Note - some of the author's conclusions are in the realm of hypothesis, and this should not be considered an accepted scientific opinion or the site's opinion in particular.
In the first part of my articles:- "On spiral galaxies, gravitation and dark mass"We looked at the movement of the spiral galaxies and saw that the beacon that is supposed to express their movement, which is:-
does not show equality and in fact the right side of the equation, the centrifugal side is ten times larger than the left side - the gravitational side.
The attempt to solve the reason for the inequality expressed in the equation is done in three approaches:-
First approach:- one or more of the elements appearing in the formulas may be different.
That is:-
Increasing the mass of the galaxy M1 by a factor of ten,
Decrease R - ten times the distance of the star from the center of the galaxy,
Increasing the gravitational constant G tenfold to large distances,
Another option - M2 (possible differences between gravitational mass and acceleration mass)
The possibility of reducing the speed V by three times.!
Second approach:- The formulas themselves may be different.
That is:-
A slightly different gravitation formula, which will add to gravitation at large distances,
The MOND theory that changes Newton's second law with tiny accelerations.
Third approach:- The essence of the assumption that there should be equality, may be mistaken.
That is:-
It is possible that the reason for the rotation of the spiral galaxies is something else and not gravity.
So far, in fact, all the ideas that have the potential to explain the inequality in the movement of spiral galaxies.
It is clear to us that most of the above ideas are wrong. Although they are correct, mathematically, but not necessarily suitable for our universe. But, it is also clear to us that if we were not mistaken in our approaches, then, we took all the possibilities for a solution, and therefore:-
At least one of all the options listed here contains the solution!
Which of the above solutions did he prefer?
Each of the readers of the article can choose his own solution. Indeed, it was interesting to see the opinions expressed by the listeners of the lecture given by the author of the article at the observatory in Givatayim on the same topic on May 10.5.2007, XNUMX. Well, in addition to the fans of the accepted dark mass, many were fans of the MOND theory of Prof. Milgrom and Prof. Jacob Beckstein. However, it was interesting to see that many accepted the possibility of changing the gravitational constant G and increasing it to large distances, as a way to solve the inequality. In addition, a participant named Menachem suggested another way to the solution and that is that the solution may not be within the ability of the human race, just like a mole would have trouble understanding what the moon means. An interesting idea in its own right. Another interesting idea was given by Yigal, to give each particle of matter both the property of gravitation and the property of repulsion. A combination of two formulas regarding these properties can explain the movement of galaxies and even explain the accelerated expansion of the universe. Another interesting idea!
Each of these ways has advantages and disadvantages, and it is the right of each reader to choose the approach he prefers. It should be remembered again that the main achievement in the article is that at least one of the options proposed in the three approaches is the correct option.
The author of the article also has his choice, and readers are invited to express their opinion on it.
Three facts must lead the reader to the solution.
A. The knowledge that the universe is expanding in an accelerated manner
B. The knowledge that any gravity will hinder us in finding the solution.
third. The arbitrary decision that we didn't measure the data well.
There is already a serious problem with gravitation that cannot explain the accelerated expansion of the universe and requires us to add repulsive energy to the universe that is bound to be created from the void. Increasing gravitation, whether by adding dark mass, or by increasing the global gravitational constant, will lead to an aggravation of the difficulty of explaining the accelerated expansion of the universe. A drastic change in the equality between acceleration mass and gravitational mass is also unacceptable to me because of the arbitrariness of the matter and the failure that this will cause with the theory of relativity.
The second approach, which slightly changes the formulas, is also at least partially lacking,
Changing Newton's gravitation formula so that it increases gravitation to large distances as in the previous article I wrote on the subject: "Proposal for an alternative gravitation formula - a mental exercise", will again make it difficult for us to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe. Even the formation of gravitation out of nothing is a logical fallacy for this kind of solution.
Whereas the violation of Newton's second law in the MOND theory is more than daring. decide that:- 
Differing in tiny accelerations is a hypothesis that I find difficult to accept even though it leads to good results in solving the inequality, (as well as the other possibilities).
We are left with the third approach.
And indeed, its advantage is that it does not require us to agree that we did not measure well. We just have to find another way instead of gravitation to explain the rotation of spiral galaxies. This way we can continue and assume that the measurements we made are not wrong.
Hence the key to any possible solution will lie in gravity! That is, we must find an explanation for gravitation that is equal to what Newton's formula suggests at small distances, but at large distances it will decrease so that it does not affect the accelerated expansion of the universe, and in its place another force will enter to rotate the galaxy.
Does such a solution exist?
The idea for the solution was given by George Louis Le Sage's approach to the explanation of gravitation.
Different gravity
Let's start with the fact that Newton himself was sure that gravitation works with the help of an agent particle that does the pulling work. In his own words he said:-
"Whoever thinks that gravitation is not done with the help of an agent particle is a non-philosophical personality."
But he also added that he did not know how it was done.
The task of explaining the essence of gravitation was undertaken by a scientist who is not known to many by the name of George Louis Le Sage. This scientist lived in the eighteenth century. Le Sage's explanation above is completely simple:-
The universe is full of tiny particles that are everywhere in the universe and move from every direction to every direction and harm every body in their vicinity. If there is a single body in space, then the force of the particles hitting it from any direction balances out and the body will not move, but if we place two bodies in space side by side, then the amount of particles hitting the bodies from the direction between them is less than the external amount and this will cause the bodies to move towards each other, which is a kind of force attraction. It is easy to prove the fact that in this explanation the "force" created is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
That is:- 
Note that according to Le Sage's approach, gravitation is not a property of matter nor of space, it arises from the momentum of tiny particles moving through space.
So much for what the aforementioned Sage said to her.
The author of the article, without any relation to the aforementioned Le Sage, developed the particle approach to gravitation, but continued to develop it in other directions.
If we decide that the universe is full of particles that create gravitation then we must not ignore the fact that these particles moving from place to place are actually a huge gaseous body, and as such, as in any gaseous body, we can define the temperature of this body (2.73 degrees Kelvin) to different pressures in this body and the speed of waves in this body - C. With such a view, it is possible to arrive at the size of the particle, which is of the order of magnitude of 10 to the power of minus 37 grams. This approach of the author of the article is called by the author:- "the theory of the simple universe".
If this is the case, then Le Sage's explanation is flawed because it does not take into account the collision of the particles among themselves as in any gaseous body. If the particles passing between the two bodies collide with other particles coming from space, then, they become random and no longer carry any relevant information about gravitation. In this case the law of universal gravitation will not accept Newton's formula but a slightly different formula, a formula also related to the mean free path of the particles in Le Sage's universe. That is, the greater the distance between the masses, the greater the chance of collisions between particles and gravity will disappear.
If we mark b 
the mean free path of a particle in a simple universe then (without explanation), this fact will change Newton's gravitation formula to the form:- 
Because the free way It is on the order of thousands of astronomical units,
It is easy to see that at very small distances the formula will take the form of Newton's formula,
then: 
tends to zero, therefore 
strives to unite
We are now left with a universe full of particles but almost completely without gravitation at great distances, for example those of the galaxies. So what is supposed to be rotating the galaxies in a universe lacking such a gravitational force. Well, the solution is to be found precisely in the tremendous addition of the particles introduced into this kind of explanation. These particles that move anywhere and everywhere and collide with each other constitute, as we explained to Eyal, a huge gaseous body. So there is no reason why it should not have, as in any gas, points with different pressures that will cause winds and eddies around them. That is, we can look at the galaxies as organs where the pressure towards their center will be different from the pressure in the outer regions. A possibility for this could be tiny differences in the background temperature of the universe in different regions of the vastness of galaxies. Such forces will easily create the spiral of the galaxy and even the gas clouds that surround them. This force will not act according to the square of the distance, but according to the pressure differences in the environment close to it, and therefore the speed distribution in the galaxy will result from other laws and will be more in line with the situation on the ground.
Another thing to note is that although in our solutions we do not need a dark mass, we do have a huge amount of mass - particles of matter, normal, baryonic matter, without special and magical properties like those of the dark mass.
So we got an explanation that:-
A. It relies on our measurements and does not require us to decide that we did not measure well.
B. Explains the gravitation that exists up to the distances of a single solar system.
third. Eliminates gravitation almost completely at galactic and intergalactic distances.
d. Explains the accelerated expansion of the universe, also accelerated, without the need for dark energy.
God. Explains well the movement of the galaxies by introducing another force created by the pressure differences in the particle space between the galaxies.
and. Gravitational cooling will also be explained by gravitation but also in the form of distortion as a result of the passage of the light beam coming from a distant star due to its movement in areas with different pressures. A kind of "fata morgana" phenomenon
However, difficulties that arise from this explanation and require further discussion should not be ignored either:-
G. A friction problem arose as a result of the reality of the elementary particles in the expanses of space. This friction will be tiny if we agree to accept that the mean free path will be on the order of light years. It must be understood that in addition to gravitation and friction, the accelerated expansion of the universe is operating in the area, which may maintain the continued rotation of cosmological bodies.
H. The "simple universe theory" simplifies the universe in many respects, but there is a partial return to the known site and it must be examined whether it contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment.
ninth. Acceleration mass and gravitational mass are slightly different so gravitational mass is always smaller. But the differences will be significant only for very dense masses.
J. A problem arose of the need to change the general theory of relativity based on the identity between the accelerating mass and the gravitational mass.
XNUMX The Big Bang could not have started with a singular point but in a volumetric body of a certain size.
XNUMX. It should be checked if the densest bodies could be black holes in their meaning.
XNUMX. Apparently the speed of light changes. Calculations made by the author of the article show that the speed should decrease by the order of one centimeter per second per year. Again, this is an approach that goes against the determination of the speed of light according to the theory of relativity.
In conclusion
We used three approaches to solve the inequality problem found in the equation of motion of the spiral galaxies:-
First approach:- one or more of the elements appearing in the formulas may be different.
Second approach:- The formulas themselves may be different.
Third approach:- The essence of the assumption that there should be equality, may be wrong, meaning that gravity does not rotate the spiral galaxy.
The solution chosen by the author of the article is a combination of two changes:-
A. The third approach of finding another force to explain the rotation of spiral galaxies - a force resulting from pressure.
B. And in addition, we changed Newton's formula to a new formula that causes a faster loss of gravitation in space and leaves space without gravitational force for large distances.
third. The rotation of spiral galaxies must be explained by tiny differences in pressures in space.
These explanations do not require dark energy to explain accelerated expansion of the universe nor dark and strange mass.
These explanations only require believing what 99.9% of scientists do not want to believe, which is that the apple that fell on Newton's head is a local phenomenon and not an intergalactic phenomenon to the end of the universe.
Please respond gently!
67 תגובות
Michael:
A. Thank you!
B. According to this it should be said that the mass is actually made from zero. Is such a thing possible? So what are we made of, nothing?
third. Is it unreasonable to say that the laws of physics we know apply everywhere as long as we have no proof otherwise?
d. How can the consciousness of a person alone perform such a tremendous action, in other words how do the laws of physics
Do you get along with what is so simple in the equations?
Sorry for the load of questions.. I just finally found someone who understands this...
Eld:
You are indeed not a physicist and it is noticed.
However, you should understand that you are neither a philosopher nor a prophet.
Year:
The law of conservation of mass is a physical law and not a mathematical law.
In other words - this is not a law that is "obvious" and must be followed, but a law that experience shows that it is followed.
But experience, as we know, is limited to a single world and therefore the law of conservation of mass only discusses the conservation of mass (and energy) in a single world and does not require conservation in diverging worlds.
From the cat of course
A question for those who understand physics.
For the split worlds method that came to explain the "Schrödinger's cat" paradox
Where does all the massive mass that is needed for every split come from? After all, this is a mass
Endless?
I will rejoice in repentance!
Well I'm not a physicist and won't get into formulas, but
I am a person who observes life and reality from the point of internal insights, and in the light of my insights we live in a universe where reality is layered upon its layers, when there is influence and flow between the layers of reality, the material reality as we perceive it is relatively distant from our ability to process it, and our abstract reality can also to be perceived as material from another reference point of the layers of reality by another observer,
And what does it belong to the accelerator in Lucerne? Well, since I said that the layers of reality affect each other, and what happens in higher or more abstract layers of reality is the existence of what is called another type of "matter" which essentially affects the existence of our space-time as it is, then what they are doing there in Lucerne is similar to the throwing monkey A stone to the control room that affects the essence of his world, when one of the not uncommon chances is that he is going to break the balances that maintain the levels of our reality as it is,
It is impossible to describe how delicate the balance built throughout the stages is, which only in its full stabilization along a full trajectory enables the existence of the life systems here as we know it.
One of the consequences arising from the theory of an integrated layered reality is that each level arises from the level above it which is a sort of partial derivative of it,
I have reasons to assume that the economy that is going to make a name for the new Higgs particle seems to me that its name is exactly a play on the same factors that determine the weight balance that derives the sub-levels derived from a higher level of reality.
For those who have not read the book Cat's Cradle by Kurt Wingott, they should read and review the concept of Ice Nine
We as humanity still do not understand enough to try to play such dangerous games, even if it is curiosity, organizational power, and the money mechanism that lead the project, there is still a lack of ethical thinking on what to engage in at what stage and after what level of certainty.
These are the same scientists who invented all kinds of viruses that can eliminate us and these are the same scientists who will not hesitate to create the next destructive weapon, intelligence has no morals, intelligence has no restraints, this field must not be left to scientists even if they are the only technicians who know how to deal with it,
Nothing will happen to humanity if it theoretically investigates different possibilities, and even divides several theories into parallel possibilities until it has enough information and enough established knowledge in the field, assuming that a relatively small number of scientists are involved in these new fields, then we all of humanity leave our lives in the hands of curious people without any body that can stop them, it is enough to have a big theoretical debate for someone to build the device and test it without there being any body that can stop it
We have in the history of our history warnings that come in various myths about the destruction of humanity, and I have a fairly reasonable basis for actually understanding the messages that pass there. I'm not sure we're not facing yet another unnecessary game of Russian roulette.
"..that the apple that fell on Newton's head is a local phenomenon and not an intergalactic phenomenon to the end of the universe."
Interesting sentence. The apple would not fall on his head as fast if it happened on the moon, assuming that the moon has a weaker gravity. This may not contradict Newton's laws, but in a certain sense there is justice in the last sentence in the article.
Yehuda:
It's you who don't understand.
The information carried by a specific particle cannot serve you because to begin with there are particles that come from all directions.
Only the statistics on all the particles can serve you and this - as I have shown you - does not change due to the collisions.
I am not talking to a deaf person nor to a blind person but to a person who is unable to understand and whose inability to understand is mainly due to some religion he associated his name with.
Forgive me but it goes to show that even if I show you how I get my formula you will say it means nothing, so why bother? You don't understand what an information-carrying particle means.
I will try one more time.
There is one ball in the pool table - mine. I aim it at the hole and send it. This ball has information where it is going to reach the hole and enter it.
Now let's put more balls on the table moving in any direction in any direction. I aim my pool ball at the hole again. Question :- If my ball is hit on its way to the hole by another ball, wouldn't it be correct to say that my ball lost its information at the moment of impact?, then it won't penetrate the hole already! He became just a ball whose movement was random.
This is what happens with the La Sage particles. If on their way between the two bodies they meet another particle, they become random particles and lose the gravitational information they had.
The truth is, I think I'm having a deaf conversation so I'm not sure if there's any point in this conversation. I don't think I'll show you the way because anyway you just want to chatter.
Happy Holidays
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
There is no point in bothering with a parable that does not resemble a parable.
If the particles remain and retain all the information that was in them before (and they do this as a whole because all the information that was in them beforehand is the statistics of how much enters each ball and how much leaves it) then there is no reason to talk about forces that you have decided lose information.
The direction from which a specific particle comes or does not come is so and so random.
If you intend to base the solution precisely on the difference between these fabricated soldiers and the particles, nothing has been gained.
I think you're just wasting time.
To Michael
What mass?, what particles?
Hilim Mr. Michael, read the question and say if you are able to answer how many survived
Happy Holidays
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
Into each sphere of radius R around the mass - a certain amount of particles enter and a little less come out.
The reduction in the number of particles is determined only by the mass in the ball.
In the meantime, they scattered from the ball in random directions.
Do the collisions between the particles change anything in this sense?
I suggest that you maintain your dignity and not call factual questions slanderous.
This is what you are doing from the beginning of your discussion with what's-his-name (which you - god forbid - are not slandering)
why his name
After all, nothing will help, you will continue to slander, but he answered you anyway.
The damaged troops, their action became random and they have no operational benefit.
The purpose of a Le Sage particle is to convey the "information" about gravity. Once it is hit/deflected from its path, this information is lost. Only the remaining can continue their "operational activity". La Sage didn't think about the average free path, and I think he missed something important.
But what do you care, you got a riddle, please answer me, no - not bad.
The main thing is to have peace
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
moment! It is interesting! Are you now adding a very important detail about your theory? Are you saying that the particles do not survive the collision?
What is happening to them? Do they move to another dimension? Do they qualify without a trace?
Explanation, detail and reason.
Roy Tsezana, what's new and others
And why, for example, don't we make it more interesting? We love to solve puzzles!
Puzzle:-
In World War I, a math-loving army division commander wanted to know how many of his troops would survive the onslaught.
The data he had are these:-
The attack distance R
Number of soldiers who went on the attack N
The average free path D, which is defined as, what is the average free path that an attacking force travels without being hit
You need to calculate the number of soldiers who will survive the assault M
I will even give you a hint: - very similar to the amount of material left over from radioactive decay
Happy holiday to thinkers, computers and calculators
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
You couldn't give a formula without an explanation,
You are a member of the Universal Law of Attraction formula
That is, without its development process.
A verbal explanation is not an explanation.
Therefore, your whole theory based on the formula is incorrect because it floats in the air.
You must start from the basic equations which must have a precise explanatory explanation and are supported by numerical results of observations carried out formally by well-known scientific bodies.
Another thing I did not understand is how the pressure differences of particles in the regions around the galaxy cause
for its rotary motion?
Yehuda,
The truth is that I also do not fully understand how you arrived at a final formula from a pictorial description of the 'mixing' of the particles.
Can you explain more in detail?
Thanks and happy holiday,
Roy.
The truth is that I somewhat slandered Le Sage because the theory proposed in the article has many problems that are absent in Le Sage's theory (like the whole story with the eddies whose refutations have already been presented on the site many times).
These are errors of the type that no serious scientist (and that includes Le Sage) would make.
Yehuda:
How do you interpret the phrase "without explanation" in your following sentence:
"If we denote by lambda the mean free path of a particle in a simple universe then (without explanation), this fact will change Newton's gravitation formula into the form:- …."
Are you saying we should interpret it differently?
I have no problem with reading comprehension. Someone else has an honesty problem here.
You have a serious problem with understanding the so-called Mr. Michael. stop bothering
I will no longer refer to the subject of Michael's slander.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The interesting thing is that at the time of writing the article, the author still had the necessary honesty to state that he does not explain the formula, but from the moment he was required to respond to his words, he lost this honesty.
It was I who said.
The formula is without explanation and also in the article it is written that it is without explanation.
Yehuda is unable to show us the explanation, so he distorts my words and evades
So what if Michael said that it is not explained there?, here is the explanation that appears in the article:
"If this is the case, then Le Sage's explanation is flawed because it does not take into account the collision of the particles among themselves as in any gaseous body. If the particles passing between the two bodies collide with other particles coming from space, then, they become random and no longer carry any relevant information about gravitation. In this case the law of universal gravitation will not accept Newton's formula but a slightly different formula, a formula also related to the mean free path of the particles in Le Sage's universe. That is, the greater the distance between the masses, the greater the chance of collisions between particles and gravitation will disappear."
End of quote.
So maybe Michael is not able to understand how the slightly different formula from Newton's is obtained from here, so he has a problem.
But I'm sure that Michael understands, but he also likes to slander, so why does he care to tease the author. So please do not refer to the grades given by Michael and those who really want to, should read the article and understand. If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them - for others, not for those who just bother and mess up. Fed up.
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Did you notice that the entire article is based on a formula that the author explicitly states he brings without explanation?
In my opinion he has no explanation, but of course he is welcome to provide the explanation and refute the theory I put forward here.
Of course, this will not solve the other problems in the theory (which are also the property of the Le Sage theory) but these are problems that we are allowed to assume that when he wrote the text he simply did not understand them.
The formula he brought, on the other hand - one should expect him to understand and therefore also expect him to provide the explanation.
Some of the multitude of problems in the theory can be found in the discussion at the following link:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/could-antimatter-be-powering-super-luminous-supernovae-1612072/
Hugin:
If there's one thing I was happy about in this regard, it was the fact that you attempted to ask a question with substance.
Your response to my answer shows that it's probably just splitting up for you.
Hugin:
Do you mind that I answered your questions?
Michael
Light a candle in my memory - have fun while you can and are able - celebrate my mistakes - make fun - praise yourself - have fun with Yehuda - brag about science - do lolo lolo lolo
All the best.
Hugin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
The reality of the site in the most general sense of the word was not disproved, but in the sense attributed to it as the "bearer of the light waves" it was disproved.
In fact there is no need for ether - even in the more general sense of the word - as matter spread out uniformly in the universe to explain any phenomenon and therefore it is a redundant concept just like God.
The dark mass does not correspond to what was commonly defined as a site because it is concentrated in certain areas and absent in others.
In short - to your last question: yes - you are wrong.
Section H indicates the simple universe version.
What is the Michelson Morley experiment?
Has the reality of the site been refuted in any way.
Could it be that the ether is actually the dark mass after all?
As a principle, all measurements have a starting point of assumption, the question of whether the basic assumptions are based from the beginning on the opposite view.
It is similar to two people standing in front of each other and a bowl between them, one will claim to see a hole and the other
Lematras will insist that he only sees a bump.
This one sees blackness and that one sees sparkling light.
Opposite worlds, opposite theories.
That's the whole story.
am I wrong?
Trying to transmit without blocking, Hugin.
Yehuda
In relation to this article - I see many things.
But everything in its time.
Hugin
to hug
You said that there is no need to address your comment, but, nevertheless, you are the first to respond to the article since September of last year.
So, thanks for the tiny response.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I read the article and the reactive discourse.
I found interesting waymarks on the approaches.
And thank you, there is no need to refer to my "tiny" response.
To Ami Bachar
I enjoyed confronting your questions and thank you for your appreciation
happy New Year
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Thank you very much Mr. Sabdarmish,
Your detailed answers really touched my heart and my heart because your preoccupation with science in general and the theory you developed in particular are in your blood. It inspires hope and inspiration both for me as a scientist and I'm sure for the listeners of your lectures as well.
As for the answers themselves, as mentioned, the knowledge I have in the field of physics is really minimal (and thanks for the compliments). I will be forced to read the answers again and again and go back to the original article in order to scrape up more slivers of understanding. I was happy about the link you gave to your private home site where there are articles and ideas. I'm sure the link will be very helpful in case of local misunderstandings.
As for ties with the academy, at least at the moment this is not relevant, but it is quite possible that conditions for cooperation will be created in the future. I will keep the phone number (thanks) and I even found your private email in one of your comments on this site.
I would like to thank you again for taking the trouble to treat my questions at length and with great respect and in principle I came to my satisfaction, although it does not necessarily mean that I understood things completely.
With a happy new year and a good signing and friendship and recognition,
Ami Bachar
To Ami Bachar
Regarding question 2 - what does Ami Bacher mean by his words, I will leave it to Ami Bacher because I really don't know and your guesses are at least as good as mine.
And regarding question 5:-
What is the gaseous material from which the simple universe is built? Do we see/measure it? If not - why?
The answer to this would be :- How can any gas be measured which is, for example, the air?
This can only be seen in the accompanying properties of the gas.
It has a temperature - for us the temperature is 2.73 degrees Kelvin - the background temperature of the universe.
It has areas with high pressures and low pressures that will cause bodies to move in the direction of the low pressure and not necessarily due to gravity.
A property of attraction will be created between bodies located within the space of particles - the explanation of which will be gravitation. Remember today there is no explanation for gravitation an explanation similar to mine was given by a scientist named Le Sage in the eighteenth century, besides several other scientists. And my simple universe explains it quite similarly to the known situation although the formulas are a little different from the Newtonian ones. In this context, I proposed to do an experiment that would show gravity-like "attraction" forces in an existing air gas, a force of attraction between bodies must appear when the mean free path of the molecules increases significantly and this will happen at an atmospheric pressure of one billionth of an atmosphere to one millionth of an atmosphere. At higher pressures the information will disappear.
It is difficult to do this experiment and maybe Mr. microbiologist - cosmologist Ami Bachar, you and the connections you may have, will be able to organize the experiment for us.
So far.
As you saw, Ami, your questions were not easy, and they required the display of many formulas that were difficult to display. Nevertheless, I hope that I met the task valiantly, and this Yom Kippur I will receive a few more credits for the operation. I hope I won't be forced to judge because of the holy day because everything is done for the glory of science, gravitation, cosmology, microbiology, and also for the glory of the State of Israel!
Good signature!
I enjoyed responding to your intelligent questions.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For question 4
How do I talk about randomness when we know that diffusion has a direction
Answer
The randomness means that they become virtually like any other particle moving through space which of course has properties of diffusive motion, if you can call it that. But the particle that collided with another particle actually lost the "information" that its movement had to cause gravitation.
What is it similar to?, imagine that you are playing billiards at a table full of balls that move from place to place. Obviously, the ball you aimed at has a high chance of colliding with other random balls. and will not reach his goal. The longer the road, the greater the chance of losing the information contained in its direction. Gravitation between two masses is created only by the particles that pass through the nest that crosses the two masses, if for any reason the movement of the particle has changed due to an external cause. This particle will not be a factor in the formation of gravitation and hence, the claim that the information about gravitation has been lost.
But again, this has nothing to do with the diffusion feature which is always present.
I don't understand what it has to do with the big bang, but be careful with your claim that as if there is a place in the universe where the big bang was created, scientists deny this opinion and claim that the big bang was actually created in any direction and in any direction its location can be pointed. I don't want to get into that and it's not the concern of this article, and the truth is, I don't know how exactly to "eat" this attitude of the scientists.
Questions 2 and 5 remain
Happy New Year
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For question 6
6) What is the motive for canceling gravitation at great distances?
Well, gravitation is not actually canceled at any distance, but the rate of its decrease as a function of distance is more than one part of R squared. Added to this is another disappearance as a result of the particles hitting each other. Then the decay rate is similar in its formula to the decay rate of radioactive decay.
For example, let's assume that the mean free path of a particle is 1.5 light years, so at such a distance we will only have 1 fraction of e (the natural number) left from gravity, which is about 37 percent of the gravity measured according to Newton, and at a distance of 3 light years we will have only 1 fraction of e squared at the distance of a galaxy , 150000 light years will leave us only 1 part of e to the power of 100000 which means that we have almost no gravitation left.
It must be remembered that this is in addition to the reduction resulting from Newton's formula, which means that these two reductions must be multiplied.
So much for question 6.
Happy New Year
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Regarding question 3 regarding the mass of the particle, the explanation is in the file of my articles at:-
http://www.planetnana.co.il/sevdermish/
There is a "simple universe" article
There, on page 7, there is the explanation that if we take a simple Newtonian universe where the mass of the particle is 6.3 times ten to the power of minus 37 grams and if we also take the average speed of the particle in the gaseous space as 390000 km per second, we get that the background temperature in this universe is 2.73 degrees Kelvin And the speed of the waves in it will be the speed of light. You can of course do the opposite, and go from the data of the speed of light and the background temperature and get the mass of the particle and its speed. The explanation is there and it is exhaustive, and it is difficult for me to respond on the science site with formulas, because the site does not accept them.
I'm sorry, but I was unable to measure the swelling of the particle, despite all my attempts, so I cannot address your question about Planck's length constant. In general, in the simple universe I treated everything as a Newtonian system until relativistic results would oblige me to do so.
Happy New Year
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Lami Bachar,
And so we begin.
Your first question
Take the formula that links gravitation to the centrifugal force, calculate from it what should be the size of the speed V (a simple reduction work) you will get that the speed is directly proportional to the root of the size of the mass of the galaxy and inversely proportional to the root of the radius.
A small explanation for the above results, the radius is the distance of the star from the center of the galaxy, and the mass is the mass whose distance is at most the radius. Mass that is outside the sphere whose radius R does not enter into the calculations (the proof is in differential calculus, and this is not the place to show it).
Another thing, when calculating the gravitational force of a spherical body, it can be treated as if the entire mass of the sphere is in the center of the sphere.
Example :- The gravitational force of the earth on the surface of the earth will be as if all the mass is concentrated in the center of the earth, and if we penetrate to a depth of a thousand km into the earth, the outer shell of the sphere with a thickness of a thousand km will not participate in the calculation of gravity and the gravitational force of the sphere The inner one will be smaller. Conclusion:- At the center of the earth we will not measure any gravitational force.
Let's go back to the spiral galaxies. It looks like a disk with a spherical bulge in the middle. All we need to check is if, as we move away from the center, did we add more mass or more radius to the calculation because, as I said, the speed of a star in a galaxy is directly proportional to the root of the mass and inversely proportional to the radius.
Let's start moving from the center outward, the increase in mass is proportional to the volume, that is, to the third power, therefore there is a greater increase in mass than in radius, and therefore we will have an increase in speed as we move away from the center of the galaxy, and this up to the edge of the central sphere.
In the future, there is almost no mass accretion, so as the distance increases, the speed of a star in a galaxy decreases. And in fact it should continue to descend to the edge of the galaxy.
However, here the anomaly in the spiral galaxy is revealed, that at a certain distance from the center of the galaxy, about ten thousand light years (minus plus), the speed of the stars in the galaxy remains constant! About two hundred kilometers per second, contrary to all gravitational logic that states that the speed should decrease!.
In order for this speed to be preserved, the scientists decided that the mass must be increased by a mass called dark mass.
But the problem is that not only mass must be added, but if it must be added in certain regions of the galaxy, in its outer regions and even in the gas clouds around it, and this in order not to "spoil" the internal calculation.
It follows that most of the dark mass should be concentrated in the surrounding gas clouds!
It doesn't seem logical to me and this is another reason for the analysis I did in the article.
I know, Mr. Ami Bachar, that the explanation is long and tedious, I tried to summarize it and I hope you got at least the spirit of the proof.
But I think that such an explanation should be given in an exhaustive lecture on the subject. Or maybe with four eyes.
Regarding your "easy" questions in the rest of your response, more will follow.
Happy New Year
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
post Scriptum. If you need it, take a phone number for a reactive Livon - 0522-570989
To Ami Bachar
I haven't forgotten you, a little patience, at most during the holidays.
Happy New Year
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Ami Bachar
I now noticed your response and your questions.
It's already late.
Your cosmological questions are at a higher level than what can be expected from a common microbiologist who defines himself as having "zero knowledge of cosmology", and in addition, "who does not understand anything about astronomy".
I will delve into your questions and give you an answer as soon as possible.
with a smile
And happy new year
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Hello Mr. Writer,
Fortunately, I'm not a physicist and I finished my law studies in a field opposite to cosmology: microbiology. Therefore and accordingly, the information I have in this area is zero. I am attaching some questions that occurred to me while reading the two parts of the article. Some of them may very well be very stupid, please ignore them gracefully. I really don't understand anything in astronomy, so there is a reasonable chance that quite a bit of nonsense will come out of my keyboard in the following cluster of questions:
1) In part A of the article you wrote "In addition, the rotation speed of the stars of the spiral galaxy, which was supposed to increase and decrease as a function of their distance from the center of the galaxy, actually remains constant up to the edge of the galaxy and even beyond them in the region of the gas clouds of the galaxy far from its center." The sentence is not entirely clear. Is the galaxy's rotation rate uneven? ZA stars that are closer to the center are slower than those on the periphery, since they have to complete a smaller orbit. Maybe the wording is not accurate and you mean that the speed of the rotation should not have decreased because the change in the speed of the rotation is probably the one that is smaller as you move away from the distance. Anyway, if you can get an explanation for this sentence, I would appreciate it.
2) Maybe in connection with "Shay's" question and maybe I didn't get to the bottom of his mind: it is common to think that mass causes curvature in space-time. Is it possible that the space-time is curved in advance, even without the mass? If we manage to show that spacetime can be curved for other reasons (non-gravitational) then the use of dark matter can be avoided. It could be that Xi asked about the relationship between the mass M1 which is different from every different place we look at it. If we look at the mass of the galaxy from the center of the galaxy, it will be different from the mass of the galaxy that we look at from the edge of the galaxy, because the spacetime is different (due to rotation and density, let's say).
3) How did you arrive at the number of 10 to the power of minus 37 grams? Compared to hydrogen, let's say one gram weighs. In a mole there is an Avogadro number of atoms which is about 6 times 10 to the power of 23. In your opinion the basic particle (string?) will be 14 orders of magnitude smaller than the atom? Let's say the size of one atom is ten angstroms, so is an elementary particle sized accordingly? (The volume question is less important, the puzzling to me is the weight). Does this calculation agree with the Planck length (10 minus 35)?
4) In one of the paragraphs you write: "If the particles passing between the two bodies collide with other particles coming from space, then they become random" and there is a problem with this wording. Let's assume a big bang (from a singular point or a larger initial volume) and assume directions for the movement of the particles. After all, from a certain point (the center of the universe) the movement of the particles will have a certain direction which is in a straight line (mostly in net motion) from the center of the universe and further towards the direction of its expansion. If we try to find an analogy, we will take the concept of diffusion from a place where the concentration of the substance is greater to a place where the concentration is less. The movement of molecules in diffusion is indeed random, but the net movement is directional, from high to low.
5) Although I did not understand the calculation, I can understand the idea of your simple universe and the matter of the differential pressure of the gases. My question is, what is this gaseous substance? Do we see/measure it? If not - why?
6) What is the motive for canceling gravitation at great distances?
Sorry in advance for the too long text and thank you for another excellent and enlightening article,
Ami Bachar
To Lior
If you meant Hokind, I'm not sure he'd have the time for me. Also, my English is not good enough to translate such an article. Maybe we will be reduced to only academics here in Israel. If any of them read the article, I would love to know their reaction, and regardless, your reaction too, Lior.
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Hi Yehuda, first of all I just wanted to tell you that things sound very interesting at first glance, but I need at least a few good days to digest an article like this and to read the various responses and digest them as well, overall I don't have much knowledge in this field, I'm only interested in knowing something, Today, in the age of the Internet, it is very easy to contact (via email) leading renowned scientists who deal with these fields, how about translating the above article in both parts into English and sending it to some of these people to get a serious opinion from a person with deep knowledge in the field? Maybe even to the famous scientist who sits in a wheelchair and is assisted by a talking computer, for some reason his name just escaped my mind...
For the attention of readers
From time to time I will check if there are more commenters to this article and I promise to respond to them as soon as possible.
Thanks to the responders so far. About this it is said:-
Of all my educated respondents.
Appreciate all the commenters!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Regarding your post about the light, I have to disagree with you. When light is scattered from some star, the very fact that it has a speed relative to us (whether it is toward us or from us), this does not affect the amplitude of the wave (which is affected by the very distance between us and that star in an inverse square ratio) - but on the length of the wave! (And the same goes for its frequency) That is, if we see any bright star, if it moves towards us - we will see a shorter wavelength than the original wavelength it emits, and vice versa. This phenomenon is known as the "Doppler effect/result", or "red/blue shift". The shift to blue means the shortening of the wavelength (because its length is closer to the wavelength of the blue color), and the shift to red means the lengthening of the wave (because its length is closer to the wavelength of the red color).
Hope this explains better why your theory is not plausible.
Shai
No way
Sabdarmish Yehuda
critical mass
There is a situation where as soon as you reach a critical mass that borders on the limits of the laws of physics, the poles reverse to maintain the balance of the laws of physics.
Then the attraction becomes a repulsion which directly affects the centrifugal force.
Good morning to Ephraim!
Below are the answers to your three questions
Question - Is the gap in spiral galaxies always tenfold?
Answer - no. The gap varies but on average it is ten times. The no less serious problem is that increasing the mass of the galaxy tenfold must be done in a certain way in certain areas, that is, most of the increased mass must be concentrated in the galaxy clouds surrounding the spiral galaxy, otherwise we will still have a problem with the rotation speed.
Question - can the black hole have a role in explaining the above gap.
Answer - no. The mass of the galaxy is a hundred billion suns or more, while the black hole in the center of the galaxy contains a mass of only a few million suns, for example the black hole in the center of the Milky Way is about three million suns in size. So the black hole is tiny relative to the size of the galaxy. Additionally. As I explained in my previous answer, mass concentrated in the center will not solve the problem.
Question - Is it possible that the solution lies in giving the stars of the galaxy a non-circular orbit?
Answer - no. The spiral galaxies have existed for billions of years and make a revolution every 250 million years on average and they maintain their spiral shape. So that observations show that this possibility that you raised is not possible.
So let's have a good night this morning.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda Shalom,
I have read the two parts of the article and I would like to raise 3 points for thought that I did not find expression in your article:
1. You stated in your article that according to the measurements that were made there is a gap
of 10 times when trying to compare the force of gravity
According to Newton's laws the centripetal force, but no
You mentioned whether this gap of 10 times exists in every galaxy,
And I emphasize, in every galaxy measured, or the gap in every
Galaxy is another.
If we try to measure the difference between the centripetal force and the force
Gravitation in different galaxies, each of which has
Different diameter, different mass and different distance from us, the mother
The same gap of a factor of 10 is revealed in all of them?
If the same gap is discovered in each and every one of the galaxies, so be it
This greatly reduces the possibility that there is an error
measurement, and indeed reinforces the thought that the law of gravitation
Newton's is probably not valid, or dark mass exists
2. We know that at the center of every galaxy there is a black hole
Has a very large mass, and this mass is constantly increasing due to
Pumping material from the galaxy towards the same black hole
at relative speeds. More than that, due to the large mass
At the very core of the black hole, a space-time warp is created in the region
the center of the galaxy. Is it correct in this case to refer to
The same black hole as a point mass located in the center
same black hole, and use Newton's law to compare
Between the force of gravity and the centripetal force?
3. When comparing Newton's gravitational force with
The centripetal, we actually make an implicit assumption that
The stars of the galaxy move in a circular motion around its center.
But it is certainly possible that this is not the case: there is no equality between
The forces (difference of a factor of 10) and hence we conclude that
The stars of the galaxy do not move in a circular motion around
its center, but are getting closer and closer in accelerated motion to
its center and eventually are sucked into the black hole
in the center of it. Do the measurements rule out this possibility?
Thank you for your consideration of the options I have raised.
Sincerely
Ephraim
I guess we are all waiting for the Lucerne accelerator to really see into Planck space.
I personally am a follower of the strings and indeed think that all matter and energies are mathematical expressions of space (someone here read midnight in the well of souls(?)). And gravity is such a type of manifestation, only we don't know how to control it (Charon's ring). but only in indirect activation inventions with the help of local Newton's laws.
Good evening to Ayalon!
Don't be mad, but just because we're looking for the final theory doesn't mean it necessarily exists. You and I, believe me, very much want it to exist, and we are looking for it with every fiber of our being, but we cannot be sure of its existence!
You who are a follower of mathematics, please, build a proof for the existence of the final theory, please prove the mathematical claim:- for every universe there is a final theory that explains everything and it is possible to reach it.
Another wording?, please:-
A universe, if and only if, has a final theory that can be reached.
I must point out that you feel that you have extensive knowledge in all fields of science, so I will ask you a question: - With your hand on your heart, can you or can't you build a universe that does not have a final theory, or does it have but it is impossible to reach it?, what do you think?, A little math exercise!
And regarding physics and mathematics, here our opinions differ. For me, mathematics will always be purely a creation of my mind, and no matter how hard I try, there will always be a huge, unbridgeable chasm between it and physical reality. I know that today modern science has turned physics into a mathematical creature and Galileo who climbed the tower in Pisa did not throw down two balls but two physical formulas that warped space on their way down. What to do is not acceptable to me. I know I'm in the minority on this.
I wrote an article "Evolution of theories" that was published here, on the site of the science. This article was written during interesting conversations with the late Prof. Yuval Naaman. The article shows an interesting equivalence in the bioevolution of life to the evolution of theories. In this article I showed Yuval Neman that since there is a finite theory then from the equivalence it follows that the entropic principle also exists. (The purpose of the universe is man) and there he was the one who claimed:- How do you know that there is the final theory? So it wasn't my brilliance but his, and really, I don't think it's possible to prove that there is the final theory we're all looking for.
I understand, Elon, that you are a follower of string theory, unfortunately I am not a follower of the aforementioned theory, so I don't really delve into it. What bothers me the most is the possibility of taking dimensions without calculation and compressing them into a particle and we easily passed the four dimensions of relativity and reached up to 11 dimensions or even over twenty. I am a follower of Newton's three dimensions and am ready to extend to the fourth of relativity as well.
I see that there is a gap between us that may not be bridged, but I must point out that your questions and position provoke deep thoughts.
So good night and nice to meet you
In appreciation
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And again, I'm a little sorry for the slightly harsh reaction. I strive for practicality
Good Day
Elon
A. EPR was brought up as an example of physics that is not local and only as a comment you did not refer to the thing it was commented on - the particle formulation. And the subject of your article also has a deep connection to both quantum mechanics and general relativity - not in terms of the application (as you said) but in terms of the final formulation of the theory of gravitation (Einstein's is not the final one because it does not have a quantum formulation) and therefore any correction of Newton's law of gravitation must be included as an approximate result of the final formulation. In addition, regarding the dark energy, its origin is also related to the structure of the basic matter, therefore for QFT one of the candidates for it is the Higgs field
B. I'm going to be a bit sharp here, so I apologize in advance. What kind of theorist are you?! There is no final theory? So why even explain anything? After all, the essence of every explanation is the unification of several phenomena under one rule (I'm sorry, but my anger burns in me) and it doesn't matter that all the developments of science for all its 400 years lead to such an explanation, there are always the skeptics who have to explain the narrowing of their horizons and why they are focused In what narrow field (Weiberg and Co. and probably you too) in addition to sex in non-sex? This is a slightly superficial view. Those who study string theory slowly see how the abstraction of the creation of pure intelligence gradually takes over physics to the point of concluding that all matter is a derivative of space (see the Super Symmetry entry in Super Gravitation) and from its homology many conclusions are derived from it and refer to Mitsu Kaku's book on space" which is phrased in a similar way and many great physicists (and I emphasize great - Newton and several others who spoke of a hidden unity between the explainer and the explained - mathematics and physics and this is not so difficult to understand because physics is an axiomatic structure and is completely abstract even at the level of concepts, so the physicist The line really looks like a species in that it is not a species because of its smallness - he is simply not a good philosopher - he is unable to see the connection between language and language, form and content - does not mean that there is no hidden unity)
third. Again regarding the dark energy, see Brian Green's instructive explanation in the above mentioned book and you will see how everything is beautifully and elegantly stitched as it explains 2 phenomena in the palm of your hand
Good morning to Aylon
I don't think that the theory of relativity and the quantum theory have a reference to the topic of my essay, therefore the reference to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment is also unnecessary. Quantum theory is not able to handle bodies as large as galaxies and a speed of hundreds of kilometers per second does not justify the use of relativity.
I agree with you that meaning should only be increased in mathematical subjects and one should be careful not to make consequences in physical subjects. Mathematics is in our heads and physics is in the external world, but I brought this as an example of the possibility of cases where we are unable to reach the truth. Therefore, Menachem's words about such a possibility have something to rely on. It doesn't seem to me that this is only about extensive theories, I believe that it also deals with limited problems and again he brought you an example from mathematics - Fermat's theorem was one of the theorems that were thought to be true but without the ability to be proven. Now it has been proven but the very thought of a reduced problem having these properties is proof to me. You are a bit optimistic about two things, firstly that there is a possibility of a final theory, and secondly that it will unite mathematics as science. Regarding the union, I think it is impossible to unite a species that is not a species. As for the beauty that should be in theories, well, it is recommended, but you shouldn't give it too much weight. Even the ugly have a right to exist. And regarding string theory, there are indeed many ambitions that it will be the one that brings the solution to the unification of relativity and quantum, but the road is long.
In your second response you come to justify dark energy as a factor that comes to justify the problem of the flatness of the universe. Again you use a factor of gravity for large distances that does not exist in my explanation and therefore does not require dark energy as a counter. And the fact that they talked about dark energy before 1998 - the measurements of the Super Novas that discovered the accelerated expansion of the universe, does not give dark energy any points in the fight for theoretical existence.
so good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Alon and Alli Baruch
Your responses are interesting and require in-depth study.
A little patience
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Science requires proof:
"Scientific" hypotheses, in many cases did not even reach the level of a claim that requires proof; Also in many cases: an analog device (a device with continuously variable size), such as a dimmer for example (allows light intensity regulation), arrived only after the development of an incandescent light bulb, and in the state of a digital characteristic (ON OF state); For those who have doubts, ask the professionals in electricity and electronics.
And to the subject of the article: it is even possible that it is quite simple, and it is unnecessary to complicate the issue, in order to illustrate how simple it can be to understand in the complex galaxy system; We will need a basic understanding of physics, on the subject of energy conversions, which means: energy in nature changes from a certain type of energy, to energy even of different types, such as for example a waterfall, which drives a mechanical system, which rotates an alternator/generator, which produces electricity, with which you can connect to it, and operate a centrifugal machine, Like for example one that squeezes water. Actually, in this case there are the following conversions:
From potential/gravitational (the waterfall), to the mechanical (the drive of the pulley, to which the generator is connected), and from the mechanical to the electric (the generation of electricity through the generator). Another example: look at how a bicycle rider, who activates the muscles of his body (mechanical activation), turns the mechanical power into kinetic (motional) energy, and if he connects a dynamo to the bicycle, he will also generate electricity.
And as a continuation of the topic of the article: a galaxy system, like the spiral; The centrifugal force contained in it, in contrast to the centrifugal machine that squeezes water, acts as a material-mass sucker (in enormous systems of dimensions in the universe, in contrast to the tiny earthly dimensions; the possibilities of energy conversions are almost unlimited in relation), and compresses it towards the center, to such an extent that the material in the center, sucks and is compressed more and more, until it does not emit any measurable radiation (a small example of this reversible situation is when a neutron star is compressed to such an extent that it eventually explodes and emits powerful radiation).
And a little more seriously: it will probably be necessary to start getting used to the fact that the clusters of galaxies expand in a wavy manner (non-linear, as claimed in the response from the previous article), and this on the basis of the proof (there is proof) that the mass warps space. It is possible that the luck of existence is that these waves are quite weak, and it is also difficult to measure them; But this does not prevent them from sometimes causing collisions of galaxies (a fact that is ignored when trying to stick to a theory that holds to linear expansion).
For staples: We'll be luckier if Andromeda misses the Milky Way.
In addition to dark energy - it supplements the amount of matter that should be in the universe in order for the problem of flatness to be solved and also after the inflation model so that it serves us for many needs and is not just an explanation of explosive material. It then independently explained the result of 1998 that the universe is accelerating invented before that
Good day again
Good. First of all, regarding the clarifications about Godel and Newton and dark energy - I also read the elegant universe, but I refer you to a new book that came out in Hebrew about Newton, where you will see the exact quote. In any case, Newton probably did not talk about particles (although in the model of light he did talked about it) and this is because Field theory was bound to every force by virtue of the philosophy of its nature and in fact even to this day physics is local (until the experiment of Bell and EPR) that a cause causes an effect only if both are in the same place and from the natural development of the physical language the next step is Field Continuous and non-quantum, what did happen - for Faraday's electromagnetism, so even if he was talking about agents, he certainly did not think about force-carrying particles (-quanta of the gravitational field)
In relation to increase - well, this is a subject of mathematical logic - but it is not applied to specific questions (especially not in physics) and there is no problem with the continuum hypothesis because it is a fundamental question in the entire structure of group theory - that is, the issue of the limits of knowledge is applied in general in relation to the entire structure of Torah Yes, but not with respect to specific questions, because then you have to explain why a certain question has a yes answer in the axiomatic structure and otherwise no, and this is not just a tool for an emergency solution and a list of options, and it should be treated with respect. Apart from that, I don't think it belongs to physics - it has a specific and very special structure and the nature of its questions So my intuition says that if it does have an effect it will be regarding the final theory (which is also supposed to unite physics with mathematics)
Regarding the dark energy - I invite you to read in Brian Green's new book - The Fabric of the Universe - the instructive explanation based on which I wrote what I wrote
In addition, you did not address the biggest issue - beauty!!
But of course the truth is important to us and you may be right, in any case we should combine these ideas with what we already know and not just leave it as an isolated idea
For NAD, the answer to all these questions is an image in string theory or its negation, and in any case in a language that will build into it the conic field theory and the metrical language of general relativity
It would be a real surprise if another new factor (that is not the Higgs field or gravitation) is added to the world of our concepts, and in any case it will be no less burdensome than dark energy (the candidates for which are probably related to super particles - and not only to dark matter) but again this is how theories in physics have progressed, so maybe You're right
Good Day
Shai
It seems to me that there is no point in throwing theories into the air whose entire purpose is to raise general hypotheses. The dimming of the light because of quantum jumps, and because of the expansion of the universe and in general that there is still invisible light. So I don't like explanations as above and if there is dimming of light in a certain place, it can be explained in another simple way and not in quantum systems expanding the universe.
One should strive for the simplest possible correct explanation.
Have a good day.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What about the theory I created
which says that the visible light is much more vast than it appears
And it's just an optical illusion that you see less light
Because of the vast distances there is an effect of the expansion of the universe plus the speed of light.
When the light is scattered in quantum jumps throughout the rest of the universe on the way until it reaches us, under the influence of the expansion of the universe. So that in the measurements there will be no change between the continuity of light and the speed of light.
The additional distance in the expansion of the universe must be reflected in the dimming of visible light.
Ofer
telrun@yahoo.com
To the anonymous participant, continue to respond regarding your statement that dark energy is a solution to accelerating the universe. As you said:-
Second, the subject of dark energy explains the acceleration of the universe, so it's not so sure that we gained something from it that "doesn't need" it.
End of quote.
I have to disagree with you! The universe turned out to be an accelerator, that's a fact. So it seems to me that if for this purpose we add accelerating energy, we have not innovated anything. What will happen if tomorrow we find out that it also explodes?, so we add explosives to it?
But what to do Mr. Anonymous, this is the often accepted approach in science. Isn't gravitation also explained at least initially by giving the property of gravitation to matter, in other words to the question why does the earth attract?, answer:- because it has an attractive force. Why is the universe accelerating? Answer:- Because it has accelerating energy (darkness). At least Le Sage's experiment also gives us an explanation for gravitation and if we add to it my simple and gaseous universe idea, it will also explain the movement of galaxies and the expansion of the universe and a number of other things.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Response to age
Did you come up with the idea that these particles are the graviton? I don't know, maybe. The truth is that it doesn't matter to me if this is the case because it won't be the reason if I accept the particle explanation for gravitation, or not. At the moment the most serious problem for the idea of particles is the friction that will be created which must slow down the movement of the stars, and also a certain failure with the Michelson-Morlay experiment. I must point out that I have different ideas for a solution. When they are consolidated, either positively or negatively, I will put them in writing, and on the site of the scientist, with the permission of Avi Blizovsky of course.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Reply to the anonymous participant. I found the quote!
The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, Mater Publishing, 2000, and I quote to you and to everyone what is written in chapter three, called "Einstein's Happiest Thought", where on page 58 it is about Newton's reference to gravitation,
And I quote from the book from the beginning of the page:-
...that is to say, how does it happen that two bodies that are physically separated from each other, sometimes by hundreds of millions of kilometers, nevertheless affect each other's movement? By what means does gravity perform its task? This is a problem that Newton himself was clearly aware of, in his own words:
Mind does not allow that inanimate wild matter will act on another matter and be affected by another matter without the mediation of something else, which is not matter, and without mutual contact. The possibility of gravity being innate, intrinsic and essential to matter so that one body may act on another body through an empty space without the mediation of anything else in whose presence it would be possible to transfer their action and force, from one to another, is to me such an absurdity that I believe that no person who has the ability Sound thinking in philosophical matters cannot fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an "agent" acting regularly according to certain laws, but I leave it to my readers to decide at their own discretion whether this "agent" is material or immaterial.
End of quote.
I also remember reading this once in the English source of Newton's book and if I find the original quote in English, I will bring it here.
I hope the quote I quoted from memory matches what is written here.
And regarding Menachem's words, I remember that a mathematician named Gadel researched and found that there will always be things that we cannot decide about their correctness. It is true that these things can be said every time we come across something that we do not understand, but I remember that I said in my lecture that all options and approaches to a solution should be placed on the table, even those that are not visible to us at first glance, if only for the reason that we know that all the options are there and therefore at least one of them must be the right one. It doesn't seem to me that there was any flattery in my words to that comforting commenter and the only reason for my treatment of him is because I was sure that in my three approaches I found all the possibilities for a solution, and here, someone proved to me that there is another possibility, kudos to him!
But I must also agree with your words that such a possibility is better not to be given too much weight in scientific analyzes because it will lead us to blocking attempts at a solution.
Finally, Mr. Anonymous User, I must say that I enjoyed responding to you (and there is no condescension here!)
And I'd love it if you appeared as something with a definite name.
Have a good evening!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
When I wrote the article I was too lazy to look up Newton's words in his native language, but in light of your words and casting doubt on them (although I admit it was done in a subtle way), I will sit down and look for the source of my words.
I will try to do it as soon as possible.
In appreciation of honesty
Sabdarmish Yehuda
It may be that the explanation is correct, but it is ugly. Until today, gravity was considered aesthetic in interactions (even in its incarnation in Newton, who by the way has no way of saying what you attributed to him - the language of agent particles belongs to quantum field theory. He knew that a field theory was needed for gravity, but he did not know how to formulate it and referring to the classical Maxwellian field theory, and especially Einstein's marble) and for the first time you managed to make it possible to use the ugly property of momentum transfer of QFT and not of the language of forces
Second, the issue of dark energy explains the acceleration of the universe, so it's not so sure that we've gained something by not "needing" it
Thirdly, there is no need to flatter the reader who claimed that the subject may not be within our reach. It may be true - and I would like to see if you would use this language in the formal articles you publish - because science never makes such assumptions. This one of all is like that
Good day and I hope I'm gentle enough
In any case successfully
If so, where is the same material? Where is the graviton?