The dark matter eludes its pursuers again - or maybe not? A research group in Italy claims that its particle detector picks up particles from the dark matter, but its findings are questionable
John Mattson, Scientific American
It is common to say about dark matter that no one knows what it is because no one has seen it yet. One cannot argue with the beginning of this sentence: there are many hypothetical particles that may turn out to be the components of dark matter. But as for the question of whether anyone has seen it - here the scientists are as divided as ever, and the debate between rival hunters of dark matter is getting heated.
The controversy centers on a research group based in Italy that operates DAMA, a particle detector that researchers have claimed for years to pick up dark matter particles. But some are critical, saying the group is keeping its data secret, and in general physicists remain skeptical.
Indeed, scientists participating in the XENON100 project, an experiment run by a large-scale research collaboration, reported in April 2011 findings that appear to put to rest the possibility that DAMA's signal came from dark matter.
The data itself is not the focus of the debate, but its meaning. If the dark matter surrounds our galaxy like a ring, as the theory predicts, then the Earth's orbit passes through a sea of dark particles, and DAMA should detect this as the annual tides that occur in the "environment surrounded by particles".
Indeed, for more than 10 years the AMA has recorded ups and downs that match this pattern. "I think everyone will agree at this point that they see a signal," said astronomer Mario Livio of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, at a symposium on dark matter that took place in May. "The question is, what is it?".
DAMA researchers have now finally found buds of confirmation for their claim that they are indeed seeing signs of dark matter. Physicist Ewan A. Kohler of the University of Chicago reported at the symposium that the CoGeNT detector in Minnesota also detected seasonal changes consistent with those recorded by DAMA.
He cautioned that the data is preliminary but claimed that the competing researchers - including one whose results he dismissed with a quote from the TV series Futurama, as "refined high-quality platinum" - are praising DAMA too soon.
The CoGeNT detector may be the ally DAMA has needed for a very long time, but Kohler refuses to take a stand on the debate. "The DAMA people may be wrong, and they may be right, but we have to remain neutral," he said. "I find myself stuck between the believers and the unbelievers." And the result: the research field of dark matter remains as vague as ever.
The article was published in the October-November issue of the magazine "Scientific American - Israel" published by Ort.
497 תגובות
Friend, when I wrote "come on astrology" I did not mean that this article would also become an article about astrology. God willing, God is great, we have several articles open.
R.H. What you did with Yuval's horoscope is an act that will not be done! I don't know if you are familiar with the concept, but it is called "cold reading".
Yuval - The only luck I was ever interested in was Mazal Mizrahi from youth company B. Can't say I had much luck with her.
Yoda: Friction, friction, friction!
Oh oh, I wish there was a little friction with luck..
It is clear that there is a circumstantial connection between the things. However, I do not rule out the possibility that a person will be interested in natural phenomena even without reference to their possible effect on a person.
The following scenario seems very possible to me: Tycho Brahe and Copernicus were engaged in astronomy; And to get support for their research they sold astrology services.
Ptolemy who lived about 400 years after Aristotle and laid the foundations of astronomy was an enthusiastic astrologer.
In the 17th century Kepler and if I'm not mistaken Tycho Barha were engaged in astrology and even Copernicus was a professional astrologer in his own right.
In my opinion, the motivation of most astronomers until the 18th century was mainly derived from astrology.
R. H.,
Do you think astrology advanced astronomy?
Let's talk astrophysics.
It seems to me that astrophysics, at least from the time of Aristotle, developed independently of astrology.
The importance of astrology today is petition, at least in the entertainment industry.
R. H.,
Charlatanism is a trait attributed to humans. If a person presents astrology as a science, or claims that its assertions are correct, one should check if he is a charlatan - and in my opinion, it is likely that he is indeed one.
🙂 They deal with everything here. Even in the mouth of the chopchik, if you want.
Happy Orim ♠ ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
jubilee,
You said "You beautifully presented the charlatan side of astrology."
Do you think astrology has a non-charlatan side?
Except for its historical importance such that it pushed and eventually resulted in astronomy, does astrology have any practical importance today?
Wait, this is the science website??
R. H.,
Again almost true, but…
Exactly the border point between Virgo and Libra. What makes this point unique is where the Milka line intersects with the (celestial) equator. And at that particular moment, at that place, these two intersect with the horizon line at exactly the same point.
In astrology, it is accepted to divide characteristic traits into "good" and "bad", there are astrologers who claim that people born on the border receive mainly the "bad" traits of each of the two zodiac signs. If you like, the analysis you gave fits this claim 🙂
Well then not if not a Libra, last try, Virgo.
R. H.,
Almost true, but…
Although the riddle is not astrological but mathematical, astrologers find it of great importance
Libra ?
R. H.,
Not bad and even kind 🙂
You have beautifully presented the charlatan side of astrology.
And yet, can you find what fortune is on the horizon of my life?
jubilee,
According to this date things are clear.
You love knowledge, are interested in many fields. You are attracted to dealing with the past, but also with the present. You are interested in the humanities, biblical history, etc. and on the other hand in the natural sciences, especially physics. You are restless and wandering from place to place. I see a big trip soon, I would bet heading west? You are usually a relaxed person, but when you are upset, you know how to be impulsive and respond harshly. You are careful, but take risks from time to time. You have a sense of humor and you like puzzles.
Was I wrong?
Jerusalem, July 9, 1953, time 11:31 in the morning.
Don't call me cancer, because I know that. I also know the position of the moon (Gemini). Can you find the rising fortune in my life?
There is a catch here, but from your acquaintance with me so far you will find quite a few clues.
Well, I know how to do that too.
Tell me when you were born and I'll tell you what your luck is.
For Israel, you will come every day.
It seems to me that this article has had quite a bit of success. Almost 500 responses. Much thanks to you.
Tell me how lucky you are and I'll tell you when you were born.
Goodbye
Thank you Yuval.
You are the only one who answered. You are also the only one who asked for the elegant solution that I think exists for the Michaelson Morley experiment that does not conflict with the ether theory. Incidentally, this is the same solution to the friction problem in LS, the source of inertia, the possibility of non-locality, and indirectly perhaps also to the dark mass problem. In short, everything we've been putting in for two months. Five for the price of one. It is also primitive enough, as you like.
Sounds a bit pretentious, I know, and almost certainly wrong. But it seems to me that it works well, if only as a logical exercise. So let's move on to the emails and discuss. I have no desire to be humiliated, accept with a committee.
It seems to me that this comment may be the last in the article. Was pan ha? Come on astrology.
Israel Shapira,
My response to you has been delayed for almost an hour now. On the other hand, you now have an hour of the night that you devote, obviously, to reactions in another world.
That's exactly what I answered you at length, and for some reason I can't find the answer here. Maybe I was permanently blocked because I moved from Palestine to Palestine without returning with an apology? And maybe I fell asleep before I clicked on "send a comment". Please leave the system eligible because of the doubt, and I will try to restore.
First, your logic doesn't belong in the story. You can do the experiment many times, as required, and record the results. What you call "my logic" I call a hypothesis.
In the hypothesis you make, you are not talking about mass, momentum and persistence. Please put these into an appropriate equation and you will see that your logic works well.
Now I remembered what happened. Skype is giving me trouble. When I answer with a video, Windows responds with a blue screen. I got a call just as I was about to finish writing.
It was an abbreviated recap. On second thought, everything that adds subtracts.
jubilee
You are infinitely cruel.
Who sent you links to quantum entanglement? To determine the speed of light in all systems? Who copied for you (with the left hand!) a whole page from a book about an aspect experiment?
So here I am copying the simple question I asked. If you can answer it, great. no no.
"It is said that there is a block of plasticine hanging on a wire, and we are trying to measure the speed of rifle bullets at different speeds that are fired at the block, and this is by measuring the angle formed between the wire and the vertical after a bullet hits.
My logic says that when the speeds are relatively low, the more we increase the speed of the balls, the more the angle will increase, until at a certain speed it stops growing, and at very high speeds (say 1000 Mach) the balls will pass through the plasticine without any effect on the wire.
Am I wrong?”
Note that the bullets go through plasticine, not Palestinians. Please don't confuse me with "Betzelem".
Israel Shapira,
Again you paste a link that points to many questions. Please be specific.
OK. I will send you an email that will explain the matter, but you must make the small effort and try to address the question I raised in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-318325
Otherwise there is no deal, and rightly so.
Oh the tiredness, the tiredness.
*The simple morality by which I try to live.
I came to the conclusion that you have your own idea from seeing that you ignore good answers you receive (not from me) with claims like "it's not enough for me".
You just don't understand Euler.
me neither.
Please see! Whichever way you look at it, it's clear that there is a paradox, and that we must straighten out. You probably have an idea. On the way to collecting data to refine your idea, you pester us with countless questions without giving us any clues.
Take, for example, Svardamish Yehuda. He has an idea and he is sharing it with us with great enthusiasm and risking his good name. Although he is attacked from all fronts and repelled the attacks not very successfully, he reveals all the cards and thus is fair. You do not. What you are doing goes against the simple morality that I try to uphold, and makes me distance myself from you.
jubilee:
Indeed, you have discovered my true face.
Me - I'm all peka peka. Talk is like sand, and there is nothing to eat.
But I have a small question for you, so that I can understand more oh why I have disappointed you:
What exactly should I write?
After all, if I write more than a few sentences - you complain that I am extending.
If I summarize - then I'm an idler. (which is true).
In short, you want me to summarize for you in a few sentences all of modern physics and its implications, but to be understandable.
Can you do the same for Kant's "critique of pure reason"?
I have no intention of investing and sweating and writing a long article that no one will read, and if they read they won't understand, and if they do understand they won't be able to prove it.
According to the theories of Shel Meir.
It makes much more sense, simple and fair, to conduct an experiment that will prove if there is anything in my nonsense, and not just bother. That's what I'm working on now. I'm just trying to get as many ideas as possible so I can design it properly.
And regarding Michael - to his credit it will always be said that he invests and answers, and for that I will always be grateful. The problem is that his answers are not enough for me. Euler also brought a mathematical proof of God's existence, and the proof is:
a+b^n)/n = x)
Conclusion: There is a God.
Do you understand now why I don't really believe in mathematicians?
Israel Shapira, I'm a little disappointed.
My impression of you now is that you sit quietly and encourage everyone to do the work for you.
To Tomi, I thought you would also wear a belt for the sake of the effort, and not her. An exploitative capitalist like you.
I didn't just ask you to write the problem in your own words. I wanted to make sure you really understood her deeply.
You got a lot of good answers from the one you call "Michael", and I see no reason to add to them.
Fortunately for me, I am not a member of the editorial board and I can afford to withdraw from the discussion whenever I want.
Please continue without me.
Yuval, you must get together.
I expand, you accuse me of length. Sends a link, claims that there is no need. Avoided, so instead I just step. Do you understand why Morach entered me?
Do you really expect that in a few well-formulated sentences we will finish one of the main problems in physics?
Alternative physics, respect in its place is a term. But it is not worth much without formulas that explain existing phenomena in a new way, or proof of its truth through an experiment. Both Maxwell and Einstein passed the test with honor. I am trying to see if it is possible to find a new theory that Ehud says all the signs are there that the time is ripe for it, and that would meet the criteria of formulas or experiment.
Until we do, we're just speculating.
Michael.
With your permission I will try to apply the Socratic method of seeking the truth through questions and answers.
1. If instead of a speeding photon we take a speeding rabbit, which moves relative to us at a constant speed of 0.999999999C and instead of Lewis Carroll's outdated clock we equip it with two clocks: one cesium and the other temp. Will he record in his travel diary that there is a growing gap between the time shown by the two clocks?
2. If the brother of the same rabbit remains with two clocks as above on the same day, assuming he is stationary, will there be a gap? Is it the same rate?
3. If, for example, the spaceships that try to synchronize an attack, they are at a small distance on both sides of the planet being attacked, without any connection to each other, and without knowing the time shown by the cesium clocks of the other ship. According to you, they will not be able to synchronize the attack using only the temp clocks?
Israel Shapira,
I also know how to send links. Until I read it, would you like to explain the problem in your own words (briefly and simply, if you can) to one of the people like me?
According to Lorenz: if time is absolute and the speed of light appears to be absolute for any frame of reference, then there is no escaping the understanding that the bodies are contracting.
Since in this game three parameters participate - distance, time and speed, it is possible to make one absolute and determine the others according to it. In everyday life we are comfortable seeing time as constant. In the era of relativity it was agreed to see the speed of light as constant. Since everything is relative, each of these determinations allows the other to be presented according to it and leads to paradoxes accordingly. The determination of time poses paradoxes of the speed of light, and the determination of the speed of light presents us with the paradoxes of time. Both of these require the Lorentz contraction, which is a paradox in itself.
The preference of whom to determine is arbitrary. It is not impossible that actually none of these three parameters is absolute, but there is another parameter (let's say only one) based on which these three are derived. For some time now I have been trying to uncover this additional parameter. Recently, with our awareness of dark matter, I believe it has been found.
I have already answered this before.
The answer is, in general (ie - if each ship does not have accurate information about what the other ships did) - absolutely not.
The temperature clocks of each of them will show different times and sometimes their hands will advance "backwards in time"
Chris de Berg sings: midnight in moscow is lunch time im LA
Now I noticed the opposite as well (by the way, Moscow was two hours away from Israel and not an hour like until a few months ago).
If there is no power then there is no power.
Just two last questions, and we'll let you go: according to my idea, how many spaceships could coordinate a simultaneous attack on a planet in space using temp clocks alone, even after they've been hurtling through space at crazy speeds and in all directions, left and right, forward and backward. Even without computers.
1. Is it possible to do this without temp clocks?
2. According to relativity as we know it, is it even possible to coordinate the attack?
2.5 am - good night.
Israel:
I explained I also explained.
I don't have the energy to repeat things but just as they count the same number of chairs in the room - so they will see the same temperature, the same pressure, and everything they measure will therefore see their temperature clocks the same.
It will not be any absolute time but the age of the universe as measured in the room where they are sitting.
Michael
I just saw your comment.
You didn't explain how when the two twins are in the same frame of reference, say in the same room, sipping space beads, they can have a different time while both temp clocks show the same time.
1. I didn't ignore it - I sent you a link. You said it was excellent and that you would read it.
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Chasing_the_light/
2. Mainstream claims there is no mistake.
3. Everything in the link.
4. A believer who knows. The main one was Lorenz's argument about the shortening of bodies. still leaves absolute time.
5. Indeed, it has already been proven that there is a finite limit to the amount of nonsense that the human ear is able to digest in a given period of time.
6. Still, even with all the arguments that explained mm, they leave the absolute time intact.
My claim is that the two main stream theories - relativity and the big bang - are incompatible with each other, because of the issue of time dilation. This is not alternative physics - it is a contradiction within the mainstream itself.
Obviously I have a mistake somewhere. All I ask is to know where, so that I can relax and go back to playing chess, Mesut Khalas. Is that so much to ask?
Israel:
I already explained to you how 4 and 8 get along (I explained it 4 or 8 times, so this is the 5th or 9th time).
The universe does not have a specific age - defined.
It has a different age in each reference system.
From the point of view of a photon that has existed since the creation of the universe - this age is zero because the photon has no time (that's why it is in such a hurry).
The "temperature clock" we talked about gives a different time in each reference system. If it is used in the reference system of twin A, it will show a different time than if it is used in the reference system of twin B.
That's exactly what I was referring to, and you ignored it.
I claimed that the mistake is already in number 1.
Do you know how the scientific community came to the conclusion that the speed of light is the same in every frame of reference?
Do you know some of the explanations given following the failure of the Michaelson Morley experiment?
Why was Hendrik Lorentz's explanation rejected even though his formulas were warmly embraced in the theory of relativity?
When I talk nonsense it's a sign that I'm done for the day. See you soon.
Everything here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/demonstrating-relativity-1403111/#comment-288212
But here is the summary:
1. Postulate B: The speed of light is the same in every frame of reference.
2. Conclusion: What changes is the distance and time.
3. Hence: different times are measured at different speeds.
4. A private example: the twins paradox. In the recurring meeting between them, each twin has a different time and everyone is right.
5. Big bang: the universe has a specific and defined age, determined with an accuracy of at least seconds.
6. This age is expressed in various evidences, temperature for example.
7. It is possible to know at any point in the universe what the exact age of the universe is if we only know what the temperature is at that point.
8. That's why: when twins (even 10) meet, they all have the same temp and therefore the exact same time of seconds or less.
Problem: 8 collides with 4.
If you spotted a mistake in the argument, point to the step where the mistake was made.
You mean something like going on a picnic in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina? Get started now. I will join you in three quarters of an hour.
Kibbutz graduate.
Please remind me what is the shortening of time and what exactly do you want to know about it? I think I offered you some ideas and because you didn't respond, I thought maybe I didn't answer the question and got off of it.
Hey guys, aren't we doing something for the anniversary of the Wright brothers' first flight?
Please Eraf, you wrote BK and I was hoping you promoted me to BRITISH KNIGHT, something on the order of Newton, Drake or Lennon.
It's inconceivable that you all meant Ben Kibbutz, right Yuveli? Thanks.
What if the middleman?
Yehuda, what about the friction?
A. Dear Asbar,
Why would it create difficulties for those you ask to read your words?
If you have an important message, please make it clear and legible. For example, start a blog where you will tell the things step by step and open them up for discussion. The way you present things to us now is really intolerable
Google neural astrophysics
Yael ♥ Thanks for the support. I'm all with you.
Israel Shapira! Pruning Exaggeration Pruning (Wilk and other incarnations of the locust).
Did I define someone as a British knight? what did you do to me A member of Her Majesty's Advisory Council?
This site needs a moderator for style and not content. At the moment the site is not a place recommended for children and science seekers. It is also possible to argue in a civilized way without cursing and "descending" to a person's body!
And besides... Kudos to Abi Blizovsky for his perseverance and efforts to bring science articles in Hebrew!
jubilee.
After all, you wouldn't refuse to buy some ether from someone who, according to your definition, is a British knight.
To Israel
You wrote:-
It is unlikely that the site is down. He just needs a change. A logical, obligatory, wonderful change
agree with you,
(:))
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
will you sell me
Good night. See you soon
Almost 3 in the morning, should go to sleep.
I already wrote that "it is unlikely that the site has failed." He just needs a change. A logical, obligatory, surprising change, and, as you say, will explain known phenomena and predict new ones, no doubt."
Also gravitation. But not without the basic conditions I presented.
Solve the problem of time extension for me and I will sell you such an intermediary.
And for those who want to see how important each side of a rectangle or cube is, you are welcome to try to solve the following simple problem:
What is the weight of a sphere whose radius is a meter and whose specific gravity in grams per cubic meter is the formula 5X^3 where X is the distance in centimeters from the center of the sphere?
It's enough to place, you don't have to sweat and calculate. I know it weighs like a black hole.
Israel,
We need such a medium through which all known forces pass, including gravitation, and which explains the existence of matter and its movement in general and according to Newton's laws in particular. Maxwell's site does a lot, but it only deals with electromagnetic waves.
Don't buy a middleman in a bag.
"A completely different mediator" Shaw?
Any medium should derive the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism. Otherwise there is no deal.
Israel Shapira, I loved it 🙂
I liked seeing that you maintain a high work ethic as befits BK, and I liked the quote from my words. I enjoyed seeing all of Maxwell's history concentrated on one screen. In short, you are great.
And now I must apologize to Maxwell's ghost. So:
"Three seemingly unrelated constants are revealed to be related through a small number of equations". Maxwell's genius is expressed in finding these equations. My (subjective) impression of the way you present it raises the question of whether he just took random mathematical symbols and discovered "to his surprise" that so and so, or that he envisioned the relationship in his mind's eye and all that was left was to adjust the correct ratios.
"Maxwell built a hydrodynamic model of the site as a medium that carries waves perpendicular to each other and moving through the site in the form of eddies". The site, unfortunately, has not yet been discovered, but the greatness of humanity is its ability to move forward and not be stopped because of such trifles. Today the site is "Pesa", and we both agree that these waves must move on some medium. You maintain that the site model needs to be refined, but I claim that the (sophisticated) site is just a byproduct of a completely different medium. we made a deal?
Israel:
Writing dx does not make everyone know the size of the side, so there is no need to write it.
The meaning of the word implied is not related to the size at all, but to the fact that it is implied from the context.
In my life, I have never seen the word "implied" used in relation to size, and I certainly didn't mean that.
It is a fact that in normal speech we talk about the integral of X squared and say nothing about dx and this does not interfere with giving a correct answer at all.
The reason for writing dx is the need to prevent ignoring the fact that it has a meaning that changes when variables are changed.
I came back from work.
(Alek job.. they come, confuse the workers, take the money and go home. If I had a worker like me, I would fire him the next day, so he wouldn't cause too much damage).
Michael.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-318758
absolutely clear. What is not clear to me yet is how to calculate the area of a rectangle when one of its sides is missing. One can of course say that it is implied, with full justification, because the length of this side is actually the infinitesimal, but still from the geometric point of view it would be strange to write about a rectangle whose area is the product of the lengths a, b implied.
But it's pretty clear that we got together. It's just a question of terminology.
jubilee.
I'm not sure you are aware of the magnitude of Maxwell's achievement.
At the time, 3 constants were known which apparently have no connection between them:
A. Electric constant:
ε0, commonly called the vacuum permittivity
ε0 ≈ 8.854187817620… × 10−12 F·m−1
B. constant of magnetism:
permeability of free space
µ0 = 4π×10−7 V·s/(A·m) ≈ 1.2566370614…×10−6 H·m−1 or N·A−2 or T·m/A or Wb/(A·m)
third. speed of light:
c = 299 792 458 m·s−1
Maxwell built a hydrodynamic model of the site as a medium that carries waves that are perpendicular to each other and move through the site in the form of eddies. When he tried to calculate the speed of progress of the waves from the wave equations of flows, he discovered to his surprise that the speed of progress is the same as the speed of light! The relationship formula is:
c = 1/√ε0μ0
It should be noted that many physicists doubted this theory, and it was only after Maxwell's death that Hertz was able to prove the existence of electromagnetic waves.
After the Michaelson Morley experiment and Einstein's theory, the site became a "strip" as you defined it. However, the question still arises: how is it possible that a wrong model gives such an accurate result? There is no "thread" here as you say, only a disturbing reality.
It is unlikely that the site is down. He just needs a change. A logical, obligatory, surprising change, and as you say, will explain known phenomena and predict new ones, God forbid.
Yoda
What about the friction? Does what I wrote here somehow relate to your solution? Mine does.
This is how I started: I told you both that you were right. But he didn't cooperate because he probably went to work. A good diplomat also understands timing.
The emoticons are the refuge of the one who talks nonsense.
Why? After all, diplomats tell everyone that they are right. You probably know the joke about that one from the um.
What I also see (in the stars and the dark particles) is that you have started to develop expertise in emoticons as well
Of course, diplomacy is not my forte 😉
jubilee:
I guess you noticed the contradiction in your response.
Michael, a dog breeder.
Israel. Your eyes see that I tried to fight your just war.
jubilee:
Only I am right.
The d comes from differential and so does the delta (more or less, it is actually probably derived from the word difference).
If it was only about the existence of a rectangle, the d would simply be an unnecessary ceremony and in mathematics we tend to give up unnecessary ceremonies.
Even when writing ab they mean a times b and don't bother to put any sign when the intention is clear.
The same goes for the d
It is not given up because it is not unnecessary.
"Inshallah" did I already say?
That's another question. It is always possible to tailor a model to an existing reality. This is what everyone does, and I am also a participant in this sin.
I don't like the website, not because it doesn't explain (after all it is adapted to experimental reality anyway, and as such it does explain), but because it is a partial model designed to describe one specific phenomenon while I am looking for one model that will include all the known phenomena (and will also predict correctly , Inshallah, phenomena we have not yet become aware of).
If it is not a good model, how did Maxwell manage to derive the speed of light from this bad model using hydrodynamic models? Just a coincidence?
The Δ started from the opposite operation to the scheme - the derivative.
the car? What car?! It's a white elephant. Soon, inshallah, I will donate it to the financing company and shake my exterior from it.
I do not deal with any color or score with the site. For the sake of good order, I make it clear here and now that I do not accept the accepted (former) model of the site as a good intermediary.
As far as I remember, it all actually started with Δ, which means difference, and we got the d only after we let the delta aspire to 0.
I don't believe neither politicians, nor mathematicians, nor Corsicans.
Yuval, how are you? how is the car What about the site? (in purple)
You are both right, each to their own level of interest. If we are only talking about a scheme along a function of one variable without replacement, then the particular d is self-evident and actually unnecessary. However, in the integration of a multivariable function, or in the substitution of the variable of the function, the sum must be according to the relevant d.
Israel:
Your last response is a hint that in the end there is a chance that you will reach what I wrote in the first place.
The meaning was different and the calculation was also different!
In other words - this d has a very definite meaning and it is not just a side of a rectangle, but a side of the corresponding rectangle!
This is what I wrote about changing variables.
When changing the integration variable, the side of the rectangle should also be transformed.
On second thought, Shaw Ada implied? After all, we could have written dy and then the meaning would have been different, so why implied?
Please check, this is what is written in Infiniti's checkbook.
Israel:
If this is your explanation, then it is much poorer than the explanation I gave, but probably only a mathematician could appreciate it.
In fact, the explanation you gave is precisely of the formalistic type that the original wording of your question implied that you are not interested in.
If the dx was written only for this reason then it is unnecessary because it was - what is called in English implied (or in Hebrew, as a good approximation) and there was no need to mention it.
The reason his grade is required is exactly the one I mentioned.
Israel:
Yehuda was right in only one thing:
I accuse him of lying.
His comments that do not deal with pure profanity are not blocked and have never been blocked.
After all, even his last comments, which are nothing more than baseless defamation, have been published.
It's not the lie he thought he'd be accused of, but it's a lie he lied.
Regarding the "solution" that he supposedly has to the issue of friction - here I do not believe that he is lying in the usual sense of the word - I believe that he is simply wrong.
I also believe that the reason he doesn't want to publish it here is the fear that his balloon will be punctured once again.
Well, then give a hint, we'll see if you're on the right track.
I am looking for a more reliable scientific site to publish an article on the subject
La Sage and the Friction
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What is Alec, Alec.
What's the solution?
Israel and others
It's hard to comment when you're not sure if your comment will be published.
It is difficult to respond when you are accused of spreading lies on purpose
And sometimes the Lord claims that I actually copy from him
So I will refrain from commenting
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And by the way
I have the solution to the La Sage friction problem and my simple universe.
Now they will accuse me of lying and I'm just saying that I'm a liar, a liar, a liar.
I wonder if the reaction will go through
Scientific site, Alec!
Where is everybody? I know Yuval had an accident with the car, and R.H. Busy with the articles of the Itztagnins. But where are the eagles from the muppets who make comments? And where is Judah? Michael, you made Yehuda disappear, didn't you?
I meant that integration is essentially a assembly of rectangles, the sum of whose total area is the area under the function curve. The area of each rectangle is the product of the value of the function (in the example I gave X^2)
in infinitesimal dx. As dx sweeps to 0, the rectangles get smaller and smaller, and their number increases accordingly, so that they strive more and more for the exact area under the curve, until they finally reach it exactly.
Therefore without the dx the rectangle has no area. It has a height but no base, so the integration cannot work.
Israel:
I explained things.
It's hard to detail clearly here without trying too hard but try, for example, to make the placement Y=X^2
Now the integral will be of Y and if you don't take into account the fact that (dx=dy/2sqrt(y) and just write dy you will get a wrong result.
