it will expand forever without collapsing. Because it is infinite in time
And it spreads, after all, it is also infinite in volume, but at any given time its volume is finite, even now. During
Time the distance between galaxies is increasing and their density is getting smaller and smaller. There is no area with material
and an area without. Again pretend an inflatable balloon that will inflate forever. As far as the visible universe is concerned, your image is a point
The balloon has a finite range in which you can observe.
sympathetic
My one response to you is pending.
If the universe is infinite in volume but not in mass, then most of it must necessarily be completely empty of any mass, right?
So where are those "final planets" after which no more mass is found?
Israel
Regarding Maxwell, what Zvi explained to you is that a wave equation can be obtained in a simple way
From the relationship between the variation of the magnetic field in time and the variation of the electric field in space and between
The variation of the electric field in space. From the constants in the equations it is possible to extract
The speed of the wave advance, so far there is no need for a hydrodynamic model. At this point he did not stop
Maxwell thought to himself, all the waves we know move in a certain medium in some medium
Are the electric and magnetic fields moving? He assumed that they move in a medium called ether and now
He had to explain what is the connection between the ether and the electric and magnetic fields and what is the mechanism
where the movement of the ether creates a connection between the magnetic field and the electric field and vice versa. This part of the Torah
Maxwell is not correct but it has nothing to do with Maxwell's equations and the speed of light he calculated them to be
One of the most beautiful fiscal theories ever developed.
sympathetic
Yehuda's theory - the "simple universe" theory - is an incarnation of Lesage's gravitation theory from the seventeenth century. It was published in Israel in the book "Attraction" by Reuven Nir.
The theory was tested by every fat and fat person, including Newton, Maxwell, Lord Kelvin and Feynman, and was found to be inadequate mainly because of one problem: according to the theory, the planets in their orbits will encounter "wind" - friction with those hypothetical Lasage particles, which will slow down and finally stop the planets.
Yehuda (good soul that he is) somewhat refrains from expanding when pointing out the same basic flaw in the theory, even in this article.
But we'll still always be happy to read whatever he has to say, if only because of his entertaining writing style.
Except that the mythical Maxwell only gave an appropriate mathematical framework to the lines of force, a figment of the imagination of the mathematically untrained Farday, who, like our Judas, only had a high school education, which did not prevent him from being one of the most prolific physicists of all time.
Israel
The fact that the universe is infinite does not mean that the amount of mass and stars is infinite, certainly not.
The universe is infinite means it is infinite in time it had a start in the big bang but it will expand
forever. The Big Bang model assumes finite mass and energy. By the way, as a general rule, physics does not like sizes
Infinite.
Regarding the expansion of the universe, the raisin cake example is not a good one, nor did it work as a model for atoms
For Thompson. Cakes are better to eat. In any case, the pictorial model that is often used is this
of an inflating balloon so that if you draw dots on it they will move away from each other. It is important not to think about the balloon
as inhabiting a three-dimensional space, but imagine that you are a two-dimensional creature living on the balloon, all that you know
He measures distances on the balloon. When you measure distances on the balloon you find that as much
That a point is farther away from you, the faster it moves away from you, this phenomenon he discovered
Mourning and called the Law of Mourning. It is indeed a bit difficult to imagine a three-dimensional balloon, so an analogy is used
The two-dimensional balloon.
Yehuda
By the way, changing letters is not the way we do science, but here you can think for example
On MOND as a change of force instead of a change of mass. The approach of individual change
A certain formula to fit is not a scientific approach, I hope you are not
You went to high school.
What I argued about you is that many people with greater physical and mathematical knowledge than you
Look for solutions to the problem and when you think you've found a simple solution, apparently you are
underestimate their abilities. Therefore, before you run to tell everyone, make your case
In the test, present it in a scientific journal and then you will have the legitimacy to talk about it in public.
deer
I too, as you probably could have guessed, am not a cosmologist nor an astrophysicist and therefore
Forgive me for my silly questions. You propose to characterize the dark matter and galaxies
according to their distribution. In my opinion, there are a number of basic assumptions that I am not sure if they are
are held Comparison with the distribution assumes independence of the initial conditions in particular and also
Reaching a certain state of equilibrium. In your proposal to look at the distribution you assume that
The dark matter had enough time to reach equilibrium on each scale, this is probably an assumption
It is likely that our universe is quite old but in my opinion you are making an additional assumption when you
Compares the galaxy distributions to distributions obtained from a material simulation
Baryony with dark matter in an equilibrium distribution, you assume a separation of scales, i.e
Dark matter reaches equilibrium much faster than baryonic matter whereas matter
The bullion "follows" or evolves in the light of the dark matter distribution. I think I heard
Such claims already, but I'm interested in the basic premise underlying the claim
Apparently the baryonic matter reaches an equilibrium distribution faster because it radiates
On the other hand, it also heats up and quasi-static distributions are created in it that liven up times
long i.e. stars. I would appreciate it if you could detail what is at the basis of the claim of separation
the times
a) Finally someone makes a distinction between the radius of the universe and the apparent radius of the universe.
The assumption that the universe is limited by a finite radius contradicts the theory of relativity.
But the apparent radius of the universe can be finite without contradicting the theory of relativity.
There is an abysmal difference between the "radius of the universe" and the "apparent radius of the universe".
b) If each system measures time in a different way, then "the time that has passed since the big bang" is not a fixed quantity and depends on the measuring system. And so at most it can be said "the time that has passed since the Big Bang as measured on Earth"
Or "the time that has passed since the Big Bang as measured in Andromeda" meaning that it is impossible to talk about time since the Big Bang without mentioning which measurement system is involved.
C) The Twin Paradox:
Suppose the twins are measuring the time that has passed since the big bang.
Twin A remains.
Twin B makes a trip and returns to the starting point.
At the starting point the systems of A and B merge again into one system.
Therefore, after the return of Twin B, two different times are measured for the Big Bang in the same system.
And this is of course a contradiction.
The conclusion:
There is no possible time difference between twin A and twin B after the return of twin B to the system from which it left.
Zvi - Thank you for your answer. I thought the accelerated expansion dictated hyperbolic geometry. Another question that has been bothering me for a while. A static universe with a cosmological constant (Einstein's) is unstable - a small disturbance is enough and the stability is violated therefore the universe must be either contracting or expanding. If I understand it, then how did Einstein not understand it?
about A
So the universe is indeed infinite.. how come I'm not surprised? I assume, however, that the amount of mass and stars is also infinite, but what is relevant to us is only the observable universe, isn't it?
