Scientists from the University of Oxford have proposed a new theory that explains the origin of dark matter and dark energy. The newly published article unites the two mysterious phenomena For one phenomenon - particles with negative mass fill the universe
The current standard model does not explain what dark matter and dark energy are. We learn about its existence only from astronomical observations and the gravitational effects on the expansion of the universe. The new model published in Astronomy and Astrophysics by Dr. Jamie Ferns of Oxford provides a new interpretation of the dark phenomenon. Dr. Frans says: "The model we proposed describes dark matter and dark energy as a 'fluid' dispersed throughout the universe that induces negative gravity, meaning it repels any matter that is around it. Although negative mass sounds strange, it implies symmetry in the gravitational charge."
The existence of negative mass particles was previously ruled out because the gravitational effect they create dilutes the mass density in the universe, an effect not seen in observations because dark matter does not dilute over time. In contrast to the old models, Dr. Farnes's model actually proposes a constant production of particles with a negative mass and allows the dark matter to remain at a constant density.
Dr. Frans's model offers for the first time an accurate prediction for the formation of halos of dark matter around galaxies. In principle, because galaxies rotate at high speed, stars far from their center should break free from the gravitational connection and float in the intergalactic medium. Despite the simple physics, observations indicate that distant stars are still bound to galactic centers, so physicists have proposed the existence of dark matter that does not react to light. Dr. Frans' team showed that computer imaging of negative mass creates a halo around galaxies just like radio telescopes observe from space.
Albert Einstein was the first to predict dark energy 100 years ago in the cosmological constant he added to his equations. Einstein claimed that this constant was one of his biggest fallacies but modern observations have brought the cosmological constant back to life. In 1918, Einstein claimed that "matching the observations to the theory would require the void in the universe to create a negative mass". Researchers believe that this quote indicates that Einstein first predicted the existence of particles with a negative gravitational charge.
Dr. Frans adds: "Past attempts to unify dark matter and dark energy forced physicists to change Einstein's theory of relativity, and discovered that it was a pretty serious challenge. The model that I published preserves the theory of relativity and enables the unification of the ideas." To prove Dr. Frans's model, scientists will have to use the soon-to-be-built large radio telescope known as the SKA.
to the notice of the researchers
More of the topic in Hayadan:
233 תגובות
How can we talk about dark matter, when the concept of matter is not understood.
How can you talk about time when the concept of time is not understood.
Basic concepts are self-evident, and any person can understand them as he wishes.
Basic concepts cannot be explained in words.
Length, area, volume are basic concepts, and everything that can be said about them that they are "continuous quantitative things" "a continuous quantitative thing" has a clear distinguishing mark.
If we choose an amount from it, this amount is between zero and infinity.
Now you can ask "how many continuous quantitative things are there in the world"? Many answers can be given to this question, including answer 5
There are only 5 "continuous quantitative things" in the world or 5 decrements.
Three of them are in the geometric field, and they are the length, the area, and the volume. They will be joined by time and energy, which are in the physical realm.
This is it: in the physical realm there is only time and energy, and the concept of matter does not exist.
And here comes the big surprise that completely changes everything conventional science has been telling us about matter for 2000 years.
Matter is made up of two continuous quantitative things (time and energy) but matter itself is not a continuous quantitative thing. Matter is a physical form.
Just as a geometric form results from a closed amount of length containing an amount of area, so a physical form results from the combination of amounts of time and energy.
Since matter is a physical form, it is impossible to talk about a lot of matter or a little matter, and all the theories that perceived matter as a quantitative concept - collapse.
Gold is a physical form, so is carbon, so is hydrogen, and so on.
The visible geometry provides clues to the mysterious physics.
A. Asbar
"Do you think the observed phenomena of special relativity depend on the speed relative to the background radiation?"
The background radiation was given as a possible example of the reason for the lengthening of times, and it is indeed related to postulate 1 in relations.
If Einstein or Galileo before him had known about it, they should have qualified it because it violates the essence of the postulate, namely that it is impossible to know in an inertial system if you are moving relative to other inertial systems.
So you can know your speed relative to the country for example, both quantity and direction.
"c is more than the speed of light, it is the maximum speed of information transfer. Gravity for example, which is not related to light, moves at this speed. And there must be such a speed - because otherwise we end up with contradictions.'
The apparent reason that c is the maximum information transfer speed is logical - any speed that is the same for every viewer is the maximum information transfer speed.
But the key is through the speed of light, otherwise you turn reason and spin.
And I say this seemingly from the point of view that there is another possibility (in my opinion) that the same speed for each meter is not the maximum speed, and this possibility has never been considered or tested, although it is quite compatible with quantum.
"Don't confuse me between the lengthening of time and parallel universes. I don't know of parallel reconstructions related to special relativity. I would love to receive a link.'
The intention is to go back in time (why don't you make typos when you drive and print on an iPhone?) and the links have already been given - philosophy of quantums B and D in this blog.
Nice, I really believe we need a relationship refresher 101. If you're interested, call me from the farthest galaxy that is my natural nesting space.
Israel
Do you think the observed phenomena of special relativity depend on the speed relative to the background radiation?
In relativity we talk about the speed of light. Yes, I hear you laugh…. But c is more than the speed of light, it is the maximum information transfer speed. Gravity for example, which is not related to light, moves at this speed. And there must be such a speed - because otherwise you end up with contradictions.
That's why I say the whole issue of light is no red herring.
Don't get me confused between time dilation and parallel universes. I don't know of parallel reconstructions related to special relativity. I would love to receive a link.
Back in time,
Nisimov, Giraffe's tail, did you answer first? where? Mind reading is not what it used to be.
Regarding 3: Do you know how they arrived at the idea of parallel universes and time extension?
Pretty simple, yes or no.
And as for your question.. what is it actually? I should understand from all the responses what the question is?
Are you still claiming that sponsorship has nothing to do with light? So what is Postulate 2 in relationships?
Israel
1 - I already answered you. Yes.
2 - I answered you. Yes.
3 – A bad question that cannot be answered.
Now - answer my question, or the discussion is over.
Israel
Maybe you didn't understand - but I'm not on trial with you.
Wow, I thought it was simple, just three questions that need to be answered yes or no..
1. Do you claim that relativity is not based on the fact that a light beam (can also be a single photon) has a specific and precise position, a specific and precise momentum, at a specific and precise moment? Yes No.
2. Are you claiming that quantum does not contradict 1? Yes No.
3. Do you know where the idea of going back to the past and parallel universes came from, but still claims it is not based on a contradiction of relativity? Yes No
But apparently it's more complicated than I thought, and instead of answers I got a lecture about how special relativity does not depend on the existence of light.
Even the address is there, but it's all filled with the letter c for some reason..
I heard that there is now a new formula for converting mass to energy: (E=mvariance) squared..
Relationship has nothing to do with light.. Hold me, I'm torn..
Better than flat earth...
Israel
Nor does special relativity depend on the existence of light. All that needs to be assumed is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_covariance
Even if there is not a single photon in the universe, including the CMB, special relativity would still be true (of course you can debate whether special relativity is true or not - but there is no observation that shows it is not).
Yes - I think the momentum of a photon has no importance in special relativity. I also think that it is not important at all that we know that light is made of photons. If the light was continuous - the Torah would still be true.
Special relativity, as far as I know, does not contradict quantum theory. I wrote it already.
I don't know that there are contradictions in special relativity.
Could you please consider my question?
"General relativity is correct - even if there was no light at all - are you aware of that?"
But not privately, and that's what we're discussing.
So let's try one last time before we give up on getting an answer:
1. Do you claim that relativity is not based on the fact that a light beam (can also be a single photon) has a specific and precise position, a specific and precise momentum, at a specific and precise moment? Yes No.
2. Are you claiming that quantum does not contradict 1? Yes No.
3. Do you know where the idea of going back to the past and parallel universes came from, but still claims it is not based on a contradiction of relativity? Yes No
Israel
Regarding the theory of relativity and particles. I think that general relativity is based, in part, on the fact that light particles have no rest mass. But, even if the light did not exist, the Torah would still be true.
This might be a better wording...
Israel
1. It is relevant, because some of your arguments against are based on quantum theory. General relativity is correct - even if there was no light at all - are you aware of this?
2. The momentum is certainly relevant to your argument. This invalidates your argument that special relativity conflicts with the uncertainty principle.
3. Uh … so you claim that Dirac did not know the uncertainty principle?
4. Read my answer – you know what …. I will spare you the effort:
You: "Are you claiming that going back to the past and parallel universes are not based on a contradiction to relativity?"
Me: "No, that's not what I'm claiming."
Do you know the word no???
Let's go over your answers.
1. I don't think general relativity depends on light being made of particles.
It's built, and it's irrelevant. All relativity arguments are also valid for a single photon.
2. The momentum of a photon depends on its frequency. I don't think the frequency of light has any meaning in general relativity.
Second, irrelevant. Here are the original 2:
2. Do you claim that relativity is not based on the fact that a light beam (can also be a single photon) has a specific and precise position, a specific and precise momentum, at a specific and precise moment?
So answer this question please.
3. I don't think that quantum theory contradicts special relativity. Dirac didn't think like that either, but what does he understand...
But the non-recognition principle contradicts 2 and that's why you ask..
4. I claim that special relativity does not lead back to parallel universes.
But the question was:
4. "Are you claiming that going back to the past and parallel universes are not based on a contradiction to relativity?"
So what is the answer? A return to parallel universes not based on contradiction to relativity?
Israel
1. I don't think general relativity depends on light being made of particles.
2. The momentum of a photon depends on its frequency. I don't think the frequency of light has any meaning in general relativity.
3. I don't think that quantum theory contradicts special relativity. Dirac didn't think like that either, but what does he understand...
4. "Are you claiming that going back to the past and parallel universes are not based on a contradiction to relativity?"
No, that's not what I'm claiming. I claim that special relativity does not lead back to the past and parallel universes.
Now it's your turn to answer: Do you think the observed phenomena of general relativity depend on the speed relative to the background radiation?
Jitter? Moa?
You probably meant lightly amused..
Amused by your amazing ability to bombard with questions about topics that do not have easy answers and avoid answering similar questions directed at you..
So if you are serious, start seriously answering the questions asked.
1. What does it mean: "In any case - I searched about Wikipedia on general relativity for the word photon - and did not find it.
Even in Einstein's original article, the photon is not mentioned.'
Is the word "light" mentioned in those sources? And do you know what the elementary particle that makes up light is?
If you are not sure, a.e. Einstein + Nobel Prize.
2. Do you claim that relativity is not based on the fact that a light beam (can also be a single photon) has a specific and precise position, a specific and precise momentum, at a specific and precise moment?
If you are not sure refer to Einstein's original article on relativity.
3. Are you claiming that quantum does not contradict 2?
If you are not sure about the principle of uncertainty.
4. Do you claim that going back to the past and parallel universes are not based on a contradiction to relativity?
If you are not sure, refer to this blog "Quantum Philosophy" chapters B and D.
If you answer seriously, then answer seriously.
Israel
And again we moved to personal attacks. But it's you…
In any case - I searched Wikipedia about general relativity for the word photon - and did not find it.
Even in Einstein's original article, the photon is not mentioned.
I understand that "equally spread" means that there is the same probability of finding the particle everywhere. But I won't ask you what you mean, because that makes you angry.
Haha.. the well-known miracle method of bombarding with questions.. maybe you should start answering instead..
Are you claiming that photons are unrelated to relativity?
Have you heard of Postulate 2? He doesn't happen to deal with light?
Do you know what are the elementary particles that make up light?
Are you claiming that a return to the past and parallel universes are not based on a contradiction to relativity?
Wikipedia is usually not wrong. What about Nisimov? Do you understand what "applied with equal probability" means? And if so, what does it have to do with the same amount of light everywhere? Is light made of a single photon or many trillions?
138 submissions.
Now!
Israel
What do photons have to do with relativity?
And again - are you claiming that there is an error in Wikipedia? Because I can find more quotes…
I can also provide citations to the effect that special relativity has no effect on the past - or is there another error in Wikipedia?
Epicurus long ago completely contradicted the boss.
And you still haven't explained how a laser works - if the photons are everywhere with equal probability then we should see the same amount of light everywhere - this is the meaning of equal probability. Or is Wikipedia wrong here too?
So you want to continue right here.. Shwein.
"According to Wikipedia, a photon does not have an exact position and an exact momentum at the same moment. Is this a mistake on Wikipedia?'
According to relativity there is. This is what it is built on.
"I don't think that special relativity claims that you can influence the past.
I don't know that there is a connection between special relativity and parallel universes.'
See Gali Weinstein's articles on delayed choice (Philosophy of the Quantum Part II) and parallel universes (Philosophy of the Quantum IV). The two assumptions - influence on the past and parallel universes - derive from the assumption that the speed of light cannot be exceeded.
"No observation contradicts the idea that lengths shorten with speed."
Nor does any observation contradict the idea that lengths do not shorten with speed (Lorentz's idea, by the way, to explain the results of the m-m experiment).
By the way, no observation contradicts the existence of the boss and many other things..
"If the probability of finding a photon is the same everywhere then how can I be seeing my screen right now? How does a laser work? What is the photoelectric effect? How do you measure the distance to the moon with a laser?'
As I wrote: "Using our devices, we are able to detect light only at a specific speed relative to it."
You are at the right speed for finding the photon at this point. At a different speed, you would find the part of the "long photon" moving at a different speed.
Israel
According to Wikipedia, a photon does not have an exact position and exact momentum at the same moment. Is this a Wikipedia error?
I don't think special relativity claims that you can influence the past.
I don't know that there is a connection between special relativity and parallel universes.
No observation contradicts the idea that lengths shorten with speed.
If the probability of finding a photon is the same everywhere then how can I be seeing my screen right now? How does a laser work? What is the photoelectric effect? How do you measure the distance to the moon with a laser?
Nice, comment in the galaxy:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/distant-galaxy-found-04110/comment-page-21#comment-728432
Israel
We owe Matan's clear mind here... this creature has all the answers.
Israel
Explain to me how MM results are not related to the speed to us relative to the background radiation. I also have two months.
Are you claiming that the speed of light is not constant in any inertial system?
"The EPR was misinterpreted. The conclusions are correct, and have been confirmed in experiments. you know that…"
??
I realised. New year, party, whiskey..(feliz año nuevo 2019).
What misinterpretation are you talking about? Translation, translation.
"In my understanding, the indirect evidence is very strong. In particular - the story of the muon, and the results of certain collisions with accelerators".
I have shown that I believe that even with the lengthening of the times you will get the same results.
"The MM experiment provides evidence - and contradicts the idea that the background radiation is related to the matter".
You keep coming back to mm - an experiment in interferometry - as evidence of the shortening of the length. Maybe explain what the connection is?