Still, why not just the integral of X^2? The answer will be X^3/3 in any case, so why add the dx?
Israel:
The ratio is not a pie.
It would be nice if he was and therefore this urban legend exists, but he doesn't.
You didn't ask about an average either, but let's assume that.
I do not believe that someone surveyed all the streams and calculated an average.
In general - in such an average calculation you need to know how to weight the different streams (in terms of their length, their influence, the slope of their flow path, the speed of the flow, the rockiness of the channel, etc.) and this is a completely undefined thing.
The issue of weighting (as a metaphor) is also important in the subject of integrals and is reflected when choosing to change variables in their calculation.
An integral can only be calculated for a defined function and the definition of the size of the ruler that I mentioned in my previous response is likened to, in measuring the length of the river bank, to define its function the integral is done (see this is a miracle - the length of the ruler is used in the role of dx).
Without defining the length of the bar, the question has no answer.
R.H:
I don't know if there are other references to Pai in the Bible, but in the description of the Copper Sea it is mentioned as 3.
And he made the sea solid, ten cubits from its lip to its lip a circle around, and five cubits its height and thirty cubits he circled it around.
ZA 3.
By the way, Israel, what is the value of a pie according to the Bible?
Israel,
When you're right, you're probably right. Looks like an interesting site. Thanks.
go to
http://www.factodiem.com/2010/03/pi.html
Israel,
Don't know where you got the answer Pai. At least that's not what is said here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meander
I guess I really didn't understand.
Because everything you say also applies to all the other curves, even though they have a certain and fixed length.
(A sexist site - all day long here they talk about the curves and the refutations).
For this, if I remember, we do a line integral.
And the answer is by the way the number Pi. Not 1, not infinity, not i. Pie, American Pie.
But since the shortened rulers reminded me of the Hadoah classes, I'll ask you a question, just to make sure that you were paying attention in class and not passing notes or tugging at the female students in braids.
Why do we add the suffix dx to the integral?
I don't mean the matter of notation as in the integral of x^3y^7z^4dxdydz I mean for example the integral of x^2dx why not write it down simply as the integral of x^2?
Hint: the answer is geometric and ties directly to Michael's shortening rulers.
Exactly, and if you look from space it will appear to you as a straight line and then the ratio will be 1:1. You can see it very nicely
in google earth or google map
It's like the famous question how long is the UK coastline?
The mathematical representation of this is their fractals finite area bounded by infinite extent.
By the way, Israel, you probably meant this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinuosity
Israel:
R. H answered you correctly and you did not understand his words.
There is indeed a number that is spoken about in this context (and it varies from one river to another - but moves in a certain area that I do not remember what it is) but this speaking is a function of the resolution.
If you walk along the river bank with a meter long ruler you will get a certain length.
If you go with a centimeter long ruler you will get a different length.
If you go with a ruler that is a tenth of a millimeter long and go around each grain of sand you will get an even greater length.
If you go with a nanometer long ruler and go around every lug in every grain of sand you will get an even greater length.
And so on - depending on the resolution.
Not related to resolution. Take a long string and place it so that it is parallel to the Mississippi River between 2 distant points, and take another string and stretch it between those points. What is the ratio of the length of the two wires?
Israel,
"On average, what is the ratio between the length of the rivers, including the bends, and the length as the crow flies?"
It ranges from 1 to infinity depending on what resolution you are measuring
R.H
We almost got together.
(We are members of the People's Council, representatives of the Jewish settlement and the Zionist movement....)
Agree that there is power, but not in free fall. In physics, only the sum of forces is important. And friction exists only when this amount is not equal to 0.
On a submarine completely submerged in a river, a frictional force from the water will only be exerted if its speed is different from the speed of the water flow. It has nothing to do with the speed of the river bank or the speed of the other ships in the river. The popsicle sticks that the Israeli travelers throw into the river will always have a velocity of 0 relative to the water, even when the river accelerates in narrow passages. The sticks will indeed encounter the force of inertia in acceleration, but in space-time, space-time itself is the one that causes inertia, so this is not applicable.
Same story with galaxy sticks.
The whole uploading of the LS theory from the darkness of history two months ago was because I asked Yehuda how it is that we don't feel the pressure differences of the particles at o1000g
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-310712
We came (well, I came) to the conclusion that this is exactly the problem with the theory: although the theory works, and attraction will exist, it is not the familiar Einsteinian gravitation in which in free fall no force acts on the body, with LS there is an enormous force from the particles, which compresses you as well in free fall.
To finish a riddle about rivers:
On average, what is the ratio between the length of the rivers including the bends, and the length as the crow flies?
Israel,
Does it seem to you that there is a fundamental difference in the interaction of the boats with the water or the curved space as you define it if they are tied or not? All the rope adds is just fixation. The force exerted by the river or gravity is the same force whether the boats are tied or not.
Meir:
The rug was just an example to give you an intuition.
The geometry and topology can change even without a fourth dimension.
What you said about the light is completely disconnected from my words and the only advice I can give you at this point is that before you try to teach the physicists - learn the physics that exists.
I see no point in this conversation.
R.H
Of course there is an interaction between the river water and the boat. But the natural state of the boat is a velocity of 0 relative to the river, just as the natural state of any body is a velocity of 0 relative to space-time.
In the example you gave, the rope stops the boat, just like the chair stops your body from falling, with the exact same result: force.
We can illustrate the comparison as follows:
1. Hang the same boat on a rope dangling from the top of a cliff.
2. Measure the tension in the rope.
3. Measure the tension in the rope that connects the original boat to the shore in the pattern of the river.
4. Adjust the speed of the flow in the river so that the tension in the rope is the same as the tension in the rope of the hanging boat.
What you got is the same situation, only with a difference of 90 degrees: in the river there is a boat that strives to flow with the water (yes, because of the friction), and on the rope hangs a boat that strives to flow with the space-time distorted by the earth's gravity (you can say that because of the "friction" with space time). Even the tension on both ropes is exactly the same.
But as soon as the ropes are disconnected, the two boats go to their natural state, of speed and 0 friction with the river or space-time. The state of the galaxies is state B and therefore there is no friction.
You can find a visual illustration in the shocking video of the Versailles disaster: note that as soon as the floor fell, all the people literally "poured" into the chasm that opened, as would happen to them if they were near the hole that opened in a burst dam.
No deal: just vanilla.
Israel,
So the next time you're in the Colorado River do the stick experiment and you'll see that life is chaotic and full of surprises. My kids do contests like this all the time in the Charles River.
Why do you think the boat is at rest relative to the river? Suppose you tie her to the beach? The water will push her and there will be serious pressure on the rope. That is, and it is very clear that there is an interaction between the river water and the boat and therefore it moves forward with them. If she was "transparent" she would not progress.
I'm sorry, the deal is only on a choco choco popsicle (with the option to convert to a Krambo).
Michael,
I did not understand your explanation regarding the world of Le Sage. In any case, I agree with you that there is nothing to compare between what is commonly called dark energy and La Sage particles, except that I cannot accept as correct either the tapestry weaving mechanism you described, nor the term "energy" that is applied to this "dark" thing.
Your explanation of an orgy weaving the tapestry assumes that our universe is a universe with three dimensions of space expanding into a fourth dimension of space. But for some reason the light rays in it do not spread into the fourth dimension, but know how to "discriminate" between the four dimensions of space and use only three of them (in the two-dimensional example you gave, the light rays will spread in the plane of the carpet and not in the third dimension that receives the folds). This statement is like saying that a ray of light in a three-dimensional universe will have the ability to choose which of the three dimensions of space to use.
In my opinion, the right way to deal with the questions raised by the expansion of space is to treat space as a tapestry that goes on and on, but not into a fourth dimension, but into nothingness, and without "folding".
For this purpose it is necessary to assume that the galactic matter is fixed in space and therefore stretches as it stretches, and again the question of friction arises, but this time (unlike in the Le Sage hypothesis) it has a solution.
It is not clear to me how the sticks are connected. Either there is legality, or there is not. If there is legality, then if stick A arrived first in experiment A, then it should also arrive in all the other 999 experiments, right? Or is there something random here that I missed? The boat, or let's say the raft (so as not to say that it has any self-propulsion and therefore has a relative velocity relative to the river), is always at a velocity of 0 relative to the water. You can check this by putting your hand in the water and you will see that there is no movement, no matter how fast the river flows relative to the bottom.
The closest river to me is the Colorado River. It is notorious for the merchant ships that sail it, loaded with sailor women. Sometimes, when I'm lounging to my pleasure on the hammock in the raft, with my hand dipping in the still water, a ship approaches us that melts like a moon or two. What I see is that the river, along with my raft, is speeding towards the huge ship crammed with woolen and linen women. On the other hand, when it gets dark, and I can't see the ship, I have no way of knowing about its existence, because the river is still at 0 speed and the hand and the raft are also in the exact same position, so nothing has changed as far as I'm concerned and I'm at rest.
I like vanilla popsicle the best.
Israel,
Please go to the nearest river, insert two identical popsicle sticks into the water in exactly the same line. Finish line tension 100 meters away. Do you think both sticks will arrive at exactly the same time? Repeat the experiment 1000 times. If even once both sticks reach the finish line at the same second you will receive a popsicle prize from me.
Want to say, the boat is in motion relative to other objects in the river. And I will return to the point I already said, if she was a hologram or a film projected on the river, she would not have been pushed by the river.
Is it not clear to you that it is the river that pushes the boat? If so, how?
Not at constant speed. Otherwise how will the boat know it is supposed to be at a different speed than the river? Relative to what she is supposed to be at rest, by the river? When there is fog, the boat is constantly at 0 speed relative to its only frame of reference which is the river. If it accelerates, the force of inertia opposes the acceleration of the boat, but if there is no inertia, or in our case when space-time is itself the cause of inertia, the boat is always at a speed of 0 relative to space-time, just as a body in free fall is at rest and therefore it is the one that accelerates.
Let's not forget that every movement is relative. While the universe is expanding in relation to us, we are contracting in relation to the universe. If, instead of putting ourselves in the center of attention, we look at the universe as if it were the permanent thing and see ourselves as shrinking, we may find an answer to questions that until now were considered unsolvable. What is contracting is the intragalactic matter, and this includes the dark matter in the region of the galaxy. We do not feel this contraction, since we are measuring the matter in the universe in relation to us, but we are contracting together with the rest of the matter we are measuring, and at the same rate.
The higher the concentration of the material, the more there is to shrink. The intergalactic space contains matter in a smaller concentration than that inside the galaxies, and because of that it shrinks less and therefore appears to us to be expanding in relation to us.
Because the speed of light is constant, as the material shrinks, the relative speed of light to the shrinking material increases. Because of this, not only does the universe appear to us to be expanding, but its expansion also appears to us to be accelerating. This, as mentioned, is because the light coming from a distance moves faster with us (relatively) than in the intergalactic spaces.
This was one possible formulation for presenting the acceleration of the expansion of the universe as an optical illusion. It is clear that there is an error hidden here, and anyone who wants to can look for it. But don't worry: if and when the error is found, I have other explanations - they are also wrong, obviously. The point is that an incomprehensible phenomenon requires an explanation. And when there is none, then they invent.
Israel,
A river sweeps the boat because the water particles collide with the boat particles and push them, that's the friction. If there was a projected hologram of the boat the river would not push it. Hence Meir's argument, as I understand it, that there must be an interaction between the expanding space and the galaxies, otherwise they would not be moving away from each other.
There is of course another evidence for the interaction between masses and space and it is that mass distorts space. So it is clear that if the model is correct, space and masses are not inert to each other as it appears from the theory of Le Sage.
The question is whether it is possible to think of some kind of small-scale experiment that would test the nature of the space. If, for example, it was possible to cause light rays to bend, this would perhaps be evidence of the curvature of space itself.
Meir:
The directions really (but really!) don't matter.
This is even beyond the fact that gravity can act on a body from many directions.
Imagine a body that you try to move along a rough straight line (having one and only one direction).
Will there be friction?
Of course it will be!
Suppose this line lies on a perfectly smooth surface.
What did we get?
We got a situation where movement in a certain direction has friction and movement in other directions is frictionless.
In general - another problem with your whole argument belongs to confusion of categories.
In Le Sage's world - the very movement creates friction, regardless of whether there is something in the area that creates gravitation.
In other words - in Le Sage's world - even the principle of persistence of an inertial system does not exist.
Therefore - the whole mixing of this problem with the subject of gravitation is a mixing of gender in non-gender.
R.H
This is only true if there is inertia that opposes the expansion. I don't think this is applicable in the case of the expanding space itself, which sweeps the galaxies with it like a river sweeps a boat in it.
The best example is a body in free fall. Although the body apparently accelerates, according to Einstein no force acts on it and therefore no friction.
jubilee
As a future American, remember the Tea Party slogan: NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Nothing comes for free, and I don't market theories - I trade them. The payment is the solution to my time problem.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/demonstrating-relativity-1403111/#comment-288212
But just imagine what would have happened a month after the press conference where Michaelson would have announced the discovery of the site, and let's even say that his rest system is the same as the rest system of the CMBR. Questions would never have started: why exactly this rest system and not another? Why are there stationary suns and others moving? Where is the principle of invertibility in the universe which at the time was considered identical and infinite.
Just to see if there is any truth in my idea, I would like to pose the following question:
It is said that there is a block of plasticine hanging on a string, and we are trying to measure the speed of rifle bullets at different speeds fired at the block, and this is by measuring the angle formed between the string and the vertical after a bullet hits.
My logic says that when the speeds are relatively low, the more we increase the speed of the balls, the more the angle will increase, until at a certain speed it stops growing, and at very high speeds (say 1000 Mach) the balls will pass through the plasticine without any effect on the wire.
Am I wrong?
Yehuda, I didn't understand what you didn't understand -
Israel, since you referred to the Big Bang -
Yuval, regarding the optical illusion you propose -
In short, I "run an agenda" that claims that space is a fabric of "quantum foam units" that lack energy (since energy, any energy, is a relative movement between elementary particles and the units of this foam, resulting from a "certain" interaction). From this it follows that I agree with Yehuda and Yuval that there is no such thing as "dark energy", but I do not agree with Yehuda regarding the cause of the expansion of the universe, nor with Yuval regarding the "optical illusion" hypothesis.
According to my argument, the Big Bang was not a singular event in time, but is a continuation of one. What happened in the first moment of the bang is exactly what is happening now: the penetration of quantum foam units in a given amount per unit of time. The difference between now and the moment of the beginning of the bang is that now the addition to the "carpet" is less noticeable because it is added to a large carpet, while at the moment of the bang the same given amount penetrated the "pre-carpet".
Following on from this, I claim that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating, despite the fact that whoever received the Nobel Prize was awarded the conclusion that it is accelerating.
Israel,
Obviously, in the cake + raisins example there is friction. If there was no interaction between the cake and the raisins, the cake would pass "through" the raisins and they would stay in place. That is, as Meir says, there must be an interaction between the expanding space and the galaxies, otherwise they would not be carried on top of it and move away from each other.
Perhaps the best example is a body of water, let's say a pool, which is gradually filling up with water and has balls in it. If there is an interaction between the balls and the water, they will move away from each other, but if they are "transparent" to the water, say holograms of balls, they will stay in place independent of the water.
Michael,
The directions are important in my opinion because the drag problem in the Le Sage model is not the very existence of the interaction but its asymmetry, which is violated in the direction of movement, as explained theatrically in the following link by Richard Feynman (minute 6:28)
http://youtu.be/kd0xTfdt6qw?t=6m28s
With reference to his explanation, the problem of drag should not be expressed in the matter of "suspenders" interacting with the material perpendicular to the direction of its rotational movement, but should exist in the matter of "things" acting on the material moving in all directions, including in the direction of its movement.
If you refer to the woven "carpet" as a metaphor for "space", and can also agree that dark energy is not "energy" but simply an addition to the "fabric" of space, it turns out that there is no argument between us. After all, it is clear that the "weave" of which the space is made (that is, the space "itself", neither causes drag nor suppresses a persistent movement).
Israel, please share with us the beautiful solution to the problem revealed by Michelson and Morley's experiment.
Sorry Meir, I tried to help. I was looking for Orgia, but I was told she was at a party.
To Israel
He did not fly, he was blocked because in this way he tried to advertise a site that sells carpets when the link was under the user's name, that is, he thought to earn a Google link to his site under the word carpet, at the expense of a site like the scientist that has a lot of traffic.
This is contrary to the site's regulations (those who want to publish should be respected and do so with payment in an orderly manner and will be rewarded for helping to promote science in Israel) but just as importantly, it is ineffective because these links appear with the NOFOLLOW tag and Google's engine ignores them, usually with such people The content of the response is marginal, so it's not bad that it was blocked.
Until recently there was a commenter named "carpet" here. I thought he might be able to help, but I couldn't find him. Maybe he flew back to Persia.
Meir - I don't really understand what the problem is. Doesn't the big bang model simulate the universe as a puffed cake with the galaxies in the role of raisins moving away from each other? Why would there be friction?
Yuval - If you've already exposed Clooney in public, then it's true, you can't abandon the website model so easily. This is not just a philosophy. Maxwell (long live the Scots!) simulated the ether as a gas, and using hydrodynamic models was able to calculate the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism. If this model is wrong, how did he manage to calculate the speed of light so well?
I've heard of Michaelson and Morley. I still think there is a beautiful solution to the problem, as Pluto not only did not harm Newton's theory - it strengthened it.
And I still haven't abandoned the idea from a few weeks ago, from which it follows that the phenomenon of dark energy is just an optical illusion. But this requires what my friend and enemy (Israel! Is it okay if I say it's you?) called "alternative physics". But if there is a demand for it, I promise to bring it here in a new outfit.
What is this!? HMO?
He "just asked", and has been standing here for half an hour 😉
R. H.,
The parable of the coins is actually better than the parable of the painted dots, because the coins do not inflate together with the balloon.
Meyer,
I abandoned the idea with the luggage while it was still in Abu, because of you 🙂 But immediately a new blooming idea came to my feverish mind: negative gravity. At the "small" distances inside the galaxies, gravitation is positive. However, in the intergalactic distances a new force is revealed that we have not yet known, which behaves like reverse gravity and causes a phenomenon that has been named "dark energy". Weird, huh?
Meir, R.H:
I hesitated whether to bring up the accepted example of the balloon because in this example the points move and someone could argue that a force is needed to act on them.
That's why I brought the carpet pattern.
Meir:
It is not clear to me why the issue of directions creates more "friction" than one direction.
Can you explain?
(By the way - the forces I mentioned work in many scenarios that are not rotational movement.)
La Sage particles create friction because of the law of conservation of momentum that transfers momentum between them and the body (and if it moves in a certain direction, it increases the momentum of the particles in that direction while they decrease its momentum in the same direction).
In other words - there is a clear reason for the friction in the La Sage script.
You didn't point to any reason in the dark energy scenario.
The carpet pattern is an example of one of the possibilities for what is happening.
I don't know why you think the word energy is not appropriate, but in any case, we don't know what dark energy is, so we also don't know if the word energy is really appropriate.
She probably fits but it's not really important.
Meyer,
Think of the balloon but not with coins stuck on it but with painted dots. They will move away from each other without any friction. This leads to the somewhat strange conclusion that the galaxies are "embedded" in space and are part of it. On the other hand, according to Einstein, mass does distort space and affects it.
Michael,
Gravitation acts perpendicular to the rotational motion. The dark energy works in all directions, like unsage particles.
Regarding the woven carpet argument, if as you say, then why "dark energy". What is the energy need, and why not just "spreading space"?
Meir:
Did you read what I replied to you?
The problem with the proverbial parable is that it is not the real thing and therefore it is possible that not all the elements of the problem have been taken into account.
Parable What is it similar to? For someone who uses a parable, for example about an ant and a cricket, and forgets that in reality there are also changing fashions of music, and therefore the cricket becomes a millionaire and the ant continues to toil. for example.
Yuval, the parable was in response to Michael's words.
The idea with the apparent "charger" is not well received, since it will act between the galactic particles and themselves. Dark energy solves this problem by claiming that it "accumulates over cosmological ranges", which cannot be claimed if it is said that all the push comes from "charge" that is concentrated inside the galaxy. In addition, you will also have difficulty explaining with this model why the expansion is accelerated (but this is a less critical problem for my poor outlook..)
Meir and Yuval:
I assumed in advance that it meant something along the lines of what Yuval described, but in that case you should have asked the same question about gravity and the electromagnetic force.
I don't want to create the wrong impression: in the acceleration resulting from these interactions there is a loss of energy (in the form of electromagnetic radiation or gravitational waves) but it is not friction and it also cannot be used by you to prove that there is no gravitation and no electromagnetic forces.
Meir takes another step in his clarification and in this step (which relies on his predecessor which was already incorrect) there is another assumption that does not have to exist.
Imagine, Meir, that you and I are two two-dimensional beings living at opposite ends of a carpet.
We measure the distance between us by finding the shortest path on the carpet.
Imagine that in the middle of the carpet lives a "dark orgy" that constantly weaves additions to the carpet.
If the carpet was initially placed on the floor, then later it simply folds more and more and the distance between us increases without us moving and without any force acting on us.
Meyer,
No need for a parable. The problem you present is obvious.
Just out of curiosity, I just had an idea:
Let's see all the galaxies as if they are charged with a kind of charge that resembles an electric charge. They are all the same cargo. As we know, two bodies carrying the same electric charge repel each other.
Yuval, you understood me correctly. What bothers me the most, is that I did not find that any of the dark energy researchers touched on this question, if only to throw it after a corpse while giving the proper reasoning for its name. (When I say I didn't find, I also mean I searched..)
I will try to explain myself in the negative way. If the dark energy was not in a "frictional" interaction with the galactic matter then space would expand without moving galaxies apart.
If we take the "parable of the balloon" that has coins stuck to it: we will have to think of a balloon that is transparent to the coins, that is, the coins are not stuck to it (but are bound to each other, as an example of intergalactic gravity) and when it inflates it does not drag the coins because it has no frictional interaction with them, but it itself pervasive.
Meyer,
If I understood correctly, then your question is excellent.
I will explain in simple words what I understood:
In order for the dark energy to push, it needs to create contact - meaning friction. However, if it creates friction with the galaxies in general, then it also rubs with the material inside the galaxies. Therefore the intergalactic matter should slow down. But we see no signs of that.
Meir:
Are you enlightening or just a question 🙂
I do not agree with you.
And why would dark energy have a frictional interaction with galactic matter?
What is "frictional interaction" in your opinion?
If I knew what the "unfading rotational motion of the galactic matter" is, then maybe I would answer you. are you ready to explain
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I'm just asking.
It was mentioned above that Le Sage's theory was rejected, among others by Richard Feynman, because of the "friction" argument.
On the other hand, it is accepted (not including Judah) that the accelerated expansion of the universe is pushed by "dark energy".
The dark energy must therefore have a "frictional" interaction with the galactic matter (otherwise the galactic matter would be "transparent" for it and it would not have a "grip" on the galaxies in order to separate them).
Do you agree with me that the undying rotational motion of the galactic matter indicates that there is no dark energy, just as it indicates that there are no La Sage particles? Explain, reason, explain.
When I want - I can.
:) :) :)
And again
: )
What is? Everyone gets a smiley, but not me! Michael, you blocked my smiley! The elitist scientist hates going down! Discrimination! I got my smiley back!
We will try again this time
):
Maybe we'll all branch off some white matter, close the matter and get back to physics?
:(:
But it's interesting how the material suddenly appeared.. as if "out of nowhere". 8
If there was a little gray matter in it, let it go 🙁
Israel:
1. The joke about Yossi the bird came from you. not from me
2. Yehuda - by the same token could not apologize at all and indeed - see it's a miracle - he did not apologize at all. An essential part of an apology is admitting the facts and instead of admitting the facts is a hint that I falsified them.
Later he tried to continue the war as much as he could.
Appreciating him for that is in my opinion an act he will not do.
jubilee:
Here - we have proof of the existence of dark matter 🙂
And I expect an apology only from the science system, for allowing such material to appear. There is no science in it at all, but foul language is abundant in it.
The joke about Yossi the bird came from you.
We all fell for your apparent paranoia, and now you have proved to us that you are really being persecuted.
And Yehuda to the same extent could not apologize at all. I'm sure it was hard for him, but he did it, and for that he deserves credit.
Yehuda:
Thank you for your insightful and inspiring response.
Israel:
The (false) accusation of lying and forgery is not an apology. This is just another comment that he should have apologized for (and now he can do it before it's three years from now and everyone will press him)
Yehuda
I feel uncomfortable, because I asked you to apologize, and your apology was not accepted. I think it was quite difficult for you to do this in light of history, but just know that in my eyes you came off as a man, even if you apologized in weak language.
Mikel
Tired!
Yehuda:
You really don't understand, huh?
More precisely - you make yourself out to be ignorant so that the other readers will think that your lie is true.
I explained that I was referring to the wrong things you said and not the opposite things you said as well.
I explained that the wrong things can be found in many places, including in the video showing your lecture"
https://plus.google.com/106551135075786275187/posts
I explained (and everyone is welcome to check) that at minute 8:56 in this movie you claim that to explain the rotation speed of the galaxy the dark mass should be concentrated mainly in the gas clouds around the galaxy.
I explained all this - and I also explained that you said the opposite.
So now you come and present the right things you said (which are the opposite of the wrong things you said) and accuse me of not telling the truth when I claim you said the wrong things.
A liar is a liar is a liar.
By the way - for those who wonder how it means Yehuda Devar and vice versa (the nonsense in the lecture and the things closer to reality in some of the comments here) - the explanation is simple:
With all of Judah's attacks on me throughout history - he eventually learned a few things from me.
He gave the lecture before he was convinced of the rightness of my words and wrote the opposite reactions after he was convinced.
Of course, he never admitted that he was convinced and always claimed that I was talking nonsense, but the history is well documented in the comments and videos.
By the way - again you responded to my words - again there were two links in the response - again I was in the gym and I just came back just now and again you accuse me of a conspiracy against you (hoping there is someone else here who believes you after everything you put us through).
The comment, of course, was released before I came back from the gym because as you make sure to forget all the time - there are other people who follow the comments and release what is stuck.
Between us - you would have looked better if the comment hadn't been released, but that's your choice.
In any case - the whole current garbage chain started when you asked me to explain for the tenth time what I think about the location of the dark mass and I did.
Is there anything else you need me to repeat?
jubilee:
Sorry you have to go through all this but what can I do?
Let him lie and not respond?
jubilee
Impossible. The name of the original contentious article was: "strange and amazing quotations" and its name must be justified in retrospect.
I got a zbang in my hand and it's hard for me to write (maybe for your happiness, abbreviated). I hope you understood at EPR that the issue of fraudulent polarizers has been considered and resolved. Your new idea is cool. I'll think about him when I get home from work.
So I told him,
And he told me,
to you! get used to it*
to the knowledge system,
Please rid us of this kind of feedback.
The language is disrespectful and the content is irrelevant
—–
*A gentle word that passes through censorship
Why don't you approve my comment?, what are you afraid of?
Do you want me to give you a reminder every hour?
Again I responded to Michael's words and he prefers not to approve it
Lest they see that maybe he is the slanderer?
Oxymoron?
Reaction https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-318021
Mikel claims: "I only rejected Yehuda's words according to which it is the mass outside the radius of the galaxy that causes the accelerated rotation of the stars within it."
Reaction https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-318027
I prove it wrong.
So who is defaming?
It's just that the man is bored
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
Of course, like any response containing several links, your response has been blocked by the system.
It is also understandable that you, as usual, try to present it as a conspiracy against you.
