The latest astrophysical measurements, combined with theoretical problems, cast doubt on the old and beloved theory - the inflation theory of the young universe, and suggest that we may need new ideas
- Recent measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the earliest light in the universe, cast doubt on the inflationary theory of the universe: the idea that space expanded at an exponential rate in the first moments of time.
- One of the typical results of inflation is a different pattern of temperature differences in the cosmic background radiation (although it can be made to predict almost any result). Another result of it is primordial gravitational waves, which were not discovered.
- The data suggest that cosmologists should re-evaluate their preferred paradigm, and consider new ideas about the beginning of the universe.
On March 21, 2013, the European Space Agency held an international press conference in which it announced Plank. The spacecraft mapped, in greater detail than ever before, the The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), light emitted more than 13 billion years ago, immediately after the Big Bang. The new map, the scientists told reporters, confirms a theory cosmologists have held dear for 35 years: that the universe began with a bang followed by a brief period of enormously accelerated expansion, known as the inflation, or inflation. This expansion flattened the universe to such an extent that even billions of years later it remains almost uniform in all space and in every direction, as well as "flat", i.e. not curved like a sphere, with the exception of tiny anomalies in the concentration of matter that explain the branched array of stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters around us.
The main message of the press conference was that Planck's data exactly match the predictions of the simplest models of inflation, which lends further validity to the impression that the theory is on solid ground. The story of cosmology seems to be over and done with, the team suggested.
Following the announcement, the three of us had a conversation about its implications at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Iges was then a visiting research student from Germany; Steinhardt, was one of the original architects of the theory of inflation thirty years ago, but in the work he did later serious problems were discovered in its theoretical foundations, at that time he spent a sabbatical year at Harvard; And Lev, who was our host by virtue of his position as head of the astronomy department. We all thought the incredibly meticulous observations of the Planck team were noteworthy. But we did not agree with their interpretation. If anything, Planck's data clashed with the simplest models of inflation and exacerbated long-standing fundamental problems of the theory, providing new reasons to consider competing ideas about the origin and evolution of the universe.
In the years since then, more precise data collected by the Planck spacecraft and other instruments have further strengthened our argument. However, even now the community of cosmologists is still not ready to look at the big bang inflation theory honestly and impartially, and it still does not pay any real attention to criticism, which doubts that inflation did happen. Instead, cosmologists seem to seemingly accept the assertion of inflation theorists: that we should believe it because it offers the only simple explanation for the observed properties of the universe. But, as we will explain, Planck's data, in addition to the theoretical problems, undermined the foundations of this assertion.
following the oracle
To demonstrate the problems with the theory of inflation, we will follow the assertion of its followers: let's assume that inflation is true without a doubt. Let us imagine that a professional oracle informed us unequivocally that inflation occurred some time after the Big Bang. If we accept the oracle's claim as fact, what exactly will it tell us about the evolution of the universe? If inflation does offer a simple explanation for the universe, you'd expect the oracle's statement to tell us a lot about what the Planck data is likely to show.
One of the things she will tell us is that at some point, some period of time after the Big Bang, there must have been a tiny segment of space that was filled with an exotic form of energy that caused an episode of rapidly accelerated expansion ("inflation") of that segment. Most known forms of energy, such as those contained in matter and radiation, resist the expansion of the universe and slow it down due to the self-attraction of gravity. Inflation requires that the universe be filled with a high density of gravitationally self-repelling energy, which will intensify the expansion and cause it to accelerate. But it is important to note that this crucial element, commonly called inflationary energy, is nothing more than a hypothesis; We have no direct evidence that it exists. Moreover, in the last 35 years, literally hundreds of proposals have been made as to what the inflationary energy might be, and each such proposal produces a very different rate of inflation and very different amounts of overall stretching. It is therefore clear that inflation is not an exact theory but rather a very flexible framework that contains many possibilities.
However, what can the Oracle's statement tell us, if we want to hear something that will be true for all models, independent of the particular type of inflationary energy? First, we can be sure, based on our basic knowledge of quantum physics, that the temperature and density of matter throughout the universe after inflation ends must be somewhat different in different places. Random quantum fluctuations in the concentration of inflationary energy on subatomic scales could be stretched during inflation and become cosmic-scale regions, each containing a different amount of inflationary energy. According to the theory, the accelerated expansion ends when the inflationary energy decays into ordinary matter and radiation. In places where the inflationary energy density (the amount of inflationary energy per cubic meter of space) is a little higher, the accelerated expansion will last a little longer, and when the inflationary energy eventually decays, the density and temperature of the universe in those places will be a little higher. The differences in inflationary energy, which will be created by quantum effects, will therefore translate into a pattern of slightly hotter and slightly colder spots in the light of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which preserves a record of those times. Over the next 13.7 billion years, the tiny differences in density and temperature in the cosmos will condense under the influence of gravity to form patterns of galaxies and large-scale structures.
This is a good start, if a bit vague. Can we predict the number of galaxies and their arrangement in space? the level of curvature and distortion of the space? The amount of matter, or other forms of energy, that make up the current universe? The answer is no. Inflation is such a flexible idea that any outcome is possible. Does inflation tell us why the Big Bang happened or how the primordial segment of space formed, the segment that eventually evolved into the universe we observe today? The answer, again, is no.
Also, even if we knew inflation really happened, we wouldn't be able to predict too much about the cold and hot spots observed by the Planck satellite. The Planck map and earlier studies of the cosmic background radiation indicate that the pattern of hot and cold spots is nearly identical at any scale, no matter how far or close we get to the image, a feature scientists call "scale-independence."scale invariance).” The latest Planck data show that the deviation from perfect scale independence is tiny, only a few percent, and that the average temperature difference over all points is about 0.01%. Proponents of inflation often emphasize that a pattern can be created with these features. But such statements ignore one key point: Inflation allows for the creation of many other patterns of cold and hot spots, which are not even close to scale independence, and which are characterized by much larger temperature differences than the observed value. In other words, scale independence is possible, but also a large deviation from scale independence is possible, and all the possibilities in between, all depending on the details of the inflationary energy density in our assumptions. Therefore, the arrangement that Planck saw cannot be considered as confirmation of inflation.
In particular, it is worth noting that if we knew that inflation had occurred, there is one characteristic that we can say with a high degree of confidence that we would find in Planck's observations of the cosmic background radiation, because it is shared by all the simplest forms of inflationary energy, including those presented in the usual textbooks. At the same time that the quantum fluctuations produce random differences in inflationary energy, they also produce random distortions in space, which advance as waves of spatial disturbances across the universe from the moment inflation ends. These perturbations, known as gravitational waves, are another source of cold and hot spots in the cosmic microwave background radiation, but they also have a distinct polarizing effect (that is, gravitational waves cause light to favor a certain direction of its electric field, depending on whether the light came from a cold spot , hot or from somewhere in between).
The simplest models for inflation, including the models described in the usual textbooks, collide head-on with the observations. Of course, the theorists were quick to paint the inflationary picture, but at the cost of creating complicated models.
Unfortunately, the search for inflationary gravitational waves has not borne fruit. Although cosmologists first saw hot and cold spots using the spacecraft COBE In 1992 and in many other experiments conducted after that, including even more recent results from the Planck spacecraft from 2015, they found no sign of the cosmic gravitational waves expected from inflation, as of this writing, despite meticulous searches for them. (On March 17, 2014, scientists announced from an experiment BICEP2 that at the South Pole they detected cosmic gravitational waves, but later retracted their claim when it became clear to them that they actually saw a polarization effect caused by dust grains in the Milky Way.) Note that there is no connection between these expected cosmic gravitational waves and the gravitational waves created by merging black holes in the universe modern, and were discovered in 2015 at the Gravitational Wave Observatory using a laser interferometer (LIGO).
The results of the Planck satellite - a combination of an unexpectedly small deviation (a few percent) from perfect scale independence in the pattern of hot and cold spots in the cosmic background radiation and the failure to detect cosmic gravitational waves - are astonishing. For the first time in 30 years, the simplest inflation models, including the models described in standard textbooks, collide head-on with observations. Of course, the theorists rushed to patch up the inflationary picture, but at the cost of creating complicated models of inflationary energy and exposing additional problems.
The skier on the hill
In order to fully appreciate the significance of Planck's measurements, it is worthwhile to take a closer look at the inflationary models that the followers of inflation present at the forefront, for their shortcomings.
Scientists believe that the inflationary energy grows out of a hypothetical field, called Plato, which corresponds to an electric field, and which prevails in the entire space and has a strength (or value) at each and every point in it. Since inflation is a hypothesis, theorists are allowed to imagine that the Inflaton is characterized by such a gravitational self-repulsion that causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate. The strength of the inflaton field at a given point in space determines the inflationary energy density there. The relationship between the field strength and the energy density can be represented by a curve on a graph that looks like a hill (see illustration). Each of the hundreds of inflationary energy models that have been proposed is characterized by a certain shape of this hill, and this shape determines the properties of the universe after inflation ends. For example, if the universe will be flat and smooth and if the temperature and density differences in it will be almost independent of the scale, or not.
Since the publication of Planck's data, cosmologists have found themselves in a situation very similar to this scenario: imagine you live in an isolated town nestled in a valley surrounded by hills. The only people you ever see in the town are its residents, until one day a strange woman arrives in the town. You all want to know how the stranger came to your town. You consult the town gossip (also known as the "local oracle"), and he claims to know that she came to the town by skiing. You believe gossip, and take into account that there are only two hills leading to your valley. Anyone who reads the ski guide will know the first hill, which can be easily reached with a ski lift. All the routes there have a moderate descent; Visibility and snow conditions are quite good. The second hill is completely different from it. It is not included in any standard ski guide. And no wonder! Avalanches are known to occur at the top of the hill. One of the paths leading to your town is challenging because it starts on a flat ridge that suddenly ends on a steep cliff. Moreover, there is no ski lift there. The only conceivable way to start gliding down this hill is to first jump out of a plane and then, using a parachute, land at a certain spot on the ridge (to the nearest centimeter) and land there at exactly the right speed; The smallest mistake will cause the skier to deviate from her course towards a distant valley or cause her to be trapped on the top of the hill; In the worst case, an avalanche may start before the skier reaches the ridge and she will not survive. If the town gossip is right, and indeed the stranger arrived by skiing, it is reasonable to conclude that she arrived down the first hill.
It would be crazy to imagine that anyone would choose the second route, since the chances of reaching the town safely are slim compared to the path down the first hill. But then you discover something about the foreigner. There is no ski lift card attached to her coat. Based on this observation and the stubborn adherence of the town gossip to his claim that the stranger arrived on skis, you are forced to come to the strange conclusion that the stranger must have chosen the second mountain. Or maybe she didn't come skiing at all, and you have to question the credibility of the town gossip.
At the same time, if a professional oracle informs us that the universe evolved to its current state through inflation, we would expect an inflationary energy density curve similar to a ski-guide hill, because it has a simple shape from top to bottom, the fewest adjustable variables, and the fewest sensitive conditions required to start inflation. Indeed, until now almost all textbooks on inflationary cosmology presented energy curves of this simple and uniform form. In particular, the energy density along these simple curves increases at a steady rate with changes in the field strength, so that the inflationary field can have an initial value for which the inflationary energy density will be equal to a number known as the Planck density (10 times greater density to the 120th power than today's density), the total energy density that was available When the universe first emerged from the big bang. Under such favorable opening conditions, where the only form of energy is inflationary energy, the accelerated expansion will begin immediately. During inflation, the intensity of the inflation field will naturally develop so that the energy density will slowly and continuously decrease along the curve until the valley, where the curve reaches its lowest point, corresponding to the universe we live in today. (You can think of this progression as if the inflation field is "sliding" down the curve.) This is the classic story of inflation, presented in the textbooks.
But Planck's observations tell us that this story cannot be true. The simple inflation curves produce hot and cold spots whose deviation from scale independence is greater than observed, and gravitational waves strong enough that we would be able to detect them. If we continue to insist that inflation occurred, then Planck's results require us to come to the conclusion that the inflation field "slid" down a more complicated energy density curve, which looks like the second hill, the one with the high risk of avalanches and with a low, flat ridge ending in a steep cliff leading to the valley. Instead of a simple, steadily rising shape, such an energy curve will rise sharply (that is, form a cliff) and move away from the minimum until it suddenly flattens out over a planar plateau (forming a ridge) with an energy density a billion times lower (10 to the 12th power) than the Planck density that was available immediately after the Big Bang. In this case, the inflationary energy density would be only a fraction of a percent of the total energy density after the Big Bang, far less than what would be required to cause the universe to start undergoing inflation immediately.
Since the universe is not undergoing inflation, the inflation field is free to start at any initial value and change at a breathtaking speed, like a surfer jumping out of an airplane. However, inflation can only begin if the inflaton field eventually reaches a value corresponding to the point on the plane level, and only if the inflaton field changes very slowly. Just as the demand from the skier parachuting from a high altitude, that she land on the flat cliff at the right speed that will allow her to glide down smoothly, is a dangerous demand, so it is almost impossible for the Inflaton field to slow down at exactly the right rate and by exactly the right amount for the field to begin inflation. And if that were not enough, since the universe does not undergo inflation during this time period after the big bang when the inflaton speed is decreasing, any initial distortion or imbalance in the distribution of energy throughout the universe will grow; When they are large enough, they will prevent inflation from starting, regardless of how the Inflaton develops, just as an avalanche may prevent a female skier from skiing a smooth path down the hill, regardless of how perfect the path she took from the plane to the ridge was.
In other words, if we accept the words of the oracle and insist that inflation occurred, then Planck's data will force us to accept the strange conclusion that inflation began with a flat plateau-like energy density curve, despite all the problems this picture presents. And perhaps, this is the stage to start doubting the reliability of the oracle.
The "chaos"
Of course there is no oracle. We should not simply accept the assumption that inflation occurred, especially since it does not offer a simple explanation for the observed properties of the universe. Cosmologists are supposed to evaluate the theory by applying standard scientific procedures to estimate the odds that inflation occurred given our observations of the universe. In this sense, the fact that the latest data discards the simplest models of inflation in favor of more artificial models is clearly bad news. However, truth be told, these latest observations are not the first problem inflationary theory has encountered; In fact, these results sharpened and added a new dimension to familiar and well-known issues.
For example, we must ask ourselves whether it is conceivable that the universe would have the initial conditions necessary for inflationary energy Of any kind, be whatever you are. Two implausible conditions must be met for inflation to begin. First, shortly after the Big Bang, there had to be a segment of space where the quantum fluctuations of space-time dissipated and where space is well described by Einstein's classical equations of general relativity; Second, this segment of space must be flat enough and have a smooth enough distribution of energy that the inflationary energy can grow to such an extent that it overshadows all other forms of energy. Some theoretical estimates of the probability of finding a segment with such characteristics immediately after the Big Bang show that it is more difficult than finding a snowy mountain equipped with a ski lift and groomed ski slopes in the middle of the desert.
And more importantly, if it were easy to find a segment that emerged from the Big Bang that is flat enough and smooth enough to start inflation, then inflation would be unnecessary in the first place. If you remember, the whole motive for introducing the theory was to explain how the visible universe got these properties; If the initiation of inflation requires the same properties, with the only difference being that it requires a smaller section of space, then the sages have not been too helpful in their regulation.
However, such issues are only the beginning of our problems. Not only does inflation require initial conditions that are difficult to achieve, but it is also impossible to stop inflation once it starts. The roots of this problem lie in the quantum fluctuations of space-time. These cause the strength of the inflaton field to be different at each point, and the result is that there will be some points in space where inflation will end earlier than the other points. We tend to think of quantum fluctuations as something tiny, but already in 1983 it became clear to theorists, Steinhardt among them, that large quantum jumps in the Inflaton field, even if they are rare, can completely change the story of inflation. Large jumps may increase the intensity of the Inflaton field to values much higher than average, which will cause inflation to last much longer. Although such jumps are rare, areas where they occur will expand in volume at an enormous rate compared to areas where they do not, and will soon take over space. Within moments, an area that has stopped undergoing inflation will be surrounded by areas that are still undergoing inflation, and will be dwarfed by them. Then the process will repeat itself. In most of the inflated region, the strength of the Inflaton field will change in a way that will cause the energy density to drop and inflation to end, but rare large quantum jumps will cause inflation to continue in some places and create a volume that will undergo even greater inflation. And so the process will continue indefinitely.