"If Maxwell's theory is an explanation in your eyes, then why do you strongly claim that general relativity is not an explanation for gravity?"
https://www.universetoday.com/75705/where-does-gravity-come-from/
"So, what is gravity and where does it come from?
"To be honest, we're not entirely sure"
But these effects - where there are basically curves, hills and valleys in space - occur for reasons we can't fully really explain
What is "We come now to consider the magnetic influence as existing in the form of some kind of pressure or tension, or, more generally, of stress in the medium."??
Have you ever heard of something called "abstract" at the beginning of every scientific essay?
"Regarding time - do you claim that the sealed clocks in GPS satellites run at a different rate because of warming, or because of cooling? Or the low pressure? Maybe because they don't have enough oxygen there?"
Since I do not doubt the lengthening of time, would it be helpful to explain the necessity of the question? Aren't we dealing with shrinking the length?
"And again to mm experiments - how do you explain it without shortening its length?"
Do you really want to know how I explain? Do you have two weeks free?
Israel
EPR was misinterpreted. The conclusions are correct, and have been confirmed in experiments. you know that…
True - there is no "direct" evidence for the shortening of the length. There is also no direct evidence that the sun is hot. In my understanding, the indirect evidence is very strong. In particular - the story of the muon, and the results of certain collisions with accelerators. The MM experiment also provides evidence - and contradicts the idea that the background radiation is related to the issue.
If Maxwell's theory is an explanation in your eyes, then why do you strongly claim that general relativity is not an explanation for gravity? What's more, we know things that Maxwell did not know, so his theory is not a valid explanation.
Maxwell didn't have any discounts? So what is "We come now to consider the magnetic influence as existing in the form of some kind of pressure or tension, or, more generally, of stress in the medium."??
Regarding time - do you claim that the sealed clocks in GPS satellites run at a different rate because of warming, or because of cooling? Or the low pressure? Maybe because they don't have enough oxygen there?
And again for mm experiments - how do you explain it without shortening the length?
"Mions don't measure". This is a reference that is suitable for moderation. Do a mental exercise..."
EPR is also a thought experiment that yields unequivocal - and wrong - results.
"The particle shorteners - have you thought of opening Wikipedia?"
From your link:
direct experimental confirmations of length contraction are hard to achieve, because at the current state of technology, objects of considerable extension cannot be accelerated to relativistic speeds. And the only objects traveling with the required speed are atomic particles, yet whose spatial extensions are too small to allow a direct measurement of contraction.
However, there are indirect confirmations of this effect in a non-co-moving frame:
In short, there is no direct evidence, only indirect evidence by way of inference.
Also the existence of the website was pressed on the way of inference. It was a stable and certain belief at the end of the 19th century, much like the belief in atoms and electrons today.
"Maxwell didn't explain anything. He assumed that there was electromagnetism and developed formulas.'
Amusing you say as you amused the Egyptian? Have you ever read the Maxwell model?
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
Maxwell mathematically developed what Faraday had begun as a hydrodynamic model of currents in the ether and to his surprise found that the speed of light could be deduced from it (Equation 136).
He also derived the electromagnetic model and Maxwell's equations from that model. No discounts.
"The assumption of the shortening of length is no more strange than the slowing down of time."
What's the problem with slowing down time? Take any clock and heat it or cool it and see how its ticking rate changes. Put an orange in the fridge and see how its life is extended like the common spaceship twin.
"If the results of the MM experiment were related to the background radiation, then the results would have to depend on the date, which is not the case."
??
Who talked about a connection between mm and radiation? And what about the date? Did we mention salad?
Where is Matan, it seems to me that his help is urgently needed here..
Israel
"Mions don't measure". This is a reference that is suitable for moderation. Do a mental exercise...
The short particles - have you thought of opening Wikipedia? So, here is the link – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
Maxwell explained nothing. He assumed that there was electromagnetism and developed formulas.
The assumption of the shortening of the length is no more strange than the slowing down of time.
If the results of the MM experiment were related to the background radiation then the results would have to depend on the date, which is not the case.
"A muon that penetrated the atmosphere will measure a very different speed to light."
Unmeasured muons.
"How would you explain the shortening that you see in the collisions of heavy particles in accelerators?"
Allow link?
How would you explain electromagnetism?
Maxwell the silver hammer.
And it also means that absolute speed can be measured - just measure the speed of light in your system.
And this is also what you will get - the speed of light in your system.
The only thing you can measure and get unequivocal results is to record two adjacent clocks. You can do this, for example, using high-resolution cameras that record two clocks that pass each other at relative speeds and see if you get increasing differences in a synchronized system, or take a video of two atomic clocks at different heights, where you will get increasing time differences between the clocks and this, wonder and wonder, without the shortening of the length.
So if a similar mechanism operates on muons (the background radiation for example), then you will get a lengthening of times without a shortening of length.
I am not claiming that this is what is happening, I am only asking for direct evidence of that mysterious shortening of length that everyone talks about but no one demonstrates it directly but through logical straw and drawing conclusions, and this is in contrast to the proven lengthening of time.
Israel
So, the same muon that entered the atmosphere will measure a very different speed to light.
How would you explain the shortening seen in collisions of heavy particles in accelerators?
How would you explain electromagnetism?
And it also means that absolute speed can be measured - just measure the speed of light in your system.
You can say the clock is ticking slowly or the distance is getting shorter.
The point is that if you say the clock is ticking slowly - which is an easy thing to measure - you no longer need the unmeasurable shortening of length.
Israel
I think you are a complete salad here. The changes are not in your inertial system, but in the other system.
Let's assume that the distance from the planets is 10 SA and that gamma = 10.
In terms of the spacecraft - the distance between the planets has shortened, and the time on the planets is lengthening. He flew to his home at a distance of XNUMX m and saw that his brother had aged a year.
In terms of the planets, the distance has not changed, and the flight time is 10 years.
Interesting question: So why don't the planets see that the time in the spaceship is 10 times longer? So, time does get longer, but the clocks are no longer synchronized. Let's say the acceleration was for one second, so for that second, the spacecraft's clock went back 9 years. And so, after 10 years of flight, the flying twin matured only one year compared to the stationary twin. It doesn't seem logical, but it doesn't create contradictions.
In any case, this is how I explain the "paradox" to myself.
How do you not create a problem?
"If both the clock ticks 10 times slower and the distance shortens 10 times, then it will take him a month or so according to his clock to reach the planet and not a year."
Isn't the clock ticking 10 times slower? And the distance isn't shortened 10 times? So why does it take him a tenth of the time to arrive and not a hundredth?
Israel
If the assumption does not create a contradiction, then there is no problem. But - if you measure the speed of light, then you will accept that this speed has changed. Then, the principle of conservation of energy should also be discarded. And with that - also the Nether Theorem, and then all the math...
A little problematic, is not it?
And this raises a question for me: in a gravitational field, time moves more slowly. Does the length also vary accordingly? I think so…
calculate? So here's an idea for him that will solve the whole length shortening mess.
He can assume it doesn't exist and the reason it only takes him a year instead of 10 to get to the planet is that his clock is ticking 10 times slower, that's enough.
Because if both the clock ticks 10 times slower and the distance shortens 10 times, then it will take him a month or so according to his clock to reach the planet and not a year, right?
And he will explain to himself that he passed ten light years in one year.
Israel
1) He can calculate, like we did.
2) When he collided with the planet he already knew.
3) Suppose there is a clock on the planet, which broadcasts the exact time every second. The twin can receive the signal, and calculate the distance based on it - it has all the data for that.
4) He can see the light coming from the planet, and measure the angle to the circumference of the planet. This is why there is no "historical photograph" because a significant amount of time has passed since the photons were set off, so the planet is not in the same place.
They do not divide, velocity is a vector and has a direction. Therefore "a photo from the same distance of the same object moving at the same speed will be the same" is a true sentence.
If according to you "the only way to measure distance is by two flashes of light from both points, at the same time" then how does the twin know that the distance to the distant planet has shortened?
Israel
Penrose and Terrell disagree. They write that an approaching body will appear longer and a receding body will appear shorter.
Garnot explained that distance is defined as the difference of two locations in the same frame of reference. In my understanding, the only way to measure distance is by two flashes of light from both points, at the same time. It is different from photography.
I assume that a photo from the same distance of the same object moving at the same speed will be the same. Does anyone dispute this?
So what does the distance mean 10 times smaller? Can anyone give a physical answer?
Israel
You are starting from the assumption that photography measures range. This is probably not true. Read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_rotation
Correction: "1. According to the twins' paradox, when the twin accelerates from a distance of ten light seconds" - CEL from a distance of one light hour.
"And every spacecraft sees that the distance between the planets is one light year."
This row exhausts all the problems of shortening the length. How exactly does she "see" the same distance of the light year. Is it possible to see something in the photo that will prove to us that it is a light year away?
Take the following thought experiment:
1. According to the twin paradox, when the twin accelerates from a distance of ten light seconds towards Mars and reaches gamma 10, the distance to Mars is reduced from a light hour to 6 light minutes. So it is said that at this moment, when the twin is at a small distance from the earth, it is photographing Mars.
2. It is said that the twin stays on the earth and Mars moves towards it at gamma 10. When Mars is 6 light minutes away from the twin, the twin takes a picture of Mars.
Will the pictures be the same? In both, Mars is photographed from a distance of 6 light minutes from a propulsion system in front of it at gamma 10, so is there no difference?
This is a tricky question.
giving
Sorry, I missed your comment about the radar.
You wrote "Does the radar show that the plane is at an altitude of 10,000 meters or at an altitude of 9,928 meters?"
(30 km has a drop of 72 meters - so according to your science, the plane relative to the radar is at least 72 meters lower)."
The accuracy of the radar is around one degree, at a distance of 30 km it is 600 meters... so 72 meters is not something I will see.
But - the distance to the horizon line (in the real world, not in your stupid invention) is 1.2 times the root of the height (it's not a bad rule of thumb). So at a height of 10 (your example) - the horizon is 120 miles away. And see it's a miracle - when I map with radar - then the image is simply cut off by 120 miles.
We used to do a lot of 100 foot sea tours. The sea itself is not visible on the radar, but every boat is. And guess what? Can't see any boat over 12 miles!
If there was a tiny fishing boat 10 miles away and a monster aircraft carrier 15 miles away - I only saw the fishing boat. And if I went up to 200 feet then I immediately saw the aircraft carrier.
So here is once again conclusive proof that you are talking nonsense.
Miracles,
It's not evil, it's just stupidity and ignorance.
rival
He claims that Ilan Ramon is alive and hiding somewhere. It is a sickening and unforgivable evil.
Miracles,
I don't think Matan is lying. I don't believe that a normal person would make a fool of himself with such delusional claims ("our world is flat and everyone is lying to us") if he thought they were not true.
I have no doubt that Matan is not a liar, although he is certainly not the sharpest pencil in the pencil 😀
Israel
I thought about what Prof. Granot wrote.
Take 2 planets anywhere in space, in the same inertial system. At the same time both launch a spaceship. So it is clear that at any given moment - the distance from each planet to the spacecraft launched from it will be the same.
Therefore, in our case, in the planetary system, the distance between the spaceships will remain constant, 10 light years.
From the special theory of relativity (assuming it is correct), the planets calculate the distance between the spacecraft in the spacecraft axis system - and it comes out to be 100 light years.
And every spacecraft sees that the distance between the planets is one light year.
Do you agree with that? And if so - where do you see a contradiction?
rival
"Of course I expect you to come back here with a true report."
You're kidding, are not you?
giving,
"In any case - next month I'm doing an experiment in the Dead Sea on a 6 km flat embankment and a car will move away from me and we'll see if it's small and disappears from below it's small and disappears as one body"
Because I saw that your thinking ability is not something, so I will help you with the experiment you are planning (by the way, what is the "flat battery"? How do you make sure that it is really flat and not convex?)
When the vehicle (which is relatively small) moves away from you, it will be very difficult for you to distinguish between its upper part and its lower part and conclude whether the lower part has disappeared or not and this can ruin your experiment.
Therefore, what you need to do is to improvise some kind of high pole (for example, a telescopic pole for hanging a shower curtain) that will be placed vertically in the car (you can attach it to the right window, for example, one of the passengers can hold it in his hand and attach it to the car) and place two identical flashlights on it with the same light intensity. One lantern will be placed down as close to ground level as possible, and a second lantern up at the top of the pole. They should both back light at the same angle, you can use scotch tape to attach them to the pole.
If your theory is correct, and you perform the experiment in the dark evening hours, then at some point when the vehicle moves away from you, the lower light should disappear and you should see only the upper light.
I of course expect you to come back here with a true report on the result of the experiment, and if you take pictures of the different stages of the vehicle moving away it will be even more reliable for me.
giving,
"Regarding the big ball - not true.
You will see it disappear after some time before from below, that is, the bottom will disappear because of the land that hides it, just like the ship that disappeared from below before (because of perspective and not because of curvature).
And after a while you won't see the middle and in the end you won't see it at all.
He did not disappear and is small but disappeared from the bottom. And again - the earth begins to hide him from below because that's how perspective works.
This is simply not true, I don't know where you read this lie.
You will see the whole ball all the time, only it will go and appear smaller and smaller to you until you can't notice it, and then even if you go up to a height of 20 km you still won't be able to notice it.
And I thought of a better example, think of a tower at a height of 150 meters that is moving away from you on a flat and endless straight road, its lower part is lit with blue LEDs, and its upper part is lit with red LEDs. As it moves away from you, you will constantly see both the blue light from its lower part and the red light from its upper part. Under no circumstances will you see only a red light without the blue below.
And once you can't see the lights anymore, then even if you get higher you still won't be able to see him.
giving,
By my life you are hard to understand, they get back 1-3 photons from the reflector in their private detector! If there were 30 more detectors scattered instead, then each of them would receive an average of 1-3 photons for each pulse!
On each pulse, a lot of photons return back that are scattered over an area of several kilometers, the relatively small detector only manages to catch a few of them on average!
To give you credit... for what exactly?
Israel
I wonder what the professor says. How do you think a viewer on the ground sees it?
Anyway - I have to think about it a lot...
giving
You won't get any credit because you're a stupid liar. As Shiriv said, it is about the number of photons they receive in the photomultiplier.
Matan - either everyone is a liar or you are a liar. They give you conclusive proof that you are lying, and you still don't get it.
Therefore - the only conclusion that can be reached is that you are also stupid.
I told you - as long as heroic people are considered liars in your eyes - I will attack you continuously. You and the scoundrels like you, who think they are geniuses of all generations.
give you credit…. You made my day 🙂
giving
Are you saying that magnetic force is not proof of relativity?
You... do you understand a bit about the subject? So I have some questions that I have not yet received a satisfactory answer to.