Regarding B
If we slightly change the script and the two twins started from a propulsion system close to the speed of light and the younger twin accelerated so that most of the time of the flight he spent at zero speed relative to the background radiation, then also in this case when he returns 4 billion years will have passed for his brother.
However, the young man's "most flight time" does not exceed 3 minutes. So it turns out that when he drank hasty tea here on earth, his brother aged 4 billion years.
And if he stayed for dinner as well, his brother would already be 100 billion years old.
which is far beyond the age of the universe, the same universe shared by the two twins.
No?
about C
The problem is this: if you took a look at Maxwell's model, it is not some esoteric theory but a complex work of art that includes close to 200 equations, all from the field of hydrodynamics.
If the model is wrong and there is no site, then how did equation 136 work for him? After all, it was calculated in the same way that the propagation of a wave in water is calculated, only that instead of density and temperature coefficients, parabolicity and dielectric coefficients were introduced. So what, the model is wrong and the formula works?
It is true that Bohr succeeded with his first and incorrect hydrogen model to predict the distance A0 of the electron from the proton. But in Maxwell's case we are talking about a colossal error, a fictitious model that managed to produce a correct result.
most puzzling.
Israel
A. If the universe is flat (as the measurements show as of today) then it is infinite - what has an end is the visible universe and the truth is that this is the relevant thing for every practical need since what is outside the boundaries of the visible universe cannot affect the visible universe.
Of course, it is impossible to send a spacecraft that will reach the edge of the visible universe because a spacecraft will never fly above the speed of light and thus the boundaries of the visible universe will always move away at a greater speed than the speed of the spacecraft.
B. Regarding the cosmic background radiation - I will present the following scenario:
Let's say two twins alive today. One of the twins leaves in a spaceship flying at a speed close to the speed of light to Andromeda and back. When he returns he will claim that only 3 minutes have passed, while his twin will claim that 4 billion years have passed. An argument begins and finally one of them suggests checking how much the cosmic background radiation has cooled - they conduct the measurement and find that it matches the twin's claim about the Earth.
That's what will happen and it's completely reasonable. The Milky Way galaxy is static (approximately) in relation to the cosmic radiation system, therefore those who remain in it will measure a measurement that corresponds to the cosmic radiation - those who are not static in relation to the cosmic radiation system will measure a different result.
third. Electromagnetism teaches (experimental as of Maxwell's day) that a change in an electric field creates a magnetic field and a change in a magnetic field creates an electric field - all this was known before Maxwell and his hydrodynamic model. Maxwell came up with the idea that if there is a time-varying electric field in a certain place, it will create a magnetic field, this will create an electric field again and this disturbance will spread in space. From the constants of electrodynamics that were discovered even before him, he calculated this speed (a very simple calculation of the first year) and found that it is the speed of light.
So he began to ask - "Wait... but how does this wave spread? And how exactly does the dynamic work?" And that's how he invented the vortex model on the site. This model comes to explain exactly how the magnetic field affects the electric field and vice versa (a wrong explanation as we know today) but in order to calculate the speed of the wave you are not at all interested in exactly how electricity creates magnetism but you are only interested in what it does and what the relevant physical constants (measurements) are for this purpose.
Is it all a meter? Come on, you don't go to the rabbi for a meter.
Perhaps one day they will be able to prove the Lorentz contraction from a fast spacecraft, one of those that manage to fly the solar system, which will photograph small and distant galaxies that will suddenly appear large and close.
A question about the diameter and size of the universe:
I don't understand how the arrangement works. The model in which the subject is sometimes explained is that of the rising raisin cake in which all the raisins move away from each other.
However, in the cake there is a clear distinction between inside raisins and outside raisins. There is the shell area from which each raisin can look in and see other raisins, while outwardly there is only blue sky. Face raisins in contrast will show other raisins in every direction.
So how does it work in our universe? If there are only a finite amount of stars, is there any finite layer of stars? Are there "final" stars after which there are no more stars? So what's there, nothing? What will prevent us, living on such a finite planet, from sending some Sputnik beyond the radius of the universe and thus expanding it?
Indeed, a cosmic Zenon paradox.
And the same question I always raise: if the universe has a definite age (about 13.7 billion years) that is even expressed through the Friedman formula at a certain temperature, how can any traveler claim that according to relativity he has his own time? After all, if the younger twin from the paradox meets his older brother, (assuming that twins are quick and long-lived and several billion years have already passed since they separated), how can he claim that only a few days have passed while the universe has cooled so much? After all, any two passengers who pass each other and are equipped with a doppler radiation meter and a computer will always be able to agree on the same time, the time that has passed since the explosion, so how does this work out with relative time?
And if you are not tired, here is another question:
Maxwell's site model:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
is a hydrodynamic model of pressures, eddies, currents and waves. Maxwell was able to use this model to derive his famous differential equations, and also to obtain the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism in the same way that the wave speed in the hydrodynamic modulo is obtained from the constants of density and temperature (Equation 136).
If the model is wrong (since there is no site), then how did he manage to score a stamp for the speed of light from such a wrong model? luck? Coincidence?
The known in the history of physics about another such discounted coincidence?
Why not expect two well-differentiated points that are almost as far apart as the diameter?
for example:
Two mountain peaks.
Or two points where there is a certain radiation?
Or two points that have some combination of features that allows us to observe them well.
As for the test you proposed on relativity.
The idea is beautiful - this is how scientific theories should be tested. If so in this case, I think the test is not relevant for two reasons:
1. Observational - assume a relative speed of 40-50 km per second and you will find that the Lorentz contraction of Jupiter (diameter of 140,000 km) is expected to be between 1m and 2m - this is nothing. Not only will it be very difficult (not to say completely impossible) to see this, but such changes in the size of Jupiter can arise from so many other reasons that it will be very difficult to clean up noise in the measurement.
2. Methodological - the theory of special relativity is a very old theory. This does not mean that it is not wrong, but it means that in order to disprove it, you have to work hard and that means looking in faraway places. I don't think there is any chance of disproving the theory of relativity by such an experiment done at speeds that are not unusually high, in macroscopic systems at the SDG of stars and at distances from the SDG of the solar system - simply because these are exactly the limits at which it has already been proven many times that the Torah working
If there is any chance of a contradiction, then it is on cosmological or alternatively microscopic scales, where until now there have been more difficulties in examining the theory.