Since you have no problem saying both a thing and its opposite - you have no problem finding here and there examples of you saying the opposite of what you said in the place I responded to (for example the lecture you gave a link to).
I answered Michael. Of course the response is awaiting confirmation
For those who want to know
This is my opinion the accepted opinion on the explanation of the dark mass and its location in the galaxy. My opinion has been published many times in the past, for example, here in the comments thread:-
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-315585
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-315614
But that doesn't mean I agree with this explanation. Regarding this, you can see my explanation in the YouTube posting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAo5BQQpBqQ
I stand behind these things.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel Shapira, Chen Chen.
I don't have a Kindle and Google Books doesn't allow browsing, and from the little you brought it's hard to follow exactly the conditions of the experiment. That's why I "raise my hands".
With your permission, I am trying to advance an idea [my original] through the following thought experiment (which can be translated into reality):
Let's take a long steel ingot, for example a 200-meter-long railroad track, lying on a plane with minimal friction. We will push it using a hammer blow at one end. The ingot will move and in addition to its physical movement, a sound wave created by the blow will move inside it. You can measure both phenomena and see which came first. If the movement of the tip of the ingot was felt before the front of the sound wave reached there, then this is an example of a medium moving faster than the wave it carries. Since we know the speed of the sound wave within the given material, and we are given the time difference between the two results, we can calculate the speed of the ingot's reaction. A more direct version of the experiment, bypassing the possibility that the movement of the ingot affects the movement of the sound wave inside it, can be carried out using a good clock system that measures the time that has passed since the blow on one side until the movement on the other side.
There are many phenomena that indicate the possibility that light moves on top of a medium, even though this medium has not been discovered to date. If this medium exists, then it is possible that its movement as a single block will be faster than the progress of the waves it carries.
Friends:
So we got another false defamation.
At least we are told that this is the last in this discussion.
The example is one of many that explain why the automatic blocking exists.
She was not brought to return to the same discussion but to explain why (several years ago) it was decided to introduce this block.
Comments of this type written later were simply blocked and not released.
Since then Yehuda has been working on ways to spread his venom without encountering the automatic blocking mechanism and his response above is an example of this.
By the way - regarding the dark mass, I have already expressed my opinion (which is the opinion of the scientific community) dozens of times already.
There is a lot of dark matter outside of galaxies. more than within the galaxies.
I have always claimed this and never claimed anything else.
I only rejected Yehuda's words according to which it is the mass outside the radius of the galaxy that causes the accelerated rotation of the stars within it.
He forcefully tries to divert the topic to a comment system from three years ago
Instead it will decide whether the dark mass is found mainly in the center of the galaxy, or mainly around it
This is more important than recycling comments from years ago when no one remembers what happened then
He has nothing to do in life but just read what Yehuda commented years ago?, there are more commenters
I will not comment further on this topic
And think what he wants
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
As mentioned - I did not ask for an apology.
As mentioned - you did not provide an apology either - the text you wrote is more of an accusation of lying and forgery than an apology.
If you find the apology you sent (these days - not three years ago) - you are welcome to collect it back.
In your reference to the "detailed response that is blocked" you are returning to the regular demagogic methods.
You hope that people will make the mistake of thinking that this response is fundamentally different in software from the response that appears here.
I ask, therefore, to remove the confusion you tried to create:
Israel, Yuval:
Yehuda's blocked response is substantially similar to the response that already appears - a conditional apology - without an admission - and more than a hint of an accusation of lying and forgery.
Israel, Yuval, Judah:
If any of you ask (Israel and Yuval out of anthropological interest and Judah because of his courage) - I will bring here for your judgment the text of the detailed response that Yehuda spoke about.
Michael.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317955
I was not offered any form of apology to Yehuda!
Come on, virtual Yom Kippur. All is forgiven. starting from scratch. A thief is allowed, but the one who starts is a thief.
jubilee
I copied from the book for you, if you have a kindle maybe you can find the original.
So, in order to solve the problem and allow for an objective test of "Einstein causality", meaning a test in which the photons and polarizers can't "cheat the experimenter" by sending signals to one another, Aspect had to design an experimental way of switching polarizer 1 between the setting a and a' and polarizer 2 between its two settings of b and b' in an interval of time that was less than 13 meters divided by the speed of light which is about 43 nanoseconds.
Aspect was able to achieve this goal and to build a device able to respond at such incredible speed.
The switching is done by an acousto optical device in which light interacts with an ultrasonic standing wave in water. When the wave changes in the transparent water container, the beam of light hitting the water is deflected from one setting to another. In fact, the switching took place at intervals of 6.7 and 13.3 nanoseconds, well below the maximum of 43 nanoseconds.
Sabdarmish Yehuda and R.H. Refai.M!
Are you Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?
Israel Shapira,
Thanks for the referral to the experiment.
I did not find there the description of the method how he was able to change the polarization, and I do not have the book you recommended.
You give me a lot of homework. Is this a stay trial?
Israel, Yuval and others
I responded with a detailed response on the subject that was not approved and apparently will not be approved either
Do not need
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Do you want me to shine your shoes too?
I will not go now to check what happened three years ago
I also don't have the tools to check if my response has been changed over the years
If my apology isn't enough, let me pick it back up
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And as mentioned, I didn't bring the things at all to receive an apology but to clarify the reason for the automatic blocking after precisely one of the most important factors criticized it.
Yehuda:
This reminds me of the text of the apology that Israel was offered to sign to appease the Turks when everyone knows that the Turks are lying.
This is not an apology to me.
It also does not change the fact that this is one of many responses of its kind and the fact that only the automatic blocking and other measures put an end to the phenomenon.
I can't believe you really don't remember!
to Michael
If I wrote this comment in full, then I apologize for it. After three years it's hard for me to remember what happened.
It is strange to me that my father Blizovsky, who responded half an hour after my response, did not see fit to comment on this.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel:
I usually don't attack people personally either.
I attack his claims and only when it becomes clear to me that his words are not taken into account I may resort to generalizations that go beyond the scope of the specific claim to which I am responding.
When I say that someone is lying, it is because I think they are lying.
It is better to eradicate the lie than to be aware of lies.
When I make a valid claim and someone feels offended by it - he is welcome to check why I made the same claim towards him and it is not difficult because I always (when I don't forget and when I am not too irritated due to endless repetition of the same behavior) explain what earned him the claim.
If he thinks I was wrong, he is welcome to say so, and if he thinks I lied or did another dishonest act - he is welcome to say (and explain and reason) that too.
Taking snippets of things out of context does not meet these criteria. It is a personal attack for its own sake - even if it is carried out by a person who claims that he is never a personal attack.
Regarding the "example response" - it is one of many.
Most of them were deleted.
Because of these types of responses, the automatic delay on mentioning my name was introduced.
I tried to explain it in general terms without explicitly pointing out the culprits, but as soon as one of the culprits started attacking the things I had to expose him.
The aforementioned delay was also introduced because of another type of behavior - even more abominable - of impersonating commenters (usually ultra-Orthodox) who impersonated by using my name and posting a stupid comment (like now that it is explained to me how many my sins are, I retract all accusations against religion and become religious myself) .
All in all, it makes my father and I a lot of work because you have to carefully read every comment that mentions my name and decide if it is appropriate to release it, but it works.
jubilee
The experiment is described in
http://roxanne.roxanne.org/epr/experiment.html
In the book ENTANGLEMENT, BY AMIR ACZEL, page 189, the method is described how he was able to change the polarization.
Yehuda.
I also read the thread, and I also think that pruning is exaggerating. True, I don't know the whole history, but if you are indeed a true Sabdarmish - the one who makes you love him - you must apologize to Michael, even after 3 years.
Because according to your statements, we don't need the police here - we need the Gestapo.
For some reason I remembered two jokes:
One comes to a psychologist and claims that he is actually a bird.
Look, Yossi, says the psychologist, you understand that you are not a bird.
So Yossi got angry, spread his wings and flew out the window.
What is the difference between newly married and old married?
A newly married man says to his wife: Yes, my dear, you are right.
An old married man says to her: Yes, my dear, you are right, as always.
Sabdarmish Yehuda!
You know very well that the intention of the reminder was not to reproduce a thread about riddles and levies.
You make sure, in the morning and in the evening, to politely wish good morning and good evening, as well as a good day and a good night and a good Shabbat and a happy holiday, but no smooth speech can make up for rude language.
I am slowly recovering from the shock, and unfortunately I am more and more inclined to agree with the statement that you employ cheap demagogy.
Israel Shapira,
It is difficult to understand how it is possible to determine the state of the polarizers during the fraction of a second between the departure of the photons and their arrival at their destinations. Please enlighten me with some link.
Come on, we don't have enough threads here that we need to recycle a thread from three years ago?
About puzzles and levies?
Yesterday my whole family came to me with my three grandchildren and it was so much fun that no one could take my mood away.
And by the way it is interesting if what A says. Ben Ner in his response from December 9, 2011 at 19:57 #
He is right, because it is a Nobel Prize
We will wait and see
good day everybody
Sabdarmish Yehuda
jubilee
If I remember correctly, in the original experiment the state of the polarizers was predetermined and did not change during the experiment. In the improved experiment, to avoid a situation of collusion between the polarizers, the state of the polarizers was determined only after the photons had already left the source and set off, and this is exactly for the reason you wrote about.
If I remember correctly, (if you ask I will check it) Bell proved the matter mathematically, and the experiments only demonstrated in the field the
its proof.
Israel Shapira,
Instead of copying and pasting, I'm rewording an old suggestion:
EPR claimed that information cannot pass between two photons at a speed that exceeds the speed of light.
Later an experiment was carried out in the laboratory and found, so to speak, that the "decision" of a photon which polarization to choose for itself, occurs at the moment when the photon that set off in the opposite direction passed through a polarizer whose direction was chosen by the experimenter. Apparently, information passed between two photons at a speed greater than the speed of light, and therefore EPR was wrong.
We know about remote effect of magnets and masses. If so, why shouldn't there be a remote effect of polarizers as well? My suggestion is that changing the state of the polarizer by the experimenter had an effect at a distance and since this change was made before the photons set off, this information traveled at a speed that should not be higher than the speed of light.
Let's end the nonsense, so we can get back to serious business.
I suggest that from now on, if someone wants to respond personally, they understand that they are exposing themselves to a backlash. The natural sense of justice, as well as the legal system, attach utmost importance to who started and who brought back. The first is considered the aggressor and the second the defender.
So like I said, I don't have a problem with Kasah, but it would just be a two-way street. Not even once, in all my comments on the site, did I personally attack anyone. I always responded to whoever attacked me personally first, even if it seemed to him that he was right. I have no desire to absorb and clog.
R.H. - As you have seen, details are of utmost importance. Who would have thought there were points in frozen Canada further south than summery Italy?
Yuval - what rigid mechanism in EPR? And if it exists, how does information travel faster than light? It is said that the whole mechanism rotates, after all we could build a simple iron rod and rotate it, but even then there would be a suspension time which, as far as we know, would not contradict relativity.
Bull shit! do you have a real name what are you afraid of Who are you hiding from?
Yuval Chaikin and Yehuda Sabdarmashi
Is there really no limit to stupidity!? Do you want us to bring a kindergarten teacher here?
Oh the eyes that see like this! Did you really write that, Sabdarmish Yehuda?! Maybe it was an impostor?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/strange-wondrous-quotation-and-quotes-0609082/#comment-126885
jubilee:
Come in! Come in!
Please read my response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317797
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
Probably not small children, but obviously impatient
Thanks, Michael, for setting things straight.
And yet I condemn them to a heap of trolls.
Those who want to understand what Yehuda meant when he said "we are not little children" are invited to read this comment and decide if it is true:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/strange-wondrous-quotation-and-quotes-0609082/#comment-126885
Israel:
I get a lot of rude and insulting comments and you don't play your hand in this matter either.
It didn't happen that a factual response was delayed just because of that.
When I say someone is lying - it's because they really are.
I don't think lying is better behavior than admonishing the liar for lying.
For example - when you say that people are attacked just because they ask difficult questions - it is quite close to a lie.
That it is not true is clear.
The fact that you could not find an example that confirms this is also clear.
What is still not clear is whether you realized that this is not true and that the "examples" you brought to confirm the claim do not confirm it at all.
Although it is clear that suddenly it became a matter of style (something I am willing to argue about as well), but maybe you really forgot that "a matter of style" is not a matter of "just" and "difficult questions" and therefore I am not saying that you are lying but only that you are wrong.
jubilee:
Comments that include my name are inhibited because my words often attract fire and people sometimes forget completely (and not just partially) that it is possible to refer to the substance of the matter and not to the body of a person.
It's natural when people have nothing to say, but it doesn't help anything.
Since this happened many times, my father decided to introduce this limitation.
When he did I wasn't sure it was a good idea.
Today I'm sure it was a great idea.
It's not a matter of answering in a nutshell (because I can answer in a nutshell even after the comment has been published) but a matter of maintaining an objective discussion.
To Yuval Chaikin
There are many reasons why someone castrates there, but understand that Mikel should not have delayed a response in the first place. We are not little children
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For those who write to Michael, Michael, Michael and more.
The reason why you are neutering his name is (and you are allowed to correct me if you think I am wrong) that you want your comment to be published immediately. You are not good at delaying gratification, and this is one of the clear signs of trolls.
He tries to keep to himself the possibility of delaying all references to him, so that he can answer them calmly and with discretion. By being smart about the delay mechanism, you are only stressing it. This is also a troll sign.
It is also disrespectful and even very insulting. How would you feel if I castrated your names?
Lest you say I'm a troll too? Fact: I didn't write his name. True, but I'm not addressing him here.
Michael
"Taking things out of context is a devious way of arguing."
Who took things out of context? Did you not understand again? This is about a style of speech that you allow yourself, and that no one else can take towards you without blocking. This is of course your right, because this is your private website. Fox News also has the right to publish whatever they want.
Has anyone ever told you that your methods are devious? Called you a liar?
Do you want me to see your mistakes here in front of everyone and then call you an idiot?
A. Ben Ner
Martit, but we will wait for the message. My father says it's not closed yet.
Michael.
I will believe you understood if you manage to formulate the problem. Not the solution, the question.
Exciting news:
I learned from a very reliable source that the Higgs boson, the mass-carrying particle, had been discovered
At the LHC accelerator in Sern, Switzerland.
The rumors (founded in this case) have been circulating in the physicist community for about two weeks.
On 13-12-2011, a press conference will be held in Seren where the discovery will be announced.
I assume that the discovery is already known to many, but they are prevented from publishing it before publication
the official Since the ethical limitation that applies to professionals does not apply to me, as a reader,
I credit the science site with the right to be the first, or at least among the first
to publish the discovery. As mentioned, the source is reliable...cast concrete (Bozon).
I repeat again: the Higgs boson was discovered at the LHC. Mazel Tov.
And I understood and answered your question about the times.
Israel:
These are indeed things I said and they were not said for nothing and not because of any difficult question.
Each of the things I said is justified, and those who read the response can also see the justification.
Taking things out of context is a tricky way of arguing.
Imagine that I will now quote from your response the phrase "liar, liar, liar"
Michael
to https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317724
Below are some of your recent responses.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317579
"deceit", "spoof" "user"
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317530
"Wrong view of things"
"The situation is similar with his other questions as well"
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317514
"It's a fact you said - but you can't say it and tell the truth at the same time"
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317278
"Again, exactly as I said and in the unfairness I spoke of"
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317219
"You tried to belittle him"
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317272
"Further slanders about Kant will not help you"
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317181
"The real reality is no longer good enough so you decided to reinvent it?"
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317108
"You also make it difficult for no reason and unfairly"
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-311112
"On the one hand, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge that obliges me to resort to explanations of Newtonian physics (which is actually also her thing Sage tried to explain and his formulas give the formulas of Newtonian physics and not the formulas of relativity while on the other hand you demonstrate an uncontrollable urge to talk about relativity"
"Let's stop wasting time on this evasion method"
And the recurring motif in your poetry towards many of the commenters here: liar, liar, liar.
Now, I don't have a problem with Kasah - but speaking of fairness, how long will a commenter last if he answers you with half the level of aggression you allow yourself to display before his comments are blocked?
In my opinion, there is another simple reason why you react the way you do, at least to what I write. You don't quite understand what I'm saying. You think you understand, but you don't.
And as I mentioned before, I don't blame you. The entire burden of the website is on your shoulders, and you don't have the time or desire to really delve into individual responses.
Want an example? Try to formulate what exactly is my problem with the extension of time. I'm not asking for the solution - just a wording of the problem, to make sure you do understand it.
R.H. Sounds quite intelligent, and it's a fact that it's not easy for him either. A physics professor to whom I asked the question got completely confused. Why do you think you can solve it in an instant? I'm not underestimating your intelligence of course. But I don't think you answered the question at all, and certainly not the small details.
And one more thing that should be clear to you before you bother to respond: I believe that I am telling the truth. Always. I'm not trying to whitewash, throw sand, mislead, soap, invent reality, make things difficult for no reason, and other phrases you like. I also believe that I speak from knowledge and understanding.
If you are not going to respond, I will fully understand. But if you react aggressively, expect counter-aggression.
Thanks, Yuval.
I'm afraid there will be someone who disagrees with your words.
Michael, please don't take it so hard.
Out of all of us, you're the only one who knows what he's talking about. The others grope in the dark and stumble a lot along the way, sting each other, just joke, talk a lot to no purpose and paint reactions with a lot of color.
I believe that Israel's "tough" statements indicate, among other things, frustration. Please, don't catch a man in his grief. Your real work here is much more important than our petty comments.
By the way, Israel:
You are welcome to stand behind your words and show an example of a response in which:
1. pounced
2. Just for fun
3. About someone who asked too difficult questions
Israel (https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317650):
All your questions were answered and you simply decided not to accept it.
Your attempt to "conclude" from your unwillingness to accept the answers that "people who ask too difficult questions are being attacked here" is demagoguery.
After all, you weren't attacked even when you asked the same (easy) questions many times after you got an answer.
1) Turin 45.04N vs Toronto's 43.42N
2) Reno Nevada 119.49W vs. 118.15W Los Angeles
Additional solutions -
1) Toronto Slade Canada Bay in Australia much further south than Turin
2) Cafe Reno in Nevada City, California, further west than Los Angeles.
Which is further south, Ashdod or Jerusalem?
R. H.
Deuteronomy XNUMX, verse XNUMX.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0502.htm
Answer 4 is unacceptable. They can always stop relative to the CMBR system at any point in space and get the absolute time. From there the way to get to mom just as the tea is boiling is quite simple.
jubilee
I always say that if Einstein had lived, he would have gotten away with it.
You will receive an email shortly, we will discuss the severity of the situation.
R.H.
Here is the second riddle, with the answer. Note the twist at the end.
Know your country
what is the country
In the puzzle before you, features are described that are all common to one and only country in the world. You must read the riddle in its entirety, and guess which country it is. If it seems to you that the set of features can fit more than one country, check the data again. You will argue that there is a point where the countries differ from each other, and only for one country do the data fit in full.
which country -
Has a Middle Eastern climate, sunny, fertile in the northern half and desert in the south?
A national water carrier conveys the waters of the north to the south?
lies on the western border of the continent and borders the 33rd latitude?
Stretching from north to south along the shore of the Great Sea in the west?
On its eastern border - the Dead Sea. In the east - the desert of Moab, the valley of death and the great volcanic fissure (whose initials are: SA) that stretches from north to south?
Its northern neighbor (whose name ends in "on") is known as the land of cedars, water and mountains.
At its northeastern border is a freshwater lake, and to the east of it is a high volcanic plateau.
To the southwest of the country, a large peninsula with the resort town of Nuaiba_____ (Beit Rafoya).
In the center of the country, by the sea, lies the largest volume in the country, and from there the coastal road leads north, to the large and beautiful bay city near Carmel.
which country-
Received its independence in 48, after the great war of that year.
From 49, a large migration to it began and within a few years its population tripled.
Most of its residents are immigrants and the children of immigrants, which for many years was the desire of non-Galim immigrants, who tried to qualify for it by an illegal route and called it the "Promised Land" and many of whom found themselves in displaced persons camps.
In which country is one of the main national holidays on Thursday in May?
And the answer is…..
State of California.
legend:
Water carrier: California Aqueduct.
The Great Sea: The Pacific Ocean.
Climate: defined in California as "Mediterranean".
Desert of Moab: Desert of Moab.
Dead Sea: Salton Sea.
Volcanic Fracture: San Andreas.
Peninsula: Baja California.
Nueva: Nueva Rosarito.
Neighbor to the north: Oregon.
Lake: Lake Tahoe.
Volcanic Plateau: Sierra Nevada.
The Big Volume: Los Angeles.
Coastal road: Pacific Coast Highway.
Bay City: San Francisco.
Carmel: the town of Carmel.
48: California was purchased from Mexico in 1848, after the US-Mexico war that ended that year.
49: Gold rush, beginning of mass immigration to California.
Immigrants: from all over the world, mainly from Mexico.
Thursday May: Cinco de Mayo, a major national holiday in Mexico and California.
Now, if it seems to you that the State of Israel also fits the data perfectly, remember that the resort town in Sinai is called Nouaiba (Beit Dagosha) and not Nouaiba (Beit Rafouia). And this is exactly the point that differentiates the two countries - the point inside the second.
By the way, as mentioned, the main uniqueness of Bernadette is that one of his descendants, a quite Swedish volunteer, was at our kibbutz.
More geographic puzzles?
Which is more western: Los Angeles California, or Reno Nevada?
Which is more northern: Toronto Canada or Turin Italy?
If you're not tired of it, I have a nice physics puzzle.
By the way, Israel, get a HH for your riddle!
I read it again, beautiful.
You should have said that it was not about Israel and then the reference was more serious.
By the way, what is Nueva in California? And why is Israel falling? Because of the desert of Moab?
Well, about 4, I'm not sure, you didn't know who Bernadette was 🙂
Hey Israel, by all means, come every day 🙂
Don't you agree with me that there is no point in telling about my aunt and the reasons for my wanderings here. Who cares about that besides you and me?
If I were you, I wouldn't rush to say that Einstein was wrong about EPR. The experiment does not necessarily prove that the information is transferred between the photons. Please take a look at what I wrote in this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317576
I'm not copying and pasting, because the hypothesis I put forward there is not supported by the establishment, and I don't want to just bombard. Like her, I have other hypotheses regarding your last questions - but Sabdarmish there is only one.
Thank you Yuval.
Both for fairness and criticism.
I didn't email you because I wanted to ask you this question, and I didn't want to create bias.
This is also why I didn't mention my beloved Aunt Shapira, and Uncle Sam, who is soon going to be your uncle too.
(By the way, what do you have to look for on the East Coast? Didn't you freeze enough in Scotland? California is warm and pleasant like Israel, but without the humidity. California is also the answer to the geographical puzzle I asked in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314702
By the way, the reason I write a lot is that I want to be as accurate as possible. Now, since I'm desperate to get some kind of serious answer from someone who I thought understood, and when I realized that I'm not hallucinating and are indeed just attacking people here who ask too difficult questions, we can cut it short.
By the way, note that in the question I asked at https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317563
It turns out that technically, at least one of the two, Newton or Einstein, did not say "truth".
However, to accuse any of them of "not telling the truth" as, for example, Ben Gurion said about Arik Sharon, is absurd. Despite this, this statement repeats itself on the news site for the mornings.
And also note that in EPR Einstein was simply wrong, at least as far as we know. I am not talking about the mistake that non-locality does exist. I'm talking about the fact that he claimed that the transfer of spin information contradicts relativity. This has nothing to do with Bell's inequality, or an assemblage experiment.
Ardosh was also wrong in relatively simple logical mathematical questions.
So why are we not allowed to ask questions that might imply that the maestro missed something?
I'd tell you a nice joke, but I'm afraid you'll accuse me of being too long, so there's probably no need, you've got me a little soft.
Bye.
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
Right. There are theories that have been thrown out because they were found to be really bad
Israel Shapira,
I didn't feel any of the six.
Why are you calling? Is it because I said that you demonstrate methods of operation reminiscent of what is known in our parlance as "trolls"?
You put a lot of effort and thought into your writing, and for that you deserve appreciation. But you write Lots. You shell and bombard and greatly exhaust those who want to answer you, and that's what I call troll's methods of operation.
I suggested that you write me a private e-mail, because in this way we can discuss in detail and outside the narrow scientific disciplines the questions that bother both of us strongly, and in this way we will not tire the other residents of the section. Why don't you try?
jubilee
You are British, and it is assumed that your sense of decency and honor is somewhat superior to that of the people of the colonies breaking out from their masters, Palestine and America.
personal question:
As someone who has been reading my comments for two months now, have you sensed that I:
1. Liar.
2. I am not telling the truth.
3. Unfair.
4. Pit.
5. Lacks understanding.
6. Defamer.
If so, could you point to the particular response(s) so I can improve my way?
Please, no subtlety.
Thanks.
jubilee
There are theories that were actually sent, such as that of Aristotle, Phlogiston and more
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
thanks Michael,
Israel Shapira demonstrates methods of action reminiscent of what is known in our parlance as "trolls". On the other hand, it is possible that he has ready answers to the questions he presents and is just waiting for the opportunity to share them with us.
I believe that there should be no problem with an infinite recursion of questions ("What causes the cause of the cause of the cause...") as long as the answer at each step includes simpler assumptions than those of the answer at the following steps.
Do not throw away a good theory, even if it does not provide an answer to the whole. Newton was not discarded, but was extended to Einstein, and this is what I assume will happen to the theory of relativity, which will be extended so that it also answers questions from quantum theory.
jubilee:
Naturally, there will always be axioms in science - that is, things whose existence is accepted without explanation (apart from the fact that it matches the findings).
Simple - this is the only way we have to draw conclusions.
There are axioms, there is logic (which is also axioms) and conclusions are drawn from this.
If someone presents a more primary factor for the curvature of space - there will still be room for the question "What causes that primary factor?"
All this is fine and dandy and there is no problem with it because the above question can have an interesting and useful answer, as well as the necessary follow-up question "What causes the cause of the cause?"
But Israel takes one more step: he uses the fact that as humans we have to stop the recursion of the questions at a certain point and presents the fact that there are more questions that can be asked as a disadvantage of the existing theories compared to delusional theories.
This is already the deception - as I tried to make clear in my responses to him.
Also in the delusional theories - beyond the fact that they provide predictions that contradict the findings - there are axioms that are naturally limited in the same way as those of the axioms of the theories that work.
In his latest response, Israel even exaggerates and pretends not to know that today it is acceptable to say that Einstein was right and not Newton and that it is acceptable to say this because that is what the experiments show.
If the experiments were compatible with the two theories, it would not be possible to decide between them, and this is exactly the case in its quantum theory, there are several interpretations that are reasonable in terms of the findings of the experiments that can be performed nowadays.
That is why it is not said that one of the interpretations is wrong and another is right.
It is equally accepted that EPR does not contradict the theory of relativity - this is because it is not a matter of transferring information.
The theory of relativity will be in trouble if it turns out that it is possible to transmit information in this way.
It is clear that the question is troubling and that it indicates that we still do not know everything.
By the way - you don't have to go as far as quantum theory to know that relativity doesn't predict everything.
The very fact that this theory yields infinite sizes in existing situations (like a black hole) allows us to know that there are situations that it does not deal with.
However, it is hard to believe that the theory of relativity will ever be thrown away.
At most it will be expanded to handle those problematic cases.
I think most people do not appreciate the magnitude of Einstein's achievement.
He started from a small collection of basic assumptions and created a flood of completely non-intuitive predictions that are all confirmed by experiment (the exact opposite, for example, of Le Sage's theory).