In this way, inflation continues forever, producing an infinite number of segments where inflation has ended and each of which creates its own universe. Only in these segments, where inflation has stopped, is the rate of expansion of space small enough to form galaxies, stars, planets, and life. The troubling implication is that the cosmological properties of each segment will differ from one another due to the random effects inherent in quantum fluctuations. In general, most universes will not be distortion-free or flat; The distribution of the material will not be close to a smooth distribution; And the pattern of hot and cold spots in the cosmic background radiation won't even come close to being scale independent. The fragments will have an infinite range of possible and different outcomes, with none of them, including fragments similar to our visible universe, turning out to be better than its fellow. The result will be what cosmologists call a multiverse. Since the physical properties of each segment could be anything imaginable, the multiverse does not explain why our universe is characterized by the very particular conditions we observe. According to this explanation, they are nothing more than completely random features of our particular segment.
And maybe even this picture is too pink. Some scientists doubt that any segment of space could develop into a region similar to our visible universe. Instead, eternal inflation could degenerate into a completely quantum world of random and uncertain fluctuations that prevail everywhere, even after inflation ends. infinite of segments with randomly distributed properties, or if it consists of quantum chaos. From our point of view, it doesn't matter at all which description is correct. In any case, the rabbinic account does not predict that the properties of our visible universe are a probable result. A good scientific theory should explain why what we see is happening and not something else. The Chaos-Voho rabbi failed in this fundamental task.
paradigm shift
In the face of all these problems, the possibility that inflation did not occur deserves serious consideration. Going back, there seem to be two logical possibilities. Either the universe had a beginning, known in our language as "the big bang," or there was no beginning and what is called the big bang was actually "The great rejection", moving from a previous cosmological state to the current expanding state. Although most cosmologists assume that there was a bang, today there is no evidence, nothing, that will tell us whether the event that occurred 13.7 billion years ago was a bang or an aftershock. But spin-off, unlike the Big Bang, does not require an accompanying period of inflation to create a universe like the one we find, so spin-off theories represent a sharp change from the inflationary paradigm.
A spin-off can produce the same results as a combination of a bang and inflation together, because before the spin-off there could have been a period of slow contraction that lasted billions of years and could have smoothed and flattened the universe. Although the possibility that slow contraction could produce the same results as rapid expansion seems counterintuitive, there is a simple argument that shows it must be so. As we said, without inflation, a slowly expanding universe would be increasingly curved, distorted and uneven over time, due to the effects of gravity on space and matter. Imagine that you are watching a movie of this process, when you run it backwards: a large, uneven and very curved and distorted universe that gradually shrinks and becomes flat and uniform. That is, gravity works in reverse as a sliding device in the slowly shrinking universe.
As in the case of inflation, quantum physics introduces corrections to the simple sliding story for theories of detection as well. Quantum fluctuations change the rate of contraction from place to place so that some regions jump and begin to expand and cool before others. The scientists can build models in which the rate of contraction creates a situation where the post-observation temperature differences are consistent with the pattern of cold and hot spots observed by the Planck satellite. In other words, pre-emption contraction can do what inflation was supposed to do when it was first invented.
Moreover, detection theories have an important advantage compared to inflation: they do not create a lot of chaos. When the contraction phase begins, the universe is already large and classical (that is, described by Einstein's general theory of relativity), and it dissolves before it shrinks to a size where quantum effects start to be significant. As a result, there is never a phase, similar to the Big Bang, where the entire universe is governed by quantum physics, and there is no need to invent a quantum-classical transition phase. And since there is no inflation during the slip, the kind that might cause regions with large and rare quantum fluctuations to swell to huge dimensions, the slip by contraction does not create multiple universes. Recent work makes the first detailed proposals for describing how the universe could have transitioned from contraction to expansion, allowing the construction of a complete observational cosmology.
Non-empirical science?
Given the problems of inflation and the possibilities offered by observational cosmologies, there should seemingly be a lively debate among scientists today, centered on the question of how to tell these two theories apart through observations. But it's not that simple: inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, is a theory that cannot be evaluated using the scientific method. As we explained in the discussion here, the expected outcome of inflation can easily change if we play with the initial conditions, change the shape of the inflationary energy density curve, or simply specify that it leads to eternal inflation and chaos. These characteristics, all together and individually, make inflation so malleable that no experiment can disprove it.
There are scientists who accept the claim that inflation is a theory that cannot be tested, but refuse to abandon it. They suggested that instead, science must change by getting rid of one of its defining features: the ability to be tested experimentally. This idea sparked a flood of debates about the nature of science and the possibility of redefining it, and promoted the idea of some kind of non-empirical science.
One of the common misconceptions is that you can use experiments to prove that a theory is wrong. In fact, a failed theory becomes more and more resistant to experimentation because of the attempts to patch it up. To accommodate new observations, the theory becomes more and more sensitive and indecipherable, until it reaches a point where its explanatory power wanes to the point where it is no longer engaged with. The explanatory power of a theory is measured by the set of possibilities it eliminates. Higher immunity means eliminating fewer options and therefore less fitness. A theory like the multi-chaos does not eliminate anything, and therefore - its power is zero. Declaring an empty theory as the unquestionable basic starting point requires a kind of confidence that goes beyond science. And since professional oracles are not a hackneyed vision, the only choice we have is to turn to the power of authority. History teaches us that this is the wrong path to tread.
We were lucky today, and we have fundamental and acute questions forced upon us by the observations. The fact that our leading ideas don't work is a historic opportunity for a theoretical breakthrough. Instead of signing off on the story of the early universe, we should recognize that cosmology has not yet had the last word.
Good to know: Cosmic Controversy
Following the publication of this article in Scientific American, a scathing response letter was sent to the editor, signed by 33 scientists researching cosmic inflation, including four Nobel Prize winners. Among the signatories: Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Lisa Randall and others. The authors protest that the authors of the article wrote in it that "inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, is a theory that cannot be evaluated using the scientific method," and provide examples of experimental confirmation.
You are welcome to read the letter and a brief response from the authors of the article Click here.
A longer version of the authors' response is possible Find here.
and an overview of the entire controversy HERE.
for further reading
- Inflationary Paradigm in Trouble after Planck 2013. Anna Ijjas et al. in Physics Letters B, Vol. 723, Nos. 4–5, pages 261–266; June 25, 2013
- The Inflation Debate. Paul J. Steinhardt; Scientific American, April 2011
- Home page by the author of the article, Paul Steinhardt
- More articles of the author of the article, Anna Iges
- Home page of the author of the article, Avi Leib
173 תגובות
Yehuda
If you are so sure that there are gravity pushing particles, maybe you could test us and say how many gravity pushing particles are needed to make one schnitzel? We'd love to know.
Yehuda
I noticed that in several responses you refer to your past achievements in math grades and your professional achievements in organizational management. With all due respect, this is knowledge that does not concern us. In the field we are discussing, mathematical knowledge at the highest levels is required that goes beyond what you learned many years ago, in your articles you make a lot of use of mathematics and you do not explain why and how you develop your formulas, what is more, they are quite problematic. Your knowledge in the field is also very small. Your obsequiousness on the subject makes you a kind of village fool. Considering your age it is inappropriate. You are embarrassing yourself. what do you need it for A friendly suggestion to you, put your theory away. It is also advisable not to tag other topics. It doesn't make a good impression.
Yehuda
I noticed that several times you mention your achievements in the past, such as grades in mathematics and your professional achievements in factory optimization, and this is probably for the purpose of your subconscious to show that you are right here as well, but what to do, this is completely different knowledge and not relevant to our case. In your articles, you use mathematics and you do not give any Explain how you arrived at these formulas and calculations. , what's more, at least in part they are wrong. I understand that you are an adult, so I repeat my words to dismiss your theory. You obsessively make yourself the village fool. I feel sorry for you. A friendly offer to you. Stop commenting on other topics as well. Your comments here cast a heavy shadow on your knowledge and understanding of other subjects.
we
Really unfortunate.
Joshua
Really a cable.
A proposal for a simple experiment to test whether NASA's calculations regarding Pioneer are correct or whether there is pushing c.
A satellite that will be transported in a geosynchronous orbit that will be equipped with a 7KW lamp that will project against the direction of the orbital path.
If the calculations are correct, the deceleration in the satellite's speed will be 100 times greater than that of the Pioneer that radiated 70W.
Abbreviation of gravity pushing:
Putting sponge balls into a tank of water will cause a mutual attraction between them inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them
(Conclusion from the article:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath209/kmath209.htm).
Albanzo
Cable to talk to Yoda about concepts like thermodynamics. From his responses it is clearly seen that he does not know what it is. His knowledge of physics is minimal. On his theory it should be said:: May my great name be increased and sanctified and say Amen.
Yehuda
It's time for you to examine yourself and permanently shake your baseless theory. I feel sorry for you.
Israel Shapira
The "friction problem"... what a shame there was no "friction problem" for Mr. and Mrs. Shickleberger in the 19th century...
If only the Shickleburgers could rub together at a much higher speed... Maybe the friction would disappear and with it all the by-products...
Yoda, Sahabak has been telling you this for years, the last time was two months ago:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/in-no-time-at-all-2005171/comment-page-1/#comment-718777
"Satellites are exempt from celestial discipline, and some of them circle the earth in opposite directions or in other directions."
But don't be afraid. If you dig deep enough, you will find an elegant solution to the friction problem.
Albanzo and miracles
OK, I'll check myself. You may be right. I will also read the last article I received from Albanzo on the historical background to La Saz - Patio and everyone's attitude to the theory of pushing gravity. I started reading, and will look for more material on the subject.
Cut short, late at night. All the best and sorry if I made someone too angry. We will see if there is anything new in their knowledge.
Good night
Yehuda
Yehuda
The US launches satellites both to the East and to the West, but how does that relate to what I'm asking?
I'll try to explain again, but this time try to concentrate, okay? I gave two examples of trajectories in space that intersect. The first example is the tracks of the GPS satellites. The second example is the orbits of meteors (and also comets) that cross the Earth's orbit.
You said that the particles move in the trajectory of the same body, so how does that work out?
And regarding the last sentence in your response - "Again, think about it, isn't it simpler to conduct the experiment I mentioned, to attach a probe to the journey in space and check if it has a slight buoyancy" - allow me to answer you with a question.
Think, if you want to test the hypothesis that humans can fly, what's simpler: to rely on all the evidence we have about people who fell from high places and found their death (failed to fly to the insurers), on the detailed knowledge we have of human anatomy and the detailed knowledge that is us regarding aviation and seeing that anatomy contradicts the principles of aviation, about the fact that a human being has never been recorded flying, or that it would be simpler to plan an experiment in which a group of people are flown into a ballistic trajectory, thrown towards the ground in a variety of positions and costumes, and their relative position and acceleration are accurately measured at every moment, Dance from a projection, divide by 2, divide by 3 and multiply by 6 and at the end of course delete all the measured data and open a website on the internet called "a simple universe - people can fly"?
In case you didn't understand (and unfortunately I'm pretty sure you didn't), no one in the world will invest a penny in your stupid experiment. And unlike you, who called the experiment I explained to you stupid but then couldn't find anything wrong with it, I explain to you explicitly why your experiment is stupid: because it tests a hypothesis that has already been disproved experimentally for hundreds of years. Enough Judah, it's time to wake up.
to the brick wall,
Sorry, Yehuda (I got confused for obvious reasons: I usually can't tell if I'm talking to you or to a brick wall, and this time it's no different). As I have already written to you *tens* of times - no one says there is no friction. They say that if there is friction, it is below our measurement threshold. But our measurement threshold is terrifyingly accurate, and in order for the friction created by the gravitational particles with a body moving at a speed close to a millionth of a percent to the speed of light to be so small that we fail to measure it, the gravitational particles must be at superluminal speed and have a temperature that would melt the universe at lightning speed. The other "friction" factors you mentioned also exist - but there it is very likely that the friction will be so small that it will be impossible to measure it. For example, neutrinos simply hardly interact with matter - they are more or less transparent to each other. The vacuum is not perfect, but you can read on CERN's website how it is made and try to understand that it is the pinnacle of human technology of the 21st century, and it is pretty close to perfect. Close enough to make it impossible to measure the yaw with our measuring tools, and so on.
Relative to a man who wastes his life on this theory that died many years ago, don't you think you should invest a bit of energy in reading about it and studying it? In every simple source, even for the general public, the friction is mentioned and in most of them they even show how to calculate it. So instead of burying your head in the sand and living in a fantasy world, open your eyes and ears and look at a simple calculation. See for yourself that in order for the friction to be too small to measure, the gravitational particles must break the laws of physics and burn the entire universe.
And do yourself a favor, start reading what they write to you. I'm already tired of opening every comment by repeating what I told you and explaining again and again and again what has already been said 100 times (and also continuing each comment by explaining to you again, and also ending each comment by explaining to you again...)
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath209/kmath209.htm
The rest of the countries are from the east
for miracles
Israel, as we know, sends its satellites from Israel in the opposite direction to the west, while all the other countries go west, and thus they take advantage of the speed of the earth's rotation in both cases, the satellites sometimes move faster and sometimes slower than the earth. The average is a movement as fast as the Earth around the Sun. Nevertheless, there is a certain friction and it seems to me that the satellites will fall in the end. Just intuition. How do I explain the fall of a meteor? I really don't understand what the problem is. Although this is what the dinosaurs have been asking for 65 million years.
Call the Israeli Astronomical Society. From time to time we go out to observe meteors. Very nice.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to Albenzo
You wrote to me in a previous response: "In all the experiments done at CERN (for example) particles are accelerated to 99.999999% of the speed of light. You can calculate how much momentum such a particle should feel - this is a huge force that should act on it. However, no one has ever measured a single impulse in any experiment." End quote. If this is true, then really where is the thrust of the pushing gravity?, but there must be a thrust for many reasons and not just according to the particles of the pushing gravity. For example, what about the imperfect emptiness in the path of the proton beam during the experiment. In addition, the beam must collide on its way with neutrinos or cosmic rays of any kind and even with the few photons in the imperfect cooling of the transitions. Maybe the magnets work until the moment the particles collide so you really won't be able to notice any slowdown.
in brief. I understood what you were saying about Tzarn, but with all due respect, it seems to me that the statement that there is no friction is inaccurate. Nevertheless, first of all, even before reading the great article you sent me, you need to read and understand the structure of the accelerators in Zern and see if they will allow movement without acceleration in a straight line. Only then can we check and sort out the sources of friction and decide if there is anything left for gravity pushing.
Again, think, isn't it simpler to conduct the experiment I mentioned, to attach a probe to the journey in space and check if it has a slight drift.
Please respond gently.
good evening
Yehuda
Joshua
When I don't understand something, I look for the problem in myself. Yehuda looks for the problems in others.
Miracles
Judah will never be understood. He built an idle theory that is made of air bubbles without having minimal skills and knowledge for this purpose, neither in physics nor in mathematics.. It's a waste of effort and time. Everyone tries to explain to him where he is wrong and he digs in a bunker of ignorance and is proud of it.
Yehuda
I guess I don't understand what you write.
You wrote that the movement of the particles is what keeps bodies in orbit around a celestial body.
If so - how do two satellites pass in the same orbit in space in different directions?
Or - how could a meteor hit the earth?
What am I not understanding here?