Let's start with the first: are you claiming that the relationship is incorrect?
It will be a refreshing change after discussions about whether the earth is flat..
Prof. Granot's answer:
Regarding the new/updated "paradox" you brought up, if I understood better exactly what is bothering you, then what breaks the symmetry here is that the events of the mirror of spacecraft B from the earth and spacecraft A from the planet are simultaneous only in the earth-planet system and not in the spacecraft system while they are moving at the same speed. Since the distance between objects is measured by the difference in their simultaneous position in the same system, the distance between the spacecraft at the time of their departure in the Earth-planet system is equal to the distance between the Earth and the planet in the same system - 10 light years. This is after the Lorentz contraction in relation to the distance between them in their system, so that in the spacecraft system the distance between the spacecraft is about 100 light years while the distance between the Earth and the planet is one light year, again due to the Lorentz contraction this time in the opposite direction between the systems. This works out because according to spacecraft A at the time it took off the earth was about a year or so away from it while spacecraft B had already taken off, or the earth "took off" from it, almost a century ago and therefore was already about a hundred light years away from it. Hope this helps you
rival
Please give me some credit
they say:
"We shoot 200,000,000,000,000,000 photons per pulse at the reflector,
And get back 1-3 photons per pulse if they're lucky."
You get 1-3 photons back from the reflector, and not "that many photons are returned in a wide radius and their detector picks up 1-3 photons"
Regarding the big ball - not true.
You will see it disappear after some time before from below, that is, the bottom will disappear because of the land that hides it, just like the ship that disappeared from below before (because of perspective and not because of curvature).
And after a while you won't see the middle and in the end you won't see it at all.
He did not disappear and is small but disappeared from the bottom.
And again - the earth begins to hide him from below because that's how perspective works.
And again for the third time - at the stage when the big ball is, let's say, half hidden - if you increase your height by 20 meters - voila you will see it again because you have a greater angle of vision. simple.
It's just like running hurdles at the same height,
As you descend in height or move away from them, the barrier in front of you hides the back.
I explain it in this chapter:
Chapter 7 of 17: How reality works - the perspective*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlIzL4gP6D8&t=70s
In any case - next month I'm doing an experiment in the Dead Sea on a 6 km flat embankment and a car will move away from me and we'll see if it's small and disappears from below it's small and disappears as one body.
giving,
In my life you have the level of understanding of a small child. They mean that only a few individual photons are picked up in their detector, but there are many other photons that also return but scatter in a radius of several kilometers around the detector.
How about an answer to the bullet example I gave you? I claim that if you stick your head to a straight and flat road of infinite length, and a large ball (with a diameter of 150 meters) will roll quickly away from you, then as soon as it becomes too small and disappears from your eyes, then even if you rise to a height of 20 km, it will still remain too small and you will not see him.
What do you have to say about it?
Miracles
I didn't get an answer, so I'm jumping again
This is taken from the series "Mythbusters" from the Discovery Channel.
In this show they were in a station that shoots the laser at the moon so to speak.
now
They literally say they shoot 200,000,000,000,000,000 photons per pulse and they only receive 1-3 photons per pulse back.
So what do you want to tell me? Q- 1-3 single photons per pulse return with a diameter of 20 km?
Haha - who are you coming to work for?
I am still waiting for an answer
Israel
Surely Matan knows the answer…..
Israel
In the case of the spaceships - completely agree.
I have another reason to think that the distance is actually small: take two electric wires and flow a current through them. The explanation we learn for the attraction between the wires is that the distance between the electrons is small due to Lorentz repulsion. If the distance had increased - we would have received a postponement.
Unfortunately - there is also a lot of sense in the fact that the distance between the spaceships will not change. The front spacecraft is simply a linear copy of the rear one. Place everywhere x+d instead of x.
But ….. in the eyes of the spaceships the distance between them should increase. Like you said...not clear at all 🙂
Prof. Moshe Moshe from the Technion and Prof. Yigal Meir (not Amir!) President of the Association of Physicists say that the distance remains the same..
Can we perhaps conclude that one thing is certain, that this length extension is somewhat controversial?
if the distance shortening so what about 11?
Granot says the distance is increasing and so does Vicky..
Israel
I read everything. It convinced me that I was right and you were wrong. Ofer also says that the distance between the spaceships is getting shorter. You have to be very careful with the concepts of time, distance and length. That's why I gave a method to synchronize between the spacecrafts, then you get what I wrote.
Regarding the twin paradox, it is clear that there is no paradox, because the shortening of the length resolves possible contradictions. Apart from that - today there is much evidence that the re-twin is indeed younger.
Regarding the spacecraft problem - I still need to think a little...
Coherent, coherent, but creates a contradiction to section 12 in the paradox of the twins
http://ofer-megged-phys-notes.blogspot.com/2013/12/blog-post.html
Scroll down in the comments until you get to the paradox of the paradox.
Israel
My answer is incoherent? 🙂
Miracles
Lengthens.. shortens.. stays the same.. Vicky says this way.. Vicky says the opposite..
In short, a mess. And if you believe that there is someone who can give a qualified and coherent answer then please bring him.
Yoda
There is no doubt that "it doesn't matter, get into the spaceship" is one of Danny's key phrases.
Yehuda,
Was the lecture filmed and uploaded to YouTube?
Sounds like an interesting topic 🙂
Returning from the lecture by Avi Blizovsky from the Israeli Astronomical Society.
The lecture was on "the possibility of the existence of aliens" and was done through a very interesting analysis of Danny Sanderson's poem on the subject of aliens, and conclusions. I enjoyed it very much.
Good night
Yehuda
Israel
The passengers cannot know that the train is moving, so for them the length is correct. If the train accelerates to a stop then, according to what is written about the Bell Paradox, it is indeed not clear what happens to the passengers.
But - that's not what I'm asking about. My question is this:
You said that a speeding train is getting longer. Therefore - it will shorten slowly. So according to Bell.
On the other hand, the same train that we described earlier is slowly lengthening. This is according to general relativity.
There is a contradiction here. I have a solution to this, but it doesn't match what was said about the Bell Paradox. My solution is that the spaceships in Paradox Bell are actually approaching, in the planetary system.
The explanation is this: let's assume that the spacecraft synchronize their acceleration with the pulses of the engine (there are such engines). To synchronize - there is a flashing lamp halfway between the spaceships. As far as the spaceships are concerned - the flashes of light arrive together and the spaceships accelerate together, and the distance between them is maintained.
From the point of view of a planet observer - the pulse reaches the rear spacecraft first, it accelerates first and therefore approaches the front spacecraft. At the end of the acceleration, the number of flashes is the same and therefore the spacecraft speeds are the same and the distance between them is now maintained.
In deceleration - the reverse process will occur and the distance between the spacecraft will increase again.
And now - there is no contradiction.
"A train moving at gamma = 10 looks shorter or longer?"
Short for an outside observer, unchanged for passengers, or maybe yes? I don't know anymore.
Strange, very strange.
giving
The video you linked to proves, once again, that you are stupid and a liar. Is this what you meant?
Miracles,
Matan will not let the facts confuse him.
Miracles
They literally say they shoot 200,000,000,000,000,000 photons per pulse and they only receive 1-3 photons per pulse back.
So what do you want to tell me? Q- 1-3 single photons per pulse return with a diameter of 20 km?
Haha - who are you coming to work for?
I am still waiting for an answer
Yehuda
1. These huge particles are still very small. The problem is that these particles do not react with normal mass - if one passes through our room, we have no way to roll it.
In accelerator experiments, parts are "discovered" that we have no ability to actually discover. how? You see a disintegration phenomenon where part of the energy / momentum is missing. Neutral pawns, for example, reveal this way.
Therefore - my claim is valid: if the particles have very high energy, it makes sense that we have not discovered them until today.
2. I'm not talking about great distances. It is enough to look at satellites. Only recently an experiment was performed that shows that the speed of a clock depends on the gravitational field, with a very high precision.
And if you want great distances - 13 billion light years is far enough, isn't it? There are phenomena of the CMB that are explained with the help of general relativity.
3. Gravity on atoms. I thought we weren't talking about your explanation…. When I did it before, you got mad at me. Abal Ok - your explanation is based on the fact that matter is almost transparent to radiation. Are you now claiming that protons and neutrons are made up of many, much smaller parts? And what about an electron? Its diameter is not larger than the diameter of your particles.
And speaking of that - how come your particles weren't detected in the accelerators? Or is this argument only valid when it's convenient?
4. You didn't explain anything. You claim that the speed of light depends on time. How is this related to the MM experiment?
5. In the transition between mediators there is no problem of energy conservation. The speed of the photons does not change, but the paths lengthen.
6. I'm talking about something simpler. The speed of the Earth is small, and the energy of the Moon is increased. If you claim that the moon is moving away due to expansion, then where did the earth's energy go? To remind you - during the time of the dinosaurs, a day was 23 hours.
7. Good luck 🙂
Thank you to all the participants, I am saddened by the death of my sister.
and for our purposes,
Today there will be a lecture at the Astronomy Society by the lecturer Avi Blizovsky from our science site.
It will be interesting to meet him.
Yehuda
Yehuda
I'm so sorry!!!!!!
giving
The laser that is used to measure the distance to the moon scatters a little. The diameter of the lobe that hits the moon is about 7 km, and the diameter of the returning lobe is 20 km. But let's not let the facts change our minds.
There is no problem measuring a single photon - even the human eye can see a single photon.
But - just answer me the question about the sun and the radar. are you able
giving
First explain to me how the sun looks like a perfect circle from every angle I see it. And also explain to me how radar works. After that I'd be happy to show you evidence that things are shortening at high speed.
Israel
"According to relativity, it lengthens in the observer's reference system and shortens in the self-reference system."
I'm not talking about a speeding train. I'll ask again: does a train moving at gamma = 10 look shorter or longer? I ask both in the eyes of the train and the eyes of the track.
Yehuda
sorry for your loss
Israel
Is this the best example you gave?
You give me an example with a ridiculous conclusion "magnetic force is electronic force from a different reference point"
give me a break
Magnetic force is not proof of any theory of relativity!
You talked for hours about tangible things such as spaceships and trains and that's what you talked about - give me an example like that.
am waiting!
Yehuda shares in your sorrow 🙁
Yoda
Share in your sorrow, that you will know no more sorrow.
Giving the sharpener
Look at the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0
Kneel in the third minute.
The electrons move at a speed of approximately 30 cm per second and their effect on the conductor can still be precisely measured due to the relative shortening of the length.
Elk unicorns..
I'm back and according to a sad message -
I have just risen from a Shiva for the death of my beloved, young and beautiful sister, Dora, who fought fiercely for thirteen years against the cursed cancer, may she be blessed.
Let's move on to the eyes of the "scientist".
I have a "debt return" to Nissim for his response to me from about ten days ago.
Below are Nissim's comments in his response to me: Nissim December 18, 2018 at 07:36
1. Let's assume that the dark mass is made of particles whose energy is 100 teraelectron volts. So it's unlikely in your eyes that we haven't seen them in accelerators yet?
My answer - as far as I understand it is a huge particle and it shouldn't be a problem to discover it, but if you meant a smaller particle for example a micro electron volt then we will really have a hard time discovering it, that's what I meant that eighty years is enough to discover the dark matter particle. Don't forget miracles, if you require an infinite amount of time for the purpose of the searches, it will contradict the scientific nature of the particle, which in fact we will not be able to expose it to refutation
2. General relativity predicted and explained phenomena with amazing accuracy. Don't you agree that an alternative theory of gravity should also explain these phenomena?
My answer: the theory of relativity does not explain "phenomena with incredible precision" at distances if for this purpose it uses dark matter and energy to adjust the measured results to what is required, if your wife demands that you bring her ten kg of potatoes and you return with only one kg, I doubt if The explanation that you brought another nine kilograms of dark potatoes will convince her. If you are divorced I will look for another example.
3. Observationally, gravity also acts on discrete atoms. Shouldn't we demand that an alternative theory also explain this phenomenon?
My answer: I agree with you. The gravity pushing particles of the simple universe have an approximate size of ten to the power of minus forty kg which is much smaller than a proton and there is no reason why it should not act on it. (explanation on my website)
4. I would appreciate it if you could explain to me what the change in the speed of light along the timeline has to do with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Are you confused here? ?
My answer: I'm glad we have a consensus regarding possible conclusions from the Mickelson-Morlay experiment. But many believe in the constancy of the speed of light and cite for this purpose Mikkelsen Morley. I will quote, for example, a passage from Professor Amir Levinson's book "The Fireworks Show of the Universe" (Meter Publishing House 2012) there on page 90 in the chapter "The Speed of Light in a Vacuum as a Universal Constant" and I quote:
"... the conclusion of the physicists was after they digested the results of the experiment (Mikelson Morley) that the speed of light is a universal constant". End quote. And by the way miracles are also the conclusion of the ether's unreality, which is also based on the Mickelson Morley experiment, stands on chicken's knees. But that is not our concern here.
5. May I ask why you ignore the fact that changing the speed of light contradicts the principle of conservation of energy and mass?
My answer: Miracles... This is a difficult question, and requires thought, and I won't pull a casual answer out of my pocket... But I will point out that the problem should already arise in the passage of light between bodies where its speed changes, for example from air to glass and from there to water - what happens with the law of conservation of energy?. In short... food for thought.
,
6. I once explained to you that the change in the speed of light means that the distance to the moon, for example, does not agree with the change in the rotation speed of the Earth. So do you think the principle of conservation of angular momentum is also wrong.
My answer: Note that the distance of the moon from the earth corresponds exactly to the distance of Hubble to its distance from the earth - about 385,000 km, about 25 mm per year and about another 13 mm resulting from the reduction of the speed of light. Explanation on my website. About 38 mm per year.
I do not understand how the explanation of the tides on the earth (on the continents in the atmosphere during the days and in the trend inside the sphere is measured exactly. It seems to me that an adjustment was made here to what is required in distance.
7. These conservation laws are the result of Neter's theorem. Is this sentence also wrong? To remind you - this is a mathematical theorem, not a physical observation.
My answer: I don't know the above sentence and I don't understand it. I will dig in and respond. Mainly on section 5.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com
rival,
Attached is the plan of the mythbusters on the laser measurement of the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA
Leave the problem that the laser does not dissipate after 380,000 km and it can damage the reflector
Leave the problem that you must aim exactly at an angle of 0.000001 precision (as an example) in a direction of 380,000 km towards the reflector which is a few meters in size.
And leave the problem that in haloes they shoot 200,000,000,000,000,000 (200 quadrillion) photons and only a few photons come back.
but,
but,
And that's what I want you to answer me:
The distance to the moon and back is 760,000 km.
The speed of light is 300,000 km per second.
It turns out that it takes the laser 2.5 seconds to return.
The speed of the earth's self-rotation is 1600 km/h
In 2.5 seconds the earth rotates a little more than 1 km!
That is, when you shoot a laser at the moon, and the laser returns to the detector, you are 1 km away from the original position.
That is, the detector that is supposed to receive the individual photons that return, is 1 km away due to the rotation of the earth.
So tell me, my friend - how did the detector that picks up the single photons that came back pick it up, but is at all 1 km somewhere else?
giving
Israel
really?
"It is enough that you move at a speed of a few meters per second to be able to measure the change."
A train moves at 90 km/h which is 25 meters per second - and you claim that it is getting shorter/longer?
I clarify - you have a ground camera of 10,000 frames that photographs the front edge and has a cross on it exactly on the edge in front, and a ground camera that photographs the edge from behind and has a cross on it exactly on the edge in the back.
(The assumption is that the connections between the cars are not stretched, or we treat the train as one block.)
Let's say that during rest the length of the train is 100 meters, and the distance of the cameras from each other is also 100 meters.
So you want to tell me that the train passes by at 25 meters per second and the cameras shoot with the cross, will there be a change in the length of the train?
are you real? That is, in one of the cameras the end will be on the cross, and in the other it will not?
And if a train moves at 450 km/h, which is 125 meters per second - do you still claim that both will not be on the cross?
And am I the crazy one?
There will be no change in any speed reached by humans, which is only a few thousand km/h.
And when you're talking about changes in the speed of light, replace the train with unicorns, because it's exactly the same thing.
"So a train slows down and gets longer...
Where I was wrong?"
According to relativity, it lengthens in the viewer's frame of reference and shortens in the self-frame of reference.
giving
I'm glad you're joining the discussion, you seem smart and understanding to me, but the train doesn't have to move at the speed of light to shorten or lengthen, in a round world it's enough to move at a speed of a few meters per second to be able to measure the change.
And in a flat world? Fifty-sixty knots an hour or maybe at the speed of the bull?
giving,
I don't think there is anything more entertaining than a person who claims the world is flat telling others they live in lala land 🙂
How about referring to the laser coming back from the moon from mirrors that the astronauts who never landed on the moon didn't put there?
What about the ball on the road example I gave you, do you think it's not as I described?
giving,
In the example I gave you before, replace the truck with a large ball with a diameter of say 150 meters, which rolls away from you down a straight and flat road, it will be more compatible with the sun.
If it gets so far away from you that you will no longer be able to notice it when your head is next to the road (because it will be too small) then even if you go up from the same vantage point to a height of 20 km you will still not be able to notice it, it will still remain too small (only With binoculars or a telescope you can see it again).
You are simply ridiculous with your theoretical argument that in life no human being can prove:
"If an accelerating train gets longer, then a decelerating train gets shorter. To see it - we will take a video of the acceleration and then we will play the drums."
I would love to see the video of a vehicle traveling at the speed of light.
You live in La Land.
I'm waiting for your theoretical discussion about unicorns - you have a greater chance of proving that
Israel
If an accelerating train lengthens, then a decelerating train shortens. To see it - we will take a video of the acceleration and then we will play in reverse.
On the other hand - look at the following example: a train approaches with gamma = 10 and appears to us to be a light year long. The train slows down and stops, so it takes 10 hours.
So a train slows down and gets longer...
Where I was wrong?
And regarding 4 synchronized clocks. If they are synchronized then the distance between the spaceships will not change. This is what I think will happen, but as you said - relativity thinks differently...
On the other hand -
Miracles, I will watch the video later.
"Take a train. Does the train get longer when it accelerates, or does it get shorter?"
According to the Bell Paradox in relations, the train lengthens in its frame of reference and this is why if you put a rope between 2 accelerating cars it will break, and shortens in the eyes of an outside observer.
And don't tell me it sounds paradoxical and that you don't get it. You are the knight who fights fiercely for the defense of relativity and is willing to accept even a mile-long train that is compressed to an inch without the knowledge of the passengers who actually find themselves moving away from each other.
And I.. See:
https://www.meetup.com/Quantum-Physics-Discussion-Group/events/241128751/
Even though there are no mathematical inconsistencies within the theory, physically relativity is so strange that many physicists found it very difficult to accept. Theoretical physicists such as Abraham, Lorentz, Poincaré, and Langevin still believed in the existence of an ether.
For example, Lorenz length contraction is especially difficult to understand and has no direct experimental support
1) Do you think otherwise
No.
"In the spacecraft system, the situation is more complex, and you have to look at clock synchronization. For the spacecraft to accelerate together (in the star system), the forward spacecraft's clock must be ahead of the backward spacecraft's clock. Therefore the front spacecraft accelerates first, and the distance between them increases.
2) Do you agree?'
I don't understand why all four clocks, in the stars and in the spaceships, can't be synchronized and at time 0 in all four spaceships start to accelerate.
"Something else bothers me, simpler (and maybe that's what you're saying...). Does the planet overlap the spacecraft as it moves away from it?'
This is what comes out if the two paradoxes, twins and Belle, exist.
But I still haven't received a simple answer to the basic question: What is meant by the shortening of the distance? If the twin sees the planet to which it accelerates 10 times closer, will its diameter in the photo also increase 10 times? After all, the space itself does not change because of the twin movement, so what exactly is this shortening of length?
And you didn't answer about the laser beam coming back from the moon... how would you explain that?
giving,
What you wrote is just nonsense! Even if you stick your head to a straight and flat road you will continue to see a big, tall truck moving away from you until it is already too small and disappears, and then even if you climb a 200 story building at that point you still won't see it!
Oh how senseless you are...
Israel
I'll say what I said again... It is not clear to me that the distance increases with this acceleration. Instead of 2 spaceships - take a train. Does the train get longer when it accelerates, or does it get shorter?
I am thinking of the following example: we have 3 stars on the X-axis, 10 AU apart. At 0 there is A, at 10 sah there is B and at 20 sah there is C. We have a spaceship on A and B, and both perform the same acceleration at time 0 towards C.
It seems to me that while one spacecraft is crossing B, the other is crossing C. I mean the time shown by the clocks on the stars. That is, in the star system the distance between the spaceships remains 10 AU.
1) Do you think differently?
In the spacecraft system the situation is more complex, and you have to look at clock synchronization. For the spacecraft to accelerate together (in the star system), the forward spacecraft's clock must be ahead of the backward spacecraft's clock. Therefore the front spacecraft accelerates first, and the distance between them increases.
2) Agree?
Something else bothers me, simpler (and maybe that's what you're saying...). Does the planet collide with the spacecraft as it moves away from it?
"Existing physics works very well, predicting the results of high-energy experiments, describing the formation of the universe for almost 14 billion years."
Newton's physics also works very well up to a certain limit. The same goes for relativity - it works very well until it collides with quanta and strings. A.A. A Thousand Horses House.
"Okay so far?"
OK, OK, but it might be worth addressing the problem I raised in the previous response, which is a combination of two well-known paradoxes in relationships:
"According to relativity, when the twin accelerates towards the planet and it is at rest, the distance between them is smaller by the proportion of the gamma factor (the twin paradox).
According to relativity, if the twin accelerates towards the planet and it accelerates simultaneously with it, the distance between them increases at the rate of the gamma factor (Bell paradox).
It therefore follows that in order for the distance between them to remain constant, one of them must accelerate less than the other, but which one and how much?"
Israel
I don't think foreshortening creates a problem with your paradox. In my understanding, the problem there is simultaneity.
Let's think about the problem you described. There is a planet 10 light years away from us. We send a spacecraft in the opposite direction, at gamma = 10, and ask what is the distance to the planet, right?
At the same time - a spacecraft leaves the planet in the same direction and speed. And you want to know - what is the distance to the spaceship, right?
All this - from the point of view of the first spacecraft, of course.
Is that all right?
Israel
The problems you describe are theoretical. The existing physics works very well, predicts the results of experiments with high energies, describes the formation of the universe for almost 14 billion years, makes it possible to fly to a distance of more than 20 billion km, build computers that perform 10 to the power of 17 operations per second, control the position of atoms isolated and detect gravitational waves.
So the price is that the shortening of the distance is complicated for you and me? Maybe. But this reduction explains things that we have no other way to explain.
I don't think that all physics should be thrown away because of this....
Miracles
If the distance does not increase it creates a problem, according to the twin paradox.
Vicky's and Prof. Granot's solution was that the distance increased.
But even if we take the two claims of relativity we encounter a problem.
According to relativity, when the twin accelerates towards the planet and it is at rest, the distance between them is smaller by the proportion of the gamma factor (the twin paradox).
According to relativity, if the twin accelerates towards the planet and it accelerates simultaneously with it, the distance between them increases at the rate of the gamma factor (Bell paradox).
It therefore follows that in order for the distance between them to remain constant, one of them must accelerate less than the other, but which one and how much?
Starting to understand what a mess the lengthening of the distance creates? Is this how a physical theory should look?
Rival / Israel
Here's a cute video about reference systems. This shows how much Matan and his friends were loved:
https://aeon.co/videos/this-clever-and-stylish-1960-film-is-the-most-fun-youll-ever-have-at-a-physics-lecture?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=39633e744c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_17_06_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-39633e744c-69476645
giving
You won't understand….
rival
That's exactly why I'm asking for an explanation about radar. According to Matan - the speed of light is not what we thought...
Miracles,
It is interesting how Matan explains the fact that a laser beam is sent to the moon and it returns exactly at the time that corresponds to 384 thousand kilometers... and it returns from sights that the astronauts who never landed on the moon did not leave there...
I think even your grandson thinks it's sad.
rival
Matan's argument was debunked 2400 years ago...
And the argument of the flat world is not his most infantile argument.... According to him, radar does not work, there is no GPS, and there is no gravity!!!
Israel
I claim that the distance between them is small, contrary to what Wiki says. I don't think it's any different than a train, whose length seems shorter when it's at high speed.
rival
Did you read what I said??
There must be a connection!
Check it out - put your head close to the straight road - you won't see much.
Raise your head to a height of 30 cm - you will see more.
Raise your head to a height of 100 cm - you will see much more.
That's why it works with the sun - it moves away and disappears from your perspective.
Go higher - she will come back to you.
Miracles
I read about the radar
Explain to me what is the point you want to convey?
I will ask you in a different way:
The radar detects an aircraft from a distance of 30 km.
The plane is at an altitude of 10,000 meters.
Does the radar show that the plane is at an altitude of 10,000 meters or at an altitude of 9,928 meters?
(30 km has a drop of 72 meters - so according to your science, the plane relative to the radar is at least 72 meters lower).
giving,
The only thing that is ridiculous is to claim in 2018 that our world is flat, even Nissim's grandson already understands that.
What does a football field have to do with it? If you say that the world is flat and that we don't see the sun after sunset because it's too far away, then even if you fly to an altitude of 20 km it won't help you, you still won't see it because it will still be too far away.
On the other hand, if the world is round and we don't see the sun because it is hidden behind the curvature of the earth, then it is understandable why when we get higher it appears again, because now we look beyond the obstacle (the earth) that previously hid it from us.
Take a ruler and a pencil and draw yourself on paper, it's not that complicated...
"I don't think the distance between the spaceships has increased."
I don't think so either, but that's what Vicky claims..
It makes sense. If the distance is small when the twin accelerates instantaneously, it must increase when it accelerates instantaneously in the opposite direction, right?
That's why we accepted that if a body moves towards you at a relative speed and you accelerate in the opposite direction, the distance between you increases greatly.
giving
I see an error from an altitude of 20 km - so how does it fit with your explanation?
And why does the sun look round a minute before sunset? It should be parallel to the ground, right?
Israel
I agree with that. I do not agree that this is the case here.
I don't think the distance between the spacecraft has increased. The reason is because of what I described about 2 locomotives on a track: I think it is equal to a normal train, so the distance between them seems smaller in the track system, and does not change in the train system.
giving
"Another interesting thing - that the gate starts to disappear from you - you will first see that the lower part of the gate disappears and only then the upper part! And why - because the earth closes your vision from the bottom up."
Shabin - is this your explanation for seeing half the sun in the middle of the sunset?
When the sun is 45 degrees? Why does it still look like a perfect circle?
And again - how does radar work?
Nissim, so you understood the problematic of the situations? A planet cannot be both closer to a ship and further away from it at the same time.
rival
One of Matan's "claims" is that the moon is flat. If so - we were supposed to see the same "moon" at any time.
This is not true - the moon does not face us the same way all the time. Instead of 50% - we see almost 60% of the moon's face during the month.
But let's not confuse matan with facts...
rival
You are so ridiculous in your conclusions:
"So it turns out that a fighter pilot can watch many sunrises and sunsets in every flight?
And of course this contradicts the flat world of giving... this thing is only possible in a round world!"
Go to a flat soccer field.
Put your head 1 cm above the grass in one goal.
Nisim and I leave you and carry the other gate in the opposite direction - all the time moving away from you.
The situation will come after a while that you won't see the second gate - remember your eyes are only 1 cm high.
Raise your head to a height of 10 cm - voila you will see the gate once more.
We will continue to walk further and further away from you until you never see the gate again.
Raise your head to a height of 20 cm - voila you will see the gate once more.
And another interesting thing - that the gate starts to disappear from you - you will first see that the lower part of the gate disappears and only then the upper part! And why - because the earth closes your vision from the bottom up.
(And as I promised - I'm going to do this experiment in the Dead Sea)
So what are you talking about - the higher you go, the greater your perspective - even Nissim's grandson knows this.
Your conclusions are so wrong
Miracles,
You're absolutely right, I accidentally wrote a conversion of one single km per leg 🙂
So it turns out that a fighter pilot can watch a lot of sunrises and sunsets in every flight 🙂
And of course this contradicts the flat world of giving... this thing is only possible in a round world!
rival
3,280 feet? For starters - multiply it by 20. Then we'll start talking 🙂
giving,
You are wrong about the sun, in the evening with God's help if I have time I will explain to you why.
By the way, before whom did you give your lecture on YouTube? Was there an audience at all? where was it?
Miracles,
I'm glad you checked and saw that in theory it does work. I saw on Wikipedia that a Phantom is capable of reaching 3,280 feet, so it seems quite possible.
I think I remember where I read it, hopefully in a few days I will find the source.
giving
I would love to know how radar works. Simple question, isn't it?
"I think that in the spacecraft system, the distance between them does not change."
But that's what Vicky thinks..
If it does not change, i.e. increases, you get another paradox.
rival
The size of the sun is half a degree. At 2000 feet the horizon has already dropped more than half a degree.
Therefore - you are absolutely right. What I got to see, as I wrote, is partial "sunrises". Just bad luck...
What's more, many times I noticed that I easily see planes at my height, even though the ground is already very dark.