The chance of all these strange predictions being experimentally upheld when the assumptions are wrong is literally zero.
Israel Shapira,
The refutation of EPR indicates that there is a possibility (oh! how careful I am in wording) that the light waves move on top of a medium. Moreover, this medium is not a random collection of particles, but there is an affinity between the particles that make it up. And in the experiment in question, when the polarizer is rotated on one side, the entire medium between the two polarizers rotates together with it.
Weird logic questions. (an acceptable thing on the site).
1. Newton asserts that a body in free fall is acted upon by a force (gravitation).
Einstein believes that there is no force.
Is it possible that one of the two, Newton or Einstein, is not telling the truth?
2. Einstein claims in the EPR Paradox that if the spin information of electron A is rapidly transferred over a medium to electron B, this is in contradiction to the theory of relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
This is indeed what is really happening.
The scientific community is almost unanimous that there is no contradiction to relativity.
Is it conceivable that the scientific community understands relativity better than Einstein?
(Come on, let's start: ignorant, defamatory, mindless...).
Good night.
Michael,
Since the world agrees that the speed of light is constant, it also agrees that time is not constant. At this point we wasted a lot of time.
But Israel Shapira has other pressing questions that are hard to ignore.
For example, he is not satisfied with the statement that space-time is curved because of mass. He wants to understand the mechanism that activates it. He wants to understand, for example, what causes the phenomena we call Newton's laws.
Since you are the only authority here, naturally the questions are directed to you. And since you are not allowed to "run riot", you answer only from knowledge that is accepted and agreed upon by the majority of the academic-scientific community. But this community still has no answer to these questions. He asks at the micro level and science can only answer him at the macro level. This is frustrating, and I understand why. It frustrates me that he is not willing to talk to me by email, but that is already my problem.
jubilee:
Indeed - the paradox of times stems from a wrong view of things - but this wrong view exists only in those who still think there is a paradox there.
The situation is similar with his other questions.
Israel Shapira,
Your questions are to the point, and in the conservative critical scientific framework they have no answer.
There is no doubt in my mind that a new universe theory is needed.
At the time I refrained from addressing your question about the paradox of times, because both the paradox and the Torah behind it are not acceptable to me.
It seems to me that a new model, if and when it is found, will also solve this question.
My gut feeling is that the time paradox stems from a wrong view of things.
Israel:
The explanations do not satisfy you.
It's not that they don't deliver objectively.
That's why I said I was short-handed.
Student, Technion, Apology
You're right and I shouldn't have come down on you like I did. You express understandable frustration that we are endlessly barbaric and do not reach any settlement. Against my will I have been dragged into fruitless arguments here, and your expression of grievance towards me is to the point. Since my main phlogta fragment here speaks in the air without formulas, I answer him in the same language, which is really substandard.
The explanations are insufficient. I showed where. I believe I told the truth.
Israel:
You got explanations for all the things you brought up.
Are you not convinced? I have nothing more to do about it.
The fact that I fell short of saving you should not earn me the titles you decided to give me.
You can't say I didn't try.
(meaning - you can - it's a fact you said - but you can't say it and speak the truth at the same time)
Kasper Rafa*m,
Don't you find it amusing that you, as the pinnacle of the most absurd models ever written on the site of science, are now preaching to other people and calling their ideas "nonsense"?
Have you heard of "Tul Cora tbehbein anich" (from the Gemara, Arakhin XNUMX:XNUMX)?
To all reviewers, sculptors, those who understand and their friends.
It seems to me that anyone with eyes in their head sees the problems in the ideas that are raised here by the so-called "crackpots".
But still, I haven't heard from any of you a shred of an idea, a shred of an explanation, something that would enlighten us ordinary people, how gravitation, inertia works, how exactly the remote action mechanism works, how the time paradoxes for generations line up with the absolute time of the big bang theory. Or maybe, geniuses like you, explain to our ignorant ears how exactly the spin of electron A can affect the spin of electron B at the other end of the universe and this in zero time?
All you know is to show us how stupid and ignorant we all are. You, the beer-sipping fat spectators at the soccer game who only know how to get down on the mistakes of the players on the field, while you don't even know how to kick a ball. Michael, the almost unique real intellectual among the visitors here, who despite his blunt style at least bothers to answer factually and try to explain something to us, usually answers other questions than what is asked. (Example: In the entire current long article and my comments, I did not ask even one question about Le Sage. I kept repeating the mantra: the paradox of times, the paradox of times. But probably because the elaboration of this theory is his favorite occupation, that's what we dealt with in the end) .
But you, poor dots and ghosts, we can take you seriously when you give factual answers and contribute some idea to the discussion, even a wrong one.
Or even come up with your own questions (sorry, you know it all).
I'm waiting.
I'm still waiting.
Even after I turn off the computer, I wait.
Go get more popcorn, I'm waiting.
I'm waiting.
Yehuda (https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317497):
Of course this is not true and the delay was automatic.
The fact that someone writes nonsense does not cause the responses to be delayed.
for Jubilee
Regarding the lecture
After a long introduction about a certain university in England and various congratulatory remarks, we came to the topic and the lecturer showed how it was possible to arrive at two solutions from the solar system on the subject of gravitation, one was how Neptune was discovered based on the deviations in the movement of Uranus and the other that based on the deviations of the planet Mercury arrived at the corrections to the gravitation formula
As you know, I have more options
I didn't enjoy it
for Jubilee
You said that if my particles are normal, then the observations should reveal them. I don't see how they can be discovered.
And in addition, if my comments on a certain topic bore you, please skip them, turn to the more interesting sports sections. I will not be angry. I do the same!
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
jubilee
Someone is delaying my response to you
Yehuda
I was at Professor Ofer Lahav's lecture on dark energy
After a long introduction about a certain university in England and various greetings we came to the topic and he showed how it was possible to reach two solutions from the solar system on the subject of gravitation, one was how Neptune was discovered based on the deviations in the movement of Uranus and the other that based on the deviations of the planet Mercury arrived at the corrections to the gravitation formula.
As you know, in my lecture there are twenty possible solutions.
After that he talked about the search for dark energy and a huge camera that is being built for taking pictures in space that will help make discoveries, etc.
I was disappointed because it didn't add anything to me and I avoided asking my questions.
You said that if my particles are normal, then the observations should reveal them. I don't see how they can be discovered.
And in addition, if my comments on a certain topic bore you, please skip them, turn to the more interesting sports sections. I will not be angry. I do the same!
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
R.H. Rafai.M!
is that your real name If not, then you're pretending. Like you, a point, a student and others who do not appear here under a common name. As an anonymous person, you will not get serious treatment from me. And since with me you are in the same category as all the other unknowns, I address you all as one.
jubilee
I actually thought we agreed that you would speak for yourself? Why should you confuse the creators, let them be as they are and do not interfere with the world to conduct itself as it is. Adding your "beings" to "equations" makes no impression on anyone.
And your lie as if I'm pretending to be someone doesn't add you points either.
And in general, it seems to me that you are causing brain stress to other readers here. Please, stop it.
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
did you go to the lecture How was?
If your particles are normal, then the observations should reveal them.
And about your demagoguery (or hand waving)*: at first it's subdarmish (lovable), but at some point it starts to get boring.
=====
* "Regarding gravitation?, whatever the particles want, Le Sage or Newton whatever they choose. It will not affect the results of the motion of the galaxies and the accelerated expansion of the universe.”
The ghost of Shlomi the student from the Technion and others from Tahzeita!
If you don't have anything substantial to say, then it's better not to say it.
I already agreed with you that you are not serious. Why does it need to be repeated?
for Jubilee
If my particles had no mass and energy momentum then I invent something new!
My particles are normal that exist in the universe and I use them for my own use and they have mass and momentum, etc. because that is what exists in the universe!
As for gravitation?, whatever the particles want, Le Sage or Newton whatever they choose. This will not affect the results of the movement of galaxies and accelerated universe expansion.
And regarding the chatterbox, I have long since stopped referring to commenters who appear once, chatter something, and disappear
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yuval Chaikin!
There is we can!
Your genius breaks boundaries and contradicts itself on the back of your head. You write: "What I was trying to say is that instead of looking for more entities, the way I go is to reduce existing entities. That's not how you and other thinkers do it."
You forgot that a moment ago and in the same breath you wrote: "After I found this mechanism, I saw how existence (primitive, created directly from nothingness), in interactions with nothingness and with itself, creates increasingly complex structures that include matter and the known laws of nature."
In general, you wrote a lot of non-serious things there. What is this nonsense "out of nowhere"? What audience do you think you are targeting? Do you really expect them to understand this nonsense?
my peace!
Who said what?
Sabdarmish Yehuda, for your response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317464
You added, you added, and how you added!
Once you defined them as gas in motion, you added momentum to them, which means mass and energy.
This is not necessarily wrong, but it is an addition of a feature that requires an explanation.
But I want to tell you something more about the comparison between your particles and the dark mass:
Both you and the mainstream school added an entity without explaining its origin. But while dark mass has no properties other than gravity, your particles have at least three properties: mass, gravitation, and momentum. In Ockham's test, your particles come out second.
Thanks for the reference to the lecture. I'll have to wait for YouTube.
This is the dumbest bullshit ever
A lecture not an insult (:))
Tl
jubilee
In my response from December 7, 2011 at 0:12 # I explained that I saved dark mass and dark energy entities and in exchange for them I added a reference to the particles that already exist in the universe as gas. You can say that I added particles, but I believe more that I didn't add anything. Just referring to the gaseous side of particle existence.
In the movement of the galaxies and the universe it is not necessary to refer to La Sage only to the spirit of pressure differences.
So it is an exaggeration to say (in your last comment) that I added entities.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
post Scriptum. There is today at Tel Aviv University, Hall Lev, a curse on dark energy. For those interested, entry is free
http://astroclub.tau.ac.il/
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
It's not just pulling out of the sleeve. I will try to share my line of thought with you.
We know our world Lots phenomena. Many types of matter and not a few laws of nature. Over the generations we have learned that all matter in the world is divided into a finite number of elements that we have learned to put in the periodic table. We quickly realized that all those elements also have a smaller number of elementary particles. Later we learned that those elementary particles are not really elementary and that they too can be broken down. With the help of number theory, we developed the quark model, which apparently expands instead of reducing. Currently, these have no direct observational confirmation, but we continue to search. We learned that the magnetic force and the electric force are different modes of the same force. After we discovered the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force, we found that they are also modes of the electromagnetic force. Now we are actively searching for a formula that will also introduce the force of gravity in this family of forces. Bottom line: we are looking for one common origin for all natural phenomena. Perhaps this search is futile, and the material world is a fusion of several worlds, each of which contributes a unique base that is in no way related to the other bases. But the historical facts are that we managed to reduce a large number of phenomena and substances to a small number of factors and elements. I try to go in this direction and look for a single cause for all the phenomena of the physical world. The factor I am looking for is more singular than singular. is zero, none. I am looking for the way, or the mechanism, in which something is created from nothing. After I found this mechanism, I saw how existence (the original, created directly from nothing), in interactions with nothing and with itself, creates more and more complex structures that include matter and the known laws of nature. During this journey I became aware of an entity that is both a medium for electromagnetic waves and a basis for matter. This entity is the third generation of the first Lish. The variety of matter and forces is explained by the different densities of the particles of this being. One evening (in April 1978), while checking the geometry of the model, I discovered a new way to explain the phenomena of geometric optics. I saw it as a significant reinforcement of my model, but in the early XNUMXs, due to life circumstances, I buried this model in a drawer and almost forgot about it. But recently, with the multitude of observations confirming the phenomenon of "dark mass", I found that the third generation particles in my model behave exactly like the observed dark mass.
Apologies for the long introduction. What I was trying to say is that instead of looking for more entities, the way I go is to reduce existing entities. This is not how you and other thinkers do it. You see an unfamiliar phenomenon, so you simply add entities. Most scientists today add the dark mass to the matter family, you add gas particles, Neman and Gelman add quarks, "spiritual" people introduce higher beings and add to them an army of deities, angels, demons, souls, ghosts and so on. As a momentary explanation, perhaps this method can be accepted. But when you add an entity, it is not enough that it explains a phenomenon, but you also need to show where this entity originates from.
Israel Shapira, please write to me: ivrit.yuval00@googlemail.com
Indeed, stupidity knows no bounds
for Jubilee
Waiting for more possible solutions, true false or what you want, that I didn't come up with in my analysis.
I can't believe there are more
God willing, I would be happy to include them in my next lecture.
(:))
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What's her name?
The closest to Haikin that I know is Haimeka.
What is EA? If the money will?
Israel Shapira, let's make an agreement:
Write a long letter to Michael. Write me a short letter.
♫ There's nothing like Glasgow at night, there's nothing like Glasgow in the world♫
♫This is Glasgow girl, this is Glasgow, that pours like whiskey into blood♫
Soon, Eh, I'm leaving for the United States (East Coast). I will miss Glasgow
I have an aunt, especially beloved, of the Shapira family. Maybe we are close?
jubilee
Michael brought up 8 sections. You have to answer him, so that the private clause doesn't come up, right?
how is glasgow
Sabdarmish Yehuda, good morning 🙂
Israel Shapira, wow!
You write a lot!
Too bad I can't read that much.
Student, Technion
You ask me "How can lay people solve problems in subjects like dark mass and particle physics?"
- I have no idea. As a layman I haven't solved anything until today.
You ask "Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?"
- I'm sorry. My sense of humor is limited
You say "Physics at this level, without the math and research, is just philosophy/science fiction."
- acceptable to me.
"The limit in such discussions is who is exhausted faster,"
- And to me a few more borders.
"And conclusions - there don't seem to be any."
- Indeed there still aren't and maybe there won't be either.
"In this discussion ~ 250 comments - what came out of them?"
- In the meantime, a lot of talk came out of them.
In short, what do you want from me?
I did not hide that six solutions out of the twenty cannot be proven. For example a superior force, a solution in a parallel universe or an unknown force. And I added explicitly that if we don't find another solution we will have to go back to these six.
Nevertheless, I found two other solutions and checked which one is better
If you know any other solutions, I'd love to hear them. I don't think there is.
Good night
we will go to sleep
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda, I have news for you. You really sin.
You defined the problem. So far so good.
You looked for solutions. This is how it should be done.
Although you don't explicitly say that you checked the כל The possible solutions, but the tone of your words ("I looked for all the possible solutions to the problem, and I found out which of them can solve") the common people may understand that you are pretending to say that you have checked them all. If you really and sincerely meant to say that you checked all possible solutions, then you are wrong/wrong/lying (delete the unnecessary). And if you're not going to say it, then please say things specifically.
a) The list of "logical" solutions you talk about in the lecture is not complete.
b) You mention the possibility of "unknown solutions" and discard them only because they are unknown and you don't know how to handle them.
In the end, you are left with only two options for a solution, etc., etc. Narrow for you or wide for you, it doesn't matter. You did the failed step in the previous step.
No one really sleeps here. Filled with me, in the afternoon, but in Israel after midnight.
"You wore me out.
I don't intend to start reading another scroll.
There is a limit to every prank."
So the trick worked, eh?
This is what I call cosmology!
And the scroll is on Purim, not Hanukkah.
Israel:
You wore me out.
I don't intend to start reading another scroll.
There is a limit to every trick.
Yehuda:
You received a link to Wikipedia.
It's written there.
From where did you determine that Sage determined a particle speed a hundred thousand times the speed of light
According to my simple gaseous universe, as in any gas, there are particles that move faster and there are slower ones, therefore the progression of gravity in space is not uniform but a Gaussian curve of speeds.
I would love to receive a link to determine the speed of gravity according to La Sage
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael.
1. "If we say that these are the most elementary particles - how will we measure them"?
Since when does saying something about something get in the way of measuring it? What is "most fundamental"? It must not be a matter of mass - a photon has no mass and we measure it. It's probably not a matter of speed because if anything these particles have the highest speed. What is this "fundamentalism" that takes these particles out of the realm of experimental science and transfers them to the realm of superstition?
2. You didn't understand the disclaimer. Hint: "The reservation arises from the concealment of particles by one another" I have no idea what your comment is referring to (instead of the correct thing).
3. With faith I have nothing to argue with.
4. Le Sage's theory predicts progress of gravitation at the speed of particles - that is - 100,000 times the speed of light. The theory of relativity predicts the progression of gravitation at the speed of light. Experiments confirm the theory of relativity and not the theory of La Sage
5. Further slanders of Kant will not help you. It is clear that he was just a man (just as Croy was just a man - and some of the time a crazy man) but without reference to his claims you cannot sweep them away.
6. They also explain that the tilt should have been expressed in an acceleration that causes the lap route to change. Why don't you read everything that is written. By the way, for a certain moment I thought that this bias could handle the drag, but it doesn't work out in the calculations.
7. I can't deal with beliefs.
8. This alone is enough to disqualify La Sage.
1. Go to the kitchen, get out the scales, and arrange all the weights that are whole multiples of grams.
May I know the weight of the oil can for the lamp? Yes.
May I know the weight of the sugar packet for donuts? Yes.
Can you tell the weight of one grain of sugar? No.
You will say: I cannot know its exact weight, but when the scales are balanced, an additional grain will tip them and thus I will know of its existence. I will answer: at a point (actually quantum) of a certain weight per grain, the scales will no longer respond.
This weight is the basic unit of the scales in question. Any weight below it cannot be detected by the scales, and any weight they measure can only be a multiple of the weight in question.
According to Nir, the particles are the basic unit of gravitation.
A photon, according to the theory, cannot be a basic unit, because it is a wave (this is according to the theory, don't give me beliefs that I have to defend). A wave by its very essence must be composed of smaller elementary particles. But he illustrates the idea nicely: even a sound wave is massless and has momentum.
2. I thought you meant "aggregated networks" which we discussed at length earlier. Hiding particles from one another is a new thing, but if the particles are actually radiation then it seems to me that the problem is solved.
3. As I said, I am not a marketer of theories. I trade them. I am willing to sell the idea only if you beg, and you solve the problems I raised regarding the extension of time. (Got out with honor, eh? You'll never take the challenge).
4. Torat Nir, which is actually L.S. Talking about the speed of light to particles. The very fact that the speed of the particles can be reduced by 100,000 without a problem, shows that it is probably not principled. No?
5. Who slanders Kant? I slandered Kroy. A genius with an excess of IQ who ended up alone in a small apartment haunted by demons. Really illustrates the hubris theory of Sammy from Uncle Petros.
Until now I don't know if you meant the revolt of the Nephilim, or if there really is a book called the revolt of the masses.
Kant is first and foremost a philosopher. He is troubled by the problem of what particles the particles that make up the particles are made of. L.S. Nir and Yehuda it doesn't really matter.
6. The bias is mentioned in the wiki, but not explained. Once again, is there something they are not telling me?!
7. See 3.
8. Not necessarily. According to Calvin and others. It is possible that in the future we will discover something new, or even a more successful interpretation of known facts.
"One of the things that emerges from your clarifications is that even though you received the links to the list of problems, you did not read what was written in them and yet you allowed yourself to express yourself regarding the resolution of all the problems."
I still, after reading, believe that an elegant solution is possible, even for 8. And that the solution I thought of elegantly solves the problems I knew about. Maybe there are other refutations that I don't know about, like Thompson didn't know about the existence of the nuke before the gold experiment. Does this mean that L.S. Is it the right mechanism? who knows? The whole thing is interesting to me mainly as an exercise in stereometry.
And speaking of rebuttals, you should have seen the rebuttals we had at the base in the pads.
"So you refuse to say what they consist of. Just like I said. But - again, just like I said and in the unfairness I was talking about - you require others to say what the space consists of."
How do I know what they are made of? Who do I demand from? What does it even matter? Let there be small teddy bears made of chocolate, or from Hanukkah. It will still work just as well.
I have no pretension to define what the space consists of. I don't define plants or birds. All I'm asking for is a simple and detailed physical explanation of how this action affects this. LS Explains, beautifully, and that's all.
"In other words - the fact that they continued to investigate the issue after Kant has a practical explanation - it was really necessary for the refutation."
In Feynman's case this is true, so I didn't mention him. I don't know that Maxwell and Lord Kelvin only tried to disprove the theory. As I mentioned, they did not work on Ptolemy's celestial spheres or the Phlogiston. They were serious and busy people, who did not bother with what seemed to be without any foundation.
Bottom line, it's true that I wasn't aware of how much the issue had been discussed. I read Nir 10 years ago, and I assumed it was not fundamentally different from Le Sage. But in closing I would like to ask you, or if anyone else is reading, a simple question with some possible simple answers:
If a model were built, it would play La Sage - that is, a huge chamber in which small balls are fired from all directions, and we put into it several large, meshed balls so that some of the balls will pass through and some will not:
1. There will be an attraction between the balls.
2. Repulsion will be created between the balls.
3. There will be no effect.
4. We will get random results: some will be attracted, some will be rejected, some will dance the polka.
5. Additional suggestions?
Come on, work.
point:
Indeed - Judah is unconquerable. There is no way he will surrender to the facts.
I continue to comment for the sake of readers who do not know this and who do not have enough knowledge to understand that he is talking nonsense.
jubilee
I'm not just trying to push another solution instead. In such an act I would have sinned against the truth. I did something different. As soon as I defined the problem, I looked for all the possible solutions to the problem, and found out which of them could solve all the constraints of cosmology, such as the range of action of the forces, adjustment to the data in the field, etc., so that in the end I was left with only two options for the solution - Dark mass and pressure difference. I am sorry to say that the choice of Occam's razor preferred the pressure difference. But Occam's razor is not a binding choice. And people can continue to hold the good dark mass with its relative dark energy.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
jubilee,
"If the science of physics was made of one piece, there would really be no point in this discussion and similar ones. However, it is full of holes and paradoxes, and these are difficult to resolve. Therefore, in my opinion, there is value in philosophical discussions that come from a point of view outside of physics, even if they do not yield much quality product."
How can lay people solve problems in topics like dark mass and particle physics? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Physics at this level, without the math and research, is simply philosophy/science fiction. The limit in such discussions is who is exhausted faster, and conclusions - there don't seem to be any. In this discussion ~ 250 comments - what came out of them?
Sabdarmish Yehuda Now you are talking
Indeed, the heart of the problem is two formulas that should be equal, but they are not.
You rule out one proposed solution and offer an alternative solution instead. Beautiful.
You have to show us that your solution is better than the other. For example, does he score higher in the Ockham test and does he solve more mysteries?
According to you, it also solves the question of dark energy, which is certainly noteworthy.
However, as mentioned, as long as you do not bring mathematical/equational/formulaic proofs (delete the unnecessary) that agree with the observations, it is difficult for us to take him seriously - which is a great shame.
Yehuda:
Who is your name as the judge of success?
Perhaps this article actually describes confirmation of what they are trying to find 80 years ago?
By the way, all the crackpots have been trying to revive the Le Sage theory for hundreds of years and all they come up with are more and more proofs of their ignorance.
You want to think outside the box but you haven't been in the box at all. First enter the box (leave the door open), and if you don't see it, exit.
A student from the Technion
For eighty years, cosmologists have been trying to reach a solution without much success. So maybe someone outside the cosmological system is needed to strive for understanding.
The problem in the galaxy is not a lack of mass as the cosmologists think, but a problem of two formulas that should be equal and they are not!
A solution to this problem is much more extended than just increasing (dark) mass.
Studying what is accepted in the known cosmological theories is a good thing, but a new view of the problems is also needed
to think out of the box
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
exclamation point
Do you have question mark pictures?
student, Technion,
Physicists rarely visit here, probably because of what you point out. The science site serves as a platform for popular science and layman's discussions.
If the science of physics was made of one piece, there would really be no point in this and similar discussions. However, it is full of holes and paradoxes, and these are difficult to resolve. Therefore, in my opinion, there is a point in philosophical discussions that come from a point of view outside of physics, even if they do not yield much quality product.
The real question is what is the point of all this discussion - after all, it is clear that we are not talking about physicists (Yehuda said he is an engineer in industrial management?). The "models" that are offered here are the result of naive ignorance at best and boredom at worst (because then in my opinion there are better ways to use the time - for example to really study physics, and not to invent philosophical models from a poor understanding of a thousand subjects).
I know many girls who have something important to say.
point!
Saberdarmish Yehuda has something important to say. He just doesn't know how to put it right. He confuses concepts, he loses his patience, he insists on points, he uses debate methods that perhaps belong in the Knesset and annoys you and several other commenters here.
I'm trying to uncover the solid core that hides beneath his words, the real thing. Among other things, I am waiting for him to adapt his model to reality instead of adapting reality to the model. I haven't lost hope yet. I still have patience.
And you?
jubilee
Not willing to hear more about jet fuel. Just confusing
Sometimes I have the feeling that there are two Hankin Jubals here who are responding
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael, why do you still continue your argument with Yehuda? Don't you see that he treats his ideas the same way religious people treat their religion?
This is a psychological matter and nothing else. The argument is unnecessary. He will never abandon his own ideas even if you show him clear proof that he is wrong.
Shapiro,
You ask very good questions, and I would like to help you. However, these questions refer to theories that are not familiar to me or that are familiar but I disagree with them.
Sabdarmish,
Jet fuel for the galaxies is very cheap superficiality, and I attribute it to you.
Israel:
I forgot to write about what you wrote in the introduction to your words about La Sage particles.
So you refuse to say what they consist of. Just like I said. But - again, just like I said and in the unfairness I was talking about - you demand from others to say what the space consists of.
In relation to the fact that people worked on the subject after Kant - after everyone worked on the subject.
It should be remembered that as I said at the beginning of the words - Kant shows that the philosophical problem for which the particles were proposed as a solution is not solved by the particles.
This is not a refutation of La Sage's theory, but the denial of the motivation for its development.
Therefore - it made sense to continue investigating the Torah because it can be true even if it was developed from wrong motives.
I mentioned Kant for exactly the same reason as the psychological/philosophical objection you expressed regarding the ability of particles to attract. This is also the reason why I mentioned the electromagnetic force.
In other words - the fact that they continued to investigate the issue after Kant has a factual explanation - it was really necessary for the refutation.
There are many explanations for the fact that after each rebuttal, more rebuttals were found, which are mainly psychological:
1. People's desire to show original thinking (even if by kicking a dead horse)
2. Ignorance of refutations found by others
3. The existence of snoozers who do not allow the subject to drop from the agenda and simply do not agree (without any reasoning) with the refutations that have already been found.
For those who suggest that the neutrino particles will save Yehuda, it is recommended to read what is written in the link I gave to the subject of La Sage on Wikipedia.
It turns out that Yehuda did not do this.
Yehuda:
I did not check the matter of the matches, but you still have never checked the possibility of dealing objectively with the claims made against your words.
Karati is wrong in the above sentence.
Israel:
1. "If we say that these are the most elementary particles - how will we measure them"?
Since when does saying something about something get in the way of measuring it? What is "most fundamental"? It must not be a matter of mass - a photon has no mass and we measure it. It's probably not a matter of speed because if anything these particles have the highest speed. What is this "fundamentalism" that takes these particles out of the realm of experimental science and transfers them to the realm of superstition?
2. You didn't understand the disclaimer. Hint: "The reservation arises from the concealment of particles by one another" I have no idea what your comment is referring to (instead of the correct thing).
3. With faith I have nothing to argue with.
4. Le Sage's theory predicts progress of gravitation at the speed of particles - that is - 100,000 times the speed of light. The theory of relativity predicts the progression of gravitation at the speed of light. Experiments confirm the theory of relativity and not the theory of La Sage
5. Further slanders of Kant will not help you. It is clear that he was just a man (just as Croy was just a man - and some of the time a crazy man) but without reference to his claims you cannot sweep them away.
