Physicists save the neutrino from being a tachyon neutrino: part one in a follow-up to theoretical attempts to explain the results of the Oprah experiment without violating relativity
Since the results of the neutrino experiment were published, physicists have proposed about 80 different explanations for the result of the experiment: some have proposed new theories that would explain why the neutrinos are able to arrive in a flash of a nanosecond before light. Some of them explained why the result does not agree with the existing knowledge and some of them tried to mobilize the most modern arsenal of science - quantum gravity, string theory, many dimensions, etc. to try and understand why exactly energetic neutrinos can possibly precede light. The scientific community has so far been convinced of two explanations. The first explanation, a physical explanation, which deals with the behavior of the neutrinos themselves and was given by a pair of physicists from Boston University, Sheldon Galshaw and Sidney Coleman. The second explanation deals with the error in the calculation of times in the GPS system and is given by Ronald van Aalborg from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands (which will be presented in the second part).
In this section, we will focus on the first explanation by Sheldon Galshaw and Sidney Coleman from Boston University who propose (following their research on Chernikov radiation), if the neutrinos were moving at a speed faster than that of light, even slightly, they would suffer from the emission of Bramsterlong pairs: electron-positron. This would cause the neutrinos beam to become depleted of high energy neutrinos. By the time it reached the opera detector, the beam would have already lost most of its energy and would have undergone spectral distortions. Since this has not been detected, this fact contradicts the findings of the Oprah detectors that the neutrinos travel at supersonic speed. Physicist Matt Stressler explains the subject comprehensively and his explanation is presented here for the benefit of the Israeli reader.
Could there be tachyon neutrinos? Physicists refuse to believe and try with all their might to look for physical explanations why tachyon neutrinos are not possible.
Theoretical physicist Matt Stressler Explains why there can be no neutrinos that move faster than light (technionic neutrinos). The explanation is provided here for the benefit of Israeli readers.
A few days after CERN's announcement, two physicists from the physics department at Boston University, Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glasho, refused to believe the results of the experiment and published An article that refutes them.
Andrew Cohen is an expert in high energy physics while Sheldon Galshaw is a Nobel Prize winner for his work on the weak nuclear force. In the nineties Galshaw wrote two articles with the late physicist Sidney Coleman on Chernikov radiation.
Chernikov studied the blue light that appears when radioactive objects—which contain atoms whose nuclei decay into other nuclei by emitting high-energy particles—were placed near water and other transparent substances.
Any charged particle, such as an electron, moving with high enough energy, in water, air and any other transparent medium will glow with a bluish light. This light moves out of the particle at some angle from the particle's motion. This is a kind of photonic boom (like some kind of ultrasonic boom) moving through the air at a speed on Orit. Light in a transparent medium will cross the medium at a different speed than the speed of light in a vacuum because of the interactions between the light and the charged particles - the electrons and the atomic nuclei - that make up the medium. For example in water light travels about 25% slower than in empty space so it is easy for a high energy electron to move faster than light in water, while it remains slower than light in a vacuum. If indeed such a particle crosses the water, it creates an electromagnetic shock wave, similar to the shock wave that a jet plane creates in the air density. And this shock wave radiates out from the particle just like the sonic wave radiates from the plane. It carries with it energy in various forms - wavelengths - of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light. There is more energy generated at the violet end of the spectrum than at the red end andThis is why light appears bluish to the eye.
Chernikov radiation is used as a means of detecting high-energy particles: their presence can be observed by the light they emit and by studying the pattern of the light they emit. From this pattern we learn about the trajectory of the particle in the medium, how much energy it carries and what is its mass (electrons scatter in the medium and form a frenzied ring, while heavier particles will not).
Sheldon Gelshaw and Sidney Coleman examined Einstein's theory of relativity in the light of Chernikov radiation. We examine cosmic rays, particles that come to us from outer space, and they hit the atmosphere. As a result there is a meter of particles that are discovered on the ground. Cosmic rays can carry extremely high energy, up to 100 million times more than the energy of the protons in the Large Hadron Collider. These particles are apparently created at a distance of many light years from the Earth, in very strong astronomical events, such as supernovae.
Now suppose that the speed of light was not an upper limit and these particles would move at a speed that is higher than that of light in the vacuum of outer space. Remember what happened when the electrons moved at a speed that was faster than light? Chernikov radiation. Therefore these particles of the cosmic radiation with ultra high energy would also undergo Chernikov radiation. And since they have such a huge distance to travel, they would lose a lot of their energy in this form of radiation. It turns out that this energy loss can be very fast, and that these particles could not move to astronomical distances and maintain their ultra-high energy and reach the Earth. They are able to reach the Earth and not lose their high energy only if their speed remains very close to the speed of light or below the speed of light. If the cosmic rays at ultra high energies are able to travel at a speed higher than that of light, then we cannot see any cosmic rays at high energies at all, because on the way they will lose most of their energy before they reach the earth. The fact that we do observe them close to Earth proves that the particles move at a speed that is less than the speed of light. And so this observation puts an upper limit on the speed of light.
Now Cohen and Glasho extended this argument towards the emission of Bramsterlong pairs - electron positron - and used this to argue that the result obtained in the OPERA detector has an internal inconsistency. They argue that the very effect of faster-than-light travel that the OPERA detector allegedly observed should (as the Standard Model predicts) cause distortions in the neutron beam that were clearly not observed in the experiment. Therefore the neutron beam does not move at supersonic speed.
Their article uses conventional physics only - the weak nuclear force and quantum field theory, the law of conservation of energy and momentum, relationships between energy and momentum and speed for the various particles involved and some previous experimental results. He does not turn to speculative theories such as quantum gravity or string theories and does not turn to higher dimensional physics to explain why neutrinos can or cannot travel faster than light.
It is worth explaining a few things about the nitrites from the 1987 supernova before getting into the thick of the beam. The supernova is nature's nuclear bomb. In the collapsing core of the supernova, a huge number of protons are converted by absorbing electrons into neutrons, with neutrinos being ejected in this process. These are the electron nitrites. In 1987 we witnessed a supernova explosion, a huge, blue star in the Milky Way, the Giant Magellanic Cloud, 160,000 light years away from us, which could be seen south of the equator. A small part of the supernova's energy was emitted as light, while most of the supernova's energy was emitted in the form of about 10 trillion electron neutrinos that arrived here. Thousands of trillions of neutrinos passed through the neutrino detectors on Earth and some hit the detectors and were recorded and the physicists discovered the neutrino collisions in their data. They found that neutrinos arrived 20 hours before the observation of the supernova. Meanwhile, they looked at older photographs, which showed that the visible light from the supernova arrived three hours after the Nityrans reached Earth.
Because the shock wave from the supernova explosion had to come from the exploding star before the debris could shine, while the neutrinos from the explosion could immediately fly through the star unhindered, there was a lag of several hours between the arrival of the neutrinos and the arrival of the light. And so the result is that the neutrinos moved slower than light or as fast as light. They traveled for 168,000 years, about 5 trillion seconds, and reached Earth 3 hours (10,000 seconds) before light. If the neutrinos were moving even one millionth faster than light, they would arrive months before light, not three hours before light.
The energy of the neutrinos from the supernova was several hundreds of orders of magnitude smaller than that of the neutrinos in the OPERA beam, so it cannot be concluded from this observation that the OPERA observation is wrong. If the OPERA result is correct, then the observed effect scales with the energy of the neutrino. And so one asks whether the neutrinos of the supernova are of one type, and they may have one speed, while those in OPERA may be another type of neutrinos and therefore move at a different speed? It turns out that there could not be different types of neutrinos moving at different speeds to match the results of the OPERA experiment with the results of the 1987 supernova event.
The neutrinos like the charged leptons (electrons, muons and tau) appear in three types that depend on the mass of the neutrino. The classification is a little more complicated. But for now we will classify according to the mass. Suppose we start with high-energy neutrinos, electron neutrinos. These neutrinos are a mixture of the three types of neutrinos with different masses. The neutrinos spread through space, but they contain three types of neutrinos with different masses, so they move at slightly different speeds, all at speeds very close to that of light. Why slightly different speeds? Because the speed of an object depends on both its energy and its mass and the three types of neutrinos have different masses. Although the difference in speeds is small, it exists.
So we started with electron neutrinos which consist of three types of neutrinos with different masses. However, the three types of neutrinos with different masses cause the original electron neutrino, while moving in space, to become a mixture of electron neutrino, ion neutrino and tau neutrino. The amount of the mixture depends on the differences in velocities and therefore on the energy of the neutrinos and the differences in the masses of the neutrinos. This thing is called neutrino particle oscillations. How exactly the oscillations occur depends on the masses of the neutrinos and how the types of neutrinos that are classified by mass and the neutrinos that are classified by the weak nuclear force mix with each other.
Because of neutrino oscillations the neutrinos of the supernova are not of one type and have one speed while the neutrinos from the OPERA detector are of a different type and move at a different speed. Therefore the results of the supernova experiment should agree with the results of the OPERA experiment. If the result of the OPERA experiment is correct, the speed of all three types of neutrinos - the muonic neutrino, the electron neutrino and the tau neutrino - should increase with energy and differ from that of light by about one part in a billion or less.
Let's go back to Chernikov radiation. In water the speed of light is only three-quarters of what it is in vacuum and high energy particles can easily travel faster than light travels in water. Cosmic ray muons do this in showers, when they rain down into the sea at close to the speed of light in a vacuum.
Neutrinos are not electrically charged and at first glance they do not emit Chernikov radiation. But it turns out that this is also inaccurate, because neutrons have a very small magnetic moment - they act as very weak magnets - created by a quantum effect related to the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces. As a result they will also emit a very dim form of Chernikov radiation. It is too dim to affect the OPERA measurements.
But Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Galshaw point out in their article that for neutrinos there is a more significant process: the neutrinos will suffer Bramsterlong pair emission, which will cause the neutrinos beam to become depleted of high-energy neutrinos. By the time it reaches Gran Sesso, the beam will have already lost most of its energy and will undergo spectral distortions. Have these distortions been observed? This seems to contradict the Opera result that neutrinos travel at supersonic speed.
A neutrino moving fast enough can in principle lose energy by emitting a particle and a corresponding antiparticle through effects of the weak nuclear force. If the neutrino could move faster than light, it would emit an electron and a positron and lose energy in Bramsterlong pairs. This process is somewhat like Chernikov radiation. Chernikov radiation is emitted as a large number of photons at many frequencies and continuously. Cohen and Glasho's process is different because the weak nuclear force is weak in this context. An electron-positron pair is emitted while the neutrino is moving, with the first emission occurring in discrete jumps as a quantum phenomenon after a few tens of kilometers.
If OPERA's neutrinos were moving faster than light in a vacuum by the amount measured by the OPERA detector then higher energy neutrinos could not complete the 730 kilometer journey from CERN to Gran Sasso without losing a significant amount of their energy. In fact with each Brahmstellong pair emission, the OPERA neutrino will lose 3/4 of its energy at once. Most of the neutrinos of the OPERA beam are in the energy range of 20 to 40 GeV, with some of them being in the range below 20 GeV. Bramsterlong pair emission over 730 km should significantly deplete the high-energy neutrinos and move most of them to the 20 GeV energy range. And so the OPERA detector could not see velocity on Orit without discovering these distortions in energy, spectral distortion. The fact that the OPERA detector did not detect this distortion and instead found that the neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds earlier than the light shows that something went wrong with the OPERA observation.
At the end of their article Cohen and Glasho give the crushing argument that supports their argument. They claim that neutrinos, which are 100 or 1000 times more energetic than those in the OPERA beam, have already been observed in two other experiments, the Super Chemokanda in Japan and the Ice Cube Telescope. They should also emit Bramsterlong pairs and a detector will notice significant spectral distortions If they move slightly above the speed of light.
These neutrinos did not lose most of their energy while traveling this distance of 500 km to the detector. Therefore, like the OPERA beam, it seems that they did not emit Bramsterlong pairs like the neutrinos in the OPERA beam. And if they didn't, they would have to travel very close to the speed of light in empty space.
490 תגובות
Israel Shapira
I'll get into the nitty-gritty later
Aryeh Seter
You are of course right. According to the existing physical models, and even more so those confirmed in experiments, baryonic matter particles inhibit the progress of electromagnetic waves.
But I'm talking about a medium that carries the electromagnetic waves and is made of particles of a different type that physicists have not yet defined.
In order to understand the relationship between the density of the medium and the speed of the wave, compare the speed of sound in air and its speed in water or metal (eg railroad tracks): the denser the medium, the higher the speed of the wave.
Yuval - you wrote: "At a higher density than usual one can find electromagnetic waves that advance at greater speeds than we are familiar with." I'm not an expert in physics, but if I'm not mistaken, electromagnetic waves in a non-empty medium actually move more slowly. Particles may pass through such a medium faster than the speed of light in the same medium (see Chernikov radiation), but not faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
The intention was of course the destruction of the settlement, not the house.
Regarding neutrinos: I have asked several times in this article and others what the commenters think the results of the next experiment will be. See:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-315005
If you read the email between me and Zvika, you can conclude that my opinion is that there was no mistake, and that it is possible to reproduce a similar experiment, at low cost, and with photons instead of neutrinos.
Israel
You need to understand the essence of the neutrino. Since its speed in nature is on the order of the speed of light (and even more, if the Oprah experiment is confirmed), there is reason to look for other characteristics of electromagnetic radiation in it. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if they found out that it is dual, wave-particle, like the photon and the electron.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I believe that the speed of light is not a constant quantity. According to my model, the density of the medium dictates the speed of the electromagnetic radiation it carries. The great accelerations achieved in accelerators are due to the increase in the density of the medium. In a density greater than usual, one can find electromagnetic waves that advance at greater speeds than we are familiar with.
You wonder about the positive image that exists in the collective memory of leaders who led a large public to perdition. In my opinion, death - no matter how terrible the manner in which it arrives - is not the only consideration in choosing national symbols. We find in the Passover Haggadah "that in every generation we stand before our brides" and harvest us in large numbers really And the belief in miracles exists only among those who survived. What matters here is not mere death but the dedication of the soul to the idea. There is reason to argue that the Zionist movement also led and still leads a large public to destruction, yet many of us are willing to give our lives for its success.
By the way, the second house was destroyed before Bar Kochva and Rabbi Akiva were born.
My goal is simple. I explained it to my friend Zvika, an engineer at Gogol and a smart man, even before the whole mess started at the opera:
everyone can pass the speed of light if you have a 100 billion particle accelerator.
the trick is to do it with a $100 home depot equipment.
In a message dated 9/24/2011 12:36:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time (Me, zgershony@gmail.com writes:
This experiment may have saved you a lot of money
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:03 AM, wrote:
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4126417,00.html
If you remember, when I told you about my theory, I talked about neutrinos.
Those who got it, got it.
Leave Einstein. You wrote that you are now dealing with the second house period. There is a question that has always bothered me, and maybe you can give your personal opinion. This is about the duo: Bar Kochva - Rabbi Akiva. The question is: do they deserve the same positive and mythological image that they have in the collective memory of the people, or are they largely responsible for the destruction and showing signs of reckless and irresponsible behavior, especially on the part of the latter (and perhaps hence his terrible punishment).
what are you saying?
Shalom Israel
First, a minor technical matter. I don't like the term "website", since many attributes attributed to it are not acceptable to me. I am comfortable accepting dark matter as a medium, as long as it is not attributed many properties, including those that contradict my model.
Gravitation and acceleration do not act on the density of this medium but the opposite. Density differences of the medium between different areas are expressed, among other things, in gravitation and acceleration of particles. At different densities of the medium, the speed of light also changes, and if you measure time as a derivative of speed, then you also find elongations or contractions in it.
I have no applicable practical experience relevant to the experiment you are asking to perform. But I am very intrigued to know what your purpose is.
I think I understood you (correct me if I'm wrong) - time is actually a function of the compression of the medium, the "ether".
Gravitation, like acceleration, compresses the ether - and therefore time lengthens. Makes sense. But what happens with the lengthening of times in a non-accelerated system? Unless you believe the ether is an absolute system, as Michaelson believed before the experiment.
By the way Yuval, maybe you have some idea that could help me perform a certain experiment. It is about the interaction of photons (for example from a laser beam, from our information) with matter in motion. Better with protons or neutrons - and I thought of alpha radiation. or with electrons, for example in a cathode ray tube. I would like to measure the place and time of impact of the deflected material from the impact of the photons,
My idea is general, I don't have a definite direction yet. If you have any applicable practical experience, I would greatly appreciate it if you could share it with me.
God save the queen.
The force resulting from acceleration, like that resulting from gravity, is a function of the derivative of the density of the medium. If the formulas of the theory of relativity are accurate, then we have a good tool for calculating the densities of the medium everywhere and in every case.
The half-life of particles, like the time that passes on the twin clocks, is a function of the density of the medium.
As mentioned, today I tend to accept the dark matter as a medium.
So how is the twin paradox explained in your model? This is not a theoretical paradox in Alma. It was proved, as R.H. Mention the example of the planes circling the Earth, including a quantitative adjustment to Einstein's formulas.
And even more so: how will you explain the extension of the lifetime of particles such as muons, which are not accelerated?
Israel,
The universe changes in beats. Each and every point in the universe pulsates independently of other points, and each pulsation creates a new state. The beats are not synchronized, but given similar conditions it turns out that the beats seem to be synchronized - and this is what gives us the illusion that time is uniform. We take this illusion, born within our local reality, and believe it to be global. And until evidence is found to the contrary, we continue to hold this belief.
Recently (in the last hundred years) phenomena have been discovered that indicate that time does not "flow" throughout the universe at the same rate. For example, if you put two identical clocks at two different heights, the one that is farther from the center of the earth will lag behind the other. If you switch between them, the second will lag behind the first. The accepted model for calculating the difference in the operation of the clocks is the theory of general relativity, which links everything to gravitation. It gives results with good accuracy, but does not explain the mechanism that causes the phenomena.
The phenomenon that was named "the curvature of space" is explained in my model as a difference in the density of the medium that carries the light (today I tend to attribute this medium to what is today called "dark matter", but when I coined it, already about forty years ago, I called it by a different name) the changing density of the medium This also affects the rate of progress of the clocks as well as the changes in the orbit of the planet Mercury and as well as the speed of movement of stars that are at different distances from the black hole in the center of the galaxy.
Before Einstein, they believed that this medium existed and called it ether. Since he was not discovered (cf. the famous experiment of Michelson and Morley), and since the theory of relativity gives beautiful formulas without mentioning him, the belief that he, like the phlogiston, was a flowered owl was formed. However, now we are receiving observations that show that gravitation phenomena exist even without particles to which they can be linked, and this has the potential to bring the ether hypothesis back into the scientific debate.
Nice, Yuval.
I am not aware of such a definition. I understood from your previous comments that you have some idea. So what?
I tried to roll out my idea and we saw what happened. That's why I was reduced to the twin paradox. If we manage to solve it, including taking into account the objections I raised, and taking into account the aircraft test that R.H. mentioned, it seems possible to derive the definition of time from the data before us.
About clocks, twins and other paradoxes.
When we talk about speed, we mean the derivative of distance by time (what in your language they say "distance divided by time"). Apparently we derive one variable, the distance, but in fact we have to derive two. Today we already understand that the rate of time change is not constant either. If we find the dimension according to which time should be determined, we can expand the current system of paradoxes and look for new topics to debate about.
Bernadette? Pruning exaggeration. We would never get over it.
And you forgot to add the most important twist in the story. That 25 years after the murder, we had a volunteer from Sweden from the Bernadotte family in our kibbutz.
She stayed alive, although not sure how, after the experiences in the kibbutz.
cat. stench. This is exactly the point that I am not clear about what was agreed upon in Copenhagen. If I remember the problem correctly, as long as we didn't open the box, the cat, for all its nine souls, is in a superposition of living and dead. Just opening the box, weighed to measure, causes the wave function to collapse and the cat to go into an absolute dead or alive state.
But what if he died a week earlier? Can't we tell by its condition and aroma when exactly it happened? Or maybe because cats always fall on their feet, he'll somehow manage to get away.
I don't think I got a definitive answer to the time paradox, and time is running out, friends. We have been here for a month in the article, the results of the repeated experiment will be published soon, and even to the simple challenge I posed at the time I did not receive a clear answer. I will put it like this:
1. There was a mistake. In the repeated experiment it will be found that neutrinos do not exceed the speed of light.
2. There was no mistake. In the repeated experiment it will be found that neutrinos exceed the speed of light.
3. There was a mistake. In the repeated experiment, it will be found that neutrinos exceed the speed of light, more than the previous experiment.
4. Additional suggestions?
Mr.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314409
Claims that, according to another article in Science, the group in Seren simply made a mistake in interpreting the data. This is a far-fetched hypothesis, considering that it is the elite of the world's scientists (among them, by the way, JAY HAUSER, who was my professor of analytical mechanics at UCLA).
But this is still not an answer to the 4 options I presented above.
Obviously, every answer carries a risk of error, so someone has to take a chance and choose. But every choice should be properly reasoned.
I'm willing to be the second.
And if anyone is still interested, I am ready to publish the measurement results of my geographic puzzle.
And of course I will have the chance to be with Carl Gustaf XVI again in the same hall. He's on stage, I'm in one of the upper booths in the stands. 🙂
Israel,
As for the cat, it is still in the box in a live/dead state. I also heard that recently unexplained foul odors of a corpse of unknown origin rose from her.
jubilee,
I'm looking forward to the chapter on the second house.
Well, we are talking about Jean Bernadotte who was one of Napoleon's outstanding generals. He married Desiree Clary who was Napoleon's lover. Napoleon gave her up in favor of Josephine, but his brother Joseph married her sister.
Bernadotte defeated the Swedes and captured many officers and soldiers. Until then, Sweden was ruled by the House of Vasa, whose last kings were not, how shall we say, in the line of mental health.
The desperate Swedes summoned their enemy Bernadette and his wife to come and rule over Sweden! After becoming king, Bernadotte joined the anti-Napoleonic alliance and participated at the head of Swedish forces in the occupation of France.
The two had one and only son named Oskar who gave up Norway without a fight and thus began the current royal dynasty of Sweden. Bernadotte House. Today the king is Carl Gustaf XVI, nee Bernadotte.
The twist is of course the murder of Count Polka Brandot by the Lehi people in 1948.
R.H
Sorry! I don't know what to answer.
The chapter in history I'm dealing with now is the days of the Second Temple, and the event most similar to your riddle is the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus without shedding a single drop of blood (except for one symbolic execution) and the support of all the inhabitants of the Babylonian Empire for Cyrus as their king. It has a Jewish twist (the Cyrus Declaration) and an Israeli twist (the Balfour Declaration that came to fruition in 1948). This is the closest I found, and very far from Napoleon.
I meant - in relation to the cat - how it was resolved logically, if it was resolved at all. I remembered you mentioned it earlier, and thought you might remember the summaries of the Copenhagen company. It may not seem related to the topic we are discussing, but indirectly it is actually very related.
Good night.
Gadol, R.H., important information. And remind me, what happened to Sherody's cat? Does he live or die at the end?
Israel,
To your question, according to Wikipedia, at MIT they reached half a billionth of a degree above absolute zero and likewise (don't ask me how) a temperature of one degree above absolute zero was measured in the Boomerang Nebula. It's cold out there.
R.H.
But they will still need an external party, in contrast to option 1:
"1. All the twins will be able to synchronize an appointment with mom only using cesium clocks, without using a supercomputer."
Besides, what you are saying is that an outsider in the time system of Gemini 18 has the same time as Gemini 18 - which is obvious.
Temp clocks, on the other hand, give you the same time in every system. Here is the definition from:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/demonstrating-relativity-1403111/#comment-288387
"I claim that "temperature clocks" will always show the same time at a given moment and at a given place in the universe. They do not require any synchronization between them and if we take some of them out of the packaging, they will immediately, without any adjustment, show the exact same time: the time that has passed since the big bang.
Unlike normal clocks, including cesium clocks, temperature clocks are not affected by accelerations. If we put a "temperature clock" and a cesium clock side by side, and calibrate them to an agreed time in a non-accelerating system, even after a million years a photograph of both will show exactly the same time in both. Conversely, if the system is accelerated, the cesium clock will lag behind the "temperature clock", and since the mechanism of life works like a cesium clock, everyone in the same system will age more slowly. This works especially well with twins.
Temperature clocks are the fulfillment of Einstein's vision of clocks in space, because as mentioned two of them will always show the same time at the same point in space. (of course, when they are in a relative state of rest). Ordinary clocks, on the other hand, can show different times, but these times are not real, they are only good for the system they are in, and it is possible for two of them to show completely different times at the same point in space at a given moment. To the same extent, if we separate two young carrots and put one of them in the refrigerator, it seems to age more slowly than its brother, and with it all its reference system (the other vegetables in the refrigerator). Despite this, this does not constitute a "paradox of the carrot twins". The time of the vegetables in the refrigerator is simply not correct, and this will be proven to them by any clock that is with them."
Also note that we are currently handling a private case only - the twin paradox, or an accelerated system. Things are much more complicated when talking about the lengthening of times in a non-accelerated system.
By the way, I have a question.
I remember from Jules Verne's book "Journey to the Moon" that the "astronauts" on the trip measured the temperature of space using a simple thermometer.
The question: If we measure the temperature in the shadow of the space using a simple Kelvin thermometer, what will it show? Can it for example show a temperature of one degree above absolute zero? Or 2.73K is the minimum.
I think the best - Abdullah, King of Jordan. Come on, find out.
Israel,
Equally, Gemini 17 could look at anything that changes over time. For example, he could have given a foray into the Dead Sea in Vega, which is known to be drying up at a rate of one meter per year. Alternatively, he could have looked at the sky at the distance between the star Proximo Alpha and the star Proximo Beta that are receding at a constant rate, at Comet Grossman-Oz that visits Vega every 13 years, have we already talked? (He can also just drop by to visit the beautiful Henrietta and see if she has aged and how much). That is, any phenomenon that changes with time that is outside the traveling system will give the answer and the temp clock is not unique and does not show absolute time.
I already told you it's not Napoleon. Close, but definitely not Napoleon. The king is a king and a twist is a twist. The twist happened in 1948.
Yuval, what are you saying?
Option 1 means that:
"1. All the twins will be able to synchronize an appointment with mom only using cesium clocks, without using a supercomputer."
Let's see if this works out with the problem facing Gemini #17.
He went with his brother, a twin, 18, on a holiday organized by Galactors.
Both of them were enjoying the pleasures of the galaxy, when Twin 17 suddenly felt the need to smoke. Since 18 cannot tolerate cigarettes, 17 asked to go for a short spin in space in the family sports spaceship.
After a bitter experience, that sometimes after such a round the twins discover that decades separate them, the two twins summarize the data in front of them:
1. Biologically - both are exactly twenty years old.
2. Twin 18 remains in the mother spacecraft with a cesium clock and a temp clock. Since his system is not accelerated, both clocks will always show the same time, which is also the biological age of 18.
3. Twin 17 goes into space with only a cesium clock.
They say goodbye. 17 - like all 17-year-olds - presses the gas pedal of the sports car, tears through the galaxy with terrible and terrible accelerations, and returns to the mother spacecraft where his brother is waiting for him after a time that, according to his watch, lasted only 20 minutes.
However, before he knocks on the door of the mother spaceship, fear begins to gnaw at him.
After all, everyone knows that when the members of the Tami family reach the biological age of 47, and until they pass the age of 50, there is a radical change in their personality, and they become violent and aggressive, and shoot anyone who walks in the door.
How can 17 be sure that 18 is not the said age? With all the accelerations experienced by 17, there is no way of knowing when the time of the cesium clock it carries has not slowed down enough for 18 to age by 28 years for example, and is now in its crease.
17 Regrets that he doesn't have the supercomputer. If he had, maybe the computer could have made order in the mess, if the computer had measured and calculated all the accelerations and times, and been able to approximate the time of Twin 18.
But he regrets even more that he didn't take the temperature watch. When he stood in the doorway, the temp clock was stationary in relation to 18's temp clock, the time on both clocks was the same, and therefore also the same time as 18's cs clock, and 18's biological age. Thus 17 could know whether to enter the door without fear, Or 18 will send him to the eternal hunting grounds of the galactic spirit.
No?
Napoleon - If, as you say, "the story also has a Jewish/Israeli twist in the end," then it cannot be more than 63 years ago. Are you sure there were kings in the period in question except for the Arabs? Or maybe it is not a "king" but a ruler, and it is not an "Israeli" but "the people of Israel"?
A somewhat similar dilemma to that of Twin 17.
And what about my riddle? Mr.?
google: washington king
Israel,
You are ignoring two words I wrote regularly in my posts. "Attribution system". There is no absolute time. The twins' clock refers to a grandmother's clock. However, if Grandma lives on a moving planet within a moving galaxy, there are reference systems for time as well as space. This is how I understood relativity when I learned about it.
Your temperature clocks are an extensive and interesting reference system because apparently they encompass the entire universe and anything can be attributed to them. But do they also refer to a larger system?
It is similar to the fact that we measure our position on the earth. However, the earth moves around the sun, heard in the galaxy that it also moves and maybe the whole cluster and the whole universe moves, so what is our exact location? We can only talk about relative position. The same goes for relative and not absolute time.
M. R. and Israel
There is no debate about 3. Regarding 1 the working assumption (which seems to me to be incorrect but Israel was angry that his alternatives were not chosen) was that a computer was required to do relative calculations and not her. I assume that a relatively simple calculation will be required for each twin to understand at what speeds it flies and how they will affect the clock. So I didn't disqualify 1 categorically and certainly not because there is an absolute time.
Regarding the riddle -
David: No, even if he was a friend of the Philistines as a refugee from Saul, he certainly was not invited by them to be their king.
Napoleon: No, but very close. By the way, the riddle talks about one of the strangest and non-trivial stories in history that for some reason is not so famous in our regions. This is not about the members of the same nation but about the members of another nation who asked the officer who defeated them to be the king. Imagine the Egyptians asking Moshe Dayan after the Six Day War to replace Nasser. In the end, the story also has a Jewish/Israeli twist. This is now you can solve.
R.H:
You don't "get it on your head" but it seems to me that the alternatives you chose are not correct.
The cesium clock is indeed accelerated, but the question takes into account the possibility of making calculations so that it is not about going to the meeting when the appointed time appears on the cesium clock, but rather making a calculation that will say what the cesium clock needs to show when the appointed time arrives at mother's and to arrive at the meeting at that time (assuming that you can make it - it is not easy at all, But let's assume that teleportation is used).
Alternative 3 does not talk about the temperature clock that is with the mother but about the temperature clocks that are with the children. These are not external and all are affected by the effect of their movement on the results of their measurements.
Regarding them as well - it is probably possible to calculate what the time should be in them when the appointed time arrives at mother's.
That's why I answered earlier that the alternatives I choose are 1 and 3.
Israel:
I don't know why you think my answer is unclear.
After seeing the solution to the problem of M.R. In Yuval's link, I give up my ardosh number.
Napoleon quite fits the puzzle. When he fled from Alba and marched on Paris, the forces of Louis XVIII surrendered to him en masse, joined him and crowned him as their king. He even sent a letter to Louis asking him to send more soldiers to increase his army.
David, before he became king, was an officer and often associated with the captains of the Philistines.
If you chose 2 + 3, you chose absolute time.
Get ready to get on the head from M.R. Atonement mainly.
Israel,
If you are so insistent then 2 and 3
1 No because the watch of each of them will show something different and therefore 2 yes too.
3 Yes because the clock looks at an external reference system. They could just as easily say "we'll meet at mom's when the sun sets".
As for David, then David, as his name is, is a king and not an officer, and no one called him to be king. He passed over many nations on the way to kingship. In short, the answer is incorrect.
R.H.
Mom's cesium clock always shows the same time as the temp clock. This is a non-accelerated system.
You can choose any of the options - not alternatives - but choose.
Please don't get confused with riddles about lines and dots - this is a real and existential problem for a universal problem.
Regarding your riddle - I would say King David. With all his wars with the Philistines, the Sauls and the Zebras, and in light of his great charm, then the story suits him.
And speaking of the House of David, another riddle:
What was the name of the mother of Absalom ben Makkah?
Israel,
1) First it is not alternatives what you present. It is possible that some of them will be correct (for example 2 and 4 and then remain without an answer). Except that they don't cover the range of possibilities. Any clock that is outside the traveling system can be used as the reference system including Mom's new cesium clock that will show exactly the same time as her temperature clock.
2) Regarding the riddles - I agree with M.R. As long as you reveal that you solved the riddle by one means or another it is legitimate. Surely you know the story about the thermometer and the height of the tower? (If you don't search a bit..) which presents creative and unacceptable solutions to an essentially mathematical question (paying the guard with the thermometer to show me the map of the building for example). A lie is when you twist the way you solved and then not only is it pathetic, there is also this nausea.
3) Regarding the geographical puzzle, it is very difficult but I have a feeling that it is solvable. Get a real historical puzzle in return:
Who was the officer who won the battle, where hundreds of his enemies and they in return summoned him to be their king?
Israel!
You wrote earlier "all means are kosher", and that's what turned on a green light for me
: )
I knew you could be trusted*
*By the way, I can't believe you had to search the internet
jubilee.
I already brought the solution I gave in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314520
Even before you brought the link.
after the beech m m. R. I'll go look at the link. Please wait.
Well I'm back. Similar, but not the same. After I get back from work, I will diagnose the solution in depth.
R.H. and M.R. In the twin problem I presented 4 alternatives:
1. All the twins will be able to synchronize an appointment at mother's only using cesium clocks, without using a supercomputer.
2. No, they won't be able to.
3. All the twins will be able to synchronize an appointment with mom only using temp clocks, without using a supercomputer.
4. No, they won't be able to.
I did not get a simple answer to my simple question: which of the alternatives do you choose? We cannot continue to resolve the conflict until you give a clear answer.
R.H. The clue to the geographic puzzle is found in previous responses.
And besides, what's wrong with the trivial solution? If he answers all the questions in full, why not him?
Mr.
I understand the dilemma of the "Tahmani" in the honor tests. The same problem exists in real tests, copies and fakes. Many spare even the petty and unnecessary need of faking exams, and simply fake a degree, and make good progress in life.
The city where I live is full of heavy millionaires who made their fortune honestly, and next to them equally heavy millionaires who didn't even need the hassle of embezzlement. They simply went bankrupt in company A in China, and transferred the capital to company B in the USA registered in the dog's name. It works fine, and there is almost nothing the law can do. According to Fletou Sharon.
So what's wrong?
Simply, there is this matter of nausea.
jubilee,
Regarding your riddle, well then I also know how to search on the internet and as mentioned all means are kosher in riddles 🙂
Regarding the solution via the Internet:
Of course that's not what I meant.
That's why I also chose a puzzle that I thought wasn't there.
Since I heard her from a friend, I didn't know Ardosh was related to her, otherwise I could have really googled using his name and found her.
I don't like the internet solution methods but I can't do anything against them - apart from avoiding presenting things that appear on the internet as puzzles.
On the other hand - I don't like to give an advantage to "cheats" and therefore I declare in advance that the method of using the Internet is - without a choice - legitimate.
Of course, presenting the internet solution while referring to the source of the solution is not cheating - it is only a spoiler - but it is immeasurably better than a situation where someone finds the solution on the internet and presents it as having arrived at it himself.
It reminds me of the most frustrating subject of "honor tests" we were given back in the university.
These were tests that had to be solved at home without the use of books.
In one case - the most frustrating of all - the lecturer gave a selection of questions whose solutions could be found in the literature, but he specifically asked us not to use the books.
A typical Kika, I complied with his request and solved the test on my own.
It turns out that I was almost the only one, but there is a twist in the plot:
The solution presented in the literature to one of the problems was wrong and since almost everyone copied the solution from the book - my test was the only one where all the solutions were correct.
We are not talking about a test of dozens of questions. If I'm not mistaken, it had four or five questions.
The lecturer's response was quite discouraging to me.
Although I was the only one who got a score of 100, but all the others - who were actually caught in their spoiling - got 95.
there's nothing to do. This is life and it is forbidden to enact laws that cannot be enforced because that gives criminals an advantage.
Israel:
Since a link to the place where the solution is presented has already been given, I will be spared from presenting it to you.
If you have come to the conclusion that you want to see the solution - read the link provided by Yuval.
Regarding the question of synchronization - it depends on the available data.
If all the data is available then it is certainly possible to do the job with a cesium clock (let alone the computer thing. It depends on the calculation ability of the specific person and it is not a matter of principle).
I don't know enough about the temperature clock but I guess you can do it with it too.
In any case - presenting that the mother's answer is "true" does not express any truth but only an agreement and therefore the whole question has no point.
There is lightning here and I turn off the computer and unplug it.
Good night
Israel,
The temperature you measure will also drop faster in the traveling system. However, it is clear that when they meet it will be equal because at the moment of meeting time is the same time for everyone even if one feels that two years have passed and the other 300 years.
A perhaps better example is that one was in a slow movie and the other in a fast movie. But when they meet it's the same scene in the movie. All they would have to do is look at a reference system outside of the traveling systems like the temp you suggest or another system.
Regarding your riddle, may I have a hint?
Israel!
Are you aware that you solved the riddle I brought, or did the solution (one of the first sentences in your last long response) fall by chance?
And I forgot to add: for every solution you found: an explanation! necrosis! well!
R.H. I can't agree with you about the internet search.
This would be true if the solution of another problem depended on the solution of this problem. For example - you have to find the cache that lies in a certain point. All means are kosher here. But to solve the problem of M.R. Through the Internet or through a friend who knows the riddle, one sins against the very idea of the "challenge" as the riddle says. To the same extent, you can bring Gogol to "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire". The whole idea is for you to solve it yourself.
Mr. - I reached the end of the rope. As mentioned, I find reason to fault the use of references. I fully understand your reservation about my solution, and it also came up for me while working on the puzzle. But as I mentioned, it makes me a little dizzy to work on it. Whatever the formalistic solution will be, it will, in my opinion, include the main idea of my solution: for any external point to any line, beyond a certain point on the line whose distance from the projection of the external point is some function of D^2-1, it is impossible to add points to the line without the external point being on straight. If I was wrong about this - I will admit complete failure.
Einstein. I still do not get it. I will present the options before us, so that we can see if we are satisfied:
1. All the twins will be able to synchronize an appointment at mother's only using cesium clocks, without using a supercomputer.
2. No, they won't be able to.
3. All the twins will be able to synchronize an appointment with mom only using temp clocks, without using a supercomputer.
4. No, they won't be able to.
Please choose the appropriate alternatives, so that we know where we stand.
Speaking of riddles, I also have a riddle, which might fit the geography section of "Hidan".
know your country,
what is the country
In the puzzle before you, features are described that are all common to one and only country in the world. You must read the riddle in its entirety, and guess which country it is. If it seems to you that the set of features can fit more than one country, check the data again. You will argue that there is a point where the countries differ from each other, and only for one country do the data fit in full.
which country -
Has a Middle Eastern climate, sunny, fertile in the northern half and desert in the south?