Israel
Why don't you pay attention to what I write? 🙂
I wrote: "... in time for both locomotives and therefore they accelerate together and the length of the train does not change".
I'm not entirely sure about this, but I think that in the spacecraft system, the distance between them does not change.
So do you accept that the distance between the ships in their frame of reference has increased or not?
If you do not accept, you are in conflict with relativity and accept another paradox.
If you do accept, then what about 8?
Israel
I will explain what I mean. It has two parts.
The first - suppose a train passes us at high speed. General relativity holds, and many observations confirm, that the train will appear shorter.
The second - suppose the train is stopped and now accelerates. Let's look at the train as made up of two locomotives, one at each end, and the two locomotives accelerate together. What happens to the distance between the 2 cars? In a Newtonian world the answer is simple: in both reference systems (and there are only two) the length of the train does not change.
Wiki claims that the distance increases in both sets of axes, so the thread is called. My first intuition is that the length of the train will not look different in the stationary system. The two locomotives accelerate together and are constantly at the same speed.
But - let's assume that the acceleration is done in very small jumps. Let's assume that the two locomotives have already accelerated to a certain not high speed. We will synchronize the accelerations with a flash in the center of the train. In the railcar system - the signal arrives at the same time for both locomotives, so they accelerate together and the length of the train does not change.
In the stationary system - the signal reaches the rear locomotive first, so this locomotive will accelerate first, and the train will be shortened.
I have read in several places about the Bell Paradox, and there is really no consensus as to what will really happen. What's more - any solution that creates an error is wrong.
Israel
This is what I wrote…….
If you don't agree with 5 then you don't agree with… miracles!
When two ships accelerate and the distance between them increases, this is the Bell Paradox that Nissim came up with a few years ago as the only possible solution to the Twin Paradox paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox
Israel
I disagree with 5. Instead of 2 spaceships - let's assume a train 10 light years long. When its speed increases then its length is small.
This is what I explained in my previous comment, and you ignored it.
""The Earth has a speed relative to the background radiation. Therefore - we would expect to find differences in the muon quantities depending on the location of the measurements. The same for the other measurements."
What is between this sentence and the postulates? How does the background radiation explain the phenomenon?"
Please Eraf, you wrote the sentence, so explain what you meant and how it is related.
"Am I right about the problem?"
I don't understand what is so complicated. Let's go over the data and say what you get:
1. There is the earth and a planet 10 light years away from it.
2. At moment 0 in the clocks of the country and the planet, a twin leaves in ship A in the opposite direction from the planet and its speed is equal to gamma 10.
3. According to relativity, its distance from the planet is 10 times smaller than one light year.
4. At moment 0, ship B leaves the planet towards the earth, gamma 10.
5. According to relativity, the distance between the two ships increases 10 times to 100 light years (Bell's paradox).
6. It turns out that the twin in ship A is 100 light years away from ship B and the planet is only one light year away.
7. Everyone is on the same page.
8. It turns out that ship B is farther from ship A than the planet and therefore behind it, in the opposite direction from the earth.
9. But this is impossible since ship B travels in the direction of ship A and the country, and never in the other direction.
10. Capish?
Miracles,
I remember reading this somewhere before, I'll look into it.
Thanks.
rival
You don't really see two sunsets. If you take off at sunset and make a steep climb, then you can see a "sunrise" out of nowhere - the sun will reveal itself more and more during the climb. You need a strong plane and a very steep climb.
Israel
""The Earth has a speed relative to the background radiation. Therefore - we would expect to find differences in the muon quantities depending on the location of the measurements. The same for the other measurements."
What is between this sentence and the postulates? How does the background radiation explain the phenomenon?
How does background radiation explain electromagnetism?
If the background radiation were to affect this phenomenon, then we would expect electromagnetics to behave differently at different speeds. The speed of the Earth relative to the CMB is 370 km/second. There are spaceships that fly over 70 km/second relative to us, so this should already have had a significant effect. I guess someone would have noticed this by now…. 20% is a significant effect. (And new spaceships already reach 200 km/second.)
Regarding the spaceships - I understand why you think there is a paradox. The paradox can be described like this: on the one hand - we claim that a high-speed train should look shorter. On the other hand - if we take two locomotives standing at a distance X between them, and accelerate both locomotives at the same time - then X should not change.
Am I right about the problem?
Miracles,
Have you experienced this phenomenon? That is, to see the sun set (and disappear) to rise to a height of several kilometers and then to see it rise again from the horizon? After all, only in a round world is this possible...
rival
Yes 🙂 If the world was flat and the sun was a disk in the sky then it should appear as an ellipse as long as it is not exactly above you.
So Matan knows it and is lying, or doesn't know it and is an idiot. or both….
"The Earth has a speed relative to the background radiation. Therefore - we would expect to find differences in the muon quantities depending on the location of the measurements. The same for the other measurements."
So what? What about Postulate 1. He says:
"A person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or standing at rest."
Too bad you wasted your time. Einstein and Galileo before him did not know about the background radiation, so Postulate 1 seemed logical at the time. If they knew about it, they would have inserted a section regarding it.
"Instead of the background radiation - take my flashlight that is currently in the drawer. He also contradicts the postulate. What is the difference?"
How does the lantern contradict the postulate?
'No, I don't see any problem. If I am in a spaceship moving away from the planet, I will see the spaceship that took off from the planet, between the planet and the Earth.'
Before takeoff the spacecraft and the planet were at the same point. If after takeoff the planet is closer to you than the spacecraft, then the spacecraft cannot be between the Earth and the planet - it is further away from it and both are on the same line, so how is it between them?
"In the spaceship system - the two spaceships do not take off at the same time. Do you agree to that?'
Yes. So what?
Rival (remembers you from a year ago - hello)
The higher you go, the more space you can see.
When you are at sea level 0 - you can see, let's say, for a few kilometers.
When you are at a height where miracles live at a height of 100 meters - you can see for dozens of kilometers (depending on the atmosphere)
Therefore - if you go up - more space will open up for you and therefore you will again see the sun approaching (rising) and then receding (setting)
Miracles
I showed you that on Pan-Am Flight 50 that the flight path they showed in the flight video (and also on the website you brought) is over the Antarctic Peninsula, but I showed you that according to the Great Circle route the route was supposed to be on the other side of the pole.
Explain again - how did they make such a mistake? - It's just a different direction by thousands of km!
And the rest
You argue about the twin paradox, the speed of light, and thousands of other arguments, all the stories of Narnia and Arendal -
The child or grandchild will ask you "Father/grandfather - how do you know it's true?"
In life, no one flies at the speed of light to see if time shortens or length shortens! And in life no one will fly either. How do you know this is true? Show me one proof! Not numbers and formulas - but scientific proof!
giving
A. Ben Ner
We know that the world is round for more than 2400 years. Even then they knew the radius of the earth, the moon and the sun, and the distance to the moon and the sun.
Of course Columbus knew that too. Columbus had other mistakes: he was wrong in the size of a degree of latitude and in addition he was wrong in estimating the size of Asia. Therefore he saw an advantage in sailing westward.
Matan's views are a combination of evil and stupidity, mixed with complete shamelessness. He spices all this up with lies and logical fallacies like confirmation bias and cherry picking.
Matan suffers from Denning-Kruger syndrome, like many conspiracy believers: opposition to vaccines, denial of warming, homeopathy, chiropractic, religious beliefs and so on.
giving,
Fighter pilots sometimes get to see several sunsets in a row, they see the sun set and disappear on the horizon, they take off and fly high, then suddenly the sun rises again from the horizon and rises, and then they see it set again...
In a flat world flying high would only make the sun appear lower, certainly not make it rise and shine again.
Miracles Does this phenomenon sound familiar to you?
Israel
The Earth has a speed relative to the background radiation. Therefore - we would expect to find differences in the muon quantities depending on the location of the measurements. The same goes for the other measurements.
Instead of the background radiation - take my flashlight that is currently in the drawer. He also contradicts the postulate. What is the difference?
No, I don't see any problem. If I am in a spaceship moving away from the planet, I will see the spaceship that took off from the planet, between the planet and Earth.
In the spaceship system - the two spaceships do not take off at the same time. Do you agree with that?
A possible explanation for the phenomena you mentioned: movement against the background radiation.
By the way, the background radiation: it does not pose a serious challenge to postulate 1:
"The principle of relativity:
The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. Thus, for example, a person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or standing at rest."
Of course he can: he just has to measure the Doppler relative to the radiation and then he can know its speed relative to any system he chooses, the Earth for example.
Gemini: So you see that if the distance to a distant planet shortens even by moving in the opposite direction from it we get a serious problem?
Israel
Do you have another explanation for muons reaching the earth?
And there is another observation that cannot be explained otherwise: collisions of "large" particles in accelerators. The only way to explain the trajectories of the colliding particles is to assume that the shape of the particles was distorted as a result of the speed.
And there are other observations, such as synchrotron radiation that cannot be explained otherwise.
And regarding the filming - Penrose and Terrell explained that they will not see contractions in the filming...
giving
The atmosphere will serve as a lens only if it is rounded…. If the sun was distorted then it would not remain round...
And anyway the sun looks exactly the same at all times.
And regarding this flight - you still lie, and also attack the people of this flight, just because they show that you are a liar.
Please explain to me - how does radar work?
Avner,
No need to be clever, the world is round.
Dear Friends
You, and I too, refer to Matan Gorodish's claim that according to him "the world is flat", as if it is unfounded and taken from the scientific knowledge of the 15th century and the centuries that preceded it.
However, in a certain sense, which is probably not what Matan Gurudish is referring to, as far as is known today, our world is also called a "flat world", and it is "flat" in the sense that the geometry of the universe is Euclidean ("flat") geometry, that is, the sum of the angles in every triangle in space (for example any triangle formed by 3 different stars) is 180 degrees. Triangle/https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki
This is different from a book space ("closed"), in which the sum of the angles in a triangle is greater than 180 degrees. Library geometry/https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki
And unlike hyperbolic ("open") space, in which the sum of the angles in a triangle is less than 180 degrees. Hyperbolic_Geometry/https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki
giving,
The demo in your first link looks like cheating to me, who determined that the humidity in the atmosphere behaves like the lens they put there?? Can you prove it?
"The planet gets a speed relative to the spaceship, so there is an acceleration."
Only in the eyes of the spaceship. Acceleration is absolute and not relative, and not many parties in the universe are interested in what happens relative to the spacecraft..
"I picture the contraction of length in my head like this: space is like an endless rubber surface that is stretched in all directions.
When I accelerate relative to the surface, the traction weakens and the rubber contracts partially. This is an affine transformation, so that relative positions do not change.'
??
Does the stretch change? Does the rubber shrink?
Nothing happens to the space between 2 planets because which spaceship accelerated at which point. Only from the point of view of the spaceship the length has shortened, nothing has changed in the space itself.
"So when I accelerate from the Earth in the opposite direction to the planet there is a combination of two things - my moving away from the planet and the shrinking of the distance due to the speed. The combination between them is such that no contradiction arises.'
Of course it wasn't created because nothing has changed in space.
I still believe we just don't know what's going on, both relativistically and practically. If the distance has shortened for us, then bodies will appear closer. If, in terms of the twin, the distance to the planet is small and the spaceship increases, then we got a contradiction, and this is not related to simultaneity and synchronization, but I don't know what relativity really claims.
What I do know is that the shortening of the length is a puzzling thing and as far as I know it was only introduced to match the lengthening of time and has no direct experimental verification.
Read the site and miracles
Look for the message a long time ago
December 24, 2018 at 16:50 p.m
I answered there and asked as well
Israel
The planet gets a speed relative to the spaceship, so there is an acceleration. I call it simulated because the forces of the entire planet do not apply.
I picture the contraction of length in my head like this: space is like an endless rubber surface that is stretched in all directions.
When I accelerate relative to the surface, the traction weakens and the rubber contracts partially. This is an affine transformation, so relative positions do not change.
So when I accelerate from the Earth in the opposite direction to the planet there is a combination of two things - my moving away from the planet and the shrinking of the distance due to the speed. The combination between them is such that no contradiction arises.
"Simulated acceleration of the planet".
??
What accelerates is only the spaceships.
So what happens to the distance between the twin in the spaceship and the planet, shortens, lengthens, remains unchanged?
Israel
There is a difference between shortening length and distance. We have the acceleration of the spacecraft and simulated acceleration of the planet. If the first is greater than the second, or started first, then the distance between the earth and the planet will decrease and the distance to both will increase.
According to the solution, the distance increases quite a bit. That's why the rope broke.
It is possible to show even without the Bell Paradox that if the distance is small we will encounter a contradiction, but we are not sure that relativity claims that the distance to the planet is small even when moving away from it 🙂 ... we need to make sure.
Israel
now I get it. The solution to the "paradox" is described in your link. In particular - the acceleration of the spacecraft is not in time in the axis system of the spacecraft.
To see this, we can simplify the question and ignore accelerations. Assume that the two spaceships move at a constant speed for a period of time and "in time" pass the planet and the earth.
The point is that the suit can be in the spaceship axis system or the planet/earth axis system - but not both.
Nisim, the second ship is the twin's, have you ever seen a twin without a ship?
And it moves from the earth in the opposite direction from the planet, and in the same direction as the ship from the planet moves.
Israel
And now you changed the data again...
"So if when the twin moves away from the Earth a ship from the planet accelerates instantaneously in the same direction as it, then the distance between the twin and the ship increases and between the planet and the twin decreases."
That is, there are two spaceships that move on the earth->planet axis, one leaves Earth and one leaves the planet"
After that: "It turns out that the distance of the twin to the planet is less than its distance to the ship, which cannot be because the ship accelerates towards the twin and is always closer to it than the planet"
From this I understand that the second spaceship is moving from the direction of the planet towards the Earth.
Then: "The ship is on a planet 10 light years away from Earth and the twin when it starts to accelerate. Acceleration in the direction of the twin is equivalent to acceleration in the same direction as the twin, both in the opposite direction from the direction between Israel and the planet."
Now - the acceleration of the spaceship is towards the Earth, which is equal to the acceleration in the other direction and both are in the direction from the planet to the Earth...
Maybe I'm tired but I can't understand what you're saying.
What is the difference? The ship is on a planet 10 light years away from Earth and the twin as it begins to accelerate. Acceleration in the direction of the twin is equivalent to acceleration in the same direction as the twin, both in the opposite direction from the direction between the earth and the planet.
Israel
You wrote that the ship is accelerating in the same direction as the twin. After that you wrote that the ship accelerates towards the twin.
Nice, but it creates a problem for Bell's ships paradox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox
According to the paradox, two ships that accelerate simultaneously in the same direction, move away from each other.
So if when the twin moves away from the earth a ship from the planet accelerates instantaneously in the same direction as it, then the distance between the twin and the ship increases and between the planet and the twin decreases.
It turns out that the distance of the twin to the planet is less than its distance to the ship, which cannot be because the ship accelerates towards the twin and is always closer to it than the planet.
Israel
Yes, that's right, I understand.
The telescope on the twin ship.
So you say: whether he moves away or comes closer, the distance shortens.
I understand it right?
Israel
Where is the telescope located?
The shortening is in both directions. If a train is approaching me, or moving away, it will appear shorter. The speed in the formula is squared...
My question is exactly what I wrote.
If when the twin flies in the direction of the planet the distance to it is shortened 10 times and I assume this is also seen in the telescope, then what happens to the distance if it flies in the opposite direction?
Israel
The "planet" represents a point in space, the same point where the twin reaches. Take the Oort cloud for example and let's say it's a light year away.
Let's assume that gamma = 10. In terms of the flying twin, the distance is 0.1 light years and it returns after 0.2 years.
From the point of view of a ground observer, a little more than two years pass.
Is your question this: suppose there is another twin doing the same route but in the other direction, then what happens?
There is something unclear, what happens to the distance if the trip is in the opposite direction?
Israel
I didn't mean to use the radar, but the receiver components of a radar. but receivers with frequencies of 10 giga.
And I didn't understand the issue of twins. I thought we closed that there is no paradox.
Radar won't help, I need the TDOA - the time differences between the arrival of the signal to the two antennas.
The idea is that the radio wave has a peak at a given moment and location (a bit strange if we think about a single photon which is also a wave, and if at a given moment it has a peak at a certain point then Heisenberg raises an eyebrow).
Gemini - So the twin explains to himself that because of the shortening of the length he manages to travel a distance of 10 light years in one year.
But what happens to the distance if the twin flies in the opposite direction from the planet? Shortening, lengthening, staying the same?
Israel,
Nissim will argue with anyone about anything. He has nothing better to do.
Israel
When you're not here, all the shit floats up...
The truth... in the book of Isaiah it really says that the earth is square...
No NOAA satellites! Everything is a fraud of the Illuminati! Matan - tell him!
What about a radar receiver like I have in my car (Cherokee)? A shelter for speed bumps can also help. And maybe it's even better, because a receiver from Kamoon measures power. Radar frequencies are usually over 10 GHz, so maybe it's too high.
Another option is wi-fi, which is 2.4 or 5.0 gigabytes.
These can give you a strength test. As for the phase test, that's another story...
Reader on the site
The atmosphere functions like a lens many times.
See for example something called "Gravitational Idush" from a time of 03:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeo_-1h6qUc&feature=youtu.be
When you move the object away on a flat table - you see it sink, first a part, then the majority and finally the whole thing disappears
And that's how the atmosphere is distorted
Another example of distortions:
Someone filmed that the sun really fades out and doesn't even set like in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8pHp5p8JZk
Before she disappears from fade-out we see her small.
Regarding the size:
Another distortion is magnification - many times the atmosphere magnifies the object that is far away from you (I'm talking about long distances, for example seeing tall buildings tens of kilometers away - not only do you see them of course because there is no curvature, but you also see them bigger.
A continuation of this is:
I am attaching a time-lapse video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6KO_IeByJ8&feature=youtu.be
Although of course at the height of the day the sun is shining, but its difference in size can be recognized a little. That she is above us is bigger and that she is moving away she looks smaller especially at the end
Miracles miracles miracles
First of all, I and everyone else are waiting for an apology for showing you that there is a pilot who holds a world record on the subject, flying south and back north.
Let's talk about the PAN-AM 50 flight you attached.
You brought the map from the CNN website and you see that the flight path passed near the Antarctic Peninsula
And you also see the same route in the official video of the flight, see minute 14:08
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icu_44iVDA8
Amma?
Let's see what the great circle route looks like - between Cape Town and Auckland (the shortest line on the ball)
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=CPT-AKL&DU=mi
Note something interesting - they pass on the opposite side of the pole, the opposite side of the Antarctic Peninsula.
How do you make such a mistake?
So you want to tell me that the first commercial flight over the pole, with all its problems, did not choose the short route? And add hundreds of kilometers or thousands more to the journey?
Suri - doesn't make sense!
Therefore - this flight is a fiction - people did fly in it, and the richest people in the world who share in this conspiracy! But they flew right next to the ice, in the area of 65 South and maybe even made a refueling stop on the way.
Again - how do you explain that they took a risk and did not fly the short route over Antarctica?
Still waiting for an apology
giving
Well miracles really, the situation is so bad that it's been almost a month now, you're arguing with a person who claims that the earth is flat?
And I'm not making light of Matan's arguments, but I thought we already agreed that the world is not round or flat but square.
A question before going to sleep:
1. Remember the ADF in airplanes that would lock onto a beacon and lead the plane home? I have something similar that works on the principle of TDOA, the signal reaches two antennas that are a little far from each other, so because of the destructive interference you can know the direction of the transmitter (not completely accurate, there is another component, but the principle is the same).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVGf28ckHyg
I even managed to find the direction of the NOAA 19 weather satellite, from a distance of 2000 km. The problem is that the frequencies are too low for my needs, a few hundred megahertz, and I need to measure frequencies in gigahertz. Maybe know a similar toy that works at which frequencies?
giving,
In a flat world even at infinite distance you wouldn't see half of the sun going down below the horizon line! In an extreme case it would touch the horizon, but in no way does it go down about half its diameter below the horizon!
Second thing, as Nisim told you, in a flat world as you describe it, the sun (when it touches the horizon) should have been much, much smaller...
Giving the fool
If the sun is moving away then why doesn't its size change?
How do you explain a lunar eclipse?
dumb…
giving
You are a wretched and stupid liar
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnn.com/travel/amp/pole-to-pole-pan-am-flight-50/index.html#ampf=undefined
Miracles
This is the page of "ZQ Pilot" who holds the "record" for going around the world from north to south with a light plane
https://www.facebook.com/pg/ZQ-Pilot-863477070381846/posts/
See the map - its route is marked in red -
He went down from South America to Antarctica but did not continue in a straight line to the other side, but returned north again (!) to South America and from there he went to New Zealand
(No need to explain that in a flat world he reached the edge of the plate, returned and then flew west and northwest to New Zealand)
So in this forum I want an apology for saying that I lied!!!
There are other such examples - no one really crossed the pole and reached the other side
Reader on the site
Look at the white clouds
The ones above you are really high, and the farther they are from you the lower they get.
At a distance of a few kilometers from you they are already at half height
At a distance of dozens of kilometers, they already meet the earth on the horizon (of miracles that do not understand what it is)
How do you explain it?
The reason is simple - perspective
Any object that moves tens of kilometers away from you eventually disappears.
And also the sun (which is only tens of kilometers in diameter and only thousands of kilometers away) that moves away from us, it simply descends in the "image of our eyes" to everyone's local horizon. But pay attention - it takes many hours for her to drop from the peak height at noon to the complete distance (you call it "sunset" I suppose).
And miracles - you are a pilot and you shame the other pilots with your behavior.
Trying again:
https://c.tadst.com/gfx/750×500/sunset-refraction.jpg
giving,
How is it possible in a flat world a situation where you see half of the sun below the horizon!
See here for example:
https://c.tadst.com/gfx/750×500/sunset-refraction.jp
How does it work out exactly??
giving
I have no intention of addressing your lies. A plane flew to the pole and retraced its tracks... a noble liar...
Reader on the site
The beam is in principle focused to infinity, so there is no effect on the pilot's height.
Beyond that, the "head volume" of the plane is small and the pilot adjusts the height of the seat so that his eye level is at a certain point.
If we were above a small disk then we would also see that the height of the horizon changes. But - the angle depended on the range. That is, the calculation of the angle depended on the position and not only on the height.
If the earth was flat then the reset method of the inertial navigation system would not work.
And - our navigation method was not working. The navigation formulas for large distances, over 200 km or so, are based on flying along a "great circle".
There was no tide... the sun would have looked smaller at sunset, and there shouldn't have been a sunset at all... .
Radar would have behaved completely differently. There is more and more and more.
I have no problem with you being an idiot. I have a problem with him thinking that Ilan Ramon is a liar. And of course all pilots, navigators, sailors, space engineers and scientists are liars.
As I said at the beginning - Matan is a small and evil man. And an idiot and a liar. Did I miss something???
giving,
You really can't compare the sun (which you claim is thousands of kilometers high) to a train that travels on the ground and disappears as it moves away from us. The sun doesn't disappear because it's too far away, we keep seeing it big and full as it descends clearly below the horizon!
In a flat world we were not supposed to see her under any circumstances touching the horizon! Do a simple trigonometric calculation (Pythagorean theorem) and see that it just doesn't add up!
Miracles,
1. I imagine we are talking about the horizontal line that you can see nicely here at minute 1:10
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJdL5hrmN0A
Doesn't the angle between it and the real horizon also depend a little on the height of the pilot? If pilot X sees this line completely coincident with the true horizon while flying low, wouldn't a pilot slightly taller than him see this line lower than the true horizon?
2. If we are talking about a flat world which is a disc with a finite radius (say tens of thousands of kilometers) then in my opinion there should also be an angle between the artificial horizon and the real horizon (which is the edge of the disc) when flying horizontally at high altitude.
I mean, of course, that the line of sight to the artificial horizon line is perpendicular to the ground...
Have a good week everyone
Miracles - the answers to you are listed at the end
Wondering
1. The flights Santiago Tsila to Sydney Australia are possible because of a jet stream with a speed of hundreds of km/h.
In the southern part, wind speeds can reach 250-300 km/h and even more.
Also, they use special 747 specific aircraft
A strange thing about flight-radar is that all the time it is above the water - its position is not picked up. Why? After all, according to you, there are thousands of satellites, so how is it possible not to receive this plane?
2. There is a convention that restricts movement - you can't just take a plane and start flying.
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%AA_%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94
And this is the only treaty that has existed for almost 60 years and has never been violated by one of the countries! Do you know a treaty between dozens of countries that has never been violated?
And why is it so important to them? Do they care about the penguins that much?
They are hiding something there
Reader on the site:
1. There is no commercial plane that flies over the South Pole. For sure! The only flights are what I said they pass close to Antarctica.
Furthermore - there has never been a flight around the world from north to south - there were a few but they apparently reached the south, and then he returned back to the north the same way instead of apparently continuing to cross the pole and go the other way.
Why? What is the logic of repeating the same path and not crossing the pole?
The only flight on paper that seems to go directly over the pole is Buenos Aires to Perth Australia (EZE-PER)
See what the route apparently looks like:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=eze-PER&DU=mi
If you manage to make such a flight - I will be 1000% convinced that the world is round! But there has never been a flight like this in my life (yes, don't say at all that it is dangerous to fly in the cold over an anertica or a rescue, how convenient)
2. The sun moves away, so it appears to you to be setting, but it actually disappears from your perspective. Like a train moving away from you and disappearing from your perspective.
3. Flat Earth Society is an organization belonging to the Freemasons and its purpose is to mislead and ridicule the flat world. They say the world is a disc but moves at an acceleration of 9.8 and this is also the attraction. It's just bullshit.
In our real flat world there is no gravity (see my chapter 4 in lectures) and the disc is stationary.
And miracles, my old friend, miracles:
1. The whole discussion about the horizon is because you asked me a simple question, and I gave you a simple answer from a pilot "if in theory he had put the nose (where the pilot sits) at an angle of 0 - he would have seen the horizon at 0".
However, your last comment - there is something here that you may not understand, and let me clarify for you:
The horizon depends on the viewer! Each viewer will see the horizon differently
A horizon is where the sky meets the earth according to the eyes of the beholder!
And what you just mentioned about airplanes above the horizon - it's just like if I were at sea and I would see the horizon - the meeting of the sea and the sky according to my eyes - and then there would be a helicopter in the air and I would say - "wait, but there is a helicopter above the horizon!" What is the connection?
The horizon is a line of sky-earth meeting and it depends on the viewer.
And so to conclude this chapter - still I and the rest did not understand - my pilot friend who flies a commercial Airbus said
"If in theory he would have put the nose (where the pilot sits) at an angle of 0 - he would have seen the horizon at 0." So what is your answer? Are you saying he doesn't understand anything?
2. There are many problems with the moon - you are invited to see chapter 9 how the tides have nothing to do with the moon (!), how you see stars through the black area of the moon, how the whole issue of the shadow in eclipses does not work out.
3. Ebb and flow - no one knows why it is. The people of the flat world who don't know something don't invent like dark matter, but simply say they don't know.
4. If it wasn't clear - there is no space station in a flat world. It is impossible to cross the sky at an altitude of 100 km.
giving
Reader on the site
So that's it... the horizon line is always perpendicular to the ground. The reason is that we want in straight and horizontal flight the flight line marker to sit on the artificial horizon line.
The true horizon line will be below this line. The calculation of the angle to the true horizon is simple, and if you wish, I will show you its development.
If the world was flat then the horizon line would always look "at your height". And here is another example: when I fly at the height of another plane, let's say one km from me - then I see it above the horizon, and it sees me above the horizon!
Thanks for the reply,
So I understand from your words that the mechanism is based on gyroscopes, but how does the overhead display know for each height of the plane where to mark the horizon line? 2 degrees below the center cross or 4 degrees below it? What is the mathematical calculation to know the angle for each height?
And how does it change for a flat world versus a round world?
Reader on the site
As I wrote - the artificial horizon shows local level.
The plane has an inertial navigation system made up of several gyros and accelerometers.
On the ground, a very complicated process of calibrating the jiros is carried out. This process is based on data that the team feeds into the computer and the rotation of the Earth. The three critical data are the latitude and altitude where the plane is located, and the magnetic declination.
In the first step, the computer assumes that the plane is balanced, and that the compass direction is correct. The computer aligns the system, and expects the horizontal acceleration meters to read 0.
In practice, it will not measure 0, and the computer will move the system to reduce the error.
Now, it's more complicated than that, because contrary to some idiot's opinion, the Earth does rotate. What you actually see is that the system behaves like a pendulum, whose length is the Earth's radio. The result is that the inaccuracies cause cyclical oscillations, which repeat themselves after about 84 minutes (called the Schueller pendulum).
In the air, the computer rotates the gyros so that the accelerometers remain horizontal. The rotation is according to the time and location.
It's pretty short, and as far as I know it's not fundamentally different in civil aviation.
Reader on the site
As I wrote - the artificial horizon shows local level.
The plane has an inertial navigation system made up of several gyros and accelerometers.
On the ground, a very complicated process of calibrating the jiros is carried out. This process is based on data that the team feeds into the computer and the rotation of the Earth. The three critical data are the latitude and altitude where the plane is located, and the magnetic declination.
The first step is that the computer assumes that the plane is balanced, and that the compass direction is correct.
Miracles,
Maybe you'll save me a Google search, on what principle does a horizon gauge work in a fighter plane? Is it similar to the level that builders use to know if the floor is level and level? How does the overhead display know where to mark the horizon line?
Or is it based on a gyroscope?
Matan where did you go?
The sun goes down every evening below the horizon, how does that work with a flat world?
How does a flat world get along with the fact that at one pole the stars rotate clockwise and at the other pole they rotate counterclockwise?
Reader on the site
In an airplane without an elevator, the artificial horizon is displayed on a small device or on a monitor. If the line is a few degrees lower or higher it will be difficult to notice.
The Tal presents the artificial horizon "outside", so it is easy to see any change in relation to the artificial horizon.
Let's be precise - the artificial horizon shows the so-called local level. The true horizon is several degrees lower at high altitude. A passenger pilot will not notice this because it has no meaning for him.
A fighter plane has a line drawn in the sky, and it is very noticeable that it does not extend to the true horizon line.
There is something else, which Matan is trying to hide from him. This is the angle of attack. This angle depends, among other things, on the airspeed. The slower you fly the higher this angle. This means that the horizon line will appear lower in slow flight. This angle can easily reach 30 degrees, and even over 40!
Therefore, the true horizon line can show at different angles and civilian pilots do not attach much importance to it.
In fighter planes, and especially in those that fly very high, the difference between the artificial horizon line and the real horizon is very noticeable.
By the way - if you ask a civilian pilot, he will surely know that the angle to the horizon depends on the altitude. Even the best pilot in the world knows that the earth is... a ball.
Miracles,
Why wouldn't passengers on a plane see a difference of a few degrees between the artificial horizon and the real horizon? Is the horizon gauge in a passenger plane less accurate than the horizon gauge of a fighter plane? Don't the devices in both planes work according to the same principle?
Some notes:
1. One of the applications of intelligence (or maybe one of the definitions?) is not to repeat mistakes twice. And if we have already seen that it is impossible to convince scientific troublemakers of their error, I don't understand why to repeat it a second time (and a third, and a fourth, and a fifth, and a sixth, and a seventh. Continue?).
2. There are flights south from the 60 south latitude. Unfortunately there are no commercial flights right over the South Pole. First because there is no commercial airline that requires it. Second, because ETOPS restrictions on twin-engine aircraft require a flight in a certain proximity (180 minutes flight) to a nearby alternate airport. Thirdly because an emergency landing in Antarctica is a bit of a problem in terms of the availability of rescue equipment for the crew and passengers, which means they will become arctic before they can reach them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route
3. If Matan's model was correct, then flights like "Santiago (Cila) to Sydney (Australia)" would not be possible at all - the range of (all) the planes available today is too small!
4. With all that has been said here, I simply do not understand the terrible helplessness of the flat earth followers, who are unable to rent a Boeing 747 before retirement, with its pilots for a few tens of thousands of dollars and make a fun flight over the South Pole (and beyond). If they are right, they will come back with beautiful pictures of the edge of the country, with the turtle and the elephants and everything. Pictures worth millions.
Reader on the site
There is certainly an artificial horizon device - it exists in almost every plane. But, there is no way to know if there is a difference of a few degrees between the artificial horizon and the real horizon.
In the aerial view (overhead view) of Keim Ko Ofek planes. At low altitude, this horizon line merges with the artificial horizon.
At high altitude, a difference is created, which depends on the altitude.
You see it beautifully when there is good visibility over the sea. Civilian pilots are less familiar with it because they don't have a lift, and because they don't fly very high. They don't fly their plane that much either 🙂
The horizon display is one of the most basic devices in the airplane, even in the planes in the First World War there was a mechanical horizon gauge as far as I remember. It doesn't make sense that a sophisticated airliner of today wouldn't have such a display.
Miracles,
The Airbus plane may not have an overhead view but I imagine the pilot can still see the horizon line through one of the dials on the display panel.
See this picture, right in front of the pilot it looks like a horizon view to me:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/VLx0J.jpg
giving
Not everyone is aware of this, but there are changes in the image of the moon that we see, so it is definitely not flat.
How do you explain it?
giving
How are there tides and low tides in two places in the world? How are there tides?
giving
I have a computer program that tells me when the International Space Station passes over me.
The plan is based on a combination of the spacecraft's circular orbit and the rotation of the Earth.
The plan wouldn't work if the world was flat...
giving
And regarding flights in the south. There are flights between South Africa, South America and Australia.
If the world was flat, these flights would have to go over the North Pole, and be very long.
In the world I live in, these are short flights that don't even go close to the pole.
giving
The angle of attack is between the chord of the wings and the line of flight.
I already explained to you that you are confused, but I will explain again. Maybe it will interest readers who are more intelligent than you (everyone… ).
Your fellow pilot does not see the flight line, or the angle of attack relative to the horizon - most passenger planes do not have an overhead view.
In fighter planes there is. We have dozens of markers in Tel Aviv - but only 3 are of interest to us. I'm simplifying the matter a bit.
The first is the cross. It is constant and indicates an angle of 0. Relative to it, the angle of attack is measured.
The second is the bird. This is the plane's flight line. For example, when landing, when the plane's nose is high, I direct it to the beginning of the runway.
The third is where the "level" comes from. This is a line that indicates the angle relative to the ground. It is called an artificial horizon.
If I fly straight and horizontally then I will see the bird on the horizon, and the cross a few degrees above the artificial horizon.
Now we will add the real horizon. At a low altitude - the artificial and the real horizon merge.
But at high altitude - the real horizon is several degrees below the artificial horizon. It can easily be more than 5 degrees!
It is very easy to understand this if the world is spherical. This cannot be explained if the world is flat.
giving,
1. It doesn't make sense and I know for sure that there are planes that do fly over the pole.
2. You didn't explain why every evening we see the sun go down to the horizon line. How does it illuminate any part of the flat world if it descends below the horizon?
3. The explanation you gave does not explain why at one pole the stars rotate clockwise, and at the other pole they rotate counterclockwise. It really doesn't fit with a flat world.
4. You explain that gravity is created because the world is constantly accelerating upwards, what exactly causes this acceleration?
I don't know if what you wrote about latitude 60 south is correct, and I don't have time to search right now, but there are definitely flights that pass over the North Pole, for example Pinair does this regularly, and if there is a North Pole then there is also a South Pole.
Hello site reader
1. There is an international convention from 1961 that prohibits crossing the 60 South line without coordination with the authorities.
99.99% of flights do not cross this line at all.
There are only a few flights like for example Santiago (Cila) to Sydney (Australia) that cross this line towards the 60+ South. But that's it. No one comes close to the edge which is 90 south. (The distance between 60 South and 90 South is 5,400 km).
2. The sun is local at a distance of only thousands of km and it illuminates only half a plate.
Go to a dark room, put a lamp in one of the corners at a height of 1 meter from the floor, and you will see that half the room is dark.
3. Go to the same room and put a figure of a person on the ceiling - the head is facing one of the corners
Go to one corner - see with your eyes the figure with the head down and the legs up (again relative to your eyes)
Go to the other corner - see with your eyes the figure with the head up and the legs down (again relative to your eyes)
that curve in a flat world - it's simpler than simple. And more logical
Nissim - you disappeared from us, is everything alright?
I replay in my head the conversation with my pilot friend, he meant that the angle of attack is of the wings.
I also noted that there is an angle of the nose above the horizon that gives the angle of attack to the wings.
again,
Please answer the most important part of what he said:
At 36,000 feet the nose of the plane is 2.5 degrees above the horizon to allow the wings to
hold the plane at a constant altitude
And he says that in theory if he was with the nose at an angle of 0 above the horizon - he would see the horizon straight without descents as you claim (but after a millisecond the plane would lower because the nose is not above the horizon)
How do you explain it?
giving,
1. How do you explain that no pilot has ever seen the end of the world? Are they all liars?
2. How do you explain that the sun is setting on the horizon? After all, there are always enlightened countries... how does that work out with your flat world?
3. Why do the stars rotate in the opposite direction at each pole (north and south)?
I would appreciate it if you could explain it.
Yehuda
So give a better explanation.
Beware of Matan - in his opinion all pilots, navigators and sailors are liars.
Giving and miracles
Regarding the dark matter I agree with Matan.
As for the rest of the things, I won't have time to review them yet. But I promise I will delve into them along with my commitments to miracles.
Good Day
Yehuda
Miracles,
I was talking to one of my good friends who is an Airbus pilot.
Here are his words:
Every plane has an angle of attack where the nose of the plane is raised a few degrees above the horizon.
The angle of attack is a derivative of the type of aircraft, speed and altitude.
The purpose of the angle of attack is to allow the wings to hold the plane at a constant altitude.
In the Airbus he flies, at 36,000 feet at cruising speed, the angle of the nose upwards from the horizon is 2.5 degrees - because this is the angle that gives the angle of attack to the wings that will hold the plane.
If you reduce the speed to be less than the cruising speed, you need a larger angle of attack because otherwise the plane will start to lower.
I asked him the most important question - what happens if he puts an angle of attack 0, meaning the plane flies without an angle, and the nose of the plane is horizontal, what will happen?
He answered me - I see the horizon straight and aligned in front of me at an angle of 0. But a millisecond after that the plane loses height all the time, and again therefore there is an angle of attack to maintain height.
Therefore - according to your claim that you see the angle of the horizon line decrease by 5 degrees, it was created because you raised the nose by 5 degrees for an angle of attack to maintain altitude.
Of course he flies all the time at an altitude of 10-12 km, he always sees the horizon in his cockpit straight to the right and straight to the left and does not see any curvature.
your reply?
giving
Answer me the question - why when I fly at an altitude of 40, the horizon line drops by 5 degrees - in all directions. This happens when the visibility is excellent and the horizon line is sharp and clear.
If you can explain it without lying, assuming the world is flat, then I'll bring you a photo of the dark matter.
If not - I will continue to claim that you are a liar from Nobel.
Good Morning.
Is dark matter seen and measured? a lie! This is exactly the problem with the "scientific method" - they simply invent explanations.
Let's go back to invented dark matter: see what Wikipedia says:
"It is a hypothetical substance whose existence is assumed as a possible explanation for the phenomena"
"Dark matter is unobservable directly."
"The questions of the existence and essence of dark matter are among the most significant unsolved problems in today's astrophysics.
"
And most importantly - let's look at the non-disclosure in 2013:
"In October 2013, it was announced that the most sophisticated and sensitive dark matter detector ever created, called LUX - Large Underground Xenon, did not detect any dark matter and that apparently all
The dark matter discoveries reported earlier were wrong.”
No proof of dark matter! is nothing!
I dwell on dark matter because it was invented to explain the phenomenon of masslessness in the universe due to the law of gravity
There is no dark force, therefore no gravity!
M.S.L
Yehuda
No problem 🙂 In your free time, give a look at one of this idiot Matan's movies. Funnier than "this is this" 🙂 🙂
Miracles
I am reading your response to the seven sections and I admit that it requires special attention to its details and since I am currently busy with very important personal tasks that cannot tolerate a serious delay of about a week with my response.
Take it in stride
Good night
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
for everyone
Question: What is the force of attraction between the round and the triangular Azrieli building?
Let's do the math:
According to the website Quora
https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-skyscraper-weigh
An estimate of the weight of a 50-story skyscraper with each floor having 3,000 square meters is 250,000,000 kg.
This is only an order of magnitude, but let's calculate from here the force of attraction between the round and the triangular Azrieli building.
From the Azrieli website:
The circular Azrieli building has 49 floors and each floor is 1520 square meters.
We divide the weight estimate from Quora by 49/50 and also divide by 1520/3000
Therefore it turns out that the weight of the round building is 124,000,000 kg.
The triangular Azrieli building has 46 floors and each floor is 1430 square meters.
We divide the weight estimate from Quora by 46/50 and also divide by 1430/3000
Therefore it turns out that the weight of the round building is 109,000,000 kg.
The distance between the 2 centers of the triangular and round towers according to Google Earth is 67 meters.
Let's put in Newton's formula for finding the force of gravity between 2 bodies
(that we calculate weight before the formula is actually the mass)
M1 = 124,000,000 kg.
M2 = 109,000,000 kg.
R = 67 meters
G = 6.67 * 10^-11
It turns out that the force between the 2 buildings is:
200 newtons or about 20 kg - that's a pretty significant force 20 kg
I would like you to measure this power between the 2 towers with a measuring device.
And even if the force apparently spreads to all floors, then don't measure 200 but measure a force of 20 newtons, or 10 newtons or something.
Otherwise, if you fail to measure - how do you know that gravity really exists?
Waiting for measurement.
Yehuda
I did not compare you to Matan!
1. Let's assume that the dark mass is made of particles whose energy is 100 teraelectron volts. So it's unlikely in your eyes that we haven't seen them in accelerators yet?
2. General relativity predicted and explained phenomena with amazing accuracy. Don't you agree that an alternative theory of gravity should also explain these phenomena?
3. Observationally, gravity also acts on discrete atoms. Shouldn't we demand that an alternative theory also explain this phenomenon?
4. I would appreciate it if you could explain to me what the change in the speed of light along the timeline has to do with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Is it true that you messed around here? 🙂
5. May I ask why you ignore the fact that changing the speed of light contradicts the principle of conservation of energy and mass?
6. I once explained to you that the change in the speed of light means that the distance to the moon, for example, does not agree with the change in the rotation speed of the Earth. So do you think the principle of conservation of angular momentum is also wrong.
7. These conservation laws are the result of Neter's theorem. Is this sentence also wrong? To remind you - this is a mathematical theorem, not a physical observation.
Yehuda - here are 7 points. I would appreciate a serious consideration. And please, let's ignore the confused villain…
It's a bit unfair that A. Ben Ner, Nissim and others compare me to Mr. Farnes and/or the above-mentioned delusional Matan Gurodish.
The first rule we learned in high school is that if the data we measure in the field does not match what is obtained from a formula, then the formula should be thrown away, and the data should not be changed!
But in our cosmology whoever decided to change the measured data decided the main thing was not to damage the Newton Kepler Einstein formulas. Not that it is not allowed to do so, and there was already the case of the natrino whose existence was guessed before and after several years it was discovered, as well as with the Higgs boson which was recently discovered even though it had been in theory for a long time. It is also possible to bring the Omega Minus that was proposed by the late Professor Yuval Neman and really after several years it was discovered, is this the case with the dark matter particles?? Well, really, after over eighty years of searching for the particle, maybe it's time to think maybe we're wrong after all, and these parts of the dark matter might not exist?? Remember, for example, Vulcan, the planet that was supposed to explain the deviations in the movement of the planet Hema, and what about the caloric, and what about the phlogiston??, they were also certain substances in their existence and today they are obsolete.
And has anyone really measured and proved that the speed of light does not change, let's say in centimeters per second per year??
Why do you decide that it is constant and justify it in the Mickelson-Morley experiment??
and more and more. Dozens of examples.
Do the things I say really sound so delusional?
I'm sorry a. Ben Ner, Nissim and others, you can believe what you want, that's your right, but, I disagree with you and I'm proud of my position
Good Day
And please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
yekumshut.freevar.com
Miracles, you tell fictional stories about dark matter, which exists only to explain the phenomenon of masslessness in the universe.
Bring me one scientific proof! In which a human being used some measuring tool to prove that dark matter really exists.
And look at your ridiculous argument here, everyone thinks this way, invents this way, analyzes this way, but no one has any proof of anything. Gornish is proof that this substance exists at all!
So who is the charlatan here?
In a flat world of course there is no gravity, therefore there is no problem of lack of mass in the universe because there is no mass in the universe beyond the sky that surrounds us.
Yes, my friend - the forum is waiting for a measurable proof of the dark matter.
You are welcome to watch chapter 4 of my lecture where I prove that there is no gravity at all! An invention of Newton and the Freemasons.
Shoshi
Matan is a real man. We once interviewed this awkward creature on some news show. The interviewer had a hard time not bursting out laughing.
There is a phenomenon called the "Dunning-Kruger phenomenon". The phenomenon is when a person with limited abilities thinks he understands a certain field more than real experts in that field.
Matan not only suffers from this phenomenon - he is also an evil and depraved person. He thinks Hawking is a liar, and that the story of Ilan Ramon (who was my commander and remains a good friend) is a fabrication. The combination of stupidity and evil creates a very ugly type.
Unfortunately, there are many people like Matan - global warming deniers, vaccine deniers, homeopaths and conspiracy believers of all kinds. These people are either stupid, or evil, or both...
In addition to what I said in my previous response (No. 17), I will add and further state that:
A]. The journal in which Dr. Frans's article was published: Astronomy and Astrophysics, which specializes in astronomical studies, is not the appropriate and worthy host for the article since it was concerned with the most basic physical theories of particle physics.
It's just that the professional journals in the field of particle physics did not see fit to publish the article.
B]. In the researchers' announcement below at the end of the article, it is stated that the author, Dr. Frans, is an engineer in the Department of Computational Engineering, but it is not stated that he is a physicist.
It seems that Dr. Frans is the proper English answer to our Yehuda Sabdarmish.
third]. And the strongest point against the article:
Since when is an English scientist called Dr. Frans ?????????????????????
It seems to me that there are two basic flaws in the proposed "negative mass" theory, which can bring it down:
1]. It is not clear from the article what the interaction is that creates the negative mass.
On the one hand, there is a "positive" interaction (attraction) of the "negative mass" in the vicinity of the galaxies, both with baryonic mass and with the negative mass itself, which, according to the theory, enables the formation of galaxies and prevents their disintegration.
On the other hand, the "negative mass" maintains a "negative" interaction (repulsion) between the galaxies at cosmological distances (hundreds of millions and billions of light years).
(Note: the terms "negative" and "positive" in this context should be considered relative and dependent on definition)
2]. From the "negative mass" theory and the "mass-energy conservation" principle, it should follow that the negative mass density in the universe should decrease with the expansion of the universe, similar to the decay in the average density of the baryonic mass.
The observations, on the other hand, do not confirm this prediction, but show that the density of negative energy in the universe is not small, but remains constant and even increases.
Therefore, it seems to me that the negative mass interview will not be able to "take root" in the fields of physics, even though it earned its authors several decent titles.
Hahaha.. Father, clips with you! Everyone knows that Matan Gorodish is a fake character, it's - give a day upgrade - in the ability to write. Come on.. I understand that you want wordpress to upgrade your site but you went too far with the fake youtube videos and the fake twitter profile.
giving
No one here wants to discuss with you. You are a stupid little man. Go spread your lies elsewhere.
Nissim, Sedramish and everyone else remember me???
I returned.
Hahaha you're talking about dark matter fiction here. See chapter 4 which talks about it being all a fabrication like the rest of your heliocentric model.
"A bird at an altitude of 58 km passes by a missile?
A screw fell fast in the space station and didn't hover in 0 gravity?
A stone from the moon that was supposedly given by the astronauts was found to be fake and originated from the earth?
**************************************
The N-SPACE project (no space; no space) presents:
After investigating the topic for a year and a half, viewers are shown the full lecture on the "flat world". The lecture is 3 hours long and is divided into 17 separate chapters. You can watch each episode separately.
It turns out that despite everything we are told "scientifically", there is no proof that we live in a heliocentric world. It turns out that there is no scientific measurement for the fact that we move around and move. It turns out that there is no scientific measurement for the curvature of the earth. It turns out that there is no scientific measurement that there is a force of gravity (falling to the ground is not a force of gravity).
Matan Gurudish
N-Space Matan Gorodish”
**************************************
YouTube link:
*The flat world lecture - the full movie includes 17 episodes*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9QTBwiKKsU
*The Flat World Lecture - Chapter 1 of 17: Opening and Riddles*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggnF9kEGMJI&t=143s
*The flat world lecture - Chapter 2 of 17: What does religion say?*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDhV07u3kUo
*The flat world lecture - Chapter 3 of 17: issues in science that do not add up*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7grXi0B5xA
*The flat world lecture - Chapter 4 of 17: Does gravity exist?*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UvvYAB7_fc
*The flat world lecture - Chapter 5 of 17: Newton's third law - Is it possible to fly in space?*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCs5h646T8c
*The flat world lecture - Chapter 6 of 17: Is there proof of curvature?*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDzHQaHBbEs
*The Flat World Lecture - Chapter 7 of 17: How Reality Works - The Perspective*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlIzL4gP6D8&t=70s
*The flat world lecture - Chapter 8 of 17: Is there proof of the Earth's core?*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmlJfgIwuuA
*The flat world lecture - Chapter 9 of 17: Facts that do not agree with the moon*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kesVgdYMROE&t=42s
*The flat world lecture - Chapter 10 of 17: The rockets don't fly up into space*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdnqH4mCT5E
* The flat world lecture - Chapter 11 of 17: A spaceship to the sun? in such high heat?*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2pToqRo_Iw
*The Flat World Lecture - Chapter 12 of 17: The Staged Landing on the Moon*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ZgAIEPhE8&t=430s
*The Flat World Lecture - Chapter 13 of 17: Astronauts Actors*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyibkyl4ZD8
*The flat world lecture - Chapter 14 of 17: Satellites don't really exist, the GPS works on the basis of ground antennas*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxJtvHBfL7w
* The flat world lecture - Chapter 15 of 17: Is there a South Pole? And what is Antarctica?*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip_uY2vp3Zk
*The Flat World Lecture - Chapter 16 of 17: The Freemasons*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG416DEW2o4
*The Flat World Lecture - Chapter 17 of 17: The Flat World Model*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMEXPogXtAs
ג
In my understanding - the dark matter is, apparently, a type of particle.
Even less is known about dark energy. One theory is that it is a property of space-time, which is what Einstein thought.
Another theory, the one discussed in the article here, suggests that dark energy is a field within space-time.
Yehuda
Physicists have tried to change the shape of gravity, but they have discovered that it creates inconsistencies in different observations.
I already referred you a few days ago to an article that explains this.
In terms of the philosophy of science, the approach you suggest is wrong. Science seeks explanations for observations. A mathematical formula is not an explanation.
For an engineer - your method is definitely suitable. Ohm's law, Boyle's law, Bernoulli's law, and even Kepler's laws and Newton's laws are excellent tools for the engineer.
But they do not explain why things happen.
Dark matter does explain. And he also explains other phenomena, phenomena that have no other explanation.
And in addition - dark matter does not contradict the very successful theories we already have - general relativity and the standard model.
for everyone
Notice how repeatedly the problem is explained by the non-reality of sufficient gravitation for the rotation of the spiral galaxy. a quote:
"Dr. Frans's model offers for the first time an accurate prediction of the formation of halos of dark matter around galaxies. In principle, because galaxies rotate at high speed, stars far from their center should break free from the gravitational connection and float in the intergalactic medium. Despite the simple physics, observations indicate that distant stars are still bound to the centers of galaxies, so physicists have proposed the existence of dark matter that does not react to light" end quote.
That is, since the days of Fritz Tzviki over eighty years ago, whoever decided that the rotation of the galaxies must be done by gravitation, (this is "logical", after all the planets also rotate according to gravitation). And as soon as there is a deviation from the results measured by the speed of the stars then.... Mass must be added. Very few decided that the law of gravitation at large distances or the rotation laws of motion in galaxies (Prof. Milgrom's MOND theory) should be corrected.
In my opinion, the problem should be looked at as an algebraic mathematical problem and not only as a gravitational-cosmological problem.
One must disconnect for a moment from the gravitational approach and look at the problem as a simple algebraic problem and many more options will immediately appear such as changing the element G which is also found in the gravitation formula next to the letter M. Another option is to correct the formulas or alternatively even replace formulas. In this way it is possible to easily arrive at more than ten possibilities for a solution from which it will be possible to find the right solution. The possibility of dark matter and energy, or alternatively negative mass, should be avoided. Eighty years are more than enough to discover and prove this delusional solution.
Articles 75, 78 on my site
Please respond gently.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
I actually suggest not to underestimate Ezra. According to my opinion, he discovered that if you write on a piece of parchment in the correct order 72 signs of elementary particles, all this at midnight during a full moon, and at an hour when urinals are howling in the background, and the piece of parchment is surrounded by five candles arranged in an elaborate polygon, one burns with a green flame, the second with a red flame, the third with a flame blue, the fourth in an infrared flame and the fifth in an ultraviolet flame, or then a portal to another universe opens.
Since the space-time structure is different in that universe, and all the elementary constants have different values (and some don't exist at all), everything passing through the portal from one side to the other disintegrates and ceases to exist. But he doesn't know that (yet). He is currently busy with the task of producing a candle that burns with a red flame.
negative mass:
Negative mass is the absence of positive mass.
The herd is not something that exists in itself. The herd is conditioned by Bish.
A particle that exists as an absence that exists by itself - it is not possible.
The herd that exists in itself is neither the herd nor the non-existent. He does not exist.
A hole in itself without matter is meaningless.
For example, what is a sand hole in itself?
The hole exists, just refer to the material (there is). It is not something that exists by itself.
Hence negative matter does not exist.
But negative mass in the sense of negative energy can exist.
Negative energy can exist as space and form.
For example, gravity is a negative energy conditioned on the existence of positive mass-energy.
Negative mass and positive mass cancel each other out. Their sum is zero.
Therefore a particle with a negative mass cannot exist in an environment of particles with a positive mass and vice versa.
Therefore, the proposed model does not fit the facts.
-
theory:
It is not enough that a new theory fits the facts, like a glove, it must predict new properties (which can be disproved) that have not yet been observed.
Does the new theory predict new properties of dark energy and dark matter, which have not yet been observed?
From the assumptions from which the existence of the Higgs particle follows, does a particle with a negative mass also follow?
borrowed
Could you please provide some links to your studies?
Ezra
If someone writes secrets then only someone smarter can crack them.
So you think you are smarter than God. Allow me to doubt.
to J. Since dark matter and dark energy are still quite hypothetical, so the answer is given with limited warranty.
The existing understanding assumes that dark matter is indeed some elementary particle (probably!), while dark energy is related to a property of space-time (probably squared).
The new hypothesis in the article claims that these two mysteries are explained by the same solution itself, and that it contains a particle with a negative mass (I would like a balloon made of this material), and another component of space-time (probably) that allows the creation of such particles out of thin air.
Maybe one day redemption will come and we will be able to come across an article about the expansion of the universe and dark energy without encountering "Einstein's big mistake", as if it was the only thing he did in his life.
So according to the book "Genius Errors" by Mario Livio, this statement is most likely a fiction of George Gambov who was "famous for his tendency to embellish many of his stories". Apart from that, Einstein seems to have been more ambivalent towards the cosmological constant, although he eventually removed it. If Einstein regretted something, it was something else, more related to politics and less to the Big Bang.
Is matter and dark energy a property of particles that exist within space-time, or a property of space-time itself? Or both?
An answer to the question "the scientist".
If you read the article carefully, you will see that the conclusions derive from partial results and they change later. Building mathematical models is done by using partial results and completing the missing part. FYI, the big bang was only possible when a separation between matter and antimatter was created and therefore it appears as if it came out of nothing. Antimatter caused the universe to expand and matter concentrated in galaxies. So FYI, the scientists are not identified (although there are some elsewhere). That's why I suggest you go study: Physics (4 years) Mathematics (3 years) Astronomy (XNUMX year). and to take anti-stupidity medicine.
Drive carefully.
1. "Dr. Frans's model offers for the first time an accurate prediction for the formation of halos of dark matter around galaxies."
2. Albert Einstein was the first to predict dark energy 100 years ago in the cosmological constant he added to his equations.
The idea in science is to understand and explain physical phenomena by experiments, observations and building mathematical models, and ultimately by the models to predict the behavior of the phenomenon and how it behaves and affects the environment.
A scientific theory is actually exactly that - an attempt to give an explanation for a phenomenon, through experiments, observations and a mathematical model,
The "theory" can be more or less correct, depending on its ability to "predict" the behavior of the phenomenon and its effects.
Scientists and researchers are constantly trying to put together new theories, or test existing theories whose ability to predict a phenomenon is partial or doubtful.
(A scientific theory will never be 100% correct and luckily it is, otherwise we wouldn't be progressing and gaining new knowledge all the time.
A scientist must not be satisfied with the knowledge he has gained about a certain phenomenon or a certain area of life, otherwise he is not really a scientist.)
There are many scientific theories that predict the behavior of phenomena at different levels, ZA manages to give a real accurate answer regarding the behavior of the phenomenon and its effects on the environment, therefore such a theory will be called a "grounded" theory,
On the other hand, there are scientific theories which try to explain a phenomenon and its behavior, and which experiments, observations or a current mathematical model still does not provide an explanation/answer to its behavior and its effects and does not make it possible to predict the "future" with the help of the theory
The material you brought in the article is instructive, I have been involved in Kabbalah for many years in cracking the secrets of the Torah, which is actually dealing with the secrets of creation. Every word in the article is accurate. I came to this conclusion as well. I have an accurate description of the standard model. I wrote a book on a subject that has not yet been published. I am looking for scientists working in the field to share with them the research I have been doing for 20 years. Contact me by email.
Best regards
Ezra
As long as it's a theory it only shows that the physicists are actually astronauts. They don't explain what dark matter is and what dark energy is and still come to conclusions. Come on, these researchers are completely delusional