6. They also explain that the tilt should have been expressed in an acceleration that causes the lap route to change. Why don't you read everything that is written. By the way, for a certain moment I thought that this bias could handle the drag, but it doesn't work out in the calculations.
7. I can't deal with beliefs.
8. This alone is enough to disqualify La Sage.
You have made yourself clear enough.
One of the things that emerges from your clarifications is that even though you received the links to the list of problems, you did not read what was written in them and yet you allowed yourself to express yourself regarding the resolution of all the problems.
I have already fully answered the question of times and I don't have the energy to delve into a new wording of it.
jubilee
I'm sorry but I apparently don't understand your response from 1:20 and I don't understand why it is assumed that there are particles the galaxies will behave like they have jet fuel? Explain your words.
By the way, isn't jet fuel for the galaxies cheap demagoguery?
Waiting for an explanation. I obviously don't get to the end of your mind
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What is it, no one here sleeps?
My wife rightly complains that since I returned to physics, I don't spend enough time with the family. Go explain to her that with the Internet, Google, Wikipedia, YouTube and a site like the scientist, which forces you to think, you don't really need a university anymore. Maybe to the labs.
Michael, finally details, sections. Long live the hiccups!
First, as I mentioned I do not adopt Le Sage Completo. Simply the idea is mathematically beautiful. I have no intention of defining what La Sage particles are or what their speed is. What exactly does it matter? Let's say they are small steel marbles, will that change anything for the gravitational force exerted by the sun on the earth? And what exactly is speed related to? Let the speed of light be comfortable with that. Why wouldn't it work with the speed of sound too? or 100C?
As an admirer of scientists, do you think Maxwell or Lord Calvin would waste time and money on a worthless theory long after Kant raised his reservations? Do you think that anyone serious would have given unnecessary thought in the 19th century to Ptolemy's theory of the celestial spheres? The four elements of the Greeks? Newton's divine spirit space? And despite all the known problems, even Thompson at the beginning of the 20th century tested Le Sage. You yourself, educated and literate, a few years ago fell for a while under the charms of theory, so what will Azov Kier like me say?
Let's examine your objections one by one:
1. Although there are masses of such particles and they are everywhere and carry a lot of energy and cause all the gravitation - no one manages to discover them.
2. Contrary to the predictions of the theory - no connection between density and gravitation was discovered
3. Despite the multitude of particles and their energy, no drag (friction) is felt
4. The speed of gravitation does not match the theory
5. Kant, yes, you are allowed to despise him. Everyone is allowed. The book "Revolt of the Masses" has already been written about this.
6. Absence of a deviation of the direction of gravity (look for the word Aberration) in the Wikipedia text
7. Contradiction to the Law of Conservation of Energy (as described in a response I once wrote but also in Wikipedia). The energy applied to each point every second is enough to vaporize any material within a fraction of a second - but you can't find a trace of it!
8. Gravity of energy (predicted by the theory of relativity and measured experimentally) does not agree with Le Sage
1. If we were told which are the most elementary particles, how would you measure them? Using less elementary particles? How many shekels is a penny worth?
2. Two plasticine plates are exactly double the resistance of one plate. 10 times 10.
3. I believe I have a solution to this problem.
4. I don't understand how it is related. Why wouldn't there be gravitation at a lower speed?
5. Kant. If I remember correctly, it is the "Revolt of the Nephilim". Moshe Kroy, Ayn Rand's groupie, called him "the monster from Knisberg" in his book: "Life according to reason". This is even before the sons of darkness finished him off.
6. I read about the bias on Wikipedia. They don't exactly explain there why it should exist, and why the speed of the particles should be so high. But let's say yes. So what?
7. You mean the inelastic collisions? Because otherwise the same problem exists in every gas that collides with matter, doesn't it? If so, I believe I have an adequate explanation.
8. I have no answer. Einstein probably knows what he's talking about. Le Sage and Newton did not.
Have I made myself clear enough? I believe I have an elegant solution to the problems I was aware of by Le Sage, from what I've read, just as I claimed. This does not make me a follower of the theory as it is. Kelvin, mentioned above, denied the extreme age of the earth based on thermodynamic considerations. This did not make the theory wrong, and it was indeed found to be correct with the discovery of the atomic energy which is the source of the internal heat of KDA. Section 8 of your reservation (long live individualism), is a point I did not think about, and Einstein is probably right, as usual. Unless, as with Calvin, something will be discovered in the future, or even an explanation of existing facts, that will confirm a theory so beautiful and intuitive that almost every scientist up to a century ago gave it consideration (and Judah in modern times).
So can you now explain to me in detail what is happening with Twin 17?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314877
Sabdarmish Yehuda, good morning
When Michael and I say that you are a demagogue, we mean exactly your statements of this kind.
"Do you think I invented the source??, after all, in every book dealing with cosmology it is written that netrins are created in stars and super novae!", but who says the neutrinos are your gas particles? And if they are, then please call the child by his name and don't invent new particles.
jubilee
Do you think I invented the source??, after all, in every book dealing with cosmology it is written that netrins are created in stars and super novae!
If you don't want to accept it, you have a problem with the scientific literature, not with Judah.
So it really was time to sleep
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda, night of rest
not buying Neither the product nor the packaging.
If they came from the places you indicate, then their origin is in the material of the universe itself or from the same place it came from. From the source you suggest, fusion in stars and supernova explosions, it follows that the galaxies are nothing more than rockets powered by jet fuel. This is an interesting assumption, but in order to test it, it is necessary to bring numbers and formulas and find out if they are indeed valid.
Sweet dreams
jubilee
You said "it goes without saying that the space of the universe is full of gas,"
And also because it is known that neutron particles and other cosmic rays fill the entire universe
I don't understand how the conclusion of a gaseous universe is not obvious
And to the question of where the particles came from
Well, it seems to me that they came from fusion in stars and also from supernova explosions.
It seems to me that in the next billion years there will be no shortage of particles
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda
My main interest is not what others think or say. I'm talking to you and only you.
Even without going into the question of the acceleration of this gas, there is still the question of where it came from. Since it flows and pushes without interruption, then something produces it without interruption.
And please try not to take my words out of context: I was not convinced that the space of the universe is a gas.
for Jubilee
I don't mean one atom of hydrogen found in a cubic meter, it seems to me that it was not enough. But trillions of neutrinos moving per cubic meter at a speed close to the speed of light, this is already a significant thing!
So I'm glad you're convinced that the space of the universe is gas, if all that comes from it. But there is no need for constant acceleration of the gas. It is enough for the gas to flow more or less at a constant speed. It will already move the galaxies in it. Just like leaves blowing in the wind.
As I saw from Yael's link, others are also starting to think so.
By assuming the pressure differences we assumed, we saved other assumptions of dark mass, dark energy and perhaps even the assumption of gravity itself if we overcome the problems at La Sage.
So in SA we saved discounts, and Occam's razor was satisfied.
I also did this test in my publication on YouTube, which you must have seen, and there you see the preference for Occam's razor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAo5BQQpBqQ
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda
After all, it goes without saying that the space of the universe is full of gas, mainly hydrogen. And this gas is also active in gravitation processes and also creates winds.
Let's assume for a moment that the particles you extrapolate are also gas responsible for the acceleration of the galaxies. This gas pushes, that is, exerts force. Force, as we know, is the product of mass times acceleration. Therefore, for the particles of this gas to continue blowing and pushing, they themselves need to accelerate. Therefore, when we assume the existence of an accelerating gas, we simply divert the problem from the galaxies to the gas and in fact we have not solved anything. In addition, we go by the saying "don't add discounts unnecessarily". If from the assumption of the existence of this gas we would arrive at something new, then maybe there would be something to talk about seriously.
Israel
indeed similar to a simple universe,
So if they already agree that it can be a gas, I don't understand why not go a little further and introduce more things that belong to gas behavior such as pressure differentials, temperature winds, waves, and in addition the mean free path of particles.
So La Sage would be a simple universe
And by the way, the link Shieal brought yesterday
http://www.universetoday.com/91520/astronomy-without-a-telescope-could-dark-matter-not-matter/
They talk at the end of the article about pressure that drives the distant stars in the galaxy instead of dark mass.
on the one hand the effect of faraway matter is to induce a positive pressure that contains the rapid rotation of stars, preventing them from flying off - and on the other hand, it can induce a negative pressure to encourage an atypical decay in a galaxy's rotation curve.
As the saying goes, if something seems too good to be true - it probably isn't true. All comments welcome.
I wonder if the author of the above article, Steve, has a name on the site that matches Guy, Punka, Mikal, etc.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
jubilee
Speak for yourself.
R.H. Rafai.M
you are not serious
me neither
Israel Shapira:
I understand that what you were trying to downplay in your last comment is a list that includes the following items?
1. Although there are masses of such particles and they are everywhere and carry a lot of energy and cause all the gravitation - no one manages to discover them.
2. Contrary to the predictions of the theory - no connection between density and gravitation was discovered
3. Despite the multitude of particles and their energy, no drag (friction) is felt
4. The speed of gravitation does not match the theory
5. Kant, yes, you are allowed to despise him. Everyone is allowed. The book "Revolt of the Masses" has already been written about this.
6. Absence of a deviation of the direction of gravity (look for the word Aberration) in the Wikipedia text
7. Contradiction to the Law of Conservation of Energy (as described inA comment I wrote once but also on Wikipedia). The energy applied to each point every second is enough to vaporize any material within a fraction of a second - but you can't find a trace of it!
8. Gravity of energy (predicted by the theory of relativity and measured experimentally) does not agree with Le Sage
jubilee
I read your comment from the link.
I want to point out that I don't think what you claim in that comment has anything to do with dark energy.
After all, Makhal also explained to you "of course these particles - they must not damage the mass just like that - they first need to find out if it is, for example, opposite electric charges and only then decide what to do."
You claim that dark matter affects the speed of light.
You also eliminate dark energy without explaining why. You're just associating it with your claim that dark matter affects the speed of light.
It's like claiming that your coffee isn't sweet enough because Yehuda forgot to refill his stock at the Turkish Delight.
And the development continues here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314308
R.H. Rafai.M
There is no arguing about taste and smell
I brought the explanation according to which it is possible that the dark energy is an optical illusion in several places. One of them is here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314217
jubilee
If that's the way things are, there's probably no point in reading your wrong words either.
Yehuda
After Michael brought up the matter of the refutations to La Sage with blue multiples on the beach in Antalya, I thought that I must have missed something fundamental as usual, and went over the Wikipedia entry (nothing new, thermodynamics, Kant with his disintegrating parts, as if that changes anything to the very idea). What I did find was this matter:
Samuel Tolver Preston[24] illustrated that many of the postulates introduced by Le Sage concerning the gravitational particles, such as rectilinear motion, rare interactions, etc.., could be collected under the single notion that they behaved (on the cosmological scale) as the particles of a gas with an extremely long mean free path
Doesn't it look a bit like a simple universe?
jubilee.
I meant the reference you gave me to Lorenz. I don't know Israel the doctor, but after you referred me to that Israel, I looked around and saw that my cousin, Israel Shapira, also appears. We are both named after the grandfather, who was killed in the war of liberation, and his sons named their sons after him. See:
http://www.har-adar.muni.il/template/default.aspx?maincat=1&pcatid=29&pageid=1069&parentid=405
R.H. Rafai.M
You are very discerning 🙂
jubilee
What you claim is:
Part of the universe is an optical illusion, and the remaining part is our misunderstanding of the universe.
From a logical point of view, I conclude that all human beings are mistaken in their understanding of the universe. And in any case the universe is an optical illusion.
If that is your claim, then the conclusion is that you are actually wrong in your understanding of the universe.
Anyway, you still haven't explained why you think dark energy is an optical illusion.
Perceptual illusion: a wrong understanding of reality, mainly resulting from narrow thinking or wrong assumptions.
Since the term "delusion" refers to a wrong perception, everything that falls into this category is wrong.
There may be additional explanations for the phenomenon known as dark energy, and one of them (which I brought up on the science website a few days ago) is that it is an optical illusion.
Yuval Chaikin
Well, I can understand why you think that. This kind of thinking suits, for the most part, someone who is more of a philosopher than a physicist.
In any case, I did not understand your definition "perceived illusion". I would appreciate it if you could explain.
(Are you a recipe for us deluding ourselves about understanding the universe?)
Also, would you agree with me that dark energy is the most common thing in the universe?
I went through the last comments
There is an impostor here
Israel Shapira,
The only link I gave you (and you didn't comment on it 🙁 ) is a cute video with your name on it. I didn't send any link that is supposed to solve your problems.
R.H. Rafai.M
To your question: "Do you think the universe is mainly an optical illusion?"
My answer: you scored close. In my opinion the whole universe is an illusion, partly optical and partly perceptual.
Israel Shapira
I see that R. H. (the bacteria) has already answered you, so as you can see - I am not one of my kind (and I am happy that I am human).
incidentally,
In Newton's time, for example, there were no video cameras, so you had to make a little more effort to understand the world. Like for example calculating (or inventing) equations instead of looking them up on Wikipedia.
jubilee!
A: Why do you think dark energy is an optical illusion?
B: If it is an optical illusion, then why is it considered the most common thing in the universe? (Do you think the universe is mostly an optical illusion?)
jubilee
Thanks for the link, but it doesn't help solve the problem I raised.
point
I heard that there was a strike by interns in Israel, but I didn't know that they had already released all the hospitalized patients from Aberbanel.
The day we hear from you even just one factual response, instead of clever attempts to get down on everyone, we will be able to take you seriously. Until then, remember your true size and that of every other point: absolute zero.
Michael.
I understood that you don't expect me to be great and surrounded. I actually expected more from you. Among other things, that you pay attention to details, and give simple answers to simple questions.
So the bottom line is, you're right: I must have misunderstood.
Anyway, thanks, really. Even if I don't think we managed to equalize here. I really appreciate the effort and investment on your part.
By the way, regarding Judah and the friction, I meant a previous response in which I wrote to him:
"And Yehuda - don't worry about friction.
Without him you would not have been born."
Israel:
What's going on?
The real reality is no longer good enough so you decided to reinvent it?
To remind you: you wrote "The reason I believe there is a beautiful and elegant solution to La Sage's problems, and the friction in my head, is simple: I believe I have it."
This is a reference to all La Sage problems and not just friction.
By the way - I don't need to ask Yehuda what the friction problem is because I am the one who brought it up here on the site for the first time (along with many other problems).
So as mentioned - you said what I said you said and not what you say you said.
If you back off from that statement I stop demanding you defend the theory.
On the other hand - if you still think that even though it contradicts reality it is the best theory - my heart goes out to you.
In relation to the demands you place on the theories that do not contradict reality and that you do not place on the La Sage theory - as mentioned - these are unfair demands.
Space is curved in the presence of mass.
This is a fact that is proven in many ways, of which the curvature of the light path is one of them.
I can point you to space and you can't point me to a La Sage particle, so which of the two is really a mathematical abstraction?
On the subject of the rotation - I am quite discouraged by your insistence and what you present as magic.
I introduced the matter of the earth so that you understand that what you are checking is a rotation relative to you and not according to Mach's principle.
The only way to "see" rotation according to Mach's principle is based on an assumption that never holds - that you see all the matter in the universe.
Since you don't see - there is no such way (even if you had seen all the material, it would have involved a lot of calculations, but reality freed you from the need to make these calculations by not revealing to you the data necessary to perform them).
In your "charms" you just gave us more proof that you are talking about a turn in relation to yourself.
Know that I live at the polar point of a neutron star spinning to the right at a rate of a thousand revolutions per second.
I ordered two centrifuges from Ahmadinejad friends.
Both rotate (where I live) against the direction of the star's rotation.
One makes a thousand rounds per second and the other only five hundred.
For some reason - precisely that of the five hundred succeeds in enriching uranium. The one of the thousand does not enrich uranium at all and the bucket that is standing in my yard motionless is enriched with more uranium than both centrifuges combined.
By the way - it is very easy to see it by the shape of the body.
The XNUMX rpm centrifuge looks like new.
The one of the five hundred has already warped a little because of the centrifugal force acting on it and I have to change the bucket every few minutes because the centrifugal force just tears it.
Regarding the matter of time - I think I have given you all the answers and you are asked to do one of the two (or both together):
1. Accept with understanding (as you promised) that I don't want to repeat things
2. Read the responses you received again and come to an understanding of them (and then you will no longer need the first understanding)
Israel Shapira
Maybe here you will find an answer to your question?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Israel Shapira
Indeed a good answer. I will refer to it when I return from the Dumas arrangements
R.H.
Glad to hear you are still with us. No, I don't believe in ghosts, or horseshoes, or any other superstitions. I heard it brings bad luck.
jubilee
You write: "Please explain to me why it seems to you that the issue of determining the speed of light in any reference system is quite closed."
I believe there is a good answer in:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Chasing_the_light/
Michael.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317108
You write:
"How can you have a solution to Le Sage's problems if you didn't even bother to check what the problems are (and as mentioned several times already - there are many such in the links you received) and if you don't even really know the theory (because you don't have the formulas you are asking for)?"
I bothered, I bothered. One last time: I am not defending the La Sage model - or the democracy model. I'm just claiming that I haven't heard of a better method so far. you say einstein So explain to me - in physical details, not in mathematical abstractions such as "space-time" - how information reaches the earth from the moon without particles, without radiation, without an intermediary, without zebras, and calm down.
And I don't have a solution for the La Sage problems - only for the friction problem. friction. Ask Yehuda, he understands the friction.
And I don't explain what my solution is because no one asked me to do so (fortunately). As mentioned, I am not trying to market any theories.
"Regarding the round - you definitely got something (everything) wrong.
I mentioned that it is possible to see that a body is rotating, but I explained that the only correct way to see this is by examining its shape (which is derived from the centrifugal force).
You are confusing rotation with respect to you and rotation with respect to space.
Look at the earth and tell me if it rotates.”
Are we talking about the same Mach principle?
What does the rotation of the earth have to do with it? Or a rotation of some star? What I am talking about is this and only this: if you have Persian friends, ask to borrow some centrifuges from them, they have plenty. (Promise to return, prizes you understand). Put a video camera pointing up on each centrifuge and run the rig on a cloudless night, with the centrifuges spinning at different speeds. Send me the videos. I promise you that only from the video I can tell you which centrifuge will separate the most uranium 235, and if you have power meters in the centrifuges, what is the exact force in newtons acting on the circumference of each centrifuge (I just need its radius). And all this - only from the video shoots of the stars.
Wizard, eh?
Try doing the same trick with body shape testing, or any other exercise (and I'm listening). And the main thing, and this is my argument, (and Mach's) - it shows that there is a direct connection between the distant stars and the centrifugal force, otherwise how can I know what the exact force acting on the centrifuges is just by watching a video of some stars?
"Precisely about the subject that you claim interests you (and which I think you got all the answers about) you didn't say a word."
The only issue that interests me right now is the extension of time. I don't feel like I got all the answers about him. In the previous article about the neutrino I presented the contrast that I think exists between special relativity and its relative time, and between the big bang theory from which I think absolute time is derived. I presented several options, and after this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/#comment-314877
which showed that all the choices given before were invalid, I didn't get any more responses.
If you could, without any subtlety, exhaust the matter to the end, and show me where the mistake is, I would be truly grateful. But if you don't have the desire or patience to do it in detail, no generalities, I will accept it with understanding.
Just one request: no shouts of "Gvald" every time it seems as if the aging Einstein, or the grieving, or someone else, might have been wrong. I'm really almost sure there is something - maybe even quite simple - that I don't understand or know.
This is for now.
To Israel
You smelled lokum because we didn't renew the Turkish stock in light of the situation with the Turks, but if you warn me in advance then maybe we will organize, sure there will be Borax!
We will prepare Turkish coffee for you and give you as many spoons as you want.
Yaari?, I don't know.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael,
I don't understand how you are able to spend so much time to answer every fool who exposes his folly for all to see and without shame. To me it seems like too much effort.
Israel Shapira,
God forbid, please don't mix a gender that isn't yours and don't believe in ghosts.
R.H. Rafai.M
Are you the same R.H. The good old bacteria? Or are you actually the R.H. Rephaim of that R.H.?
Yehuda.
Oh well, if I didn't get answers about La Sage, then at least about Eli Cohen.
Are you still there?
You say there will be coffee? Turkish coffee I hope, because I hardly call Ashkenazi coffee tea.
Will there also be a Turkish Delight?
Turkish Delight
🙂 Love the lesson
jubilee:
I will try not to take your words out of context.
I have always tried and when you say to someone "You said well" - the context is what that person said.
Michael and other readers,
I understood why I was not understood. Please try not to take my words out of context.
And I will try to improve my way and write more clearly.
Thanks
jubilee:
You said many things and what I quoted is one of them.
Michael, thanks for the detail.
And for Tommy I believe that I said that the graviton does not exist at all. And I also likened gravitation to the centrifugal force which we all know is "fictitious" even though it is very tangible.
jubilee:
You said what you thought and that's exactly what I think you think.
You said "Well said those who wondered about the eternal nature of the graviton. "
In other words - you joined the opinion that it is impossible for the graviton to actually attract and not push.
Since there is also an attraction between (opposite) electromagnetic charges and this attraction is mediated by photons, your reservation applies here as well.
Did you notice that the weather on the site suddenly changed?
It's time to go make coffee
Yuval and Israel, join me virtually
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish (as your name is, yes you are) Yehuda
A night of rest and golden dreams
Michael,
I am honored to be considered a thinking person. But please elaborate as much as possible on what you think I'm thinking.
jubilee
I understand that you are not just hinting to me (and Israel) about the existence of the aforementioned twerking dark drink.
I think I'll find a chair for you too in my humble apartment
And there is nothing like discussing dark mass matters when my dark coffee is brewing into a wall of dark energy in my Herzliian kettle.
Good night and see you later
Sabdarmish Yehuda
So what have we learned from the comments that have been added since my last response?
We learned that Yehuda also thinks that the attraction between opposite electric charges (mediated by the photons) is strange (https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317057 ).
Maybe we need to invent now more types of La Sage particles to allow the electromagnetic force, and the strong force to attract.
Of course, these particles - they must not hit the mass just like that - they first need to find out if it is, for example, opposite electric charges and only then decide what to do.
Now I see that Yuval thinks so too (https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317064 ).
I understand that not reading comments is a very common thing here because what I said above also appears in previous comments.
Israel:
You're not supposed to protect Lhasaje.
Le Sage's theory has been disproven and I have stated this many times.
You only took it upon yourself to do this when you said that you thought the problems in the theory would be solved and you did it without pointing to a hint of a solution and also without knowing all the relevant formulas.
My words on the subject were only written because you complained that despite your many requests, no one brought you the La Sage formulas and no one made you a cup of tea.
How can you have a solution to Le Sage's problems if you didn't even bother to check what the problems are (and as mentioned several times already - there are many such in the links you received) and if you don't even really know the theory (because you don't have the formulas you are asking for)?
If it is allowed to define La Sage particles as a fundamental thing that does not break down into other things - space can be defined in the same way.
That you do not do so is precisely the unfair act of which I accused you.
In any case - the use of the word elementary particle does not solve the problem.
What prevents the particle from breaking up? Why isn't there a half particle and a quarter particle?
I know these are dumb questions but they are no different than your question about space.
It may be that the question about space has an answer and that it consists of atoms of space - but that is not relevant to the topic at all.
You have decided that you cannot accept the curvature of space as a reason simply because you do not know what space consists of.
This is a senseless decision.
If you are not aware of the multitude of refutations - then maybe read what is written in the links?
Regarding better models for gravitation - they have been presented to you.
All accepted models do not contradict the findings.
Le Sage's model contradicts the findings.
Sublime I understand why in your eyes he is the best despite this.
Regarding the rotation - you definitely got something (everything) wrong.
I mentioned that it is possible to see that a body is rotating, but I explained that the only correct way to see this is by examining its shape (which is derived from the centrifugal force).
You are confusing rotation with respect to you and rotation with respect to space.
Look at the earth and tell me if it rotates.
The ancients deduced from the things you see that the sun actually revolves around the earth.
what? Did they not see well?
Consider two stars locked in mutual Tidal Locking.
Whoever is on one of them sees the other at a fixed point in the sky and also sees that it does not rotate.
If you want to judge the rotation by the background - you are again confused because the background can move by itself, but to save you the confusion I can simplify your life and surround the two stars with a large sphere whose face is completely uniform so that it is impossible to discover the fact that the two stars are rotating based on no Nothing but the centrifugal forces.
Knows what? To prevent the next twisting I will also rotate the outer ball around its axis in coordination with the two aforementioned stars.
If you don't want to be entertained in other directions - then why are you entertained in other directions?!
Precisely on the topic that you claim interests you (and which I think you got all the answers about) you didn't say a word.
Yehuda (https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317078 ):
Your adherence to nonsense is really amazing.
Your ability to read mathematical proofs and links from Wikipedia with a wave of your hands is also amazing, just because since this phrase was thrown at you, you feel the need to throw it at others.
If someone was convinced by Yehuda's hand waving - let him say so and then I will present him my "hand waving" (which I already presented but he probably didn't see. After all, it can't be that everyone just ignores like Yehuda).
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I think I saw a traditional theory
Or did you mean to say that the phenomena are inversely related?
According to my current (non-final) method, the dark energy is just an optical illusion caused by the dark mass.
Your formulation "the dark mass adds a lot of gravitation to the universe" does not hit home in my opinion, according to which the dark mass is the only cause of gravitation in the universe. On the other hand, I like "and it actually makes him want to shrink" which presents the universe as a being with desires and aversions - something human.
So is there Turkish coffee in Herzliya? Good to know 🙂
jubilee
The existence of the dark mass and the seemingly accelerated expansion of the universe contradict each other. The dark mass adds a lot of gravitation to the universe and makes it actually want to shrink. Against this "will", dark energy is defined as the pushing force of the galaxies that overcomes gravity and causes the universe to expand with acceleration.
So I find it hard to accept your claim that on the face of it, mass and dark energy are unrelated.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel Shapira
Please explain to me why it seems to you that the issue of the constancy of the speed of light in any frame of reference is quite closed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVB0qTiq5jU&feature=player_embedded
Sabdarmish Yehuda
You did not sin much in the number of my children 🙂
In the professional jargon, your claim is phrased like this: "Dark matter exists in a vacuum".
R.H. Rafai.M
I didn't talk about dark energy in that comment because I wasn't asked.
The phenomena that were nicknamed "dark mass" and "dark energy" on his face are not related to each other. I've thought of several possible explanations for the dark energy phenomenon and right now I'm focusing on the explanation that it's just an optical illusion.
On the other hand, I do believe that the dark mass exists and I even attribute to it a special character which I am not currently going into in depth. Among other things, it is responsible for the same optical illusion I am talking about, which manifests itself in dark energy.
Israel Shapira
small world!
I can give you answers about Eli Cohen
I live at Eli Cohen 3 in Herzliya. Right in front of the high average of Eli Cohen 2
A furnished room without a phone will cost you about a thousand dollars today with electricity.
Four rooms as above about two thousand dollars!! Ten times since 83
The road was renovated with sidewalks, etc. and all residents of the street were required to pay. At Eli Cohen, the benevolent corner, we built a beautiful square.
Near us in Eli Cohen 1 they destroyed the kindergarten and built a building. Residential I think 4 rooms 2.6 million NIS
don't you miss
If you jump to Israel you are welcome! Coffee is guaranteed.
(:))
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yuval Chaikin!!!!!!!!!!