If the universe had a finite radius then there would be a point that is the center of mass of the universe. A system of axes could be attached to this point and this system was a special system in contradiction to the theory of relativity.
Israel,
The formula you gave is not "correct" and therefore you did not find it anywhere.
The formula that predicts the density of the universe, or rather the relationship between the density of the universe and its dynamics, its fate and its geometry is called the Friedman equation and I gave you a link to it. As long as we assume that general relativity is correct - there is no other equation.
Note that the universe has no finite radius (you will never reach the edge of the universe) and if it is flat, it also has no finite radius - what has a limit is the "visible universe", the universe that can be seen from the 13,702,491,522th century as of the year XNUMX after the big bang. The limits of the visible universe can be deduced from the dynamics of the evolution of the universe derived from the Friedman equation.
Under the assumption that the universe has a flat geometry (sum of angles in a triangle = 180 degrees) as it seems it does, the Friedman equation predicts a certain final size for the visible universe and a certain density - these can be translated into the mass of the visible universe and this mass holds up to a certain numerical factor, GM ~RC^2 for the reasons I mentioned in the previous correspondence.
This equation is not absolute truth and certainly there is no coincidence here that indicates new or unknown physics.
All in all, this is a not so acceptable approximate abstraction, perhaps convenient or perhaps not, of the Friedman equation.
Israel my friend
From memory
Earth 30 km per second, Jupiter 13 km per second
Under no circumstances will it be 50 km per second
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
deer
Is the formula I gave:
Is GM=RC^2 even correct?
Is it acceptable in cosmology? I didn't see her anywhere and not after gygol. Is there any other relationship between the radius of the universe and its mass? Is the data in Wikipedia regarding the radius and mass of the universe reliable or is there some other official link where they appear?
Since Ehud mentioned the revision that the relationship should go through:
According to the link
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Length_Contraction
At this time there are no direct tests of length contraction, as measuring the length of a moving object to the required precision has not been feasible.
I thought of a relatively simple experiment to test the Lorentz contraction:
To photograph Tzedek from the country with such a time difference, that its speed relative to us will change significantly. It is possible relatively easily (with the help of our friend Yehuda) to know when the combination of the orbits of the Earth and Jupiter creates a large speed difference, I assume on the order of 50 km/s.
Now, according to Newton a photograph from the same distance will show the same diameter of Jupiter in the photographs regardless of speed. According to Einstein, since the contraction is only in the direction of movement while the vertical component remains unchanged, then when the Earth is in motion relative to Jupiter its diameter should be larger in the image, as if we had used zoom. (No?)
I don't know the level of accuracy of the measuring devices today, but if they are accurate enough, then a comparison of the photographs taken at different relative speeds but at the same distance (or a weighting of the distance and the speed), can demonstrate the Lorentz contraction, if it does exist.
what do you think?
sympathetic,
I'm not a cosmologist, so I don't know exactly what we'll do - I'll say what I think.
The dark matter distribution is often assumed to have a profile called NFW, even though there are two free parameters, one is a normalization of the density and the other is the radius at which the exponential profile changes the behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro-Frenk-White_profile
The NFW is obtained from a fit to the density profile in dark matter simulations - a lot of particles are assumed that react only gravitationally and are distributed quite uniformly, relatively dense areas collapse and become denser until finally halos are obtained. These auras behave more or less according to this profile.
As for the adjustments you suggest,
I don't think the smart thing is to take galaxy after galaxy and check whether it is possible to adjust NFW parameters to explain its dynamics - that is, of course it can be done, but apparently there really are many free parameters here and I don't think people are that blind.
I think the smarter thing to do is to take, say, a million galaxies, fit them to NFW or any other profile (after all, it's a total fit) and compare the frequencies of the parameters you got in accordance with the frequencies you get in simulations of dark matter halos.
If the frequencies in reality and in simulations are similar, then in practice you have almost no free parameters at all - the only possible free parameter is the amount of dark matter relative to the gas, which you know from completely different considerations.
Furthermore,
In other simulations, baryonic matter is also introduced and we see how the visible parts of the galaxies are expected to look. Here the matter is already more complicated because you have to model the effect of the stars that are formed on the gas inside and yet there are results that seem to be pretty much agreed upon by those involved in the matter. One of the famous results, for example, is that small haloes will have difficulty retaining the gas (the potential well is relatively small, so the first star explosions will blow away the gas and prevent the creation of more stars).
If I were a cosmologist - I would once again examine the distribution of the visible parts of the galaxies that you get from the simulations (after assuming that the halos are NFW in the distribution of the parameters you got in the dark matter simulations) and compare it to the visible distribution.
I do not believe that the trivial suggestions I made here regarding statistical analysis did not occur to anyone, although I do not currently know of a specific article that did these things (truly out of my ignorance), I assume that they have been done dozens and hundreds of times and apparently the conviction among cosmologists about a model The dark matter is, among other things, that it copes quite well with tests of this kind.
sympathetic
Everything I said about high school knowledge is a statement of fact. It absolutely does not mean that my knowledge is "a little" above that.
And if you noticed, then in all your learned answer you completely did not refer to the things written in my previous response. If your answer is that I have no knowledge therefore I must be wrong then so be it. I won't argue about it, but forgive me if I respond to comments that are more objective and not about how much knowledge I have.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Aryeh Seter
As you mentioned in the case of Friedman universes (universes lacking a cosmological constant) the fate of the universe is univalently related to its geometry.
Unfortunately, this is not the case if the cosmological constant/dark energy is not 0. It so happens that the universe is apparently flat, or at least a very good approximation (in terms of its geometry), and yet will expand forever.
deer
After writing the response to Yehuda, I notice that there is also a bit of audacity in going against it
Physical theories are acceptable, but on second thought it depends on how well established the Torah is
And in my opinion the description of the dark matter is not based enough and apart from that a child can shout the king is naked
Rightly so sometimes.
A. I partially accept your reasoning (again I'm not from the field) although I heard from a certain cosmologist
The claim that dark matter people use a huge number of parameters. I just want
find out what is the real number of parameters. Let's assume for a moment that dark matter has a typical distribution
which is characterized by one or two parameters am I still allowed to determine at will the value of
These parameters are for each galaxy, i.e. I have parameters at least as many as the number of galaxies or even double
From this number?