A national water carrier conveys the waters of the north to the south?
lies on the western border of the continent and borders the 33rd latitude?
Stretching from north to south along the shore of the Great Sea in the west?
On its eastern border - the Dead Sea. In the east - the desert of Moab, the valley of death and the great volcanic fissure (whose initials are: SA) that stretches from north to south?
Its northern neighbor (whose name ends in "on") is known as the land of cedars, water and mountains.
At its northeastern border is a fresh water lake, somewhat similar to a violin, and to the east of it is a high volcanic plateau.
To the southwest of the country, a large peninsula with the resort town of Nuaiba_____ (Beit Rafoya).
In the center of the country, by the sea, lies the largest volume in the country, and from there the coastal road leads north, to the large and beautiful bay city near Carmel.
which country-
Received its independence in 48, after the great war of that year.
From 49, a large migration to it began and within a few years its population tripled.
Most of its residents are immigrants and the children of immigrants, which for many years was the desire of non-Galim immigrants, who tried to qualify for it by an illegal route and called it the "Promised Land" and many of whom found themselves in displaced persons camps.
In which country is one of the main national holidays on Thursday in May?
It is allowed to look on the Internet.
And to Alexander Mokedon the following riddle is dedicated (definition from Amnon Birman's logic crossword puzzle):
camel, sheep, pig; shark, carp, eel; Crow, dove, starling.
(The solution consists of three words whose numbers of letters are 2, 7, 5)
R.H
We cherish and encourage thinking outside the box, but there is a limit to how far outside the box we are willing to go. I humbly felt that, if I were to look for a solution through gyggling, it would be worth the trouble. But that's not exactly what I did. I heard this riddle with its solution many years ago, and the purpose of the trick was just to remember.
In retrospect, I understand that I did not behave well and ask for the forgiveness of all those who were hurt.
Following on from my previous message. The one who will surely agree with me is Alexander the Great who thus solved the riddle of the Gordian connection and thanks to this became the king of the "world" according to the words of the prophecy.
Sorry. The system deletes the string. What I saw was:
"erdos theorem" straight line
Since I've known the riddle for a long time, I knew where to look.
I scrolled.
In this response
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314603
there is. He begged for a solution with these words: "Well, find out already...", so I protected him. In retrospect, I understand that one should not reveal feelings ;-).
R.H
The five-color map, actually the more difficult problem from which it stems - the four-color map, a fairly unknown English mathematician named Spencer Brown claims that he proved without the help of a computer, he brings his proof as an appendix to the latest edition of his book Laws of Form. See link:
http://www.lawsofform.org/gsb/nature.html
Oh my, Yuval, apparently those who know how to search don't need to break their heads these days 🙂
I will admit that I also tried my hand a little at solving the riddle and except for solutions to private cases of Pythagorean triples I did not make any progress.
This story makes me wonder about the "legality" of solving a riddle. My opinion, and I assume that at least MR would disagree, is that all means are kosher, that is, searching the internet is also a form of legitimate solution, in fact it constitutes a certain type of thinking outside the box. This reminds me of the debate on whether the brute force proof of the map question with the 5 colors counts as a mathematical proof and I think it does. all means are valid. The solution, even if it is not elegant, is a solution and has the satisfaction of "I won the riddle".
what do you think?
Jubilee (https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314606):
I didn't know it appeared anywhere on the internet.
This is a question that a friend named Thomas Cheetham asked me about 35 years ago and I did not know that it was attributed to such a special person as Ardosh.
On the other hand - it's a shame that you damaged the chance of Israel understanding the problem before understanding the solution.
I didn't just delay giving the explanation.
Besides - where did you see any condescension in his words?
By the way, how did you find it on Wikipedia? I mean - what search words did you use?
Israel:
Regarding the riddle - I see that you really do not read my words seriously.
I said it doesn't have to be straight that has infinite points or even a lot of points on it.
In fact, if you randomly grid an infinite number of points in a plane, the probability that there will be more than two points on a single line is zero! You can prove it!
Arrangements in which there are many points on one straight line are very rare and will never be created in a lottery.
Although the proof should handle them as well, a "proof" that handles only them simply neglects the vast majority of possible point distributions.
These are things you must understand first - even before you see the proof.
Regarding the temperature watch, you are just insisting.
Of course the density also changes as a function of the speed!
Remember the distances are getting shorter?
so?!
The fact that mom's watch will show what mom's watch shows is true blood for cesium watches and also for watches that show the number of dogs in the neighborhood.
That still doesn't make it a universal time.
Although my model describes, among other things, a phenomenon that looks like the big bang, but I am in no rush to present it publicly. It's just too easy and therefore suspicious to me as wishful thinking. In order for the big bang, whether it happened or not, to be considered a scientific matter and not a metaphysical one, it seems to me that it should be a temporary phenomenon and not a one-time event. I don't rule out the big bang, but I also don't see it as a primordial phenomenon.
A primordial phenomenon, for example, is the formation of time. And since there is no way to present a time before time, my model describes an eternal occurrence. He presents the creation of existence from nothingness, and since it is eternal, existence is created from nothingness all the time and in fact we live in the world of nothingness and not in the world of existence. And I'll just remind those who have followed a little, that it starts with a word game in a one-word language.
Thanks for the credit. This is very boring material, but the reason I am not presenting it is that it is not yet complete.
You are Khatiyar, are you?! On the other hand, you are a jerk.
And Yuval - if by "sloppiness" you meant phrases like "senility" and "calcification" - they only expressed my shock that it was difficult for me to work on the problem.
And also from the question that arose as a result: at the age of 54, and considering that the last integral I solved was almost 20 years ago, am I still able to work on mathematical problems at all, or will the brain, like any muscle in the body, after a bit of training return to form?
If this is not too sensitive a topic, I would like to hear the opinion of my colleagues, the other Khatiyars on the site.
Yuval, what is insomnia? Isn't it midnight in Scotland?
The first thing I thought when I saw the problem was to search the Internet. Then I came to the conclusion that even though it was not stated in the passage in the limiting conditions, the poet's intention was that we crawl and solve the problem on our own.
And that's also why I can't look at the solution you suggested.
Bye friend, I'm still waiting to see your theory. I liked the idea of a primordial universe, even before the big bang.
Israel Shapira! Enough slouching! Please accept this prayer and wipe away your tears
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Anning_theorem
I explained to the boss that there were pressing cosmic issues that needed solving, so he agreed that I would be late.
What's more, in the attribution system here, it's actually Sunday, which is actually a sabbath.
They have been trying to get rid of me for years without success - I always have an excuse ready.
I am the boss!
Points and straight:
Apart from the trivial case - where all the points are on a given line - it seems to me that my proof is quite applicable to the line that coincides with the X-axis in a Cartesian system.
By rotating the axis system, it is possible to apply the proof to any straight line whose equation in the original system is Y=MX+C.
Therefore, as you say, it is not about the "straight". In fact any straight line that is in a plane will do.
Well, find out already. Unless you whitewash the house, and are in desperate need of fine quicklime, which I have in abundance.
Regarding the applicability of the temp watch - so what exactly is Friedman's formula? As the calculator at the bottom of the link I gave shows, its input is temperature and the output is time. Try it for a temperature of 2.73K and you'll see that you get about 15 billion years.
If we think about an accurate watch, the purpose of accuracy, it seems that it is possible to reach an accuracy of seconds or less. But there is no need: the paradox also holds for twins billions of years apart.
And if you don't like the temperature issue (I guess because it is actually measuring the spectrum of the CMB radiation, and the measurement depends on the speed of the meter relative to the rest system of the radiation) - fear not. It is possible to measure photon density. It does not change at different speeds.
But be that as it may - in a resting system, like Mom's living room, all temp clocks will show the same time - and the cesium clocks will see huge differences.
No?
Israel:
So you go to work late!
What is? Do you use a temperature watch?
In order to reach coordination, you need to rely on coordinated clocks.
If we are talking about people on Earth, whose relative speed of movement is reasonable - any clock will do (assuming that the temperature clock is technically applicable at all. It is not).
If we are talking about people who are in different relationships - no watch will fit - not even the temperature watch, as I explained in the previous response.
Without a choice - they will be forced to make relative calculations and calculate what mother's season shows and make sure to arrive at the time that mother's season (according to their calculations) shows that they should come to eat.
Los Angeles, in the Gemini 34 time system.
Let's take the limited case: all the thousands of twins meet at their mother's house on Shabbat for chowder and tea.
Won't a fight start over what time it is and why Gemini 34765 is always a million years late?
And won't a mother who heard her rule that everyone should rely only on temp clocks to arrive together?
Israel:
You left for work around the time I got back. I am attending a tribute evening for Dov Lautman held at the Open University.
Please remind me where you live - according to the time it seems like the time zone is exactly opposite that of Israel.
Israel https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314569 ):
We agree on that.
Israel https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314575 ):
And here, in my opinion, you are wrong.
The system in which the measurements are carried out is also characterized by the way it moves in space, not only by its location.
In the case you described, the temperature clocks will also show different values (which will not necessarily be the same as the values that the cesium clocks will show)
And before I go to work:
What if there were 3 twins? Or 17 to the power of 17, moving at different speeds? At the time of the meeting, weren't all their cesium clocks showing different times (even differences of millions of years) while the temp clocks were showing the exact same time?
And they don't even have to meet in the same room: it's enough that during the journey in space everyone passes a certain point in space where a camera with a high enough resolution is placed to be able to show an image of all the watches together.
The camera will see thousands of cesium clocks, each of which has a different time, and next to them thousands of temperature clocks, all of which have the same time.
Doesn't this raise the suspicion that there is some kind of absolute time?
Or alternatively, that the big bang theory is wrong?
Or more likely: I'm wrong, but I don't know where.
please show me
OK. But do we agree on this point:
1. With Twin B, at any given moment, a photo of the two clocks standing next to each other will always show the same time on both.
2. With twin A, the photographs will show different times on the clocks.
Mikel
I admit I understood your comment. And it is true that I only dealt with a private case
Let's start again from the beginning
(:))
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Judah and Israel:
It seems to me that you did not understand the comment I gave to Israel in this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314325
No one said that there must be some honest man whose humble lies in many points!
After all, it is possible to arrange an infinite number of points in a plane without having any straight line that has more than two points on it!
What is the meaning of all this talk about the "right" (in the news) etc.
You have to prove the general problem and proving that it cannot be straight with an infinite number of points that has a point outside of it is such a private case that it is almost not worth considering!
Regarding the "physical" solution:
What you described is a mathematical solution in which - instead of paper and pencil, peas are used (if I remember correctly - in the book they talked about peas and not julas).
This is not a physical solution.
There are problems that have an actual physical solution, but in all cases - if you delve into the physical solution - you see that it is based on the mathematics behind physics.
I will not present this type of problem at the moment because the discussion will start to get distracted in all directions.
With regard to the problem of the clocks - there is no voting and privileged majority and things like that.
All that needs to be understood is that the temperature clock checks the time that has passed since the big bang in the system it is currently in, while a normal clock checks the time that has passed on the clock itself throughout its private history.
I can imagine scenarios where - due to the acceleration - the temperature clock would move backwards at all.
Haim (https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314471:
You're rude and there's no way I'll answer you (what's more, you even think you know everything and your questions are only meant to be defiant).
If you really didn't understand that I know very well all the things you asked then you probably are not able to understand anything.
And regarding the application - you asked too late.
This morning when I went to the store I stepped on a landmine that someone had left on the sidewalk and I was smeared.
To Israel
Isn't your proof only for a special case where the outer point is in the zenith of a point in the plane from which it is distant by a whole number of cm?
??
I also proved it to a general point, only that it is difficult to explain
In general, I subtracted from the outer point perpendicular to the straight line and showed that since each new point on the straight line must be an entire distance up to the vertical and since the segment up to the vertical is finite then it is a contradiction because there must be infinite segments
You really need to show it with a drawing
Mikal, the proof is with me, I just don't know how to transfer a drawing
I agree that what I passed on is just text, but maybe the others who read will get a direction
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
An attempt to prove the problem of M.R.
Given:
An infinite collection of points in a plane where the distance between any two of them is a whole number of centimeters.
Need to prove:
All points on one line
It is obvious that points on a straight line satisfy the conditions of the problem. We will prove that every point in the plane must be on the line, or it will not fulfill the conditions of the problem.
1. We will take some point in the plane which we will call point A.
2. The point is at a distance of whole centimeters D from a line, which for the purpose of the proof will be the X-axis in the Cartesian plane. Its projection on the line is point B.
3. We will prove: there is only a certain and finite distance L in the positive direction of the X axis on which the points meet all the conditions of the problem, and still the point is in a plane outside the straight line.
The reasoning: It was said that we will be able to prove that beyond the distance L there is no possible additional point that will fulfill all the conditions of the problem. Since we can add more points to the line ad infinitum, and thus pass the final distance L, then in order for the point A to fulfill all the conditions of the problem, it must be on the line.
Since the same argument also holds in the negative direction of the X-axis, the proof of the problem in the positive direction is sufficient for a complete proof.
proof.
1. We will take points on the line to which we will call N1, N2, ... N. The points meet the conditions of the problem, namely that N1 is at a complete distance of centimeters from point B, and N2 is at a complete distance of centimeters from N1, etc. We will indicate these distances in K1, K2....K respectively to points N1, N2. …. N.
2. According to the conditions of the problem, the distance of N1, N2 …. N is also a whole centimeter away from point A which is not on the line. We will denote this distance by S. Each point N in the straight line has an S corresponding to it, as in the previous step.
3. According to the Pythagorean theorem: D^2 + K^2 = S^2.
4. Since the distances are all integers, the squared distances are also integers.
5. Assertion: the difference between two consecutive squares of S cannot exceed D^2 and still meet the conditions of the problem.
The reasoning: each square of S consists of the sum of D^2 (which is a fixed number) + the variable K^2. So since if S7 for example is an integer, then S7^2 is also an integer. The smallest difference between S7 and S8 is one centimeter (according to the problem conditions). Therefore the smallest difference between S7)^2) and S8)^2) is (S7+1) squared less S7)^2).
6. Therefore there is a certain point on the line at a distance L beyond which any additional point will not fulfill the conditions of the problem.
7. Where is this point on the line? The truth is that it doesn't matter. My algebra yielded the number: 2/(D^2 -1). But the main thing is that it exists. Because this proves that any point to the right of it, in the ascending direction of the X-axis, will not be able to fulfill all the conditions of the problem.
8. Therefore, since an infinite number of N points can be added to the line, it follows that the point A must be on the line.
9. And since the point A can be any point in the plane, it follows that every point in the plane that fulfills all the conditions of the problem must be on the line.
10. M.S.L.
11. T.L.H.
After this bitter experience, which only proved to me the advanced level of senility in me, and that the only math I'm still able to do is counting beads in the occupational therapy strings in the geriatric department, we'll move on to slightly easier things: Goldbach, Einstein.
In the matter of a physical proof of a mathematical problem, I thought about the dilemma that preoccupies the people of the remnant village.
Their problem: what is the remainder left when dividing the number 5468977 by 743.
They have almost no mathematical tools. Therefore they came to the following solution: they took 5468977 marbles and divided them into rows each containing 743 marbles. The rest is the solution.
I thought about a similar direction with Goldbach (no, I still don't have a solution. If I have ether I will donate half of the prize to Idan).
If we divide the numbers into multidimensional geometric shapes made up of primes according to the Paptrichos method, then 15 will be a 5x3 rectangle, and 1001 will be a 7x11x13 box, etc. All of them will be multidimensional except for the first ones which will have only one dimension.
If we take Remanjoan's intuition that in very large numbers the hypothesis is not true, perhaps we can use some physical methods (see residual fruits) to delimit the area where the big prize is hidden - an even one that does not consist of primes.
After we've pinned him down, we can just double-check until we find the culprit.
We did not prove a beautiful mathematical proof - style of the infinity of the first - but we succeeded in proving that the hypothesis is not correct through hard work.
Not worth a million dollars? (The reward for the proof).
Let's go back to Einstein.
I understand that measuring at different speeds will measure different temperatures and pressures. It is possible to work in systems where everyone is in the same reference system.
It seems to me that we have converged on a relatively limited problem: the twin paradox.
Let's repeat the problematic that I think exists with the paradox:
1. There is a continuous function called the Friedman formula. In this formula, the input is the temperature of the universe, and the output is the exact time that has passed since the big bang.
2. In my opinion, it is therefore possible to build a "temperature clock" whose output will be the exact time since the big bang.
3. Two temp clocks at the same point and at the same moment in a stationary system to each other, will always show the exact same time.
4. If two twenty-year-old twins meet in a room and each of them has a normal clock + a temperature clock, then all four clocks will show exactly the same time.
5. If they meet a second time, and are in the same room, and twin A says that only a year has passed, while twin B claims that 60 years have passed, the 4 clocks can be compared.
6. According to the data - the temperature clocks always show the same time.
7. Twin B was at rest, so his cesium clock would show the same time as the temp clock.
8. Twin A experiences accelerations, so his body and his cesium clock show that time has slowed down.
9. From checking the clocks we find out: the two temp clocks and the cesium clock of Twin B show the same time.
10. Twin A's cesium clock shows an earlier time.
11. Three against one - it's not just a simple majority, it's already a privileged majority.
12. It turns out that twin B is right and twin A is wrong.
If there is a problem with the argument, please indicate at what stage.
3 am - time to sleep. Good night everyone.
Arya Seter, you are right. I didn't expand the description of the Doppler effect enough, but stated the result. Regarding the speed of light, I still think that there is a problem here, because the theory says that the photon is both a wave and a mass. Therefore there is a probability that you get speed differences. I would not be surprised if he determined that the neutrino speed is the maximum cosmic speed.
And thanks for the clarification.
Haim - you are wrong in most of your words. The expansion of the universe is not a Doppler effect and it is not a redshift, rather: the expansion of the universe causes a redshift due to the Doppler effect.
The Doppler effect is not caused by interference with a returning wave but by the very relative movement between the source of the signal and the receiving device of that signal. A body does not produce a Doppler effect but rather the relative movement that causes a frequency deviation of the received signal.
Physics does not say that light moves slower than neutrinos. The experiment that was done allegedly showed that the neutrino is faster and this is considered a sensational discovery... according to your version - it was supposed to support the accepted opinion.
thanks Michael.
From here I will continue alone
Michael Rothschild. I understand both physics and electronics very well. Can I ask questions:
1. What is the Doppler effect.
2. What does the theory of relativity say about the speed of light.
3. What is redshift.
I will ask you to give me an exact scientific answer. I understand little about these things and don't try to smear me.
Thanks.
Haim:
It seems to me that not only do you not understand physics, but that you don't even understand the discussion here.
jubilee:
Now I really understand better what you meant and I will try to point out some problems I see with this description:
1. This assumption requires placing us at the center of the universe. This is an unreasonable assumption, especially given the fact that we are not even at the center of the galaxy.
2. The theory of relativity predicts that gravitation will cause a change in time. The implication of this conclusion is that every clock will be affected by gravity. This phenomenon has been measured and found to be correct, and the change in wavelength as a result of gravity is nothing more than the result of the change in the clock rate (indeed, measurements show a redshift also as a result of gravity, and the light that reaches us from heavy bodies is redshifted exactly to the extent expected according to general relativity) this phenomenon is not compatible with Changing the speed of light. The redshift is correct only because a constant speed of light is assumed (and I mention again - other clocks also measure the expected change in the rate of time and they are not affected by the change in the speed of light).
3. There is more, but it is difficult to articulate all the things, so I will stop here.
Michael Rothschild, go learn what the Doppler effect is. Don't ramble on about things you don't understand.
The inflation of the cosmos is not a Doppler effect. It is redshift only.
Doppler is interference of a wave leaving a source, and interference with the returning wave. So a body that does not move, does not produce Doppler.
This is the basis for Doppler radar which only sees moving objects.
Regarding the neutrino that supposedly passed the speed of light. I have surprises for you. The neutrino moves at the neutrino speed. The light which is both mass and wave. Because of this property, it moves slightly slower than the neutrino speed, whose mass is exactly -0-.
I recommended, go study physics and then respond.
Israel:
Regarding the challenge - I told you that it can be proven.
I also told you that your "proof" is not proof because it deals only with a private case.
Therefore, it is not true that you "proved that it was".
You proved yes in a very specific case and you are far from proof for the general case.
If you look at my proof you will see that it bears no resemblance to your "proof".
So what does that mean?
Does this mean that your proof cannot be extended into something true and complete?
no and no!
True claims can have many proofs.
Therefore - if you see my proof - you will not be able to conclude anything about what you think can become a proof.
Therefore, I also insist that you try to complete your proof and reach one of two conclusions - either you have a complete proof or you have no basis for the claim that the proof you provided can be extended to a complete proof.
Only after that will I agree to show my proof.
By the way, it is not clear to me how you think it is possible to prove Goldbach physically and not mathematically.
All physical theories are pure mathematics.
The only thing that is not mathematics in these theories are the experimental findings that are used as axioms.
If you say that the lengthening of time is in contradiction to the big bang and the expanding universe, you are saying that Einstein was wrong - and not only factually wrong - but that he made a logical mistake, since his theory required from the beginning a universe that is either contracting or expanding, and he added the cosmological constant only to reconcile the conclusions of the theory With the assumption that at that time was considered correct - that the universe is static.
In other words - Einstein claims that his theory requires expansion or contraction of the universe and you claim that it is inconsistent with the expansion of the universe.
So let's ask first: Who do you think knows better the consequences of the theory of relativity - you or Einstein?
Therefore, you can know in advance that you have made a mistake.
If you look for exactly where it is, you will immediately see that there is more than one mistake.
The claim "a balloon inflates, time is absolute, and it can always be deduced from the density of the gas in the balloon" is not a correct claim.
In fact, it is based on the desired assumption.
If there are people who are in motion relative to each other - each will deduce from the gas density in the balloon a different time.
And in fact - each of them will formulate a different opinion on the rate of inflation of the balloon.
The same error also exists in the story of the egg.
I did not delve into the formulas in the link you provided, but I assume that also regarding them - systems that are in relative motion will measure different values for the variables that appear in the formula and therefore will conclude different times.
I guess if I keep reading further I will find more mistakes but I think we can stop here.
thanks Michael,
Now I think I understand what you meant in the first sentence. Obviously, I did not explain well the scenario I presented, according to which the light coming from the distant galaxies accelerates during its journey (since the medium that carries it is getting denser and denser) and reaches us at a higher speed than when it started.
However, I still did not understand why "the measurements we make here are hidden and also the laws of Senlius do not hold", since in the scenario I presented the speed of light in the limited area in which we live is constant (or the deviation from it, if it exists, is small and cannot be measured).
Linking the high speed to the field of crime makes me suspect that this scenario is not well received. I, on the other hand, do not like the "dark energy" scenario, but have to live with it until something better is found.
I am contacting you because in my opinion you are an authority in physics, as in many other fields, and I thank you in retrospect and in advance for each answer and the time you devote to writing it.
Mr.
Regarding the challenge - I did not ignore what you wrote. I simply have no interest in continuing to occupy my busy little brain beyond a certain limit.
When you come to prove something, the first question that is asked is: is something provable?
Let's take the Goldbach hypothesis: every even number is the sum of two prime numbers.
Every calculation made to date shows that the hypothesis is correct. But this is not proof. Remanjuan's intuition was that at very high numbers the hypothesis is not true. To this day we do not know if the hypothesis is even provable.
Yehuda tried to contradict your challenge. It's like in the Goldbach case, someone would find a pair that doesn't consist of primes. So the first question to ask is: Is your challenge even true?
I believe I have proven that it is. I don't know what the proof is yet (we're all waiting, well), but according to my claim, beyond a certain distance from the point I marked with B, to all the points on the line I marked with N, the conditions of the problem, which must be an entire distance from the outer point to the line I marked with A, will not be met.
It's like someone finding proof of Goldbach in physical form (which is possible). Although she doesn't grasp mathematically, she still shuts the door on Remanjuan's intuition.
Show us the solution, don't be like that, and we'll see if I'm wrong.
Regarding your claim that I claim that Einstein is wrong:
I don't know if you read my response in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314191
in which it is explicitly stated:
"Besides, you may have noticed that I am not arguing against the lengthening of time, but only that it does not fit with the big bang theory and an expanding universe."
My argument is somewhat complex, and is made up of claims in the style of: if - then. You can't take one sentence and ignore everything that was written before.
I don't blame you. I understand that the burden of criticizing the comments on the site rests mainly on your shoulders - a necessary task if you want to maintain a reasonable level on the site. You don't have the time or desire to get into the thick of each and every response. I, as a commenter, only have my own little topic that I deal with and delve into. And maybe I'm not the master of wording either. I can faithfully assure you that I have no desire to "come out right" - on the contrary, I would be very happy if someone showed me the error in my argument, as you showed me in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-313907.
However, I cannot accept a blanket denial in the style: "It's all nonsense!" And the matter is closed.
I would of course be happy if you would devote some time and your mathematical intuition to my argument. It is detailed and well reasoned in my opinion and can be found at:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/demonstrating-relativity-1403111/#comment-288212
It does not negate Einstein or the Big Bang theory. It's almost certain that I have a mistake somewhere, but so far no one has been able to show me where.
And regarding the jumps from topic to topic:
It is very difficult to talk about my "time definition" if you are not in the thought process that led to it. That's why I settled for the mathematical definition - correlation between time and temperature in the Friedman equation. Maybe the word "setting time" is not so accurate. It is ambiguous. It can be used as a philosophical definition of "what is time?" And also in connection with: "The time in system A is defined as 2011 years AD".
So we will end with a smiling atmosphere and always remember that one word is worth a thousand pictures.
(And period, if you are there, always remember that one period is worth a thousand commas).
Or maybe psychos?
🙁
jubilee:
in this response
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314308
You wrote like this: "If the light accelerated its speed and then slowed it down, it is clear that the change in the Doppler effect would be offset. But if the light only accelerated its speed and did not slow it down the whole way, would there be an offset even then?"
I understood from this that you understood my explanation and that you accept that regardless of what happened along the way, if the light had arrived here at the normal and familiar speed of light - any Doppler effect would have been offset and therefore you are offering the possibility that the light did not adjust its speed to the one that the police force here and arrived here at excessive speed.
Now it is no longer clear to me what is not clear to you (or maybe what was not clear to you before).
There are two options:
One is that the light gets here at normal speed so there is no effect of the Doppler effect that might have been along the way.
The second is that the light arrives here at an excessive speed and therefore the Doppler effect is evident (but then, as mentioned, the measurements we make here are hidden and also Senlius' laws are not fulfilled.
It follows that your proposal must fall because the first option does not give red deviation and the second option is hidden by other facts.
That's what I was trying to say but maybe there is another misunderstanding between us.
Israel:
Regarding the challenge - you are not even in the right direction.
I showed you what you ignored and you ignored what I showed you.
Read my response on this again.
Regarding the claim with Einstein - you insist on changing the subject of the discussion over and over again and now you have turned it into a personal matter.
At first you dealt with La Sage's justification, then with the meaning of time, then with a "mathematical treatment" of time and now - in the same response that I continue to insist on not reading - in I don't know what.
All along - every time you change the subject - you are trying to create a false representation as if this is the subject we have been talking about all along.
It is impossible to conduct a discussion like this and I do not usually do what is impossible.
As I said - I only skimmed over a part of your response that suddenly became the heart of the matter.
I'm talking about this comment:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314148
You wrote there:
"
4. Conclusion A (there is more, but we will settle for it):
Time is absolute, as Newton and Point claim. Two meters at the same point in the universe have exactly the same time - because they have the same temperature (or alternatively, the same photon density).
5. And as Einstein does not claim. It claims a different time for each surveyor. Due to the extension of time.
"
For me, this is interpreted as a claim that Einstein was wrong, but you know.
And as for the next experiment in Sarn - you did not understand my argument (that is - actually - the argument of the people behind this article:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/special-relativity-may-answer-faster-than-light-neutrino-mystery-1910112/)
The argument is that regardless of the experiment that will be - already in the experiment that was, the neutrinos did not exceed the speed of light because all in all there is a problem of calculation and if you do the correct calculation based on the data that has already been received, you reach the correct conclusion - that is - that they did not exceed the speed of light.
I will stop for now because I have guests
🙂 What's going on here
Michael,
I'm not sure I understood.
You asked "Why do we need to know what would have happened if he had only accelerated and not slowed down?" I believe that if waves move at an increasing (or decreasing) speed, then the resulting effect is Doppler-like. We understand, they are received at a higher (or lower) frequency than when they were sent. Furthermore, the further away the light source, the stronger this effect.
You said "This is where we made measurements and we know that the speed is constant and the light we perceive from the stars is here". It's true, and the point is about "HERE". The speed of light we measured here is constant in every direction and place we looked at, but all the places we looked at are here in the area of our solar system or even in a smaller area. An exception is the area close to the sun where we found that the path of light's movement is curved, and this is an optical phenomenon that we also found in places where light changes its speed when it passes through changing mediums.
In any medium, light progresses at the speed characteristic of the medium. With us, here, it progresses at the typical speed of the middleman here. I'm not sure I understood your question "if the speed changes as a function of the medium - why - precisely in our medium will it prevent itself from adjusting?".
You said "if light from different distances arrived here at different speeds - even Senlius' laws wouldn't work". I didn't understand your argument either, since I raised the possibility that assuming that what makes up the gravitational field can be looked at as a medium whose density changes according to its distance from the sky, light does indeed pass through different mediums and accordingly moves at different speeds and breaks according to Snell's law - which causes, for example, to the gravitational cooling phenomenon. Please clarify why the senlius rules would not work.
By the way, in addition to Snell's law, there is also the phenomenon of explosiveness. Each frequency (color) has a different refractive index - and this (in addition to what you correctly said about the absorption of light) is a reason for changing the color of the light that reaches our eyes from the sun depending on the time of day; The angle of refraction of light is characteristic of its frequency and accordingly red light is refracted less than blue light.
Please forgive me for my ignorance and trouble.
Get corrected - Einstein was wrong twice - in the EPR paradox.
And even that is not certain. He was never given a chance to defend himself. He died before Bell presented his inequality.
R.H.
Let's say that the twins meet before twin A's departure for the journey, measure the temperature, and come to the conclusion that the time that has passed since the big bang is exactly 10,000,0000,000 seconds.
Twin A returns from the journey and claims that the time that has passed since the beginning of the journey is equal to exactly 1,000,000 seconds.
Twin B claims that 70,000,000 seconds have passed.
Could it be that they are both right? After all, in the train example you gave the two twins are right.
I claim not.
why?
Because the temperature watch that remains on the earth will show that 70,000,000 seconds have passed, and so will the same temperature watch that Twin A took on the trip.
And this is because the temperature at a given place and at a given moment is unequivocal for any measurer, and therefore also the time. Therefore twin B is right and twin A is wrong. See also:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/demonstrating-relativity-1403111/#comment-288387
In the second matter you asked: attribution system. Give me a concrete example where they can know the exact absolute time that has passed since the big bang, without any external object, and without measuring the temperature.
And if you find an example - haven't you proven to yourself the reality of absolute time?
Mr.
When I read your challenge, I reformulated it as follows: how to manage to solve MR's riddle, and answer R.H. And Yehuda, and this is the two hours I have left until the meeting I had planned in advance, while taking care of the current household matters.
I think I did pretty well, even though I didn't formulate all the steps of the proof. I don't know what the final proof is (and I'm curious), but it seems to me that every proof will reach the same conclusion: when the square of the distance of an external point to the line is less than the difference of the squares of the distance of a certain point on the line from the square of the distance of that same point +1 from the projection of the external point on The line - all the points after those two distant points cannot theoretically meet the conditions of the problem of being an entire distance from the outer point.
Everything else is formalistic drudgery, which I don't have the strength to do.
What's more, it proved to me how rusty I am. Up until a few years ago I was a blackjack card count, but since being kicked out of almost every casino in Nevada and Southern California, the mind has started spinning. If anyone wants, I'll give them some interesting blackjack problems.
I will make a deal with you: if, as you say, I say that Einstein is wrong, ("I reached the point where you say that Einstein is wrong and I stopped") then you can certainly find the link and quote me. If you succeed - I will admit that, according to you, all I want is to prove that I am right, and that I am actually an Arab from Jaljulia.
And here is a challenge for you - Einstein's passionate groupie:
Can you predict unequivocally what the results of the results of the repeat experiment in Sarn will be? We understood all along that you believe the first experiment produced false results. Can you say it here unequivocally? Or say you don't do predictions.
I hope you don't take this as a personal attack. It really isn't.
Shabbat Shalom to all.
Israel,
About your question. The vagabonds can synchronize their attack by any external reference system. Distance between two objects moving away from each other for example. The fading of the light of a certain star or any other permanent process. You just chose the background radiation which is a nice example of such a reference system.
Israel,
Regarding the twins - the time since the big bang is the reference system. The two twins meet at a point in time that in terms of the reference system is one, X seconds from the bang. Hall, and it's a big hall! Regarding one of them, his private time (due to the flight) passed faster than the reference system, while the other is coupled to it. That's why the age gap and there are no contradictions.
This is similar to movement in a normal dimension other than time -
The two twins are now on a moving train. One of them gets on a bicycle and travels from one end of the train to the other. After an hour we meet and compare. Both are in exactly the same place in terms of the reference system (Earth), but one traveled 100 km/h relative to it, while the other traveled 130.
Israel:
Regarding your proof - it's a nice idea, but you only handled a private case (even if we ignore the fact that you yourself decided not to deal with the more difficult part of the limited problem you defined) in which there are too many points on one straight line.
This is not part of the problem conditions!
The points are allowed to be spread in any way you want and there must not be any straight line that has too many points on it.
Regarding your words - I have already said that I have no interest in a debate whose entire purpose is to make Israel righteous.
If it is permissible to change the subject for that purpose, then why not claim that all you wanted to say all along was that one and one plus one are two?
So you will surely be right.
Although this is not what you tried to say in the previous comments - but what you say in the response that I no longer have the energy to delve into, you did not try to say in the previous comments either.
Nevertheless - I skimmed a bit on what was written in it - really without going into depth because there is a limit to every prank.
I got to the point where you say Einstein is wrong and I stopped.
It's clear why.
After all, it has already been proven in thousands of experiments that Einstein is right and Newton is wrong!
This is proven by every short-lived cosmic ray particle that makes it through the atmosphere.
This is proven by the fact that the GPS works.
(Don't take my word for it. What is really proven is that Newton was wrong. The fact that Einstein was right has only been confirmed).
Enough!
jubilee:
Why do we need to know what would have happened if he had only accelerated and not slowed down?
After all, here we made measurements and we know that the speed is constant and the light we perceive from the stars is here.
Besides - if the speed changes as a function of the medium - why - precisely in our medium will it prevent itself from adjusting?
Besides - if light from different distances arrived here at different speeds - even Senlius' laws would not work (and in fact would not be defined at all).
Mr.
Obviously, such an infinite collection can form a straight line.
We will try to see if a point outside the line will contradict the question data.
We will first prove the claim regarding a point exactly perpendicular to which of the points on the line. (can be any point).
According to the data - its distance from the point on the line is a whole number.
We will mark the point outside the straight line with A, the one just below it with B and the one next to B with C.
We got a right triangle where the remainder is the distance AC.
According to Pythagoras' theorem: AB squared + BC squared equals AC squared.
We will take different points from C, we will mark it with N1, N2, N3... and so. They can be any other point on the line, and the shortest distance between one point and its sister is one cm, according to the definition of the problem.
Let's see what we have:
The distance AB is constant.
The distance BC is also fixed, but can be different from AB.
The distance BN can vary.
now:
Since we can increase BN as we wish, we will reach a situation where (BN +1 squared) is greater than BN squared + AB squared.
And since in our triangle AB squared + BN squared is equal to AN squared, then the root of AN cannot be a whole number.
The same logic applies when the point is not perpendicular, but the urge to show it is over. It's pretty obvious.
parable.
Numerical example:
It is said that point A is 12 cm from point B.
Point B is 16 cm from point C.
We will get: 12 squared (144) + 16 squared (256) equals 400. Root - 20. Point A is 20 cm away from point C. Everything is fine and dandy, whole numbers.
Let's take the point D next to B. Its smallest distance is one cm. We get: the distance AD is the root of 12 squared + 17 squared. or the root of 433. The difference between it and the root of 400 is 33, or less than 144, and is therefore theoretically possible.
However, if we continue to advance on the line, we will reach further points, for example: point E, which is 500 cm away from B.
In such a case: AB squared + BE squared equals 144 + 250,000 or 250,144.
And: 144 + 501 squared equals 251,145. The difference between it and 250,144 is 1001. This difference is greater than 144, so it is impossible for its root to be a whole number.
I know the proof is a bit clunky, but it still works.
Regarding what you wrote to me:
You suspect kosher, and also block a bull in Disho.
Reaction:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314148
Seven steps are indicated in my argument. Once you show me what's wrong with even one of them, I can take your comments seriously.
Yehuda:
I watched your lecture. I can't say whether you are right or not, only this: your extended theory is not mathematically esthetic, in contrast to L.S.'s theory. the beautiful. That's why I lost a little interest.
But I wouldn't want to lose you. The new discussion (times) can be related to solving the friction problem at L.S. Much more than you imagine.
R.H.
Your comments are relevant. I will try to answer you:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314251
It seems to me that the twin paradox in relationships is applicable to the case. Therefore I will try to analyze it:
Two twins separate at the age of 20 and meet again after the journey of twin A. Twin B, the older, claims that 60 years have passed since they separated, while A claims that only one year has passed.
Could it be that they are both right? I claim that according to the big bang theory at least one of them is wrong.
The reason:
Before they separated, the time of both of them was a certain and defined number of seconds from the moment of the big bang. This number was expressed in a certain temperature of the universe, which they both agree on.
According to the Friedman formula in:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3
The relationship between time and temperature is given by a continuous function. Note that at the bottom of the link there is a small calculator that, if you enter the measured temperature of the universe, you will get the exact time that has passed since the big bang, in years and seconds (+- a few million years.. but this is not relevant, it is only a matter of accuracy).
Even when they meet, the time of both of them is a certain and precise number of seconds from the moment of the big bang, and it is also expressed in a certain temperature of the universe that can be measured, and that they both agree on.
Therefore it cannot be that each of them has a different time, as long as they both measure the exact same temperature.
You can find the entire discussion on the subject at:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/demonstrating-relativity-1403111/
And regarding the thought experiment I described:
Try to answer for yourself: after taking into account the paradoxes of time in relationships, will the Vegas succeed in synchronizing the attack?
Show me how, and that's without the patent I offered.
Michael,
Please help me sort out my thoughts.
Obviously we like the laws of physics to be the same everywhere in the universe, but since we have no confirmation of this, isn't there room to look at other possibilities?
If it hadn't spread - it's likely that the universe would collapse at some point. I think I once heard a claim according to which the universe is now in the process of expansion due to the persistence of the movement that began with the big bang, but gravitation has not stopped working and at some point the direction of movement will reverse and the matter in the universe will move towards collapse. Do you know this claim? And if so, do you think she has teeth?
Indeed, I agree with the fact that the effect (which looks like Doppler and maybe it is indeed Doppler) may be due to the very expansion of the universe - regardless of acceleration. However, since the inconsistency in the observations increases with increasing distance, isn't there a place to test the assumption that the density of the medium in which the light waves travel (assuming that light, like any wave effect, needs a medium - which was once called an "ether" but failed to discover it) changes?
If the light accelerated its speed and then slowed it down, it is clear that the change in the Doppler effect would be offset. But if the light only accelerated its speed and did not slow it down the whole way, would there be an offset even then?
It goes without saying that I try to hold on with all my strength to every occasional straw. Simply, my intuition holds that there must be a simpler explanation than the one that claims dark energy, since it opens quite a Pandora's box.
Between us, Mikal, proof like the one I gave you isn't even sardines. Sardines have value, and not even a small one, and what I gave you is just a personal opinion that still needs to be worked hard to extract a mathematical proof from it. But it will require a very considerable effort from me. But I know what you wrote is true and it needs to be shown that since there are an infinite number of points on the line above a certain distance for each point we place outside the line the distances will not be whole numbers
Right now I'm called for Shabbat dinner
bye for now
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
If you delude yourself that you have solved the problem then you should know that you haven't.
Saying that the proof is by triangles is like saying it is by sardines.
to Michael
Your sentence is correct and all the points will be on one line and it can be shown that even if there is one point outside the straight line then above a certain distance there will be points that will not be far from it by whole numbers.
The proof is based on triangles.
Come over after dinner to have fun with the puzzles from the link you sent him.
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Identical whole distances are a special case of whole distances so if the example you gave was true then the sentence would not be true.
The point is that the example is wrong.
Sorry sorry I understood if the distance can only be whole but also not the same it has to be on one straight line that's what needs to be proven the proof must be from triangles you have to prove that if there is one point outside the line then there is a point on the line to which the distance will not be whole. We'll check it out. It took a while but I understood the question! That's half the job!
Mikel
I do not agree that an infinite collection of points in a plane, the distance between any two of which is a whole number of centimeters, will be on one straight line
All I have to do is provide an example to the contrary
We will take a point and draw around it a circle with a radius of a whole number of cm, for example 2 cm, we will mark six points on the circle with the help of the compass, each one at a distance of two cm. There is room for exactly six points, each such point will be the center of a new circle in which we will also mark 6 points. In this way, the entire surface will be filled with points where the distance between each point close to its six neighbors is two cm. A kind of vertices of triangles with sides equal to two cm.
All the above points are two cm away from their neighbors and do not stand on the same straight line.
Maybe I didn't understand something in your puzzle?
THL
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And those who want another question can try to deal with the following problem (it's not difficult either):
Given:
An infinite collection of points in a plane where the distance between any two of them is a whole number of centimeters.
Need to prove:
All points on one line
Yehuda:
Yes, I have already asked many riddles and those who want can engage in them.
You can find a concentration of easy questions in the response I wrote to Gali for her son:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/professor-dan-shechtman-interview-hayadan-1210117/#comment-310009
jubilee:
In science, we tend to adopt the assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe.
This assumption receives many confirmations.
It is not claimed at all that the Doppler effect is due to the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
The effect is due to its very expansion - regardless of acceleration.
If it had not expanded - the universe would have collapsed under the force of gravity and just to prevent this, Einstein added to his formulas the cosmological constant that many identify with dark energy.
The acceleration of expansion (when the expansion itself is a fact without which, as mentioned, dark energy is needed) is not inferred from the very existence of the Doppler effect, but rather from a discrepancy between the speed of expansion in distant areas versus closer areas.
Your hypothesis does not deal with this point at all because no matter how much the speed of light changes along the way - the light arrives here at the same speed from any distance (and if on the way it accelerated and then slowed down - or vice versa - the effect of the change in speed on the Doppler effect was also offset accordingly)
It seems to me that:-
The leaps made in the topics of recent discussion are greater than any possible time leap
Maybe we activate gravitation, with or without dark mass, with or without La Sage, a simple universe, and shrink?
getting boring
Maybe someone will comment on my fascinating explanation in 13 minutes and 42 seconds of my lecture?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAo5BQQpBqQ
Michael, please kindly give a riddle that will not be boring at the end of the week. I intentionally wrote the explicit name "Michael" to be sure that it will reach you for approval.
Maybe the one who came back from work by train and didn't wait for his wife?
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israelhttps://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314194 ):
To the question with which you opened the response - why I answered as I did - I have already answered:
I didn't read the comment I responded to and explained why.
Since you are forcing me to address this specific question - I will address it here:
All your words up to that point did not deal with the question of the mathematical treatment in time.
Throughout, you brought from the thresher and from the winery unfounded arguments to protect La Sage and its assets.
It also included a reference to the question of the nature of time and did not even include a hint of a mathematical treatment of time.
That is why I did not imagine that in your last comment (which, as mentioned, I did not read) you would suddenly turn your editor around and say that you actually want to deal mathematically with something whose mathematical treatment is impeccable and there is no problem with it.
The treatment of time as an additional dimension (whether it is reality itself - as I think it is - or whether it is only a model) does not pose any difficulty in its mathematical treatment.
Therefore, I see your question in question as evidence of only one thing and it is this:
The discussion stopped being about arriving at the truth (apparently there never was such a thing, but I only noticed it now) and was replaced by a discussion about "how to get Israel right" when for this - all means - including changing the subject of the discussion to a subject that does not need to be discussed - kosher.
I have no interest in such a discussion.
Israel,
If it wasn't clear. I mean that in every spaceship time is localized relative to time in your reference system which is the universe when you measure this time by the background temp. What's wrong here?
Apart from that, you wrote to me: "What is the difference between the experiment described in the link you sent, in which planes circle the Earth (accelerated motion), and classical time dilation, in which the motion is not accelerated.
Besides, you may have noticed that I am not arguing against the lengthening of time, but only that it does not fit with the big bang theory and an expanding universe."
And that's what I'm asking (and sorry if you've already explained it before):
1) What do you mean by classical time extension? Isn't the lengthening of time in motion classic?
2) Why is the lengthening of time incompatible with the bang and the expansion?
Israel,
I did not understand your answer. If time can be lengthened as demonstrated in the experiment. Doesn't that defeat your argument? You claimed that time cannot change at all, here they showed that at least in one case it does change. That is, the possibility exists and in my opinion it clouds the argument. The rest is details.
Regarding your thought experiment. Is your idea that the spacecrafts flying at different high speeds will synchronize their clocks according to the temperature of the radiation spectrum. That means that after the first flight you will measure, let's say, 4 (according to the Vega scale), the second, when time passed more slowly, you will measure 3.9 because since then the universe has cooled a bit and the third will measure 3.7 because the captain likes trips?
If so, then they are simply looking at something external that changes according to time (emphasis on time). They could equally look at the distance between two galaxies moving away from each other or the erosion of the mountains and the drifting of the continents in the star Vega.
How do you conclude that time is constant? In my poor understanding this is exactly what relativity claims.
My comment is awaiting approval and when it is approved I am really asking someone to explain to me what should have been approved in it.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I must point out that I read the comments and do not understand why you do not focus on one topic. Have you decided to take care of everything that exists in science? Entropy, energy, quantum, gravity, time, etc., etc.?
I have a feeling when I read the comments that in fact each of you is talking to yourself except for Mikal whose role is to fall on everyone.
It does not seem to me that this should be the way of discussion and I think it is preferable to reduce the topics.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
On the Doppler effect and the speed of light:
If the speed of the wave advance is not constant, then an effect similar to the Doppler effect will be created even if the transmitting object is in zero motion relative to the receiving object.
We accept that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. This speed has only been measured in the region of our solar system and in fact only at distances of a much shorter order of magnitude. The conclusion that the speed of light in regions hundreds of millions of light years away from us is constant and the same as the speed measured here, has not received experimental confirmation.
Now I (and hopefully, you too) have to decide between two explanations for the redshift phenomenon. The one, accepted today, which says that the galaxies are moving away from us at an increasing speed as their distance from us increases; This explanation requires the existence of "dark" energy for which we have no explanation.
The second, the one I want to check now, is that the speed of light in the areas far away from us is smaller than in the areas close to us.
I will mention that since Eddington's experiment it is known that the movement of light is affected by the presence of mass. The explanation given by opticians for the deviation of a beam of light, in its transition from medium to medium, uses the analogy of a platoon of marching soldiers moving from an area of slow walking, say sand, to an area of fast walking, say an occupied track - and vice versa. From the results of Eddington's experiment, the conclusion can be drawn that near the massive body (the sun) the speed of light increases.
The existence of the dark mass has already been experimentally confirmed and widely recognized. My assumption is that the density of the dark mass in our region is higher than its density in distant regions, and that is why the speed of light moving towards us from the distant galaxies is increasing as it approaches us.
If the explanation I gave here is accepted, we will no longer need dark energy.
Please mind
Mr.
Why if I write:
"My idea: I'm not trying to define time, I'm trying to handle it mathematically."
You answer with:
"In other words - for there to be movement - time must be defined!
Therefore, there is absolutely no logic in trying to base the meaning of time on the movement of particles!"
or:
"These are all changes over time and their existence cannot create time but only be evidence of its existence independent of them."
And if I specifically ask:
"Try to bring supporting evidence that I am clueless, ignorant, uneducated, and a Negro."
Why does the automatic response come immediately:
"I simply do not have the strength to delve into what, as it became clear to me from your previous responses, is not based on any knowledge or logic."
where is the evidence
It's OK. Bottom line, I get that you are doing important work on the site. Only if possible, a little more care in the details, which, as we know, are where the devil is.
Thank you colleagues, thank you, really thank you.
Especially for responding to my request in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314148
in which it was specifically stated:
"Please, no general arguments like "it's all nonsense!" The argument is built from stages. If you found a defect, indicate the stage where the defect is found (1-7), and what the defect is. Otherwise, it will be difficult for me to take the criticism seriously."
R.H.
Your response is to the point. However, there is a difference between the experiment described in the link you sent, in which planes circle the Earth (accelerated motion), and classical time dilation, in which the motion is not accelerated.
Besides, you may have noticed that I am not arguing against the lengthening of time, but only that it does not fit with the big bang theory and an expanding universe.
Point... well never mind. point.
And besides that I really thank you for still being here. I thought everyone went to see Maccabi. It is not simple material, and obviously the automatic tendency is to reject it. But if you go through the steps, you may find a lot of sense in the argument.
And regarding time, remember the following:
Every object in the universe always moves at the speed of light. In relation to itself and in relation to objects at rest, the speed of light is directed towards the future, while in relative motion I will see the moving object, moving at a certain speed in a spatial direction and the rest of the speed towards the future. The constant is always the speed of light.
Israel, I have nothing to say to you except that you are confused...
Well, Israel, I took another quick look at your last comment and saw that beyond all the other flaws it suffers from exactly the problem I pointed out.
An inflatable balloon is defined based on the existence of a time dimension and so is a cooling egg.
These are all changes over time and their existence cannot create time but only be evidence of its existence independent of them.
Israel:
Forgive me for not reading your last comment at all.
I simply do not have the strength to delve into what, as it became clear to me from your previous responses, is not based on any knowledge or logic.
I just wanted to mention another point that came to my mind after I left the discussion last time and went pedaling on the exercise bike.
This is a really fundamental point that I am quite ashamed that I did not raise it already in my previous comments.
If I'm not mistaken - you are the one who mentioned the term "dimensional analysis" in the discussion
And I'm not wrong. You did it here: https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-312461
Have you ever tried to use your own advice on your own words?
All the models you defended are based on the movement of particles.
And what is movement?
It's a change in location over time.
In other words - for there to be movement - time must be defined!
Therefore there is absolutely no logic in trying to base the meaning of time on the movement of particles!
Israel,
Sorry to interfere, but is the experiment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
Doesn't contradict your claim about absolute time?
We'll skip black holes and entropy, it just complicates things.
My idea: I'm not trying to define time, I'm trying to handle it mathematically.
Like Newton at the time, who presented mathematical laws to treat gravity, without explaining how gravity works.
Or Schrödinger, who proposed the Pesi function to treat quanta, without explaining what this function actually is.
(And whoever thinks that I am comparing myself to Newton or Schrödinger - that's fine. I'm not offended by the comparison).
Argument:
1. In an inflatable balloon, time is absolute, and it can always be deduced from the gas density in the balloon.
2. In a cooling egg, time is absolute for each frog, and it can always be deduced by measuring the temperature of the egg. If the frogs, croaking on the different sides of the egg, wanted to launch a surprise attack on the nests of the evil-hearted and sharp-beaked hawks, they could synchronize the time of the attack simply by measuring the temperature.
3. The trick: our universe is both an inflating balloon and a cooling egg, therefore the time in which it can be defined, and it is indeed defined as a function of the temperature in the Friedman formula:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3
4. Conclusion A (there is more, but we will settle for it):
Time is absolute, as Newton and Point claim. Two meters at the same point in the universe have exactly the same time - because they have the same temperature (or alternatively, the same photon density).
5. And as Einstein does not claim. It claims a different time for each surveyor. Due to the extension of time.
6. Instead of a clock, we can now use a thermometer - which will measure the "temperature of the universe", and turn it into absolute time using the Friedman formula. We will call it a "temperature clock".
7. I would like to present a thought experiment that could conclusively decide if there is anything to this whole idea of temperature clocks.
Take the ongoing conflict between the star systems Vega and Camber. Camber is a sun so named because it is at rest relative to the CMBR system
The system includes three main planets, which for the sake of argument are at the vertices of an isosceles triangle whose side is a light hour long. Every planet has a strong military force, capable of eliminating all Vega without problems. Therefore, the only option before the Vegas is a simultaneous surprise attack on all three planets, Air Force style in the six days, because when one planet is attacked, it immediately sends a transmitter to the other two to take preventive measures and punish the brazen attackers.
Therefore, to be safe, all three planets must be attacked within a half-hour time frame, to prevent the one-hour transmitter from reaching the other.
Vega sends three ships on the mission, disguised as Camber cheese merchant ships. But to confuse the enemy's intelligence, the ships arrive from different ends of the galaxy after crazy journeys at all kinds of speeds and accelerations that completely throw the cesium clocks in the ships out of sync. If they had been able to synchronize their clocks when they had already reached striking distance from Camber, they would have discovered that there was a difference of weeks between the clocks. But any contact by electromagnetic means is strictly forbidden, and also by all other means.
Will the cheeky vagabonds succeed in their mission? As mentioned, the attack must be more or less simultaneous for it to be successful. But how will they manage to synchronize the attack without using the radio?
According to the theory of relativity, as I understood it, and also from answers I received from veteran relativity foxes, it is not possible to synchronize the clocks and therefore the attack is doomed to failure.
But according to the idea of absolute time and temperature clocks, the clocks can be synchronized. You just have to predetermine a certain temperature of the radiation spectrum, which will give the signal for the attack. Each ship settles in a position of rest relative to the central sun, camber, and measures the spectrum. It's easy in camber, no doppler.
This is the argument. Relative time versus absolute time, which will decide who lives and who dies, Vega or Camber. But as you can see, it does not agree with relativity, or alternatively, with the big bang theory and the Friedman equation.
I would appreciate it if someone could point out a possible error in the argument.
Request regarding peer review:
Please, no general arguments like "everything is nonsense!" The argument is built from stages. If you found a defect, indicate the stage where the defect is found (1-7), and what the defect is. Otherwise it will be difficult for me to take the review seriously, and maybe it really is time to finish and go play chess.
Israel:
As I have already mentioned - the simple universe theory adds nothing but errors in the analysis of the conclusions arising from the La Sage theory.
It is not clear to me how one can deduce more from other logical errors.
Nir's theory is none other than that of Le Sage and it merely takes a ride on it.
In the days of Le Sage they did not know about the expansion of the universe and therefore Le Sage did not write about it.
I will answer (probably for the last time) the misunderstandings expressed in your answers.
1. If the theories are mobilized to explain the expansion of the universe, gravitation should at least over time. In fact, it should have happened quite quickly, if you take into account the resolution with which atoms measure time, which means that the number of La Sage particles in the immediate environment of the atom should decrease at a rate that allows such a resolution. This is just another problem with this theory. In fact, you didn't answer almost any of my mistakes on the subject - not about the fact that existing and known particles can be used in the same role and with the same degree of failure, not about the need for natural clocks to know what the time is due to the expansion of the universe (and now you have added another achievement.
I see no point in answering if you don't address what I said.
2. I don't understand why you came to the conclusion that it is necessary to explain to me what entropy is.
Although in my opinion you are wrong in part of your reference to the subject, I see no point in deviating from the discussion.
3. I do disagree with Nir. I think that in the first place he conjured up an archaic theory that was disproved, but his conclusion that blacks block all particles is simply funny and I explained it exactly.
For some reason - you choose to ignore the arguments and wave at me.
It would be less of a joke if you brought me the name of a scientist as support, but telling me that Nir thinks differently is kind of like telling me that the hotel receptionist thinks differently.
In conclusion: I did not find anything in your response.
Regarding time, Newton claimed that time is absolute and does not depend on anything. Leibniz thought differently, he thought that time (and space) is defined by the very movements that exist in the universe, and the presence of the stars. That is, if there was an empty universe, there would be neither space nor time.
As we understand the situation today, we cannot talk about an empty universe for two reasons:
1) You are the space defined by those objects that move away from us at the speed of light from the big bang.
2) Interstellar space is not empty because of the uncertainty principle, and there are virtual particles that appear and disappear constantly.
Therefore these questions are irrelevant regarding our physics. In our physics there is time, at time X the situation is one and at the next moment the situation changes according to the laws of physics.
to Israel and Yuval
YouTube allows, without special permission, to insert a video up to 15 minutes long and up to two gigabytes
That's what it is
But I'm here if you have any questions
And of course you can also in the email attached to the lecture
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
Well done for the initiative. It's just a shame that the lecture is so short. Anyway, I'll listen again soon and go into more depth.
Why once again "The response is awaiting approval." what did I do?
We will try to click "send a comment" and see what happens.
Mikel
I will try to answer your words one by one. But first we should distinguish between the differences that exist in the 3 theories of gravitation that we generalize under the name "Le Sage". We will start from the assumption that we all understand the general idea, but there are some different details. Below is in chronological order:
1. L.S. Original - does not include the expansion of the universe.
2. Reuven Nir - includes the expansion of the universe.
3. A simple universe (Yehuda) – Reuven Nir + collisions between the particles. gaseous model.
To keep it simple, I no longer say "a simple universe". I mean La Sage + spread, or according to the definition - Reuven Nir. In his book "Attraction" I found the most detailed and exhaustive analysis of the theory, even though I always wondered why there is no reference to Le Sage in the book.
Yehuda's gaseous theory does not make any sense to me (just), but it must be admitted that of the 3 theories it is the only one that explains electromagnetic phenomena such as light as the propagation of waves in a gas-like medium (ether).
So from now on I no longer say "simple universe" but "Nir".
1. You write:
"For sure there are moments when the number of particles in the room repeats itself.
Do you interpret that as a return to that point in time?!”
Answer: When compressed gas in a birthday balloon expands, the same given number of molecules occupies a larger volume. If we are able to make accurate enough measurements, it seems that there is a direct correlation between the number of gas molecules in a given volume unit of the balloon, and the exact time. In fact, if we "freeze" a certain moment in the swelling process, we can know the exact time only by counting the number of molecules per unit volume, and this is because every moment in the process has a certain number of molecules per unit volume that is unique to it.
In an "ideal" process this number never repeats itself, it gets smaller and smaller and outlines the arrow of time. You will always be able to know what is early or late at a certain point in the balloon, and that is by measuring the compression around it. More compressed - sooner.
In practice, there are deviations due to the issue of probability, but not in an ideal model. We will deal with deviations when we discuss entropy.
Therefore, if we compare the universe to an inflatable balloon, and say that in Nir's model the particles fill the place of the molecules, we can say that we have mathematically defined a certain time unequivocally (for example: 13456787654987.65 seconds since the big bang) and this is by counting the particles (if we could) in a predetermined volume unit. This number of particles in a sufficiently large volume unit will not repeat itself a second time, and as in the balloon example, we can always distinguish between early and late by counting the number of particles per volume unit.
In our expanding and cooling universe, the same logic holds when measuring the temperature of space, or the number of photons in a sufficiently large unit of volume. And this is what the Friedman formula shows in the link I gave.
2. You write "Now there is the matter of entropy (which you call energy and it doesn't really bother)."
I guess because I said "temperature" you assumed I meant energy. But I didn't write energy and I didn't assume.
There is an assumption that Boltzmann: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%92_%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A6%D7%9E%D7%9F
Reached his soul because of his debate with the scientific community and especially with Poincaré on the background of the reversibility of entropy. Poincare proved mathematically that according to Newton's laws every process is reversible in time. And why not? Any Newtonian action can also be reversed without violating the law of conservation of energy (the first law of thermodynamics).
In practice, springs spontaneously release but are not compressed, and eggs break but do not condense (the second law). And here is the physical and mathematical explanation in my opinion: true, a spring that has returned to its compressed state is the same from Poincaré's point of view to its state before compression - but the difference (which Poincaré and Boltzmann could not have known about at the time) is in the number of particles per unit volume in the spring's vicinity.
The number of particles per unit volume can increase spontaneously because (I'm not sure how they say it in Hebrew
fluctuation of probability). And the local entropy can decrease spontaneously - but always at the expense of the environment. It is difficult to explain the formation of life without a local decrease in entropy. Even snowflakes, with their beautiful hexagonal shapes, put the second law to the test. (It's okay, he comes out of the test bigger than ever).
3. You write "a black hole is not a place where all particles are blocked."
In this matter, it seems to me that you disagree with Nir. On page 208, he writes: "The formation of a black hole -...a region impervious to the passage of particles may form in space."
In conclusion:
It goes without saying that Nir's gravitation theory is not perfect, or even correct. Otherwise we would have studied it at school. However, it is the only intuitive explanation known to me. Newton formulated and quantified the laws, but refrained from giving them an explanation. Einstein improved the situation, but also through non-intuitive postulates. I'm still waiting for a better explanation, but no one is up.
Also no one (almost) claims that the earth is flat or the center of the universe, even though that is what intuition says. No one is talking about caloric or phlogiston. The reason - which topics were well clarified and the explanation for them is sufficient.
This is not the case in the following four subjects:
1. Gravitation.
2. Inertia.
3. The speed of light.
4. Non-locality in quantum entanglement.
Is there a good explanation for any of the above topics? Is there a good explanation that unifies all four?
And is there any good apple in the fridge? I got a little hungry. We will continue as soon as possible. Maybe we will be able to "get together" as Ehud said, who in the meantime has left us in favor of a more beautiful bride.
Yuval Chaikin and Israel Shapira and others
For your judgment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAo5BQQpBqQ
I would love to hear your response
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel:
First of all - it is not clear to me why the clock is not considered an objective measure in your eyes.
I will come back to it later - but the matter with the simple universe is really puzzling, to say the least.
Surely there are moments when the number of particles in the room repeats itself.
Do you interpret this as a return to the same point in time?!
Will you ignore the "non-objective" clock?
Besides - there are known particles that will pass through the wall just like La Sage particles (I'm willing to call them the "simple universe" particles only if some difference between them is shown. Yehuda says that the collisions are a difference. I say that Sage did not speak about collisions either positively or to the negative because they have no effect and he - unlike Yehuda - understood this. Yehuda's misunderstanding is expressed in incorrect gravity formulas that he derives from the model).
The neutrino particles, for example, will also pass through the room, and if there is dark mass - its particles will also pass through the room - and each of these (and others) could be used as the (wrong) measure of time that you propose.
Besides - all nature is full of clocks and this includes all the elementary particles that have frequencies.
It is possible to translate with great reliability between all these clocks - which shows that they all measure the same thing.
This is what makes the idea of particles even more puzzling: how are the particles (almost without interaction) supposed to move all these clocks in such a miraculous twin (and this without them being able to be a measure of time themselves - as I have already shown)? And you demand something even more strange - the particles do not determine the state of time by contact with the clocks but by distribution in the room. How can the clocks be sensitive to the division of the particles in the room?!
Now there is the matter of entropy (which you call energy and it doesn't really bother you).
Entropy changes with time but does not determine it.
In addition to this, of course, the question arises as to how the various clocks in nature can know what the total entropy of the universe is at a given moment.
Entropy can perhaps serve as an answer to the question why we are able to move on the timeline in only one direction (and this question also has better answers in quantum theory) but it has no ability to explain time itself.
La Sage particles have no answer to this question.
More than that - precisely in the conventional clock there is information about the entropy (if it is the state of the spring, if it is the charge in the battery, and if it is the temperature of the moving and rubbing parts)
Now regarding the conclusions you draw from the simple universe.
A black hole is not a place where all particles are blocked.
If this were the case - all black holes would have the same gravity and this is, as we know, different from reality.
In addition to that - the time experienced by someone who falls into a black hole is normal time. The ones responsible for slowing down the time of the inflator are precisely the observers who, in terms of the state of the particles, have not experienced any change.
Besides, time stands still on the black hole's event horizon. Even if the claim was that the black hole stops the particles - it could only be true in relation to the particles coming behind it.
In any case - the particles that hit the faller from the other side continue to hit him.
It is possible to expand further, but I hope the above is enough.
In a good sign and with good luck
The summary of the lecture I gave on the subject of the dark mass
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAo5BQQpBqQ
Please respond gently
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-313767
I liked the explanation. Simple, mathematical, and as I guessed - self-evident.
I didn't get the time issue less. I searched Something more scientific. Here is what Reuven Nir writes:
"If we manage to completely seal a room, so that an actual thing such as a substance, particle or wave cannot enter, exit or pass through its walls... The indicator that time has passed in the sealed room is... the clock"
is it true? Is there no objective measure of time in a completely empty and sealed room? Has nothing changed in such a room from a given time A, to another time B an hour later, or 1000 years later?
I claim yes. And precisely "the simple universe" explains it nicely, including the required mathematics.
Because according to the "simple universe" there is something characteristic for every moment - the exact number of particles inside the room. And the number of particles in a room, or any fixed volume unit in the universe, decreases as the universe expands.
And if you don't get the "simple universe" - don't worry. The Big Bang Theory predicts exactly the same thing. But here is added another thing that can be measured - the temperature of the universe, which is characteristic of any given moment.
Tamer: The temperature basically depends on the spectrum of cosmic radiation, and it changes with the change in the speed of the meter. I will answer: there is one thing that does not change and is the same for every meter moving at a constant speed and that is: the average number of photons per unit volume.
Therefore, every moment, every time, at every point in the universe, is unequivocally defined according to the average number of photons per unit volume, or the temperature, and this is according to Friedman's formula:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3
This, in my opinion, is the proof of the irreversibility of entropy. Mathematics, not philosophy. It is impossible to go back in time, because it will be a different time, where there are fewer photons per unit volume.
Now we will see how well the "simple universe" fits in here. According to the theory, a "black hole" is an area where all "particles" are blocked. In the example of Nir's room, this is really the only possibility that there will be no difference between moment A and moment B - simply the particles will not be able to penetrate the walls of the room, and their number in it will remain constant.
Indeed, as far as I know, the time for a black guy to stand up is gone.
As usual, there is the other option, which is that I don't know or understand something. Cynics, this is the chance, please, no subtlety! Just try to provide supporting evidence that I am clueless, ignorant, uneducated, and a Negro.
By the way, regularities: did you notice that the only four commenters who are probably still here, all have theories? And are they also the ones who identify themselves by full name?
To Michael
Thanks for the correction and reference. And yet I hope that a simpler explanation will be found.
Israel https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-313579 )
The stars outside the galaxy do not form a wall. They form a ball.
A sphere (whether of electric charge or of mass) does not create a potential field within it.
Therefore, when a star orbits the center of the galaxy on an orbit of radius R - only the mass inside the sphere at this radius affects it.
And regarding your question about time - it is clear that it is a real thing and not a product of consciousness.
Does anyone consider the possibility that the fact that people cross the road carefully - at a time when there are no cars on it - are saved from being run over by cars that pass there at other times just because of an illusion of the mind?
Is Reuven Nir ready to disregard time and cross the road just as cars are flying by at 100 km/h?
In most scientific descriptions - time is a dimension of space.
It differs from other dimensions in that we only move on it in one direction. There are those who attribute this limitation to consciousness.
I am not one of them and in my opinion it is really not possible to move back in time.
The description of time as a dimension is a productive description that gives results.
You might be interested in reading the book "Time and Consciousness" by Avshalom Elitzur
jubilee( https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-313611 )
I did not miss.
The atmosphere has many properties and wavelength deviation is not one of them.
The reason why the evening sky is red is exactly the reason why the daytime sky is blue.
This is not because of prismatic behavior but because most of the blue radiation is scattered before the light reaches your eyes.
I would like to recommend the site to you http://www.ask.com where you can ask questions in a free language and get many of the answers that exist on the Internet.
One of the addresses returned in response to the question why is the sky blue is the following address:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Skyblue.shtml
As a rule - gases - and the atmosphere inside them, act on light in a variety of ways and beyond the fact that they absorb part of it - they also emit light themselves (they have to - because it is impossible to absorb endlessly without emitting).
The emitted light often has different characteristics than the absorbed light.
All of these are not redshifts.
The redshift is a change that occurs in the radiation itself in such a way that even though its wavelength has changed - the original radiation is still detectable.
Read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
Jubilee (https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-313612):
You can only check alternative explanations that you find.
Israelhttps://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-313655):
It turns out you didn't read everything.
I pointed out (and I also repeated in the current discussion) that Yehuda does not understand Le Sage and therefore he thinks that if he adds collisions between the particles themselves, he changes the picture.
This is the main pretext for appropriating the theory and giving it the name "the simple universe", but it is a wrong pretext.
He makes a mistake in calculating the gravity resulting from the addition of the collisions and as a result he thinks that a different gravity formula is obtained while the formula with or without collisions is the same formula.
The funny thing about the story is that the change that Yehuda mistakenly deduces from the collisions is in the opposite direction than what is needed to explain the greater gravitation that the dark mass advocated.
This is why he had to add to his theory the even more delusional theory of the eddies that supposedly accelerate the rotation of the galaxies - a theory that lacks minimal logic or any connection to reality.
Another proof that you haven't read everything is found in the fact that I removed my temporary reservation on the subject of the tide from the chapter immediately after I raised it.
In fact, I already told you exactly about this event in the current discussion (https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-311584).
The changes that have taken place over time in the way I identify myself are due to the attempts of people throughout the history of the site to impersonate me in order to hurt me.
Recently, since any comment containing my name is automatically blocked, it is no longer possible to do so
Israel
Tell that to Mikel, and tell him that maybe his latest joke about La Sage was out of place in traffic.
What's more, Mikal is good at puzzles
Mikal, please tell us one of your riddles you haven't asked in a long time.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Shlomi
Until now I would have said - Charles.
According to the writing style - she does not like creationists.
Israel Shapira, take a challenge
Who is the one hiding under the name "the last Camilla"?
In the meantime, until my previous response is confirmed, I looked a bit at references to articles from 3 and 4 years ago.
I was not aware of how sensitive and loaded the subject is. It is also interesting to see, in the mirror of time, the "evolution" of the acting characters - for example, how M. became M.R. And how the personal writing style of each writer was sharpened.
I also did not know that a personal meeting was held between the heroes of Sephorino, Y. and M.R.
But what I did see is that apart from the known objections to the LS theory. - Friction, conservation of energy - there is no other fundamental issue that is controversial, not even byRoey Tsezana, the star of the day.
There was something that Michael brought up regarding tides - but I probably didn't understand the reservation, because it seems to me that the same problem exists with Newton as well, and its solution is quite simple.
I have a question: if we replace the word "particles" with the word "radiation" will we not be able to overcome the friction problem? As we know, radiation exerts pressure, to the point of displacing asteroids from their orbits. On the other hand, its properties are different from those of a normal particle stream, at least when it comes to electromagnetic radiation, whose speed is known to be the same for every meter (although not its intensity).
Therefore, we could possibly have a La Sage model where the friction problem disappears completely, without harming the "push".
And regarding the conservation of energy - as in black body radiation, if we make the body "white" - the absorbed radiation is exactly equal to the emitted radiation, so the energy is conserved.
what do you think?
Cynics - I'm still waiting for more successful ideas. Since this morning I've been holding my stomach, waiting for the big laugh.
Let's hope I don't block this time.
"Dark energy" is not a small phenomenon at all. This is not another addition of a parameter in some equation. It threatens the conservation laws we know and in fact all of physics. I do not completely reject it, but before we accept such a radical change, I suggest examining alternative explanations.
In the next sentence, you missed something: "The shift of the atmosphere does not shift the wavelength of the radiation at all, but simply absorbs part of the radiation."
The absorption of light by the atmosphere is only one of the phenomena. The atmosphere acts as a lens or a prism and this is the reason for the blue of the sky and the red of the sunrise and sunset. In the phenomenon of gravitational obsolescence, dark matter acts as an optical lens for everything, and there is no reason not to assume that it also acts as a prism.
Why "the response is awaiting confirmation.". Just because I wrote CMBR?
Michael
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-313566
I'm not into dark mass research, but something jumped out at me about the square of the distance. It must be a completely trivial matter, and don't be angry with me like Gor Arye Yehuda said if the answer is also trivial.
So:
As we know, the gravitational force between two bodies is inversely proportional to the distance squared.
The force between a body and an "infinite wall of bodies", on the other hand, is transformed into distance only, not squared.
This is why in the short term, the nearest body is much more important in calculating the sum of the forces acting on the body, but in the long term, it is the quantity that counts.
And hence the question: if we start from the accepted assumption that there is a black hole in the center of the galaxy, it is clear that the stars near it will behave properly according to Newton's laws. He is the closest, therefore he is the boss. However, as we move away from the center, the almost infinite amount of stars outside the galaxy starts to become more and more important, because they themselves become an "infinite wall" or rather an "infinite space" of bodies, and therefore their influence becomes more important than that of the black hole in the center.
And hence the next question: can't the same difference between "distance" and "distance squared" be used as dark mass?
I understand that the same problem, if it exists, also exists with the solar system, and there the planets behave nicely. But the subject of quantity - distances, masses, etc. - is so critical, and can determine the difference between a disciplined system and a system that is not, that I would like to hear if anyone has already considered it.
Yehuda.
The subject of a body in motion according to Le Sage is discussed in Reuven Nir's book "Attraction". He describes the attraction acting on a rotating disk, and his conclusion is the same as yours: the disk will slow down more particles, and its mass will increase, as we know from relativity.
My opinion: without referring to the issue of the type of movement (the disk is rotating, therefore it is in accelerated motion), the question immediately arose: motion relative to what?
If you listen to Galileo Newton and Einstein, they will tell you that there is no absolute motion, everything is relative. So how can you say that a moving body absorbs more particles? After all, in his frame of reference, the body is generally at rest.
However, if you are talking about something more "etheric", and claim that there is an absolute system (for example the CMBR system),
And that the movement of the particles is relative to the rest system of the CMBR, so yes, a body in motion will block more particles than a body at rest, like a rifle bullet flying through the air.
But then we return to the same recurring motif in my poetry: what about the friction?
And if we have already mentioned Reuven Nir: if I understood correctly, he claims in his book that there is no scientific definition for the concept of "time" and that it exists only in consciousness.
Do any of the readers have a scientific definition for the concept of time?
jubilee:
It doesn't require much explanation.
This requires one explanation.
There really is no explanation and this lack of explanation is called "dark energy".
It is quite likely that the explanation I tried to bring is wrong.
However, the explanation that the galaxies are moving away while accelerating requires many explanations - and currently there are none.
jubilee:
But this is the explanation that in my last response I explained why is not true.
Please accept my apologies. It was Camila.
I wrote: "Today we know for sure about the existence of an entity that has been named "dark matter". Dark matter fills the space of the universe and interferes with the processes of light passing through it. It is not impossible that the redshift is caused by the dark matter in a manner similar (and perhaps identical) to the redshift of sunlight in its passage through the atmosphere."
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-cold-end-of-the-universe-1210114/#comment-310727
Kamila answered: "You wrote: "It is not impossible that the redshift is caused by the dark matter in a manner similar (and perhaps identical) to the redshift of sunlight as it passes through the atmosphere."
Don't you know that the reason dark matter is called that is because of its weak to zero interaction with electromagnetic radiation? Therefore it is clear that it is not possible that the red shift is caused by it in a similar way (and certainly not the same) as the phenomenon of the red sun at sunset (which is primarily optical)? "
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-cold-end-of-the-universe-1210114/#comment-310849
I answered: ""The dark matter is so called because of its weak to zero interaction with electromagnetic radiation". Because of this, the phenomenon is only observed at distances of the order of billions of light years. And if the product of the density of the dark matter over the distance it extends is the same as the product of the density of the atmosphere over the distance it extends, then the phenomena are similar to the same extent."
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-cold-end-of-the-universe-1210114/#comment-310879
And the conversation did not resume.
As mentioned, I do not rule out the accepted explanation. Anirak suggests a simpler possible explanation.
jubilee:
The only response I found that you may be referring to is this: https://www.hayadan.org.il/accelertion-of-the-universe-is-a-fact-0410116/#comment-309469
I didn't attack her, so you didn't answer the attack either.
It is true that I should have attacked her because the shift in the atmosphere does not shift the wavelength of the radiation at all, but simply absorbs part of the radiation.
These are completely different phenomena.
Besides, your above comment does not even hint at the acceleration but only pretends to give an alternative (and incorrect) explanation for the very shift.
Did you mean another comment?
"Infidel" is a hard word.
The fact that I do not believe does not make me an infidel. I just believe that there is a simpler explanation than the accepted explanation today.
The redshift, which increases with the distance of the galaxies from us, is today explained as a manifestation of the Doppler effect from which it follows that the galaxies are moving away at an accelerated speed. More than it explains, it raises a new, very problematic mystery that has been named "dark energy".
The explanation I am trying to give to the phenomenon does not rely on the Doppler effect and does not evoke the aforementioned mystery.
I brought it up a few weeks ago, you attacked it, I answered you and you didn't respond.
Yehuda:
You "forgot" that Wikipedia also claims otherwise.
You also "forgot" that the dark mass inside the galaxies (or, more precisely, in a sphere whose center is in the center of the galaxy and whose radius is smaller than the radius of the galaxy) is very necessary to explain the speed of the stars in the galaxies and that without it this speed would diminish as the radius of the star's orbit around the galaxy increases.
It is true that everyone has the right to hold their own opinion, but twisting the facts to convince others is not anyone's right.
Oops! I think I understand why they don't talk about the square of the distance but I need more to think about it.
jubilee:
No one but you can prove that you do believe in dark energy, therefore only you can "prove otherwise".
Regarding the dark energy itself - for now it is simply a short name for what is supposed to be "the reason for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe". This reason is dark because we do not know it.
Do you disbelieve that the expansion of the universe is accelerating or that there is a reason for it?
jubilee
There's really no point
We discussed the subject until the aura's ummmmmmma.
I say the dark mass, if it exists, must be mostly in the outer regions. There is no lack of gravitation inside. Therefore, any additional mass that is introduced there will interfere
But Michal claims that it's different, so I have nothing to argue with. It's the right of each of us to hold our own opinion..
As for you, I will always be happy to hear original ideas and express my opinion.
I will of course continue to follow
Good night Yuval
Also to all the other commenters
The truth, I enjoyed it!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Svardamish Yehuda!
Please don't give up so quickly. Maybe you will still take my advice and expand your model?
By the way, I also do not believe in the rise of dark energy (until proven otherwise) and believe that the redshift phenomenon has another explanation.
And you do believe in dark mass and energy (although those that also contradict reality, but in any case they are just as dark as those that correspond to reality), only you refuse to call the things you believe in by these names.
Yehuda:
In addition to all of the above, it appears from your words that you do not understand the fact that the dark matter halo is also inside the galaxy.
Raising your hands doesn't really mean anything because first you just wave them.
Throughout the entire discussion you did not make a single real argument.
Yuval, Mikal, and others,
I raise my hands
Believe what you want.
I'm so young and I don't believe in dark mass and energy
Good night friends
sweet Dreams
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
You are the one who insists on rewriting history.
Your new claim is similar to the correct claim that most of the dark mass is outside the Milky Way.
It's just not relevant to us and it's different from the things we were arguing about.
By the way - for any sphere whose volume is less than half the volume of the universe, it can probably be argued that most of the dark mass is outside of it.
It amazes me that you allow yourself to distort history so radically even though anyone can read what you wrote.
By the way, the dark mass outside the galaxy does not affect the behavior of the stars inside the galaxy.
It only affects the behavior of galaxies in galaxy clusters.
Sabdarmish Yehuda! Now it's my turn to insist.
Wikipedia is wrong and misleading or it needs a Rashi commentary.
The halo that the article talks about is defined as the volume outside the visible galaxy. It extends over a volume larger than the galaxy up to 3 times to the power of three (its radius is three times the radius of the galaxy) and it is clear that its content is very large. But the determining factor is thedensity, and in the center of the galaxy it is high.
I bring you written material from Wikipedia.
please:
The dark matter halo of the Milky Way galaxy
The dark matter halo is the largest part of the Milky Way galaxy, as it extends from 100,000 light-years to 300,000 light-years from the center of the galaxy. The halo is also the most mysterious part of the Milky Way. Astronomers believe that 95% of the mass of the Milky Way consists of dark matter, a type of matter that does not interact non-gravitationally (and in particular not electromagnetically) with the rest of the galaxy. The dark matter halo contains almost all of the dark matter of the galaxy, whose mass is 10 times greater than the normal mass (which includes stars, gas and dust) in the rest of the galaxy. The radiant matter constitutes about 90 billion solar masses while the dark matter halo includes 600 to 3000 billion solar masses." End quote.
Mikkel, please don't insist
Most of the dark matter is in the galaxy's halo.
This is the only way to explain the speed of movement of the large gas clouds that sail in the halo of the galaxy.
A large mass in the center would cause the gas clouds around the galaxy to move more slowly, but this is not the case.
Anyone who wants to go to the link.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%94_%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A8_%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%9C#.D7.A2.D7.A7.D7.95.D7.9E.D7.95.D7.AA_.D7.A1.D7.99.D7.91.D7.95.D7.91_.D7.A9.D7.9C_.D7.92.D7.9C.D7.A7.D7.A1.D7.99.D7.94_.D7.9B.D7.A8.D7.90.D7.99.D7.94_.D7.9C.D7.94.D7.99.D7.9C.D7.AA_.D7.97.D7.95.D7.9E.D7.A8_.D7.90.D7.A4.D7.9C
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Is it a coincidence - in:
* The dark mass density in the central region of the galaxy is much higher than anywhere else.
* At the center of the galaxy sits a black hole.
Yehuda:
It's nice that you copied from me the assumption that they also considered the bully mass and tried to teach me that this is the case.
But if you try to explain their words then you have to read their words and according to their words the density of the dark mass in the central region is much higher than anywhere else.
In other words - your claims in the matter had no basis in reality, even though you stated them without showing any doubt.
As mentioned - later on you also tried to obscure the content of your original claims.
After all, it can't be that you didn't know what you yourself said, so the interpretation of "mistake" really doesn't fit.
What is? Another lie?
Maybe you are never ashamed to admit a mistake but then you have to find another explanation for why you tried to present in retrospect as if you said different things than you said.
If it is not due to shame - the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the lie was used for another purpose, but what could this purpose be?
Israel:
I hope you understand the difference between what Judah said and reality.
In terms of the number of particles hitting the body in general, the movement does not make any difference because the number of additional particles it hits due to the movement is the same as the number of particles it escapes due to the same movement.
There is, however, a difference in the amounts of energy it absorbs on each side.
This is in fact exactly the same famous friction problem that Judah will admit to its existence.
And Israel is dear no less than God
Michael gave you an example of one joke from the article you voted on:
"A body moving at speed exerts a greater force of gravity than a body at rest. The reason - the movement of the body interferes more with the elementary particles passing through it." End quote.
Well what happens in the gravitation of the simple universe which is proportional to the particles (elemental particles) it absorbs. In your opinion, dear Israel, when does a body absorb more particles moving towards it when it is moving or when it is stationary.
I'm not sure her Sage was referring to it but I am.
But I'm actually happy that our friendly audience finds opportunities to laugh because laughter is good for health
And it's nice that he tells others about it too. The truth is, I laughed too.
So what do you think Israel about my explanation? Will gravity increase or not change?
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Dear Michael
What they wrote in the link you sent me to is the concentration of mass in general, meaning the dark mass plus the visible mass and since there is a lot of visible mass in the center of the galaxy, there is almost no need for a dark mass, on the other hand far away in the gas clouds around the galaxy where there is almost no visible mass, there is a lot of dark mass. What's more, it is sparse because it is spread over a large volume.
The main thing, as I said, is about the whole mass, dark and thuggish
Dear Mikel, believe me that I am never ashamed to admit if I am wrong about something and do not see it as any loss of respect, so relax, don't think that I am lying, I am at most wrong
Good day Michael
And I was proud that I was educated today and learned that there is also a thin dark mass.
Good night Michael
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Israel
If you make the sign (:) or this sign (:)) in Skim, you will receive a yellow smiley character kissing you in the ad sent. The intention is to accept things with a smile. And indeed you are right about the friction and currently La Sage has a problem with it.
There are a few more permanent signs on the Internet, for example if you write on the site Hedan from *Kal (y instead of the asterisk) you will immediately see a strange sentence that says: "The response is awaiting confirmation"
These are signs that are learned little by little
(:))
Good night
And hope you understood
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I want to answer gently and I don't want to use the word lie but I can't find another suitable word.
Everyone has been talking to you all the time about the dark mass distribution.
You also talked about it and therefore claimed that there is almost no dark mass in the center of the galaxy when, as you saw - precisely in the center it is denser than anywhere else.
You never wrote that the amount of dark mass is proportional to the distance!
To quote exactly, you wrote:
"In general, it is not found almost in the center of the galaxy because the center of the galaxy behaves according to Newton. On the other hand, it is found in the outer parts of the galaxy and in the gas clouds that revolve around it at high speed. There it is necessary to add gravitation to the explanation of the speed that does not want to decrease."
And that is exactly (but exactly!) the opposite of reality.
In my explanation, there are no shoes, but there is a square.
So now you have to apologize for the lies as well and not just for the mistake.
jubilee:
This is indeed the fact that led me to formulate the theory I presented.
Israel:
Indeed, Yehuda's theory was thoroughly refuted here in the discussions.
You are welcome to get some pointers in this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/max-plank-and-first-days-of-quantoms-physics-1111083/#comment-137730
The truth is that the reference in these responses is only to the basis and as Yehuda adds his own conclusions about Le Sage - he only adds more mistakes and most of these I did not refer to.
I now select, for example, one joke from the article you voted on:
"A body moving at speed exerts a greater force of gravity than a body at rest. The reason - the movement of the body interferes more with the elementary particles passing through it."
Do you understand what a lack of understanding is involved here?
After all, according to Le Sage - if you really understand what's happening there - then the force of gravity increases on the side moving towards it, decreases on the opposite side, and changes direction in the area between the two halves of the sphere!
But this is really just an example.
It's really hard to find anything true in his words!
Michael, Yehuda, everyone.
I'm a bit new here, and I wasn't aware of the extent to which L.S. Already dusex before here on the site. I know Feynman's reservation, from his lectures. But it was short: "There is friction between the particles and the planets, and that is the end of the theory."
Does anyone have knowledge of additional reservations? Is there another problem besides the friction?
And as I asked: Does anyone have a better explanation for why what happens here affects what happens there?
I would be interested in hearing such an explanation - if only for the opportunity to burst out laughing.
And how do you emphasize words here?
Judah, what is this (:))?
So what we had:
1) "The mass density is proportional to one part of the square of the distance from the center"
2) The gravitational force of attraction between two bodies is proportional to one divided by the square of the distance between them.
Is it a coincidence?
Dear Michael
In the text you brought to me it is written in the passage:
"Since the velocity V is constant (an observation we must explain), it follows that the mass M is characteristic of the distance R from the center of the galaxy.
Therefore, we will simplify the above formula to a simpler form:
M=KR”. End quote.
That is, the amount of mass (dark and baryonic) is proportional to R and not to the square of the distance.
But to your credit, Mikal will say that later in the article he explains the causes of overcrowding. He claims that the density becomes sparse because the same mass KR is spread over a sphere of diameter R that is inflated proportionally to the third power, hence KR divided by R by the third gives us K divided by the square of the distance.
In conclusion
The amount of mass is proportional to the distance as I say, but its density fills an entire sphere and therefore its density decreases by the square of the distance
That is, I am right in the opinion that most of the mass is in the clouds of galaxies, but there it is sparse as you claim.
If so I apologize for the sparseness of my dark thought.
I hope my apology is accepted
THL
Good night Michael
Please answer gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
My dear friend Michael
I tried the link you sent me to and I didn't see any square or shoes
I don't think you have any evidence for the square of the distance in the dark mass
But it's good to laugh and carry on!, to your health
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
Indeed - a wonderful foundation you brought to your words.
You are invited to laugh all the way to oblivion.
By the way, in the text on Wikipedia there is a certain error (actually, the error is more in the diagram than in the text).
If you do not see for yourself what the mistake is, you are welcome to enter the Discussion buffer and see my comment about this mistake and the response this comment received from someone whose identity I do not know.
Look for my name in English there (Rothschild)
Laugh, laugh, Mikal
It's healthy to laugh
You will laugh at my simple universe, and I will laugh at the distance squared of your dark mass
What can I tell you Mikal, the universe is funny!!
Hahaha!
good day everybody!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
Let's see what the power of unfounded statements is compared to well-founded statements:
below Explanation of the claim that the dark mass density is proportional to the square of the distance from the center of the galaxy
The density described in Wikipedia is different, asCan be seen here.
I don't know what the basis of their formula is (it is possible that they arrive at it by subtracting the bullion mass from the dark mass) but here too it is a matter of density that decays strongly with distance.
What is the basis for the baseless statements you make on the subject?
Israelhttps://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-313393):
Leah Sage's theory is much more serious than Yehuda's.
She also falls for the reasons already mentioned, but at least she doesn't have all the illogical corruptions (even the internal logic) that Yehuda added to her.
I have already pointed out dozens of mistakes but nothing helps so all I have left is to laugh.
Dear Yuval
My negative reference to dark matter stems solely from the fact that it was invented to create gravitation in an amount that would fit Newton's formula. I don't care about formulas. The measurements are important to me. If the formula does not fit the measurements then it has a problem and let it fly, it is with the dark matter and energy that was invented because of it!.
sympathetic
I'm sorry, but dark matter absolutely does not behave inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
In general, it is not found almost in the center of the galaxy because the center of the galaxy behaves according to Newton. On the other hand, it is found in the outer parts of the galaxy and in the gas clouds that revolve around it at high speed. There it is needed to add gravitation to the explanation of the speed that does not want to decrease.
this is the situation
So it seemed to me that an ideal distribution of the concentration of dark mass in a galaxy according to the square of the distance is far from reality
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
I assume that your negative reference to dark matter, "a bastard born in sin", is due to the fact that it does not fit into the model you built before it was included in the list of observed phenomena. What scientists and thinkers do when such a nuisance appears is to expand the existing models so that the uninvited guest will also gain status as a legitimate family member. Assuming that dark matter exists, and your model does not completely rule out its existence, can you extend your model to include it as well?
A possible hypothetical extension is to see the dark matter as the medium that carries the baryonic matter. Let us understand, the dark matter is not in motion, and the baryonic matter particles are nothing but waves of the density of the dark matter. The phenomenon of gravitation, according to this, arises from the dark matter only and not from the baryonic matter which is nothing more than a certain instance of the dark matter.
As mentioned, a hypothesis and nothing else. Camila and Co.! Please don't take my word for it.
Instead of directing you, I copied parts of the two relevant responses, the first:
More than that - as I have already mentioned - the distribution of velocities in the galaxy indicates a distribution of dark mass whose density is on the order of one part of the square of the distance from the center of the galaxy (that is, a density that fades quite quickly as you move away from the center).
There may be a lot more dark mass outside the galaxy, but this - as mentioned - does not affect the behavior inside the galaxy but the behavior between the galaxies.
____________________________________________________________
Second response:
I found the place where the distribution was mentioned by Zvi:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/weizmann-scientists-help-to-build-a-method-to-find-dark-matter-1504119/#comment-290383
sympathetic
I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the place where Mikal explains his explanation for the connection between dark mass and the square of the distance
I can't find it
Thanks
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Michael already explained at the beginning of the discussion why the dark matter distribution should fade as a function of the square of the distance
If you had read his words carefully you would not have had to ask, again and again.
Michael,
Regarding a theory about objects that cannot be discovered, I have serious doubts. The standard model predicts the existence of the Higgs that has not yet been discovered, but on the other hand it predicted the discovery of several corks that have been discovered. String theory also has no measurable predictions, so despite its mathematical beauty it is still not a physical theory. Coming out in advance with a theory in which there are objects that cannot be discovered is, for me, pseudo-science at best.
jubilee
My answer to you is awaiting confirmation
Wait patiently
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Yuval,
How do I see the dark mass in my mind's eye?, so it is that I am unable to see anything that was built in advance in the sin of fitting results to a formula.
But let's say I'll make an effort and I'll define the dark mass as matter, let's say!
Let us see what the properties of this material are supposed to be.
This material is supposed to be subject to gravitation, on the other hand it moves away from the normal baryonic matter because it is mainly concentrated in the gas clouds around the galaxies, and this is the only way the clouds are able to maintain their high speed.
The dark mass is not allowed to rotate with the galaxy because then the dark matter will add, in addition to gravity, a rotational momentum that will require even more gravitation and then we have done nothing by adding it to the galaxy.
That is, the dark matter is adjacent to the galaxy but does not rotate with it. Therefore, the stars of the galaxy will cross their path through the dark matter adjacent to the galaxy but not orbiting it.
Therefore, dark matter must not have friction.
In addition, apart from rotational motion, the galaxy also moves in a straight line in space, so the dark matter should be adjacent to the galaxy. He can't just be a cloud that the galaxy is passing through!
That is, the dark mass is made of material that does not like baryonic mass found in the galaxy but is adjacent to it in a common movement in space while pointing in a certain direction like a compass. It must also be frictionless.
In addition, dark matter is invisible, and in addition, since we have agreed that dark mass exists, then there must also be dark energy, to take care of the accelerated expansion of the universe, despite the dark mass. This energy will also be in the areas where the dark mass exists and it is interesting if they live in peace.
If we assume that all the things I have assumed here on the topic of dark mass and energy are true, in the end, we will be able to preserve only one thing - the correctness of Newton's gravitation formula at the great distances of the universe.
So maybe it's better that……………Newton Yoke?
Let's hope I answered your question Yuval
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For all those who dismiss the La Sage theory, for cynics, for the amused, etc.
Is anyone willing to offer a better explanation than L.S. That if I move my finger then the whole universe knows about it?
Give us a chance to figure it out too.
To Sabdarmish Yehuda regarding your question to Mikal,
You say "it seems to me that the dark mass is found where it is missing".
To understand what's going on, maybe you should tell us how you imagine the dark mass, whether you believe in its existence or not
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
Thanks for the good wishes. Harini wishes you the same.
And a good week to you and everyone
Mikel
What about the square of the distance of the dark mass.
Is there any chance we will get an explanation of why this is good?
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yuval Chaikin
If it's any consolation then Le Sage beat us both.
I didn't know Le Sage when I came up with the idea of the simple universe, but when I discovered Le Sage I saw that I came to slightly different conclusions that make the difference, such as a slightly different gravitation formula than Newton's for large distances and small distances. And the same regarding the speed of light, the weight of bodies, and more.
Don't get discouraged, and keep building your ideas and see if they have original ideas that are different from the known. I wish you luck
Good week, Yuval!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
No, Camila! Really really not.
I just brought the model I drew as a child to compare my ways of thinking and Sabradish's.
The model I am dealing with today is far beyond that, and I am not bringing it here - mainly because it is not finished. If and when it receives appropriate approvals, I promise you faithfully that you will be among the first to receive it for your review.
jubilee,
You propose to give up almost all the physical knowledge gained in the last century, knowledge that has proven itself time and time again both in the explanation of a tremendous variety of phenomena and in the ability to predict amazing technologies that would have had no chance of being reached without the theoretical knowledge gained. You suggest that we abandon all of this, you agree with me that you are required to present an alternative that is no less than amazing (in terms of its internal cohesion, the ability to explain known and familiar phenomena, I'm not even talking about predicting new phenomena or those that have not yet been explained) in order for them to even begin to consider seriously to you
It's not that they don't want to know what you have to say, the opposite is true, they really want to read about what you have to say, but you present things in such a way that the chances of you being able to meet the unreasonable expectations you raise here are nil (at best). For every existing law/rule that you want to give up, you are burdening your back with a great many phenomena/observations/experiments that you are required to explain before you can even move on to the more interesting things, which are the questions that are not yet resolved within the existing framework. I'm dying of curiosity (although I admit my expectations are low).
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
Let me explain to you the reason for my interest in your model, even though I agree with those who reject it.
About forty years ago, back when I was in high school, I started looking for a simple model that would explain all of physics. The searches and conclusions took shape, and in 1977 I tried to interest physics lecturers at the Hebrew University in them. Here is an excerpt from what I shared then:
Because of the pretense of showing that the world described in the model also describes the physical world, then - since there is no claim built from within itself - it must be understood that physics should not be sought at the level of the elementary particle; The elementary particles should not be expected to behave as required by some physical law known to us: between one elementary particle and another there are no forces of attraction or repulsion of any kind, so there is no place to talk about the mass of a particle or elastic collisions or other definitions accepted in physics; Similarly, in the world of particles, physical limitations such as the limitation of the speed of light should not be expected.
And here, suddenly now suddenly today, I discover that you also wrote things in almost the same words, for example here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%98-%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95%D7%93%D7%94-%D7%A1%D7%91%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A9/
"First we must forget all the laws and particles known to us from the world of physics and chemistry and stay only with the really simple principles which we will define immediately.
We must also ignore various restrictions imposed by known physics, such as:
A. The speed of light is the maximum possible.
B. Every mass has weight.
third. Mass and energy are the same, etc..."
I wrote "the world is made up of an ever-increasing number of elementary particles and an infinite indifferent space... the elementary particle has an independent self-motion that changes randomly in its direction and speed"
And you wrote "within a huge space tiny elementary particles move at great speeds, linear and rotational (around their axis), in all directions."
My model is still under construction. The elementary particle I was talking about is not elementary at all but arises from more basic and primitive things. As mentioned, I reject the conclusions you reach but am interested in your thought process.
The world is funny so laugh
To Israel
Indeed, the size of the particles of La Sage or of the simple universe is also important.
What's right is right!
So since the particles are non-points the amount that will pass is lower and this must be taken into account
(:))
Good week Israel
And to all the people of Israel
Sabdarmish Yehuda
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-313135
And I'm angry!
: )
Let's hope the smiley was successful.
jubilee.
Thanks for the reference, but the formulas are not there.
True, the sum of the masses of the nucleons is greater than the mass of the nucleus, but even there the mass difference is exactly equal to the binding energy between the nucleons.
In any case - the dominant force there is not gravity but the strong force. A wild and unpredictable force, which may change its direction without notice. Our subject - La Sage, gravitation.
If you have a particle model - maybe ask for permission from the field security to reveal only the issue of the friction of the planets so that we can close the matter?
Yehuda
In the example of the fence, you are right on the macro level - but not necessarily on the micro level.
The reason is that according to S. If the particles have a finite size, aggregated fences will stop (bloom?) more particles than by their direct numerical ratio.
The best example is the netting in a goal on a soccer field. If the ball, or balls, were the size of an atom - you would be right. However, as we increase the size of the balls, so the ratio between the size of the holes in the net and the size of the balls gets smaller, and if we put several nets on top of each other, they will stop balls in a greater proportion to their numerical ratio, until finally we reach a net that stops all the balls - as really happens in a soccer game . (Unless the scorer is Maradona, then no net will help).
And this is in contrast to the example you gave in which the nets relatively slow down less and less balls.
And since we are probably dealing with the micro level, it seems to me that case B is more applicable.
But it's actually good for your theory - because that's what's really happening (probably).
to Michael
You wrote and I quote: "In the calculations I made, it became clear to me that it is possible, by determining certain constants that appear in the formulas, to cause the density of the dark mass to really decay as a function of the square of the distance." End quote.
It seems to me that the dark mass is found where it is missing and not according to the square of the distance.
I'd be happy to explain
with gratitude
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic:
The truth is that even if particles are necessary (and it's not really clear to me that this is the case) there is no problem because you can think of a certain type of particles that are somehow anchored in space and repel each other.
If their density is not huge - the chances of them being discovered are zero because they are not in motion.
Obviously the whole idea is wild speculation.
By the way, in the calculations I made it became clear to me that it is possible, by determining certain constants that appear in the formulas, to cause the dark mass density to really decay as a function of the square of the distance.
Michael,
I apologize for the delay and even now I will not elaborate too much on the subject of "Is there something in quantum theory that requires the energy to be concentrated in particles or is it just a paradigm?".
Basic quantum theory tells us that energy is quantized but it presupposes the existence of particles and their properties are external to the theory. In contrast, quantum field theory is based on fields. The assumption is that the theory is complete (it may not be the case or it should be replaced by a different theory) so far it has had hundreds of confirmations and is considered one of the most established scientific theories. Quantumity (the transformation into a quantum object) of the fields in theory also entails the discrete nature of the particles. Since all the objects in this theory are described by fields, the energy of the systems in the theory are also functions of the excitations of the fields and since the excitation of a field is what turns into a particle, the connection between particles and energy is obtained.
I apologize for the clumsiness in the answer, since this is a technical field that is difficult to explain without examples.
🙂 Your claim is clear, whether you meant "above" or "behind"
It should be written in the third line:-
"81 percent passed from here to SA." That means 19 percent of the light was blocked."
Tl
Yehuda
for Jubilee
It can also be explained in a different way
Each fence blocks ten percent of the light that hits it, that is, from the top fence, only 90 percent of the light passes and reaches the second fence, where ten percent of the light that arrived is blocked, that is, 9 percent from here S. 90 81 percent passed. That means 19 percent of the light was blocked.
Another way - ten thousand photons hit the two fence system, nine thousand photons passed the first fence, ten percent less passed the second fence, which is 8100 photons,
Note that if ten fences are placed randomly, one above the other, photons will still pass through them.
The calculation: 0.9 to the power of ten, which is about 35 percent
Hopefully now you understand
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
Sorry to intrude. I didn't understand why "ten percent of the shadow of the upper one will unite with the shadow of the lower one", but I suppose that through an orderly explanation, even a fool like me will understand.
The great sympathy I have for you, even though I mostly agree with Schullich, is because I too have a model of particles. But, unlike your model, my model starts right from the beginning, creating something from nothing in a place where physics does not yet exist, even before the big bang.
As mentioned, I would love to hear or read your lecture
Israel Shapira
Let's take for example a fence with an area of one square meter, which is 10,000 square centimeters. And suppose it is built of iron wires that occupy only ten percent of the area, the rest are the spaces in the fence. That means the net shadow area cast by the fence will be 1000 square cm. The sun's rays will pass through all the rest of the area and will not cast a shadow.
If we take two fences as above, the shadow area of both will be double - 2000 square centimeters.
But if we put the two definitions one above the other, the total shadow will be 1900 square cm because ten percent of the shadow of the upper one will unite with the shadow of the lower one
Likewise with gravitation according to the simple universe.
But note that this does not belong to the explanation of the movement of the galaxies because there it is a question of another feature of the movement of the particles - pressure differences, that is, from a place where they are concentrated to a place where they are sparse (wind).
Hope you understand
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
ravine
Shall we start from the end?
For all those interested:
I'm giving a lecture next week on the topic of quantum mechanics and in it I will present my theory "the curved universe". The lecture will be held in the Cuckoo Hall at the Twilight Institute. Entry is free for members, for site commenters the entry is 10 NIS (20 NIS normal entry) Those who manage to come up with a theory until the day before the lecture will receive a membership card plus an innovative theory as a gift. I am also releasing a catalog of last summer's theories which will be available for purchase at a discounted price.
At the end of the lecture, a prize-bearing competition will be held in which each participant must come up with a theory within a minute, disprove it, inflate a balloon and disprove it, and finally release the inflation.
Good day and Saturday
Tl
I meant to say: the sum of the masses of each individual nucleon Great from the mass of the nucleus composed of them
Israel,
Tu Dara Ba - Aluda Var.
Maybe here you will find what you are looking for about La Sage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
The conclusion "two masses standing one behind the other attract less than two separate masses" has experimental confirmation at the level of the atomic nucleus: the sum of the masses of each individual nucleon is less than the mass of the nucleus composed of them.
Yehuda
I went over the theory in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%98-%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95%D7%93%D7%94-
%D7%A1%D7%91%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A9/
But I didn't find typical formulas for La Sage. Is there maybe another site that includes them?
Also section A in the conclusions:
"A. Two masses standing one behind the other attract less than two separate masses!
The reason: in an adjacent state, some of the particles in the material hide each other and do not participate
In determining the "attraction" force.
It seems to me the opposite of logic and what we know about Einstein's reality (admittedly, I didn't check):
In Einstein's reality, the gravitational force of two masses - one after the other, or side by side - increases slightly, when you move them further apart, and this is because of the potential gravitational energy between the two masses, which translates into added mass and therefore added attraction.
Yuval, thanks for the link. I will send to all the congregation.
Besides - you have your own website. Post whatever you want there and include a link here.
Yehuda:
Please don't be silly.
You can post anything in the comments.
I said it.
It is true that the site used to be more open to nonsense in the articles and it is really good that it has improved.
Mikel
My lecture was on the subject of dark mass and energy with an analysis of all the possibilities for solving the problem including Hammond's theory, dark mass and energy, pressure differences and others.
Will you be willing to publish the analysis or not?
This is the question!
Don't tell me that science used to be more open, I know that.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sorry, but you know that:
1. As a response, even greater nonsense can be posted on the site as long as they do not include profanity.
For reference - even this response (https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-313178) which is beyond the limit of defamation - was published.
2. Not this one either - the simple universe theory even got to appear here as an article.
3. The far-fetched theory of the pressure differences also appeared here in the responses exactly to the extent that Yehuda's intentions were detailed (and already from this detail it was possible to learn how far-fetched it is).
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Take your time. We have waited 14 billion years, we will wait a few more days 🙂
Shabbat Shalom and Blessed
Keren Lazer, Sami Samib, Nir Damati and your friends
All of you are blacklisted by the Israel Defense Forces
http://www.2all.co.il/Web/Sites1/tomarkin/PAGE20.asp
Yehuda
It is also possible without Einstein, although it shows the principle of equivalence of mass and energy.
Let's see what Michael B. says
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-312193
The mass of a spring increases when it is compressed - or stretched.
The reason is that its energy content increases. Therefore: Einstein, a formula, also a rising mass.
Let's take a system that includes two masses - let's say Earth and Moon.
As we distance them from each other - the energy content of the Earth-Moon system increases, because of the potential gravitational energy that is added to the system (Newton).
Therefore: the mass of the system also increases (Einstein).
We will move to La Sage.
For him, the "mass" is actually a resistance to the particles.
And the "energy" as above. (It is clear that at La Sage we will receive potential energy from two distant "sails". The particles will try to stick them together. But this is actually particle energy, not sails).
now:
1. Consider what the force of gravity according to L.S. Between the sun and the earth apart.
2.. It is calculated what is the force of gravity according to L.S. between the sun and the moon separately.
3. Considered (a lot of geometry) if the Earth-Moon system constitutes more resistance to particles than the sum of 1+2 above. (Logic, and Patio, Le Sage's predecessor say so). The reason: if the air molecules were, for example, one millimeter in diameter, then two identical tennis rackets, whose nets have holes of a square centimeter placed on top of each other, would constitute a resistance to the air more than double the resistance of one racket. 10 such rackets together will constitute an almost infinite resistance to "molecules". Everything here is extreme, but I hope the idea is clear.)
The conclusion: the potential gravitational energy between the system that includes the Earth and the Moon and the Sun is greater than the sum of the individual energies of the Earth and the Moon. This is what we calculated according to pure La Sage considerations.
4. Calculate the difference in the potential gravitational energy between 3 (LS) and 1+2 (Newtons).
5. Calculate what is the potential gravitational energy (Newton) between the two masses only (in our case: the earth and the moon).
If the result in 5 is the same as in 4, then we are in the right direction.
That's the general idea. Please don't make me busy with calculations on Shabbat. This theory is your hobby. My hobby is collecting rare neolithic lice eggs.
THL
Haman - his name is Yamech.
Shabbat Shalom to all.
Sorry, but you know that the science website will not allow you to publish something that is against the consensus.
We will be patient and I will check what can be done.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
If possible not a recording that takes a lot of time but something written?
I am currently organizing the material for the recording. Please wait patiently
(:))
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda Sabdarmish
By the way, Israel and God,
The dedicated guard Nir Demati sent you greetings
Yehuda,
I join Yuval. Is it possible to get a summary or a summary of your lecture or at least a link to it for the benefit of those who were unable to attend?
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
Please ignore occasional bites. As you remember, I would love to review your lecture material.
Yehuda:
According to you the comments were received from crazy people so don't take them too seriously.
To Israel
To your question: - Yehuda, are you still there?
Answer - positive, I'm still selfish here.
Regarding your second question: - Do you think that Sage can perhaps explain the mass, or the energy, that is added to a system of two masses when they are moved away from each other?
Answer:- I did not know that a mass was added in this case and it does not seem to me that this is happening. I would appreciate it if you could explain.
And you continue: - After all, according to Le Sage, the force of attraction between masses comes from the particles. If you manage to calculate and show that in a system consisting of two masses A and B (say balls of the same size) the attraction received towards a third ball C increases when the masses A and B are moved away from each other, and if you manage to calculate and show that the combined mass of A + B increases It's the same as the mass increase in Einstein - after all, your long journey to prove your theory has come to a successful end.
Answer - Don't be angry Israel, but I didn't understand where Mesa joins the system and what is the connection to Einstein.
And as for Le Sage's formulas, they are similar to my formulas, and maybe you will understand them from my "simple universe theory" that you will find on Google.
So maybe you're on to something but I really don't understand.
I would love to receive explanations and that my journey will come to an end.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And by the way, several dozen crazy people took the trouble last night, despite the rain and the tempting sports games on TV, to get to the observatory in Givatayim, for my lecture yesterday, which according to the responses I received was interesting and original
Sami Sabin also asked to say hello
And by the way, greetings to the fund.
Israel:
But you also received an answer regarding the situation where there is no promise and no measurement.
Yehuda
are you still there
Do you think that Sage can possibly explain the mass, or energy, that is added to a system of two masses when they are moved apart? After all, according to Le Sage, the force of attraction between masses comes from the particles. If you manage to calculate and show that in a system consisting of two masses A and B (say balls of the same size) the attraction received towards a third ball C increases when the masses A and B are moved away from each other, and if you manage to calculate and show that the combined mass of A + B increases It's the same as the mass increase in Einstein - after all, your long journey to prove your theory has come to a successful end.
I would try to do it myself, but no one tells me what La Sage formulas are, not even Gogol.
Michael
You write: "The second thing to ask is how you make sure that the photon reaches precisely the point you specified."
It really doesn't matter to me what point the photon reaches - as long as it is at a certain point, and at that point according to what I defined "for us laymen" it will have a definite momentum. But I think we already differed on that.
"There is no such thing as a "laser beam of one photon... it's jarring". of course not. This is a play on words. Keren Lazer, an ophthalmologist, whose former name was Lazerovitz, is the sister of Micha Napo, the inspector, who is a good friend of Israeliu Bishvili, the Georgian, who has since left the country.
That's why I wrote "A laser beam sends a single photon through the same point." It could equally well be a single photon coming from the sun.
Michael,
I think that in quantum field theory there is a requirement for particles in that energy is quantized, but I will try to formulate a more detailed answer later.
Thanks Yehuda.
for everyone
I again remind those who are interested in hearing about dark mass and energy tomorrow, Thursday, at 21:30 PM I am lecturing at the Givatayim Observatory in the second Ascension Garden. What is known and what is my opinion about it, for members of the association the entrance is free and for others 15-25 NIS who go to the Mitzvah
And by the way. I was in Hamada tonight at a conference and it was very nice and interesting
Good luck Avi Belzovsky
In appreciation
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic:
Of course, when I wrote "not proven" I meant that it was not confirmed.
In any case - I think the discussion is exhausted.
Maybe actually another question:
Is there something in quantum theory that requires the energy to be concentrated in particles or is it just a paradigm (actually, in the spirit of these days - it is easy to demonstrate the meaning of the question using Shechtman's example. Nothing in the theory of crystals required the crystals to be a periodic lattice. It was only a paradigm and therefore its refutation did not harm the validity of the knowledge obtained until then).
Michael,
Of course, there is no need to remind you that in science theories are not proven, therefore the link between particles and energy has not been proven, but the theory accepted today to describe the world is quantum field theory. It is possible to describe a spring using quantum field theory, but there is no need for that, if you still insist, all the energy stored in the spring will be described by particles.
When energy is described using particles, it is not a common opinion but one of the most well-founded theories in science today. If we believe this theory, there is no mass in isolation from a particle to which it belongs. My argument against dark matter does not stem from the fact that no dark matter particles have been found, but from my "gut feeling" regarding our knowledge of gravitation and how it integrates with the other forces. The fact that they did not find the dark matter particles is for me the symptom and not the disease. I have no problem with the fact that gravitons have not been found and I do think that they should be found.
As for the gluons mediating between the quarks, they are exactly the energy stored in the proton, this energy is expressed in the creation of gluons. In summary, according to the most accepted theory in science today, quantum field theory, there is no mass that is not associated with a particle.
sympathetic:
I don't know why the spring pattern doesn't suit you.
The spring is composed, in the end, of particles and the fact that I did not detail its structure at this level does not change the fact.
The fact that the gluons in the proton mediate the energy between the quarks does not mean that the missing energy is stored in them. It just means that the set of particles in the state in which they are in the proton has energy.
It is true that there is a widespread opinion that energy requires particles, but this has not yet been proven even for the most well-known energy that no one disbelieves in its existence - it is gravitational energy (that is - almost no one disbelieves in its existence. Here on the site there is actually one commenter who disbelieves in its existence even if he does not admit it) .
By the way: In my opinion, the same considerations that make you doubt the existence of the dark mass should also make you doubt the existence of the gravitons (like bindons? 🙂 )
Michael,
You surely understand that the example of the spring is not relevant since it is a classical object that is not described by particles itself and even more so by the energy stored in it.
Therefore it is appropriate to refer to the example of the proton composed of quarks. You claim that energy is stored in a proton regardless of the particles. It is true that a proton has more energy than the sum of the quarks that make it up, but this energy is stored in the particles that bind the quarks, i.e. gluons. The fact that all the mass in the universe is associated with particles is due to the fact that the theory of quantum fields is a complete theory. Every type of energy in quantum field theory refers to a particle and in particular every type of mass.
Technion student.
You have two points that I find it difficult to understand how you arrived at them from everything written so far:
1. "It is better that you learn the basics first (and it is better in an orderly manner and without giving up on the mathematical formalism, because otherwise it is philosophy)" - of course you may be right, but how did you conclude from the previous responses that I did not learn?
2. "You are thinking of experiments to contradict the uncertainty principle." eh? I myself am still not sure what the experiment is that I want to do, but one thing is certain: it does not contradict the principle of uncertainty. In fact it cannot be contradicted, if you accept the Schrödinger equations, and if you don't accept them, then you don't accept quantum mechanics at all.
But let's not fight, bro. If as your name is you, we will need you most in planning the experiment.
I may not have articulated clearly enough, but I believe that I received general agreement from both "horses" to close the theoretical matter. So let's go to the practical side. If anyone is reading, and has experience in the lab that they can share, or an explanation, or YouTube, or a reference, I would greatly appreciate it in advance.
The general idea of the experiment is to measure that "wave function", and bring it to collapse in a place we did not expect.
I was thinking about the Compton effect.
According to what I know about the effect, energetic photons hitting an electron cause it to deviate from its orbit. The basic question I would like an answer to is this:
If we take a cathode ray tube (CRT), then we can reach a very high speed of the electrons in the tube. Now, if we "bombard" these electrons with energetic photons, can we cause some of the electrons to deviate from their orbits?
This is the basic question. If the answer is positive, the following questions are asked:
1. Can we get an indication of the place of impact of the deflected electron? For example, if we place a screen 5 cm away from the tube, will we be able to "see" where the electron hit?
2. Can we use a timer to know the impact time of the deflected electron? If so, with what accuracy? Is there any equipment that will allow the impact time at the level of nanoseconds or more?
3. Is this an experiment as simple as it sounds, or are there complications that I don't see? Where can such an experiment be conducted?
If anyone has ideas for improvement, or any ideas, I would appreciate it. And so do we all. This will save us at least another 200 more comments. This is Ehud's "Leading Perpetum" - a fix instead of theories.
Thanks.
sympathetic
I went through some of your comments and saw that my question was unnecessary. Anyway, thanks.
sympathetic:
The fact that there are particles in the area does not make the mass the mass of the particles.
Tell me, for example, with the example of the spring - to which of the particles that make it up do you attribute the extra mass?
Michael,
As far as I know mass is always associated with particles. The mass of the spring that increases is also the mass of the particles that make it up. The mass of the proton that has increased is also the mass of the quarks that make it up. Talk about mass without a particle
Similar in my opinion to talking about kinetic energy without mass. The additional mass that results from an additional interaction with the particles
and does not stand on its own. Could it be that I don't understand you and the argument between us is semantic? Could it be that I didn't understand you and the mass of dark matter according to your perception is connected to the mass of baryonic matter?
If not, then as you say, we have a mass without particles, can it be divided to infinity? Is it possible to talk about smaller and smaller parts of this mass.
jubilee,
Reporter:
You say "all the mass in the universe is related to particles". Do I understand correctly that you do not believe in the existence of dark matter?
You are both wrong and right. First of all, the dark matter side also assumes that it is a material and it consists of microscopic particles that have not yet been discovered. There have been repeated attempts over the past decades to discover the particles
The dark matter and there were already several articles also here in Yadan about scientists who claimed to have discovered it... something that turned out to be true.
You are also right. I don't believe in dark matter but not for the reason you gave. I have already explained my reasons for not believing in dark matter dozens of times here and this leads to endless debates. So I will content myself with once again declaring my disbelief.
Israel,
Without measurement the photon is described by the wave function. In the accepted interpretation, the square of the wave function gives the probability of finding the particle at some point. I think you have a basic misunderstanding and I have to agree with Michael
And with a Technion student... In my opinion, the misunderstanding is related to understanding what a wave is. First, it is desirable to understand what a wave with a defined wavelength is:
A wave with a defined wavelength (momentum for a particle) is found in all space, an attempt to limit it to a part of the space will produce a packet of waves, i.e. a number of wavelengths (according to the Fourier transform), i.e. a distribution of momentums for the particle.
Israelhttps://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-312815):
First of all - let's clarify a technical point.
There is no such thing as a "one photon laser beam". A laser beam is based on the mutual influence of many photons and this is where its properties come from.
It doesn't belong, of course, in the discussion, but it is jarring.
The second thing to ask is how you make sure that the photon reaches the point you specified.
If you don't worry about it, and you don't put equipment that checks if it has passed there - you have no reason to claim that it passes there.
The same goes for the wavelength.
Straightforward: if you determine or measure one of them - you increase the uncertainty in relation to the other.
As long as you haven't measured there is some kind of superposition that will never be both of exact position and of exact momentum.
Israelhttps://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-312823):
This horse agrees with the wording in the above response, except for one thing:
It is not that the photon is in more than one place nor is it in any place. What happens is that his wave function allows the measurement of his position (in case it is made) to cause him to be in one of your known selection of places.
I agree with my words Student, Technion.
Israel,
In general, you roughly describe superposition and the projection of the measurement onto the wave function (collapse).
You don't need to think about this "experiment" in order to understand that there is delocalization thrown out of quantum theory. For example, the position of the electron in the orbitals is undefined. In my opinion you are rather wasting your time, because you cannot contradict what you do not yet know. It is better that you learn the basics first (and it is better in an orderly manner and without giving up on the mathematical formalism, because otherwise it is philosophy) before you think about experiments to contradict the uncertainty principle.
Aryeh Seter,
You're right, I wasn't precise and during the fast writing these quills fell out. Nevertheless, I assume you understood my intentions:
1) The earth's axis of rotation around itself is not at 90 degrees to the plane of the sun's orbit, and this is where the difference between summer and winter comes from.
2) Indeed according to Israel Shapira the correct concept I should have used is superposition.
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
Please understand that I am not against you but for you. Your model is beautiful. The one attacking him is not me. The role I took upon myself is not that of a judge. All I suggest is to try to improve.
Since the particles perform mechanical work, they are subject to physics, and not the other way around. If you try to define physics using them, then it is circular. On the other hand, if you don't do this, then you are adding a new entity to the (already long) list of entities that the science of physics contains. In this case, you need to show why this entity is necessary and why various phenomena cannot be explained without it. But even then you have to look at simpler options, and the entity you propose is not simple at all.
To Yuval Chaikin
Where did you find a circular argument?
What mysteries?, what mystery?
S. particles that move in the universe and do their simple and predictable mechanical work.
And these particles have already been proven that at least some of them exist (the netrins)
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel,
I will add to the words of R. H. ("Schrödinger's cat") that you do not take into account the duality of the photon. It does not move as a particle but as a wave front.
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
I believe you are creating an unnecessary existence and using a circular argument. You are trying to explain mass using mass. The gas particles you show are in motion and have the ability to push; Therefore they represent force and therefore have mass. By itself, your model is beautiful (even if all the lions in the pack find a lot of loopholes in it), but instead of providing a simple answer, it adds mystery upon mystery.
I think he meant superposition.
R.H
You are not precise in certain concepts.
"The angle of its axis changes so that there is winter and summer" Winter and summer exist not because of the change of the angle of the axis (which is constant) but because of the very existence of a deviation of 23 degrees from a right angle between the plane of the earth's orbit around the sun and the earth's axis.
I don't think quantum uncertainty is commonly called entanglement. Entanglement is a summation of waves regardless of quantum theory.
to R.H.
Dark matter brings with it net gravitation.
The pressure difference brings with it wind. He doesn't care about gravity at all.
Two different things, how do you say it's the same thing?
good night im going to sleep
And offers you to go too
Sabdarmish Yehuda
R. H.
I am with you one hundred percent. Let's define the answer to save time from Michael and Ehud. If we agree on this, we can close the matter:
-As long as the measurement has not been performed, the photon is in more than one place. It is actually "spread" over the space. —
Let's get approval "from the horse's mouth" so that we can approach the planning of the experiment. Ehud, Michael, do you agree with the wording?
Yehuda,
Nice, first you told me what to say to God and now you tell me what I "of course reject". It's good because I myself don't know what I'm ruling out, so at least someone else knows.
I still haven't understood what the fundamental difference is between the dark matter theory and those unknown gas-like particles of yours? Why is it not the same? Why do you claim to oppose the existence of dark matter and not simply claim to have some possible insights into it? For example, that it behaves like a gas and that as a result it is responsible for gravity?
Israel,
I think the answer to your question is in Schrödinger's cat paradox. Until you measure and cause the collapse of reality, the photon or the cat are, according to the interpretation of quantum mechanics, in interference. The cat is alive/dead and your photon as a probability wave of momentum, position and wavelength. In other words, as strange as it sounds, it will be everywhere with a certain probability. If you measure reality, it will collapse into one possibility and it will receive values, but then you will not be able to know them all at the same time according to the principle of uncertainty.
Ehud, Michael, student.
The "point" I'm talking about is not a crack, or a screen. is a point where there is nothing physical, but the photon passes through on its way to the target.
Example: we will write coordinates on the sides of a gymnasium. The position of each point in the space of the hall can be defined using 3 coordinates, even if the hall is completely empty.
In the middle of the space in the hall, there is a point whose coordinates are: 7,5, 2. There is nothing there, for the purpose of the discussion, not even air.
A laser beam sends a single photon through that point.
We do not perform any measurement.
Now the question arises:
When that photon from the beam passed through the point, did it have a certain wavelength, even if we don't know what it is, smooth and uniform?
Because if so, it had a certain momentum, sharp and smooth. And he was in a certain place, clear and smooth.
Remember that no measuring equipment is involved.
If I have a mistake, then where.
R.H.
Indeed, there is an idea that comes to explain the expansion of the universe by the rotation of the entire universe. An idea I heard at the time from Professor Hagi Netzer in a conversation with him. Such an idea could save the need for dark energy.
You of course rule him out beforehand. so be it.
I don't need him.
Earth may not be a good example, but, the non-uniformity of the background temperature of the universe is an excellent example in my opinion. But however you want.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic,
You say "all the mass in the universe is related to particles". Do I understand correctly that you do not believe in the existence of dark matter?
Yehuda,
The earth does not have equilibrium because it rotates around itself and around the sun. So the temperatures change from day to night and light to shadow. In addition, the angle of its axis changes so that there is winter and summer, in addition the moon adds tidal forces, all these and more dictate the weather. Will you add to your already complicated model a rotation of the universe around itself (or around something)?
sympathetic:
I completely agree with your claim that for now it's just a story.
As I said - I'm trying to find formulas that can give predictions but I don't have anything concrete at the moment (there are a few things but I still need to check them and I don't devote the necessary time to the matter - also because I'm not sure it's worth the effort).
This story has a certain advantage over the usual dark mass story because it also includes the dark energy story (Ockham would have liked it better).
In relation to all mass being made up of particles - here - as I said before, I do not agree that energy also has an effective mass and when I said this for the first time I gave two examples:
One example is a charged spring - such a spring has thermal energy and mainly electromagnetic energy that give it a mass beyond the one it has when it is not charged and they do this without adding particles.
The second example is the proton, if you add up the masses of the quarks that make it up, you will get much less than the mass of the proton, because the mass of the proton also includes energy such as the electromagnetic repulsion energy between two "up" quarks
Michael,
You suggest a connection between dark energy and dark mass. Without equations and predictions it is a story.
The story you offer is a mass that is not linked to the particles, it is a radical claim the whole mass
The universe is bound to particles. The mass of the particles can be changed by merging them in the nucleus or
In an atom, it is still a mass of particles. Today the atomistic theory is accepted and it is
Tested in thousands of experiments. For us to abandon the particle theory you have to come up with a predication.
Otherwise according to Occam's Razor your story is more complex than the undiscovered dark matter theory.
In addition, logically, it gives the impression that your theory is fine, even though I think it has holes in it
The formation of the structures in the universe, for example the formation of galaxies. Dark mass is more likely to create fluctuations
which will be nucleation centers for galaxies rather than dark energy which just happens to be dense enough
becomes attractive in other cases it simply stretches the time space. Dark energy is matter
The only one in the universe that has negative pressure.
In the bottom line, no predation or proposal for an experiment to test your theory or no calculation
Somehow, the theory is a story that is less superior than the dominant example, i.e. dark matter
(An opinion that, as you know, is not acceptable to me, but nevertheless has some confirmation).
Here, Israel - there are even pictures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
Israel,
I did not give up on the discussion with you. Sorry for the slow response rate. Just during the day
I don't have time to answer and sometimes not even in the evening.
Back to discussion,
You are right, the uncertainty principle is a little deeper than measurements, although according to the interpretation
The leader of the quantum theory-interpretation Copenhagen can only talk about measurement results.
In terms of defining momentum and position, you are wrong: you can define together momentum and position only exactly
determined by the principle of non-admissions. By the way Bell and Aspect did not prove that there are no hidden variables
They showed that there can be no locally hidden variables. Bohm's theory is a theory of variables
Hidden things are not easy, but we will return to our eyes.
For your electron question, think about a wave that reaches a crack, what happens to it when it leaves the crack?
It dissipates, so trying to confine its location to the crack expanded its momentum in the direction of the crack.
The electron is a packet of waves and passing through the crack causes it to "scatter" in all directions.
Mathematically, a transform of the crack in the local space gives the distribution of the wavenumbers
k (which are proportional to momentum) in the wavenumber space.
The story is similar with your point. I hope I am clear enough in my answer. If you don't need to
wait until tomorrow evening
Israel:
Sharp, smooth, defined - and not realistic.
As soon as the particle passes through the slit it takes a new direction.
This is a fact that is seen in the experiment.
Will you say "reality is wrong"? Maybe, but it is still reality.
Yoel Moshe:
Gravity affects everyone. Also about the neutrino.
In any case, it seems that the neutrino problem that was thought to be faster than light has been solved because the organizers of the experiment made a mistake in the calculation:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/special-relativity-may-answer-faster-than-light-neutrino-mystery-1910112/
R.H.
Equilibrium points?
I'll show them to you when you find me some in the Earth's atmosphere!
I'll show you some when you show me that the background temperature of the universe is exactly the same at every point in it after 13.7 billion years.
Exploding stars, non-stop activity of nuclear reactions in the stars and you expect equality?
abandoned
Continue with the good dark mass
I just insist and what I do is "resist fiercely and wave my hands to the dark mass"
Good thing
Good night R.H.
Now of course it is better to continue watching the game Maccabi Tel Aviv - Bnei Yehuda
Bye
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Israel,
"During the photon's journey, its momentum is constant and does not change, and depends only on the precisely predetermined wavelength."
How is it technically possible for you to produce (or measure) an accurate wavelength due to all kinds of natural extensions and constraints of the instrument itself.
"You will say: There is no completely accurate wavelength. I will answer: it is accurate up to a certain number of digits after the decimal point"
The accuracies of lasers are usually one digit after the dot as far as I remember (0.1nm), not multiple digits.
Yehuda Svardamish,
First of all, thank you for telling me what to say and to whom.
Second thing, as much as I think about your model, I agree with Michael that what you are doing is fiercely opposing and waving your hands to the dark mass and you are calling and shouting, rightly of course, that it must be replaced. in what? In another dark mass :)). Unknown small particles that interact weakly with the visible matter, to me it looks like a lady in a mantle change.
Your only claim that it may be new is the transition of the dark mass according to the gas laws. And here I also agree with M.R. This raises countless questions. For example, what do you think will happen after equilibrium is reached? (assuming it hasn't been reached and your particles are still moving to the low pressure areas) Won't there be more gravity? Is it possible to calculate when such an equilibrium will be reached?
Are there areas in the universe where equilibrium has already been reached and they are free of gravitation? What would such an area look like?
Michael
It doesn't seem to me that Ehud is interested in being drawn into the discussion - we are the only ones left.
Because. with an electron - from the cathode to the anode. Sharp, smooth, defined.
With a photon in the system I described - from the laser to the point. same as above.
1. There is a dot in the middle.
2. The photon likes to pass through it.
3. When he passes through it, his position is defined. the point.
4. Its direction is known.
5. Its speed C.
6. Its momentum is known.
Where is the uncertainty? State the number (from 1 to 6 above) that may have uncertainty.
Michael - thanks for the explanation. So when we say 'the speed of light' we are, as it were, going over the Gaudite path of light with a 'distance meter' and measuring it. Accordingly, there can be light that came out from a certain source at the same time and will arrive at a certain point at different times because the different beams took different paths.
If so, and if it is true that gravity affects light and does not [at all or much less] affect natrino, then their space is different and therefore the natrino's trajectory is more 'straighter' than light's and it will overtake it. is it true?
R.H.
Tell him that you can think of such a gas, for example nitrite gas. Imagine that in one place in the universe there is a concentration of neutrinos and in another place a million light years away a sparse concentration, according to the laws of gases, the neutrinos will flow from the dense side to the sparse side and, of course, push the atoms of a galaxy that happens to be in their way.
A black night enveloped the land
will the sun ever rise
Will the darkness fade???
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yoel Moshe:
The light beam will travel different distances each time.
This is due to the curvature of space (whether as a result of changes in space over time or as a result of the existence of several suitable routes to begin with.
To get the feeling of the effect of the curvature of space - think for a moment about a world that is the surface of a sphere.
In such a world, there are usually two "straight" paths (actually - in bare space we don't talk about straight paths, but geodetic paths) between two points - two paths that together form a large circle on the surface of the globe (only usually if we are dealing with antipodes - i.e. points that the straight line connecting them passes through the center of the sphere - there are an infinite number of geodesic paths between them - but they are all the same length).
As I already hinted - you don't have to move the factor that creates the curvature in space - many times you can notice the phenomenon - simply because the light really comes in two different ways (or even more).
You can find more explanations and photo examples here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing
R.H.:
I hope you understood Yehuda's twists and turns.
It's not the particles of the simple universe but still they hit every atom and every proton. Beautiful! No? Have you heard of such interstellar gas? of course not. It was invented just for this twist!
I hope you do know that spirit is spirit is spirit and it doesn't matter if its particles are molecules, atoms or neutrons (or quarks! Ha ha! We need to compose the song "The Lone Quark" now).
And I hope you saw that Yehuda still ignores the issue of acceleration which completely crushes his argument as if the speed will eventually be achieved after many years.
I'm just asking because I don't know the material. If I can get an answer for a curious amateur like me I would appreciate it. If the speed of light is an absolute 'constant' in nature, and if speed = passing a certain 'path' in a certain 'time', and if light is affected in its path, it is burdensome. So what is meant by the 'speed of light'. I will explain the question: What is the 'path' that the light traveled and which we must measure if the light arrived from point to point in different routes? That is, the distance from point to point is an existing reality and is if we send a ray of light from point to point once when there is a significant gravitational field in its path and once when they are removed [this is difficult to remove, I know, but let's say that this is a thought experiment] then did the speed of light change in both events? If the answer is no because indeed the light will arrive with time gaps between the two cases because the path has also changed due to the change in trajectory, then if light is affected by gravity and we are not, then their path is different and therefore also the transit time even though they move at the same speed.
And thanks to whoever will take my question seriously and explain.
R.H.
Our friend Mick is wrong
You will understand that the spirit of the particles operates at the level of the atoms or even the quarks and therefore the shape of the bodies in the macro is of no importance.
And regarding the specific gravity and the claim that the movement will be different in bodies with different specific gravity then again, in the end every proton and every neutron receives the same push from the "wind" and after a million years all the protons and neutrons will move at the same speed and it doesn't matter if they belong to bodies with a high specific gravity or low
But from will continue to claim that I am wrong and misleading
It seems to me that once He will understand, although I'm not sure he will admit it
Not bad, I will continue to like him (sometimes) and it makes the comments on the site more interesting
A gloomy and dark day today, but one more time the sun will rise and all that is dark will disappear
(:))
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
R.H:
I have already gone through all the points you raise (and other points) with Yehuda in previous discussions.
I explained to him that different bodies are affected differently by the drag of the wind because the drag depends on their shape and the persistence depends on their closure (among other things - even balls with different specific gravity will behave differently.
He told me that over time they will get the speed of the wind.
I told him that this is not true because here it is a circular movement (=accelerated) and he ignored it (apparently he doesn't understand).
I explained to him that there is no mechanism that creates and maintains the difference in gas pressure.
He ignored.
I told him many other things.
I don't think logic is the right tool for this discussion.
Israel:
It is true - since there are people who find it difficult to deal with a substantive discussion and tend to attack me personally - responses containing my name are inhibited for the purpose of a person check and confirmation that this is part of a discussion and not a hateful response.
As I explained - there are words that cause a delay, but you were previously in a special status where even responses that did not contain my name were delayed and since I saw that recently you only sent substantive responses - I released you from this status.
Still - certain words create a delay - for you as for everyone else.
I will leave the debate on the uncertainty principle in the hands of Ehud's beliefs for the time being.
I'm just saying that I mentioned the possibility that you accept the uncertainty principle precisely because of the sentence you quoted in Ehud's ears, so I still don't understand what you want.
At first I understood what you wanted (or at least \I thought so) because you mentioned that you manage to measure position and momentum at the same time and I showed you that this is not true.
Then you started to entertain yourself in directions that I probably still didn't understand (because the same sentence you quoted to Ehud contains the answers to all the questions I could think you might be asking)
In your last response you are talking about an electron and not a photon, but this does not actually change the fact that in this response it becomes clear that you are not aware that speed and momentum are vectors with a direction and as soon as the direction is unknown - neither the speed nor the momentum are known.
If you try to discover the photon/electron through some kind of experiment (like placing a photographic plate) - you again do an experiment and again collapse the wave function and lose information about the austerity (and usually lose the photon at all)
Guy and man
Suskind - I love him.
I even almost went to Stansford to see his lecture on strings. Maybe he will come to us this year at UCLA. But let's not open a new front. We had enough fun anyway.
It seems to me that the uncertainty principle is a little deeper than the matter of measurements. It actually forbids momentum and position to be defined together, regardless of how accurate our measurement is.
A rifle bullet, for example, with a velocity V that passes through a target has a defined (classical) momentum and velocity at the moment of impact.
But an electron that passed through a crack one molecule thick, because the crack's position is defined, and we can even slice the molecule into even smaller slices, its momentum becomes less and less defined. Otherwise we would get "hidden variables", which Shabelle and Aspa proved do not exist.
So my question is this:
1. Let's take an electron whose speed is 0.9C
2. At point A, a crack for example, through which the electron passes, the position is almost completely defined.
3. It is implied that momentum is almost undefined.
4. Momentum of an electron is its mass twice its speed - both are known.
5. It implies that at point A we know both the position (point A) and the momentum (0.9C times the mass of the electron).
6. This has nothing to do with the increase in electron mass due to relativistic effects.
7. Where is the uncertainty?
Unless, as I mentioned, 0.9C is not exactly 0.9C, but a composition of probabilities, or zebras, and the electron actually "pulses" within its wave function.
8. Another option - there is something I don't know or understand - waiting for Ehud.
9. With a photon it is even more serious - because its speed is always C.
Does the photon also "pulsate"?
??
?
By the way, the link that Guy brought is a link to just one of a series of excellent lectures by Susskind on modern physics and the standard model.
Israel,
From what I understand, although the logic of classical physics says that we always (by inventing better equipment)
We can produce a photon with a more accurate momentum, in quantum mechanics the accuracy is finite. (since it is quantized).
When you say that you produce a photon with a certain momentum, how do you know that this is the photon you produced?
You have to measure it.
The problem is that the uncertainty principle is hidden in the measurement processes.
Israel:
I found a lecture by Leonard Susskind, which he begins by explaining a question similar to yours:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KokditqpAJg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
sympathetic
I'm not trying to build a leading brand, although as a kid I tried a lot. I didn't really succeed.
On 14.21 I wrote: "And there is another possibility: the principle of uncertainty is alive and well, and the photon does exist in many places - a sort of superposition of photons that let's call them many "virtuals", which converges to one point through the detector (the rangefinder). See Tori Furia's entry.
And another possibility: I don't quite know what I'm talking about. sympathetic?"
Regarding that I believe almost everything you said, including your intervention in the discussion with Michal (explicit invitation, it is my honor).
I just want to make sure I understand what you mean on the physical level:
The "naive" image that we laymen have about a photon is not correct. This is not a "gun bullet" that leaves the barrel and flies to its target at a constant speed, that of light. Such a bullet (of a rifle) can be placed at any given moment, and assuming that its speed is constant, its momentum is also constant (even though it is enormous in quantum terms).
Our photon is a bit different, and in fact is not exactly located in a certain place at a given time. The only constant thing with him throughout the trip is only the momentum (assuming there is nothing that will cause the momentum to change).
did I understand correctly?
Thanks.
R.H.
Indeed it is about two things
A. Le Sage, gravitation and his particles
B. The inexplicable movement of the galaxies.
Let's start with La Sage
We will take a metal tin that is mm thick and ten cm in diameter.
Indeed you are right, and according to Le Sage this tin will weigh more when it is placed on the scales parallel to the ground than when it is placed perpendicular to the ground. Another example: two bins placed on top of each other will weigh less than the sum of the weights of each of them separately.
I once calculated and came up with a millionth of a gram difference and I already went to look for accurate scales but then I discovered a mistake and the difference is smaller. Galileo could not see this in the crude experiment he conducted.
And about the galaxies. It's not about gravity, it's about winds that flow through space like any gas and move everything.
My lecture will not discuss La Sage.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yuval Chaikin
We are working to put the association's lectures on YouTube, but we are just at the beginning. I hope the transfer of my lecture will be successful. Regarding the article for information, they will apparently not agree, and I don't even ask. If they want?, let them contact me.
Even a fictional story I wrote they don't want to publish so as not to hurt the souls of our young scientists.
That's what it is!
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel,
I hope you will allow me to intervene. I don't intend to get into an argument, but before I express my opinion I will tell you that at the time the Academy of Sciences in France received so many proposals to build a leading portetum that in order to save its people time
By finding the error in every idea, she simply declared that anyone wishing to propose a leading concept must also build a prototype.
Now for the discussion between you and Michael, the uncertainty principle is a mathematical principle, so it cannot be contradicted as simply as you suggest. What is the problem with your proposal? To talk about a certain location for the light, you have to take a packet of waves and place the light that way. A single photon is given by an exponent (for simplicity I will use cosine or sine) of the product of the wave number k
At position x, which means the sine of the product k*x, such a wave is found in all space and is not limited to any region. To place it, a collection of waves with slightly different wave numbers is needed, that is, a packet of waves. Just from a fertile transformation.
You see - I said the explicit name, I got "The response is awaiting confirmation."
Michael
The debate is about this: I am not saying "if you accept the uncertainty principle and say that if the accuracy in the wavelength is absolute then the photon is everywhere in the superposition" as you say, but: "the photon is everywhere in the universe".
And this is in contrast to the restrictive conditions of the "experiment".
Yehuda,
I did not understand your answer. Again I will ask, if gravitation is a gas pressure difference (that's what you claim, isn't it?) then wouldn't we expect that the shape of the body should affect its attraction just like the shape of the body affects its movement in the wind?
In addition, if you are talking about a "thin" wind that has been moving galaxies for millions of years, how is it that an apple falls from the tree? Is it about two gravitations? Newtonian and pressure difference?
R. H.,
In order for particles to push, they need to exert pressure and actually behave like a gas. This means that Sabdarmisch (or La Sage) particles have mass. Without going into the question of the correctness of this model, these particles do not solve the question of the origin of the mass in the world but only divert it to the question of the origin of the mass of the particles.
You have to find particles (or some other non-particle entity) that are inherently massless, and from them to build physics.
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
Since I am not in Israel, I will not be able to attend your lecture. If I could, I would come. I will have to settle for YouTube (if you upload it there), or even just read the things here or on any other site.
Successfully
R.H
You are also trying to bring La Sage into the picture, and we already said that it is possible to live without La Sage in the dark matter of mass and energy. See my response to Michael October 29, 2011 at 23:46 pm #
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda Svardamish,
In my understanding, according to your model where particles push large bodies, gravity should have behaved in an "aerodynamic" way. Want to say if you take a sail in a vacuum it will fall differently if it is perpendicular to the earth than horizontal to it. But this is not true and Galileo already proved it, didn't he?
Israel:
If you claim that you can violate the principle of uncertainty - you must point to the instrument that will do it so that you can answer the specific problem or be convinced that you are right.
If you accept the uncertainty principle and say that if the accuracy in the wavelength is absolute then the photon is everywhere in the superposition then there is no argument between us and I am not clear what we have been talking about so far.
In relation to the fact that your comments are not awaiting approval - for some reason - probably rooted in the comments you sent in the past - all your comments have been automatically delayed.
This is not usually the case but you must have done something to cause it.
Since I saw that your responses were relevant, I removed this restriction, so your responses are no longer delayed, except in cases where you use words that cause the response to be delayed.
If you shout "Judge Ben..." the automatic delay of your responses will be restored.
How come I didn't receive a message "The response is waiting for confirmation"? What, I passed a certain safety threshold, and they are not afraid that I will shout: the judge ben...he? Or is there some automatic mechanism here that pauses the responses? They don't tell me anything!
Maybe a code word? Maybe that's why all the experienced write "Mikael, or Mikael or Shatil Mekel?
In fact, no equipment is needed.
It is enough that, theoretically, a photon with a precise wavelength is possible. Let's say so. Therefore, , the uncertainty in its momentum is 0, and according to the formula basically the uncertainty in its position is infinite, and the photon can be at any point in the universe.
You will say: there is no absolutely accurate wavelength. I will answer: it is accurate up to a certain number of digits after the decimal point. We get: the inaccuracy in the photon's position is so-and-so kilometers.
Now I will reduce the size of the distance between the rangefinder and the point to a few centimeters, and we got a contradiction: after all, our basic premise was that the photon leaves the rangefinder, hits the point, and returns back to the rangefinder, where it blows its soul. So how can he be outside the boundaries of the experiment?
And there is another possibility: the principle of uncertainty is alive and well, and the photon does exist in many places - a kind of superposition of photons that let's call them many "virtuals", which converges to one point with the help of the detector (the rangefinder). See Tori Furia's entry.
And another possibility: I don't quite know what I'm talking about. sympathetic?
Israel:
I think you misunderstood what I said.
I was talking about the instrument itself (engineering structure) and not about what it is capable of doing (because what needs to be done is to show you that the instrument is not capable of doing what you claim it will do and it is impossible to show you that without knowing what the engineering structure of the instrument is).
It means:
1. How exactly do you send the photon.
2. How exactly do you know when it started (if you rely on this figure)
3. How do you make sure that the photon really reaches the instrument on the other side.
4. How is the engineering equipment on the other side constructed (how does it receive the photon, how does it return it to the equipment that transmitted it, etc.)
Beyond all this - this is not a gauntlet that I threw down to you because I said that I would not be able to present the calculations here on the website.
sympathetic:
It seems to me that the topic is in your field - maybe you will join the discussion?
ok michael I pick up the glove.
The laser sends a green wave photon with a length of exactly 532.456557654888765467898876543123 nm
possible?
sympathetic:
I found the place where the distribution was mentioned by Zvi:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/weizmann-scientists-help-to-build-a-method-to-find-dark-matter-1504119/#comment-290383
Israel:
No!
To answer in detail, of course, you need an accurate description of the equipment involved, and even then it will not be possible to present all the calculations here, but all scenarios that violate the uncertainty principle will fail.
You try to claim no but you base your words on nothing.
Michael or Aryeh
We will take a laser rangefinder. He sends a monochromatic photon to a certain point, say 15 km away, and measures the time it takes to return. A simple calculation shows him the distance to the point.
During the photon's journey, its momentum is constant and does not change, and depends only on the precisely predetermined wavelength. Therefore uncertainty in momentum is 0. We would expect infinite uncertainty in its position, and in fact, according to the formula in the uncertainty principle, the photon can be anywhere in the universe. In practice, we know at any given moment exactly where the photon is at any given moment - otherwise the rangefinder would not be able to give an accurate result.
Isn't this Einstein's revenge from the grave? The same "hidden variables" he talked about in Paradox APR?
And by the way, at Kibbutz Barfat they didn't call it the APR paradox, but the APR paradox.
Yehuda:
The mention of the blasphemy is intended to prevent what seems to be getting more and more excited about me, partly in light of the comparison to the repentant (which is already on the border of blasphemy and it is not clear on which side of the border) and in light of the sentence "I am careful to choose my words, but I am fed up!"
I was worried that because you were fed up you would stop being careful.
It has happened before.
I will not enter here into another debate about your dark mass or the patently unfounded theory of pressure differences and winds rotating by themselves for no reason.
I have already devoted much more to the topic than it deserves.
sympathetic:
I would not rush to conclude the order of events.
Just as we talk about primordial black holes - those that were created at the time of the big bang - we can talk about compressed areas of space that were created - either around them or by themselves.
It is even possible that a primordial black hole was created that is all compressed space.
I have seen the different models for the dark mass distribution (there are more than one).
Think for yourself what is necessary for the speed of the stars in each radius to be constant and you will get one divided by the square of the distance.
I remember that Zvi also mentioned this distribution.
deer - If you are still with us - please confirm or deny.
to the authority
I don't understand why you insist on mixing the dark mass with the idea of pushing gravity
I have no problem with gravitation according to Newton continuing. After all, Newton is only able to explain a few percent of the problem, and we are still left with 95 percent of the problem.
I claim that if I have a way that will solve 95 percent of the problem, it can also solve the whole hundred percent. There is no benefit in keeping the remaining 5 percent. You insist on keeping Newton?, so be it. The idea of pressure difference is not related to whether Newtonian gravitation exists or not.
And by the way, the idea of pressure difference is almost not about friction as much as a leaf moving at the speed of the wind blowing in the area.
In the idea of the pressure difference, the strength of the wind can be extremely "thin" because after millions of years it will also be able to move galaxies.
Even in the rotation of the galaxies, you move according to the rotating wind and again there is no friction.
The problem of friction according to Le Sage is in rotation at small radii of the solar system. If there is no explanation then La Sage will not work. But Le Sage and the simple universe explain gravitation so well that it's really worth making an effort to see if there is an explanation for friction.
But if there is none, we will continue with the good old Newton.
In conclusion: on La Saz I will continue to think about how to overcome the friction. There is nothing to think about the pressure difference.
So why do you say I'm going to insult you? After all, I even almost love you (sometimes)!
Besides, were you at the demonstration? How was it, did you enjoy it? It seems to me that there was nothing.
Have a good week Mike!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael,
Yes, you are right, the distribution is denser in the center, although it is not clear to me how the dark mass loses its energy to gather in the center. In addition, only when you look at the movement of stars at the edge of the galaxies do you discover the anomaly, so the mass in the center should be quite similar to the baryonic mass. By the way, the distribution is not exactly like one part of the radius squared, but the mass density goes like one part of the radius at small distances. Check out the entry:
The Navarro–Frenk–White profile to see what a typical distribution is assumed.
Back to your theory first it is easy to notice if on average the dark mass distribution goes like the curvature.
The claim about fluctuations and not uniform density is negligible in the leading orders. Although according to your theory, a lot of dark mass will accumulate around black holes, but the density of holes and holes in galaxies is low. It seems to me that the models today are talking about one black hole in the center of the galaxy, and in any case its mass is not even a small percentage of the dark matter.
In addition, your theory has implications for how the galaxies were formed, it basically assumes that initially the galaxies were formed from baryonic matter and only later when the curvature was high did the dark mass "arrive" (created). As far as I know again with limited liability this is not the model of galaxy formation which assumes that galaxies formed around dark matter nucleation centers.
Zhuzhou:
Indeed - everyone who knows the theory of relativity thinks about this idea at some point, but he usually dismisses it quite quickly because if this were the case, there would be no possibility for the dark mass to remain concentrated in certain areas - it would have to be dispersed everywhere.
Look for references to the term Hot dark matter here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Wonder... when you accelerate protons at CERN very quickly you get to bring the protons to their final velocity. The giant accelerator actually increases the mass of the protons by 7,000 times their original mass (as a known relativistic phenomenon). It is interesting if the velocities eye can explain the issue of the 'lack' of mass or by its other name - dark mass. After all, this mass/velocity/energy was but...
I would not be surprised with the consideration given to this point, but I did not encounter it.
And you?
sympathetic:
You are obviously wrong.
After all, the whole story is that the stars inside the galaxy rotate faster than expected and a dark mass outside the galaxy cannot cause this.
More than that - as I have already mentioned - the distribution of velocities in the galaxy indicates a distribution of dark mass whose density is on the order of one part of the square of the distance from the center of the galaxy (that is, a density that fades quite quickly as you move away from the center).
There may be a lot more dark mass outside the galaxy, but this - as mentioned - does not affect the behavior inside the galaxy but the behavior between the galaxies.
Yehuda:
I am not wrong and I am not misleading - not even a little.
Le Sage's particles met all the requirements of the dark mass and the fact that the term was invented later is irrelevant.
It is clear to me that you will never admit to this and I am already preparing for the insults that I will surely receive from you again, but you acknowledge the existence of a mass that fulfills all the properties that are why you claim that you do not recognize the dark mass.
What you are not familiar with is precisely the Newtonian gravitation or that of the theory of relativity.
I do not define your caution as a lack of knowledge because your "caution" is expressed in an attempt to sell the public a theory that has been disproved. It is not about knowledge.
The lack of knowledge is expressed in other things as I mentioned.
I enjoyed reading the long discussion here in the comments and that's what reminded me of the generator topic
I wrote a response awaiting approval with a link to a professional discussion on the generator
It would be wonderful to receive coverage from an Israeli expert in Hebrew on the fascinating discussions there
Thank you Ehud.
I read a lot about it on English websites.
Regarding the generator in my first response, two well-known physicists from Sweden who were in one of the experiments ruled out that it was a chemical event
The energy drop is too great.
The generator is indeed coated with lead. One of the side effects of this "cold fusion" is turning 30% of nickel powder into copper
If you are an expert, I am sure you will understand the professional information better than I do
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
I just think that some kind of review (even a very careful one) should be published in Hebrew.
There is a situation for a Nobel Prize here
Wolf,
Thanks for the link it justifies my argument. First it was said that there is excess energy being released, if such a claim I have no problem. The second claim is that the excess energy originates from a nuclear fusion reaction. All those in the article who claimed that it was nuclear energy were not educated in nuclear physics. The only physicist with an education in nuclear physics Richard Garvin claimed as I said that this is complete nonsense. The visit to the laboratory in Israel also proved that it was not a nuclear reaction, the laboratory did not have any shielding against nuclear radiation. In the process of nuclear fusion, massive radiation is emitted, so if the researchers' claims were true, they should have already died from the radiation. There is indeed an interesting chemical effect in the experiments, but it is not cold fusion that will change the energy balance in the world.
sympathetic
Did you get to watch the 60 Minutes investigation on cold fusion?
The American Physical Society recommends to the program an expert who will test the results of cold fusion in a laboratory in Israel.
Hear his conclusions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OabYImeDSc&t=7m12s
Wolf,
Cold fusion is complete nonsense, forget trying to revive it. A little knowledge of nuclear physics teaches us that in all the experiments that were carried out and gave energy, nuclear fusion did not take place. The likely explanation is that it was a mistake by the experimenters to estimate the balance of energy invested versus released.
Michael,
As I warned at the beginning I am not an authority in the field but I think that although your model is entertaining it falls short
In the necessary requirement for a physical model, i.e. the adaptation to reality.
According to your model high curvature turns dark energy into dark mass. When you look at the distribution of dark mass in galaxies, I think it is concentrated in the circumference of the galaxy and not in its center (I have not checked this point as much as possible and I am wrong), on the other hand, the gravitational force far from the distance of the galaxy is very weak. That is, far from the center of Gaxia, the curvature is low, but the dark mass concentration is high, contrary to the basic prediction of your model.
When will an article on the cold fusion generator come out?
Produced 450 kilowatts unplugged
This is one of the hottest topics in recent months
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success
Michal
You remind me of the converts who try hard to convince you that you believe in God.
So let it be clear to you that Sage and his particles were in the 18th century
And the dark mass was in the twentieth century. Why did they invent it if it is like that of La Sage???
Have you suddenly taken ownership of La Sage particles?
You are wrong and misleading in a big way
Do you define my caution as lack of knowledge?
Be careful to choose my words, but fed up!
I don't feel like arguing about it.
My father asked me not to start an argument about the simple universe and I respect his wish
So please don't renew
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
Absolutely not true!
The particles of the simple universe affect the Earth (and every body) as a function of its mass.
In other words - they go all the way through it and even beyond it without any problem and have very little interaction with it.
In other words - they hardly have any interaction with the material.
It is also a fact that no one found them.
By the way - the neutrino particles were also once proposed as candidates for the role of the dark mass - in contrast to your particles - these are particles that have been found and have the same properties that are attributed to the dark mass, only that their quantity (and perhaps also their speed) is not suitable.
Aren't you looking for easy solutions?
Allow me to challenge that.
You are trying to sell it despite all the refutations - and there are a lot of refutations.
You finally started to address friction (which is just one of the problems) but you don't bother to acquire the minimal knowledge base that will allow you to deal with the problem (and discover that the solution is that the model is impossible)
Dear m*hal
My simple universe particles or Le Sage's particles are not completely dark mass particles!!!!
where did you find it??