Peace.
In your response this https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317055
You are talking about dark matter. But you forget that there is also dark energy.
Is the medium you are talking about dark energy? (instead of the dark matter?)
If not, then I'm not sure what dark matter you're talking about.
(For the sake of clarity - I don't agree with your discrete theory, I'm just interested in understanding what dark matter you're talking about).
Michael.
I don't even know where to start.
I'm supposed to defend the La Sage model? Why?
Am I supposed to provide formulas? from where
What are La Sage particles? How should I know? I mentioned several times that it could be radiation. I have no idea about them.
electromagnetic? A strong force? weak? eh?
I only said one thing. I will repeat it again so that there are no mistakes:
It seems to me that there is a beautiful and elegant solution to the La Sage problems (of which I know) and the friction in the head. I believe I have the solution to the friction problem.
Kant's reservation did not occur to me. As I wrote to Jubilee, La Sage particles must be the most elementary, if they exist. You can say that a shekel consists of 100 agoras (if I remember correctly), but it is a different story to define what an agora is, which is the basic unit.
If, as you say, "the references to Le Sage are indeed the ones I mentioned, but there are many refutations" I am not aware of these "many refutations".
Apart from that, I do not pretend to have an additional understanding of the Le Sage model beyond what I understood from Wikipedia, Nir's book, and what I learned on the website. If I had the formulas, it might be possible to compare them with other quantitative models, with inertia in mind.
Hence the flood of questions. I don't have many answers, but if there are specific questions, I'll try to answer.
But be that as it may, the point is this: refutations that refute, I don't know of a better physical model for gravitation. You know? show me please
rotation
You write:
"On the topic of the round, you got all the answers.
In the end, we know if there is rotation - whether in relation to the rest of the mass and whether in relation to the universe - only according to the centrifugal force.
There is no other way.
You can't determine things by looking at the stars."
Did I get something wrong? Of course you can tell if there is a rotation just by looking at the stars! If the stars turn, so do you. Show me a video taken from a spaceship of the stars outside, and tell you exactly what the centrifugal force is acting on it, just by analyzing the video.
Maybe you understand now why I don't want to be entertained in other directions and converge on one topic: the lengthening of time. twins. Watches. I believe that if we solve this problem, the rest will be much easier.
jubilee.
The subject of the constancy of the speed of light in any reference system is quite closed, it seems to me. My problem is: finding a physical mechanism - not a postulate - that will explain how this happens.
It seems to me that you also get the middleman principle. What's the problem with calling it an improved site?
Do you think you can help me with the extension of time? This is quite urgent, so I would like to focus only on this issue.
Yehuda.
When I was looking for your model, I actually saw that there was a Sabdarmish in the fence and assumed it was you. Are you still in Herzliya? At the time I lived at 10 Eli Cohen (1983, 4 rooms, furnished with phone, $200 per month including electricity. Has it gone up since then?).
Come on, run to work. Don't forget to give Israel nice and reasoned answers to the issue of time extension.
jubilee
If there is a dark mass then this is its story and its calculations.
What do I think about her?
I don't think it exists.
Why is this similar?, to the research I will do on your ten children:-
To feed your child you will need such and such monthly expenses
But I don't think you have ten children
(:))
Tl
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda
So is there dark mass or no dark mass? what did you decide?
I suggest you go to the link given by Yael, look at the colored graph that explains the rotational speed of the Andromeda galaxy.
Pay attention to the following details:-
Up to a distance of ten thousand light years the measured speed and the calculated speed are the same so there is no need for any additional mass, dark or not.
In addition, the measured speed is greater than the calculated one
At the edge of the galaxy at a distance of about forty thousand light years, the measured speed is about 30% greater than the calculated one, so according to Newton's formula we will need about 70% more mass between ten thousand and forty thousand light years.
Most of the dark mass would have to be concentrated beyond the edge of the galaxy up to a distance of about one hundred thousand light years from the center of the galaxy. This is to explain the speed of the gas clouds found in that area.
A calculation made in the article shows that it is over 80% dark mass in Andromeda.
As I have always claimed
It's a shame that there are those who wave their hands and passionately claim otherwise.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I used the term "sebedarmish" to describe someone who develops a theory without attaching formulas and numbers to it. Please, my apologies for not clarifying earlier. And as for Lorenz, who supposedly took over from you, there is no early or late in science and for me as well.
You can't plagiarize anything from me. I have long since made it a principle not to claim intellectual property rights for any of my puffs. I only suggested to the audience not to use things without knowing well where they grow from and what their nature is. Maybe I misunderstood what you said condemning the existence of dark matter and that's why I was surprised to see you talking about it in a tone of approval.
Yael, thank you.
Interesting, but a little difficult to delve into when windows and advertisements are opening from all sides.
If there is any substance to this news, I am guaranteed that it will be published someday, somehow also in Hebrew. Please wait patiently
♫ Oh my Kinneret♫
Regarding Sabdarmish there are currently four Sabdarmis
The first - your faithful servant and his family
The second - my brother
The third - my brother's son who started a family and decided to keep the name
And the fourth - a strange man of gender who calls himself Sabdarmish Yehuda and I was not able to make any contact with him despite my attempts. I'm inclined to believe he's an imposter, who just decided to wear my nice name.
For now he is harmless, if he is I will find something to do.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yuval Chaikin
I do not understand if your words are directed to the space of the universe or to me, therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, I hereby declare
I haven't plagiarized anything of yours.
My words have been famous for a long time, even before the name Yuval Chaikin was known to me and I am not hiding anything.
Even in my lectures and in the articles published here in Bidan years ago, my ideas regarding gravitation and pollution were already discussed and analyzed.
Enter in Bidan the collection of articles by Sabdarmish Yehuda and see my articles.
And maybe it's good that you make your theory mysterious because it saves you heartache with strange and sometimes stupid and unflattering reactions, to say the least!
So good luck with your mystery theory,
In appreciation, and from the bottom of my heart
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And maybe? The things never happened???
http://www.universetoday.com/91520/astronomy-without-a-telescope-could-dark-matter-not-matter/
Sabdarmish Yehuda
who said you are Are you the only sedramish in the world?
: )
For any reason, reply to:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317057
I do not have, and I would only be a fool if I aspired to have, a monopoly on things I thought and said. I tell everyone with the utmost sincerity and honesty that it is okay for me to "steal" ideas from me. But I suggest you, for your benefit, that you get to know the complete picture before you decide whether to take from it only what suits you. Not sure at all that you will like my complete model, which begins with fantastic and completely imaginary metaphysics (this is in response to"And in addition, I also think that part of the dusting will be done by the density of the particles/the dark matter next to the mass").
Well said by those who wondered about the graviton's real nature. In my model it does not exist. Gravitation is a phenomenon that arises from the nature of dark matter, and it is neither attractive nor repulsive (remind us, in contrast, the centrifugal force is also defined as a "fiction", because it results from a combination of different factors, but it is completely real).
jubilee
I don't remember assuming anything about Lorentz contractions
And so I wasn't supposed to develop a formula on the subject
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel
I actually think that you are allowed to assume the existence of particles and not accept the curvature of the universe.
Even Newton, who admittedly did not explain his gravitation, knew that it must be done by particles.
And as for the graviton, the force bearer of gravity, indeed it has to push, so how can it transfer attraction?, I also think it's strange.
And in addition, I also think that part of the dusting will be done by the density of the particles/dark matter next to the mass.
Unfortunately, regarding Mach, I am not knowledgeable and I cannot understand the debate going on here.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel Shapira, for your response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317034
There is a claim that the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference. An entire branch of physics was built on this claim.
It has never been proven, but the observations in nature correspond to the assumptions that derive from it and in fact, indirectly, confirm it. I, not only do not pretend to prove that it is true, but also claim that it is possible that it is wrong at all and the reason why it is confirmed by observations stems from another phenomenon.
Since the electromagnetic radiation exhibits the properties of a wave, until about a century ago physicists spoke of a medium that conducts it ("ether"). It was not found in the famous experiment (Michaelson Morley), and physicists tried their best to find an explanation for the elusiveness of the medium. Hendrik Lorenz developed the Sabdarmisch theory and said that the ether presses on bodies moving within it and as a result they contract. But unlike Sabdarmish, he also bothered and calculated a nice equation. Einstein came and said "Let's not get into the grammar of poverty. We will simply take the phenomenon without explaining it and build the physics on it." He treated the speed of light as constant in any frame of reference, and the rest is history. And I'll add just one spicy detail: from Einstein's theory comes the contraction of bodies exactly according to Lorenz's equations.
Although your other questions were not addressed to me, I would like to offer (again) an answer based on my (for now secret) model: dark matter, the subject of the article, is densely arranged throughout the universe. As such it serves as a medium for both gravitation and electromagnetic radiation. The density in which it is arranged is not constant. As it increases, the speed of light inside it also increases. But when the density exceeds a certain value, structures are formed in it that block this radiation. Those structures (baryon particles) "swim" in a "sea" of dark matter whose density is small and increases with the distance from them (diffusion). Dark matter is responsible for both gravitation and the transmission of light. It causes light to change its speed according to its proximity to the baryon particles, and this phenomenon was shown by the Eddington experiment. However, contrary to what the "big ones" say, I do not attribute the light deviation to the presence of the visible massive body but to the changing density of the dark matter around this body.
The claim that space-time is curved can be replaced by the claim that the density of dark matter is not constant, but then the speed of light is also not constant. If we assume that time is constant, then the speed of light must be changing. But if we assume that the speed of light is constant, then time must change. As you remember, we accepted the claim that the speed of light is constant because we were unable to discover the medium in which light moves.
Stars and Vertigo: Again, dark matter stars in my explanation. The movement of turning our head creates the centrifugal force effect. For this, first of all, it is necessary to understand how the dark matter creates Newton's laws. It is necessary to explain what gravitation is at all and how it happens that momentum is conserved. Now I will do as a Sabdarmish act and say that "I did the calculation at home" (secret did I say?) and jump straight to the end: since every movement in the universe takes place within the dark matter, our personal movement is expressed both in the retina of the eye and in the cochlea of the inner ear.
Israel:
I explained what I meant by "unfair".
Why do I need to explain it again?!
I said that you do not accept the explanation of the curvature of space because you are not told what space is made of, but you are ready to accept the explanation of particles even though you are not told what they are made of.
What is so hard to understand here?!
The references to Le Sage are indeed the ones I mentioned, but there are a lot of refutations and you didn't address any of them.
Why do you have to say that again?
You talk about graviton and present a "problem" that, as I have already mentioned, should have bothered you before - either in relation to the electromagnetic force or in relation to the strong or weak force.
I said that before too.
I also pointed to Kant's reservation which explains that even without these forces an attractive force was needed to hold the La Sage particles as particles.
It seems you just don't feel like paying attention to what is being written to you.
You got all the answers about the rotation.
In the end, we know if there is rotation - whether in relation to the rest of the mass and whether in relation to the universe - only according to the centrifugal force.
There is no other way.
You can't determine things by looking at the stars.
Testing the Doppler effect does not detect rotation in space but movement relative to us.
We infer the existence of the rotation (for example of a galaxy) in space from the fact that the structure does not collapse - that is - from observing the effects of the centrifugal force.
In the meantime it is not known if the neutrino particles actually exceeded the speed of light.
The fact that you asked for all the formulas of the Le Sage model is all well and good - but you are the one trying to defend it, so it is more likely that you will present the formulas that you are defending.
In my opinion, there are enough physical refutations so that I will not bother looking for errors in the formulas either.
Michael.
What do you mean unfair? Do you think there's something I'm just asking just for the sake of it?
Since I am the only one who knows the answer (no!) then I can tell you that in this matter at least you are 100 percent wrong.
References to Le Sage: I don't remember any reference other than Wikipedia, and the discussions here on the site.
I remember many times asking for references to the La Sage formulas. I never received
I have explained several times that the model needs to be improved. My claim for two months now is that the other models for gravity are insufficient, or do not exist. Newton dodged. Einstein gave a mathematical model. Where is the physical explanation? How is it that if I scratch my ear, something moves in Pluto?
Graviton? Shouldn't he push instead of pull?
rotation Where is the explanation for section 2 in my response? Why if two discs rotate relative to each other, one really rotates and the other does not? And how is it possible to determine who is really walking just by looking at the stars?
I have no intention of confusing the mind. I'm terribly serious. I believe there may be an explanation, which could also explain the tachyon neutrino. And the truth is, I would like to see an explanation that would prove me wrong, so that I could turn to other things. I would of course be interested in receiving information and explanations that I lack, but not confusing generalities.
And the first and burning issue is the issue that I don't feel we have exhausted: the lengthening of time.
How does this relate to La Sage, and inertia? related also related
So if anyone is willing, interested, and able to give individual answers to individual questions, I would appreciate it.
And if not, that's fine too.
Oops, half past three - need to sleep. Good night.
Israel:
I answered your question fully so it is not clear why you are trying to clarify it again.
You are also making it difficult for no reason and unfairly.
Are you ready to accept the La Sage particles without knowing what they are made of?
And if they are composed of other things - then what are these things composed of?
You are making it difficult for the space in this matter - only because you decided in advance to reject the idea and not because you have a real reason.
With La Sage there are a lot of problems (a lot!) that you didn't address any of them (not a single one!).
Did you even try to read the links I gave you about it? I don't get that impression.
Regarding the tour:
There is a pretty big difference between "there is no reason" and "I don't know what the reason is".
By the way - the stars were certainly not stationary - we see that they are in constant motion. They are also in constant motion in relation to each other.
Therefore - the same simulated problem exists (if at all) even if Mach's principle is adopted.
I can't deal with your beliefs and of course I can't deal with secret arguments either (although based on past experience I don't think there is any bigotry in them)
jubilee
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317000
I must be specific: explain the constancy of the speed of light in any frame of reference. Only it.
Michael.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317005
1. If, for example, Hanan's aliens hijack the sun, how according to Einstein will we on Earth know within a few minutes that the story is over and we are returning to space? gravitons? Time space warp? Be that as it may, some agent is needed to deliver the bitter news.
I am not claiming that there are no problems with the Le Sage, just that any other model will also need a middleman. Maybe radiation. In any case, saying only that the "time space" is curved, and not saying what exactly that time space consists of, and I mean what physically, not a mathematical abstraction, is not enough for me. There is of course the possibility that I missed something. I will always be happy to learn.
2. Rotation. If, according to Einstein, the force, which we will call centrifugal, is determined even in a universe without stars, and the rotation is actually relative to the absolute time space, then there is no reason that in a universe with stars, the stars would also be stationary relative to that absolute time space. A situation can certainly arise that in the case of two rotating discs, where one of the discs measures force and the other does not, the stars will actually rotate relative to the stationary disc, or some do and some do not, and other combinations. I think there must be a deeper explanation for why the actual state of affairs is as Mach described it.
And, as I mentioned, why a complete rotation relative to the Milky Way only? Missing galaxies in the universe? Or maybe they are all on the same axis of rotation so that a rotation relative to one means a rotation relative to all of them?
3. https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-317002
The reason I believe there is a beautiful and elegant solution to La Sage's problems, and the friction in my head, is simple: I believe I have it.
But since I'm not trying to peddle any theory, I won't elaborate until I have more unequivocal supporting evidence.
Unless of course someone with some background would be interested in the idea. I would always welcome a peer review.
And one more thing for Israel:
What's wrong with Einstein-style warping of space as a way of gravitational influence from a distance?
In fact - this is a much more intuitive mechanism than the one attributed to the electromagnetic force in which there are situations in which photons hitting the body from a certain direction cause it to continue in the same direction from which they came.
Besides, (indirect) measurements of the speed of gravitation are consistent with the theory of relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
These measurements do not agree with Le Sage's calculations regarding the speed of the particles that he proposed - a speed that according to his calculations is ten times greater than the speed of light to the fifth power.
Israel!
It seems to me that this idea of Le Sage does not hold water, but it can still be interesting and fascinating to talk about it within the framework of the history and sociology of science.
Michael!
I call it "negligent" precisely because it is demagogic, evasive, and full of misrepresentations.
Israel:
Your beliefs about the future of La Sage theory have no basis and of course there is no way to argue with you.
What is clear is that they are wrong and that science rejected this theory a long time ago.
If you read in the places I pointed to, you will find mainly criticism of the corruptions Yehuda introduced into the theory, but also criticism of La Sage's own claims.
Much further criticism of Le Sage's theory appears in the corresponding Wikipedia entry.
One of the most interesting criticisms that appears there is that of Kant.
She poses a question that completely throws the ground under the whole idea and directly hits the point you are referring to - that of a force acting at a distance.
Let's go ahead and say that there are other forces that operate from a distance and in their existence neither La Sage, nor Judah, and I guess not you either - heretics (like the electromagnetic force, for example).
So the "principle" problem of remote action is not solved here.
Kant insists on the point that even if we didn't have such examples - a force acting from a distance would be necessary for the particles that create gravitation to remain particles at all (since without such a force they would simply disintegrate ad infinitum).
jubilee:
Yehuda's explanation is not negligent.
He is demagogic, evasive, and full of misrepresentations.
Israel Shapira,
The speed of light is also discussed in it.
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
My response to your words is awaiting confirmation
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
42 years ago, as a non-conformist high school student, I had a model in mind quite similar to yours. Since then it has developed, gone through some twists and turns and is still expanding. On the evening when Yizhar Cohen won the Eurovision Song Contest (April 22, 1978, but I prefer it that way for the sake of national pride), when all the neighbors' televisions played Avnivi over and over again, I made a discovery that finally convinced me of the correctness of my model. Since then, as mentioned, it has been developing. The elementary particles of that time are no longer elementary particles but third generation. When I start building from the first generation, I don't end up with gaseous particles like yours, but with something else that nicely and simply explains the dark phenomena and many other phenomena that you don't talk about.
And even so, I can't bring him conclusive evidence (except for the played discovery, but it's just a small private case), and that's why I don't publish it (yet) and only talk about it in limited intimate forums.
That's it for me.
And my take on you is that you're just fighting the wrong windmills. You have an idea that you want to spread widely but you are presenting it on the wrong stage. Your idea touches on a topic that is being discussed in certain academic institutions, and that is exactly where you should look for interested ears. It is true that it requires a kind of hard work and neat writing, but if you truly believe in the idea and believe that the world should recognize its importance, you must make an effort.
jubilee.
Does your sleeve solution also solve the problem of constancy of the speed of light in all inertial systems? Or, like Einstein, he leaves it as a postulate that does not require explanation or proof.
jubilee
I also hold my opinion for a long time and since our opinions are different then of course one of us is wrong and holds his opinion for four decades in vain.
I'm sure it won't be me,
And besides, I'm sorry that you think my explanation is careless, and that I have a bruised ego.
This is far from reality
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sorry. This response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-316006
Israel Shapira,
It is true that I did not give you an answer, simply because the one I have up my sleeve is not yet written in any book. But I sent you a hint from my musings. Please take a look at the comment below/above and please say if this gives the impression of being in the right direction
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/
I still haven't received a simple answer to my simple question: what better explanation than La Sage has for the fact that what happens here affects what happens there.
It is true that I only asked 20 times and only for two months.
I believe there is a beautiful and elegant solution to the problems at La Sage.
And also for the second problem I raised - why do the stars rotate when the head spins dizzy - I did not receive an answer.
It is quite clear to me that the two problems are related. This was also clear to Einstein, otherwise he would not have established the principle of equivalence of gravitation and inertia. What is not clear to me is why he gave up the Mach principle. If we feel that the head is spinning even in a universe empty of stars, how is it that the stars are spinning in exactly the same direction and to the same degree as us?
The same beautiful solution to problem A should also solve problem B.
Intuitively, this should shed light on the dark mass problem. The reason: if there is no more attraction, there is only push, all the laws change and start from A.
Gentle enough?
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Not only do I not doubt the existence of the dark mass, but I even predicted its existence about four decades ago and adhere to it with a piety reminiscent of your piety.
You may be surprised to hear that your model is quite reminiscent of my model, and this may be why I like your theory even though I find it wrong.
jubilee
It's your right to believe what you want and I'm certainly not mad.
I hope some doubt in the dark mass enters you
If it's not either, then no big deal
(:))
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Please don't get me wrong.
I believe that the explanations you give are wrong, since my understanding of the dark mass is different from yours. Even if I didn't have some understanding of the dark mass, I still wouldn't accept your words, because of the way you present them. But I like the personality you project and sympathize with the war you are waging, even though it seems lost to me.
Michael!
I agree with you that his explanation is wrong. I also agree with you that he selectively ignores the criticism and bends the part he does get to fit what he sees fit. There is no doubt that he is waging a losing battle over a bruised ego. Obviously, I am not praising him for these.
However, I appreciate him for asking the questions and wanting to find a solution to them - no matter if it's wrong or right.
jubilee:
It seems to me that you are a little confused.
Yehuda offered (a long time ago) his incorrect explanation.
He has received tons of criticism and he makes sure to ignore it and continue to sell nonsense to those who are willing to listen to him.
For this he is not worthy of praise but only reproach.
This continues, by the way, also in his last response (for this moment) in the current discussion.
He suggests readers not to accept the conclusions of science (which, by the way, I am the one who presented them) and he also continues the demagoguery.
for everyone
When you have one hour to deliver a lecture you can afford to bring only the conclusions.
The dark mass is found mainly in and around the outer layers of the galaxy. point.
I suggest not to be convinced by the words of Mikel, who contradicts these things.
Sorry to those who did not enjoy the lecture.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
"We need to check what is known about the amount of netrins, their permeability, the momentum they transfer in the event of a collision, what happens during a collision?, plastic/elastic?"
Wait, you haven't done it yet, but you're still deleting a solution that thousands of astrophysicists are working on? =\
Michael,
Sabdarmish Yehuda's way of working is full of loopholes and invites rebuttals. If his intention was only to popularize science, then it is forgiven. However, he is also trying to build a solid theory, and for that, nice words (such as "I did the math at home") are not enough. He makes assumptions (more than one) and to justify them in the ears of his audience he uses a failed terminology, like the examples you pointed out, and also demagogic means.
It is important to raise hypotheses to the world, and this is indeed how science works: a hypothesis is raised and subjected to refutation tests and other criteria (the flats, Ockham, etc.). Sabdarmish Yehuda tries to link two "dark" mysterious phenomena, which so far have not been linked, and also offers criteria for examining his ideas. If we ignore for a moment his unsuccessful treatment (as mentioned, failed nomenclature and demagoguery) there is reason to congratulate him on the initiative - even if his conclusions are wrong and far-fetched.
It should be clarified that the neutrino particles were previously also candidates for the subject of dark mass.
The current conclusion is that there are not enough of them for this purpose and therefore (and because they were discovered) they are treated as known mass and are not included in the phrase "dark mass".
I have already presented the many refutations of Yehuda's theory many times and it quite amazes me that people simply ignore the things.
I really suggest you read the arguments between us before you waste any more time on this nonsense.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/max-plank-and-first-days-of-quantoms-physics-1111083/#comment-137730
Regarding the lecture in the link - I listened to it until the point where he started repeating the same unfounded theories.
I wanted to see what he learned about dark matter.
I was amused by sentences such as "I did the calculations and it comes out as I said" or something like that.
It's especially funny when it comes from a person who claims to describe (mathematically!) collisions of trillions of particles without knowing how a collision of a single pair of particles behaves.
You are welcome to read this joke here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/glast-in-orbit-1306088/#comment-59048
Read this comment and all the ramifications that follow.
As I mentioned, I watched the lecture as long as it did not stray into the realms of hallucination, that is, as long as it tried to describe the existing scientific knowledge.
Beyond the attempts to deceive about his qualifications, Yehuda also deceives about the facts.
At minute 4:08 they start talking about the "speed of rotation of the galaxy".
Let it be clear:
There is no such thing.
Different stars in a galaxy have different rotation speeds around the center of the galaxy.
Their linear velocity is quite uniform and this is the source of the dark matter hypothesis. Their rotation speed (angular speed) is different.
At this point I still thought that Yehuda was just using confusing terminology, but when at minute 4:20 he tells us about the time it takes for a spiral galaxy to make a revolution around itself I realized that not only the terminology is confusing, but also the understanding.
At minute 08:56 it was said - the missing mass should be mainly in the gas clouds surrounding the galaxy.
This is not true.
Dark mass around the galaxy does not affect the rotation speed of the stars within the galaxy.
If we interpret "around" as including the entire galaxy - the word "mostly" has no meaning.
The concentration of the dark mass increases towards the center and in fact at every radius there is the same total amount of dark mass on the surface of the sphere in this radius around the center.
At minute 11:29 the observed position of the galaxies is wrong.
Their direction is correct but their distance is different.
At minute 0:28:09 he says that the Casimir effect is not understood.
In fact the effect is so understood that its magnitude was predicted in theory before it was measured in reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
Mandel, Tzbingi and Pushkash
correct! That's exactly what I'm trying to strive for
: )
jubilee
Worth checking
You need to check what is known about the amount of netrins, their permeability, the momentum they transfer in the event of a collision, what happens during a collision?, plastic/elastic?
I still haven't solved the friction problem that is being talked about and which Mikal also mentioned
It occurred to me that I would start with an experiment that would see if the idea of particle gravitation has anything to rely on
But, worth checking out.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
girlfriend, girlfriend, wait, wait,
La Sage particles cannot have a mass greater than the basic mass unit, otherwise there would have to be smaller particles that would give mass to the La Sage particles.
And this is because of the equivalence of gravity and inertia.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
With your permission, let's take your idea (and La Sage's) one step further.
Today we know for sure about the existence of neutrino particles and some of their properties. Why don't we assume that the neutrino particles alone are the desired particles? We know that their number is huge although only a tiny fraction of them reacts with large particles. Also, we know that unlike photons they have mass so the few that do react with large particles push them away.
Obviously, this assumption opens the door to many questions, but before we address them, let's see if we can agree that it is reasonable in itself.
for Jubilee
Good Morning
Indeed my/Le Sage's particles must also show gravitation, but gravitation works equally in almost every direction. The reason - because they are distributed quite identically throughout the universe with tiny differences, more or less like the background temperature of the universe.
Contrary to your opinion, some of my particles are unknown, such as netrins.
The singular point is determined by Newton's formulas and the theory of relativity. My explanation does not refer to these formulas, and does not assume their existence under the special conditions of being close to the singular point. therefore does not require a singular point.
As for the source of the mass in the universe, I really don't know, but if they find it, it will definitely fit the netrins and, of course, my particles as well.
Glad you found my lecture "likeable".
That's something too.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda, Shabbat Shalom.
I just finally watched your lecture.
You offer a unified explanation for two different phenomena, and for that you have my assessment (and Ockham's assessment) even before I entered the question of correctness.
While you don't like the dark mass, you actually accept it and just call it by a different name. The gas particles that you propose as a substitute for dark mass must have mass, because in order for them to have the force to push, they must have momentum - and momentum is the product of mass and velocity. And if they have mass, then they must also exhibit gravitation. Your gas particles are unknown, but so are the dark mass particles, so neither explanation has priority.
You don't like the singular point hypothesis. But if the galaxies move away in all directions, they move away from the singular point that is the center of gravity of all of them. The gas particles that push the galaxies probably originate from that singular point that you don't like.
Your explanation does go further than what is agreed upon in that it attributes mass to the particles of the unknown matter (whether it is gas or dark matter), but this additional assumption is essential, since with its help you manage to kill two birds with one stone. On the other hand, as long as you do not explain what the source of the material you propose is, just as the followers of the dark mass do not explain the source of their dark matter, you are not explaining enough either.
And a side note: I should note that the copulization of science, your lecture is kind.