Albanzo
I consider sending me the above link a tremendous compliment on your part if you think I am capable of reading this article. Right now I'm on the first page, or rather in the title. It seems to me that this is about the characteristics of the accelerator in Zern. I don't know why this has to do with me, but give me a few days or a year and I'll get back to you with insights. So all the best and goodbye
Yehuda
Here, a link as you requested: a detail of the calibration of the beam measurements at the LHC. No momentum was measured for the particle, even though at the speeds in question according to the mechanical model, a momentum should have been measured. This is of course just one example among many.
https://jwenning.web.cern.ch/jwenning/documents/EnergyCal/lhc-beam-energy.PRAB.pdf
What does it mean to "send a link for an experiment"? In every kinematic experiment acceleration is not measured. Which link exactly do you want me to send you? As I said in the previous response, in all experiments done at CERN (for example) particles are accelerated to 99.999999% of the speed of light. You can calculate how much momentum such a particle should feel - this is a huge force that should act on it. However, no one has ever measured any momentum in any experiment. Every experiment we do that involves kinematics is this experiment, and everyone has exactly the same result... What is unclear?
Are you willing to send me a link to this experiment that was done and I don't know about it? I did not find.
First of all, I didn't make you a "sebdarmish". Unlike you, who deliberately took things that another person wrote and put your name on them, I explained an experiment to you. If you read the comments back (both in this article and in others, because this is not the first time I explain it to you) you will see that not only did I never claim to have invented it, but also that in the past I specifically wrote to you that this was the experiment that Feynman proposed in the famous lecture: If gravity is indeed a force Mechanical, so a body at speed in a certain direction has a greater particle flux in that direction and must experience acceleration. Can be measured. as simple as that.
Of course your criticism is complete nonsense: there is no reason to perform the experiment in outer space conditions. It makes no sense to perform it outside the solar system because also according to what you suggest, the gravity on the Earth's surface is also due to mechanical particles. So the experiment - which is based solely on the hypothesis that gravity originates from mechanical particles - should work here in *exactly* the same way it works outside the solar system. Regarding gravity, then there is no need to "cancel" it either. First, we know with a very high degree of accuracy what its effect is, so we can simply subtract it from the measurements. Second, one can simply launch the particle perpendicular to the KDA axis, thereby ensuring that all KDA gravity will be completely perpendicular to our measurements. All the swing that the mechanical theory predicts will have to be on the vertical axis and therefore there will be no effect of gravity as a whole. Regarding the speed of the body, it is clear that you do not read what is written to you (this is the best strategy that will allow you to ignore reality), but as I have already written, for small bodies (not a spaceship, but large particles) it is possible to easily reach speeds higher than 12 km for a second But again, as I explained in the experiment itself, the speed of the body is not critical to performing the experiment. It will only affect the nature of the barriers that can be placed on the particles of mechanical gravity.
You need to understand what I have already explained to you many times in the past - there is no need to plan such an experiment in the future tense. And there is no need to look for flaws or reasons that such an experiment is not possible, simply because this experiment has already been done many times. I did not invent the data regarding the barriers on the gravity particles (their temperature and their speed). This experiment was done in a variety of configurations and locations, and all the most accurate measuring devices show that there is simply no drift. In order for there to be an acceleration that we have not been able to detect, the particles of mechanical gravity have to meet impossible conditions.
In other words, you jumped like a donkey to call the experiment delusional and stupid, but you have absolutely no end of an argument as to what is wrong with it, except for the completely arbitrary requirement that it has to be carried out outside the solar system (apparently there is some magic that makes the particles of mechanical gravity obey completely different laws outside the solar system and inside it ). And of course, when you are brought measurements like this that were made outside the solar system (=Pioneer), you find excuse after excuse after excuse after excuse to deny reality and state that they are invalid, even though they passed every test that the scientific community could outwit.
Albanzo
I have not seen an experiment that Feynman proposed on this subject. If you saw one, send me a link. I understand that you did a "Sabdarmish exercise" and a Feynman experiment you presented to me.
Why won't the experiment work? Well, in this room we will have to create the conditions of outer space a few tens of astronomical units from the sun. In this room it is desirable that there be no gravity, but it is not possible. So maybe we'll transfer it to those NASA planes that are conducting experiments in low gravity, maybe we'll be able to reach zero gravity?, I don't think so.
Now let's get to the cannon, does it have to fire something at 12 km per second?, on second thought, we can do the test with a smaller bullet speed, let's say, only km per second, but then, the friction we will have to find out will decrease accordingly, or rather according to the square of the speed, meaning we will have to find out A theota of the size of one hundred billionth of a meter per second squared?, I don't remember that it can be tested in a high school laboratory!
But maybe in Cern, we'll do it on a proton, we'll accelerate it???, listen maybe... but you understand that better than me. Design an experiment and measurement. Send it to me for approval and then the sky is the limit.
I'm tired, I'm going to rest, I'll delve into the topic, and come back.
Good day Albanzo
Yehuda
Tell us, Yehuda, why the experiment I "suggested" (the quotation marks are of course because I didn't propose it, I just told you about it) is delusional and stupid. In the meantime, everything I told you, I explained. You didn't explain anything, you just make assertions. If you are not just an unsettled person who is unable to face reality, please explain to all of us what is delusional and stupid about an experiment in which a body is shot rapidly in a vacuum chamber, its acceleration is measured, and from this constraints are deduced on the mechanical properties of the supposed gravitational particles. By the way, this is not "similar" to the experiment proposed by Feynman, it is exactly the experiment that Feynman talks about in his lectures.
for miracles
Thank you for bringing your esteemed opinion to my attention.
Albanzo
Regarding NASA's presentations and form of advertising, you will understand that lecturer Ilan Manolis is tired of people approaching him, (and also us at the Association), and asking: - What about the aliens discovered by NASA?. So NASA doesn't lie, but isn't this an attitude of deception? Every person with minimal education understands that there are no aliens and Ilan repeated several times during the lecture that it is impossible for life to develop there because the sun of the aforementioned star system - the aforementioned red dwarf - has strong solar eruptions that will destroy any development of life on the planets .
And about the experiment
Instead of sending a small probe of only a few kilograms, which will be attached to another spacecraft and will give the results of the exact distance in its free journey in space, you propose a delusional experiment. I know you are the great expert, but maybe you should go and ask people who deal with the subject if this stupid experiment will come to fruition. You are just talking arrogantly and arrogantly, and maybe there really is no point in talking about this experiment. Ockham's razor must have justified me.
In conclusion, I will not respond to the entire system of wretched slanders, which follows your response. Waste of energy.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Good, Judah. There's really nothing to talk to you about, it's just like talking to a wall only more frustrating. The fact that NASA put an image on a poster that does not reflect what is happening on one planet or another is not the same as saying that they are making up false data. The picture is just something designed to grab attention, an advertisement. There is a difference between making an advertisement and lying about the data. And instead of twisting the words of researchers to your needs, maybe you approach the astronomer you recruited for your purpose without his knowledge and ask him in black and white, in a way that does not imply two faces, if he thinks that the telemetry data that NASA is releasing is false or not.
Regarding the experiment, besides the fact that you probably have no idea what our technological capabilities are to perform experiments (you know that we accelerate drones to speeds of a millionth of a percent below the speed of light, right? And you are thrilled by a speed of 12 km per second), it doesn't matter at all. Because I already explained to you in the past exactly how to perform the experiment that invalidates the theory of mechanical gravity, you simply refuse to listen. You don't need to decide in advance what the speed will be at which the body will travel and what the acceleration you will measure should be. All you have to do is shoot a body as fast as you can and measure the recoil exactly as high as you can (and as we said, because we can reach very high speeds, then the recoil we will have to measure will also be huge and really not small as you describe. The higher the speed of the body more, the greater the deviation). After you have performed this experiment, there are 2 possible results: either you were able to measure acceleration, or you didn't. If not, there are two possible explanations: either you didn't measure teota because it doesn't exist, or it does exist but it's smaller than the resolution of your measuring devices. In this case you could not rule out the existence of the oscillation, but since we know how to calculate exactly what the oscillation should be as a function of the properties of the gravity particles, you can infer from this a restriction on the behavior of the particles.
When we do this experiment we of course do not discover any willpower. We have no way of knowing if it is because there is no acceleration or because it is too small, but if we start from the assumption that it exists and is smaller than the measurement resolution, then the conditions on the behavior of the particles show that the gravitational particles must: a) exceed the speed of light, not possible in terms of our knowledge of Modern physics.
b) Being at such a high temperature that everything that comes in contact with them will more or less immediately evaporate.
But again I find myself explaining physics to you, when all you are interested in are stupid stories about how the whole world missed something and only Yehuda Sabdarmish realized that actually all the riddles of the universe can be solved with the help of a children's physics book and middle school math...
Yehuda
You wrote: "I have nothing to add and late at night I retire"
Maybe because of this late hour there is again a reading comprehension problem.
You wrote "I didn't understand the course of the fourth experiment. Do you mean to shoot a projectile at a speed of 12 km per second at point blank range..."
But elbentzo wrote "We gave you an example of a fourth experiment (shooting a particle in a room with a vacuum). "
How did you translate "particle" to "jet at a speed of 12 km per second"
Maybe the blame really lies in: "Late at night Zen"
Conclusion: Maybe we will answer no "late at night Zen" and the understanding will improve.
Yehuda
You certainly have no problem with that. But your theory has a very serious problem.
Albanzo and all
Tonight I heard an interesting lecture at the Israeli Astronomical Society at the observatory in Givatayim. The lecturer, Ilan Manolis, director of the observatory of the Weizmann Institute. He lectured on an announcement made by NASA about the discovery of a brown dwarf with seven terrestrial planets, three of which are located exactly in the region of the star's orbit where liquid water is supposed to be found. Why am I telling this?, towards the end of the lecture, the lecturer expressed his anger at NASA for giving publications that there is almost certainly life there. With the best artist paintings. The aforementioned planets are covered with lakes of water and islands from where the lights of an alien settlement protrude. The star is TRAPPIST 1 and the two planets have not been seen by anyone except the NASA wonders. Why am I telling you this that I have the feeling that the great NASA is behaving "not nicely" here and in the case of Pioneer as well. Search Google for the above-mentioned star and the advertisements appeared as of 22.2.17/XNUMX/XNUMX. including the beautiful plaques of his planets.
And this was not said by Yehuda Sabdarmish, but by a lecturer from the Weizmann Institute.
And regarding your learned response
I didn't understand the course of the fourth experiment. Do you mean to shoot a projectile at a speed of 12 km per second into the void and notice an acceleration of one billionth of a meter per second squared? Such an experiment that will be done on Earth will be acted upon by a gravitational acceleration that is approximately ten billion times the expected acceleration. How will you spot the tiny Theota? I don't think you will. If so, good luck.
And regarding the "excellent" data received from the probe and the "short" time that passed until the solution. I would suggest you read Michaels Brooks's book - 13 Scientific Mysteries. Name number one is how the researchers collected the material - sixty bookcases full of reading devices that had already been marked for destruction. In addition, the researcher found four hundred reels of magnetic films inside the cardboard boxes. The films suffered from decades of neglect from heat and humidity. (pages 55 to 66 in the book). At the end of three decades of attempts to solve the mystery, the hands of the anomaly researchers were still empty as at the beginning, only after that they returned to the idea of the heat from the engines and a savior came. So it wasn't easy and a whole department worked on it for decades. So Albanzo, with all due respect to NASA, it seems to me that the heat solution should be accepted with skepticism. But you have every right to disagree with me.
I have nothing to add and late at night I retire
Good night Albanzo and I hope that the moment will come when you will stop looking for flaws and intentions and excuses and beliefs of all kinds in Yehuda. Just refer to the data. They studied the issue for decades and came to a solution that I don't have to accept. Remember that the friction solution is also a solution and you are not obligated to accept it.
Good night
Yehuda
Floating point
Not always when moving through air there is friction. This will only happen if the speed of the air is different from our speed.
Israel
I know that the friction problem of pushing gravity has been talked about for hundreds of years, but Richard Feynman is always quoted in his lecture at Cornell University.
Miracles
GPS satellites move and do so according to Newton's laws and the theory of relativity for small distances. I have no problem with that.
Albanzo
I will answer you separately
Good night
Yehuda
Yehuda
The tracks of the GPS satellites cross each other. How does that fit with what you're saying?
Yehuda, you cannot decide which experiments are allowed and which experiments are not allowed. You named three, nice of you. We gave you an example for the fourth experiment (shooting a particle in a room with a vacuum). This experiment was done and disproved the idea you support. That's it, It's over. Besides, we can of course remind you again that within the three experiments you proposed, the first one was carried out and it showed that the idea is wrong, but you are in such a cognitive dissonance that you simply refuse to accept it by inventing every possible excuse (previously only one group of physicists showed in a calculation that the Newtonian predications are accurate , when you were shown that there were many groups that did this in many different ways then the excuse became that if it was true NASA would have announced it, when you were shown that NASA announced then the excuse became that NASA is not reliable because they made up the thermal data of the engine In order to fit what they wanted, and when they showed you that the data was not made up but was taken directly from the telemetry transmitted by Pioneer regarding the power of its engines and the temperature in the parts of the spacecraft, the excuse became that the data transmitted by Pioneer is not reliable). If you don't have the ability to look at your own beliefs and admit they are wrong, what's the point of even talking?
Yehuda
It is not the evil Richard Feynman who raised the problem of friction. He only brought Pushing as an example of a theory that was rejected as part of his lectures, but the rejection was done throughout the three hundred years preceding the lectures by dozens of scientists who tested the theory, starting with Newton and ending with Lord Calvin.
And regarding inertia - I can certainly describe a universe where a spinning wheel does not need much force to tilt it from the axis of rotation. I can also imagine two large and close masses with no attraction between them.
The problem with such a description is that if there was no inertia in the universe and the law of conservation of momentum did not exist, then according to what ratio would two masses repel each other in an elastic collision?
Logic alone requires the law of conservation of momentum and inertia.
Albanzo and others
I definitely understand the example with the room that has a ball and gravity pushing particles. It is very similar to Richard Feynman's example if we also put a little sun in the room. What I am saying is that if you agree that the gravitational pushing particles will push the ball into orbit around the sun then you will certainly agree that they will send everything else that is there including the gravitational pushing particles themselves into orbit around the sun. There is no reason in the world that gravitationally pushing particles should not push gravitationally pushing particles. And if my gravitationally pushing particles move on average at the same speed as the planet around them, there will be no friction, and this is my humble opinion, no friction.
So far.
There is no point in continuing this endless bickering. I have given three experiments to be done, if they are ever done we can be sure. Maybe an idea will come to me and I will be able to organize simpler experiments on the subject in question.
It was very pleasant to confront. Sorry I didn't come to an agreement with you.
I must point out, Albanzo, that the discussion you conducted towards those who advocate different (and irritating) opinions to yours was done this time with a certain moderation.
Thanks also to my friend Israel Shapira who challenged me with his questions
All the best and good night
Yehuda
Albanzo
I meant that if there are particles in space that cause gravity then they must cause no friction, it is more correct to call it drag.
In my understanding this will mean that the attraction between planets to the sun will not be central and therefore the orbits will not be conical.
Albanzo
I meant that if there are particles in space that cause gravity then they must cause no friction, it is more correct to call it drag.
as you understand
I don't know what you mean when you say "explanation for inertia". If you are referring to Newton's first law, i.e. that a body persists in its motion when no forces act on it, then it is quite simple to understand it. A body wants to move along the shortest path between two points. The theory of relativity teaches us that we should not only look at our space, because the correct geometry that describes dynamics in physics is that of space-time. From here, the shortest path is to show that the shortest path between two points in space-time for a body on which no forces act is a straight line in space, and given that forces are acting, this is simply the geodesic path, that is, a path whose local acceleration is according to Newton's second law (you can also look the other way around and say the question of the trajectories that maximize the time of the particle).
Of course, one can ask why a particle would want to move in such a trajectory, and there is also a pretty good answer to this within the framework of quantum mechanics. It teaches us that particles move along all possible paths at the same time, but with different amplitudes, and the amplitude is smaller as the path moves away from the shortest path. That is, the particle moves in all paths at once, but it moves more in the short path than in the long path. The classical approximation is that it moves only in the short orbit, which is called the classical orbit.
All this derivation is done under the assumption that the particle has some kind of self-energy (a mass term, which to immediately mathematically develop the things we said should appear in the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian of the particle. It can be generalized to massless particles, but we'll forget about them for the moment). This is perfectly explained by the existence of the Higgs field and the mechanism of the spontaneous breaking of the symmetry, which precisely shows that the particles have energy that comes from their coupling to the Higgs (you can think of them emitting and absorbing Higgs particles all the time), and this coupling is not with the particle itself but with its speed. It's a claim that you have to see the mathematical mechanism to internalize it, but that doesn't make it any less true. This is exactly what forces the particles to have kinetic energy, which ensures that all the developments we have discussed in advance under the assumption that the particle has a kinetic energy component are correct. Of course, one can always continue to ask why, and in the end we will reach questions that we have not yet solved, but this seems to me to be a fairly exhaustive explanation for the phenomenon that particles move at a constant speed when no force acts on them, and that forces cause a change in their speed (magnitude or direction) depending on the mass. Whether it's intuitive or not is a question I think is doubly flawed. First of all, I'm not sure what difference it makes if it's intuitive or not. There is no reason for solutions to physical problems to be intuitive, which brings us to the second flaw: intuition is a learned thing. What is intuitive to all humans are things they have learned from everyday life - if you push something, it gets pushed. If something heavy falls on you it hurts more than if something light falls on you. Quantum mechanics is supposedly non-intuitive, but if we go to the physics department and present a quantum question there will be many people who will know the answer even without performing an explicit calculation. Because intuition is simply recognizing familiar patterns, and if you have solved enough quantum problems and studied the Torah well enough, you will also have quantum intuition.
Regarding who explains and who doesn't explain how what happens here affects what happens there, then I think every theory of gravity explains it. General relativity also explains how a body interacts with the space it sits in and causes it to curve, and this curvature continues from here to there. Therefore, a body sitting in the same space will also feel the curvature. The theory of relativity does not perhaps explain why bodies interact with the space they are in (in the same way that the classical electromagnetic theory does not explain why two charges interact with each other). She explains this only by mathematical considerations of symmetry, and not by a physical mechanism. But if you are looking for theories that also explain the physical mechanism, then any quantum theory of gravity does (for example, string theory).
Yehuda - the friction is not with air or rain. He is with mechanical gravity itself. If you don't understand what that means, forget the word friction and just imagine a ball in a vacuum chamber, where everything but the ball is the particles of mechanical gravity. Particles hit it from the left and right, but they hit it equally, so it won't move at all. But if you throw it quickly to the right, it will hit more particles on the right side than on the left (just like if you drive a car when it's raining, more drops hit you on the windshield than on the back), so it will feel a force that will push it to the left, against its motion. This is the friction in question - and it is simply due to the mechanical nature of gravity. The fact that you say the words "there is no friction" is nice and all, but it is not worth anything because not only can you clearly see that there is friction, you can also calculate it exactly like the properties of the gravity particles. Then you can compare to reality, and guess what they discover...
Yehuda
"There is simply no friction"...
I ran out of words.
Avi Blizovsky
Maybe block Yehuda Sabdarmish.. with his nonsense he annoys everyone. It's a shame about the place it occupies.
Yehuda, I didn't understand... how everything you wrote is related to the fact that there is no friction.
The air in God's Word also affects everything, both small things and big things and even air particles. But when moving through it there is friction.
The biggest disaster for the Pushing Gravity explanation are the "persuasive" words of Professor Richard Feynman from the XNUMXs in his opposition to Pushing Gravity: - If we walk in the face of the rain, won't our face get wet?, If we pee in the wind, won't we get wet?? , the way is short to be convinced that there is friction in the movement of the planets around the sun!, but why??. Why not accept the obvious fact for every common Turk (like me) that pushing gravity affects not only the planets but also everything in its area, planets, asteroids, raindrops, gas clouds and even.... Gravity pushing particles. And if the pushing gravity affects the planets to rotate around the sun then it affects in exactly the same way the other things I mentioned, planets are like a raindrop, the size does not matter! Therefore, there is no friction!
In these difficult moments for the Pushing Gravity theory, I receive encouragement from the words of our beloved Prime Minister, Bibi,:- You don't need to explain friction, because there is no friction, because there never was friction!
Good Day
Yehuda
Israel
The explanation of Pushing Gravity is a lot of hand waving. Judah has no explanation for how his particle interacts with a quantum particle, and he does not explain how a body moves through space without slowing down. It does not explain magnetism nor anomalies of time. It also blatantly contradicts relativity.
Miracles
I don't know of an explanation of relativity and inertia (except from Meir Amiram), just as I don't know of an explanation of relativity or anyone at all of the source of gravity. If you have a link - share.
Dennis Schieme showed how to derive gravitational inertia, but he also did not provide a mechanism.
Pushing does give a description of a mechanical mechanism and unlike Ptolemy's theory which was quickly dismissed by Galileo Newton and the other renaissance people and this despite the fact that it had not bad predictions at all, Pushing mainly suffers from the same friction problem that everyone who tested it encountered.
To her credit, she is the only one who tangibly explains how what happens here affects what happens there.
Israel
Higgs Boson is beyond my pay grade. I'm just trying to explain to Judah that his theory is no different from Ptolemy's theory.
According to my understanding, the theory of relativity does explain what persistence is.
According to Yehuda, every body has to stop at the end, and I think quite quickly. After all, we know how to measure gravitational pull even between small bodies.
Higgs bosons and symmetry breaking do not give an intuitive pushing-style explanation for the fact that persistence only works when a body changes its speed. This is the same Feynman friction problem that exists in pushing.
Haha miracles... and how do you - or anyone - explain perseverance?
Yehuda
And another question - how do you explain persistence?
for one time
I opened my business just before the Yom Kippur War in 1973 while studying in Shankar. This was the first cohort for a graduate degree at Shankar College. The degree received is a degree from New York University, which was in contact with the college, a little before Noah's flood. We were the last generation that calculated with slide rules (you probably don't know what that is). In the last year of my studies, one of the teachers came and carefully took out an electronic calculator wrapped in seven envelopes, which only knew how to do the four calculation operations. We looked at him stunned. A little before Shankar I met the one who was to become my wife and at the end of my studies at Shankar she brought me my daughter Betty who disturbed me in the final exams. I actually planned that she wouldn't interfere with my exams, but the Yom Kippur war ruined our cards and she was born right at the time of the exams, all two and a half kilos, but with a throat that knew how to scream at his fate. Then came the inflation period of the universe and I had two more children.
A little before that, Newton wrote his book Principia and luckily just before I was born the asteroid fell that destroyed
The dinosaurs. You understand that it was quite a while ago. I hope I explained myself well. I also hope you will understand my busy childhood and accept crazy theories with understanding
Good day one time
Hope we smile many more times
Yehuda
Dear Yehuda
On 7/7/2017 you wrote "…..that I, as a factory optimization business owner, with fifty years of experience..."
Today 12/7/2017 you wrote "I have a 96 in mathematics in my academic studies (industrial management)..."
Question: Is the score from the time you started the business...?
you are welcome !!! I write gently as you ask, so answer me!!!!
Yehuda
Physics, and science in general, is not a collection of opinions.
Yehuda
I did not understand. You're trying to explain how gravity works, so saying "it works like gravity" doesn't explain much.
א
I have a 96 in mathematics in my academic studies (industrial management) so it's hard to say that I don't have mathematical knowledge. I have come to many conclusions in my development. For example, I arrived at a distance gravitation formula based on implications from the mean free path of my gravitational pushing particles, and this was a difficult mathematical development that I am proud of. As far as I know, none of those involved in Pushing Gravity have achieved this. And it's true, sometimes I feel that my mathematical knowledge is lacking. So what?, I have other achievements in life in many subjects starting from a student film I made, which even won awards, songs I wrote and plays and of course managing a business for efficiency. And yes, I like to read popular science books, I like science fiction, I like music of all kinds, from Um Kaltop to various operas. If I ever have time maybe I will go back to study.
We don't need to excel in a subject to be allowed to express an opinion on it. For example - we as the average people are allowed to vote in the elections and not only experts in the economy. The wisdom of the crowd has the power to push things towards the right solution and I think it is the same in science.
That's my opinion.
Yehuda
Yehuda
First of all, you don't have to apologize to anyone.
Second, no offense. I don't know what Einstein's difficulties were but it seems to me that he had more mathematical knowledge than you.
Maybe I'm really wrong about you, but it sounds like you got most of your knowledge from books for the general public, so-called popular science books. The problem with them is that they hardly contain the mathematical part and create the impression that it is a marginal part of physics.
א
I don't understand why I'm not allowed to have difficulty with a number of complicated math calculations?
I'm not the first to have trouble with complicated calculations. Take for example Einstein himself who had difficulty with certain calculations and his friend came and explained to him the importance of tensors. And this was after relativity was published. It was also the case that Hilbert preceded Einstein in solving a mathematical problem.
I don't understand at all why I need to apologize, if you have knowledge of mathematics I would be happy to use your equipment, if not then don't be bothered. I'll be fine.
Yehuda
Yehuda
There is no such thing as physics without mathematics. There is no such thing. I have a theory but I don't know how to calculate it. If you don't know enough math to calculate, it's probably too early to present alternative theories to the big bang.
for miracles
It acts like normal gravity.
Yehuda
Can you explain how it affects protons and neutrons?
for miracles
I don't know how my particle affects an electron or a photon, and I don't even know what they look like, I just know that at the micro level there can also be repulsion by particles that are pushed back, I don't know how to calculate it, but it reminds me of the weak and strong atomic forces, which is interesting.
Yehuda
Miracles
Dave's niece is also amber.
will be saved
What is the Gigigo?
Yehuda
How does your particle affect an electron and not a photon?
Albanzo
Ask about techno, I will detail my business. I have never falsified or invented data. What is happening with Pioneer is that she is very far away, the connection with her is tenuous, if at all, therefore some of the data were calculated in a way that was not the way even the traveler herself who calculated, had an uncertainty of about 15 percent. Why am I jealous of you?, because there are calculations I don't know how to calculate. For example, assuming that the gravitational pushing theory works. And if the drift is a billionth of a meter per second squared, then what should be the concentration of two gravitational pushing particles in space? What are the dimensions of the particle if its mean free path is 1.55 light years? )? Should relativistic calculations be done with the particles?, just interesting questions.
so good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Israel
Amber is resin that has petrified.
I actually made a comment about pushing and magnetism, but I was moderated by the wait.
Miracles
You ask how pushing gravity explains magnetism?
The answer: Gravitational pushing does not explain magnetism. Does gravitational pushing interfere with the existing explanation of magnetism in the Newtonian universe? So the theory went. So if you explain to me what your explanation for magnetism is, I will see how it will work out with the reality of my pushing particles, it doesn't seem to me that there is an explanation for magnetism just like there is no explanation for a negative or positive electric charge. We know what it does and how to calculate it. If there is an explanation in the Newtonian universe, it seems to me that it will be sympathetically accepted in the Pushing Gravity universe as well
Good night
Yehuda
Miracles
It's a bit hard to catch a single electron in the tail, easier with a lump of amber (not that I know what amber is).
Israel
What does it matter if it's a piece of amber or an electron?
Response pending. Spoiler: the calculation is based on real data transmitted back by Pioneer. No one "invented" data to fit what they wanted to explain. This is a method that may be used in business to optimize plants, but never in physics.
Well, I should have expected that a person who refuses to read the literature and just closes his eyes and imagines that everyone is trying to trick him, would think that all the physicists who did the calculations simply decided what the motor power needed to be to get the answer they wanted. So as they say, on the thief's head... You may be the type of person who first decides what is right and what is wrong and then distorts the entire reality around him to "prove" that he is right, but physicists don't work like that. If you were interested instead of burying your head in the sand and keep muttering to yourself that you are right and everyone else is wrong, you would know that all the calculations that prove that there is no anomaly in Pioneer's orbit were made based on the data of the technical specifications of the engines (which of course were available to the physicists) and more importantly - from the telemetry data of Pioneer. Just as Pioneer transmitted back information about its position (this is the data that was compared to the Newtonian predictions, and at first thought to be inappropriate), it also transmitted information about the temp in its various systems and its engine suppliers. This data is the information on which the thermodynamic calculation is based, which shows that regardless of gravity, just because of the radiation pressure, the spacecraft should suffer a small deceleration - exactly to the extent of the deviation from the Newtonian observation which ignored the radiation of the engines.
You say that you don't need "help" from thermodynamics - and again prove how distorted your way of thinking is. The radiation is not there to help you. You don't have the right to decide that if you don't want her, she's gone. Simple thermodynamic considerations show that Pioneer's engine, according to the technical structure, according to the data it itself transmitted back, has a thrust that results from the radiation (actually, from its anisotropies). Unless you found an error in the thermodynamic calculation (which no physicist who reviewed the articles or reproduced the results found) or you also dismiss our knowledge of thermodynamics (I would not be surprised, because it is clear to everyone that there is no distance that you would not go to just to avoid admitting that you are talking nonsense) , so you'll have to deal with the radiation there. The trip there. It is explained, and there is no anomaly. Nothing will help you. Maybe in your head everyone is stupid, and everyone is a liar, and they come up with explanations and first determine what the result is and then decide what the engine power was according to the result they want to get, but this is not reality. It's just in your head.
We will try to take advantage of the moments of grace before the computer forces me to re-enter details.
There is a complicated explanation of how Pushing explains electromagnetism (not sure that Yehuda knows it, see Reuven Nir's book "Attraction").
But why go far - Pushing is a hydrodynamic model (pressures, currents, winds, demons...) and there is an excellent hydrodynamic model that explains electromagnetism including all the mathematical formalism, the formulas and predictions confirmed by experiment - Maxwell's ether model (link if there is demand).
Yoda
Both small and large -
What to do - the ball is round.
Miracles
It's not about an electron - at the bottom of the response an experiment is proposed that might be able to distinguish between a system in gravity and a system in acceleration. I guess he is mistaken, but want to understand why.
Yehuda
The balls travel the same distance - that's how the experiment is made.
You are right about the angular momentum. The potential energy is converted into linear velocity as well as rotational velocity.
How does pushing gravity explain magnetism?
Israel
In my understanding, if, and only if, the electron is accelerated relative to the measurement system, you will receive radiation. This is true even if the electron is in a gravitational field and the measuring device is not.
Israel Shapira
If you add the first mass to the Earth, it's an unfair game. It's not fair to drop the second ball to a larger earth ball.
for miracles
Because the smaller one is close to the Midron, it takes a smaller path, so it will arrive faster. There is also a difference in the rotational energy they accumulate and even their linear speed. Maybe that has an effect too
Yehuda
Miracles
please araf, angular momentum wtf?
Here is a question to which I have not yet received a satisfactory answer in my opinion:
From Wikipedia: "In physics, the principle of equivalence (or equivalence in Latin) is a principle that establishes a physical identity between a system under the influence of a gravitational field, and a system in motion with equal acceleration. That is, given a closed laboratory in which conditions of gravity are observed (all objects are pulled "down" at a constant acceleration), there is no experiment that will reveal whether the laboratory is resting in a gravitational field, or whether it is moving "up" at a constant acceleration (or a combination of the two). This principle explains, among other things, why all bodies fall at the same speed regardless of their weight.' On the other hand, an electric charge radiates with acceleration. So if we place an electric charge in the laboratory, it will radiate in acceleration but not in a gravitational field and thus we can distinguish between them. Isn't there a contradiction to the principle of equivalence?
Answer from: Prof. Zohar Komargodsky:
Peace
This is a good question (and very familiar - there are articles about it from the XNUMXs).
If we are together with an electric charge in an elevator falling in free fall, then there will be no radiation at all for us.