The particles of Le Sage and mine are Newtonian particles that have mass, momentum, kinetic energy and all the properties of interaction with the baryonic matter in complete contrast to the dark mass particles that were created only for the purpose of filling the missing gravitation in galaxies and the universe.
And why do you keep repeating that it has been proven that it does not exist. After all, the dark mass is also declared to have no friction? I can also claim that La Sage particles have no friction, but I do not do so and look for a more Newtonian solution!, and I will find, and as I said, first of all I will calculate the magnitude of the friction and secondly I will look for a solution. I'm not looking for easy "dark" solutions with dark energies from the void, what nonsense is that!
Dark mass lol
But why argue?
S. Semantics
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel:
And only when I read the rest of your comment did I notice the blocked comment.
I assume that right now - after the appearance of your last comment - there is no longer any point in releasing this blocked one.
Smileys are made by marking a colon and closing brackets in sequence.
It doesn't appear as a straight smiley while writing but only after you click "send comment"
Israel:
For some reason I only saw your comment just now.
You have no way of knowing with absolute certainty when a photon carrying a known energy was emitted.
When you talk about the "moment" when you turned on the flashlight in human terms, you're generally talking about something undefined (in the order of magnitude we're discussing) and if you're talking about the moment in the right order of magnitude, then, as mentioned, you have no way of knowing, and this, as mentioned, is because of the uncertainty principle .
You are actually trying to establish your ability to exceed the limitations of the uncertainty principle on the basis of the assumption that you have already violated it before - that is - the desired assumption.
Yehuda:
Not only do you recognize the existence of dark mass (the particles of the simple universe) and dark energy (the kinetic energy of the aforementioned particles), but you make every effort to convince others of their existence.
The point is that the existence of the dark mass and energy you are trying to sell has already been disproved.
for everyone
Apologies for not commenting on ideas, although interesting, regarding dark mass and energy transformations that I do not believe exist
But the right of M. publish them and hear the opinions of those who comment on them
this is how it should be
And of course don't forget the conference on Wednesday at 19:00 in Hamada
And for those who want my lecture on dark mass and energy on Thursday at 21:30 at the observatory in Givatayim
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic:
You quite understand me, but the connection between dark mass and thuggish mass does not have to be simple.
On the face of it, the first connection that comes to mind stems from the fact that the normal mass creates a gravitational environment that somewhat compresses the space around it with the dark energy in it in a way that creates - for the distant observer - a greater effective mass (the baryonic mass plus the effective mass of the compressed dark energy).
However, two things should be noted.
One is that it is definitely possible that not only the total mass determines here, but also the manner of its distribution in space has an effect.
The second is that the compression of space is also carried out by black holes and when you think about these - it is not clear what is the nature of the mass that makes them up.
Typo correction:
The previous comment should have read:
"From the observations we need to find some kind of connection between dark mass and rogue mass."
instead of what is written:
"From the observations, we need to find some kind of connection between a normal mass and a thuggish mass."
Michael,
I'll try to see if I understand you.
To describe the dynamics of galaxies you intend to use Newton's equations when the mass in the equations
consists of two types of mass: baryonic mass and dark mass which is actually effective gravitational energy.
Since the effective mass is a result of the gravitational mass that turns dark energy into mass
In your equations the total mass is the sum of the dead mass and the effective mass. When you write equations
For the movement of matter in the galaxy, the effective mass is a function of the baryonic mass. So the total mass becomes a function of the baryonic mass. In the dynamics of galaxies, the dark energy will not appear because it is clear from observations that it produces too little force to be noticed. Side note: when you want to describe the universe you will need the Einstein equation where part of the energy will be in the form of the cosmological constant or dark energy.
Let's go back to the galaxies. Today there is no logical connection between the amount of baryonic matter in the galaxy and the amount of dark matter. It follows from your theory that there should be such a relationship because the effective energy is a function of the amount of baryonic matter in the galaxy.
In other words, from the observations, you have to find some kind of connection between a normal mass and a rogue mass. I am not aware of such a connection or correlation. The only connection that is found and also related to cosmological phenomena is the acceleration constant that appears in MOND. So if you take your theory seriously it seems to me that you will have to somehow link it to MOND.
By the way, it is not clear to me how you want the normal conservation laws of mass to be preserved because they do not apply to the effective mass. The effective mass can be created or disappear (turn into energy) depending on the force of gravity in the local environment.
Michael
I know with absolute certainty - the photon came out as soon as I turned on the flashlight.
Yehuda
Don't know if La Sage is related, but must be an attraction.
Or maybe a push?
I'm a little ashamed of you. Yes, we are, but you, with all the goodness and gentleness of the day, do not observe Shabbat?
jubilee
Thanks for the translation. Or maybe Chen Chen is better?
Maybe you know, but Eliezer Ben Yehuda wanted to say "Thank you" to "Achanhan".
It seems to me that soon we will have to congratulate Gali. 200 comments!
She beamed with happiness when there were 100. Do you think she's still here? One of my comments was not approved. I'll try to sneak it in here:
Israel Shapira October 28, 2011 at 3:01 am #
Every word huh?
puns huh?
I saw in Gali's next article that Oprah's article is irrefutable.
It reminded me of someone I know. He is both stupid and upside down.
And how do you make a smiley here?
Thanks.
The response is awaiting approval.
To Israel
I don't remember exactly what happened there because it was a long time ago
But if you say her Sage has something to do with it too then so be it
(:))
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel:
Here you fall on another aspect of uncertainty - that of time and energy.
If you know exactly the frequency (which determines both the momentum and the energy) you cannot know exactly when the photon exited.
Hide, where have you been hiding until now?
Thanks for the answer, but I meant the photon. If a photon leaves point A at time T0, then during its entire flight towards point B it is possible to know exactly where it is (the speed of light times the elapsed time), and its momentum is constant and does not change during the entire journey.
But if you've already brought it up, I'm not entirely sure I understand about Electron either. After all, if its speed is 0.9C, why don't we know exactly the momentum and position during the journey? After all, all the data is in front of us!
And Yehuda - don't worry about friction.
Without it you would not have been born.
Israel:
I see that the puzzle of the "T.L.H." already answered
Regarding the photon - you did not specify exactly how the screen works, so I will answer what seems to me to be a general answer:
The uncertainty principle does not claim that it is impossible to accurately measure the position of a particle whose momentum is known, but only that the error multiplier in knowing the position and momentum at the same time is constant.
If the resolution of the screen will be high enough to locate the location of the impact precisely - the wavelength of the photon will change during the impact and we will not know what it is.
It turns out there is a family of stinging words. Not just one 🙁
1) Dimensional analysis
2) A mistake - never returns (Wikipedia)
is an expression that means that in the event of a mistake, the wrongdoer may retract his mistake. It is customary to put the grade 'TalH' or 'T.L.H.' In the margins of a price list, account sheet and similar business documents, to clarify that a mistake made in good faith will not bind the wrongdoer. This phrase has a contractual meaning, because presenting a price list or submitting an invoice are part of the steps involved in concluding a contract and its implementation, so a mistake could become binding without this reservation.
The phrase is a translation of an English phrase, used mainly in Great Britain and Ireland, Errors and Omissions Excepted which is written in the abbreviation E&OE. The translation is very similar to the Rambam's language in the laws of reading the Torah "if he made a mistake in it, he will never return". The phrase "ever returns" already appears in the Babylonian Talmud, regarding the laws of adultery.
3) According to my model the proton is a kind of wave
Israel
T.L.H. – A mistake never repeats. This is an expression that the speaker or the writer intends to say that it is possible that he is mistaken and that he will not be caught at the word. And as for the difficulty you mentioned before - I think you meant the electron (and not the photon) hitting the screen and causing luminescence; Be that as it may, the case you described involves the collapse of the wave function of the particle and it is clear that the parameters are revealed.
Israel
T.L.H = a mistake that repeats forever which means please forgive in advance if I was wrong or sorry if I was wrong.
At the time, electricity bills would come with the suffix TLH and there are many who even today add it.
When I did your calculation and saw that there might be a mistake in it but maybe I'm wrong. So instead of writing, forgive me if I was wrong, I wrote T.L.H
And a redeemer came to Zion
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
N. B. Now ask me what "came to Zion Goel" means? (:))
Gentlemen, it seems to me that you have confused the roles. It's my job to ask annoying little questions. Your job is to get angry and try to answer. But since you asked, I'll try to answer.
The first thing that is checked when raising a new hypothesis that involves formulas, and I don't know how to say it in Hebrew, is the matter of dimensional analysis. This is so that we don't get distance in seconds and time in kilograms. From this point of view, the "model" I put up is good.
The second thing is the order of magnitude. If the difference between the model and the observations is of the order of millions of percent, you should scroll further. In my case, with all the huge holdings of the constants I brought, a difference of a trillion percent could be quietly expected. 40 percent is reasonable, and will be explained later.
Yehuda. It seems to me that you are confused with de Broglie's wavelength. This is a wavelength that depends on the momentum of the proton when it is in motion, and can vary drastically from one proton to another. I'm talking about something else: I'm talking about the proton itself as a ("compressed") wave. You should be happy, because it fits your ether theory as an expanding gas.
Michael. It is not so simple to know what the exact size of a proton is, simply because there is no such thing. here from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_radius
The problem of defining a radius for the atomic nucleus is similar to the problem of atomic radius, in that neither atoms nor their nuclei have definite boundaries
The reason is the wavy nature of the elementary particles. This is also why I used the proton diameter approximation.
But I do not intend to defend my "model", simply because it does not exist. Just some calculations that turned out to be approximately good, as part of the crazy theories week. It has a much more serious problem: the quarks come out larger than the proton. So let's browse.
But as a punishment, maybe you can answer another question.
According to the uncertainty principle, we cannot know the momentum and position of an elementary particle. On the other hand, when a photon with a defined wavelength hits the screen, we know exactly its position and momentum. how does it work out
Yehuda, what is T.L.H. ?
Shabbat Shalom to everyone (she hasn't entered here yet).
sympathetic:
The matter of equations and predictions is clear to me and I also spend (very little) time trying to do something about it.
What you wrote about mass and energy is not completely clear to me because I was not talking about mass that becomes energy, but only about the fact that energy has an effective mass - that is - such that gravity acts on it.
The idea is to continue to maintain the mass/energy conservation law and only add to the model the dark energy that does not change and in certain contexts functions as mass.
Michael,
To become a physical model you have to write equations for it and give predictions through them as you know of course.
The equations containing non-gravitational mass/forces will not change and only the gravitation equations will change
. In Newton's and Einstein's equations, there will simply be no conservation of mass because mass can turn into energy.
In Newton's equations there will be two types of mass, non-gravitational mass and total mass thus
that the total mass is a function of the non-gravitational mass only (the baryonic mass)? in the equation
Einstein the change will be more complex because mass will turn into energy so the energy momentum tensor will change
At the expense of the cosmological constant? Here too the mass is not a constant of the Oriya when there are two types
A mass that is fixed and that is converted into dark energy?
To start and test the theory, you have to check how it behaves in borderline cases, that is, equations
Newton/Einstein when the result is the classical result ie the normal result (total mass
almost equal to a normal bully mass).
Besides, I think about the friction of Le Sage and mine trying to test its strength and find "extenuating circumstances" for guilt.
Before I know the magnitude of the friction I will not be able to answer.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel:
The size you calculated is about 40% higher than the size shown in Wikipedia.
To Israel
I checked your calculation and got that the proton's modulus is 1.32 times ten to the power of minus 15 and that means the proton's wavelength. It's not his diameter!
THL
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
If we start from the assumption that in a gaseous model of the universe the mass is a "compressed wave", then we can say that the equivalent of a pulse of sound inside a tube is mass.
Let's try it on the only known stable elementary particle whose mass and size we know - a proton (or neutron), and suppose it is such a wave.
In quantum theory: E = hf
λf = c The speed of light is equal to the frequency of the wave multiplied by its length
E=mc2 Einstein.
It turns out that λ = h/mc
If we see the proton as a wave, its diameter will be the formula above.
now:
proton mass = 1.67262158 × 10-27 kilograms
the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s
Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s
It turns out that the diameter of the proton is 1.2x 10^-15 meters.
I don't know if it means anything, but this is indeed the approximate diameter of the proton.
sympathetic:
I am aware that there must be a function in the model that describes the degree of resistance as a function of compression.
I wouldn't jump straight to the conclusion that it is a linear relationship as the spring constant implies, but there should be some kind of function.
For the model to work then Newton's laws must exist in the space regardless of its degree of compression and be violated only when it expands (and indeed - the laws are violated in the accelerated expansion).
I don't know if I answered everything you said because maybe I didn't understand a part.
Michael,
To begin with, your model requires at least one characteristic energy scaling to become a physical model.
This characteristic scale is what determines the resistance of the space to shrink, i.e. the "spring constant" in the mechanistic analogy. If I understood correctly this characteristic scale should appear both in the phenomena of dark mass and in the context of dark energy.
By the way, if I understand correctly without the information that this is the expansion of space, we will see in such an observation that there is a deviation from Newton's laws?
Chen Chen Israel.
Although a little secret but mostly long and boring.
And I'm in Glasgow, Scotland. Cheers to the internet! Brother to be known 🙂
Israel:
I don't know if it's actually a wave.
Gravitational potential energy and electric potential energy are not waves and I am not inclined to attribute a wave character to dark energy either.
Nor would I want to see this energy detached from space. I want to see it as a part of space so that in places where gravity is not strong enough - the space itself will spread (and not that the energy will "spread" in the existing space).
Regarding your words to Yehuda - the topic of friction came up already in our first conversation about it (in which, in fact, I quoted Feynman who said exactly the same things about La Sage).
The answer is simple: it doesn't work out.
Regarding the meetings - to the best of my knowledge - Yuval does not live in Israel either.
: )
Michael, I want to make sure I understand the gist of your idea.
What you mean is that gravity can actually compress the energy and make it more concentrated.
ZA, if according to the "Etherists" here, energy is actually waves in the ether (acceptable, since a wave, a photon for example, has no mass but has momentum), then does gravitation turn it into a "compressed wave"? And basically every mass is such a "compressed wave"?
Yehuda
I still don't understand how you and La Sage overcome the problem of the particles' friction with the planets. After all, if the friction is negligible, the "push" - and hence the attraction between bodies - is also negligible. So how does it work out?
I would join the meetings, but I'm in Los Angeles.
jubilee
Thanks for the compliments. I would like to hear more about your theory, but because of the secrecy of the secrecy of the security of the situation, we do not hear about it.
Good luck everyone,
Order of the Knights of the Rainbow.
By the way, if you say you enjoyed every word then that includes your own word.
That's probably why you don't remember.
From my own word? I don't remember the event at all. My mother says that the juice soaked me in wine.
jubilee:
Do you also enjoy the word "after"? 🙂
Our meetings here on the site are enough for me.
Israel! You write really well. I enjoyed every word.
Yehuda! Your idea is cool. I Would Like To Join.
For Yuval from *Khal Israel
And for everyone who knows
I had a great idea!
Let's start a club, maybe call it the "Rainbow Club" where only those who dare to write at least one interesting theory can be members. Of course the four of us are already friends.
Maybe we will also include Ehud and Guy? And maybe a few more?
The theory does not have to be correct, it is enough if it shows a healthy and original thought.
The rainbow will be the motto as an interesting theory!
We can also meet from time to time on issues close to our hearts.
So what do you think, my fellow theorists.
Just for the fun of creating
good evening!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Thank you too, Michael.
As mentioned, I am not expanding for now
Maybe they will use my idea too.
(Gacheshim, cafeteria in Tiberias, 67).
Let's say that Yehuda wakes up on a cloudy morning and sees a rainbow outside.
Since Yehuda is a scientist, he measures the distance to the arc, and finds it to be exactly 10,267 meters away.
He hurries to call his friend Yuval, who lives not far away, and tells him about the beautiful rainbow he saw.
"I saw the rainbow too" answers Yuval. "And I also measured the distance to her. It is exactly 10,267 meters from my house."
"Yuval, you are a little confused this morning," says Yehuda. "The rainbow is 10,267 m from my house, not yours!"
"You know, Yehuda," Yuval gets angry, "that I am known to everyone for my exact measurements. The mistake is yours and not mine!"
In their distress, the two bad guys turn to their friend Michael and tell him about the dilemma.
"You're both wrong!" Michael rejects. "I also measured the distance to the arch, and it is exactly 10,267 meters away from my house in general, not yours!"
The three of them meet, and it becomes clear to them that you can never reach the rainbow. You can't stand under it, and you can't cross it to the other side. Every surveyor - or every observer - on that gloomy morning, will always get the exact same result: the arc is at a distance of 10,267 m from the observer.
(And in a framed article - this is what really happens with a rainbow).
After discussion, the group summarizes the law of bows:
1. The distance of a rainbow, under the conditions of this overcast day, is 10,267 m.
2. This distance, although absolute, is by definition relative to the viewer.
The gang goes their separate ways, but Michael has a bit of a hard time with this strange conclusion, which is counterintuitive.
He calls Guy, the poet of the site (literally) to tell him about the strange phenomenon.
"Why are you waking me up" protested Guy, "I'm tired because I just came back from a trip in space. I was near Swan 17 in front of Andromeda. The wonderful spectrum of the radiation from the new supernova that Gali wrote about, inspires me to write my autumn poems."
"Listen, dude, what are you talking about?" Michael wonders. "Yesterday I was there, there is total darkness."
And then suddenly the picture turns to Michael.
The arc appeared to be at the same distance from all of them, as its viewers could only see certain reflections that corresponded to a distance of 10,267 m. The others were there too, including one meter away from the viewer, but the viewer cannot sense them or measure them. They are neutral about him.
And Michael could not see the spectacular colors that Guy spoke of because his spaceship was flying at a different speed than Guy's, and therefore because of the Doppler the colors were not visible, and in their place there was only darkness. The light, as far as Michael is concerned, cannot be measured, even though it is there just like Lagia. The light is therefore neutral.
And so it was decided to call the phenomenon Nitreino.
the example (Today is the day of the alternative theories, so I'm allowed too).
Let's assume that light travels at more than one speed. But due to certain reasons, an observer of light is only able to observe at a certain speed. In such a case, if observer B were moving at a different speed than observer A, he would still measure the same speed of light, just as all observers of a rainbow measure exactly the same distance to the rainbow.
This does not contradict Maxwell's equations, and it can explain what really happens with light. The "speed of light" is therefore relative to the viewer.
(I tried to roll out this idea a few months ago, even before some cheeky neutrino dared to exceed the speed of light. Michael almost put me on the spot. It's fine. no hard feelings).
We will return to the topic of our original article. If there are faster neutrinos than those that came from the supernova that Galli wrote about, then they really could have arrived months earlier, or hundreds of years, we just don't have the equipment to detect them.
This. Enough speculation for one night. Good night everyone.
To Yuval and others:
Basically, a theory is not tested according to its insanity or according to its flight (certainly not according to what is defined by a certain person as "flight") nor according to its compatibility with other theories that it replaces.
It is tested against reality and this is done through experiments and observations.
If it does not replace all existing knowledge, then as part of checking compatibility with reality it is possible to check if its predictions are in line with the predictions of confirmed theories that it does not replace.
Of course, before that (as part of the test of compatibility with reality) it is required to have internal consistency and even before that (to be entitled to the name "theory") it must be defined.
Thanks to Yehuda and Guy
jubilee:
Is that what you call flight? I would hardly call it Mama Chicken.
Although you have gone beyond the limits of physics, you remain within the limits of metaphysics (perhaps in the second paragraph you slightly crossed it, but immediately afterwards you came back again)
I agree with Yehuda's words (who, if I may be allowed to compliment him, went a word or two outside the boundaries of physics) with the following reservation:
He claimed that what is known from theory B has no meaning in theory A, but this is a mistake of the first order because here the assumption is that theory C does not group under it theory A and B together (this is on the assumption that you chose to be "crazy" and stay within the limits of logic) To say that theory D can also contradict theory B without contradicting theory C even if theory G derives from the basic assumptions.
Richard Feynman
for Jubilee
It seems to me that you are doing something that should not be done in that you attack the behavior of particles in theory A (Le Sage for example) according to what is known in theory B about particles (Newton, quantum or relativity, for example). But theory A doesn't care about theory B and asks you to attack theory A only from what is known about theory A. Knowledge from theory B has no meaning regarding theory A.
For example, you must not claim that La Sage particles are attracted to other La Sage particles according to Newton's gravitation because Newton's gravitation does not exist in La Sage's theory!
Other than that, good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To all my brothers and sisters with the "crazy" ideas,
So far I have not found much "craziness" in the ideas brought here and certainly not much flight. When you come to build physics, you are careful not to go beyond the limits of physics, and thus you will not get far.
The elementary particle or any other being we ask for does not know the known laws of physics. It has no mass, it has no energy, it does not recognize the speed limit of light and so on. If it is about particles that are in relative motion between them, then in the event of a collision, it will not be elastic, because there are no conservation laws in their world. These particles are created out of nothing and occupy the entire volume of space, and as they were created out of nothing, they also fade into nothingness and disappear. It is an entity devoid of physics, from which physics is built. not the other way around.
I estimate that dark matter is a physics-free entity, of the type I described. It is arranged in the universe in densities that vary from place to place. It builds particles and mass, and I will leave the method of construction as a thinking exercise for all who are interested.
Assuming that these are particles, it is possible to present bodies with mass as clusters of particles. Electromagnetic radiation, on the other hand, is not made up of particles but of the spaces between them, which can also be considered as particles, albeit with a certain difference. Thus it is also a medium for electromagnetic waves and gives photons their dual wave-particle character.
So far. I've given away more than enough secrets.
There is a difference between putting it up for examination and discussion and trying to sell (and more at any price).
You disagree with anyone who understands anything about physics, not just me, yet you continue to push the absurd ideas with all your might and simply ignore the evidence of their absurdity.
But I have no intention of getting into an endless debate about that either.
It seemed to me that I put my ideas up for discussion.
And yes, we disagree.
Maybe you're right and maybe you're not.
I wish you that your idea will rise and flourish
Successfully
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Everyone thinks of crazy ideas.
The question is, what do you do next?
There are those who put them up for examination and discussion and there are those who will fight for them even after they have been thoroughly refuted.
I thought I was the only one who thought of crazy ideas!
Welcome to the MichaL club!
Good night
(:))
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic:
I think you understand.
I only claim that the curvature is also accompanied by compression (as long as the gravitational energy prevails over the dark energy. As space is compressed, its resistance to compression increases until an equilibrium where the compression stops).
In the vicinity of a black hole, space should really be extremely compressed.
As a principle, to maintain a uniform speed of movement of the galaxy's stars (as is the case in most galaxies), a dark mass density of one part of the square of the radius is necessary.
This should, therefore, also be the function that describes the compression of space as a function of the distance from the system of black holes at the center of the galaxy and it is very reminiscent of the Newtonian gravitation formula.
Indeed, I do not define myself as an authority anymore...so I would be happy to discuss the idea.
The idea is indeed amusing (if I'm not mistaken (Camila Bezno also came up with a similar idea).
Before I respond I would like to be sure I understand the concept.
It is known from general relativity that mass causes the curvature of space. You claim that
This curvature is accompanied by the transfer of energy in the area of curvature. I mean you have
Church conception of space-time as an elastic sheet (consisting of tiny springs)
Stretching the sheet can cause the added energy to be inversely proportional to the mass.
did I understand correctly?
On the face of it, it seems to me that there is a problem of instability here. What happens for example in the vicinity of a hole
Black, is there a lot of dark mass there too?
Good.
I've held back until now because I was hoping to find an authority to talk to about the idea I'm toying with about the dark mass, but since I haven't found one so far, I'll tell you what it is about.
I will start by saying that it is absolutely not true that mass must be made up of particles.
A compressed spring is more massive than a non-compressed spring and the mass differences are essentially energy - thermal energy and electric potential energy.
In fact - even in the particles that make up the atom - most of the mass is not mass.
A proton consists of three quarks whose total mass is much smaller than the mass of the proton.
The rest of the proton's mass is essentially energy.
And now to the idea itself (in a superficial and rough way):
Just as space can expand - it can also be compressed.
Space itself has a dark energy that thins when it expands and concentrates when it compresses.
Gravitation also acts on the dark energy of space and when the gravitation in a certain region is large enough the space in that region can be compressed enough for the mass of the dark energy to function as dark mass.
I have no green idea if this is true but I find it amusing.
Ehud, with apologies for reacting to things that you must have invested a lot of time and thought into:
We attribute zero mass to photons, the particles that carry electromagnetic radiation. But even though they are massless, they create reactions attributed to mass. (To explain this, invented New term: "movement mass" as opposed to "rest mass"). Although this does not disprove your claim that there is no mass without particles, it shows that the connection between particles and mass is not a Catholic marriage.
jubilee,
You got right on the absurdity of the dark mass hypothesis.
If we assume the existence of dark mass, this means:
Perhaps it consists of a new type of particles that we have not yet discovered and exists
Also the possibility that you are talking about the existence of a mass that is not complex
particles
A mass that is not composed of particles seems to me at first like talking about
colorless red. On second thought why does the whole mass have to be
composed of particles? Well let's assume that we have a sequence like they once thought
The world can be described, a continuous substance that can be further divided
to infinity, what's the problem. First, infinities are not something that physics likes
But moreover matter interacts. Why are there atoms in the world?
And why do these prevent me from falling through the floor or the chair? Well today
We know that there are positive and negative charges in the world if the matter were
Continuous positive and negative charges could be found at any possible distance
And what would have prevented them from collapsing on each other? Possibly all electrical forces
were balancing but it was an unstable equilibrium. Well, but the dark mass
After all, it lacks an electric charge and therefore is not obliged to produce the atoms that are determined
by a characteristic distance between different charges. If the dark mass had an electric charge
It would interact with light contrary to our observations. so maybe
The dark mass has no charge, so it can be a continuum? Again not to the point
There are also other quantum charges in the nucleus, for example, which also has a length scale
There is no significance to the electric charge which is a marginal force, but still
The nucleus consists of particles with different charges. Hence the claim of mass
Without particles it is basically absurd and it is especially absurd to claim that it is
It was discovered thanks to the improvement in "the measuring means were not sophisticated enough".
After all, if this is a state of nature, why wasn't it discovered on Earth?
We are left with the hypothesis that this is a new type of particle that has not yet been discovered or maybe
A possibility that it is not a mass... to confirm the dark mass theory
You have to find the strange particles that make it up though
It is possible that they are only imaginary.
To Israel
I answered you on October 25, 2011 at 13:46 pm #
That is, according to my simple and gascom universe, gravitation at distances does not correspond to Newton-Le Sage.
But let's not get into that again, and I can live with Cal thinking (and maybe you too) that I'm wrong
In addition, take into account that La Saz also has a friction problem and it is the same as the simple universe
I just don't know how to calculate it and how significant it is
(:))
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Received, Michael.
The only thing is that the inertia itself cannot, in my opinion, be explained by a mechanism such as the Higgs. It makes a logical commitment, and does not need any mechanism.
Any mechanism that explains gravitation, including that of Le Sage, must include inertia. But not the other way around. I went over Dennis Shima's proof a bit. It includes considerations of inertia, so it is not bidirectional.
So the bottom line: a universe without gravitation is possible, but not without inertia.
Israelhttps://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-312084):
Many have already come up with the idea and they were all wrong.
By the way - one of the funniest things is to oppose a dark mass and accept Le Sage, which is nothing but a dark mass that works less well.
Israelhttps://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-312058)
It is not clear to me how your comment is relevant.
Le Sage tries to explain gravitation on the basis of inertia and therefore (by definition) it is legitimate to use considerations of inertia to understand the behavior of gravitation within the framework of this theory.
More than that! In order for her Sage to be well defined - the inertia must be completely defined in advance, therefore it is illegitimate within the discussion of this theory to try to define the inertia based on gravitation.
To Judah
Why change La Sage? What's wrong with the original? Just to justify electromagnetic waves in Gazkom?
And another question: if the universe is really full of "gazkom", this could perhaps partly explain the problem of inertia - the gazkom resists the movement of bodies through it like air resists a sail. (Although this only happens in acceleration and air resists even in non-accelerated movement, but we'll leave it at that).
But for the same reason it will also oppose the movement of the planets through it and slow them down, and it doesn't matter how thin the gascom is.
And to all opponents of the dark mass:
Le Sage's theory can perhaps shed light on the mystery.
The main reason from which the dark mass is deduced is the problem of the speed of stars far from the center of the galaxy.
According to Newton and Kepler, the speed of a planet's rotation around the sun decreases the farther it is from the sun. This is what Newton's theory of gravitation predicts, and this is what happens for example in our solar system.
In galaxies the situation is different. The speed of the stars far from the center of the galaxy is almost the same as the closer ones. Therefore, it seems as if there is a missing mass, and in order to justify the formulas, it was added "dark mass", whose amount can also be calculated without difficulty. All according to Newton's law of gravity.
According to Le Sage there is no pull, only push. Therefore if we reverse the formation, and decide that the suns do not attract but push - maybe we can solve the mystery?
Michael - it's just an idea, not a statement. I have no way of calculating.
On second thought, I checked on Google. Many have already come up with the idea. Here is just one:
http://metaresearch.org/publications/books/PushingG.asp
There are a few more.
Good night everyone. (Are you here at all? Hello?)
Michael
It seems a bit more complicated to me.
Our subject - Le Sage - is finding a mechanism, (in the case of Le Sage a mechanical mechanism), that will explain gravity.
Even in Sarn, with all due respect to neutrinos, the main target is still the Higgs particle, the source of mass from which inertia derives.
So let's say that Le Sage's theory was correct. And now we will remove the particles from the picture. What we got was a universe without gravity. Strange, but possible.
Now suppose they find the Higgs, and discover that it is indeed what gives bodies mass. Now we will take him out of the picture. Will we get a universe without inertia? What would happen if you shot a ball at the moon? Will he go to the speed of light immediately? Are there any laws that govern the universe without inertia?
and Jubilee
What do you think, is it possible that the reason the neutrino exceeded the speed of light by so little is that there might actually be faster neutrinos, but we just don't have the equipment to detect them?
sympathetic,
Why do I ask? Well: to date it has been found that the set of phenomena grouped under the name "mass" appears in the environment of particles. And here, suddenly, straight from the darkness, appear such phenomena that are not associated with any known particle.
When you insist that "mass is made up of particles", you fixate on the notion that it may be time to replace it with a new one.
I, on the other hand, assume that some entity responsible for the phenomena of the mass is responsible sometimes Also for the existence of known particles. The discovery of dark matter confirms my assumption. The reason why the existence of mass without particles only recently began to be noticed is that until now the means of measurement were not sophisticated enough.
jubilee,
As we know, every mass is associated with a particle. There is no such thing as mass without a particle. I don't understand what you are asking. At the basic level this is known as the atomistic theory of matter, but today we know about elementary particles that make up the atom.
sympathetic:
I don't agree with you but I'm tired.
Do you want to continue to claim that there is no dark mass?
Get rid of it!
You are also welcome to continue the locomotive.
I won't get involved anymore because it takes too much energy from me.
sympathetic
"As we know, mass is made up of particles": can you elaborate?
Michael,
We are finally getting together. You write
"Regarding the discovery of the dark mass - they did not discover particles, but all the findings indicate that they discovered mass.
As I said - there are planets outside the solar system whose existence is inferred from less evidence and no one has held a particle of them in their hands."
As you know, mass is made up of particles, so I have no problem with detecting mass when it comes to planets
In the usual and good thuggish mass. Even if they claimed that the dark mass consists of neutrinos, I would not have a problem with it, but the dark mass hypothesis claims that it is not a normal mass but a new, unknown substance
us. Since the predicted particle was not observed, i.e. no experiment was performed that could estimate what the mass of the particle that makes up the dark mass is, I see the dark mass as a hypothesis.. All particles to date have been discovered in experiments that made it possible to estimate their mass. That's why it is said that the Higgs has not yet been observed even though we have not held it in our hands and it took time for all the quarks to be discovered and no one has held them in our hands either.
I will try to explain myself with an example. Suppose we were to measure an absorption spectrum from a certain star which does not correspond to any existing element or molecule, would we even then announce the discovery of a new substance? Maybe so, but the smoking gun was his lab creation on Earth.
Israel:
It's interesting, but it seems to me that you are changing the creator.
The article may point to the equivalence of inertia and gravity, but this equivalence works in both directions.
Le Sage's theory tries to build gravitation on the basis of inertia and in such a case, it is completely legitimate to use inertia for the purpose of predicting the behavior of gravitation.
In any case - it is clear that this is not where La Sage's teaching comes from, and it is certainly not where Yehuda's attempt to claim that his "teaching" is different from La Sage's comes from.
Michael
You speak in pure physical logic. It seems to me that Yehuda is looking for an explanation that will be a little more intuitive. To show why his intuition is not completely false, I will try to roll out the following idea:
1. According to the law of conservation of momentum, to which you refer, the momentum of two bodies after a collision must be equal to that before it.
2. The source of the law of conservation of momentum is the inertia of the bodies.
3. It is possible to show, as Dennis Sciama saw, that the inertia originates from gravitation, from the main stream in every RmH and SSA. See http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm
Perhaps to save you from reading the article, I will present you a formula that I find amazing:
If:
G = Gravitational constant.
C = speed of light.
M = the estimated mass of the universe. (can be found on Wikipedia).
R = estimated radius of the universe. (same as above).
So: GM=RC^2 approx.
Amazing isn't it? And what is no less amazing is that if we use dimensional analysis, after all the reductions on both sides of the beacon, we are only left with:
F = MA
Newton's second law, the law of inertia.
4. Therefore, from a logical point of view, it is not possible to use the law of conservation of momentum, which originates from inertia, to contradict a theory that explains gravitation, which is the source of that inertia.
The meaning in the field, or rather in space, is this.
If there was no gravitation (the cause of which we are looking for), the moon and the earth could be a meter apart, without any attraction between them. It can still be understood and imagined.
What is more difficult to understand and imagine is that if there was no inertia, and the law of conservation of momentum did not exist, then in an elastic collision between a tennis ball and the ground, the final velocities of the two bodies would not be defined, and would not be proportional at all to the mass and initial speed of the two bodies.
And the inertia comes from gravity! And inverting formulas, gravitation originates from inertia. Indeed, Einstein's law of equivalence at its best.
And a few more words (it's hard for me to hold back). The "ball", "container", about which you spoke, remind me of the "thought experiment" I proposed. I read the reference you gave me to La Sage. It turns out that Le Sage was preceded by Patio, the real thinker of the theory. And here is a quote from the article:
At the end Fatio also removed the balls and only left the lines or the net. By making them "infinitely" smaller than their distance among themselves, thereby a maximum penetration capacity could be achieved.
And here is what I wrote to Judah in 20:19
"Bottom line, if we start from the assumption that the particles have a finite size, then the difference between La Sage and Newton is that with La Sage, a sufficiently dense network, which will not allow the particles to pass, has a large mass. With Newton, that network has only a negligible mass."
A bit similar, isn't it?
And yes, I understand the differences and subtleties, and no, I'm not trying to throw sand.
to Judah
I would gladly come to your lecture but I am not in Israel. Good luck.
Come on, let's run to Gali's next article. The company is trying once again to exceed the speed of light. Let's see if they succeed.
Yehuda:
But your analogy is incorrect because no one directed anything in the first place.
All that affects here is the same "pressure".
Just as there were particles that were supposed to hit the mass on which gravitation acts and they were deflected by a random collision - so there will also be particles that were not supposed to hit it and will hit it due to the deflection.
This is what the unchanging pressure promises!
Michal
I agree that there is no difference in the pressure acting on the wall of the container if the particles collide with each other or not.
I don't agree that it follows from this that gravity will have no effect.
Let's take pool balls moving on a pool table, there is no difference in the pressure acting on the sides of the table and if there are collisions or not.
but
If I direct one of the billiard balls towards one of the holes in the table in a precise way it will reach the hole and enter it only if it does not collide with another billiard ball on the way. Once it collides it will become random. His chance of becoming random depends on the length of the path he moves because then the chance of a collision increases and of course also depends on the density of the moving balls on the table.
Same with gravity according to the simple universe. As the distance increases, gravity disappears more than according to Newton
but…. Maybe I'm wrong
We will agree to disagree. Really not bad.
I go and come back only around midnight to the site
And by the way, maybe you could please convince my father to put the fictional story I wrote on the website.
"Just" a harmless fictional story that even "happened" in Turkey about 150 years ago
Good day to you and everyone
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel and Judah:
I'm making another small effort in this matter so that you, Yehuda, might understand.
The idea of Le Sage's theory is based on a pressure-like phenomenon exerted by the particles on the mass.
It is difficult to talk about the pressure acting on a certain point, so I suggest talking about a big ball inside which the mass that creates the "gravity" is.
Pressure on the walls of a container is, as is known, the accumulation of momentum changes of the particles hitting those walls per unit of time and per unit of area.
So let's see if this pressure changes as a result of the fact that the particles collide with each other.
Let's freeze for a moment the image of the dispersion of the particles in the sphere and assume (for the sake of simplicity - not that it is a principled thing, but it simplifies the explanation) that at that moment there is not a single pair of particles that is during a collision.
Now we will run the model forward until the first collision between two particles.
Since the total momentum of the particles involved in the collision must be preserved and the momentum of the particles that do not participate in it is not affected - the distribution of momentum inside the sphere will be preserved as it was in the fraction of a second before the collision, so it is clear that this collision will not have any effect on the pressure exerted on the walls of the sphere.
We'll move on to the next collision and again - it won't have any effect either.
And all in all - the collisions will not have any effect on the "pressure" acting on the sides of the sphere - and therefore neither on the force of gravity acting on the masses that are on the same sphere.
Since each mass is on some sphere around the point whose gravity we want to calculate and since the above is true for any sphere - there will be no change in "gravitation" at all.
To Israel
I have sent a message awaiting confirmation
The answer to your question is because of the original free path of the gas.
We hope that the answer will be confirmed and you will be able to see a full explanation
Bye and hope to see you at my lecture at the observatory in Givatayim on the subject of the dark mass
Thursday 3.11.2011 time 21:30
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Dear Israel Shapira
Because of the mean free path of the particle. In a normal gas - air, the mean free path is tiny, so the molecules collide with each other and become random. (contrary to the opinion of our friend Michael)
In order to do an experiment with gas after all, I planned an experiment with very thin gas so that the average free path increased, the problem was that I did not find a suitable facility in Israel. It seemed to me that I needed almost a billionth of the atmosphere. At the time, the late Prof. Yuval Naaman tried to help me with this experiment, and I even tried with Dr. Diana, in the comet research department at Tel Aviv University, but again I did not find a suitable tool. I tried several other places and gave up .
You have to understand that I also don't want to bother too many people and finally La Sage and my simple universe will not "cooperate" for the success of the experiment
Now I have planned another experiment that does not require a high void. You just need to find the time to edit it.
(:)).
Yom Tov Israel
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Here is a good explanation of dark matter:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/10/the_status_of_dark_matter.php
sympathetic:
I don't want to dig further into the matter.
Doubts are always there and needless to say.
When Einstein said that God does not play dice, he did not bring it as a reason in an argument but as a summary of his opinion.
How many times do you think he said that?
I think that everything you have said on the subject of dark matter you have said far more times than Einstein repeated that sentence.
Besides - even if Einstein had steamed (and I don't think he did) his steam would not have promoted science or the public's understanding of science.
Regarding the discovery of the dark mass - they did not discover particles, but all the findings indicate that they discovered mass.
As I said - there are planets outside the solar system whose existence is deduced from less evidence and no one has held a particle of them either.
Michael, details.
I didn't say that Sage was talking about neutrinos. I said, "Neutrino is able to travel many millions of kilometers of matter without interference. So what's the problem with La Sage particles going through a few lousy suns?"
There is a clear distinction here between "neutrinos" and "La Sage particles".
And I didn't say that my model is fully La Sage. I deliberately exaggerated all the data, to show the difference from Newton. I believe I have succeeded in showing the theoretical difference, although practically no contradiction is warranted.
If you have more strength and desire, I will explain.
The link you sent me does not have the La Sage formulas. Do you have any idea where to get them?
By the way, did you notice that EPR Einstein was wrong twice? The first time when he said that no phenomenon can travel faster than light, and the second time when he said that such a transition, if it exists, contradicts relativity.
To Judah:
I don't understand you. If as you write: according to Le Sage, the particles move in space without any interference in their movement from other moving particles, their only damage is to bodies that stand in their way.
The second case I advocate is like the first case of Le Sage but in addition, the particles hit each other on their way to bodies that stand in their way (which is actually the real case).
After all, according to your words, in the second case we received normal gas. So why is there no attraction between two sheets of paper that are slightly apart?
Thanks.
Good thing, no big disaster happened, we can sometimes disagree.
Mainly in light of the fact that we have agreed on many things recently
(:))
Good night from
Good night everyone
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael,
Don't get carried away. What I am saying is very simple and you go round and round. Particles are discovered and when a particle is discovered, its mass is estimated with high accuracy. No particle was discovered without an estimate of its mass. And now please answer me
What is the mass of the particles that make up dark matter? If you don't know and scientists don't know either, then it has not been proven that it is a particle. Very simple!
As for Einstein, if we are already dealing with history... the proposal of the EPR experiment is relatively late. Einstein made many reservations about quantum theory before proposing, together with Rosen and Podolsky, their famous thought experiment. Do I need to remind you of the saying (which is not so beloved of you) "God does not play dice". This is about Einstein's gut feeling about how nature should behave. Is he just a carer?
If there is always room for doubts why did you write "the doubts expressed here all stem from invalid reasons". My goal in this tiring debate is to show you that there is room for reasonable doubt about dark matter until the particle is found, that is, its mass is at least estimated through an experiment.
Yehuda:
Why are you repeating yourself?
Yes!
I claim that in terms of the gravitational effect created there is no difference and I also explained why.
By responding here again, are you trying to make the readers forget the fact that I pointed exactly to the place where I explained to you why there is no difference?
From * Khal
Nevertheless, these are two different cases of Le Sage. In the first case advocated by Le Sage himself, the particles move in space without any interference in their movement from other moving particles, their only damage is to bodies that stand in their way.
The second case I advocate is like the first case of Le Sage, but in addition, the particles hit each other on their way to bodies that stand in their way (which is actually the real case)
Are you saying that the two cases are the same?, that there can be no interference in receiving the gravitation in the second case.
I claim that in the second case (mine - the simple universe) the resulting gravitation will be smaller than the first case
of Le Sage and therefore smaller than gravitation according to Newton.
The magnitude of the difference depends on the mean free path of the particles.
But maybe I'm wrong?
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I completely understood your explanation and I showed in the response in the article where you argued for this decline of gravity - what was wrong with your calculations.
I explained it in this response: https://www.hayadan.org.il/sevdermish-on-gravitayion-part-2-1505078/#comment-128974
(Those interested in anthropology are encouraged to read the entire discussion between me and Yehuda in the same thread. It's simply amazing!)
Too bad you don't understand.
It is also a shame that you are not honest enough to admit that you received an explanation for Israel's question (even though your previous responses indicate that you did not understand why Israel did not understand my words and did not agree with you) and you call him for a personal conversation even though all the explanations were provided.
Israel:
Le Sage's model talks about certain particles but does not talk about neutrinos (which were not even known in Le Sage's time).
Your model does not show the difference between Le Sage and Newton but only the difference between your model and Le Sage and Newton.
Read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
sympathetic:
I don't have the strength to go back to this nonsense.
You say they didn't find a dark mass particle and when I say they didn't find a single particle you say that on the one hand it's trivial (that is - so true that it doesn't need to be mentioned) and on the other hand that it's irrelevant.
come on!
Then you offer to "examine the tribal claim" and try to hold our eyes on irrelevant stories of history.
After all, you have already admitted that the claim is true, so now you are trying to contradict it?
You said that the problem with dark matter is that no particles of it were found, so now you are trying to say that not finding particles is not the problem?
You are simply showing what I said beforehand, which is that the number of indirect evidence is greater.
And as for Einstein - he did think that he had contradictory findings.
Each EPR experiment was designed to show that if quantum theory is true then locality is not true and he saw locality as a physical finding for everything.
How can the excellent arguments he put forward in the discussed debate be compared to your non-arguments in the current debate?!
And I say again:
Every scientist (in fact - every person) has gut feelings, and for scientists, these gut feelings play an important role in the advancement of science.
However - gut feelings have no place as arguments in a debate because by their very definition these are unreasoned feelings.
This is what I keep saying and this is what you refuse to understand.
And is there room for doubt?
come on!
There is always room for doubt!
Who even talked about the fact that there is no room for doubt?
Michael,
Against my claim that finding the dark matter particle is the smoking gun, i.e. finding the particle that constitutes the dark matter is the confirmation needed for the theory, you repeat and claim:
"I also find it appropriate to remind you that most of the elementary particles were not found. No one held a neutrino particle or an electron in their hand. Everything we know about these particles is always consequences of their existence on the macroscopic world." On the one hand, your claim is trivial, on the other hand, it is irrelevant and borders on demagoguery.
Let's examine your claim. The neutrino was predicted by Pauli in 1930 as a result of non-conservation of momentum and energy in beta decay. Similar to dark matter, it was hypothesized that it was a particle because it had not yet been discovered.
It was only in 1956 that the neutrino was discovered in the "Savannah River" nuclear reactor and only then did the hypothesis become an established theory.
What is the conclusion? One should expect the particle itself to establish the theory. It is not enough to assume the existence of a particle as a result of the non-existence of certain equations or conservation laws.
Let's move on to a macroscopic example before I return to discuss the electron. Neptune (Rahab) was predicted as a planet revolving around the Sun according to its gravitational effects on Uranus (Uron) as long as the planet was not observed it was only a hypothesis until Neptune was actually observed by Johann Galla. According to you, deviations were also discovered in the orbit of the planet Mercury, but this time it was not a moon or a planet that had not yet been discovered that was the source of the deviation, but it was a completely new theory of general relativity.
Now to the electron that you also mention. third. third. Thompson used an electron beam and a magnetic and electric field to estimate the mass of the electron from the deflection of the beam. The discovery of a microscopic particle is based on experiments that allow us to estimate its mass from its charge and its additional quantum numbers. Indeed particles are discovered according to their effect on the macroscopic world but the discovery of a particle is characterized by the ability to estimate its mass. We have not yet discovered a particle without being able to estimate its mass. So your claim that it is possible to assume the existence of dark matter consisting of particles that do not interact with light from their effect on macroscopic masses is unfounded. It is necessary to experimentally estimate the mass of the particle and its quantum numbers.
Regarding steams:
You wrote "I argue that challenging a theory without presenting contradictory findings is just steam." But for my claim that Einstein fought the quantum theory without findings, you write "Einstein did not fight the quantum theory using vapors but through logical considerations, some of which even contributed to a deeper understanding of the quantum theory." Einstein did not fight the quantum theory by contradicting findings because there were none, he fought the quantum theory because he believed according to a mistaken gut feeling that it is a flawed or partial theory.
In addition, "Hidan" is not a platform for raising these scientific theories, it has a place in scientific newspapers. When a certain theory is not sufficiently confirmed and has shortcomings, it is possible and even desirable to present the full picture. Science is an emerging field that is constantly changing through challenge and investigation. That's why when you write "the doubt imposed on a scientific theory can be due to several reasons, but the doubts expressed here all stem from invalid reasons. Many of the planets that have ever been discovered both in our solar system and in other solar systems - were discovered precisely thanks to what you disparagingly call "balancing equations" which gave birth to the idea The dark mass."
Balancing equations is not a valid scientific method, it is simply an attempt to maintain the existing and it should be presented as such, sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it doesn't. Therefore there is room for doubts raised here about how it is used in the case of the dark matter hypothesis.
to Judah
We concluded that although my model can explain the difference between Le Sage and Newton, it does not necessarily mean that Le Sage's model is flawed.
The reason: Nitrino, the hero of our stories.
Why?
Because as we have seen, a sufficiently dense mesh can stop the La Sage particles, and then my experiment will work (in my opinion). But this does not mean that such a network exists in reality.
A neutrino is able to travel many millions of kilometers of matter unimpeded. So what's the problem with La Sage particles going through a few lousy suns?
I see you are very interested in the site. You may already know, but Maxwell, a great believer in the ether, arrived at his famous equations, predicting electromagnetic waves, including light, from hydrodynamic models: eddies, wheels, currents and eddies. Really La Sage and the particles. See:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
Note that formula 136, from which the speed of light is derived, was derived from considerations similar to those used to determine the speed of sound in air, or a wave in a rope.
And also the inertia, carried by the experience of the saw that I offered you, can be derived from gravity. So that the pieces of the crossword puzzle come together to pay one.
What is left to complete the puzzle? Non-locality in quantum entanglement.
But I leave that to you my friend. I'm going to sleep. I need the formulas in the morning, so get to work right away.
I will try to contact you.
And by the way - what about the Le Sage formulas? Yehuda? someone?
to the audience
Sorry you don't understand why in particle gravitation the gravitation will decrease more than according to Newton. It is related to the mean free path of the particle, but it is a shame to repeat things. We disagree here.
And for Israel:
Regarding your experiment, I'm sorry, but I had a hard time understanding it. We must talk and ask questions to get an understandable explanation.
If you want, we can have a conversation about it
0522-570989
או
sevdermishy@gmail.com
Good night everyone
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic:
Again: You are allowed to make a little more effort in reading my words and not try to create a presentation as if I do not understand what I clearly understand, perhaps even more than others.
I repeat and remind you that the one who pointed out in our discussions about the problematic nature of the theory of relativity due to non-physical consequences was actually me and not you.
I also mentioned this fact in the current discussion.
So instead of trying to create a presentation as if I don't understand it - the logical thing to do is to understand that even in a mathematical finding I see a finding.
I also find it appropriate to remind you that most of the elementary particles were not found.
No one has held a neutrino particle or an electron in their hand.
All we know about these particles is always consequences of their existence on the macroscopic world.
Therefore - the "smoking gun" you are looking for is an excessive demand that science has never met.
So it's true - the dark mass has fewer confirmations than the electron, and therefore it's a less well-founded theory - but that doesn't make it unconfirmed and it doesn't make the theory not a theory.
Einstein did not fight quantum theory with steam but with logical considerations, some of which even contributed to a deeper understanding of quantum theory.
The EPR experiment, for example, is by definition an attempt to point to a contradictory finding (again - a mathematical or logical finding is also a finding).
Even if he had fought quantum theory using steams - it would not have made the steams useful.
I also suppose I don't need to remind you that in the end it turns out that Einstein was probably wrong in his opposition to quantum theory.
Israel:
I thought about it - not because something was bothering me but because right while reading Le Sage's model the answer to this question and other questions that might be asked jumped into my mind.
One thing did puzzle me for a while and that is the issue of tidal forces. For a moment I had the feeling that the model might not reproduce them exactly but very quickly I realized that there is no problem with this issue either.
In general - questions arise in my mind - not because something bothers me but because I'm trying to understand.
Only when I see that the solution I find to the question is one that shows that the model provides wrong predictions does it start to bother me.
Michael,
My claims are very simple:
The dark matter theory is only a hypothesis without the smoking gun ie finding the particle that constitutes the dark matter. True, there are confirmations for the theory, but for me it is just balancing equations until the particle is found.
I am not a prophet, but from my knowledge of the history of science, I believe that the dark matter particle will not be found because the existing problems in the theory of gravitation indicate that, in my opinion, we are facing a scientific revolution (there are all the indications for this according to Kuhn's theory). By the way, the infinities that appear in the ratios are a direct result of the fact that there is no theory of quantum gravity. It is the quantum theory that saves many classical theories from distractions when reaching short distances, i.e. high energies. So there is a connection between the distractions of classical relativity and the work that is not
It has a quantum description.
I do not agree that the only way to invalidate a theory is to find contradictory findings. It is enough to show that within certain limits it gives non-physical results to understand that the theory is not a complete theory of nature. Sometimes a small correction is needed, but in the case of relativity a small correction does not allow the creation of a quantum (general) theory of relativity.
Regarding steams. Einstein spent almost half of his scientific career trying to fight the quantum theory even though there were no findings that contradicted it. Did Einstein just care? First-class scientists attack physical theories that do not have contradictory findings, all from a deep understanding of what a scientific theory requires in their opinion.
To Michael
I believe I understood your explanation. As I told you in 7.22, it seems to me that you are right, but something about the whole model does not feel right. You also said you thought about it, but you understood the answer immediately. Yehuda, who deals with this a lot, also said that it is a challenging idea. There is something here that intuitively jumps to mind, even though there seems to be a solution. What I don't understand is how, if the three of us thought about it (it's true, you dismissed it immediately, but the reflection passed), why it wasn't addressed by the great thinkers who examined the description, and the immortal Gauss in their minds.
This is why I tried to build a model, not perfect of course because the idea is not entirely clear to me either and I am just rolling it out, to try to answer what I defined as "false female intuition".
And Judah:
Bottom line, if we start from the assumption that the particles have a finite size, then the difference between La Sage and Newton is that with La Sage, a mesh that is dense enough, that will not allow the particles to pass, has a large mass. In Newton, that network has only a negligible mass.
But it seems to me that we have been a little concise, haven't we? Who wants to hear a joke about a lion and an elephant?
Gentleness, reliability, and a bit like a shop.
Israel Shapira:
You insist on defining a different model than Le Sage and blaming Le Sage for the faults in the model you invented.
It doesn't make any sense.
Did you understand the explanation I gave you?
Do you think there is something wrong with it?
Yehuda:
In this response (https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-311230) you wrote that you did not find a definition for the site.
If you decide to call corn kernels or neutrino particles or interstellar gas known as ether - good luck to you.
No one will argue with you on the question of the existence of the website defined in this way.
Of course, they will argue with the need to call something that already has a name - by another name - but if it is so important to you to have a website then so be it.
In relation to the disappearance of gravity "with you" - as I showed you - it is simply a miscalculation you are making.
You have difficulties in drawing the correct conclusions from the model and that is why you were also unable to answer Israel Shapira.
Yehuda!
The things at the root of your last comment are well known, and they certainly present us with a difficult challenge.
Gali dear person. She is highly educated and smart, but still not a supreme authority. me neither. Does Yehuda Sabdarmish claim to be the final arbiter? We will wait and see.
jubilee
Sound waves move in a medium called air and if we move towards the source of the waves we will get a higher speed of sound waves and if we move away we will get a lower speed. Not so with the electromagnetic waves where we will always measure the speed 299,792,458 meters per second and it doesn't matter if we move away from the light source or get closer to it. The speed of light is constant for every observer and this is the basis of the theory of relativity.
Therefore the waves do not use a medium like the sound waves and do not behave like them.
Even Gali says that "the electromagnetic waves (in this case the BBC's radio waves) do not need any medium to reach Herzliya or anywhere else in Israel." End quote.
Gali also says that the site does not exist, so be it, but Gazcom does. There can be no debate about that.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Well done to you, Gali.
Good health and all the best.
Great success for my article: a hundred responses.
The site does not exist! The electromagnetic waves (in this case the BBC's radio waves) do not need any medium to reach Herzliya or anywhere else in the country.
And as for the dark matter. General relativity is reduced to the field equations. That is, for equations. Calculate the masses and see that something is missing. That is, from the calculations it appears that there is a lack of mass. And so they hypothesized that there is a substance that for us is "dark", not radiant.
This hypothesis is quite reasonable. The calculations derive from equations that are correct and a theory or theories that have been found to be correct - at least until today.
Not everything science can explain exactly and there are many open questions. The most troubling question is how to bridge relativity and quantum. or the quantum gravity problem. We are always looking for answers to all questions and that everything will be understood exactly exactly. But now I have an appointment at the health insurance fund and I'm going to fight with all those who tell me: "I'm in front of you"...
No, Judah!
The Michaelson Morley experiment did not prove that electromagnetic waves do not need a medium. He just couldn't find the same medium. Lorenz brought a possible explanation for the results of the experiment assuming that this mediator Exists, and presented it in his equations. Einstein, in the theory of special relativity, arrived at the same equations without talking about the medium.
I do not accept the claim that the electromagnetic waves do not need a mediator. From the results of Eddington's experiment, it was found that there is a connection between gravitation and distortion of the movement of light, while light did not need a mediator, it would not have been affected. Because of the wavy behavior of the electromagnetic radiation, I believe that it has a medium. I assume that this mediator is "responsible" for many phenomena, among them gravitation and the deflection of light (or, in the terminology of the theory of relativity, "distortion of space-time"). You can call it "Ether" or "Gazcom" or even "Sevdarmish", and my goal (and your goal, too, if you wish) is to discover it.
jubilee
Yuval Chaikin Good morning
Let's explain things again with a small change:
I hope we agree that the universe is full of moving particles, and these particles define a gas. point.
where this gas is called "Gazcom"
It is clear to us that Gazkom exists. Gazkom is not an intermediary for electromagnetic waves because it was already proven in the Mikkelson Morley experiment that electromagnetic waves do not need an intermediary.
So let's leave the site alone because no one knows exactly how to define it and it has a history full of emotions and a negative attitude, and we will talk about Gazkom - the gas that fills the entire universe.
Since Gazkom is gas, it has all the properties of gas. point.
If we agree on Gazkom - the gas that fills the universe, then come to Zion Goel!
Welcome to GASCOM
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
A night of rest, Yehuda, and dreams of Psalm XNUMX.
If the ether were a gas, we would expect its particles to have mass. In order for the ether to serve as an accurate medium for electromagnetic waves, it must be very dense. At such a density we would expect frequent elastic collisions between its particles, density changes and incessant (but welcome) disruption of BBC broadcasts
for Jubilee
An ether as I defined it is the collection of particles that fills the entire universe and they move from place to place, almost certainly also collide with each other just like a gas and hence this gas must have all the properties of a gas such as temperature (background temperature?) pressure, in short this gas must have all the properties that every gas has.
I don't think it's debatable.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
I am not opposed to the assumption of the existence of the site, but it is clear to me that the site cannot be gas. This is because ether does not have the characteristic behavior of gas.
To Judah
There will be contraction between the plates even in Newtonian gravity - but it will be minimal, and this is because of the force of attraction between the masses of the plates. However, note that we did not specify what this mass is and it can be negligible.
As I have already said (see 007) "I do not claim that this is the whole Saji argument." However, I believe that the thought experiment I described sharpens the problem that you also set your heart on as you said.
Let's repeat the idea in detail and see what we get:
equipment:
1. A cell in the shape of a ball, whose radius is 20 meters long. Every 2 cm across the entire shell, a machine gun that shoots rubber balls is aimed at the inside of the cell and perpendicular to the shell. Inside the cell - a pressure gauge, to measure the pressure created by the balls.
2. Facility. The device consists of a pair of plates, perforated, with a radius of one meter, connected by 4 springs that serve as shock absorbers. The mass of each plate is one gram. On the outside of each plate is a pressure gauge. The springs are 5 cm long, and include a precise internal force meter for the purpose of accuracy. The mass of the springs will be detailed later.
3. Body. The body is another plate, identical in all respects to the previous ones.
Course of the experiment:
1. Take the cell and the device to a certain point between the earth and the moon where there is a state of weightlessness.
2. Measure the force exerted on the springs by the plates. (The device is currently out of cell). Since the only force we are currently taking into account is the force of attraction between the plates, and the weight of each plate is only one gram, the force is almost zero.
3. Put the device into the cell, and fix its center on the rod protruding from the "floor" of the cell, so that the plates face the walls. The spring force meter still shows almost zero force.
4. Activate the shooting machines. Adjust them so that the pressure gauge, created by the balls in the chamber, shows a pressure of 100 atmospheres.
5. The pressure gauge on the outside of the plates also shows a pressure of 100 atmospheres.
At this point, we reached a situation where the balls hit our huge "armpits" from all sides, but almost never manage to penetrate the small space between them (5 cm). We expect that the enormous pressure, acting only on the outer cheeks of the plates, will cause the springs to contract considerably, and this will be reflected in the force meter in the springs, which will show a very large force acting on the springs.
6. We insert the "body" - that additional plate - and place it at a certain distance from the device, on the same imaginary axis that connects the two plates in the device.
We expect that the body will block some of the balls, therefore reducing the pressure from the plate close to it.
7. Measure the pressure. On the farthest plate from the body it is still 100 atmospheres, but the pressure on the near plate drops to 50. In total, a huge force is exerted on the device, which tries to push it towards the "body", but the rod holds it back.
8. Release the device from the rod. The entire device is accelerated towards the body. The parallel to Le Sage is obvious.
9. Adjust the acceleration of the device (which should be indicated as "momentary acceleration" in our data, but this is not related to the discussion) so that it is equal to exactly one G. This can be done with the correct orientation (in advance) of the weight of the springs and the number of holes in the plates.
10. Measure the force in the springs.
Although the springs have loosened up quite a bit because of the masking of the "body" and because of the movement, they are still quite stressed because of the balls and this is reflected in the force meter which still shows considerable force.
11. Write down what we have:
A. The device that is accelerated towards a body that simulates the DHA with an acceleration of one G.
B. Springs, which are normally relaxed, are now compressed with extremely high pressure.
All this in an attempt that simulates, although not perfectly, the La Sage theory.
12. Take the device to the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
13. Measure the pressure between the springs. It is found to be negligible.
14. Throw the device from the tower.
15. Write down what we have:
A. The device is accelerated in the direction of DH with an acceleration of one G.
B. loose springs.
16. Compare to 11.
17. Write down the difference between 11 and 15.
18. The L. H. B. Kapicim.
19. M.S.L.
As I have mentioned several times, this is not the whole story, but it does sharpen the discomfort we feel about Le Sage's theory. After all, according to the theory, the pressure in the universe can reach millions of atmospheres. Reuven Nir in his book "Attraction" claims that the theory can also explain the strong force in atoms, and then we broke the rock anyway. I guess all those mythological scientists who tested the theory thought so as well, but for some reason I didn't hear it with reservations about it.
And in the meantime - your particles live, breathe and kick. They are the ones that keep your bike from falling off while riding. They are the ones that stabilize a spinning top or gyroscope. If you want to feel them for real, try the following:
Take a rotary chainsaw and turn it on. at maximum speed
Move it left and right along the axis. The saw will gladly cooperate with you.
Try shaking it from side to side. The saw will resist, and if it's heavy and fast enough, will try to turn you with tremendous force.
Where did this terrible power come from?
It is not electromagnetic, it also works far from any source of gravity, it is not connected to air, and in general, relative to what does the saw rotate?
Mach tells us that he comes from the distant stars. But if so, then the whole universe is full of those mysterious particles Sage talked about.
This. I would be grateful if you could send me a link to the La Sage formulas. Those who talk about the relationship between particle speed and pressure, etc.
Thank you, gentleness, and without nervousness.
And by the way, for anyone who wants to hear, I am planning a lecture at the Israeli Astronomical Society at the Givatayim Observatory on the topic of dark mass. Apparently in about two weeks.
I will provide details later this week
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
From * Khal
Of course I have a definition for the site! The ether is a gas (mainly of particles) that fills the entire universe. point. I have no problem proving that this gas exists because it is enough to look at the netrins as part of the mixture that builds this gas. Maybe I didn't understand well, but if Chaikin and others oppose the website, let me see which website they oppose. My definition of the ether is defined and proven - gas that fills the entire universe. It saddens me that people took for granted that the Michelson-Morlay experiment or the theory of relativity prove that it does not exist, because it is clear that the ether (according to my definition) fills the entire universe.
I see that we are pretty much of the same mind regarding La Sage, but remember that in my simple universe there is a fundamental difference from Newton's and La Sage, because with me, gravitation disappears at distances faster than the square of the distance.
But we will not get into it again
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Do you think that a situation is not possible in which several theories are required to describe the observations?
Or a situation where there are several theories describing the same observations and all of them have the same status?
Although it is not a very elegant situation, but who said that the world can be described elegantly?
sympathetic:
If you want me not to argue about semantics - don't make semantic claims.
In terms of the essence - as I showed you - just as the scientific community mostly accepts the dark matter hypothesis - so too is it accepted to "crown" it with the title "theory".
There are, of course, reasons for this, and the main reason is that, as mentioned, it is not just a hypothesis - but a hypothesis that provided predictions that were verified.
I remember the endless arguments between us about the matter and I also remember that you were convinced.
I don't know what brings you back from your conviction, but I have no intention of continuing to deal with it.
It is not an appeal without raising a competing theory.
Come on! You should know more than that!
The main (and only!) way to disprove a theory is not by raising a competing theory but by pointing out contradictory findings!
I argue that challenging a theory without presenting contradictory findings is just steam.
You don't have to quote me on relativity either.
I am the one who claimed in the past that it has problems - and not only because of the lack of quantum gravitation, but also in its own right - because of the situations in which its formulas give infinite sizes.
It is hoped that our understanding of the world will be improved (I am not a prophet and therefore I do not know).
The improvement in our understanding (if it comes) can be by pointing out essential mistakes or by minor corrections (I don't know that either for the same reason).
I don't mean to refer to sarcasm and I'm just letting you know that if it continues I'll stop responding.
Michael,
Of course you stick to semantics which is not the essence of the debate. This is despite the fact that I emphasized several times that the discussion
is not semantic.
You did not refer at all to the similarity in the state of the theory to the state where the ether theory was before the theory of relativity
But let's go. You also of course choose to ignore the fact that there is no theory of quantum gravity.
Your claim that there is no competing theory is meaningless. To know that a theory is flawed there is no need for a competing theory. Although we have been in this discussion several times, you insist that disputing a theory without raising a competing explanation is just steam, while this is the essence of science. Science constantly examines itself not against competing theories but examines whether the dominant theory fits reality and theoretical knowledge. The fact that there is no quantum gravitation theory speaks volumes. Einstein's theory of general relativity cannot be described quantumly, isn't that enough to show that there are problems with the theory?
According to your logic, if I explain the astronomical observations by 8 types of dark matter, that too will not be a problem because the theory will match the observations. Perhaps I need another 80 different types of particles that have not yet been discovered. Will everything be fine even then? Your reasoning is valid for any situation where there is a certain number of experiments that do not fit the theory. Instead of thinking about a new theory, we will balance the equations by particles or forces that have not yet been observed and then we will reach the necessary conclusion:
There are many confirmations for the theory along with the additional particles..
There is no other plausible theory.
Since you are not dealing with prophecy, the new theory with particles and forces is the truth...
Yehuda (https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-311230)
The site, according to you, is not defined.
So what the hell are you talking about when you talk about him?!
I set up a movement to:
The cessation of gossip
on unspecified things
Yehuda (https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-311219)
I see that you actually understood my explanation.
Note that when the idea deserves a defense against a certain attack I am ready (And capable) to come to his defense against this attack even when other attacks against him are completely justified.
Judah and Ehud:
I disbelieve in your presentation of the difference between a hypothesis and a theory for a simple technical reason: any collection of hypotheses (according to your definition) can be presented as a single hypothesis by adding and the conjunction.
How many hypotheses do you think special relativity is based on?
In the book A first course in General Relativity, it is based in advance on exactly two hypotheses (and of course, thanks to the connection, it can easily be presented as being based on one hypothesis).
That's why the number of hypotheses is something subject to the game, and even if your statement were correct, then the entire special theory of relativity is based on exactly two hypotheses.
If you look for the entry Dark Matter in Wikipedia, you will find the following sentence:
As important as dark matter is believed to be in the cosmos, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive. Although the theory of dark matter remains the most widely accepted theory to explain the anomalies in observed galactic rotation, some alternative theoretical approaches have been developed which broadly fall into the categories of modified gravitational laws, and quantum gravitational laws
In other words - I am not the only one talking about the dark matter theory.
In relation to the importance (literally) of the confirmations for this theory - there are many confirmations (less many than we would like but still quite a few).
In relation to the weight of the evidence against him - this is absolute zero.
There are no serious competing theories.
I do not deal in prophecy.
Israel Shapira:
This is my last response on the subject because I have almost completely despaired of the possibility that you will understand.
This is a question about La Sage only. Not about relativity and not about Newton.
The question is what La Sage's theory predicts in relation to what will happen in that facility.
It is a miniature deformation contract - just as Newton's theory and the theory of relativity predict.
After all, La Sage's theory is intended to give an explanation to the formulas of Newton's theory and that is what it does (only that it does so without considering other phenomena - which do not belong to gravity at all and these are the points where it fails.
But in terms of gravity, it is completely successful.
Before I repeat the explanation, perhaps I should pose some challenge to your self-confidence: do you really think that of all the scientists since Le Sage (who was not a cane killer himself) until today, there was no one who surpassed your "insight"?
Know that many (including Feynman) referred to La Sage's theory but none of them reached your conclusion.
The reason no one has come to this conclusion is because it is a false conclusion.
The very fact that you expect the Le Sage model to cause the spring to contract when all that causes it is exactly what is supposed to explain the phenomenon of gravity means that the Le Sage theory fails to reproduce Newtonian gravity.
After all, according to Newton's gravity - the only contraction was supposed to be the one that compensates for the gravity pulling the plates together - so why is another contraction accepted here?
So do you really think no one understood this?
I explained what you are doing wrong.
You expect the bottom plate to block a lot of particles and that should cause shrinkage.
The thing is, the bottom plate can't do that because its blocking ability is a function of your mass.
In your recommended explanation (the one with the expressions robbery and break, etc.) you showed that you understood that Le Sage's theory restores the proportionality of force to one part of the square of the distance, but at the same time you also showed that you do not understand that it also restores the proportionality of force to mass.
This proportionality stems from the assumption that a body's ability to block particle energy is directly proportional to its mass (and it is based, in some simplification, on the assumption that most particles continue to move through the body without interruption and only a very small number of them are stopped when they collide with mass particles inside the body, and this number increases as the body has more mass and therefore - higher braking capacity).
If the lower disk has a normal mass, it will not block almost anything.
If it has the mass of Mount Everest it will cause a tiny contraction of the spring.
If it is the mass of the moon it will cause a greater contraction.
Yuval Chaikin did not find a rebuttal to the site's hypothesis, but maybe someone else has one? Maybe to Yehuda Sabdarmish?
As far as I can tell, Lorentz showed that the Michael-Morley experiment can be explained as the contraction of bodies moving within the ether, and Einstein showed that the contraction of the bodies according to the theory of relativity is just like the one explained by Lorentz. From then on, Einsteinian physics continues to describe the world beautifully without talking about the ether, but it does not exclude it.
If Einstein did not bother to refute, why do you think that I should do so?
After Yuval Chaikin did not find a way that proves that the site does not exist, then I can reveal to you, and so that you will have no doubt, but the BBC is also well received in Herzliya (:))
There is only one problem
According to the theory of relativity, the transmission should be balanced on all sides, but, as you know, this is not the case
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
BBC radio reception in Israel
Since the topic was raised here with a question mark - BBC is well received in Israel on the frequency 1323 AM thanks to a strong transmitter located near Limassol, Cyprus.
Oh the politics, the politics... the well-known disease of the commenters in "Hidan".
There is no point in putting the enemies of the state on trial. They are not subject to Israeli law anyway. The prison sentence does not deter them. The opposite is correct. If anything, then you have to act with them according to their laws. The judicial court cannot give a correct answer, even if it applies the death penalty. Dealing with them through the court only causes damage and discouragement.
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Unfortunately I don't have a definition like the one you asked for. We may actually agree on this point.
To Yehuda, I did not express an opinion on the transaction, he should have been released, and if it is necessary to deal with those who return to terrorism with the method of targeted countermeasures. I meant that the presenter said that Israel only labels them as terrorists, how would he label their actions? As followers of the nations of the world?
There are imposters here
Waves of my greed,
As someone who understands the matter very well, we are ready to offer you the position of permanent chairperson. Ain like you for this very important role.
Straighten up your strength
Dear friends
Chen Chen and many thanks for the wide support.
Soon the ether will return to its place at the center of scientific theory, and to Einstein we will say "What are you Omeier?!"
And what do you think because we depended on the one-sidedness of the BBC? After all, it is an Islamic network for everything.
Wow, it's getting interesting here in the Middle East. Especially when a new party has arisen whose sole mission is to return the site to power. I thought before we were fighting over the dark matter.
Yuval, let me tell you a story. One day Einstein came to lecture in Leiden in 1920. He lectured on general relativity and in the audience sat Hendrik Anton Lorenz. Well, that one from electron theory. And Lorenz didn't like it so much that Einstein threw the ether away. He probably also wanted to establish an internet party and run for elections against Bibi Netanyahu... 🙂
So Einstein went up to the podium and Lorenz sat in the audience. And Einstein was going to talk about space-time and his field equations in a language understandable to everyone. Well, how do you explain to the Dutch in the audience that when actors "stand" on the stage of space-time, the stage at the same time also affects the actors in a non-linear way. Well, the well-known explanation of general relativity is when Lorentz, Einstein's spiritual father, is sitting in the crowd? So Einstein said that without an ether there is no general relativity and he called the inertial-gravitational field of general relativity an ether. And Lorenz was pleased and people felt good. So you too can call the space-time of general relativity a site and thus run for elections now against Bibi Netanyahu. And even Einstein will support you and say that this is a new type of site and it is a legitimate site because we removed its main feature from it: absolute movement or absolute rest.
my father
The English still do not reconcile with the fact that they lost the mandate for the Land of Israel.
And as for Gilad Shalit, these days when everyone is celebrating the return of Shalit, it's hard for me to spoil the joy, but I'm very skeptical if that's what should have been done. And even Gilad Shalit, in an interview that was forced on him, claimed that he should not be released under any conditions.
But let's not spoil the fun.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Do they still broadcast to the Middle East on AM? As a child I listened to them a lot. Today the channel is on TV, but very annoyingly, on the evening after Gilad Shalit's return, the host of the program THE HUB said that Israel exchanged him for 1,027 prisoners that it labels (LABLED) as terrorists. Oh really, the one who lured Ofir Rahum to his death or the one who brought the terrorist to Subaru, or the planner of the stampede attack are just labels?
my father
In Herzliya, you don't hear the BBC that well. Does this mean there is no website in Herzliya?
(:))
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yuval Chaikin
Please give me the definition of the site from which it follows that it does not exist
In other words: why do you think the site doesn't exist?
I did not find such a definition, nor did I find an experiment that proves the non-existence of the site.
Amazing, but that's how it is.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yuval, the website still exists today - otherwise how do you listen to the BBC and we to the IDF? 🙂
We hereby announce the establishment of the movement to return the site to its historical place
Israel Shapira
I do not understand
The two plates with a spring between them will be stressed both in the La Sage case and in the Newtonian case. The free fall will not change anything. And both plates will continue to be contracted due to both Newton and La Saz.
Or do I not understand something?
Are you ready to forget about all the previous explanations and explain again?, I would be happy.
It seems to me that it is possible without the theory of relativity, because you come up with an idea of how to check between Niton and Le Sage
if you want sevdermishy@gmail.com
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Ehud and to the audience
Regarding the theory / hypothesis debate, you should see the definition given by Avraham Ibn Shushan in his dictionary:-
Theory - Torah, a set of assumptions and hypotheses used to explain certain facts or phenomena: the theory of the formation of the earth,
Hypothesis - an opinion, a thought based on an estimate only, an assumption based on judgment.
Example: Scholars defeat each other and flourish in the air in a tower of hairs (Mandeli, a book seller)
conclusion
A theory is a set of hypotheses is more powerful than a single hypothesis that someone throws up in the air to be tested. There is no guarantee of its correctness. In the future it could be one of the cornerstones of her theory.
We will return to the debate between you
I accept that Newton's theory of gravitation is a theory and dark mass and dark energy are two (related) hypotheses that try to fit into Newton's theory of gravitation. In my opinion, without much success.
If they do not fit together, Newton's theory of gravitation is left with the problem of how to explain certain cosmic phenomena.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael,
Although the debate between us is not semantic, say a few words about the difference for me between a hypothesis and a theory, again don't get caught up in semantics, it is not the main thing.
Theory and hypothesis are different in terms of their scope and purpose. While a hypothesis comes to answer a specific question, a theory comes to group together many phenomena and explain them. Gravitation according to Newton or Einstein are theories, while dark matter is a hypothesis. A theory will usually contain a number of assumptions that must be tested and are related to each other, while a hypothesis is usually a single assumption that must be tested and can be rejected or accepted. Again, this is not the discussion.
The fundamental question is whether it is possible to make predictions in science? Well, I am also skeptical about the ability to predict in general and in science in particular, but... knowing the history of the science of science and Kuhn's theories about scientific revolutions, I can point out that sometimes there is an ability to notice that a scientific theory is in trouble. In my opinion, the Grotation theory today
is in a problem both observationally and theoretically. To know that a certain field is in trouble does not require prophetic ability. The "prophetic" ability is only needed when talking about a solution.
My basic claim is that the theory of gravitation and its adaptation to observations behaves exactly according to Kuhn's description of a scientific revolution. In particular, the comparison between Einstein's revolution regarding grotation and what is happening today in the field of dark matter is interesting.
Einstein realized that Maxwell's laws are not consistent with Newton's laws.
Today it is understood that general relativity is not consistent with quantum theory.
Observations have shown that the speed of light is constant. They tried to explain the observations by the existence of the ether mystery material.
By the way, the site also suited the observations, it showed that bodies would shrink as a result of the pressure of the site in the direction of movement, so the site had experimental "confirmation".
Today's observations show that the distribution of velocities of galaxies and galaxy clusters do not fit Newton's laws and as a result an explanation has been proposed using the mysterious dark matter.
Site not found in the end. The dark matter particles have also not been found yet.
True, analogy is not proven, but in my opinion the writing is on the wall. Again the discussion leads to nothing because gut feelings are hard to argue with. On the other hand, I tried to describe to you what is the source of those unfounded feelings. I believe that it is possible to learn from history and in particular from the history of science. As for solutions to the problem, we will not leave them to the prophets but to scientists who have studied the field.
If the dark matter explains the accelerated retreat that opposes the gravitational pull, I conclude from this that the dark matter is probably the cause of the big bang, which happened at that singular point where everything collided, including him. So it also confirms the big bang theory.
Michael
I'm not just trying to argue. I really thank you for dedicating your time to me. But try to see, maybe you didn't fully understand my argument, or I didn't explain myself properly.
When I talk about gravity, I'm not talking about the force of attraction between the two discs. I'm talking about a force that exists between the device - the one that includes the two disks - and another body that is not related to them at all, and which was introduced into the cell after the device reached equilibrium.
My claim is that there will indeed be an attraction between the device and the other body, as Le Sage claims, but this attraction is different from the usual attraction we think of when we say gravity, and it is also possible to measure and quantify the difference, by measuring the contraction of the spring in the Le Sage system, while falling Normal free will not have any shrinkage (or shrinkage, as you wish).
Relativity comes in here quite naturally, because that is exactly what it claims: that in free fall no force acts on the system.
But of course it is possible without the relativity. Let's not mention her anymore, just La Sage and Newton. Do you see what I'm getting at? Do you see that even in a Newtonian description, there is a difference between free fall for Newton, where there is no contraction for the spring, and the same fall for Le Sage, where there is contraction?
Thank you, good day, gentleness, etc.
Israel Shapira:
None of your claims are true.
In your initial response you did not talk about relationships.
You talked about La Sage, who, as I already said and I have to repeat until you understand, gives Newtonian formulas and not relative formulas.
That's why I answered you in Newtonian terms and also wrote it explicitly.
For example, read my response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-310768
You started using ratios later and without bothering to understand the explanation and the fact that you could have asked this question in the context of Newton just as well and received the same answer.
In the middle you still had all kinds of questions about chargers and you got an exhaustive explanation for all of them.
If you want explanations concerning relativity, you must first invent a La Sage theory that gives relativistic formulas (indeed - one of the reasons that justify throwing the La Sage theory into the dustbin of history is the fact that it does not predict relativistic effects).
It should be understood that my reference to Newton was only intended for you to understand better and you used the link to Newton only to get confused (after all, your question was about Le Sage and not about Newton).
I explained why Le Sage's theory is identical in this regard to Newton's theory, but the explanation is also true regardless of Newton.
I can also explain why it can be compared to what happens in the theory of relativity, but you have proven that it only confuses you and you tend to make blandness the main thing (how is it that in the question about Le Sage - relativity is the main thing?!)
You did not try to understand the refutation I gave to your example at all and I can only recommend that you read it again.
The answer to all the questions you came back and raised is there. You just didn't address things and I can only guess why.
In the abstract I wrote that according to Le Sage - the degree of contraction of the spring would be exactly that which would provide resistance to the force of attraction acting between the two disks (because otherwise it would not even correspond to Newton).
To Michael
Let's examine your words, but in detail.
"You demonstrate on the one hand a lack of knowledge" - where exactly?
"You show an uncontrollable urge to talk about relationships" - why? After all, the heart of my whole argument is that according to relativity - and experience - during free fall there is no force acting on the body, while according to Le Sage such a force does act.
"I sensed this tendency of yours" - the word relativity can be eliminated, but how can the reader understand from my words what I mean when I say that there is no force acting on a body in free fall? After all, Newton said there is! And what is more important to our discussions, Le Sage said there is.
"This evasion method" I'm not trying to avoid anything. Not here and not in any other article.
"Introducing relativity into the story is throwing sand in the eyes." - No, she is the heart of the argument.
"Your image regarding the two discs is incorrect!" - where exactly? I mentioned 3 points according to which I examined the example, in none of which the relativity was introduced:
1. Will there be an attraction? Yes.
2. Will it be inversely proportional to the distance squared? Yes.
3. Is this attraction the same as gravity? No. I also explained why.
I do not claim that this is the whole Saji argument. Just this: in the thought experiment I proposed, even though "gravitation" will be applied to the facility as a whole, from an internal point of view, when examining and measuring inside the facility, there is a difference between La Sage gravitation and normal gravitation, and it is even possible to measure it.
If there is anything wrong with what I said, please show me. But please, not in general, which itself is throwing sand in the eyes, but in details.
sympathetic:
First of all, you are welcome to explain to me what in your opinion is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
I claimed earlier that it is the same thing and you only insisted on your claim that dark matter is only a hypothesis but you did not explain why - you did not explain the difference in your language between a hypothesis and a theory.
I want to repeat and remind you that this is a hypothesis (= theory) that also provided confirmed predictions (gravitational recirculation).
It may be disproved in the future, but for now it has not been disproved.
There are more confirmed theories and some less so.
Dark matter belongs to the least but that does not change the fact that it is a theory (=hypothesis) nor the fact that we currently do not have a better theory.
There really is a huge difference between very, very, very confirmed theories and those that are only slightly confirmed.
This is self-evident and is what motivates scientists to continue researching the subject.
The theory of relativity is of course very very very confirmed and I have no intention of preferring the gut feelings of this or that prophet over scientific research.
I do not usually go into the field of prophecy, therefore I will not address your claim regarding the future of this or that theory, even though this claim of yours is supported by the chief prophet.
Israel Shapira:
On the one hand, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge that obliges me to resort to explanations of Newtonian physics (which is actually also the thing Sage tried to explain and his formulas give the formulas of Newtonian physics and not the formulas of relativity, while on the other hand you demonstrate an uncontrollable urge to talk about relativity.
This imposes heavy constraints on how I should answer you and leaves me almost no possibility to formulate in a way that would not allow you to attack this or that word without writing a book.
It is true that at a certain point I talked about force and that is because the world we are discussing (not the one you are trying to avoid) is Newton's.
Since I already sensed this tendency of yours, I included in the same comment but in a different place - the distortion of space and time.
From now on, so that we stop wasting time on this evasion method - I will only talk about Newtonian gravitation.
This is also what I was talking about from the beginning and the whole introduction of relativity to the story is throwing sand in the eyes.
Your image regarding the two disks is incorrect!
The point of assumption from which it comes is that the lower disk is a significant obstacle to the particles - one that will prevent a large part of them from passing through and damaging the upper one.
This is not the case, and if it were the case, the whole idea would not work at all.
The effect of the lower disk on the upper one is (wonder and wonder! This is exactly what is expected of it! Otherwise the whole idea would not even come close to explaining gravitation) as the magnitude of the force of attraction between the two disks. Or, in other words, nothing, period, nothing, nothing.
In other words, yes! You have a serious error in the analysis.
to love
I will be careful not to comment too much on a topic that I am forbidden to comment on
You are right that "therefore we have a theory that is highly likely to be flawed in order to "keep it alive" in a certain field we need to assume dark matter" end of your quote. And I add that her "lame" sister, the dark energy, must also be assumed. The crippled and the lame must go together! (:))
And as for your experiment, take care of your health. Physics is not worth grabbing bullets for
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael,
First, there is a huge difference between finding a particle, that is, knowing what its mass is and the quantum numbers that define it, and claiming that there must be a particle. So the dark matter was not discovered and not even far from it. I hope I don't have to remind you of the news from the scientist who claimed that the dark matter particle was discovered with a probability of half and the ridiculousness of such news.
By the way, if the dark matter particle is discovered, it will surely be a Nobel Prize, so there is a huge motivation to discover it and in the meantime...
The supposed existence of dark matter is not a theory but only a hypothesis. Some of the observational problems will be explained by dark matter, but not all, and secondly, Gravitational mass does not necessarily indicate mass, within the framework of the existing theory, it is believed that the curvature of space arises as a result of mass. Do we know everything? Well, no. Is there a theory of quantum gravitation? No, that is, the theory of gravitation as it is today is probably not the end of the story (quantum theory has much more confirmations).
We therefore have a theory that is highly likely to be flawed in order to "keep it alive" in a certain area dark matter must be assumed. Has "dark matter" been verified? Shouldn't the reasonable scientist doubt the presence of the theory? Does not only gut feeling but also logic indicate that something is not right with the existing theory.
To Michael
Why do you claim "forces act on a body in free fall"?
According to general relativity, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are attributed to spacetime curvature instead of a force. The starting point for general relativity is the equivalence principle, which equates free fall with inertial motion, and describes free-falling inertial objects as being accelerated relative to non-inertial observers on the ground.[7][8] In Newtonian physics, however, no such acceleration can occur unless at least one of the objects is being operated on by a force
Einstein even magnifies and claims that in the disk rotating in space, far from any mass, the force that Newton calls "centrifugal", can just as well be called gravity. A little weird, but still gravity.
We will return to La Sage. I thought of an example that would hopefully help clarify the fundamental problem in the theory.
We will take two large, perforated metal discs and connect them to each other using springs, like the ones that connect the car chassis to the chassis. The discs are exactly one above the other, a sort of "double trampoline".
We will put the device into a chamber where small balls fly from all directions, the speed of which we can direct as we wish. An image for Le Sage's idea.
As long as there is no other body (when I say "body", I usually mean a physical body, not a person's) in the cell, our device will generally remain at rest in its place. What will happen if we put another body in the cell?
Le Sage, and logic, tell us that the body will block some of the balls, so our device will move towards the body.
Now we will check:
attraction is there? Miraculously, there is!
Is it proportional to the squared distance between the device and the body? Button and flower, yes!
Is it the same as good old gravity? Robbery and burglary, no!
How, why?
Because when we put our device into the cell, the springs will contract under the pressure of the balls, and the size of the egg is proportional to the speed of the balls (consider the "gravitational field" La Saji). Whereas if we put the same device in a real gravitational field, in free fall, the springs did not contract, and it doesn't matter how strong the field is, provided it is uniform.
For the sake of illustration and a personal example, and if we return to human bodies, I am willing to volunteer and lie in the niche between the discs (which will be protected from the pellets of course), in a real gravity field, in free fall. But not inside the La Saji cell.
Maybe Yehuda is ready?
So what we got in the bottom line is that yes, Le Sage's theory does explain gravitation nicely, but no, it's not the kind gravitation we know from experience and from Einstein.
Did I make a mistake in the analysis?
Thanks.
sympathetic:
There is no fundamental difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
In general - the existence of dark matter is quite confirmed because of the independent predictions it gives regarding the movement of the stars - on the one hand - and regarding the gravitational pull - on the other hand.
In fact - most of the elementary particles have not been "found" in the simple sense of the word and we infer their existence from the existence of macroscopic effects that we are able to observe.
The state of dark matter is no different in this sense.
Michael,
Indeed there is no debate between us given that what is said about the dark matter theory is that it is a hypothesis and not an established theory.
A successful hypothesis at the moment which, by the way, has gone through many incarnations. During the last decades there have been all kinds of candidates
The dark matter that has been ruled out today is believed to be a new, undiscovered material.
In order to win the foundation, the dark matter must be found and not just assumed its existence because it allows the laws of gravity to be maintained as we know them. Given that there are many question marks surrounding the laws of gravitation as we know them: what is dark energy, there is no theory of quantum gravity, then gut feelings that assume that these laws must be corrected (not through "balancing equations") are legitimate.
Avi,
Here is an explanation from Scientific American:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finding-halts-faster-than-light-neutrinos
Sheldon Gelshaw also deals with dark matter:
http://buphy.bu.edu/people/show/47
And so the discussion here is definitely relevant... and it is related to his research in particle physics and experiments in an accelerator in Geneva.
Here is what he writes about his dark matter research:
Many questions that are of contemporary theoretical interest are beyond the energetic reach of contemporary accelerators. However, extremely high energies were once realized in the largest and most natural accelerator, the Big Bang. Shortly after the Big Bang the universe consisted of a hot plasma of elementary particles. The nature of this plasma, which depends on the compositional properties of the elementary particles, determined the subsequent development of the universe. By observing the universe today, we can get information about its state right after the big bang and get information about the interactions of these high energy particles. A number of cosmological problems are currently being examined, among them: Is there a consistent inflationary model for the early universe? What is the nature of the "dark matter" and what role does it play in the development of the large-scale structure? What mechanism created the excess thugs in the universe? What are "gamma ray bursts" and are they the source of cosmic rays?
So Galshaw gave you some interesting questions to think about and in the link above he gave you a glimpse of his research and don't forget that he is a 1979 Nobel Prize winner!
Israel Shapira:
I will not say this in the future - I have already said this in the past:
The answer to your question is already in my previous answers.
We do not feel the forces acting on us but the deformation caused to our body as a result of them.
If it is made of diamond it will not feel anything as long as there is no significant deformation.
This is why standing for a long time does not cause you bone pain but only muscle or joint pain.
The bones are rigid enough and don't deform noticeably, so you don't feel it.
Forces act on a body in free fall.
Otherwise he would not fall and would not accelerate.
The equivalence of acceleration and gravity does not change this.
The whole point is that, as I said - these forces usually do not create tangible distortions.
Only usually - because close to a very massive body, tangible deformations are created as a result of tidal forces.
According to Le Sage, the molecule does not feel because it has no senses.
The body has senses and in it the distortions apply.
And again - it has nothing to do with the cause of the distortion - the consideration is the same whether it is Newtonian attraction, whether it is acceleration, whether it is La Sage attraction or whether it is a distortion of space-time. Equally, the deformations can be caused by the pressure of pliers or the pressure of the water on a diver or the fact that the person is standing next to a magnet and has some bone substitutes made of a material that is attracted to the magnet.
sympathetic:
I think you didn't understand what I meant.
I didn't claim that a scientist shouldn't rely on gut feelings when doing scientific research and I really didn't need clarification on this matter.
I don't know what I got to write about intuition as part of the discussion on free will, but those who read my words know that I am not canceling it at all.
Here I referred to something completely different (and I thought it was completely clear):
I referred to the ongoing debate on the matter.
There is no point in an argument where person A shouts "My gut feeling is X" and person B shouts "No! My gut feeling is Y"
There is no point in this - first of all because they are both right and in this sense B was wrong when he said "no".
They are correct in reporting their gut feelings and do not say anything of value about external reality.
The situation here is even more ridiculous:
Party A is the scientific community and he claims "My hypothesis is X because such and such facts support this hypothesis and even do so while being mutually compatible" while Party B is one person or another who claims "No! My gut feeling is Y"
sympathetic
Nevertheless, there is a difference between the examples you brought to the example of dark matter and energy.
In the examples you brought, the deviation was minimal just like in the axle test, so there is justification to check a year or two if the deviation still exists. But in the case of the dark mass and energy, we are talking about deviations of hundreds and thousands of percent from what is obtained from the formula, and in addition, eighty years have been looking for the solution without much success, and that means preaching.
A beautiful new day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Collect P.T
Every time I see a YouTube that pretends to be scientific, I also look at the number of views.
There is some truth in the saying "the voice of many is like the voice of a demon". That's why when I see that an author published a book about a controversial theory, and 20 years later his YouTube gets 467 views including yours - I raise an eyebrow.
That's why you should also look at the following link, and also pay attention to the criticism of your hero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner
And even so - do not lose heart. Critical thinking is positive. But most scientists are also quite critical.
This is exactly where scientists explain the absurdity of dark matter,
and using it to balance an equation is disproved
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxpjzDFdPuA
Michael,
I wouldn't want to get into an endless debate again but the claims against dark matter are not pseudoscientific.
Dark matter is a hypothesis not an established scientific theory until dark matter is discovered in a laboratory.
At the moment it seems that the dark matter manages to adjust itself to most of the observations (there are also observations that the dark matter
can't explain) despite the fact that this is the only hypothesis (not to my liking but that's another debate)
Doesn't make it right.
There have been many cases in science where it was enough to add a factor to "balance equations" to get a better theory. Examples of this are the neutrino that was discovered later following the assumption that the missing energy in radioactive decay goes to a particle, planets that were observed after a mismatch in the motion of known planets. On the other hand, there are many cases where it was not enough to balance equations and it turned out that the leading theory is flawed and must be replaced. The obvious example is the deviation in the orbit of the planet Hema. The planet Hema deviated somewhat from what should have been its course according to Newton's laws and British astronomers claimed that Newton was right and it was simply a moon or a missing mass that had not yet been discovered. As we know, the origin of the deviation of the planet Mercury is that Newton's theory is flawed and the trajectory of the planet Mercury is determined by general relativity.
For your information, science is often conducted on the gut feelings of scientists, which turn out to be very important
For the beauty of a theory in its acceptance in the scientific field. Therefore there is weight to claims about gut feelings but when these are attributed to scientists.
To Michael
So it would be a shell homogeneous steel bomb.
And regarding Newtonian gravitation - this is exactly the point where general relativity was born, that "most joyful thought" of Einstein's. The understanding that no force actually acts on a body in free fall.
Because according to Newton such a force does work, the force of gravity, and it is what causes the body to accelerate. According to Einstein, precisely when the body is on the ground, and is not accelerated by a Newton, then it is in an acceleration equal to gravity according to the equivalence principle.
And that's what bothers me a little in the explanation you gave, although I'm not able to pinpoint exactly where. Maybe you can help me analyze the following example:
If you are pressed with vises - well, not you, someone else - from a physical point of view, the sum of the forces acting on him, and also on every molecule in his body, is equal to zero, as if no pressure was applied to him at all. Both according to Newton and according to Einstein. Do you think that such an explanation will please him, and convince him to stop shouting? Why doesn't he believe the great physicists who explain to him, logically, that in every respect he is in the same state as free fall and that he will stop wailing like a baby?
You will say: internal distortions. The pressure squeezes the guy. So I'll get you another one, made of diamond. Even in the most sophisticated microscope you will not find a difference between a compressed diamond - and you can direct how much to compress - and one that is not.
We will return to La Sage. If the "particles" are squeezing you from all sides, and you are a single molecule, won't you feel the pressure difference between the side that is blocked and the side that is not?
And this is in contrast to Einstein who says that there is simply no force at all.
Thanks, also for the links and references.
Israel Shapira:
You would have a hard time producing a homogeneous PED bomb in which the charge is distributed uniformly because in conductors - the charge is only spread over the shell.
Of course, even if you had such a bomb - the accelerator is not built to accelerate it.
Of course he also accelerated her - what do you really care about how many G-forces she "endures"?
My explanation is undoubtedly correct and as mentioned - exactly the same question and exactly the same explanation are also suitable for Newtonian gravitation and are not unique to Le Sage.
Benjamin May:
The doubt imposed on a scientific theory can arise from several reasons, but the doubts expressed here all stem from invalid reasons.
Many of the planets that have ever been discovered both in our solar system and in other solar systems - were discovered precisely because of what you disparagingly call "balancing equations" that gave birth to the idea of dark mass.
There is one difference: the existence of the dark mass has more confirmations than some of those stars because its existence is also confirmed by the phenomena of gravitational collapse.
Many of those who dismiss the idea of dark mass do so simply based on gut feelings and here on the site there are also those who do this just to "sell" their theory which has another dark mass and which has been disproved in dozens of ways.
All these things belong to pseudo science and not to science, so it's actually good that many of the site's readers are not aware of them.
There is no disqualification of the doubters here, but only disqualification of baseless arguments.
my father:
It actually seems to me that with the next article in the series (https://www.hayadan.org.il/special-relativity-may-answer-faster-than-light-neutrino-mystery-1910112/) – the story is over.
This is the nature of research at the cutting edge of science. Still of course I expect to understand what exactly did happen. I think the series is going to be long.
dear father,
You can right now move this article to the history of science section!! 🙂
And this demonstrates to you, dear readers, how quickly science news changes in our world! 🙂
And why?
Because you can throw away Cohen's explanation and go to the scrap heap to be studied by the historians of science!
The ICARUS detector team at Gran Sasso tried to check the OPERA result based on Cohen's article and surfed the light of the data collected in the ICARUS detector since 2010 and measured the spectral energy of the neutrinos beam moving from CERN to Gran Sasso.
The ICARUS team found that the effect that Cohen and Glasho described - and they expected that in the OPERA experiment they would discover it to the extent that the neutrinos move quickly on Orit - does not occur in the CERN neutrino beam for OPERA.
OPERA did not see the effect of Cohen and Galusho and Cohen and Galusho's claim was that the neutrinos therefore do not move quickly on Orit. ICARUS explained: such an effect does not exist, therefore OPERA did not observe it.
So hello to the nice explanation of Cohen and Glasho. No spectral distortion. In fact, if there is Chernikov radiation, then the nitrites do not move quickly on Orit.
Below is the article by the ICARUS team (for the benefit of those who are interested and the historians of science... 🙂 ):
Who said that being a historian of science is unnecessary?
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1110/1110.3763.pdf
To Michael
I thought it was clear to you that when I spoke of unity of opinion
which exists on the "Hidan" website, which supports the "material" theory
The dark" and dismisses the skeptics, I didn't mean to site
I didn't mean the site itself but the unity of opinion
and disqualification.
As a matter of fact, that is, for the reason that I, in my relative ignorance
Allowing myself to doubt this theory, is that the theory
was created out of the need to balance equations and not out of vision
inclusive and real knowledge. For comparison, the theory of relativity
It was written as an independent Torah, and it has been tested more than once
One and therefore it is acceptable to me.
It is possible that there is dark matter and it is also possible that the pretense of measuring the
The mass of distant and ancient galaxies is higher
from the powers of scientists nowadays. Repairing the "puncture"
Using a mysterious substance seems like an exercise to me
Ridiculous accountant. The scientists may find the
Same material and they may be wrong. I'm more likely to be wrong.
But as long as the answer is not found, both sides are right
the same size.
From all of the above it seems to me the unity of the opinions, and certainly
The disqualification of the doubters here is strange and out of place.
To Michael regarding La Sage and a uniform electromagnetic field:
It seems to me that you are right, although I would still hesitate to put a homogenous steel bomb loaded with an electric charge into the Zern accelerator - if it had a movement thunderbolt.
My false female intuition whispers to me that the terrible acceleration in the accelerator would have activated the thunder, although logic tells me that there is nothing to fear, the acceleration in the accelerator is homogeneous and therefore not accompanied by force.
There is no choice, we will have to do an experiment to eliminate the concerns.
Regarding Einstein: in the link you gave me, the proof that the speed of light cannot be exceeded is incomplete and accompanied by references to books. But the idea as a whole is clear: a speed higher than light violates - logically - the principle of cause and effect.
But note the fact that this is a general principle: if there is an identical speed in every frame of reference, as the second postulate of relativity claims, then it is impossible to exceed this speed.
It doesn't have to be the speed of light, any speed will do. If the speed of sound were the same in every frame of reference, it would be the highest possible speed, and also the only one with this property of all possible speeds.
This fact does not agree with those who claim - also on this website - that it is possible that the neutrino speed is the ultimate speed, and the speed of light is lower than it. It is impossible to live a relationship. This is also the reason I asked for a logical and not a physical explanation. To emphasize the fact that if it is proven that the neutrino is faster than light, even by a fraction of a percent - and that information can be sent through it - then this is indeed the death of relativity, or the principle of causality.
Does anyone have a more intuitive explanation that would please the skeptics among us (I counted 5 in this article alone, except for those in Jacob's reference) for all this mess around the speed of light and relativity? Something La Sage style, the speed of light for the masses.
I admit, as a vessel full of words, that I have an idea. If there is anyone who has not yet moved on to the next article, or has fallen asleep, and is interested in a bedtime story, let them know.
Gillian.
It is true that the scientists at "Sarn" checked very well and a lot
Times their data..and still…
Before going to raid and split the skin of "Dev"
So big (as the theory of relativity proved
itself several times) it is worth investing
A little more effort in testing and to be sure that the bear
Really dead - otherwise the class might be a little
awkward…
Yehuda:
The very statement that you - without studying and after all your claims about the simple universe have been refuted - know better than the scientists is slander.
Your explanation regarding the red shift is close to the correct explanation, except that it is not only absorption lines but also emission/brightening lines.
All in all, we see a characteristic spectrum for certain substances when it is shifted to the red in a way that corresponds to the Doppler effect.
Benjamin May:
Please remind me who wrote the following sentence: "If you were alone in your mind, it would say something bad about
The "Hidan" site - not on you."
?
And about these it is said "on the thief's head the hat burns".
I still lack one response.
Yehuda have fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0
And happy holidays and blessed redemption of captives
To Judah
Thanks. got it.
To Michael
I did not slander. I just asked - only the gods are not
Wrong, so said the ancient Greeks. look at
The recently published debate between Shechtman
to the celebrated Linus Pauling with his two Nobel Prizes).
Did Shechtman also discredit (and maybe also the matter Einstein
Lacking the academic degree that challenged the "website")?!
The ability to provide answers without describing the appellants
about them, as "discrediting" and other names that have no connection
As a matter of fact, it is the cornerstone of open and serious thinking.
Linus Pauling preferred to mock Shechtman and was discovered
At its height, it is likely that the appellants in most cases
They are wrong (because the theory has already been tested by many) - but
The answer to them should be to the point and not out of arrogance
and hubris.
Michael
Where did you see that I defamed?
Do you think the universe is empty?
There are things that many scientists repeat as true, and unfortunately they are not. I am allowed to comment on that.
But let's not open Pandora's box.
Apart from that, without any connection, I would appreciate it if you would check the correctness of the last explanation I gave to Binyamin May. I'm not XNUMX% sure of his correctness. If you have time of course.
Happy Holidays today from God!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Hi Gillian, you know who they show half the work. After all, these people at Oprah published their studies in a careful way so that others could check and overcome errors, the claims of the critics will also be checked to the same extent, this is a publication from two weeks ago in total, give the scientific process the time it needs before you draw conclusions., as one of the commenters The city - if they showed something like 2C or 10C then it would be possible to talk, as soon as it is a fraction of a percent, the matter should be carefully examined.
Benjamin May, I will try to explain to you
Take for example our sun at sunset. As you claimed, mainly the red rays succeed in penetrating the thicker atmosphere and that is why we see the sunset mainly in the color red.
Now suppose the sun is moving away from us. The sun will look red because of the Doppler effect, that is, because of the distance, the wavelength that reaches us from its right gets longer, that is, it becomes redder.
. How do you differentiate between the two red cases? According to the location of the swallowing lines. In each spectrum, absorption lines appear according to the materials that form the spectrum. Therefore, in the second case, the yellow light of the sun, with the corresponding absorption lines of hydrogen, helium, etc., which would normally be yellow, does not appear in the yellow wavelength, but instead moves to the red region. And all the absorption lines that should normally be in the red, moved towards the infrared.
In the first case of the sunset, only the red light passes with the absorption lines when they are in place.
Therefore, the explanation of the dark mass as the reason for the redshift, is not true, I'm sorry May.
I hope that explains it
If anyone has a better explanation
I will be happy to hear
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And this was our corner on the subject of the slanders that press in people's stomachs against science, against the scientists, against the science site and what not.
Benjamin May:
Yehuda and Gillian will explain to you.
Pretty sure this isn't the place - but since I couldn't find a place
Another question, I'll ask it here:
Long light waves (red and red) have two properties:
One, they outgrow stars that are moving away from us
(red shift).
Two, they are less sensitive to the effects that affect
The passage of light waves in space and the atmosphere.
The scientists claim that the bodies of the sky are moving away
from us faster the farther they are
From us - because we receive from distant stars
More red light (and hence they emit
the "dark energy" phenomenon), but a phenomenon
This could also be due to the second feature
theirs, that they travel better distances
bigger.
Can someone explain to me, how the scientists can
determine that the speed caused all this red,
And not the distance itself?
Thanks in advance
Benjamin May
To Judah
If you were alone in your opinion, it would mean something bad about
The "Hidan" site - not on you.
It is certain that the claim that the speed of light is not the maximum speed in the universe must be refuted at all costs, otherwise a whole generation of scientists will be portrayed as a herd of idiots who are difficult to understand. Bottom line: a matter of politics only, certainly not science. Maybe it's time to remind the dear ones who recently won the Nobel Prize...
Benjamin May
I agree that all scientists agree that there is no ether, only I disagree and do not understand where they got it from. That Jewish genius only said that we don't need a site to explain the movement of light. But that doesn't mean the site doesn't exist, oh it could still exist!
Likewise, the expanses of the universe are not empty, they are rather full of many particles such as cosmic rays, neutrinos, and more
So that Jewish genius could not say that the expanses of the universe are empty because they are not empty.
But there are also things that I agree with you and I will happily say that you included what you said in previous comments "to express reservations about all kinds of "dark and vanishing things" (matter and energy) of which we have no real knowledge. And the scientists only hypothesize their existence - to adapt the theories to the observations instead of thinking about changing and developing the theory (not to mention new theories)." End quote. It really suits my words, which I am angry about and provoke angry reactions.
And with tears of happiness in my eyes, I will end again with your quote:-
"Suggests thinking in different directions as well."
But what a beautiful night
Happy holiday Benjamin May! On this it is said:- May Day!
And tell Abi Blizovsky that Yehuda is not alone in his opinion
With appreciation and a smile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Guy
I was a teenager and also an adult and I will not forget the explanation
that the smart physicists (before Einstein) found
For the movement of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum:
The "ether" (the same mysterious substance that you mentioned
To this day, the radio waves are still called in Hebrew: "Gale Ether".
Happily, a wise Jew rose up in his time,
And explained to the world that outer space is indeed empty
(of any material including "website").
As part of drawing lessons from the "site theory",
It would be true in my opinion (and I'm probably not the only one here)
express reservations about all kinds of "dark and disappearing"
(matter and energy) about which we have no real knowledge.
And the scientists only hypothesize their existence - to match
the theories for observations instead of thinking about change
and the development of the theory (not to mention theories
news).
The scientists may be right this time (vs
"Ether theory") and dark matter
The theoretical does exist, but I was still
Suggests thinking in different directions as well.
Israel:
And as for the formulas of special relativity - you can also find them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
Israel:
Regarding the ratios - the formulas are in the book that I pointed out to you.
One of the formulas is that of the mass that goes up to infinity. Why exactly do you not want this formula?
This is why I thought you weren't interested in the formulas but if the formulas satisfy you then the argument for the mass to be infinite should satisfy you too.
Regarding the electromagnetic field - I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about.
If you are talking about the force that an electromagnetic field exerts on bodies, then this force depends on their charge.
On us such a field will not normally exert a force because our charge is close to zero.
Even in charged bodies, the distribution of the charge will not usually correspond to the distribution of the mass, therefore the same balance between gravity and inertia that exists in free fall will not apply to them (since both inertia and gravity are proportional to the mass, therefore each part of the body in free fall can "take care of itself" in the sense that parts have a higher specific gravity and therefore a higher inertia, a higher gravitational force acts - a situation that will be rare in a charged body where the inertia is proportional to the mass while the force that activates a magnetic field is proportional to the charge)
But let's start with gravity first. Did you understand the explanation on this topic?
If not - tell me what in the explanation is not clear to you.
To Michael regarding La Sage:
And what happens in an electromagnetic field acting on a body? After all, even there all body parts are accelerated equally.
Will we not measure any power there as well?
And regarding Einstein:
The formulas I'm looking for.
Yehuda:
This is exactly what I explained.
Since all parts of your body are accelerated in free fall - both in Newtonian gravity and in La Sage gravity equally and independently - they do not press on each other and no deformation is created in the body and therefore the body does not feel acceleration.
When a car accelerates - the seat back of the car only pushes your back and all the other parts move only because your back pushes them when basically they would "want" to remain at rest due to the force of inertia.
For exactly the same reason you also feel the weight of your body when you stand on the ground - the ground only supports your feet and not every molecule in your body. Every molecule in your body provides the force that carries the weight of the molecules above it.
Therefore - scales also measure your weight that you stand on when they are placed on the floor (they provide the counter force to gravity) but they will show zero weight if you stand on them in an elevator that falls in free fall.
Hell, I didn't understand your explanation
After all, Le Sage's particles also act equally on all the atoms of the body, just like Newton's gravitation or relativity. So why don't I feel the acceleration in free fall? Why do I feel it when a car accelerates?
Israel Shapira, maybe you understood?
I'll keep thinking
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel Shapira and Yehuda:
I did not raise the question here because I understood the answer straight away when I read Le Sage's theory.
In fact this happens for exactly the same reason that you do not feel weight when falling in free fall within Newton's theory.
After all, also regarding Newton's theory, one could ask what is the difference between the normal acceleration that we feel and the acceleration of free fall!
So what's the difference?
The difference between the two theories is that in the acceleration of free fall, all the components of our body are pulled to the same extent and therefore they do not exert pressure on each other and do not change their relative position in our body (and it is these internal pressures and distortions that make us feel acceleration!) while in any other acceleration the force is only applied to a part from our body and it is this part that pushes the other parts while creating pressure.
Israel Shapira
I thought about your question and admit that the question is not easy and challenging
Should there be a difference between the case of free fall and weightlessness at all far from any mass?
Apparently I should feel the pressure of the particles during the fall
I have been talking to many for years about La Sage and his/my particles and no one has ever brought up this question
So in the meantime, have a Happy holiday
You gave me food for thought, I will think and answer
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel Shapira:
In general - it is impossible to avoid the formulas.
Formulas are the only practical way to describe the logical relationships between things in a way that can be understood.
The theory of relativity develops, based on the basic assumptions, formulas showing the way in which velocities should be connected and the way in which the mass should be calculated.
It also shows the way in which the observed position and time can be calculated in system A whose mode of motion we know in relation to system B where the speed and time are known.
These calculations show, among other things, that if it were possible to move faster than the speed of light, there would be systems in which the order of cause and spin was reversed in relation to other systems.
A good book that contains everything you want to know about special relativity and general relativity is The next book
To Judah
I have a question about the simple universe theory. (No offense, I really want to understand something).
Apart from the usual objections to La Saz (friction, conservation of energy, etc.), the theory says that the origin of gravity is an imbalance of forces acting on a body.
According to the theory, if a person falls from a plane in the middle of the night, it is because the earth masks the "particles" and the pressure from above pushes him towards it (if I understood correctly).
But there is a fundamental problem here: when a force acts on us - acceleration for example - we feel it. Even extremely strong pilots are unable to withstand a load of more than 10 G. On the other hand, experience and Einstein tell us that in a uniform gravitational field no force is determined, even at 1000 G.
How does it work out?
Camila, he is not the only one who says this, and there are enough scientists from the scientific community who claim the same. In fact, the Torah was met with opposition from the first moment.
See here some names:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_relativity_theory
What is unique about his argument is the pointing to the specific source of the mathematical error. I suggest reading, it's fascinating, and doesn't require more than a general algebraic understanding.
Michael
"Everything else follows from that" what exactly?
I want the details if possible. A link is better.
Israel:
The assumption that the speed of light is the same in every frame of reference is one of the fundamental assumptions of the theory of relativity.
Everything else follows from that.
Physics is not based on simple logic because otherwise one could be satisfied with mathematics.
A physical theory is based on physical (non-mathematical) basic assumptions from which everything else is deduced in a mathematical (logical) way, but the basic assumptions cannot be proven and all that can be done is to check if they actually exist and to check further if everything that is logically deduced from them exists.
Each such test confirms the theory if it is consistent with the basic assumptions and refutes it if it is not.
ravine
Two important events happened today
The first - Gilad Shalit go home!
The second - they wrote poems about Yehuda, and none other than the great poet Guy
There is no doubt that tonight I will sleep with a smile
Good night to the poet and everyone
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Can someone logically explain why it is actually not possible to exceed the speed of light? And please do not use the well-known explanation of the mass increasing to infinity, and turning the denominator in the relative fraction into an imaginary number above the speed of light. Just logic.
I know some explanations, but it seems to me that they are missing something, so I would be interested to hear from those who understand.
And also a question to Guy Harzan:
Can the Almighty double the speed of light?
Please answer gently, seriously, and without sentimentality.
A neutrino that was in a hurry to arrive felt,
At once awakened Sabdarmish,
Here's an opportunity,
to tell the people again what nonsense,
who saw and who heard,
on some dark mass,
The theory of relativity? The speed of light?
Maybe you conjured a black hole?
The world didn't know yet,
A great thinker like Judah,
It's just a shame that the time
He just wastes on knowledge,
instead of learning what is necessary,
Physics is not just a joke,
must be understood and practiced,
And a drop of common sense won't hurt.
in order not to block,
by one begins with a meme,
I worded it carefully,
Please respond gently
That's how it starts.
In the first step, you adhere to the existing paradigm with words such as: the measurements must have been wrong, there must have been some stupid mistake, we can't possibly have exceeded the speed of light, etc., etc.
The second step is looking for a miracle solution to explain the situation
That is, in style:- it is true that we measured that we passed the speed of light, but a lot of things happened because of which we did not pass.
So maybe there really was a mistake and they didn't measure it well, but if it wasn't a mistake, I ask that a scientist be resurrected and change the theory of relativity and that they don't invent a dark mass or a flying mass or a tiny energy to explain the problem
Happy Holidays
Please respond gently
And considering that Gilad Shalit returned home and we are all happy
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Motion at tachyon speed is obviously not subject to the physical laws as we know them, therefore it is doubtful whether the claim of Bramstellong pair emission is valid.
Although I am 100.2% sure that the researchers made some idiotic mistake that will shame them forever.
And even if the theory of parallel universes is true, which is completely unlikely, then of all those infinite parallel universes, there is not even one in which the researchers were not wrong.
Jacob,
It's reminiscent of the boxer who claims to be the strongest in the world but isn't ready to show up in the ring to show it. I'm not a physicist, so I don't know if there is anything in his claims or not, but don't you think it's a bit problematic that he doesn't try to convince through the validity of his claims in the appropriate professional arena? After all, these are arguments that are supported by mathematical formulations, if there is truth in them there is no obstacle to publishing them in a respected scientific journal. How did you decide that he was right and all the other physicists for generations were wrong? You must have a solid reason for this (Prof. Danny Shechtman had a reason, he had direct and reproducible controlled observations of the things he was talking about) What are your reasons?
And I will assume that neutrinos at non-orbital speed must lose energy. Why is it not possible for them to lose energy and drop to orbital speed and continue at this speed so that only a small part of the journey will be made at high speed and the deviation will be small and constant regardless of the distance traveled?
Damicolo's science.
The theory of relativity is completely wrong.
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/
"Therefore these particles of the cosmic radiation with ultra high energy would also undergo Chernikov radiation"
Since when do particles undergo radiation? This is not a hassle - the article is full of nonsense and basic errors. I gave up and gave up in the middle of it. It's a shame because the topic is fascinating.
It's a pity
Oh dear Oyo
You should say oh and oh and not as you wrote with a horrible lack of proofreading "oh and oh".
It's sad that on a site like the scientist there are commenters who do not maintain a minimum standard.
shame on you!
Happy Holidays
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Alas - fixed, to me it looks more like typing errors and not translation errors because every time one letter will fix the situation.
There is no proofreading in the knowledge?
"If therefore such a particle"
"The supernova is nature's nuclear bomb"
It is sad that a site like the science does not maintain a minimum standard.
Gali, Google Translate is an excellent tool, but human intervention is still required
exciting!