Sabdarmish:
Thank you very much for an instructive pseudoscientific lecture.
Just one question,
Didn't your hands hurt after the lecture from all the waving?
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
I hope the patience has paid off. I will listen at the first opportunity.
(You look good too 🙂 )
Yuval Chaikin, Israel Shapira and others
Below is a link to the full lecture I gave at the Astronomical Society regarding the dark mass, the explanation is detailed and in addition questions from the audience.
https://plus.google.com/106551135075786275187/posts
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Those who want to know what Yael spoke about are invited to read here:
http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/
Israel:
It is true that thanks to Yehuda's responses I explain many things, but I also do this following questions that people ask without pretending to know better than all the scientists.
The need to deal with Yehuda's emotional reactions takes up a lot of time when I could have responded to factual questions.
You're just arguing... Everything is falling apart for us anyway.
Look at what the LHCb team discovered, there is a situation where the "big bang" theory is going to the trash! They discovered that antimatter and matter do not decay at the same rate... This has implications for some small things. Like for example - our physics theory.
In my opinion Yehuda and Michael do not fight at all.
They are just greedy hawks.
Except that without Yehuda's responses, all the articles would have ended with 2-3 nodding responses from those who agree. Lucky that we have an intuitive responder, for whom the universe is "simple" as we learned and loved in high school. Oh, how I miss the days when a wave was a wave, a particle was a particle, here was here, there was there, and velocities added up in vector form as expected. Between us, it was much simpler without all the annoying modern physics, and quantum mechanics in mind. No one understood this better than Einstein, who fought it all his life.
So long live, Yehuda. (I would say it in Turkish, but the only word I know is in Shikatesh).
Leave no stone unturned on the site!
(And not Turkish on Turkish either).
Google translation
"What does Sabdarmish Yehuda understand about the dark matter"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UL7F1K7fng&feature=related
deer
I wrote you a comment that is awaiting approval
It's quite tiring that something stands by the counter and decides when to close and when to turn on
I explained mine
The respondents will decide if the explanation suits them
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
deer
It is impossible to explain again and again
See my response
November 25, 2011 at 14:16 pm # Jubilee
And to others as well
If this is not convincing, then ask Mikkel, and apparently his physics will suit you better
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
deer:
Regarding black holes I pointed out two things.
One - as you noticed - is that they are dark, but the second is that, at least theoretically, it is possible that part of the mass in them (and maybe a large part) could be dark matter (and because the holes themselves are dark we cannot distinguish this).
I presented this in connection with the center of the galaxy where black holes are treated as something separate from the dark matter, thereby reducing the required amount of dark matter (something that brings the two graphs closer at the beginning).
My intention was to point out that this reference is not necessarily correct.
To Judah
As mentioned - the estimated profile of the dark matter density at large distances from the center of the galaxy fades as the square of the distance http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/specr/012/node7.html. Only such a profile will ensure a constant rotation speed like the one you want to explain by modifying Newton's (or actually Einstein's) law.
The meaning of this kind of profile is that the density is highest in the center but most of the mass is outside the visible part of the galaxy (in fact, with its radius being one tenth of the radius of the halo, it contains one tenth of its mass).
As for the statement that a black hole is dark matter
This is of course literally true, but when it comes to dark matter today, it is a matter of a different type characterized by more than the three properties that characterize a black hole (mass, energy and electric charge).
I wish everyone success for the opening of the new orchestra "Nukta Nebara" (with occasional jubilee)
And of course, with maestro Michael.
Strengthen and embrace your way to scientific happiness.
And by the way, there is a proverb in Turkish:
Eshek hoshaftan ne anlar
Good week to all of you
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Everyone:
Does Yehuda really think you are blind and stupid?https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-316236)?
was Created:
Certainly yes and it has already been discussed a lot: it is the same theory with the addition of some corruptions.
And one more thing
I believe you are wrong, but it is important to me that you retain the right to express your opinion. Da Aka, that you express and express and express...
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For a sin that I have sinned before you, knowingly and unknowingly, please forgive me
Oh Yehudala Yehudala, what will happen to you. You still think you're Einstein huh?
Do you even know how to solve tensor equations in relativity?
How familiar are you with equations from quantum mechanics?
I had a friend in high school who didn't know how to solve a quadratic equation, but for some reason he thought he was Einstein.
Isn't the thesis of Mr. Sabdarmish the same ancient theory known as Le Sage's theory of gravitation? (only without the complex developments).
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeSage_gravity
Note that in the diagram, graph A is the expected velocity based on the apparent mass, and graph B is the measured velocity
Everyone is invited to see the graph that Mikal gave to "prove" his words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GalacticRotation2.svg
There you can clearly see that close to the center of the axes the measured speed is the one expected from the mass, therefore there is no need at all for additional mass to be found in the galaxy. No black holes and no plaster.
On the other hand, at the edge of the galaxy there is a big difference between the small speed expected from the measured mass and the large speed measured, therefore there is a need for additional mass, dark or not, to create more gravitation that will justify a greater rotational speed.
Finally, Michael, since I'm sure you figured it out a long time ago, so I'm pretty tired of explaining it to you.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yuval Chaikin
I just returned from an astronomical observation in the south, your response is a bit unfair
You asked a question so I answered you
Not trying to push anything on you
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda
It seems to me that in exact sciences, even before bringing the results of experiments, it is useful to bring arguments based on formulas and numbers because, as we know, these are hard to argue with. I adopt this approach and do not bombard the site with descriptions of my model (although I occasionally sin by mentioning it) and recommend that everyone do as I do.
Israel Shapira
I'm talking about any model in which paradoxes emerge. By the term "paradox" I mean contradictions. Also, if in any model I come across an unclear claim that raises more questions than it provides answers, I treat it with suspicion. To Tommy, I thought that in the (Mach) model you brought I found things that were not clear and therefore I said what I said.
Yehuda (https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-316160):
I don't call you that's why I don't call you a liar.
When I claim that you are lying - I point to the lie.
You want me to call a lie "truth"?
I do not feel like it!
All your talk about not knowing the difference between concentration and amount is unfounded and many times I have written on this site that the concentration is high in the centers of the galaxies but the large amount is outside them.
All in all, this is another attempt on your part to challenge my credibility and make the readers forget the fact that you talked about concentration - and more about concentration in an unknown ring.
Yehuda (https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-316161 ):
The Lord was not at home at all and the Lord did not approve.
I already told you that more than one person is involved in the issue, but it doesn't matter because you are on a smear campaign against one person.
Yehuda (https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-316162 ):
I don't call you that's why I don't call you a liar.
When I claim that you are lying - I point to the lie.
You want me to call a lie "truth"?
I do not feel like it!
Yehuda (all other responses):
In the graph I brought in my first response to Chen - this graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GalacticRotation2.svg
We see that the dark mass is needed already very close to the center of the galaxy.
Right in the center of the galaxy there are usually black holes, so we don't talk about the need for additional mass, but hey!
1. Black holes are dark!
2. Go find out if they themselves were not created, among other things, from a lot of dark mass.
All this assuming of course that the dark mass exists.
I am very skeptical
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
jubilee
But, for example, there are places close to the center of the galaxy where there is enough baryonic mass to justify the rotation and there is no need at all for dark mass, therefore its density is zero per unit volume, which is of course less than the density per unit volume in the distant regions.
But again, Yuval, look in the literature and on the Internet and decide for yourself.
jubilee
The dark mass found at the edges of the galaxy is in greater quantity than the dark mass found near the center of the galaxy, but regarding its density, i.e. dark mass per unit volume, the story is a little different and it is possible that in some areas close to the center it is denser than at the edges because it is found in a smaller volume.
jubilee
Why do you listen to me or Michael?
Check for yourself on Wikipedia
And Michael - I demand from you for the umpteenth time that you stop calling me a liar
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yuval, I wrote you a response and will wait until the Lord approves
Happy Jubilee Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
jubilee
Why do you listen to me or Michael?
Check for yourself on Wikipedia
And Michael - I demand from you for the umpteenth time that you stop calling me a liar
You apparently don't know the difference between the "amount of dark mass" and the "density of dark mass"
The dark mass found at the edges of the galaxy is in greater quantity than the dark mass found near the center of the galaxy, but regarding its density, i.e. dark mass per unit volume, the story is a little different and it is possible that in some areas close to the center it is denser than at the edges because it is found in a smaller volume.
But, for example, there are places close to the center of the galaxy where there is enough baryonic mass to justify the rotation and there is no need at all for dark mass, therefore its density is zero per unit volume, which is of course less than the density per unit volume in the distant regions.
But again, Yuval, look in the literature and on the Internet and decide for yourself.
All this assuming of course that the dark mass exists.
I am very skeptical
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
jubilee:
I see that general statements are not enough, so I will explain again - this time with examples.
When Judah says:
"Everything I wrote about the dark mass is true and is from what is accepted in literature."
After he said that the dark mass is concentrated in some kind of ring far from the center of the galaxy and opposed my claim and Zvi's claim and Wikipedia's claim that the concentration of the dark mass increases as you get closer to the center of the galaxy, this is probably a mistake of the type you are talking about - that is - one that results from a misunderstanding or a lack of logic or forgetfulness or any number of other things .
Conversely, when in this response https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-315968
He claims that contrary to what he said - the behavior of the clusters has an equational description and "confirms" this without pointing to any equation - even after my many hesitations - this is a deliberate lie.
It's probably really a lie of the kind used by religious people who are in other religions: when there is no argument that can defend their senseless statements, they try to attack those who oppose them and challenge their credibility.
When they do not have correct arguments against the credibility of the opponents - they resort to demagogic arguments.
For example - in the above response - it was actually said that Michael is wrong and then "confirmation" was brought that does not belong to the matter in the hope that the reader will not understand that there is no connection and will conclude that it has been proven that Michael is wrong.
jubilee
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-316076
"If paradoxes emerge in a mental model, then it is not true and it is necessary to correct it, expand it or sometimes simply throw it away."
You are right, of course, but it is not clear to me which paradoxes are involved, and which model.
You are XNUMX% correct in both of your conclusions.
Indeed I need to explain the unclear sentence
I'll explain it again
There is an accepted opinion in the scientific literature regarding the dark mass and when asked, I explain it, where it comes from, and what it means. And in addition I explain why the existence of the dark mass stems from the accelerated expansion of the universe. Because it must go together the mass and the dark energy
This also seems clear in the first part of my YouTube talk
All I meant was that the acceptability of the explanation is correct.
As you know, I do not agree with the accepted explanation.
Hope it's clear now
Good Day
And thanks for the comment/clarification
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda, good morning.
First, thank you for the link to the video lecture series of the Astronomical Club of Tel Aviv University. It is interesting and fascinating material for many hours.
Second, something about criticism. In the sentence "Everything I wrote about the dark mass is true and is from what is accepted in literature", you said two statements that rang in my ears. My opinion is that:
A) As scientists, we cannot point to anything with certainty as true.
b) Even the fact that the things are accepted in the literature does not make them certainly true.
jubilee
Also try the video lecture series of the Astronomical Club of Tel Aviv University
http://astroclub.tau.ac.il/video_h.htm
There are many lectures on science and astronomy
For your judgment
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yuval Chaikin
Everything I wrote about the dark mass is true and is from what is accepted in the literature.
I suggest you read two books on the subject:-
The universe - Meir Midev, Noah Barosh, Hagai Netzer
The dark side of the universe - Dr. Zafir Kolet
In these two books you can see where the dark mass comes from and how it is distributed in the spiral galaxy.
Why should you ask my opinion or the opinion of others.
Decide alone.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Indeed, a "watchdog" is needed here against logical failures, incorrect facts, etc.
The fact that the debater on duty is inconsistent can be due to the fact that he changes his mind and in the process refines his model to fit the new facts that are presented to him. It is also possible that he is waging a rallying battle in order to digest the failure of the idea without admitting defeat.
Wouldn't you agree with me that it is sad to see how a platform for substantive discussions turns into an arena for ego wars?
jubilee:
It is not about the vain claims of his theories.
Although a lie is involved here as well and I don't accept the claim that he believes everything he says (and I can give examples of this), but what boils me down are mainly other lies - those that are an integral part of his sales efforts and arguments.
I complain about these much more than the others.
I do get into arguments and I don't enjoy it either.
However - I saw that if no one stands up to the lie, it becomes the main content of the site.
Liar or not, he believes what he says and his insistence turned into a battle for ego.
You are doing a blessed job here. Much of the good education I have recently acquired I credit to you,
But I'm sorry for the exhausting arguments you often get into.
Yehuda (https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-316029):
I have no idea what "other" explanation you are talking about.
In the response you responded to, I did not write any new or "different" explanation.
Jubilee ( https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-316052 ):
I am aware of the malicious connotation of the word lie and I used the word because it correctly described the facts.
It has nothing to do with religious fervor.
It is true that the defenders of religion often lie, but my dislike for them stems more from their lies than from their belief in nonsense (and less than from the coercion they exert on the citizens of the country)
Israel Shapira!
I'll start with the last sentence:
You assume that in my opinion the connection between masses is made through what I define as "dark matter" that fills the entire universe, and carries through it the forces of gravity and the electromagnetic waves (you also refer to it as an "enhanced ether", but I ignore this comment of yours with your permission).
I can lecture you about my model, but it describes an obviously "unrealistic" reality and it probably won't answer your questions.
On the other hand, I have no right to answer about the models you ask about, since I am not familiar with them. Intuitively means only that if paradoxes emerge in a thought model, then it is not correct and it is necessary to fix it, expand it or sometimes simply throw it away.
jubilee
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-316064
"For example, what do you mean by "it is clear, at least to both of us, that if the only rotational rest system of the stars is the same as that of the centrifugal rest system, then the two phenomena are related."
Let's first make sure we're both talking about the same thing.
1. Let's take 10 spaceships, each with cameras, and all moving on one axis at different speeds. The ships photograph the stars outside and each other.
As for each ship, she is the one at rest and the others are in motion. We, as bystanders, have no way of knowing who is really resting, even if we look at the photographs, simply because there is no such thing as resting or moving. All non-accelerated motion is relative. Galileo.
2. Let's now take 10 flying saucers, which rotate at different speeds relative to a certain axis. As observers from the sidelines, we will not be able to tell just from the photos of the plates who is resting and who is moving around. On the other hand, those sitting on the plates know very well whether they are resting or turning, and even in which direction. (clockwise or counterclockwise). This is how centrifugal force is measured.
3. Now, if one of the plates has come to the conclusion that it is at rest (no power), and those sitting in it open the window, they will see the stars at rest. In all other dishes, the passengers will see the sky rotating, in full accordance with the centrifugal force they measured before opening the window.
4. The same will happen in any other axis of rotation.
So far, it goes without saying. The conclusion - at least Mach's - is that it is not accidental. And in a universe empty of matter, no one would have their head turn while rotating, because rotation is only relative to the distribution of matter in the universe, and matter affects the rotating system.
I assumed, in light of your words earlier, that you also hold a similar opinion, and in your opinion the connection between masses is made through what you defined as "dark matter", which is actually an enhanced site, which fills the entire universe, and carries through it the forces of gravity and the electromagnetic waves.
I understand it right?
Israel Shapira
In your response this
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-316039
You wrote a lot of things and built a long argument that ended with an interesting question. I don't want to seem impolite and dismissive, but I can't answer you about things I don't know.
Please refer the question to someone else or, alternatively, we will start reviewing your comments one by one.
For example, what do you mean by "it is clear, at least to both of us, that if the only rotational rest system of the stars is the same as that of the centrifugal rest system, then the two phenomena are related."?
I once read the story that the bull is actually color blind in "Haaretz Shlanu" and I believed it. Today I'm not sure that's true. So are many physical models that I have studied or devised.
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
You seem ready to accept the dark matter, except it's the same lady in a disguise. Actually you are talking about gas.
As a gas, it will indeed behave as in diffusion and its particles will move from a dense area to a sparse area and on the way make wind.
But if it is not a gas, but if the medium on which the waves of matter and the waves of electromagnetic radiation move (once again I put my model in the back door), then its behavior is not necessarily gaseous
Dear point
Yes, I love myself more than any science and even love you, and even Mikkel more than all the science books.
Any normal human being I like more than an abstract thing called science.
and Yuval Chaikin
About a year ago, I sent an article to the science website, which is about exactly what Michael was talking about now on the subject of the density of the dark mass, and I wrote there that the density of dark mass in different regions must cause the dark mass particles to flow (assuming they exist) from the concentrated side to the sparse side (dark wind)
They did not scientifically confirm the article. My father told me that he is willing to publish things only by consensus. unfortunately.
Besides, you know for sure that the bull is actually color blind. In fact, the red color comes to excite the human spectators, the bull is only irritated by the movement of the cloth.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
As an observer from the side, Yehuda, it seems to me that you do not love science more than you love yourself.
Therefore you cannot really contribute to science.
Sabdarmish Yehuda!
Thanks for the link. I have already watched your lecture several times. As you mentioned, there are time and volume limitations and maybe that's why you left more questions than answers.
and for the pressure differential model:
If the dark matter (or any name given to it, for example "gazcom") acts like a gas, then there is definitely room to talk about pressure. However, if the dark matter makes up all the matter in the universe (which is my model, for now) then its action on baryonic particles (which are nothing but dark matter with great density) must be described differently.
And regarding the heated debate between you and Lord Voldemort (that is, he who must not be named):
I believe you that you are truly convinced of the correctness of your gas model, simply because I once also built a similar model and kept it for a long time. There is no doubt that you are offended when you are called a "liar", because this nickname has an allusion to malicious intentions and I know that you are free of such. On the other hand, your adherence to this model is reminiscent of religious fervor - and for your spicy bar phlogta it is like waving a red sheet in front of the eyes of a bull with sharpened horns that weighs two tons
My friend Yuval Chaikin
no and no!
but
I know very, very well the story of the dark mass and the reasons that caused its reception
Only when you perfectly understand the problematic of any subject are you also able to solve it.
And again, as our friend from He has pointed out more than once (and admits that I objected to his instructive explanation) that there is a great similarity between the dark mass explanation and the pressure difference explanation. Because in both they talk about an additional mass that acts in the universe only while there they only talk about gravitation, I claim that the issue of pressure difference should also be included in the calculations and it is not "fair" to ignore it.
If you haven't seen the explanation on YouTube, go there and see how I define the problem and what conclusions I draw from it. I'd be glad to hear your opinion.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAo5BQQpBqQ
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda!
So now you do believe in dark matter!?
Brother! Hooray! We managed to convert you!
And from today you deserve the title "converted heretic" 😉
Dear Michael
I'm sorry that you think, God forbid, that we are many, absolutely not!
After all, we do everything for the science we love so much.
I'm glad you found another explanation
And we can truly say now:-
A Redeemer came to Zion, and a dark mass to the universe.
Good day to Michael and everyone
And really, really, just now
The sun peeked out from among the dark clouds!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
jubilee
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-316006
This cannot be complete nonsense (Mach's principle). It is a fact that Berkeley, Mach, and Einstein at the time embraced the theory warmly. It is not clear to me why Einstein dropped the theory. But let's see where my problem is:
1. It is clear, at least to both of us, that if the only rotational rest system of the stars is the same as that of the centrifugal rest system, then the two phenomena are related.
2. Mach's principle says that the reason is that all the masses in the universe affect each other.
3. It is actually possible to mathematically derive inertia from gravitation, as Denis Shima did.
4. My problem: according to my logic, during centrifugal rest we should have been at rest relative to the weighting of all the galaxies in the universe. In practice, we are only at rest relative to the Milky Way galaxy.
5. And hence my question in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-315736
It could of course be that, due to the distance of the other galaxies, their influence is negligible. Or, as I asked, that for some reason I don't know all the galaxies rotate on the same vector axis, so that a rotation relative to one is actually a rotation relative to all of them.
But this (the same axis) is a very unlikely explanation of course. What we are left with in practice, is that inertia and gravitation originate from the milk path only. But even though this assumption solves the problem qualitatively, it is known that the gravitational constant G is proportional to the rest of the mass in the universe according to the formula: GM=RC^2.
where R is the radius of the universe and M is its mass
So we are left with the same problem:
How is it that the distant galaxies determine the value of G, but do not participate in determining the rotational rest system of bodies in our immediate surroundings, which, as mentioned, are only affected by the Milky Way?
Yehuda and Michael
It is incorrect to say that most of the mass of the dark matter is in the outer parts of the galaxy.
As you remember, the existence of the dark matter explains the fact that the rotation speed of the stars around the center of the galaxy is constant (approximately independent of the distance from the center of the galaxy).
A mass distribution corresponding to such a velocity profile is a density that decays as the square of the distance (a simple result of the virial law), meaning that the dark matter is more compressed in the center than at the edges and each spherical shell contains the same mass of dark matter.
Sometimes it is said (by various opponents of dark matter) that this is a very specific distribution that is required, but the truth is that it is a fairly common distribution that is similar to it detected in other places (for example, the distribution of the material seen in the central bulge of our galaxy or other galaxies has a quite similar profile).
As for the statement that external mass has no effect
It derives from Gauss' theorem and is true in such a general way only in the case of exponential symmetry
Michael please please confirm my last comment
She is so full of optimism
please!
Dear Michael
I'm sorry that you think, God forbid, that we are many, absolutely not!
After all, we do everything for the science we love so much.
I'm glad you found another explanation
And we can truly say now:-
A Redeemer came to Zion, and a dark mass to the universe.
Good day to Michael and everyone
And really, really, just now
The sun peeked out from among the dark clouds!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Since it is clear to me that there is nothing to expect a substantive answer to my words, I decided to add some information without this type of answer (after all - in the end - I am responding here to share knowledge and the quarrels with Yehuda are just a price I pay for this purpose).
First of all - if I were to rephrase things - I would use the phrase "formulaic description" instead of "equational description" because - as I already mentioned - there is a description using differential equations, but these do not have a known solution in the form of a formula.
Not that it confused anyone (hand waves are not differential equations) but accuracy is important to me personally.
Second - the whole purpose of my words (I mentioned this) was to point out the difficulty in finding a formula for the movement of more than three bodies under the influence of gravity.
Those interested in the subject can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem
Yes.
More questions?
What about answers?
to Michael
Now that we all know what an "equational description" is, do you really think, dear Mikkel" that Zwicky and others did their calculations on the galaxy clusters without (and I quote) "an equational description of the behavior of a galaxy cluster"?
Maybe try another explanation.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Equational description (as if it wasn't obvious) - this is a description using an equation/formula.
It is a description that accepts certain parameters (in the current context - for example - the time) and as a result of applying the formula to the parameters gives a result (in our context - for example - the position of the galaxies at this point in time).
I deliberately emphasized the difference between this type of description and a description obtained by simulation (which is even more accurate than the hand gestures Judah used).
I also said that a description through simulation (derived from the differential equations arising from the laws of gravity) exists (and obviously a description through waving of hands exists).
Now, Yehuda, since you just now decided to ask what I meant by the phrase "comparative description", we must conclude that when you answered the response in which the phrase appeared - you had some kind of assumption about its meaning (since it is inconceivable that you responded to a response that you knew you did not understand).
Please - share with the holy audience the interpretation you gave to the expression when you responded to it, and explain how your response constitutes a "comparative description" according to the definition you adopted while writing the response.
Perhaps you could explain to us, Mr. Mikkel, what is meant by the words comparative description
That way I can know where I "confuse (intentionally)" the responders
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
You confuse (intentionally) between a comparative description and a very general description which, beyond its generality, is also inaccurate.
I repeat and emphasize (as if such a thing needs to be explained at all) - my words were said within a certain context and the context is Yehuda's claim to bring or point to a comparative description.
No such description was given and everything else is nothing but the old and bad round of twists and turns.
Yehuda:
I really don't understand why you wrote your last comment.
Is it meant to "contradict" something I said?
If so - it does not.
I completely agree with what is written there and I knew it before you quoted Hagai Netzer
The explanation can also be seen here
http://www.snunit.k12.il/heb_journals/galileo/2130.html
There is an exhaustive explanation of how Tzviki discovered the dark mass in his measurements of galaxy clusters
The commenters will decide if the description I wrote in my response from 0:46 is correct or incorrect.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Mikal refers to my response from 0:46
He defines it as "the description is also incorrect and that is why galaxies in a cluster collide from time to time."
I refer the readers to Professor Hagai Netzer's article "Astronomy on the Edge of a Fork". He understands astrophysics more than me and Michael together.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwise-obs.tau.ac.il%2F~netzer%2Flectures%2Fbasic_astronomy.doc&ei=ghPOTvTmH4mJhQeOjsXcDQ&usg=AFQjCNFfza6q1izOXBNsFBSsdwNG72b99g
There on page 10 it says and I quote:-
"Galaxy clusters are much larger than individual galaxies. The diameter of a rich galaxy cluster is about 5 million light years. One of the mysteries associated with these giant systems is the amount of mass they contain. There are different ways to measure the mass in clusters and most of them are based on the simple idea that the greater the amount of mass, the greater the gravitational forces. The result is that in systems with a large amount of mass, the bodies will move at high speeds. Measuring the speed of movement of a galaxy (using a method called "Doppler shift" which we will get to know later) makes it possible to estimate the amount of mass in the cluster.
The amount of mass in galaxy clusters was recently measured, using such methods, and was found to be much greater than the "apparent" mass of the galaxies and the intergalactic gas together. That is, in galaxy clusters there is material that does not emit any radiation and its existence can only be inferred from the movement of the galaxies in the cluster. Astronomers call this material the "dark mass". End quote.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
There is no such thing as "those who hold her back".
It's like asking "Who didn't wash the dishes?"
When you find dirty dishes it is a sign that no one has washed them.
The responses that are not inhibited by a person but by the automatic system wait until someone responsible enters the site and handles them.
Israel:
I'm talking about persistence in a "straight line".
Rotational "persistence" is accelerated motion.
For those who are still not clear:
What appears in Judah's description is not a comparative description.
The description is also incorrect and that is why galaxies in the cluster occasionally collide.
Israel
You have two phenomena at your disposal variance that you can tell by them that you are walking around. One is the motion of the landscape (the stars, in this example) rotating relative to you. The other is the centrifugal force (which comes from persistence and rotation) that you can measure. Mach came (and he is not the only one) and said that these two phenomena are related to each other, let's say that the movement of the landscape relative to you exerts forces just like your movement (which is measured relative to the landscape).
Apparently you may think that this is complete nonsense, but if you accept that you and the entire universe are connected to each other through an intermediary hard, Mach's idea would sound logical.
The question is what is this hard medium. I, with masterful consistency, point to the dark matter that is the subject of the article.
Mikel
Please confirm my response
I'm sure Israel and others will want to know about her
If something bothers you there, let me know by email and we'll fix it
Good Morning
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael
"Even when there is no rotation but you are moving due to persistence - you will not feel centrifugal force, but if this is the case - you will see the stars moving."
not clear to me.
How can you see the stars spinning and not feel centrifugal force? Or on the contrary, to feel the power and see the stars standing still?
Do you mean straight line persistence, or rotational persistence?
Think about a fast spin in vertigo, for example 10 spins per second. Is it possible to watch the stars spin so fast without getting dizzy from the sheer force?
Mikel
A response I wrote to you is awaiting approval.