On the other hand, for someone who is in a stationary laboratory in the Israel Defense Forces and watches the elevator fall, he will certainly absorb radiation. Therefore there is no contradiction with the law of equivalence.
Prof. Zohar Komargodsky
Weitzman Institution of Science.
Sahbak continues to Nges and receives another answer:
Peace
An elevator falling in free fall does behave as a non-accelerating system. And if we put a charge in it, it won't radiate from the perspective of someone in the elevator. He does project from the point of view of someone who is stationary on the Earth. An observer who is stationary on the Earth is an accelerating observer in the sense that the laws of physics include gravity.
When the charge is placed on the table, it is indeed accelerating, but the observer in the laboratory is also accelerating, so there is no radiation.
Regarding the follow-up question: A charge that is accelerating and radiating (without gravity) will indeed gradually lose its speed. When there is gravity it can lose energy both because it slows down and because it falls deeper in the gravitational field. In different situations one or both things can happen to compensate for the loss of energy through radiation.
Glamor.
But even that is not enough, so yesterday I sharpen:
Hello Miri and Prof. Komargodsky.
As I recall, my question referred to the principle of equivalence and the ability to distinguish between acceleration and gravity through an experiment.
From Wikipedia: "In physics, the principle of equivalence (or equivalence in Latin) is a principle that establishes a physical identity between a system under the influence of a gravitational field, and a system in motion with equal acceleration. That is, given a closed laboratory in which conditions of gravity are observed (all objects are pulled "down" at a constant acceleration), there is no experiment that will reveal whether the laboratory is resting in a gravitational field, or whether it is moving "up" at a constant acceleration (or a combination of the two).
Suppose we are in a closed elevator where there is a table with a rubbed block of amber (an electric charge) on it. We also have a radiation meter that we are allowed to move from side to side as we wish. We measure the weight of the system with weight scales that show exactly 100 kg, but we do not know if the elevator is in a gravitational field (placed on the ground) or in acceleration (pulled by a cable in space by a spacecraft).
We shake the radiation meter and check the radiation it measures.
1. If the elevator is accelerating in space, the cargo will radiate and we can measure the radiation with the radiation meter that moves relative to the cargo (no?).
2. If the elevator is placed on the ground, no radiation will be produced and therefore no radiation will be measured (am I wrong? And if measurable radiation is produced - is it equal in magnitude to the measurement created in an acceleration chamber that gives the same measurement in the balances?).
If we do not get exactly the same measurement in the radiation meter in both cases - we can distinguish whether the elevator is accelerating in space or is in a gravitational field on Earth. And this is contrary to the principle of equivalence.
Am I wrong?
with gratitude,
Israel.
Well?
Judah/Israel
Galileo didn't throw anything from the Tower of Pisa, except maybe an old pizza. He rolled balls down the slope. The reason is because his means of measuring times were very limited.
But - in this way, the heavy ball will reach the end of the slope more slowly! Can you tell why?
Yehuda
Don't forget that when the small ball falls, the mass of the big ball is added to the mass of the earth and vice versa. That's why all the bodies fall at the same speed and it doesn't matter if together or separately.
This is also the reason that the escape speed is only proportional to the mass of the body from which you escape. The embodied assumption is that the mass of the escaping body is already included in the dominant mass, although the exact formula should include the sum of the two masses. Thus it is clearly seen that it does not matter if the earth escapes from the sun or vice versa, the escape velocity is the same.
Israel Shapira
The heavy ball and the Earth will approach each other faster than the small ball and the Earth and here is the explanation. Each pull is made up of two parts
A. The pull of the ball by the earth.
B. Earth's pull by the ball
Part A for both balls is the same and both will fall with acceleration g which is about 9.8 meters per second squared. but
Part B will be done with greater force by the big ball and therefore overall the big ball and the earth will meet in a shorter time than the small ball and the earth.
That's my opinion.
Yehuda
Albanzo
The old man didn't really bother me that much, but let's say. We will accept your apology. I also apologize and try to respond in moderation
As for the proof, it is a self-constructing proof. What do I mean? If instead of 70 watts, 30 watts or 230 were needed, then what?, then they would say that the atomic engines put out exactly the necessary amount. After all, there is no one there to measure and tell us that it is not true. In general, if they decide that they did not measure well, then they will decide that the engines are turned off anyway,
I explain that there is friction with my particles pushing gravity and I don't need any help from heat, explaining which of the explanations is correct is only possible if we send a spacecraft like I said. And by the way, it can be a nano spaceship with a tiny weight of XNUMX kg or less, a small spaceship that will travel on top of a large spaceship that will reach the area. The only thing we will need is to know its exact distance in fixed periods of time in its movement. I would give you the design of the spaceship. (How am I?) I'm sure you'll do it better than me. And really, how much could it cost? It doesn't seem like a lot of money to me,
And I banished the black cat in the meantime.
good evening
Yehuda
"Elderly" was out of place, my apologies. "shaken"? There is no person whose description fits better than a king.
The fact that you mentioned the black cat reminded me of the comment you wrote here a few days ago, when you tried to slander me by attaching your name to things someone else said and see how I react. When I reacted in a way you didn't expect and even agreed with some of the words (because they were said by a non-eccentric person who thinks he is the only one in the world who understands what everyone else doesn't), you promised that in the future you would treat my criticism in a more matter-of-fact way. so what happened? I put before you a calculation that proves in an unambiguous way that the measurements from Pioneer correspond with astronomical precision to observations of Newtonian gravity (if you don't forget that Pioneer has an engine that emits radiation). In the meantime, all you had to say was "sucked from the finger", "like Bibi" and "I don't accept". What about a factual reference? Please explain to us where all the people who performed the calculation according to Newton + thermodynamics and got that it is exactly the same as measurements from Pioneer are wrong. Find the mistake in their calculation, or admit that there is no anomaly, as all the physicists who thought there was an anomaly admitted to you, including NASA, who performed the acceleration measurements and built the Pioneer engines. There are no more options: either everyone is right and there is no anomaly, or everyone is wrong - then you have to show where. Saying there's a mistake but refusing to say what it is is a good approach if you're the dumbest kid in kindergarten, but if you've passed the single digit age and/or you're not a complete moron, you should be able to explain to all of us why the calculation that shows Newtonian gravity accurately predicts the acceleration is wrong.
Yoda
"That's why Galileo was wrong and the heavy ball will precede the light ball. So Aristotle was right!!!, but on the condition that each ball be thrown separately!'
Even if each ball is thrown separately, the impact speed of the heavy will be the same as the speed of its light friend.
For example: there are two balls, one weighing a kilo and the other weighing 1000 tons. We lift the first one to a tower at a height of 10 km and drop it and measure its impact speed in Israel. Then repeat the exercise with the other one.
According to Newton, the impact velocities of the two balls are exactly the same.
How?
Albanzo
Am I an "unsettled elderly person from Herzliya"? Dear Devilbenzo, you earned your degree with honor. I knew the black cat waiting in the corner wouldn't have to wait long. Not even Schrödinger's cat would have been able to come back to life so quickly.
Maybe you will say that instead of "unsettled" you meant "thoughtful"???, I will be willing to believe you just for the sake of peace here on the site, after all it is only science why discredit.
You are unable to accept an opinion contrary to your own.
Good Day
Yehuda
"Obviously there was a slowdown, it's absolutely clear" - it's so clear that the entire scientific community is unanimous that there was no slowdown, and only a shaken old man from Herzliya understands it.
"Someone decided that heat with a power of 70 watts would slow down the spaceship and the heat must have been emitted from its engines, it could be. To me it seems like a tongue-in-cheek explanation" - obviously it seems tongue-in-cheek to you, because you think that "someone decided" it. If you weren't a coward whose world would come crashing down on him as soon as he admitted that he didn't have the faintest idea what he was talking about, you could look at the scientific articles I sent you at the time (and if you want, I'll send you again) in which the calculations are presented that show that what was once called the "Pioneer Anomaly" was just a mistake Calculation, and that a correct calculation of the radiation emitted from the engine shows that there is no anomaly. It's not someone's decision, it's a calculation. Unless you find an error in the calculation, there is no room for debate here. Wait, maybe you found an error in the calculation and you don't tell us? Yes, that's probably what happened. I'm sure.
"Right, I don't accept NASA's explanation!!" - You do not accept the explanation of NASA and the entire scientific community, in which many groups independently calculated the expected acceleration according to the Newtonian model *taking into account the engine's radiation* and they all found that there is no deviation and no anomaly. Well, as they say - when the ostrich bury its head deep in the sand, nothing will convince it that the sky is blue.
Thank you for clarifying in such a sharp and beautiful way what I was trying to say to Nisim - you claim that your model is scientific and testable (and disprovable), but as soon as you are presented with refuting evidence, you refuse to accept it. Why? because. hat.
Miracles
You will be surprised, but the simple universe can explain the precession of the planet Hema if we decide that the mean free path of the gravitationally pushing particles is 1.5 light years. I checked this and even showed someone at the academy the calculation. Don't know what that means about relativity.
I won't be mad at you. Miracles are just science.
To Israel
Well, regarding Galileo's experiment, in which the two balls were dropped from the Tower of Pisa, we should not forget that not only does the ball fall to the earth, the earth also falls to the ball, and therefore to the heavy ball it will be more significant, therefore Galileo was wrong and the heavy ball will precede the light ball. So Aristotle was right!!!, but on the condition that each ball is thrown separately! But if you drop the two balls together, the heavy and the light, then both will arrive together. It seems to me that Galileo behaved fraudulently and dropped both balls together and did not give Aristotle any chance.
Good Day
Yehuda
Miracles
Yehuda is obsessed with Pushing Gravity. I tried to read the Gigigo and couldn't. His gathering into a bunker is similar to that of a religious person. My impression, and it's a growing impression, is that his knowledge of physics is negligible. His math, to put it mildly, does not warn. It's a shame to argue with him. He gives the impression of a tragic and pathetic character.
Albanzo miracles and others
The Pioneer Anomaly is an unexplained motion anomaly of less than a billionth of a meter per second squared that is discovered by the Pioneer spacecraft moving away from the Sun at a speed of 12,000 meters per second.
So, dear Albanzo, show me one earthly laboratory that can measure such a feat. At such speeds!! You are just talking and only accusing Yehuda that - "Yehuda deliberately demands that it be far from the sun so that he does not have to deal with the fact that in any bachelor's degree laboratory you can see that his ideas are unfounded" what nonsense!, what ulterior motives you are accusing me of.
What are you talking about your nonsense about a basket ball that will be thrown in a room with emptiness that can check such a rush. To remind you, in such a room, apart from the friction in the imperfect emptiness, there will also be a gravitational acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared, which is billions of times the acceleration we are looking for! Not to mention the basket ball that should move at a speed of 12,000 meters per second. Show me a "bachelor's lab" and you can tell that! There is no such laboratory at all because the basket ball will move beyond the escape velocity from the earth (11,200 meters per second) even at Cern they will not be able to do your experiment, least of all in a normal university laboratory.
To hell with it, just to smear Yehuda and give him ulterior motives??
You remind me of Bibi: "There is no Pioneer anomaly because there never was a Pioneer anomaly"
so you said It is clear that there was a slowdown, it is absolutely clear, someone decided that heat with a power of 70 watts would slow down the spaceship and the heat must have been emitted from its engines, it could be. To me it seems like a finger-sucking explanation.
And true, I don't accept NASA's explanation!!
You managed to upset me. going to make me a coffee and relax.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yoda
Galileo's proof that all bodies fall at the same speed regardless of their weight is logical: otherwise, if we were to connect two bodies of different masses with a rope, then the light would fall slower than the heavy and slow it down, and at the same time the two bodies constitute a greater mass and therefore it actually also accelerates him..
But here a question arises: if all the bodies fall at the same speed, then their impact speed on the earth will also be the same. is it so The impact speed on the land of a body whose mass is the mass of the sun falling from a height of 10 km will be much higher than the impact speed of an apple falling from the same height. So how does it stack up with Galileo?
Just a nice and solvable thought exercise in Newtonian physics.
And on the topic of pushing: if you solve Feynman's friction issue - your solution is a bit forced in my opinion - then the theory will be much more elegant even though it is not necessarily correct.
Albanzo
If I agree with you then Yehuda will be angry... it's just science...
Yehuda
What are you talking about magnetism? What I said is that the theory of relativity explains not only gravity - it also explains the dependence of the rate of time on speed and gravity, the gravitational decay, and also explains magnetism. And if you insist, it also explains Mercury's declination.
You sent me to Wikipedia, where many more reasons for rejecting your idea are explained. What am I doing wrong?
Miracles,
There are easier ways to see that you are wasting your time. Yehuda declares in a bold tone - if they do an experiment in which they send a probe far from the sun and see that it has no inertia, he retracts all his statements and apologizes to everyone for wasting their time on his wrong speculations. Leave aside for a moment that the decision to do the experiment far from the sun is arbitrary and is only intended to avoid the fact that right here on Earth you can take a vacuum chamber (which is known to have gravity and therefore must also have the particles of mechanical gravity that Yehuda calls pushing particles), throw a basketball into it in a straight line and see if there is or is not friction, as suggested by Feynman in the famous lecture that we talked about here a lot. No, Yehuda deliberately demands that it be far from the sun so that he does not have to deal with the fact that in any bachelor's degree laboratory one can see that his ideas are unfounded.
OK, so he agrees that such an experiment would disprove his theory. So they sent Pioneer several tens of astronomical units outside the solar system and measured the acceleration on it. See that there is no momentum but that it behaves exactly according to Newton's laws. What is Yehuda's reaction? An apology and a return? God forbid. He claims there is a will. I brought him a peer-reviewed scientific article that shows there is no deception. What was the response? It's just one group of scientists, it doesn't count, they must have been wrong. I brought him another list of groups from around the world who reproduced the calculation and reached the same conclusions. Yehuda's reaction? It is impossible that they are right, otherwise NASA would have been aware that there is no such thing as the Pioneer Anomaly at all and that there is no space shuttle. I brought him an official message from NASA that there is no such thing as the Pioneer Anomaly and that there is no space shuttle. What was the response? NASA is not serious, they are confused.
And after all this, he continues to claim that if they do the experiment and see that there is no willpower, he will retract it and apologize. So really, why argue?
To my father
I received your last message. I understand that there is a problem with names. Usually there is no other Yehuda Sabdarmish, but I also ran into someone who impersonated me. I hope I didn't offend and I apologize. All the best, my father.
Yehuda
for miracles
In your opinion, everything is fine and dandy in the known scientific situation. So good for you. If you don't understand why pushing gravity explains Galileo's experiment, then there is nothing to go on. And by the way, in the Galileo experiment, two bodies that were actually different fell at the same speed. That's why you're just confusing your head and stating that the particles have to create a magnetic field for some reason. Just throwing words in the air. It seems like I'm talking to another miracle now.
Sorry, I don't see any benefit in continuing our bickering.
It was nice talking to you
Yehuda
Lesbremish
Regarding what I wrote about miracles - I meant his recommendation in which he wrote that if those with a PhD say they should be believed.
I do not follow the writers here personally, and their history, I refer only to this one particular message of his.
Since the nicks here are anonymous, then there could be dozens of different miracles here, as I saw that there is at least one other father here for sure that it is not me, and in practice you could also be the same writer who wrote earlier in Nick Nissim, so I am not referring to a person's body but to one particular message That of the miracles that he wrote that one should believe in those with a third degree.
Yehuda
And pushing gravity completely rules out general relativity.
Newton made assumptions that he thought were true.
Observations showed that he was wrong.
Einstein gave a theory capable of explanation, prediction, and refutation. Popper was happy!
And now you come and give a theory that explains very little, and also blatantly contradicts the theory that proves itself so much.
Would you please address my points?
Yehuda
Do you really not read what you yourself write? I really can't believe that you don't see the contradictions in what you write...
If I put a satellite at a certain height and at the appropriate speed then it will stay in a circular orbit. You claim that your particles somehow miraculously produce a circular, or perhaps elliptical, trajectory. But what will happen if there are two satellites in opposite directions and on the same circle? Will other particles act on each satellite?
You haven't explained how your particles create acceleration or you in time.
You also didn't explain how your particles produce a magnetic field.
And I don't even understand how you explain Galileo's experiment...why all two bodies with the same inertial mass fall at the same speed.
Also, Newton didn't know about the galaxies, to decide that the formula he determined in the solar system is suitable for the entire universe for distances of millions or trillions when you don't know how the business works, in my opinion it's excessive.
Yehuda
See miracles, I have known this method of asking a question as strange as it is for a long time. Do you think I can't use it???, do you think it was the addition of three question marks that convinced me of something????.
Particles propelled by gravity move the planets. point. If you didn't understand until now how they work then go to Wikipedia and it is well explained. There was a fundamental problem of friction in the movement of the planets and I showed that it does not exist. If that doesn't convince you. Go and join the 98 percent who are not as convinced as you are and enjoy.
Why do you keep coming back to the theory of relativity, after all pushing gravity does not oppose the theory of relativity at distances of even two thousand astronomical units. So it will seem to me that we are exhausting ourselves and there is a feeling that we are repeating ourselves, aren't they miracles?????.
And for your information, Newton didn't explain anything, he just gave an experiment that shows how he thinks gravity works. He also knew that he had no explanation for how gravity works. The idea of pushing gravity is the only attempt to explain the essence of gravity. I wouldn't throw this idea out of the blue. Besides, I showed three experiments on how to try to disprove it.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
"Gravity pushing particles move the planets"??? Tell me, why do you let your grandchildren play for you?
And by the way, special relativity explains magnetism very well. At least that's how I was taught in my undergraduate degree.
for miracles
The gravitational pushing particles move the planets. The moons move along with the planets at an average speed like the planets sometimes faster and sometimes slower. Satellites and gas clouds as above and there is no reason in the world that the particles should not move at an average speed around the sun like the planets. But on second thought it seems to me that there is a little friction in the satellites and maybe also in the moons of Mars and they will fall in the end.
As for Pioneer, there is a slowdown just like that caused by the pushing gravity, why would I be bothered. Therefore it is necessary to resend even a tiny spaceship without heat emitting from its sealed engines like in Pioneer and then we will be safe. It's an experiment that could cost several tens of millions of dollars and I'm a bit under financial pressure right now. NASA has been studying the Pioneer anomaly for many years and it has put a whole department of scientists studying the issue. NASA always knew about the heat emitted from its engine, so at first they said that the heat was actually supposed to accelerate the spaceship, then they decided that the heat has an effect but in all directions so it is not the cause, then someone said that the heat has an effect but only 30 percent of the necessary thrust and then it was upgraded to 60 percent And finally someone (I remember a team of Portuguese researchers) convinced that the antenna is exactly in the right direction and that is the reason for the deceleration and Newton rested in his grave. It is of course very convincing but what can you do without me. Understand that any other explanation is the destruction of Newton, relativity, etc. It seems to me that NASA will not throw away several tens of millions to send a spacecraft precisely to an empty place in space. Trump won't let them. More details about the anomaly - on Wikipedia.
What else did you write?, the speed of light. Well, the speed of waves is proportional to the root of the absolute temperature of the gas in which they move and I have no reason to assume that this will not be the case with light. But I said in advance that it is not due to gravity pushing, but I am interested in whether it exists. It's already a cheaper experiment and maybe Trump will approve it. SA Day of measurements (roof of a week) at the LIGO facility. I should point out that Michael Morley's experiment determined that the speed of light is the same in every direction but did not and could not determine the speed of light in the past or in the future. For that they had to make at least two measurements and compare them. I don't remember it being done in an experiment.
Regarding the slowing down of time with speed and gravity, just as it is explained today with the help of the theory of relativity. The same goes for the seasoning. In addition, the cooling can also be partially explained by differences in the density of the gravitationally pushing particles in the universe, just as there are differences in the background temperature in different regions
How do you explain magnetic fields?, I don't know, but neither do you.
So will you help me convince Trump?, NASA??
Miracles, 3 in the morning, so good night
Yehuda
Yehuda
I find it hard to accept that your particles are moving around the sun and around every planet at exactly the right speed. You're the one who mentioned Ptolemy, right? 🙂
There are thousands of satellites orbiting the Earth, and others orbiting the Moon, the Sun, Mars, and so on - none of them are affected by friction. Neither does Pioneer! Why is NASA's explanation wrong - it just doesn't support your opinion at all?!?
Regarding light, what is the physical explanation for the fact that the speed of light is actually affected by the background temperature? Why is he quite a bit in transit through a hot area?
How does pushing gravity explain gravity deflation?
How does he explain the slowing down of time as a function of speed?
How does he explain the slowing down of time as a function of gravity?
How does he explain magnetic fields? How does he explain the mass losses in radioactive events?
All of these are explained by the theory of relativity, and surely many other things that we both have not heard of. Do you have a convincing explanation for all of these?
my father
You need a very good reason to think that you as a layman understand the field more than an expert in the field. Yehuda thinks he has good reasons for this, but I don't.
As for you, you repeatedly present a poor understanding of science in general and physics in particular. I'll leave it to Albanzo to address your word hashing…
To my father
I did not notice blind faith in miracles. His questions and requests for explanations from others and mine show in my opinion the opposite. There is nothing wrong with giving credit to the experts.
Yehuda
for miracles
Regarding the friction of the planets, I have already said that the gravitational pushing particles affect the gravitational pushing particles like any other body found in the solar system and they move on average around the sun at the speed of the planet in their area, so no friction will be felt. The friction will be felt, for example, if a spacecraft moves on the radius line centered on the sun at a sufficiently large distance from the sun of at least a few astronomical units. The spaceship should move without turning on the engines and far from any celestial body so that there is no interruption to its movement. In such a case, a jerk in the movement of the spacecraft would have been detected. According to Newton there is no friction. The spacecraft in which this phenomenon was discovered is the Pioneer spacecraft that was sent into space in the seventies. NASA preferred to explain the flight by heat emitted from its water and not by friction (see "The Pioneer Anomaly").
Regarding your question about the light, you are wrong. In my opinion, light moves at a speed proportional to the root of the background temperature. All the light around us moves at a speed of 300,000 km per second adjusted to a background temperature of 2.73 Kelvin. When it set off from distant sources it was faster because the universe was hotter. Don't know how to test the speed of light in the past. Maybe Albanzo will succeed. I'm not the only one who thinks that the speed of light in the past was greater.
And what about the theory of relativity and even Newton at distances?, at close distances of the solar system, a few tens of astronomical units, there is no contradiction between the simple universe and the theory of relativity. Everything calculated by the theory of relativity is acceptable to the simple universe.
Regarding the large distances, a modest calculation showed me that the average free path of the particles pushing gravity is at least one and a half light years, therefore gravity will not actually exist at the large cosmological distances of even a few tens of light years, therefore there should be no compatibility between the simple universe and Newton or relativity. If there is a measurement that shows that it cannot be explained by the simple universe but only by Newton or relativity, the theory is gone. In the meantime, I asked Dr. Shai Zucker for his opinion. Dr. Shai Zucker is involved in the Gaia project of measuring distances and speeds in the universe. I asked him to check the double-double in the harp group (epsilon lira ads11635) whether its movement is according to Newton or abnormal. The distance between the two doubles is about a sixth of a light year and it is possible that this will be enough to notice the deviation. About this and other things on my blog:
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
good week
Yehuda
And one more thing for miracles: especially when you don't know the writers and don't know what degree and what knowledge and experience they have.
Until now it was a personal response because of your recommendation about blind faith in PhD holders.
And regarding the expanding universe -
When we are talking about time space - we are talking about the space itself in which things spread and the time itself in which this expansion is allocated, (for example, time has passed from size X to size X+1... but if there is no time dimension from moving to state X, time cannot pass to reach state X+1.) Beyond the space-time "universe" there is neither space nor time...
Or maybe there is and we are not able to know what is there, as I know even the mathematicians with a PhD did not come to this solution.
If there is another space "above space" where this space-time spreads, then what we know is neither the entire universe nor all the space-time that exists.
In the example of a stain on paper - if the drop of ink that creates the stain has no paper - that means the point universe has no space. The blob can't get big the universe can't get big without having space because all the space is inside it. (and the same with time) - and here is a paradox that, as far as I know, not a single PhD holder has been able to deal with it successfully.
As far as I know, the great scientists have not solved the problem of the universe moving from a point to the size of an orange.
And not to mention the existence of a point universe in a situation where there is no space and no time at all - there is nothing and suddenly a universe emerges - at this stage, it is more hocus pocus than science.
What the scientists do is to assume that since the observations show that the universe is expanding, if we go back in time we will reach a point state - but all the physicists with a PhD will just tell you that this is only an assumption and no one has any idea how it started. Therefore inflation is still a debate even among those with a third degree.
Sorry I don't keep up with this forum.
For miracles - you probably know that many Ph.D. holders, as well as famous philosophers and researchers, doubt the inflation theory of the universe and do not know how to explain everything and admit that it is all just theories.
Your condescending advice to believe a person just because he has a PhD is about the same as believing the Pope because he has a degree...
Just today I read here on the science website an article "What to do when the facts are not convincing".
I suggest you read this article carefully because it seems to me that you are stuck in such a universe with limited dimensions and you are not able to get frustrated with yourself from the outside, as you seem to me, and probably to some others who write here, you very much fit the description in this article:
a quote:
” Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that contradict their deepest beliefs they immediately change their minds? I didn't notice that either. In fact, people seem to strengthen their hold on their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason has to do with people believing that the conflicting data undermines their overall worldview.”
Yehuda
And let's not forget that your theory does not fit with general relativity.
Yehuda
If there is friction then we would expect planetary orbits to collide.
If light decreases its speed then light from distant sources should have been slower than light from a nearby source.
I'm wrong?
The weight loss is 0.43 micrograms per kg per year and not as recorded by mistake.
for miracles
The theory of "pushing gravity - the simple universe" predicts some cosmological behaviors and is therefore subject to the test of proof as the philosopher Popper demanded of a scientific idea. If one of these prophecies does not come true, the theory is overblown. There are prophecies that are difficult to prove, but there are those that can be proven or fulfilled and come to Zion Goel.
I will give three examples:
A. Because of the reality of two particles pushing gravity in the space of the cosmos there will be a tiny friction in the movement of bodies in space. The deceleration depends on the speed of the movement. Send a spacecraft away from the sun and check if there is a slowdown. The magnitude of the deceleration is calculated.
B. Because of the expansion of the universe that is taking place, the density of the gravitational pushing particles per unit volume will decrease, and since the gravitational pushing particles are the ones that determine the weight of the bodies, then the weight of the bodies will decrease accordingly. It was calculated and the result is a loss of 0.43 micrograms per kg per second per year. It seems to me that it is measurable. And by the way, this will provide a simple way to measure the Hubble constant in the laboratory because the expansion of the universe is due to the Hubble constant.
third. The speed of light is supposed to decrease by about XNUMX cm per second per year. It seems to me that this can be measured in one of the LIGO facilities. The change in speed does not directly result from the principles of gravity pushing, but from other things, but I wonder if this is true.
There are other prophecies but they are difficult to prove. For example, the variation of Newton's formula with a component expressing the mean free path of the gravitational pushing particles.
I'll settle for that. Again simply saying if one of these prophecies does not come true, the theory is completely unfounded, and I will personally apologize to everyone.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
It's a shame to argue with Yehuda. He is a total loss
Yehuda
There are cases where people who were not experts challenged the consensus and were right. A good example is Wagner (continental migration). But, even in these cases - the information was based on observations, and all observations. Your theory does not explain all the observations, and for some reason you ignore it...
Again, control is not in my hands. This is an external algorithm. I do my best to approve as quickly as possible, but I'm not a robot that works 24 hours a day.
Best regards
Avi Blizovsky
To my father Blizovsky
I managed to get my response across. Delete my comments pending approval. It must be conveyed to all commenters that it is forbidden to use a word containing the letters of the male genitalia Zin on the scientific site, otherwise the sentence "HaZin to friends" will not pass.
Miracles
I don't know many people who approach the pilot before the flight and ask for certificates.... We hope the airline asked the necessary questions.
Regarding the doctors, of course I'm interested in the doctor's education and experience, but I listen to everyone, you'd be surprised what important information you can get from the nurse or the secretary, or even from the last seamstress at the seamstress I'm going to advise.
Miracles if you have a head on your shoulders you will listen to everyone and choose what to decide.
I envy a number of commenters for the knowledge they have, but from here to deciding to believe what they say with their eyes closed, it is against my personality. Sorry.
And regarding Albanzo's response to the miracles, I have nothing to add and I agree with the spirit of what he said. Let everyone decide if the things said are convincing or not.
Good Day
Yehuda
Response pending
Miracles
I don't know many people who approach the pilot before the flight and ask for certificates.... I hope the airline asked the necessary questions.
Regarding the doctors, of course I'm interested in the doctor's education and experience, but I listen to everyone, you'd be surprised what important information you can get from the nurse or the secretary, or even from the last seamstress at the seamstress I'm going to advise.
Miracles if you have a head on your shoulders you will listen to everyone and choose what to decide.
Miracles
I don't know many people who approach the pilot before the flight and ask for certificates.... I hope the airline asked the necessary questions.
Regarding the doctors, of course I'm interested in the doctor's education and experience, but I listen to everyone, you'd be surprised what important information you can get from the nurse or the secretary, or even from the last seamstress at the seamstress I'm going to advise.
Miracles if you have a head on your shoulders you will listen to everyone and choose what to decide.
I envy a number of commenters for the knowledge they have, but from here to deciding to believe what they say with their eyes closed, it is contrary to my personality. Sorry.
And regarding Albanzo's response, I have nothing to add and I agree with the spirit of what he said. Let everyone decide if the things said are convincing or not.
Good Day
Yehuda
Miracles
I don't know many people who approach the pilot before the flight and ask for certificates.... We hope the airline asked the necessary questions.
Regarding the doctors, of course I'm interested in the doctor's education and experience, but I listen to everyone, you'd be surprised what important information you can get from the nurse or the secretary, or even from the last seamstress at the seamstress I'm going to advise.
Miracles if you have a head on your shoulders you will listen to everyone and choose what to decide.
I envy a number of commenters for the knowledge they have, but from here to deciding to believe what they say with their eyes closed, it is contrary to my personality. Sorry.
And regarding Albanzo's response to the miracles, I have nothing to add and I agree with the spirit of what he said. Let everyone decide if the things said are convincing or not.
Good Day
Yehuda
Miracles,
Of course I understand what you're saying, but I actually like that the people on the site don't blindly believe what I say, whether it's people who argue with me (like Yehuda) or whether it's people who challenge me with questions out of curiosity (like Shmulik, who after I told him that I agree with the opponents For the article in Scientific American, he made it difficult for me and asked me to refer to the answer of the original authors).
It is clear to me that what you say should not be listened to blindly and of course I agree with the principle you are striving for, but in my opinion this is not the problem in the current debate nor in other debates of this type (which are repeated here quite often). In my opinion, the problem is local: one should not ask "Are there people who know the field better than me?", but "Do I know the field well enough to substantiate the claims I want to make?". Yehuda doesn't need me to understand that he has a *lot* more work to do before he can expect his claims regarding dark matter, dark energy, etc. to be taken seriously.
Yehuda
When you're sick, don't the doctor's education and experience count on you? When you fly abroad, don't you care what the pilot knows?
So when discussing physics, shouldn't you consider a physicist?
So it's that I don't know what Albanzo's data is, what his titles are and what he looks like. And the truth is it's not that important to me. I check the nature of the responses and respond accordingly. Why should we be ashamed to respond?, should we keep our mouths shut because we're bound to encounter smarter than us? in the more educated of us? Each of us has the ability to say a word of wisdom just like every oyster has the ability to create a pearl and as far as I know the damaged oysters have the ability to create the beautiful pearls. I appreciate Albanzo and envy the great knowledge he has in the sciences, but it is what it is and with what I have I live and am content.
Good night miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
That's the whole difference between you and Albenzo - you're from the field of efficiency and he's from the academy?
Three degrees in physics/mathematics mean nothing to you?
I would suggest reading the comment to the end and ask, this time in advance: Please respond gently.
It is not pleasant for a person to wake up every morning to the endless campaign of slander on the site of knowledge, a site that I appreciate very much. I had to check this once and for all: does the name "Yehuda Sabdarmish" cause the slanderous reactions of some of the commenters or is the content of the written things to blame. I don't want to brag, but, you understand, that I am a factory optimization business owner, with fifty years of experience, it is an easy problem for me to discover this. I did the following. First of all, I know Professor Avi Leib, who signed the article in Bidan. I know him from interesting lectures he gave at the Astronomical Club of Tel Aviv University. During his visits to Israel, he always finds the time for this. In one of his lectures I bought his book: "From the First Star to the Last Days - Thoughts to the Heavens" an excellent and thought provoking book and it is light and dark for me. And from there, chapter XNUMX - thinking outside the visualization box. I copied word for word my previous response. Well, my entire previous response was only Professor Avi Lev's words (except of course the addition in the last line about the need to respond gently). Now I was waiting for the responses. Will the responses be for the name Sabdarmish Yehuda, or will the responses refer to the content of the things. I would like to point out that the words of Professor Avi Leib, which appear in the response in question, are completely consistent with my opinion on mass and dark energy and are a reinforcement of my opinion on them.
Well, dear commenters, everything you wrote in your response refers to the wise and instructive words of Professor Avi Leib.
So let's see what you wrote:
Let's start with the genius commenter of his generation - Yehoshua: "I see you don't even know how to write" (Prof. Avi Leib??),
"A high school student who takes 1 unit in language and expression will write better than you",
"For writing like this you would have failed the matriculation exam" is that what you are saying about Professor Avi Leib?
Oh Joshua, how wretched you are!
Let's move on to the reaction of the commenter who calls himself a "one-off" - he turns to me and asks: "Have you decided to rattle off your incomprehensible ramblings again?", to remind you, these ramblings are the words of Professor Avi Leib.
And here the genius commenter Yehoshua can't help himself and adds: "One time, Yehuda can't answer you. He has an irreversible cognitive fixation." Understand that this is what he is saying about dear Professor Avraham Leib.
And here I come to Albanzo's response. I must say that I was surprised, by the moderation with which he reacts to the comprehensive examination he did and even, considered it a miracle. He even agrees with me on some of the things, (unfortunately, these are the things of Professor Avi Leib).
Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely no agreement between us regarding the matters of dark matter and energy and other matters, but this may be due to the different starting point of both of us, mine - from the field of optimization, his - from the field of academia.
So, Albanzo, even though a black cat frequently passes among us, and will probably pass again, I will try to treat the criticism with a little more understanding.
So please respond gently, I already said it at the beginning and I won't repeat it (well, well, I repeated it, unintentionally)
good day everybody
Yehuda
Yehuda
It's time for you to draw conclusions. Your musings are completely worthless. Even in your gray cells. You have become a joke. Your musings are nothing more than a cartoon. Your heart says enough is enough stop bullshit. You may pay for it with your health.
Yehuda
Do yourself a favor and get off the subject. Everyone tells you the same thing. Your knowledge of the field is zero. You have probably read a number of popular science level articles and you feel that your knowledge and understanding in the field is phenomenal, you are very far from it. You are making a joke of yourself. is not that a loss? Start reading professional literature in English and only after you gain extensive knowledge will you start thinking about theses. You spend all your energy on nothing. I am more than sure that those who read your words treat them as a cartoon. Forget about it.
Yehuda
Maybe do yourself a favor and get off the subject. Everyone tells you the same thing in the end. Your knowledge in this field tends to zero. You have read several articles at the level of diet science and you think that your understanding is phenomenal. For a change, you will start reading professional literature in English and expand your knowledge. Only then will you perhaps begin to understand that a very extensive knowledge is needed to start thinking about new theses. what came out You made yourself a joke. It hurts my heart to see how you go to great lengths to deceive. I feel sorry for you.
Joshua, this is probably what you meant:
causes fixation
One of the traits that should be mentioned in this context is the trait of immortality and the search for honor, which are the main reason why man fails to see the truth. Conqueror is man's desire to have the last word, to be right, to win. It may seem like a natural desire, but it is also a natural desire in its destruction. When a person manages something with ego considerations, this thing prevents him from being able to manage the same thing correctly, because the ego prevents a person from moving forward and admitting mistakes and seeing what is right for him to do. A person's pride and pursuit of honor prevent a person from admitting mistakes, which of course causes him to lose a whole life, because of his unwillingness to admit a mistake and do something better.
Many studies have been done on the subject and the range of answers is extremely wide. A number of researchers point to the "habit" as a central problem, the habit that stems from tradition, education, customs, culture, etc. Other researchers point to the "fear of change", that is, people prefer to continue paying a certain price, to which they are accustomed, and not risk another price. I will continue to shop at the same store even though it is more expensive because they know me and I know what the goods are. In any case, the commonality of all those studies is the herd phenomenon. To go with the flow. This phenomenon causes us to become templates, to be similar to each other and in many things to lose the specialness and uniqueness of ourselves.
Credit: to:/http://braude.a.wiki.co.il
Forgive me for the long response.
Shmulik,
I think the example given by the opponents is still valid, it just needs to be refined after the original authors have refined their question. It is not true to say that if I determine the parameters of the standard model (for that matter, the masses and coupling constants, let's forget for a moment the mixing angles) then I have determined the model and I can calculate a predication. There are more degrees of freedom in the model - for example which particles exist in the universe and in which representation of the rotation bunch they are. In other words, you can write a theory identical to the standard model, with the same equations and the same parameters, but in this theory the electron will have a three-half spin instead of a half-spin. The physics will of course come out completely different, and we have to manually determine that the electron has half spin, or even that there is such a thing as an electron at all, for the model to work. This means that it is not just about choosing a set of numbers, but also about choosing which sector of the theory describes reality. True, even given a choice of a set of parameters, a generic inflation theory will produce a multiverse of expansion centers and in each of them locally there can be different physics. This does not mean that it is not true, it just means that we need to understand what sector we are in. The original writers ignore that there are still certain features that are preserved (like solving the horizon problem from which inflation was born).
I think in response to the comment the authors are trying to say that because the choice of parameters still produces a variety of possibilities for possible physics, the overlap between the possibilities means that it is impossible to know experimentally which set of parameters is correct, unlike the standard model. That is, one sector of inflationary theory with parameter set A is suitable for describing our universe, and another sector of inflationary theory with parameter set B is also suitable, so the theory does not predict anything.
You can look at another example - you sit in a room, and the room moves. Any local measurement you make will not be able to tell you if you are in a gravitational field or if some force is acting on the room. That is, appearances have two different physical theories that cannot be distinguished from each other. Does this mean that general correlation has no predictive power? of course not. This means that there is a certain equivalence between the two mathematical structures - one that describes forces and the other that describes gravity. It should also be remembered that the cases can be distinguished by an external observer who will look at the system in a non-local way (for example, at the radiation). This is also true for inflation - even locally we will not know how to measure exactly the parameters that suit our world because they do not seem singular, this does not mean that it cannot be done with an overall view of the system. How do you do it? This is already a question that depends on the model of quantum gravity.
Yehuda,
It is not clear to me what you mean when you say "maybe Albenzo will come up with a solution to the problem written in the article". If you mean the problem presented by Steinhardt et al., then I've made it pretty clear that I agree with the critics who say there simply isn't a problem. That's why it's a bit difficult for me to present a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If you mean that you want me to present a solution to the fact that our current cosmological model is incomplete and does not answer all questions in an unambiguous and simple way, then I have to ask if you are serious. In principle, as usual there is a very strong feeling that you simply do not read what is written to you. After all, I wrote you several comments about the fact that it is impossible to make significant progress without years of research and hard work. So you are asking me to solve all the problems of the current cosmological model, and not just - but in a comment on the science website?
Regarding your last comment, I didn't understand most of it at all. The beginning I understood, and I will remind you again that it is simply ridiculous that you resent the fact that most cosmologists remain within the framework of certain theories without having the slightest idea why. Just like your eternal complaints about dark matter, which simply stem from the fact that you never bothered to try to understand that there is so much evidence in favor of the theory, that's why people don't abandon it. Here it is the same, before you complain that cosmologists study inflation, try to understand how many problems there are for which inflation is the only, simplest and most beautiful solution (real problems that concern observations). I also understood the ending and I think the last paragraph you wrote is one of the only things you've ever written that I agree with. In the middle there was some hash about a discrepancy with the observations, but this time we'll give it up.
one time
Yehuda cannot answer you. He has an irreversible cognitive fixation.
Yehuda
I would like to know:
A. Did you read all the comments intended for you?
B. Did you read but not understand?
third. Did you read, did you understand but were ashamed to answer?
d. Have you instead decided to ramble your incomprehensible ramblings again?
you are welcome!! Answer at least this comment!!!
Yehuda
Now I see you don't even know how to write. Writing is so difficult and cumbersome that it is difficult to understand. A high school student who takes 1 unit in language and expression will write better than you. Everything you wrote could be reduced to one paragraph of 6-5 lines. Do yourself a favor and take lessons in expression. For writing like this you would get a failed matriculation exam.
Too few theoretical astrophysicists engage in tasks beyond refining details within the generally accepted paradigm. The unfortunate side effect of this situation is that popular models in the mainstream with which the data are examined, almost never have anyone to challenge them. Most cosmologists, for example, diligently put more and more bricks on the support wall of the standard cosmological model (cosmic inflation, cosmological constant, dark matter of sorts) Similar to engineers who follow the master plan of a global construction project without stopping to ask if the entire architectural structure makes sense when they encounter a contradiction between expectations and experiments.
It is appropriate to bring the biggest mistake in the history of science. that the accumulation of details can be integrated into any dominant paradigm if the model is adapted and complicated. The classic example is Ptolemy's cosmology = a theory of circles whose centers move on the circumference of a larger circle to describe the movement of the sun and the planets around the earth - which stood every empirical test for about fifteen hundred years, longer than it deserved.
A similar analogy from our time is the belief held by mainstream cosmologists that the density of matter in the universe is equal to whatever value is predicted by the theory of cosmic inflation, the theory that describes the primordial universe. When discrepancies are discovered between theoretical predictions and observations regarding the distribution of dark matter, they are attributed to the complicated physics of the visible matter even in dwarf galaxies where the visible matter makes a negligible contribution to the total matter balance.
We do not fully understand the nature of dark matter, dark energy and cosmic inflation. In the search for the missing knowledge, we need architects who will offer us explanations about the nature of these components in light of the existing data, and tell us what clues we should look for in our observations. Without these clues we cannot be sure that cosmic inflation did happen, that dark matter and dark energy are real and not ghosts of our imaginations, creatures of revised gravity.
This time I would really suggest responding gently.
Good night
Yehuda
Shmulik
Yehuda's website is a "simple universe". 120 years ago, we thought the natural numbers were simple. I think it is possible to assume that the universe is slightly more complex than 1,2,3…
Yehuda
It is not clear why it was not clear to you that the lie is in your following claim: 'Me and Moti are at least trying to see the problem and find a solution'
The hypocrisy is about everything else. Not complicated, really.
I have no "response" to your "idea" because it has no real content. I can find you ten such "ideas" in an hour and it won't even be an effort. And it doesn't matter at all if Muti or anyone else responded to your comment or said anything about it. The speed of light changes with time is not really an idea, the force of gravity is plactuative it is not really an idea, the electromagnetic forces are an illusion it is not really an idea, the universe was created from the flow of a 22 dimensional river into the dimensions perceived by us it is not really an idea the world was created from a colossal tree that was cut down By an immaterial coal miner is not really an idea, and God made it is not really an idea.
The only difference here is that for some of the above you probably understand that they are not really an idea, but beyond that these are "ideas" that are completely valid in terms of the quality content on the basis of which you can research and reach insights.
albentezo,
Correct me if I'm missing: the heart of the debate is the sensitivity of inflation to initial conditions and the fact that inflation is not a single theory but actually a framework which creates a situation of retrospective explanations.
Goth wrote (a bit reminded me of an appeal to authority)
If such parameter independence were required, then we would also have to question the status of the Standard Model, with its empirically determined particle content and 19 or more
empirically determined parameters.
The authors' answer was:
What about the comparison to the Standard Model of Particle Physics? This comparison is a false equivalence. For the Standard Model, there are definite predictions for any choice of parameters. For Inflation, there is an infinite diversity of outcomes for any choice of parameters (ie, for any choice of the inflationary energy curve). For example, for any one choice of parameters, an infinite number of patches of space in the multiverse are produced that are not flat, not smooth, and do not have the properties astronomers observe - and there is nothing in the inflationary theory to say that one outcome is more likely than the others. The same does not apply to the Standard Model of Particle Physics.
Is there a successful answer to the authors' claim?
In the end, they propose to continue to investigate the issue of inflation but to be open to additional ideas, something that is self-evident but (I assume) that the authors fear de facto is not the case.
I went to sleep and there was a "small explosion" in the responses. I'm rushing to a lecture at the Astronomy Society at 21:30 pm at the observatory in Givatayim. The lecture on mapping the cosmological space. Should be interesting. I saw the comments in the knowledge. But there's really no time to respond. I will respond when I return. In the meantime, I would like to ask, but in a good spirit, that Albanzo might come up with an idea to solve the problem that appears in the article. Maybe he will tell us what he thinks about the period of inflation which is a bit stuttering. We would all be happy to wait. And regarding the other questions that appear in the comments, I promise to respond.
Yehuda
Albanzo
I will make my intention clear and I mean autodidacts. People who did not study at university for various reasons but studied on their own and the knowledge they gained is equivalent to those who did study. Yehuda is clearly not one of them. I will give you an example from another field. There was a Polish mathematician named Bach (not to be confused with the musician) who came with breakthroughs in mathematics, he had no formal education. Another Hungarian-Jewish mathematician named Ardas, who I assume you've heard of. He was a man who married mathematics, published 1500 articles in the field also without formal education. It seems to me that even electrical inventor Nikola Tesla would have had no formal education. Two autodidacts in Israel of stature that you must have heard of, the late Zvi Yanai and Abshalom Elitzur. Neither of them finished high school. Maybe there are some in physics, I don't know. The difference between a doctor in academia and an autodidact who does have a lot of knowledge is only on the first of the month. One gets a salary in the bank at the beginning of every month and the other doesn't. I don't know who Yehuda means. My impression is that he clings to the thought that a number of people came from outside the academy and achieved achievements, but they acquired all the knowledge on their own and he doesn't understand that. I tried to read Yehuda's words and say that I understood something, no. He takes different ideas that he probably read and sews them together with rough stitches and as soon as you put them in water it all falls apart.
Shmulik,
No, there is nothing here that does not happen every day in science. The only difference is that this time it happened in a popular science paper rather than professional literature, and therefore attracted position papers, etc. It is clear that when there is a "hot" topic whose future is uncertain, then academic institutions around the world hold workshops and conferences on the subject, but I find it hard to believe that this little drama will draw such a reaction, certainly not in a short period of time (don't forget that it also takes time and resources to organize such meetings).
Also, while I agree that the response to the original article is a bit snarky, I don't agree that it is any less to the point. On the contrary, in my opinion the visitors actually scored a goal. Since the last time you asked me, I have had the chance to carefully read the criticism of Leib & Co. (hereafter ALS) on the theory, and also talk to some of the critics, and I am rather strongly convinced that the criticism is very spot on and that Leib & Co. just dug a hole for themselves that they will now have a hard time getting out of.
It should be remembered that the questions answered by AL-S were written... AL-S. I mean, it's easy to convince when you present both sides of the debate. But the points they repeat in the reply to the letter of criticism (the sensitivity to initial conditions and the existence of a multiverse) are in my opinion explained nicely in the letter of response, and my personal opinion is that to say that because of this the theory has no predictive power is a very gross mistake.
And the dispute itself?
I read both the researchers' Q&A and Sean Carroll's blog has an explanation of why he signed.
I must admit, the researchers' Q&A sounded convincing and I felt that Goth and his friends were a little offended and a little less matter-of-fact, but with all due respect to me...
Albentazo, you have already answered my question regarding the dispute and I have a follow-up question: in such situations, isn't there usually a body that holds a conference on the issue?
Nissim, manage to form an opinion?
I lack about 140 iq to honestly testify that I understood what was written.
On the other hand (this is where the defense begins) I take comfort in the fact that I understood each word separately.
The whole discussion with Yehuda reminds me of a scene from the movie "A Good Jew".
A student of the hero fails the physics course and claims that the test was not fair because he did not know that the test would be with mathematics, he thought it would only be about the "stories" and the stories (like the story about the cat and the test tube in the box) he understood well what he said.
Yehuda
Listen, I'm also very interested in physics and read a lot about it. And I also studied the subject in high school. But what I realized when I studied physics for high school is that you don't really understand something in physics until you are able to calculate it. Before that, I knew laws like the law of conservation of energy and Newton's three laws, but until I learned them as equations and calculated things with them, I really didn't realize how much I had to understand. I hope that you at least studied jurisprudence for matriculation, because it is impossible to explain to someone who has not studied that there is no such thing as physics, only stories and no numbers.
If you don't know how to describe your theory mathematically and maybe you don't even know the math necessary for that then it is meaningless.
It doesn't matter what your formal knowledge is, it matters what your knowledge is. No breakthrough scientific theory has arrived without a deep recognition of the previous theories (deep this of course includes mathematics and not just explanations of popular science) no one is big enough in himself to see further than the dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants.
(hope that was gentle enough)
Miracles,
Maybe I confused you by writing "do a doctorate". When I wrote this, of course, I did not mean "have a piece of paper issued by the university" but rather "have spent a good few years of their lives learning the basics, acquiring the mathematical tools, understanding the experiments and reproducing known results in order to reach a state where they are qualified to experiment with modern research". And this is clearly what Faraday did.
Joshua,
I'm still trying to figure out who these people are that Judah is talking about, who, although they didn't bother to study the subject they were talking about, came up with ideas that physicists didn't dare to think about. You write as if it is obvious that there are such, but I have never heard of such a person.
Faraday was certainly a physicist and researcher. It is true that instead of attending lectures at the university, he learned through an apprenticeship by being an assistant to renowned researchers and learning from them, but he studied the material, was part of the scientific institution, attended conferences, read the articles published by his colleagues. The question is not whether it is possible to contribute something to science without a university degree, but as I wrote to Yehuda - is it possible to contribute to science without being a researcher and studying well everything that was done before you and everything that your colleagues are doing right now. Is it possible to reach outside of science and propose an idea that scientists do not dare to think about, as Yehuda claims. The answer is of course no, but for some reason it is not clear to those who are under illusions.
Albanzo
If I understand correctly, Yehuda is enthusiastic about the fact that those pioneers came from outside the academic establishment, but this is not enough. Those pioneers were self-taught. They learned on their own. Their advantage was that they knew how to think outside the box. Thinking outside the box without knowledge is impossible. From the things Yehuda wrote it is evident that his knowledge is very little to negligible. All he does is come up with an endless rumination of gibberish and thinks of himself as the next Einstein, and he is very far from that.
Not that Sephardi did not learn by himself and carried out many studies...
Albanzo
What about Michael Farday?
Yehuda,
It is difficult to give objective criticism of grandmother's stories that are thrown into the air. If you presented an equation, it would be very easy to show you where you are wrong, but when you just throw a slogan in the air like "there were compensatory fireworks", it is not well defined enough for them to refute it. But of course it is still possible to come back again and explain to you that in the big bang nothing exploded and therefore your whole analogy is unfounded. The Big Bang is a figurative (and incorrect) name for a model of an expanding universe. Please explain what it means that there are several compensators, or that a bang splits into several compensators. A universe that expanded and then split into multiple parallel universes? Number of expansions (whatever that is)? What they're trying to explain to you is that when you don't bother to study the field you're talking about, don't be surprised that what comes out of your mouth is a pile of nonsense that might work as a story that the tribal elder can tell around the campfire to the ignorant youngsters, but from a scientific point of view it's complete nonsense.
And by the way, regarding your claim that non-scientists can come up with ideas that scientists don't dare think about - I want to play a game. I will write names of people who made revolutions in the field of physics, and managed to do so because they did a doctorate, studied the field well and developed it from the inside, and then you will make a list of people who made a revolution in physics without an education in physics, but who just came with an external idea without having studied the subject first. Of course, the story is short, so with your permission I will give only a few famous examples:
Galileo, Newton, Lagrange, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac, Feynman, and Hawking. Here are ten names for example, you can give another 100 if you want. Now it's your turn - tell us about the great minds who made a revolution in the world of physics without studying physics and experimenting as researchers.
my father
Let's start with the fact that there are no paradoxes in physics. If you think there is a paradox then, either you are wrong, or the model is wrong. In this case, I will try to explain - again - why you are wrong.
Regarding your example of a stain on paper: what grows in our case is the paper itself, not the stain.
Regarding time - it is a little more difficult to understand. You assumed that the early universe was a black hole, which is not true! A black hole is inside space, but the early universe is all space.
In addition - your claim about infinite time in the event horizon area is also wrong. Time seems infinite only to those outside the black hole! If you fly into a black hole, you will not feel that time is standing still - the watch on your wrist will continue to tick once every second (as far as you are concerned).
Avi (and Yehuda too) - I suggest you acquire the following habit: if it seems to you that most people with a PhD in a certain field are wrong, then you are probably wrong. Try to learn from them why your understanding is wrong. It's not a shame, on the contrary!
Yehuda
I will take Joshua's words seriously and respond with the measure of mercy.
I don't know if you have a problem with reading and/or reading comprehension or hallucinations.
You wrote: "The commentator Muti, who commented on my words, said that it would not be right to cancel the Big Bang, which has many proofs. "
I went through all 3 comments that were published 19 times and found only one response from Muti in this language:
"Yehuda,
I like your ideas, don't know if it's true, but there's something magical about it anyway."
If you could explain just that, without scientific gibberish, I would be very happy
Yehuda
I will take Joshua's words seriously and respond with the measure of mercy.
I don't know if you have a problem with reading and/or reading comprehension or hallucinations.
You wrote: "The commentator Muti, who commented on my words, said that it would not be right to cancel the Big Bang, which has many proofs. "
I went through all 3 comments that were published 19 times and found only one response from Muti in this language:
"Yehuda,
I like your ideas, don't know if it's true, but there's something magical about it anyway."
If you could explain just that, without scientific gibberish, I would be very happy
for miracles
Regarding the paradox I wrote
The problem of time - suppose we are at the starting point of the universe, suppose it is the size of an orange, it is a black hole with a huge mass, the time space only exists in its event horizon.
Now let's move forward, the swelling reaches the size of a grapefruit. The time that passed from orange to grapefruit is infinite.
The problem of space, since there is no space to go from the size of an orange to the size of a grapefruit, it cannot meet because the orange has no dimension in which to grow.
For example, a stain on paper cannot spread in space, but only in the dimension of the paper, that is, only in two dimensions.
On the other hand, if she did not have such a dimension, she cannot grow at all because she has nowhere to spread.
A code the size of an orange or a point has no spatial dimension in which it can spread because it itself contains all dimensions. Nor does it have a time in which the sequence of events of the expansion itself can occur. And so it's a paradox.
to Viking
I really don't understand you. There is a problem with the uniformity of the universe and I came up with the idea of a number of compensators and a greater speed of light. Why does it annoy you so much?, where did you see "a lie full of hypocrisy" here? Why do you think that only the experts in the subject can come up with ideas, actually people from the outside can come up with original ideas that the experts wouldn't dare to think about.
Note that apart from a personal attack and slander throughout your response, you said nothing about my very idea. In conversations with a lecturer who lectured on the subject at Tel Aviv University, I once raised the question of whether the speed of light being greater by a few order of magnitude during the big bang could have solved the need for inflation in the universe and the answer was that it certainly could have reduced the need.
Commentator Muti, who responded to my words, said that it would not be right to cancel the Big Bang, which has many proofs. Hence the short way to bring up the idea of a series of compensations at the beginning of the universe. To me this seems to solve the problem of the uniformity of the universe. If you think I'm wrong, I'd appreciate it if you could see where? Maybe we will find an interesting fix that will overcome the problem again.
Another thing, if I write "please respond gently" it defines me as religious who writes nonsense???.
And by the way I'm not the only one who thinks that the speed of light in the past was apparently greater.
So... please respond in... moderation, and for the record, it's just science.
Good Day
Yehuda
walking dead
Yehuda is locked on a completely wrong conception and he does not understand this and does not want to understand it.. From reading his words it is obvious that his knowledge of physics is minimal and he uses the mathematics of a high school student and even here he makes errors. He sounds very pathetic. To be fair, he should be treated with leniency and mercy.
Yehuda
Listen, your response is a big lie full of hypocrisy. What you are doing is not at all different from religious people who tell magical stories to explain the world to themselves in an easy and convenient way that gives them the comfort of "knowing". There is nothing in your actions that is less than an attempt to see the problem, much less an attempt to solve it. You are not able to make the minimum effort to try to understand the information that is needed to really get to a place where you can start doing research in the field. The only thing you do do is exactly what you complained about - 'criticize others who are trying to find a solution'. So if you stand behind your words and have a modicum of decency, then please sit quietly as you suggested I do.
Unlike you, I realize how many many things I still need to understand and master before it makes sense for me to tweet something about proposing cosmological models. You have no sense of modesty or decency, so you allow yourself to spew your gibberish nonsense here time after time after time.
(Just so you know, your constant request for subtlety in responses to you is the same request that many religious commenters request when they write religious nonsense out of place and don't want to be corrected)
Ha!
… God is playing scientists…
In my opinion, all the big bang theory is nonsense. No one really knows how the universe was created. Believing in the occurrence of the big bang is like believing in the existence of God.
In my opinion the universe simply goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. And more than that, I believe that the earth and the stars around us were created several thousand years ago or a few million years ago and not as is commonly thought today that the earth and the life on its surface were created hundreds of millions of years ago. And even more than that I believe that evolution happened in only thousands of years.
It is known that primitive life forms can undergo an evolutionary process (or mutational/genetic change) at a rate of a few hours to a few days. As happens with bacteria in the body that manage to adapt to antibiotics by genetic changes and development in order to develop resistance to antibiotics. The dinosaurs, for example, were still relatively primitive creatures, and therefore the genetic changes in them occurred relatively quickly, and this is in contrast to our present day, when most creatures living on Earth no longer undergo genetic change and evolution has stopped developing in them because most creatures are developed at a high level and the evolutionary process is not able to make additional genetic changes to improve its survival of that creature without disturbing the ecological balance and the interaction between the creatures on Earth.
to Wokind
Me and Moti at least try to see the problem and find a solution for it. After all, this is the purpose of the article. You sit at the top of your ivory tower and only criticize those who try to find a solution. Instead of criticizing others who are trying to find a solution, try it yourself and see how much more successful you are.
If you can't even try then at least sit still.
Please respond gently
Yehuda
Moti
Hand waving and general descriptions lacking actual and precise content can make everything sound good, wonderful, magical and captivating, this does not make them have content or meaning.
my father
3 Points:
1. You do not understand the essence of what you are saying. Space does not spread into space, but in space spreads - a point. Think about time: time expands right, but it doesn't expand into a time that was before, right?
2. There is no prohibition to start from 0. Take a look at a 100 meter run - starting at 0 time and 0 distance, and still finishing the race.
3. It is not necessary to start from a distance and time equal to 0. On the contrary - according to quantum theory, such a situation cannot exist. It is enough that the space-time started with a very small array.
When talking about a space of time that spreads - there is a paradox here.
At the starting point of the creation of the space of time, there is no space and no time.
Therefore the universe has no space to expand in because there is no space.
On the other hand, there is no time either.
If there is no time then how can we talk about beginning and end, about when and how long? And not about speed and acceleration.
Moti
There is nothing to admire about Yehuda's ideas. There is nothing in them
Yehuda,
I like your ideas, don't know if it's true, but still there is something magical about it.
Now and at a good time I understand the origins of Yehuda Sabdarmish's famous pushing gravity theory.
to Yosef and others
It is indeed difficult to ignore the bang and I would not dismiss it outright. Nevertheless, I would like to come up with an idea for a solution. The idea is that in the beginning there was an explosion that shattered into a number of explosives in the style of a Di Nore firework that shatters into fragments and then each fragment also shatters. It would better explain the uniformity that exists in the universe. A second thing I would add to the primordial universe is a greater speed of light that is proportional to the greater temperature that existed then, or rather to the root of the temperature.
It is possible that a firecracker and a great speed of light would have prevented the need for inflation. I would suggest changing the name of the big bang to: the big fireworks
What's most important..." Please respond gently!
It's just science
Yehuda
The names of the researchers that appear are significant anyway.
There is strong evidence for the Big Bang. For example the distribution of the elements. For example, it derives from general relativity without a forced cosmological constant. We are not dealing with chicken but with science. The theory will not collapse so quickly.
Sometimes researchers create attention in order to receive grants for research that is the heart of academia. Even so, astrophysics and theoretical physics is a field that is not financially profitable for the military, and therefore probably less funded.
I estimated that Lawrence Krauss would be on the mind list
And Brian Greene will not appear on the list
And after testing it turned out to be so
I will try again
Why decide that the universe started from a point and get involved in explaining how it became a medium-sized galaxy? Let's decide that we know what started from a universe the size of a medium-sized galaxy and do not yet know what was before.
I will try again
I have a friend who has a chicken coop. He ran into a problem. His claim that his coop started from a singular point, and during the inflation of his coop a chicken was created, and from here everything is clear. His problem is that he doesn't know how it was carried out during his period of lolly inflation.
I answered him that it would be better for him to decide that his coop was created from a medium chicken and what happened before, to leave it as an unknown problem, perhaps to astronomers.
I hope everything is clear now, and if not, I will bring an example from the neighbor's barn.
Good evening everyone
Yehuda
Ummm…..
Yehuda
Neither you nor I understand what you wrote.
When they discovered the Hubble expansion of the universe, the scientists decided to go back in time with the contraction and thus arrived that 13.7 billion years ago it reached the size of a medium galaxy, the theoretical scientists were not satisfied with that and continued to shrink until they reached the size of a dot. But we only know how a universe that starts with the size of a galaxy spreads uniformly and regularly throughout the universe. The question that is asked is, if in advance we did not have to go all the way to a contracted lycum the size of a medium galaxy and save the inflationary expansion required from a point to reach the size of a medium galaxy.
Because of a small uncertainty in the directions of the Hubble propagation and its size in different points of the universe. We are actually obliged to "walk backwards" to reach a universe that shrinks to the size of a medium galaxy. We have no way of knowing how the laws of physics will behave in a contracted universe of this magnitude. The casual decision to continue shrinking the universe down to the size of a dot will inevitably lead to the creation of an inflationary theory that will bring us to the size of a medium galaxy.
In conclusion, one should be brave enough to state that we know what has happened to the Universe since it was a medium galaxy size. The creation of a point universe, with a strange inflation that will bring it to the size of a medium galaxy is an unnecessary act and not supported by laws of physics that are not known at all.
This comment is only intended for open-minded readers.
Please respond gently
Yehuda
The inflation theory is not a "nice" theory at all. It is very depressing and it would be very gratifying to know if the opposite is true.