B. Indeed I believe you are wrong on this point. Milgrom has a theory with two metrics that
He promotes. TeVEs, on the other hand, assumes the existence of additional fields (scalar, vector and tensorial),
In my opinion, in a certain sense, TeVeS is similar to dark matter because it assumes fields whose purpose is to match
between MOND and general relativity, but in TeVeS there is only one and only matrix. Since the discussion between us
It is about preference, I prefer to think that the universe is determined by natural laws that explain the phenomena
and not by adding an explosive material. I believe that you will find a theory that can be clearly explained
that you will be able to explain the observations without the need for invisible additions (on this point I agree with his claim
of Judah, because there is something wrong with trying to keep laws when observations contradict them).
third. Indeed, the theory of general relativity is a very beautiful theory, but on the other hand, it is not consistent with
Quantum theory (a theory that is less beautiful but has many successes). Obviously one of these theories
You will have to change. Apparently they think that the change will only be relevant at very high energies, but already
The fact that these theories are not the last word hints at a problem. In my opinion, this question is relative
general that you will have to change (an opinion and not a statement), because quantum theory has successes here
on earth.
d. In my opinion, the more you look at space, the more amazing facts you discover and some of them are very contradictory
From teachings that existed until now, so I do not believe (again an opinion) that observations will not continue to surprise us.
God. I do not claim that Tully Fisher proves MOND, but that a certain legality in the observations points to
Certain rules (different laws of nature) that we have not yet discovered. After all, this is how science works, you discover laws
and natural laws or rules are derived from it. In the laboratory it is easier to discover legality because controlled experiments are carried out,
This is in contrast to observations in which the parameters cannot be controlled and therefore the legality is not clearly visible.
Yehuda
You are allowed to speculate as to what they are, but you must understand that you are playing on the court of the greats. all
A constant or a physical law already had physicists who thought of changing it so as to come up with an original idea without prior knowledge
He is very pretentious. The situation is similar to people who tried to prove Fermat's hypothesis without advanced knowledge
in mathematics (in this subject there was still hope because apparently Fermat proved the theorem by simple means).
When your science background is from high school you are not aware of the deep meanings of things. the theories
Fiscals sound either horribly strange or understandable, but that's because you usually don't have the knowledge
understand them in depth. For example, I happened to hear a professor of philosophy at the Hebrew University say what
Dirk already did, he simply accepted solutions with negative energy to his equation and assumed that they were solutions
Physical, what's so special about it? Others wonder why Bohr was awarded a Nobel Prize
Do, assume that the electrons revolve around the nucleus in orbits such that their wave function interferes
Positive about themselves, what's so special about that? It is difficult for an amateur to understand the depth of fiscal theories and
The requirements are therefore difficult to understand their complexity. To come from outside and say I can do it well
More without putting things to the test by experts (in a scientific monthly), in my opinion borders on a lack of understanding
of what science is.
Israel
Of course there is a connection between the size of the universe and its mass.
In fact, what the Friedman equation I referred you to says is that there is a certain critical density. If the universe is denser than this density it will collapse, if the density is less than the critical density it will continue to expand forever. The critical density is the density at which the universe will continue to expand forever when the speed of its expansion in infinite time tends to 0 (just like a ball thrown from the earth at escape velocity). It turns out (and this connects to Aryeh Seter's response) that the universe is very close to this critical density - if it wasn't very close, it would have collapsed a long time ago or alternatively expanded to such an extent that we wouldn't see any other galaxies.
Therefore - assuming that relativity is fine, then we know the density of the universe and it turns out that it is much greater than the visible density - hence there is dark matter.
So far, everything I've said is correct in ignoring dark energy - this complicates the picture of the sympathetic and elegant Friedman universes, and maybe I'll expand on that later.
Zvi - in connection with your comments here and to clarify the background. As far as I understand the three Friedman universes are spherical (more than 180 degrees in a triangle), flat (180) and hyperbolic (less than 180) and in terms of their respective fates - 1. Will return and converge 2. Will continue to expand at a speed that tends to zero 3. Will continue to expand forever. The findings are said to support a flat universe. Doesn't the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (dark energy) force the universe to be considered as expanding forever i.e. hyperbolic?
Zvi, thanks for the thoughtful response.
The formula can be deduced from Dennis Schieme's book on the derivation of inertia from gravitation (The Physical Foundations of General Relativity), although it does not appear there explicitly. This is also the formula for the escape velocity from a black hole, except for the 2nd factor. To me it is amazing that a direct relationship between the radius of the universe and its mass can be deduced from theoretical considerations of gravitation and inertia. There is probably a lot more to learn.
But my puzzlement still remains: if we start from the assumption that the formula does link the radius of the universe and its mass, then if we know the first we can deduce the second.
But what is the other? What is the mass of the universe? Does it include only visible matter or dark matter as well? Because it is clear that if it includes another ten or twenty times the mass of dark matter, and Scheima's formula is also applicable to it, then the radius increases accordingly. So what are the radius and mass of the universe really? Which ones appear in Wikipedia or others?
I have to accept the (strange, it should be noted) explanation about the elusive nature of dark matter at the moment, and this is due to lack of knowledge on the subject. We will continue to read and be updated, maybe one day they will really be able to consider an empty galaxy.
What is served at the wedding of Perim?
filled blanks.
Dear Ehud
I almost come to the conclusion that according to your opinion we are not allowed to express our opinion about science?, because our knowledge is nil.?, not acceptable to me!
High school physics showed that there was something fundamentally wrong with the creation of dark matter. She should not have been born. And by the way, if we already change M and call it a dark mass, then we will change G and call it a dark G change. Believe me it will function no less well than the dark mass and even if you want you can create a dark V or a dark R, they will all function no less well than the beloved dark mass. And they will all be as wrong as the dark mass.
Algebraically there is no reason to give the letter M protection over all the other letters in the formula, so let's not underestimate the first year of high school because it is the foundation of everything and we tend to forget it.
And please, I'm not disrespecting anyone.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic,
I am not familiar with general relations, TeVeS, etc., so I may not be precise or even mistaken in what I say.
Also, I do not deal directly with cosmology, so I do not promise anything here either (although in this field I am not ignorant).
even though:
A. The claim that dark matter allows infinite degrees of freedom is wrong and demagogic for several reasons:
- No cosmological model assumes that the distribution of dark matter is different for each galaxy. The distribution always goes like that broken-power-law whose shape you get from simulations (you put a lot of particles in, let them react gravitationally and see the density profile in the halos they create).
- The correspondence between the amount of visible matter in a galaxy and the size of the dark matter halo is also not arbitrary - the assumption is that, in general, large galaxies have large halos - that is, if you want to know the size of the dark matter halo for a certain galaxy, let's assume that it is larger than 60% of the galaxies and small From 40%, run a simulation of the collapse of dark matter halos and fit a halo galaxy that is larger than 60% of the halos and smaller than 40%. That's basically the idea!
Now the sizes of the parts observed in galaxies are compared to imaginary galaxies obtained from simulations and things turn out very well overall.
It is clear that these are simulations and should be taken with limited responsibility, and it is clear that these methods are not perfect (because after a violent collision, let's say galaxies don't look the way they should), but in general it is good, reliable and gives predictions (for the sizes of galaxies in more distant regions of the universe) that so far have proven the themselves not bad.
It is important to emphasize that even the apparently free parameter, the amount of dark matter, is deduced from cosmological observations (compared to the Friedman equation).
In short: I'm not saying that dark matter is necessarily the right thing, but to claim that it is a tailor-made theory specific to each galaxy and therefore it is no wonder that it works is a really wrong, demagogic claim and does not suit you but other factors on the site.
B. As for TeVeS, here I'm really not knowledgeable, but from what I once understood from a lecture by Milligrom, it includes things much darker in my opinion than dark matter, such as two different matrices, only one of which is physical, but the other also has meaning.
In any case, it is a complicated theory, which turns general relativity based on one simple, intuitive and elegant principle into a monster whose principle cannot be summed up in words. This may be the reality, but in the meantime, if I am forced to decide based on elegance, it seems much more elegant to me to make one assumption - "There is matter that only responds to gravity" and hence accept everything.
third. As for the standard model, I'm really not bothered by its expansion - again, if I have to choose whether to throw out general relativity or add another patchwork to a patchwork model, I prefer the second choice.
d. Regarding cosmology being a young science - this is of course true. Nevertheless, the observations since 1998, the results are certainly converging all the time to the same results that, except for the matter of the cosmological constant (the understanding of which may require quantum gravity), are completely consistent with the theory of relativity from 1915 under the addition of the dark matter predicted already years ago.
God. Tully Fisher and similar cosmological finger links that originate from very complex dynamics (hence their large dispersion), have on average a million explanations and a million criticisms of the explanations. So the fact that mond also explains it is not very impressive. I don't think it convinces anyone of the correctness of mond except for those who are also convinced - it's really not a "smoking gun" such as the bending of the light beam in the solar eclipse of 1918.
Yehuda
By the way, hubris, I am also guilty of it. I wrote several articles published in scientific journals on
An alternative explanation for dark matter, but I don't think science is the place to introduce it
My theories. What's more, I'm not knowledgeable in the field and the theories I presented are partial and flawed
fail In short, the place for alternative theories is in scientific articles and not trying to sell
The same for people who are not professionals.
Yehuda
I understood from your words that you are underestimating the rest by thinking that you have succeeded with high school physics
To solve a problem that the best minds have worked on and have not found a solution for. Shout the naked king can a child, without
knowledge, to shout justly. To think that he can sew clothes for a king is already hubris, especially if he is not
puts his claim to scientific scrutiny.
deer
Regarding one of Mannheim's articles with a student of his
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0188
In the article they adapted their theory to 141 spiral galaxies and got a match
Nice for the velocity field of stars in the galaxy. By the way, four parameters were required for matching
which are at the basis of the theory and not infinite parameters as required for dark matter theories.
By the way, you didn't tell me what you find wrong with Bekenstein's extension of MOND to the theory
Teves?
I do not claim that dark matter is ruled out by the current knowledge of particles, I only claim that
An extension of the Standard Model is artificial if its only purpose is to explain
Astronomical observations In the case of the neutrino it is not an extension of the model but a change
The assumption that neutrinos have mass is small, which leads to mixing between neutrino generations.
What is wrong with the dark matter theory:
Experimental:
At the time Pauli after predicting the existence of the neutrino bet on a case of champagne because never
He will be watched because his interaction with matter is too weak. Nevertheless a lesson for scientists
About 20 years to measure neutrino particles. On the other hand, despite the high motivation, it was not measured
From the world of dark matter (despite several denials).
Or a variation on the question of Israel, it seems that dark matter has no effect except in rocks
Astronomy, why can't it be discovered on Earth (similar to neutrinos).
In terms of the history of science and lessons from it:
Astrophysics and cosmology are relatively young teachings, only today is a lot of information beginning to arrive
There are sophisticated satellites and telescopes in the cosmos and it seems that the observations do not match the basic theory.
Usually when observations do not fit the theory it is a sign of an approaching scientific revolution and the possibility
A scientific revolution is more likely as the field is younger and less established.
Theoretically:
Dark matter requires fine tuning in each galaxy and one should not expect to find correlations or regularities that match the number
A multitude of galaxies. Changing general relativity to another theory can yield different legalities and indeed
Astronomical observations indicate that there is a law in galaxies, for example: the Talley-Fisher law. legality
This indicates to me that there is something we are missing.
Israel,
And to your question why you can't go buy dark matter at the grocery store:
Due to dark matter being dark, i.e. not reacting with the electromagnetic force, these particles hardly interact. To speak has two meanings:
A. Unlike gas, it is difficult for dark matter to lose angular momentum and energy, and instead of collapsing like gas (which radiates, loses energy and falls to the "middle"), dark matter has difficulty getting rid of the energy and fuel and has difficulty collapsing into the centers of galaxies (by the center I mean the entire area where there is visible matter - p (The theory is that every visible galaxy is surrounded by a much larger halo of dark matter.)
This is the reason why, although the amount of dark matter in the entire universe is much greater than the amount of normal matter, in dense places of the universe (i.e. the areas of matter in galaxies) that in order to reach them you have to lose fuel and energy, the amount of dark matter is very small and is a minority relative to normal matter.
B. The main problem with buying dark matter at the grocery store is not its rarity - but the inability to catch it. As you know, most of the atom is empty and most of the mass is concentrated in a tiny area in the middle - why then do we feel that the earth is hard and we do not pass through it? The reason is simple - electromagnetic repulsion forces prevent us from passing through it. This concept is not true for dark matter - dark matter does not react with the electromagnetic forces and therefore it can simply pass through the earth or, to your question, through the hand of the shopkeeper at the grocery store.
Israel,
I don't know where you heard about this formula as a miracle but it is much less amazing and much more natural than you think.
In a simple gravitational system of a planet orbiting the sun in a circular orbit it is easy to find that the kinetic energy is exactly half of the negative potential energy (the potential energy is negative). The planet in question is connected to the sun, so the (positive) kinetic energy is smaller in absolute value than the negative one. If the planet were bound in a bounded way you would find that the potential energy is equal to the kinetic energy.
Our universe turns out to be bounded and this means that the kinetic energy (Mv^2/2~), is equal to the potential energy (M^2G/R~). But if we leave it, anyway it only changes a factor of 2 here or there (the factor cannot be very different) and even so we are going to forget many factors of this type because the universe does not have one speed and the equation for the potential energy lacks numerical factors.
What is important is that from the "energy equation of the universe" which claims that, as in any physical system, the potential and kinetic energy in the universe are from the same SDG (the correct law called the virial law), it was found that for the universe:
Mv^2~M^2G/R
What is the relevant v for the universe?
We define the boundaries of the universe more or less as places that run away from us at speed c, we will then replace v with c (if you insist, take half c as the average speed of the universe - it's just a finger calculation anyway). In this case we will conclude:
Mc^2~M^2G/R
And after reducing and moving wings we get GM~Rc^2.
As you can see, it can be accepted from very simplistic considerations. If you want to do it seriously, you have to work harder and that's exactly what the Friedman equation does.
Dear Michael
The medical example you gave is…. interesting. The healthy people will be called... M94 Shema, really an interesting example.
Must check what is the difference between the dark mass and the medical sample
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
How about showing some credit before you scoff at what the vast majority of scientists think?
It actually seems to me that something that can be adjusted (the amount of dark matter in each region) and adjusted so that the theory agrees with the observations is much better than alternative theories that cannot agree with the observations even in principle.
I assume that the issue of adjustment rules out in your eyes also 90 percent of medicine in which the amount of medicine is adjusted for each person individually (and its type - may God have mercy - to the cause of the disease).
deer
It is absolutely clear to me that dark matter can explain everything! Because you can always add as much as you need, the panacea for all the curses of the cosmos and gravity, and if you accidentally add too much, you can always add the blessed dark energy and come to Zion Goel.
The question is whether you would be willing to buy one loaf of bread at the supermarket and pay for nine other apples. Any average housewife would disagree.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
deer
The formula is not only "nice", it is simply amazing (at least to me). It links 4 constants that include powers ranging from -16 (gravity) to +50 (the mass of the universe) in a simple and elegant formula, Einstein formula style E=MC^2. The Friedman formulas in the link you provided are much more complicated and do not show this simple relationship. We would expect a discrepancy of at least 20 orders of magnitude in a random combination of these constants, and no less than one order of magnitude as we actually get, a completely reasonable discrepancy.
But when the dark matter is added, the formula loses its validity.
Except that you didn't address the first question: if dark matter is the majority of matter in the universe, then where is it here on earth? Why can't you buy a kilo of material that doesn't react to light at the grocery store?
Israel,
The formula you propose may be nice, but there is no apparent reason not to add to it, let's say 4 pi and then things will work out better (I have no intention of adding it, I just want to point out the problems with such arguments).
Such suggestions are nice when there is no clear theory, or alternatively when the calculations are difficult and then physicists guess what the relevant scales are in the problem and try to see in terms of orders of magnitude what is appropriate. It's not the best method, but sometimes there's no choice (and by the way, factors of 4 Pi may enter without you feeling it....).
In this case, fortunately, there is no need for such approximations - the equations are well known (at least on the assumption that the theory of general relativity is correct). The relevant equation is called the Friedman equation and it links the density of matter in the universe to its fate.
If you are interested, there is even an entry in Hebrew:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9D
In any case, the bottom line is that precisely from these considerations the fraction of visible matter is deduced from the general matter, since all observations confirm that the universe is flat and the meaning of this is that visible matter is not enough to explain the structure of the universe.
Note that all of this is true on the assumption that general relativity is correct and is the way to handle these things - that is, on the assumption that gravity is as we understand it - you need dark matter. If gravity works differently (in a way that has not yet been proposed), everything changes and then dark matter may not be needed, the age of the universe may be different than expected, its size different than expected, etc.
sympathetic
I am not familiar with Prof. Mannheim's theories. What I know (and I may not know today) is that the prevailing opinion is that there is currently no theory that competes with the dark matter hypothesis in terms of its ability to explain the observed results. More than that, other theories I've heard about modified gravity sound much more monstrous, requiring a dual metric and other problems that I'm not sure how exactly they are more plausible than invisible matter.
Regarding the disagreement of the dark matter matter with the standard model:
A. From the point of view of cosmologists, there is no necessity for dark matter to be an elementary subparticle. If these were primordial black holes with a small enough mass it would do the same role (there are claims that such things were created in the big bang but the theories are not clear enough at the moment). The reason why we rarely talk about black holes and often talk about wimps is that on the one hand particleists claim that there are good explanations for which particle could be the dark matter and on the other hand because at the moment there is no good theory for the formation of those primordial black holes.
B. Non-compliance with the standard model is not problematic in itself. The neutrino was invented by Pauli as an almost invisible particle designed to solve problems with decay in a cell so that it continues to obey the law of conservation of energy. It took decades until it was proven that this particle really exists - so it is certainly reasonable in physics to say that a certain principle is convincing enough (the law of conservation of energy for the invention of neutrinos or general relativity for the invention of dark matter) to the point of hypothesizing the existence of a currently unobserved particle that deviates from known theory. The test is, of course, whether the idea of the invisible substance is true or whether the principle is violated - we will live and see.
By the way, there are already precedents for changing the standard model following conclusions from astrophysics. In the past, the standard model predicted zero mass for the neutrino, later it became clear (by John Beckol) that, contrary to the expectation of the standard model, it must actually have mass. This understanding originates from the fact that the amount of neutrinos coming from the sun is a third of what is expected according to astrophysical models.
Yehuda,
As I mentioned, I have no intention of arguing with you or trying to convince you. I'm just suggesting that you study what the dark matter idea manages to explain so you at least know if what you're trying to compete with your theories.
Good luck with the book.
Nice work
A righteous person in his faith will live
Goodbye
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The planets move together with the sun due to gravity. This does not hold for particles that cause gravitation, because what would cause them to stick to the sun? Other particles?
Feynman rightly pointed out that if the particles are moving in all directions at finite speeds, then they must have an average where the speed relative to them is 0, as in the case of stagnant air. Therefore, if the sun rests relative to that mean 0, and the earth moves relative to it, then the earth will encounter "wind". This is Feynman's friction problem, as opposed to Kelvin's second friction problem.
If, as you say, the "gas" is relative to both the sun and the earth, then it is possible to treat the sun and the gas adjacent to it as one body, and the earth and the gas adjacent to it as a second body. But then we got the same problem as before, only with bigger bodies.
Except that in a gaseous model, i.e. a model in which the particles collide with each other, gravitation will not be obtained just as there is no gravitation between two bodies in still air. The average free path does not change this fact.
Going to work.
I am attaching the link to Richard Feynman's lecture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd0xTfdt6qw
There in the eighth minute onwards he explains the problem of friction. For some reason the laughter and disdain of and the listening students reminds me of a conference of repentants, and when Richard in the tenth minute claims that the whole gravity theory which is terribly beautiful, but... falls because of the friction and then the whole audience bursts out laughing and no one feels like saying: Sorry, why would there be friction at all . No one would want to be outside the consensus.
Highly recommend watching the episode. Really cute"
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Tel
Israel
Why shouldn't the particles move with the sun? Why are the planets allowed to move with the sun, asteroids are allowed but the gas clouds around the sun are not allowed to move with it?. It is true that these are particles that move very fast, but the average of their speed moves with the sun and that is how it should happen. If it wasn't so there would be a problem with it.
I didn't exactly understand the last two lines of your response. Feynman pointed out that there is friction because we are walking as if into the rain of the particles but it is not so because the rain rotates together with the earth but without any connection to the earth. Even if the earth were not there, the average speed of the particles would be about 30 km per second, just like anything that would be at a distance of one astronomical unit from the sun.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
Why should the particles move together with the sun? friction? gravitation?
And let's say yes, then why wouldn't the earth rub against those particles whose average speed is different from its own? After all, the earth moves relative to the sun, this is Lesage's original friction problem.
And if the particles also move with the earth or together with any other mass, didn't we get a new "extended mass" that includes the mass and the particles attached to it? Didn't we get the same Feynman problem at the back door?
to love
Glad we both agree there is no dark mass.
I also continue to claim that the rule that field data should be preferred over the formula is an elementary rule that one learns in the first year of high school, and the amount of my knowledge of cosmology - little or much - is really not relevant to the subject.
But where did you see me claim that everyone is stupid??
I didn't see it!, but if in the heat of the debate something was said that was understood that way then I really apologize!.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
I agree with you that dark matter was invented to explain observations according to an existing theory.
Dark matter is problematic because it was not obtained from first principles and is not part of the standard model.
Inventing a new type of material to fit an existing theory is not the way to do science in my opinion
Although this method had its successes: in the microscopic realm, see the neutrino predicted by Pauli
To explain the conservation of momentum and energy while in our solar system where planets were discovered
by their grotesque effect. In my opinion, inconsistency with observations indicates the failure of the paradigm
And the fact that it must be replaced, a clear example of this is the deviation of the planet Hema from the expected course
His that turned out to be caused by corrections to general relativity.
So far we agree but the next step, where you have little knowledge in the field claims that everyone
Stupid and only you managed to come up with a theory that explains the observations... come on, do it
We have a favor. A lot of smart people have thought about the problem, while you have done it with high school physics
solve it??? Some respect for the field and the readers here. If your theory is so brilliant, try to publish it
It is in scientific journals and not here or in the book you are publishing. It is enough to shout the naked king no
More transparent clothes need to be sewn for him.
deer
In my opinion, you present the subject fairly but not fully. As far as I know Prof. Philip Mannheim
developed the conformal grotation theory and with it he was able (without dark matter) to explain the velocities
The rotation of stars in over a hundred galaxies. Mannheim's articles were also published in scientific journals
leading. In addition, there is also the MOND theory of Prof. Motty Milgrom, which suffered from this, among other things
which did not have an extension to cosmology, but Beckenstein recently managed to write such a theory (which
from a lack of elegance to my personal taste) and Milgrom also found an extension to his theory. So in my personal opinion yes
There are desirable alternatives to general relativity (despite its great elegance).
Israel Shapira
There are several dozen pages in my book that explain just that. Nevertheless, I will answer briefly:
A. The collisions between the particles are the ones that make the change from Newton's formula when the mean free path actually determines an additional decrease in gravity over that of the square of the distance. The reason - every particle that collides with another particle loses the gravitational "information" it transmits.
B. The force that exerts pressure difference Prof. to distance. I took a weather book and researched the wind speed and it's really simple! In the book it appears in a nice way and with graphs that show it.
third. There is no friction because the particle cloud itself, which is around the sun, moves around the sun like the planet. Take the example of leaves moving in the wind. There is no friction between them and the wind around them because the wind particles also move on average at the same speed.
The size does not matter and if a planet moves around the sun then both an asteroid and a gas cloud and it doesn't matter if this gas cloud is made of oxygen, hydrogen, or... two gravitational pushing particles and therefore there will be no friction (almost) between the planet and the two gravitational pushing particles that the planet moves within. This is the simple explanation!
There is no link to the book, although here and there there is a link to selected chapters on the "Culture Universe" website or on the "Provocative Science" website
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Something about the word "Apple"
Since the particles move backwards and forwards in time many times, the statistics of their behavior depends somewhat on the cycles, for example of the universe converging and for example from the smallest particles, where the cycles are reversed in time to the most distant parts. And there are things like gravity that accelerates with a little movement back in time, etc. Thanks
OK, in the meantime I saw the lecture "Dark mass and their alternative solutions" (missing Y, no?)
Good night.
Yoda, why am I not gentle?
Nah, not subtle!
How was the friction problem solved? And how is gravity pushing in a gaseous model with collisions between the particles? What is the difference from Newton? How is a straight ratio and not a square? Gravity is gravity, isn't it? Is there a link to the book?
I saw Gravity with Sandra Bullocks. The XNUMXD is nice, but really not a must-see movie.
Most peace to Israel!
how are you?, we haven't talked in a while,
Well the explanation is really with the help of gravity pushing and it is done in several steps
A. Gravitation is done with the help of gravity pushing and there is no problem of friction! Explained in my book.
B. Newton's formula takes on a different form because of the "turbidity" of space which causes it to dissolve and disappear within a relatively small number of light years
third. The collection of all moving particles in the space of the universe defines it as a gas and hence all the properties of gas
D. The pressure difference present in this gas is what rotates the galaxies and it acts in direct proportion to the distance and not according to the square of the distance and therefore has the same speed throughout the radius of the galaxy.
God. Really trivial and simple!
A detailed explanation in my book "Provocative Science - The Science Outside the Box" published with the help of the HEADSTART website
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I forgot: please respond gently!
Yoda, remind me how the velocities of the stars at the edges of the galaxies line up with your theory. Pushing gravity? Is there a link?
deer
It's ridiculous that you agree with the fact that it is allowed to change the data in the field just to fit the formula. You also require Mini to lay out a new theory for you and only then would you (perhaps) agree to agree.
Really Zvi, wouldn't it seem ridiculous to you to add a substance that has no friction, it is invisible, and it actually only has gravity that arranges itself in space in a ridiculous way just to compensate for the holy Newton's formula?
A detailed (and simple) explanation is written in my book "Provocative Science - The Science Outside the Box". I am trying to publish it with the help of the HEADSTART website. I hope I will succeed.
And it is true, you are far from convincing me, but, I wonder if you will be convinced, because things are so clear!
Please respond gently.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
deer
Questions from someone who is really quite a layman on the subject (and in general...).
1. If dark matter exists, and if it constitutes such a large percentage of the mass of the universe, why is it not found here on Earth?
2. At the time we talked about the formula GM=RC^2, where R and M are the radius and mass of the universe. According to the values in Wikipedia, there is an adjustment to the formula with a deviation of a few hundred percent which I assume is reasonable. But if we add the dark matter, the deviation is much increased. Is there an explanation for this?
Thanks.
I wonder if what dominates the universe are "unsavory" theories such as dark energy and particle duality
or formulas such as E=MC^2
Jesus and Yehuda,
Funny that you both criticize dark matter for two opposite things
from whom
===
When you mention dark things you are talking about two completely different things - dark matter and dark energy and there is nothing between them.
Dark energy is conceptually and mathematically strange - originated from Einstein's strange and wrong idea according to which the universe should be static, continued by Einstein recognizing that this idea is nonsense and ended (for now) by the fact that, starting in 1998, countless evidences were accumulated that the universe is expanding at an accelerated speed thanks to "energy Darkness", a late incarnation of Einstein's cosmological constant.
The reason not to like dark energy is because it is mathematically "unattractive" and the reason to like it is that whether we want it or not, it is probably there for very unclear reasons (and for that a Nobel Prize was already awarded, which in physics is really no small matter about two years ago) .
Dark matter is conceptually simpler - there are particles that do not respond to the weak force, some that do not respond to the strong force, and some that do not respond to both - dark matter will be any particle that does not respond to the electromagnetic force (and the strong force). The electromagnetic force is a "normal" force and is not a property of space (like gravity) and therefore there is no apparently naive problem that there will be a particle that will not react to it. The problem is of course that such a particle will be very difficult to detect and it can be detected in two ways (assuming it reacts with gravity and the weak force):
- Indirectly by its gravitational effect on its environment and such proofs are abundant, the problem is that some claim that the same effects can be achieved in other ways.
- directly by the weak response that they hope he participates in, the problem is that a weak response as it is - weak and therefore huge and expensive detectors are needed.
The main criticism of dark matter is exactly what Yehuda claims - that it is a theory designed to "fit the observations" in order to leave Einstein's theory of gravity undisturbed (I know he calls it Newton's law to minimize it, but cosmology is not based on Newton's law but on general relativity). There is something in this control, but it is not completely correct since the dark matter model has produced countless indirect predictions about the structure of ancient galaxies (not yet observed) and the variation in the cosmic background radiation. There is no doubt that this is not conclusive evidence, but it is what we have for now.
The contradiction is that in the case of dark energy the scientists are criticized for believing the observations as they are and changing mathematically graceful theories to fit the observations as they are today, while in the case of dark matter the criticism is exactly the opposite, that the scientists do not abandon elegant theory because of observations for crooked and strange theories mathematically and conceptually which will match the observations (for now there are none).
The truth is, of course, that the scientists behave today as scientists have always behaved -
We don't abandon a good theory because of a first observation that might contradict it, first we try to understand if there is something we didn't foresee that creates the same effect (dark matter) and then we try to find it in some way (dark matter detector). If all this does not work and there is no choice, the existing theory is replaced with a revised but "lacking grace" theory (dark energy) and wins the Nobel Prize.
Yehuda
====
It seems that I will not convince you. Just note that so far there is no theory that can really fully replace the idea of dark matter.
As of today, theories of corrected gravity do not explain the observations well (at least so far) and their relativistic versions (which, of course, must exist in order to at least reach a tie with the achievements of the known theory of gravity) need much more far-reaching assumptions and lack mathematical, conceptual or observational foundation.
Maybe in the end they will turn out to be right, but in the meantime there is no doubt that modified gravity theories are no match for dark matter in the ability to provide predictions about the universe, but in the meantime the burden of proof is on you.
There is no dark matter. point. He is essentially created in sin. We learned that if measurements in the field differ from what is obtained from the formula, the formula should be thrown away and replaced with another one, so here in gravitation, Newton's gravitation formula is preferred over the difficult measurements in the field and the measurements are changed by adding an illusory dark mass, all in order not to touch Newton's holy formula. The scientists will figure this out in the end. I wrote about this and other things, a book called "Provocative Science - The Science Outside the Box" which I am trying to publish with the help of the "Head Start" website for those interested in supporting - thanks in advance.
Please respond gently
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I very much doubt if there is any dark matter at all. In my opinion, in recent years some people have dragged the ruling into less serious areas. Many of the theories today depend on containment and lack mathematical grace...