Speed up those who delay it
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Regarding Michael's response, there is actually a comparative description of the behavior of the galaxy cluster, and the discovery of the dark mass was also made by examining the behavior of the galaxies in the galaxy clusters. What happens is that the cluster of galaxies has a mass that pulls the galaxies that are members of the cluster, and these move as follows:- They move from the edge of the cluster, are drawn towards the center, pass through the center area and slow down until they reach the other side of the cluster. Of course, if the mass of the cluster is greater, the average speed of the galaxies is higher. If so, it is possible to measure the average velocity in the cluster according to the Doppler effect in both directions which causes thicker absorption lines, and from this the amount of mass found in the cluster can be deduced. And see it's a miracle, the measured mass was several times the sum of the apparent masses of the cluster. Conclusion:- There is another invisible mass in the cluster - the dark mass.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel:
Mach's principle is not really important for the answer to your question and as for its correctness - opinions differ and there is currently no way to test it.
My point is that the answer can assume that the persistence is a result of the existence of objective space or assume that the persistence is relative to the totality of the masses in the universe and still be the same answer.
It is important for me to emphasize, in this context, that the centrifugal force is an imaginary force derived from persistence, and that is why I spoke about persistence.
What you said about detecting the rotation is correct, but the description of the situation where there is no rotation is not accurate:
Even when there is no rotation but you are moving due to persistence - you will not feel centrifugal force, but if this is the case - you will see the stars moving.
The galaxies in the different clusters are bound together by gravity and their movement derives from it.
In general - the movement of more than three bodies under the force of gravity cannot be predicted by a simple equation and all that can be done to predict the movement is to perform a simulation.
The simulation will be more accurate the smaller its "time steps" are.
Ask: So how is it that we still know how galaxies that have hundreds of billions of stars or even solar systems that have dozens of bodies behave.
The answer lies in two phenomena:
One is that in each of these two environments is organized - more or less - on a plane (the reason for this fact lies in the fact that these are relatively close bodies that have for a long time been in an interaction that includes both gravitation and collisions, with each collision moderating the degree of deviation of those involved from the "norm" .I won't elaborate on that right now). By the way - this is not true for elliptical galaxies and the movement of the stars in them is, therefore, less predictable.
The second is that in each of these environments there are very dominant masses in the center that allow the neglect of other masses.
But even in these environments, when you want an accurate prediction - you have to base it on a simulation - there is no equation that gives the Earth's orbit. It is elliptical - almost round - approximately, but it is also subtly influenced by the other planets and the moons.
As far as I know, this is not the case in galaxy clusters.
The galaxies in the clusters are generally scattered - in the three-dimensional space and do not have a dominant body to an unusual degree.
Therefore - as far as I know - there is no equational description of the behavior of a galaxy cluster.
Yuval, Michael, thank you very much.
Without a doubt I think this is one of the most fascinating topics, and their study is immeasurably important.
I wish in the future I will have the privilege to take part in it.
Good night.
Israel Shapira
I wrote an answer to part of your question and it is waiting for approval.
We'll wait patiently
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Israel Shapira
Regarding the Mach principle, I am not well versed and will not be able to answer you
Regarding the second part: - I was hoping that a person with more knowledge would answer you (and me), but since he didn't, it's better that I share my limited knowledge with you. I would be happy if someone would upgrade / correct / what I wrote.
Well your question:-
“What about other galaxies? Do they rotate relative to each other, or are they all stationary? What about their axes of rotation? Are they on the same axis, or is each galaxy completely independent and unrelated to the other? Or maybe just like all the planets in the solar system are on the same plane, so there is some common denominator for the galaxies?" End quote.
Answer:- As far as I know, most of the movements of the galaxies appear to be random, they are certainly not in the same plane and also completely not on the same axis, they are usually concentrated in clusters of galaxies and these are arranged like a network of webs in the universe with empty parts extending between them
Again, as far as I know.
Tl
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael or someone
Maybe you have an answer to my question in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-315736
Thanks.
I found the original article in Scientific American in English.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/search/?q=DAMA&x=10&y=1
The source of the error is a misunderstanding by the translator.
Write a name:
If dark matter rings the galaxy as theory predicts, Earth should be oscillating back and forth through a sea of particles. And DAMA should be able to register a yearlong ebb-and-flow cycle in the number of dark-matter particles passing through the detector.
When the meaning of the word rings in this case is "encompassing" or "surrounding".
It is easy to see that this is the intention if you read a little further:
In more than a dozen years of operation, DAMA has registered a seasonal fluctuation in particle hits that agrees with what a dark matter sea should look like.
Here we see that it is a "sea" of dark matter.
Actually - upon re-reading the article in Hebrew, I see that in it too - at another point - the phrase "sea of dark particles" appears.
so that's it.
If anyone had any doubt.
Jubilee ( https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-315889 ):
I hope that I have now repaired the damage caused to Chen's education.
Mikel
I will not respond to your last comment so as not to open Pandora's box
And regarding the controversial scientific opinions
The respondents will decide
Because that's what matters
I have to move in half an hour for my eyes and there may be a break in my comments until tonight.
All the best
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
Every time I said you were lying - I also pointed to the lie.
I am firm in my opinion that I claimed that you lied - it is true.
I don't understand why you chose to talk about it in this response.
The rest of the comment is probably an attempt to give a (wrong) explanation for the density of the dark mass, but you really can't tell, and maybe you wrote it just like that without any context (and without any reason).
I explained exactly how the density of the dark mass can be calculated.
You can't do anything with the waves of your hands.
Mikel
Unfortunately, arguments with you quickly deteriorate into accusations such as
Yehuda "You're a liar" or "I'm not telling the truth," etc.
And you will understand that as an engineer in industrial management mainly in the fashion industry, factory owners bring me the future fashions with complete faith that I have not passed them on to their competitors
Therefore defining me as a liar or not telling the truth regularly can hurt me badly
So please try to avoid it
I explained mine clearly. But I will try again:-
For example, increasing the mass at the center of our solar system, that is, of our sun by nine times, would increase the speed of all the planets by three times (root of nine) and not just the speed of the farthest ones. To increase only the distance speed where it is necessary to add material between the planets in the form of rings or balls of mass centered on the Sun. This will be a mass that will affect the speed of the planets external to it and not internal to it.
There is no point in adding
I'm sure most of the science commenters have the ability to decide which of the two of us is right
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
a few questions:
1. Where do you get the matter of the sphere and the non-effect of the mass in the outer spheres?
2. Can you explain why the above claim is true?
3. Where did you get the interest with differential equations?
4. Do you even know how to solve differential equations?
On the subject of the distribution of dark matter - not only I, but also Wikipedia thinks differently.
Unlike you - I also explained the matter.
Do you think there is an error in the explanation? Can you point to the same error?
Of course not, and therefore - it's not a shame that I think differently, but luck that there is someone who really understands what he's talking about (and therefore thinks differently than you)
הצהרה
I did not copy anything from Mikal's explanations
Wikipedia is little more than its good or bad explanations.
Regarding the explanation
To explain the strange rotational motion of spiral galaxies, dark matter should be mostly in the outer parts of the galaxy
Only in this way will it be possible to explain the great rotational speed of the outer parts.
Too bad Michael thinks otherwise.
In the center there is a little dark mass but it is found in a small volume so its density per unit volume is high.
Most of the dark mass is supposed to be in the gas clouds around the galaxy. There, the dark mass will reside in a large volume, therefore its density per unit volume will (perhaps) be smaller than the mass density per unit volume in the center of the galaxy.
But, I repeat and emphasize again
Most of the dark mass must be at the edges of the galaxy. point.
Too bad it's explained differently.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Grace:
I apologize for the late response, but I'm very busy these days (and you may have noticed a drastic decrease in the number of my responses on the site of the scientist on any subject).
Yehuda's explanations, some of them are copied from explanations I gave elsewhere (including the reference to differential equations which, when taken out of their original context, is no longer relevant), another part of them does summarize passages that appear on Wikipedia, some of them still express Yehuda's misunderstandings, and some of them are attempts to sell "his" theories that have been disproved by hundreds years before he was born (and he added mistakes to them after he was born).
The existence of dark matter in galaxies is inferred from the fact that the rotation speed of the stars in them does not decrease with distance as would be expected if the mass distribution were that of the visible mass and additional (dark) mass is required to explain the fact that in reality - the rotation speed looks like in this graph
(The dashed line describes the speed that would have resulted according to the known laws of gravitation - from the apparent mass. The continuous line describes the speed that was actually observed)
As it is easy to see - dark mass is needed everywhere in the galaxy to explain this speed - not only at the edge of the galaxy.
A simple calculation that I have already presented HERE Explains the distribution of the dark mass in the galaxy and as you can see - this mass is mainly concentrated in the region of the center of the galaxy.
Wikipedia shows other formulas regarding the concentration of dark mass, but they also indicate a much greater density in the center of the galaxy than at its edges.
These formulas are shown HERE
In other words - the usual dark matter theory does not predict the ring mentioned in the article.
I estimate that this is a misunderstanding by the author of the article or a poor wording in the article itself (or in its translation).
Note that he talks about there having to be annual changes in particle density.
This is actually observed by the normal theory and there is no need for a ring!
Every year - there is a phase when we are close to the center of the galaxy and there is a phase when we are far from the center of the galaxy.
According to the theory of density fading with distance - these changes in our distance from the center of the galaxy should be expressed in changes in the density of dark matter.
In order for such a phenomenon to be explained by a "ring" - a very special ring that crosses the orbit of the Earth is necessary.
The dark matter theory was built based on observations in many galaxies and as we know - the Earth is only in one galaxy so no theory will talk about a ring that crosses the Earth's orbit.
Dark matter has many evidences of which the speed of rotation of galaxies is only one of them.
There is also evidence of its existence in the movement of entire galaxies in galaxy clusters (and in fact - despite the density decreasing with the distance from the center of the galaxy, because of the huge distances separating the galaxies, and perhaps for other reasons, most of the dark matter is found between the galaxies and not in them)
There is evidence arising from gravitational repulsion and these evidences agree with the others (in terms of the prediction they give for the division of the dark matter. This is, therefore, two different types of confirmations for the same hypothesis and this of course strengthens the confidence in its correctness).
The dark matter is attributed quite strange properties, the most important of which is a very low interaction with the particles we know (including the particles of light), but this no longer belongs to the current discussion and you are welcome to read about it in other comments I wrote on the subject and on Wikipedia (interesting evidence is obtained mainly from the Bullet cluster)
jubilee
I forwarded your message to friends in Modi'in who will try to crack it
They said they were stuck in deciphering the name of the beneficiary "The Dohi Shimerdevs"
I hope they will be able to overcome and we will all learn
(:))
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Hip-hop rock
The Dohi Shimerdevs
And we will go to Lichno Neh Lichshi Sidmalm Burmesh Hoket Yeloch. Nokitha to Hanan Neh
To Yuval Chaikin
You wrote:- "Furthermore, the farther the light source is from us, the stronger this effect. From this we conclude that the farther away the galaxies are from us, the greater their speed, i.e. acceleration." End quote
It's a bit imprecise, and should be written:-
"Furthermore, the farther the light source is from us, the stronger this effect is than expected based on the propagation of Hubble. From this we conclude that the farther the galaxies are from us, the greater their speed, i.e. acceleration.
It's been eighty years since Hubble discovered that more distant galaxies are moving away at a higher speed and that didn't make people talk about acceleration. The Nobel Prize given now was given for the discovery of acceleration which was researched and discovered about a decade ago.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Grace
Primitive thinking is the basis of knowledge. Any explanation, however developed and advanced it may be, must answer, first and foremost, the questions that arise in primitive thinking.
Indeed, it has been observed that the galaxies seem to be moving away from us. This conclusion does not come from directly observing the motion of the galaxies relative to us, but from the nature of the light reaching us from those galaxies: on the one hand, the absorption line pattern in the spectrum looks exactly like the absorption line pattern we know here, but, on the other hand, the color of the light around those absorption lines is less frequent than we are familiar with. Such behavior corresponds to the Doppler effect, hence the explanation that the distant galaxies are moving away from us.
Furthermore, the farther the light source is from us, the stronger this effect. From this we conclude that the farther the galaxies are from us, the greater their speed, i.e. acceleration.
The explanation you will hear a lot for the approach between us and Andromeda is that because of the proximity the gravitation between the two galaxies is stronger than the force accelerating the distance between them.
One of the models of the universe speaks of matter of finite volume sitting in infinite space. According to this, the constantly increasing volume is only of the substance. The statement that outside the universe time and space is not defined is another wording for "outside the universe time and space exist in a vacuum", or "they exist but are not measurable" or any other wording that the "primitive" thinking is somehow willing to slip on.
Dear point
I don't care what you think and what you conclude.
And yes, it's fun to hear from time to time references and compliments to something that is created, and I have created many things in my life
If it's scripts I wrote, factories I streamlined, a family I founded, and also... Cosmological ideas I came up with
Maybe you will also go to YouTube for the video I put in and see how I built my cosmological idea. You will learn something and you can be the XNUMXth entry if you hurry!
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, it's true it's fun to use scientific knowledge and thread your stuff into it. This is how you create a link between what is true and your opinions. An interesting and tricky method.
Grace
A response has been sent to you, we hope it will be confirmed soon
Sabdarmish Yehuda
In a good sign and with good luck
The response from ten minutes past midnight was confirmed and Michael explained to me that he shouldn't be at the computer non-stop. Between us, there is something in this,
Then we can answer Chen's intelligent questions (as far as I understand them)
Chen: - Ask me another question that bothers me
One of the evidences for the Big Bang is that the galaxies have been observed to be "moving away" from us.
But Andromeda is not moving away from us and is expected to merge with us in a few billion years, so who are those galaxies that were observed as if they were moving away from us?
Answer - they are all moving away in the macro, but at distances of several million or even tens of millions of light years, galaxies are able to act according to the local gravity in that region. For example the example you gave, Andromeda is about two million light years away from us and it and the Milky Way attract each other.
But by and large, the galaxies expand according to Hubble's constant so that the ones that are further away move away faster, about 70 km per second, the speed of receding for each megafarsec of distance (a megafarsec is about 3.2 million light years, and a light year is a little less than ten million, million km)
Chen:- And another question, it is known that the universe is expanding rapidly, maybe it will sound stupid because my approach is primitive and fixed due to a lack of understanding, but does this mean that the volume of the universe is increasing all the time? After all, outside the universe, time and space are not defined, so how can the universe spread in an undefined space (perhaps when I said space I misled myself), but where does the additional "space" come from?
I would appreciate it if someone could direct me how I should look at this issue.. because I feel that I think in a rather primitive way, in light of the terms I use, such as the word "space" 😉
Answer:-
Indeed the universe is expanding and even accelerating and the question is where did the new volume come from (not space) and well I have heard several possibilities to date
A. Space has been created since the big bang and is growing
A second possibility is that there are many more universes and they are located in a large space and spread to each other.
Another option is I don't know. My brother claims that we must take into account that there are problems that our poor brains may not be able to solve just like that blind mole that swims in the water of an underground pool and will not be able to understand in life why the water in the pool rises and falls (the phenomenon of the tides).
:
The truth is that the explanation that Yehuda gave me is similar to what is written in Wikipedia + Yehuda's explanation is more detailed + answers my questions... so I am quite satisfied.
Michael If there is anything in Yehuda's words (not in terms of his theory, but his answers to me)
Misinformation, or information that is not the prevailing opinion among the majority of the scientific community, I would love to hear, all in all I am interested in knowing, especially in my favorite field.
I have another question that is bothering me
One of the evidences for the Big Bang is that the galaxies have been observed to be "moving away" from us.
But Andromeda is not moving away from us and is expected to merge with us in a few billion years, so who are those galaxies that were observed as if they were moving away from us?
And another question, it is known that the universe is expanding rapidly, maybe it will sound stupid because my approach is primitive and fixed due to a lack of understanding, but does this mean that the volume of the universe is increasing all the time? After all, outside the universe, time and space are not defined, so how can the universe spread in an undefined space (perhaps when I said space I misled myself), but where does the additional "space" come from?
I would appreciate it if someone could direct me how I should look at this issue.. because I feel that I think in a rather primitive way, in light of the terms I use, such as the word "space" 😉
Thanks in advance.
The truth is that the explanation that Yehuda gave me is similar to what is written in Wikipedia + Yehuda's explanation is more detailed + answers my questions... so I am quite satisfied.
Michael If there is anything in Yehuda's words (not in terms of his theory, but his answers to me)
Misinformation, or information that is not the prevailing opinion among the majority of the scientific community, I would love to hear, all in all I am interested in knowing, especially in my favorite field.
to Judah, or to those who understand astronomy.
a question.
Mach's principle says that each rotation is relative only to the distant stars, or in fact to the Milky Way galaxy.
For example: if we are in a sealed spacecraft, windows closed, we can tell if it is rotating or not by measuring the centrifugal force. If it does not rotate (no power) and a window opens - we will see the stars at rest. If there is power - the stars will turn.
At least that's how I understood it. was i wrong
If I'm not mistaken, we'll continue. What about other galaxies? Do they rotate relative to each other, or are they all stationary? What about their axes of rotation? Are they on the same axis, or is each galaxy completely independent and unrelated to the other? Or maybe just like all the planets in the solar system are on the same plane, so there is some common denominator for the galaxies?
Subtlety and knowledge.
to the other Hani
Unfortunately, Mikkel does not approve of my comments that come to explain the principles of dark mass
Try here. There is also a short explanation and my opinion on the subject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAo5BQQpBqQ
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Instead of arguing with Yehuda in the comments, let's have a neat article about the essence of dark matter (what is known about it today) - including dark energy, seasonality in measurements, what DAMA and other detectors are able to measure, etc., etc... Waves? someone?
will help a lot. Thanks.
And I would like Chen and others to tell me if there was anything in my response that, in your opinion, required approval.
Or she's just retarded
Yehuda Sabdarmish
I am eagerly waiting 🙂
Grace
My response to you has been waiting for confirmation for half an hour
We'll wait patiently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Grace
Well, the light actually bends in the past near a place where there should be a dark mass. This is actually supposed to be proof of the existence of the dark mass.
More precisely, it is possible to check if the curvature is small according to the visible mass only or if it is greater according to a visible mass and another dark mass. The result - the curvature is according to visible mass and dark mass.
In addition to galaxy clusters, the movement of the galaxies also corresponds to additional mass besides the visible mass and it also helps in the belief in the existence of the additional dark mass.
What breaks the uniformity is the accelerated expansion of the universe that comes in contrast to the existence of the dark mass which is actually supposed to slow down the universe
For this purpose they invented dark energy.
You can see the explanation in the link in my first comment here in the comments thread
Hope I understood
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, I understand, thank you!
I have no idea why this is true, at least intuitively..
And I don't understand why around places where dark matter exists (unless it is uniformly distributed) there are no bodies around them (the very fact that matter has mass), furthermore why light does not bend in its passage in a place where the density of dark matter is high (again the very fact that it has mass) mass)..
Yehuda:
When someone lies - there is a reason to call him a liar.
It doesn't matter if it's on a site that comes to enjoy or a site that comes to suffer.
Everyone
There is no reason to place me and others under the name "liar" on a site that we ultimately came to enjoy
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
It turns out that some people prefer lying with style over pointing out a lie (which by definition cannot be stylish).
When:
Are you able to point out one nonsense in my words or are you a liar like Judah?
The truth is that I apologize and agree with Mati's opinion
Yehuda, we do disagree on some issues, but I support you!
Keep going, I always look forward to seeing what you write and how you respond!
I appreciate your style
Straighten out !!!
When.
These things come to your right as a counterpoint to Ronnie and Rothschild's nonsense
A little pepper is nice but style gentlemen style!
Yehuda, seriously, if the theory you presented was correct, you would cause such a big fuss, but apparently that is not the case
Yehuda:
I'm not bothering you to watch football.
You go on your own initiative and watch the comments and choose to respond to them.
The fact that you are not telling the truth (and this is already a systematic matter) does mean that we will not be of one mind.
I only care to present - as a balance - the truth.
Mikel
I'm tired of apologizing and explaining over and over again
Let's agree that we are not of one mind
Think what you want
I have a feeling that you have nothing to do but analyze my responses since the inception of science
let see football
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Leave you out of Israeli football, maybe you will win the Ig Nobel?
So here it is, Yehuda:
Do you not understand what you have sinned?
really?
Is this a reason to add sin to crime?
Is this your response (https://www.hayadan.org.il/particles-in-the-dark-2111111/#comment-315515) which is the first in the current thread is a response to Chen's question?
Do you expect us to also believe in your ability to see the unborn?
You don't get a Nobel Prize for theories
And besides, don't you notice that you're getting in the way of watching the match between Maccabi and Haifa?
Wait until half time with your bullshit
Yehuda
Yehuda, when will you receive a Nobel Prize for your sensational discoveries?
Dear point
Such reactions on your part only show your singular side!
Grow up a little, you'll reach your big bang already
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehudala, you are a classic crackpot.
Mikel
In my life I don't know what I have sinned now
S. Chen asked and I answered him gracefully!
And regarding the mirror on the wall, I want to tell you that at this moment I have decided that I am suing you in accordance with the new lawsuits law that is currently being passed in the Knesset
And so:-
Classic crackpot = 300,000 NIS
Crank prototype = 300,000 NIS
SA = 600,000 NIS
I am ready to give you a discount if you explain the above concepts to me,
Another discount, if you bring a recommendation from our dear friend Michael
In addition,
Mirror mirror on the wall, who knows everything?
If you give an appropriate answer I will cancel the claim!
(:))
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, you are the classic crackpot. Literally a crank prototype. But I have to tell you something: your husband was dead boring here. Thank you 😉
And those who want to wonder about the nature of the "science" behind Yehuda's words, are invited to read this link:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/max-plank-and-first-days-of-quantoms-physics-1111083/#comment-137730
and in the links marked from it.
It is difficult to deal with Yehuda's tireless efforts to present himself as someone who knows better than the scientists.
Of course, according to his claim - it is forbidden to discover planets according to their gravitational influence, and the discovery of neutrino particles was also forbidden.
There is a religion (actually - Judaism) and according to this religion - only what will bring you to the conclusion that Judah is superior to all scientists deserves to be treated with respect.
In everything else, you must underestimate as much as you can and it doesn't matter at all what you know and what your intellectual skills are.
melody
I will explain again
The Earth rotates at a distance of 150 million km from the Sun, which is one astronomical unit.
Suppose there is a giant ball of mass with a radius of 5 AU. that the sun is in its center. Does it affect the movement of the earth?
Well, the entire mass of the above-mentioned sphere, whose distance is less than an astronomical unit, will affect the movement of the earth through its gravitation. The calculation is as if this mass is concentrated in the sun.
The mass of the sphere that is further than an astronomical unit will not affect the calculations at all.
But it will affect the gravitation acting on more distant planets for which it is an internal mass, for example - the distant Jupiter 5.4 astronomical units from the Sun.
I hope I am now understood.
If not, we'll try again
(:))
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, thank you very much for the explanation.
Another small question, when you say internal mass, do you mean that the ball rotates around where the larger mass is located? Because if I made sure that the outer mass of the Earth would be greater than the Sun, then it would become called an inner mass?
the other self
As for DAMA, it is a device that is supposed to discover particles of dark mass. What I understand is that the earth in its movement around the sun moves in different areas during the year and in addition the sun itself also moves on the arm of the galaxy so it should make differences in the measurements if in these areas there are different concentrations of dark particles. But if there are annual differences, then it doesn't seem to me that this is the explanation because these distances are too small relative to the size of the galaxy.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to the point
Believe me that in my life I have learned more than anything, and that I know a little more than anything.
And regarding charlatans - allow me not to comment on your comments in the near future
And as for the more distant future - time will tell
To Hani the other and Moshe
Your response is awaiting confirmation
We'll wait patiently
(:))
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
melody
Me and everyone else, talking about the speed of the stars around the center of the galaxy. The galaxy is made of stars and is not one piece.
And as for your question
"Why in the case of adding mass to the edges (for example to the solar system) will the star closest to the added mass continue to rotate around the center?"
First of all, in systems built in a spherical shape, only the internal mass determines the speed of movement and not the external mass. The calculation is a differential calculus calculation that I will not go into now. But check it out.
Therefore, if beyond the earth we add around the sun a ring or sphere of mass from the environment, for example when it is spread at a distance of two astronomical units from the sun, then this ring will not affect the speed of the earth because it is external to the earth and it will continue to move at a speed of 30 km per second, but It will affect the speed of Jupiter because it is internal to Jupiter, and at a certain size it will be able to maintain a speed of 30 km per second of Jupiter, instead of the 13 km per second without the ring.
And about the galaxies
If a gaseous cloud 200,000 light-years away from the galaxy is known to rotate at the same speed as a cloud only 180,000 light-years from the center of the galaxy, then there must be additional mass between the two.
So much for the reasons for the location of the dark mass mainly at the edges of the galaxy.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, you mention all those charlatans and jugglers and snobs, who work on themselves as if they know something, and the fools come to believe them and are convinced by them.
the other self
As for DAMA, it is a device that is supposed to discover particles of dark mass. What I understand is that the earth in its movement around the sun moves in different areas during the year and in addition the sun itself also moves on the arm of the galaxy so it should make differences in the measurements if there are different concentrations of dark particles in these areas. But if there are annual differences, then it doesn't seem to me that this is the explanation because these distances are too small relative to the size of the galaxy.
To Moses
The formula that should replace Newton's formula is a wind formula resulting from the pressure difference, meaning it is directly proportional to the pressure difference and inversely proportional to the distance. Unlike Newton's gravitation formula, the name of the formula is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
Therefore according to the pressure difference if the distance increases and the pressure also increases, the wind speed and everything that is dragged along with it remains constant. And this is what happens in the galaxy.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And when you mean spiral speed, the galaxy is mainly composed of stars, so you are talking about the speed of the stars around the center of the galaxy?
Yehuda But why in the case of adding mass to the edges (for example to the solar system) will the star closest to the added mass continue to rotate around the center?
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I watched the lecture in the link you sent.
But I'm missing a formula that should replace Newton's formula
There is a formula called MOND, is that your formula too?
Or you have a different version
Yehuda,
I did enter the link and learned. .
I still haven't understood what exactly DAMA measures and why there is seasonality in the measurement.
Thanks.
to the other Hani
Overall:-
The dark mass came to solve a difficult problem of constant rotation speed in all parts of the spiral galaxy.
For the sake of explanation, take for example our solar system,
The farther the planets are from the sun, the lower their speed of rotation around the sun, for example the earth rotates at a speed of 30 km per second and Jupiter, which is more than five times more distant, rotates at a speed of about 13 km per second.
Contrary to this, in the spiral galaxy - the rotational speed (starting from a certain distance from its center) is constant and is maintained at a size of about 230 km per second until the edge of the galaxy and even beyond the edge. An addition of mass in the center of the galaxy would not have helped to maintain the constant speed at large distances and it must be added at the edge of the galaxy in a ball of mass that would surround it.
You can understand this by the fact that if such a situation were to happen in our solar system, that is, Jupiter and the Earth would rotate at the same speed - 30 km per second, it would not help to add mass in the center, in our sun, but we would have to add it at the ends of the solar system For example in Ort belt.
You can read more accurate calculations on Wikipedia
For a brief explanation of dark matter, dark energy and also my personal opinion on the subject, you can go to the link I put in my previous response.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
May I have more details about the dark matter? What is this seasonal tide we are talking about here? Why does it surround the galaxy in a ring? What exactly does DAMA pick up that other detectors are unable to pick up?
Thanks…
Gentlemen
Haven't you realized yet that the dark mass was invented to change the results of the measurements in the galaxy to fit Newton's old and famous gravitation formula? This is an act he must not do!
When will you realize that the dark mass is a dream mass?, - it can only be seen in dreams!.
And for those who haven't seen it yet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAo5BQQpBqQ
Listen my friends from the science responders, I may be right in the end!
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda