The rate of expansion of the universe is controversial - and we may need new physics to quantify it

375 תגובות

1. Israel
   If the spaceship returns to Israel - you get exactly the twin paradox.

2. True, I came across it a few seconds after sending the response..

   Even in the video from Mars, the spacecraft clock will advance faster than the Mars clock.

3. Israel
   I agree with the first part. For 3 seconds we went from 3000 to 3000. Note that this is not the time, but what you see in the video.
   Imagine a non-relativistic case: you move away from Earth and look back at a terrestrial clock. You will see this clock lagging more and more behind your clock.

   Let's look from the direction of Mars... and here you are wrong.

   While the spacecraft crosses the Earth - the clocks are reset, and 3000 seconds later a camera on Mars will receive 0 from both the terrestrial clock and the clock in the spacecraft.

   The spacecraft will reach Mars immediately after that, that is, also after about 3000 seconds (and not 3 seconds). Time in the spaceship advances more slowly, and its season will advance only 3 seconds.

   The situation is not symmetrical - because in the Mars system the flight range is 3000 light seconds, while in the spacecraft system the range is only 3 light seconds.

4. Ok, so in the apparent paradox that I brought up, what will the videos from the spaceship and Mars show?

5. Israel
   Clock synchronization is reference system dependent.
   In the Earth-Mars system the clocks are synchronized.
   In the spacecraft system - Mars clock is ahead of Earth clock by almost 3000 seconds.

6. Israel
   It is a shortening of length that does not create logical contradictions.
   The meaning of the shortening of the length is that in 3 seconds the spacecraft will be on Mars.
   The word "length" no longer has any meaning.

   You asked several times about the diameter of Mars. Do you see this as a problem?

7. There is something that doesn't work out for me, it must be a simple mistake because it apparently indicates a contradiction in proper relations, we will call it the "paradox of the twins" once again.

   It is said that the spaceship passes over the surface of the earth as in the previous example at time 0 in the earth's clocks Mars and the spaceship.

   The spacecraft has a powerful telescope and a video camera that records the spacecraft clock and Mars clock together, from the moment of the suit to the moment of arrival on Mars.

   The journey takes 3 seconds according to the spacecraft's clock and it will reach Mars in time 3003+. The photography started at time 3000 on Mars, therefore the rotation ratio of the second hands between Mars time and spacecraft time is about 6000/3, i.e. the time on the Mars clock advances about 2000 times faster than the time on the spacecraft clock according to the video.

   It is said that even on Mars a telescope is installed with a video that begins to record the Mars clock and the spacecraft clock together at time 0 according to the Mars and Earth clocks.

   The video will initially show the local time at 3000 - but not the spacecraft, it has not yet arrived in Israel.

   At moment 0 in Earth time, which is moment 3000+ in Mars time, according to the video, the spacecraft arrives at Earth at time 0 according to season and reaches Mars 3 seconds later according to Mars time, that is, moment 3003 according to Mars time.

   In order not to reach the limits, it is said that the video on Mars films the spacecraft already from a distance of 300,000 light seconds.

   According to a season it travels a distance of 3000 light seconds in 3 seconds, therefore it will travel a distance of 300,000 light seconds in about 300 seconds.

   The video will show the Mars clock advancing by 300,000 seconds while the spacecraft's clock is advancing by 300 seconds and a little more, a ratio of about 1000 times faster in favor of the Mars clock.

   Therefore, no matter which video we look at, from the spacecraft or from Mars, we will see the Mars clock turning thousands of meters faster than the spacecraft clock.

   But how can that be? The spaceship and Mars are moving in the same direction at the same speed without acceleration, so if the video from the spaceship shows the Mars clock moving much faster, does it not require that because of the symmetry, the video from Mars will show the spaceship clock moving much faster?

   ?

   ??

   ??! ??

   I must have some basic mistake, a long day today..

8. So this brings us back to what I wrote earlier:

   "Therefore the answer must be minus 3000, but then what kind of shortening is this that from a distance of 3 light seconds you only see what happened 3000 seconds ago?"

9. Israel
   3000

10. the same time 3- or 3000-?

11. Israel
    the same time.

12. The spaceship doesn't think and doesn't know anything about gamma, it just takes pictures.

    So I will come back to the question one more time:

    If the spacecraft left the Earth at time 0 in the Earth and Mars clocks, and at your request it was told that it passed over the Earth at time 0 in the Earth and Mars - what time will it be photographed by the camera attached to the powerful telescope that photographs the Mars clock?

    Only time appearing in the photo, without explanations.

13. Israel
    Let's look at the spacecraft coming from afar. It is equivalent to an accelerating spaceship, but for me it is simpler to understand.

    When it crosses the Earth, the time on Earth is 0, and the time on Mars is about 3000 seconds (in the spacecraft axis system).

    When the spacecraft reaches Mars - 3 seconds will pass in the season (from the moment of crossing the Earth), and the clock on Mars will show 3003.

    The spacecraft sees photons that came out 3 seconds ago multiplied by gamma, that is - 3000 seconds.

    Therefore, there is no contradiction.
    You wrote "therefore the answer must be minus 3000, but then what kind of shortening of length is this that from a distance of 3 light seconds we only see what happened 3000 seconds ago?". Our error is that gamma must be taken into account...

    I will give you an example to illustrate. Imagine that Mars emits particles at the speed of light, which have a lifetime of a little less than 3000 seconds. We will not see them from Earth. Nor will we see them from the spaceship - otherwise we will get a contradiction, just like you said.

14. So if the spacecraft manages to photograph a time of 3-, or any other time after 3000-, what will prevent it from making a U-turn and immediately returning to Israel with a photograph that would naturally take 3000 seconds to reach Israel?

    If the results of the final game on Mars were published on Mars at time 1000, Israel should not know about it before 2000 local time. But thanks to the spaceship, it was also possible to give almost an hour earlier, and deliver the blow in toto.

    No?

15. Israel
    Minus 3000

16. Let's break down the argument:

    When the spacecraft leaves Israel at time 0 - what time from Mars does the powerful telescope stationed in Israel photograph?

17. Israel
    I don't understand where the minus 3000 comes from. It was at high acceleration, so there will really be a small time difference when you return to Israel. In any case, you will not see a significant change in times.

    Instead of pictures, think that every second a spacecraft is launched from Mars to Earth at high speed. You will get the same result.

    And regarding the diameter - I answered: Mars will cover a larger angle of the sky. In particular, the tangent of this angle is gamma times greater than it was before the acceleration.

    You will get a distorted image, but similar to the one you see from Earth. For example - if from Earth you see a distant planet that is just about to launch to Mars, then you will see this launch from the spacecraft as well.
    Why do you ask?

18. "In short, the answer is close to 0, and maybe really 3-."

    You did not address what I wrote in the previous comment:

    "To see this, imagine that the spaceship turns around immediately and returns to Israel after a second with the photograph of the clock showing minus 3, while in Israel you only see a time of minus 3000".

    If this happens, the signal of 3- reached Israel within 3 seconds and not within 3000, which rules out the answer outright, doesn't it?

    What really about the diameter of Mars?

19. Israel
    With your permission, let's look at it this way: the Earth and Mars transmit every second a number of photons that advances the time at the moment of transmission.

    Let's look at a spacecraft coming from afar, as I described before (passing the Earth towards Mars at gamma = 1000), to simplify the understanding and draw conclusions.

    If this spacecraft joins you after your departure from Earth - both spacecraft will see the same photons at every moment. That is - conclusions from my description are also valid for your description.

    We will direct the experiment so that as soon as the spacecraft passes the Earth - both planets transmit "0", according to their synchronized clocks.

    The spacecraft sees the distance between the planets as about 3 light seconds.

    When the spacecraft passes the Earth, it will receive "0" from the Earth, and when it reaches Mars - approximately (!) "3000" pulses from Mars.

    The rate of pulses coming from Mars is 1000 per second. Hence the spacecraft will see 3000 pulses from the moment of the Earth suit until Mars.
    Therefore, when the spaceship passes the Earth, it will see - approximately (!) pulse "0".

    In short, the answer is close to 0, and maybe really -3.

    Don't forget that as far as the spacecraft is concerned - the Martian clock is about 3000 seconds ahead of the Earth clock. Therefore, the light did not reach Israel at a speed higher than the speed of light.

    By the way - we are back here to your watches on the track. You are right - it does seem that they are running very fast forward. But - this does not mean that time runs faster on the track. Time actually runs more slowly.

    What about the diameter of Mars?

20. If the answer is minus 3, then it reached Israel at a speed 1000 times faster than light.

    To see this, imagine that the spaceship immediately turns back and returns to Israel after a second with the photo of the clock showing minus 3, while in Israel you only see a time of minus 3000.

    Therefore the answer must be minus 3000, but then what kind of shortening is this that from a distance of 3 light seconds we only see what happened 3000 seconds ago?

21. Israel
    I'm trying to think of the following case: a spacecraft comes from afar and passes the Earth on its way to Mars. As soon as the Earth passes, photographs are taken both from the spacecraft and from the Earth. Do both cameras pick up the same photons?

    Imagine that when the spacecraft is 6 light seconds away from Mars (for her), someone on Mars fires a terrifying laser towards Earth. In 3 seconds the spaceship (according to season) passes by the Earth, exactly at the moment it is destroyed. We said that "0" is the time of the suit, so the photons came out at time 3-.

    On Earth, the laser also hits when the spacecraft passes by, at time "0". In this case, the photons appear to have exited at time -3000.

    So it seems to me that you are right - the answer is minus 3.

    Regarding Mars - it will cover a much larger angle.

22. You just answered the second part. So if the diameter is huge, will I be able to read a newspaper? What if Alpha Country, the newspaper will be from 4 years ago or from yesterday?

23. "In a certain sense it is indeed future tense."

    Impossible. What if the clock on Mars exploded 10 minutes after I left the country, how do I see future time from a non-existent clock?

    "You will see that Mars is flat."

    I asked about the diameter.. a photograph from the distance meter should show a diameter 1000 times larger.

24. Israel
    I didn't exactly answer your question. The point is that you don't "see" diameter, you see angles. And Mars will indeed look huge...

25. Israel
    In a certain sense it is indeed future tense. Don't forget it's a matter of clock synchronization. Earth and Mars clocks are synchronized, limited only to the Earth and Mars system. In the spacecraft system - the clocks are not synchronized.

    The truth is that I am not sure what time you will see in the photo, but I am sure that when you reach the moon you will see that the time there is 3000 seconds ahead.

    You will see that Mars is flat. This is a phenomenon that is actually seen in particle accelerators.

26. "The photo will show the time in 2994 seconds."

    What is this, future tense? When I left the time in Israel and on Mars was 0, so what time will the photo show?

    And what is the diameter of Mars in the picture? 1000 times bigger than the picture taken from Israel?

27. Israel
    This is indeed the time from 3 seconds ago.
    In the spacecraft system, the time on Mars is another 2997 seconds.

28. but how? Isn't he 3 light seconds away from him now? So why won't he see the time from 3 seconds ago?

29. Israel
    "If I accelerate from Earth towards Mars instantly so that gamma equals 1000, then it will be 1000 times closer, right?"
    Right

    "So if you shoot a clock on the surface of Mars, what will it show, the time of an hour ago or 3 seconds ago?"
    With your permission, I will arrange the numbers first. Instead of "an hour" - we will take "3000 seconds". And suppose the distance to Mars is 3000 light seconds.

    The photo will show the time in 2994 seconds.

30. OK, I'll turn the questions over to Einstein. I think we're done.

    On the other hand, if he was wrong, then maybe this is not the only time?

    So as his representative, here is a question for you that has not yet been answered regarding the shortening of the length:

    If I accelerate from Earth towards Mars instantaneously so that gamma equals 1000, then it will be 1000 times closer, right?

    So if you shoot a clock on the surface of Mars what will it show, the time of an hour ago or 3 seconds ago?

31. Israel
    So there is an acceleration of the muon, for a time that is very close to 0, so this has no effect on its clock.

    I don't know what the spin of the electron was before the measurement. I don't even know what "spin" is. Why does it only have two values, but those values ​​exist on every axis?
    Spin is a strange property, so I'm not surprised by strange behavior.

    Questions for Einstein, direct them to him. I personally think he is wrong here.

32. Israel
    So there is an acceleration of the muon, for a time that is very close to 0, so this has no effect on its clock.

    I don't know what the spin of the electron was before the measurement. I don't even know what "spin" is. Why does it only have two values, but those values ​​exist on every axis?
    Spin is a strange property, so I'm not surprised by strange behavior.

    Questions for Einstein, direct them I guess he is wrong here.

33. Another time waiting.

34. What is this, waiting again?

35. "The particle was created with kinetic energy, so there is no obligation to assume that there was an acceleration."

    The particle was created from the decay of pions and is almost 300 times heavier than an electron, so how come there is no acceleration?

    "And as I wrote earlier, and you didn't comment, this cannot explain the longevity of the muon."

    I commented, I told you cow cow.

    "I think there is a permanent connection between entangled particles, and that measurement has no effect."

    What do you mean no effect? What was the spin of the electron before and after the measurement? So how is there no effect? And if there is a constant connection between the particles in zero time, is this something that relativity allows? And if so, why does Einstein say no?

36. Israel
    The particle was created with kinetic energy, so there is no need to assume that there was acceleration.

    And as I wrote earlier, and you did not comment, this cannot explain the longevity of the muon.

    I think there is a constant connection between entangled particles, and that measurement has no effect.

37. The muons are created by the decay of the pions, which causes them to accelerate almost to the speed of light. Otherwise, how did such a heavy particle reach such a high speed without acceleration?

    So you accept that the measurement of particle A physically affects particle B or has something changed?

38. Israel
    Let's assume that the muons did accelerate (although there is no reason to think that this is the case). They accelerated in a very short time. Therefore - the effect of acceleration on time is small. Let's assume that they are at an enormous acceleration for a whole kilometer (something really unlikely). So - time does not advance for them for 3 microseconds. So how do you explain another 19 micros?

    I have heard several times an explanation for the twin paradox that includes acceleration. This is not true. A simple numerical exercise shows this.

39. How acceleration affects - a new topic, let's finish the previous ones.

    How did the muons reach their high speed without acceleration? This is different from two clocks passing each other when their time is 0, where there is no acceleration.

40. Israel
    "Muions are not proof of time lengthening or length shortening in inertial systems. All the existing evidence involves acceleration in one way or another."

    How does acceleration affect? And where is there acceleration here?

41. Israel
    According to the private, it is not possible to accelerate a body with a mass above the speed of light. This does not rule out the acceleration of a massless body to any speed, or the existence of particles above the speed of light.
    And that doesn't rule out what happens in the interweaving. I couldn't understand from you how weaving creates a contradiction.

    How does acceleration help with muons? I agree that the muons are accelerated at the moment of their formation. Let's assume that the demand is huge. The result - for zero time, time stands still for them. After this time, they no longer accelerate. So how do they get to the ground?

42. The example of the candle is actually not bad: if it was lit at the same time according to synchronized clocks with other candles by the same clocks, it will burn out faster relative to those candles when it passes by them, and will go out when the candle in front of it is still lit.

    I didn't understand either: what does disqualifying any speed mean? Even according to the private you cannot reach the speed of light and not only due to causal considerations, your mass increases.

    And what are tachyons related to?

    Muons are not proof of time lengthening or length shortening in inertial systems. All the existing evidence involves acceleration in one way or another.

43. Israel
    Read the
    http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/471/2175/20140541

44. Israel
    I can't understand anything from your response.

    What does it matter running or ticking??? My watch is actually a burning candle...

    I guess we are both saying the same thing: a clock moving relative to me runs slower than a clock at rest.

    Why does general relativity rule out motion at any speed? The private person does rule out, but only when there is a violation of causality.

45. The clocks do not run but only tick. The clock will appear as ticking at a slower rate if it moves along the length of a synchronized clock system, therefore when encountering any subsequent clock in the same system the time of the moving clock will be lower than the time of that system clock and hence the time of the system clock is higher.

    This does not mean that the times of the system clocks move faster - for the sake of symmetry, if the same moving clock is also part of a synchronized clock system - a train for example - then each clock from the previous system will show higher and higher times in the train clocks it meets, so that the balance is maintained.

    Regarding the problem I raised, it has no solution within the framework of relativity because it is based on an assumption that relativity does not accept: an effect in zero time, or faster than light.

    If you accepted the assumption that the measurement of electron A affected electron B in a physical way, then you got a problem with the quanta.

    The trouble is that this is exactly what is happening - before the measurement the B electron had no defined spin and was certainly unknown, after which the spin was fixed and it is already known.

    This does not necessarily mean that something changed immediately in the electron itself - it is possible that the change is only in the wave function, its physical part, and the measurement of the electron associated with it revealed this. But it doesn't matter, still measuring an A electron caused a physical change at a distant point in zero time.

    And relativity, we already know, does not agree to that.

46. Israel Shapira
    Yes, it's me, that one, that one, that one with the goddess... so what's going on, old lady? 🙂

47. Israel
    Right.
    It can be seen easily - particles at high speed live longer than particles at rest. This is a known phenomenon in cosmic radiation and accelerators.

    This is relevant because I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Earlier you explained the following example: a high-speed spaceship passes the Earth on the way to Andromeda, and at the moment of the pass various synchronizers.
    You said, as far as I understand, that standing clocks run faster, and therefore when the spacecraft arrives at Andromeda, the clock shows a lower time than the time on Andromeda.

48. It's moving slowly, although I'm not exactly sure how you could see that, technically.

    The only thing you can do for sure is take a picture of your watch and his watch together. So you will see that a clock moving relative to a synchronized clock system will fall further and further behind, and this will be shown by photographs from both sides.

    relevance?

49. Israel
    I will ask again - if I stand and pass a clock at high speed: will this clock seem to me to be in a hurry or behind? No need to sync anything. I look at the second hand: is it spinning faster or slower than my watch?

50. we

    What kind of us are you, I talk to some twenty anonymous people every day, anonymous alcoholics, anonymous quacks, anonymous cowards..

    So if you are the mythological us from long ago, throw in some name from the past, make sure.

51. relative velocities? 100 km/h? My car goes twice as fast..

    You can also with 100 centimeters per year, you will get the same problem and there is no reason not to: Eimstein said there would be a problem in the EPR paper, you just didn't quantify it like in this example.

    You can't help but accept the problem and it has no solution, it's a shame you bother.

52. Israel
    We talked about both of us in the same room. Now we have moved to relative velocities.

    Entangled particles start at the same point, right? Therefore, the speed of moving away from each other will never be less than or equal to the speed of light. Think of two photons entangled in opposite directions. Their relative speed is just the speed of light. And in entangled electrons, the speed is smaller.

    So - you can't say that we have one entangled particle here and another in Andromeda - it will take at least 1 million years to get there. So if the first electron emits photons all the time, then the moving away electron will always be in the range of these photons.

    Don't think for a second that I understand what's going on. I'm just trying to make it clear that intuition doesn't work here.

53. This is one of the first things you agreed to: measuring electron A in 3 affects the results of measuring electron B in 4, but not the other way around.

    If it has now changed, then we probably ran out of time.

54. "Fake news" miracles...

    ...So, Israel, tell me - what happened in the end with your and Meir's theory? there is progress?

55. Israel
    I don't agree with you. You attribute causality to the order of measurement. In my opinion, this is not the case.

    You say "what I did in 'A' affects 'B'". I don't think that's true, because there's no way to know that you did measure.

    We also don't know what happens with interlacing at relative speeds (as far as I know). There are many things that are not understood, and there is no contradiction.

56. Indeed, relativity does not work with quanta. That's what's going on here, not synchronicity.

57. Indeed, Einstein opposed the interpretation of quantum, but quantum won and that is exactly what is happening here, with an actual example.

    It is impossible to say that there is no synchronization here, everything is filmed.

    Now understand the title of the article in Scientific: A quantum threat to special relativity?

58. Israel
    In special relativity there are cases where the order of two events can be different for different observers. This will happen when there is no danger due to causality. In my understanding - this is exactly the situation here.

59. For me.. for him.. just photographs.

    And they show the same thing, both from the car and from the road: the car clock lags behind the road clocks.

    How does this happen without contradiction? Explanation after the break:

    How, then, can Jill claim that Jack's clocks C1, C2 are the ones that are running slow?

    What about our particles? So who caused the collapse, electron A or B?

60. Israel
    I understand what you are saying. Your link exactly explains why there is no paradox in the twin paradox.

    Pay attention to the following point: at the moment of synchronization - the spacecraft pilot does not see 0 on the Andromeda clock. Let's say gamma = 1000000.
    He will be there in two years and will see there that the clock shows 2000000, that is - for him the time in Andromeda is 1999998 at the moment of synchronization.

61. in both

    As both the traveling twin's and Andromeda's camera will see Andromeda's time as higher.

    Otherwise, we would have received the following scenario: the train enters the platform after many laps of the country, on the locomotive there is a large clock that shows the time at 3 o'clock, but the receptionists actually see 8..

62. Israel
    "But for our purposes, a photograph will show the road clock times higher than the car clock."

    where is the camera On the moving or stationary car on the road?

63. Why the opposite? The same. This is why a car clock 2 ticks slower than road clocks, it moves relative to them. The photos will show it too.

    There is an explanation that shows why road clocks also tick slower than car clocks even though the photographs show the opposite:

    http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html

    But for our purposes, a photo will show the road clock times higher than the car clock.

64. Israel
    In Wikipedia it says:
    As a result of the nature of spacetime,[2] a clock that is moving relative to an observer will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own frame of reference

    Are you saying it's the other way around?

65. The car's time does move more slowly relative to a synchronized clock system, so it will show a higher and higher time with each clock it passes.

    Like the traveling twin in the Paradox sees times increasing and decreasing with each clock he passes until he finally reaches Andromeda where time is a million years higher than his own. Andromeda also agrees on this.

66. Israel
    You wrote "Her time moves relatively slowly compared to those clocks, so with each successive clock she..."

    In principle, even at 100 km/h this is true.

67. And all this magic at a speed of 100 km/h?

    What if the speed was 5 km/h, even then the photographs would show opposite images?

    Is this even technically possible?

68. Israel
    If the photo is taken from a camera that is standing relative to the road, the image will show that the car's clock lags behind the clock on the road.

    If the photo is taken from the moving car - the photo will show that the clock on the road lags behind the car's clock.

69. So if each sees the other as lagging relative to him - what will a joint photo of the two watches show when car B passes by the same watch? She drives quite slowly.

    Is it possible that every photo will show something upside down?

    try again.

70. Israel
    You say there are many synchronized clocks on the road. A car is driving along the road, so you will see that time on the road moves more slowly. That is, she will see an hour earlier on the road.
    After a certain time, from the point of view of an observer in the car, the time on the road will be 3 hours less than the time in the car
    At the same time, an observer on the road will see the car's clock 3 hours behind his clock.

    So far do you agree?

71. So we will continue.

    We may switch between the cars, but it doesn't matter.

    Car B is driving on a long road which is stationary relative to car A and on its way clocks are synchronized.

    Her time moves relatively slowly compared to those clocks, so with each clock she follows
    You will see a higher and higher time, until you reach a clock whose time shows 3 hours more than hers.

    It is said that the time on the same clock is 9 and the time of car B is 6.

    At this moment she is measuring her electron.

    Car A measures its own at time 7.

    According to what we agreed, the measurement of electron B in 6 causes the collapse of electron A and not the other way around,

    Measuring electron A in 7 causes the collapse of every electron intertwined with it in the clocks synchronized in 7. If there is a C electron next to it intertwined with a D electron near the same clock that shows 9 when car B passes by, it will also collapse at 7.

    Therefore, if electrons A and C are measured in car A at 7, the effect reaches the clock showing 9 at 7 o'clock, two hours before car B reached it.

    And since car B was between the two points at the moment of the collapse, so it too collapsed even before it reached the remote clock and measured its electron, contrary to the assumption that it was the one that measured first and affected the measurement of electron A.

    Confusing enough?

72. Israel
    It is no less amazing than the fact that an electron has a spin.... What is spin anyway? Why is he single? But only about discrete??

73. Israel
    A miracle indeed. I didn't say otherwise.

74. Until you are released:

    You have two entangled electrons that you are looking at. You know none of them have a defined spin.

    You measure A and now B has a defined spin and you even know what it is!

    No wonders wonders? Didn't you try miracles? Not a physical change, from superposition in B to a defined and known spin?

75. waiting

76. waiting

77. Look at electron B before measuring electron A.

    Can you tell what his spin is? Negative. is in superposition.

    Look at him after A's measurement. Can you tell what his spin is? Positive. He was fixed.

    Fixation of spin is something physical, and that is what measurement A did to electron B.

    You can't measure the change so we said the inference makes sense.

78. Israel
    "Certainly something changed in the distant electron - it went from a state of superposition to a unique state. This is a measurable physical change.”
    I will soon measure my electron. Are you saying that you will detect a physical change in the electron you have? You said it was measurable...

    I can find that the radio waves passed through point C. In our case, not only in point C I will not be able to measure anything, but also in point B I will not be able to measure anything.

79. The wave function collapses in the whole space, including point C, so there is no problem.

    Surely something changed in the distant electron - it went from a state of superposition to a unique state. This is a measurable physical change.

    Even radio waves passing from point A to B through point C do not cause any change in C unless we have received and measured them, and in fact you can theoretically know if a remote radio receiver has been activated, a.k.a. the feed is repeated.

    In any case - what is the problem with the effect passing through point C but not causing a change in it?

80. Israel
    Radio communication goes through every point in space, so the analogy is not so good. And if something happened in C then there must be a way to feel it. If it affects my electron, then it will affect another electron as well.

    And in any case - if something really happened in C, it means that your electron knows where my electron is. So imagine that my electron is far from yours and moving wildly, and at high speed. How come my electron gets to yours fast enough? Is there continuous communication between us at infinite speed?

81. Israel
    The "collapse" is not a physical action. Suppose you measure your electron and let me know what the result is. Nothing has changed in my electron. What has changed is my knowledge of what would happen if I measured the same figure you measured.

    What I'm trying to make clear is that I don't think this situation can be looked at like: "You touched your electron, and a particle or wave came out of it that changed my electron."

    The whole issue of "particle or wave" is completely incomprehensible to anyone. There is something very deep that we do not understand.

    Look at the 2 slots experiment - does anyone really understand what's going on there? Let alone weaving, we do not understand this simple experiment.

82. Claim D:

    The "collapse" - that strange communication between the intertwined particles - is a physical action even though we still don't know how it works.

    But even though we don't know, we can assume that if a measurement made on particle A at point A affected particle B at point B, the physical effect also passed through point C, which is between points A and B.

    It is similar to radio communication: if I activated a transmitter at point A and received the signal at point B, then the signal also passed through point C, which is between points E and B, even though it was not necessarily received or affected at point C.

83. Israel
    Yes, under the conditions you mentioned before.

84. Claim C: As long as the cars continue to travel at the same speed and particle A is measured one hour before particle B according to clocks A and B, then it is the measurement of particle A that caused the collapse of particles A and B, while the measurement of particle B only revealed the The results of the collapse but did not affect particle A.

    accepted?

85. Israel
    Under the conditions you described accept.

86. So let's start with the action.

    Two cars pass each other at a relative speed of 100 km/h. Car A has particle A and clock A, car B has particle B and clock B.

    At the moment of change the cars are photographed. The time on both clocks: 0.

    In time 3 hours according to clock A, particle A is measured, and in time 4 hours according to clock B, particle B is measured.

    Claim A: The spins will be synchronized despite the movement of the cars.

    Claim B: The measurement of particle A at 3 o'clock is the one that moved the particles from a state of superposition to a unique state, whereas the measurement of particle B at 4 o'clock only revealed the results of the "collapse", and did not affect it and certainly not particle A.

    accepted?

87. Israel
    No problem.

88. If the polarization is balanced, then the probability is about 100% so what's the problem?

89. Yehuda
    No one understands… 🙂 The double slit experiment shows that intuition is not a scientific tool.

90. Israel
    The state of the particle has not changed. The probability of measuring a certain value of it has changed. I think this distinction is important.

    I guess it also works at huge distances, even up to Andromeda.

91. To my dear friends
    Israel and miracles
    I am delving into your conflict but I am short on understanding the depth of the interweaving and the super position, therefore for the sake of good order I do not interfere in the scientific debate between you and I am sure that you do your work faithfully for the sake of science.
    Good Day
    Yehuda

92. Ok, so let's summarize:

    If we have two entwined particles, one in Israel and the other in Andromeda, and next to each particle is a clock that is synchronized with the corresponding clock, then if particle A is measured at 3 and B at 4, the measurement of particle A caused it to go from superposition to a unique state, also caused particle B to obtain a state Unique, whereas the measurement of particle B only revealed the situation but did not affect it and certainly did not affect particle A.

    getting?

93. Israel
    I agree with what you say. The probability is determined at the moment of the first measurement.

94. What does it matter? Still the measurement of the first determined the state of the second, even if there is a deviation from 100% matching, and not the other way around.

95. Israel
    Not the situation, but the probability. Practically, there is no way you and I will measure *exactly* on the same axis, therefore, it is impossible to determine with certainty the measurement result I will receive.

96. You will, but it doesn't matter to the argument: measuring particle A first affects particle B and determines its state, not the other way around.

97. Israel
    And if I'm wrong in the measurement by a tiny bit - won't we get a probability that is close to 1, but not the same as 1?

98. You will get an average match of 25%. But right now we are only talking about balanced polarization.

    Do you accept all the conclusions including the logical deduction? Remember that even in an experiment the inference is logical and not experimental.

99. Israel
    And what will happen if we measure with an angle difference of 60 degrees?

100. No probability. If for electron A the state is up, then for B it is down. Always. Even if he's in Andromeda.

101. Israel
     2 may be true, but it is not a logical conclusion.
     Let's say you measured vertical polarization. I will now check horizontal polarization. In this plane, I can have any polarization, so there is superposition in this plane.
     Does the superposition depend on the plane? The wave function collapsed in only one plane? I have no idea…..

     In my understanding - the effect of your measurement is on probabilities and not on a situation. I do accept that the probability changes as you measure.

102. Do not want? I will gladly answer. If the measurement is random there is no way to know who measured first.

     That's why I wrote: "The next step is a logical deduction: if the two electrons are in the same room, then until I measured one of them, both are in superposition."

     Do you see another option?

     All the other steps are also a logical deduction:

     If I measured particle A at 3 o'clock and particle B at 4 o'clock then:

     1. At 2 o'clock the two particles were in a state of superposition.

     2. At 3 o'clock particle A was measured and moved to a unique state, up or down, and this also determined the state of particle B in the opposite state.

     3. The measurement of B particles at 4 only revealed its state which was already determined at 3 by measuring particle A, and did not affect particle A at all.

103. Israel
     You didn't answer my question... "Let's both measure at random times. Do you think there is a way to know who measured first?"

     Regarding your question:

     1. At 2 o'clock the two particles were in a state of superposition.
     agree

     2. At 3 o'clock particle A was measured and moved to a unique state, up or down, and this also determined the state of particle B in the opposite state.
     Partially agree. I have no way of finding out that you took a measurement, so I can't know anything about its condition before the measurement.

     3. The measurement of B particles at 4 only revealed its state which was already determined at 3 by measuring particle A, and did not affect particle A at all.
     Again, I'm guaranteed the result of the measurement, but I don't think his condition has changed because of your measurement.

     That's why I asked the question you don't want to answer….

104. What did I not answer?

     Do you not agree that if I measured particle A at 3 o'clock and particle B at 4 o'clock then:

     1. At 2 o'clock the two particles were in a state of superposition.

     2. At 3 o'clock particle A was measured and moved to a unique state, up or down, and this also determined the state of particle B in the opposite state.

     3. The measurement of B particles at 4 only revealed its state which was already determined at 3 by measuring particle A, and did not affect particle A at all.

105. Israel
     You did not answer my question…
     In the case you describe, I agree that at 3 o'clock I can say what the result of my measurement will be at 4 o'clock.

106. Why random? You measure at 3, I measure at 4, an hour later.

     We are both in the same room.

     Is there any doubt that you measured before?

107. Israel
     Let's both measure at random times. Do you think there is a way to tell who measured first?

108. Israel
     I disagree. Nothing happened to the second particle in the measurement of the first particle. Here - I will measure my particle soon, and you will let me know as soon as you recognize that I have measured.

     Maybe the state of your particle will only be determined after you measure it, and not as soon as I measure it? On second thought, I am convinced that this is indeed what is happening.

109. "I'm not saying that something strange isn't happening here. I'm just saying that there is no logical contradiction here, or even a contradiction to the special theory of relativity."

     When in the whole discussion was anything said about a contradiction? In the meantime we just have to agree that measuring the first chronologically affected the second to get the opposite quantum state, while measuring the second did not affect the first.

110. Israel
     I agree that now you know the spin of my electron. There is no contradiction in this knowledge. Knowledge is not change. The evidence for this is that I have no way of knowing anything from the fact that you measured, and more than that, I don't even know that you measured.

     I'm not saying there isn't something strange going on here. I'm just saying that there is no logical contradiction here, or even a contradiction to special relativity.

111. "What does "the electron is no longer in superposition" mean? What's different about him?'

     the spin. It is in a unique position of up or down.

     "The measurement did not affect the *state* of the second electron, but something else, which is wrong to call it a state, because we might draw a wrong conclusion from this."

     If the measurement did not affect the spin state of the second electron, then how come we know what it is before we measured the second electron? Before measuring the first we did not know what the spin of the second was, simply because it had no state, so logic says that measuring the first affected the spin state of the second.

     Do you see another option? So tell me what it is.

112. Israel
     What does "the electron is no longer in superposition" mean? What is different about it?

     The measurement did not affect the *state* of the second electron, but something else, which is not correct to call a state, because we might draw a wrong conclusion from this.

     All I'm saying is that you can't use intuition to figure out what's going on.

     I do agree that there is "something" that binds the sea of ​​particles. I don't think I can draw any conclusions from that.

113. as I wrote:

     "The next step is a logical deduction: if the two electrons are in the same room, then until I measured one of them, both are in superposition."

     Do you see another option?

     And after I measured the first one, it is no longer in superposition, but has moved to a unique state.

     Do you see another option?

     And if I measured the other one after an hour, I know in advance what state it will be in, so it is not in superposition, or its wave function is not in superposition.

     Do you see another option?

     And since its state was determined by the first, then necessarily the measurement of the first affected the state of the second.

     Do you see another option?

     Measuring the second, on the other hand, did not affect the first.

     Do you see another option?

114. Israel
     That's exactly my point, how?

     If I have no way of knowing that you did a measurement on your electron, then what changed in it?

     If I have no way of knowing it happened, then what does "something moved from your electron to mine" mean?

115. "If what you say was true, then I would be able to know that you performed a measurement."

     how?

116. Israel
     "The measurement of the first therefore affected the result of the measurement of the second." Here I disagree with you. If what you say was true, then I would be able to tell you did a measurement.
     That's not the case, so apparently what's happening is not what you said.
     I have no idea what is going on, but my electron shows no a priori change due to your measurement.

117. "I agree with you that there is no direct evidence, but there is also no direct evidence for an electron or a photon, or even the sun."

     There is direct evidence of the lengthening of times, by airplanes from all over the country.

     "Regarding weaving - my understanding is limited."

     of all of us. So let's see what theory and experiments show us:

     Until the measurement - a particle, say an electron, is in a superposition of spin up and down. There are no hidden variables, so it has an equal chance of being measured in any situation.

     The measurement forces him to choose one of two situations.

     If it is interlaced with another electron, then the other will get the opposite state.

     So much for weaving 101. The next step is a logical deduction: if the two electrons are in the same room, then by the time I've measured one of them, they're both in superposition.

     If I measured one of them first, then it is no longer in superposition but has a definite position, up or down.

     Therefore the other must choose the opposite situation, and not in a superposition anymore but in a distinct situation.

     The measurement of the first therefore affected the result of the measurement of the second.

     Conclusion: the measurement of the first chronologically caused the second not to be in superposition - or at least the wave function not to be in superposition - and the measurement of the second only revealed what was already determined in the measurement of the first, but does not affect the results of the measurement of the first.

     getting?

118. Israel
     I agree with you that there is no direct evidence, but there is also no direct evidence for an electron or a photon, or even the sun.

     Regarding weaving - my understanding is limited. I understand that if I measure polarization in a certain direction then - in that direction only - you will get the same polarization that I got. This does not create any contradiction, and does not contradict the accepted principles of physics. I certainly agree that it is far from intuitive.

119. He does an exhaustive soul-searching with himself and comes to the conclusion that things are not that simple, the distance has probably shortened.

     But you are missing the point. I know what the relativity claim is - I'm just saying that there is no direct evidence of the shortening of longitude, and this is in contrast to the lengthening of time that every GPS has heard about, and you can take pictures at any high clock and in any plane that circles the earth.

     Entwined particles?

120. Israel
     I wrote this several times! In the Earth system his life is indeed lengthened.
     I asked, and I will ask again, what is happening in the muon system? How does he explain to himself that he penetrates 6 km of air in 2 microns?

121. Meoon's life in the Earth system is indeed lengthening, just as the life of the traveling twin in the Planet Earth system is lengthening.

122. Israel
     You did not address what I wrote.

123. We could start a discussion about what relativity is and how it works, but it seems to me that we are so far away that it would be long and useless.

     It's easier to take a look at the link:

     http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

     7. Tests of Length Contraction
     At this time there are no direct tests of length contraction, as measuring the length of a moving object to the required precision has not been feasible.

     And this is in contrast to

     4. Tests of Time Dilation and Transverse Doppler Effect

     There you can find some matter, including your muons.

     So there are probably at least a few others like me who think that there is no direct evidence of the shortening of the length.. and certainly not of photographing a train that is a centimeter long, which I asked for as a step to build training.

     What about the entangled particles? Do you accept that the measurement of the first temporally caused his situation to be fixed and the measurement of the second only revealed what the situation is?

124. Israel
     Are you saying that a Mewon's life gets longer when it moves fast? If he measures the time from his creation to the end - will he measure 20 micros?

125. Israel
     There is also no direct verification that the sun is hot.

     I didn't understand your answer about 8 minutes. The flying twin measures 8 minute and the sun measures XNUMX minutes. Where is the problem if it is?

     What is wrong with my explanation of the twin paradox?

126. Israel
     There is a video in the link (top right) - https://www.bnl.gov/rhic/physics.asp

     Here is another case where there is confirmation of contraction - https://web.archive.org/web/20160603161837/http://photon-science.desy.de/research/studentsteaching/primers/synchrotron_radiation/index_eng.html

127. There is no other explanation for muons reaching the ground, if you accept Galileo's principle.

     Once again decisive things? There is, there is an explanation, the lengthening of times. I brought you the quote, claims to Wiki.

     I don't know what was explained at the Technion, the explanation is clock synchronization.

     And of course if you move towards the sun, it moves towards you at the same speed and the same laws apply to both of you.

     And as I said, Wiki maintains that there is no direct physical verification of the shortening of the length, only of the lengthening of the times.

128. Israel
     You wrote "But the sun also flies only a light minute away in the direction of the twin, so why did it take almost 8 minutes to reach it?"
     What 8 minutes? In what axis system?

     I'm not the one who came up with the muon explanation. That's the only explanation I know. There is no "direct" way to measure the length of a body in relative motion, but on the other hand - there is no other explanation for the fact that muons reach the ground, if you accept Galileo's principle.

     The solution to the twin paradox is as I wrote. That's how I learned... and if you think I'm wrong, then contact the Technion...

129. Gemini 101

     "From the point of view of the flying twin: it flies a distance of a light minute, and returns a light minute. Therefore, for him, only 2 minutes will pass."

     But the sun also flies only a light minute away in the direction of the twin, so why did it take almost 8 minutes to reach it?

     The twin paradox is about times, not distances. Why if they move relative to each other at the same speed only one gets old? This is the paradox.

     And the solution is not the shortening of the length.

     Which brings us back to the original question: what physical evidence is there for the shortening of the length? If you find it be the first, Vicki says there isn't.

130. Israel
     Suppose you launch one twin to the sun at gamma speed = 8.
     From the point of view of the remaining twin: the spaceship flies 8 minutes round trip and eight minutes return, so my clock will advance 16 eight minutes.
     From the point of view of the flying twin: it flies a distance of a light minute, and returns a light minute. Therefore, for him, only 2 minutes will pass.

     What is important to understand is that the sun breaks the symmetry - the two twins see that the spaceship flies to the sun and back.

     And by the way - the second half of the flight is equivalent to the story of the muon: in this case, the beginning of the atmosphere breaks the symmetry.

131. What is the difference from the case of the traveling twin? As far as he is concerned, he is at rest, so why is there an extension of time in his case?

132. Israel
     How do you conclude from "in his view, about 2 microns have passed since their creation" "then we can also explain muons as the lengthening of time"?

     A terrestrial observer sees the dilation of time, but the muon does not. What is unclear here?

133. "For him, about 2 microns have passed since their creation"

     So you can explain muyons also as the lengthening of time.

     And not as you firmly stated 🙂

     "Distance shortening is the only explanation for the absorption of muons on the ground (muons formed in the upper atmosphere)".

     We will now descend from the wave function. Do you accept that measuring one particle causes it to go from a state of superposition to a unique state, and if we later measure the second particle the state has already been determined for it by measuring the first?

134. Israel
     The twin paradox is not a paradox if you look at it as a shortening of distances in the reference system of the traveling twin.
     This is *exactly* what happens if the muon 🙂 For him, about 2 micros have passed since their creation, but from the point of view of a terrestrial observer - about 20 micros have passed.

     In other words - from the point of view of the muon, the distance was shortened 10 times, and from the point of view of a ground observer - the time was extended 10 times.

     I would like to answer your question, but I don't understand it enough. For me, from what little I understand, I have no problem accepting that a probability function varies in all space at time 0. I gave an example of this. I don't think anyone really understands how interweaving works. I do know everyone says it's counterintuitive. Our intuition is good for hunting mammoths and running away from saber-tooth cats, other than that, we're pretty bad.

135. So what about the twin paradox, isn't it about the lengthening of time there either?

     Because it certainly appears as an example of the lengthening of time in literature.

     So what is the difference from muons?

     And in general, what is an example of the lengthening of time if everything can be attributed to the shortening of length?

     Some physicists think like you about the wave function and some don't.. Have we already said something about hard facts?

     ("The wave function" is not something physical and it is not correct to draw a physical conclusion from its "collapse").

     If you do not wish to answer the question:

     What about entangled particles? Do you accept that measuring one of them causes the wave function to collapse and measuring the other only reveals what is the quantum state the function collapsed into?

     It's OK. To remind you - in the past you agreed with the discount.

136. Israel
     Wikipedia says exactly what I say. From the point of view of a *resting observer* the life of the muons is getting longer.

     Galileo's theory of relativity says that there is no preferred system of motion. If you accept that, then as far as the muon is concerned it is stationary, and there is no change in time for it. It measures 2.2 seconds, and passes through the entire atmosphere, which moves towards it at a speed close to the speed of light. Multiply the speed by time, and you get the thickness of the atmosphere. You are welcome to do the calculation yourself.

     Regarding the wave function - your quote means that some physicists think like me.
     I wrote ""The wave function" is not something physical and it is not correct to draw a physical conclusion from its "collapse".

     In your quote "Is a wave function an actual physical object, or is it something similar to a law of motion or an internal property of particles or a relationship between points in space?"

137. And more for you:

     "But what exactly is this wave function? A fierce debate is now raging on this issue among researchers of the fundamentals of physics. Is a wave function an actual physical object, or is it something similar to a law of motion or an internal property of particles or a relationship between points in space? Or maybe it's just the current information we have about the particles? or what?'

138. You can ask them directly:

     https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%A2_%D7%91%D7%96%D7%9E%D7%9F

     What does Galileo have to do with it?

139. Israel
     So these places don't even accept Galileo's principle of relativity?

     Very strange.

140. Wiki and the relativity books disagree with you. In many places the muon phenomenon is described as a result of the lengthening of time, as in the quote I gave.

     And the wave function has physical elements, it also has many references.

141. Israel
     The quote you gave is confusing.

     The lifetime of the muon is about 2 microseconds. As far as the muon is concerned, this time does not change, because it does not "know" that its speed relative to the Earth is close to the speed of light.

     From the point of view of a ground observer, the muon's lifetime is indeed lengthening. But, it is not true that time is lengthened "with" the muons.

     Regarding interweaving, I don't have enough understanding on the subject to answer you. The "wave function" is not something physical and it is not correct to draw a physical conclusion from its "collapse". Let's leave it at that.

142. Muki:

     For these muons, which move at a speed very close to the speed of light, there is a time dilation. A similar result is achieved in muon acceleration experiments, and will be applied in future particle accelerators in order to increase the life time of the muons.

     Therefore, muons do not necessarily demonstrate the shortening of length, it can also be the lengthening of times.

     When you measure one entangled particle, the other takes on the same state or vice versa. Before the measurement both were in the superposition of the two states.

     My claim: the one measured first caused the other to accept the situation and not the other way around.

     getting?

143. Israel
     I don't look down on anyone. Preston had very nice ideas. I was just saying that he assumes things, and uses them to prove what he assumed.

     Regarding the muons, I don't understand what you mean. As far as the muon is concerned, time does not lengthen. Unless you want to throw special relativity in the trash.

     I tried to explain my understanding of the concept of "wave function". I don't know how to explain better. I don't know how to answer your question.

144. "Preston clearly makes a large number of assumptions which he does not explain."

     Do you know anyone who doesn't? Preston just took Lasez' and showed that if the mean free distance is large, gravitation changes over large distances. He also derived Einstein's formula from the ether model. Doesn't he deserve applause for that? Just criticism as always?

     "Distance shortening is the only explanation for the absorption of muons on the ground (muons formed in the upper atmosphere)".

     Negative. The length of time also explains this.

     "I have no philosophical problem with changing probabilities at time 0. Suppose I lost the keys in one of the rooms in the house and I have no idea where they are. Therefore - there is an equal probability of finding them in every room. When I found them, the probabilities instantly changed in all the rooms.
     So how is the situation different if the root of the probabilities?'

     ??

     Is there any connection to what I asked?

     Here it is again:

     What about entangled particles? Do you accept that measuring one of them causes the wave function to collapse and measuring the other only reveals what is the quantum state the function collapsed into?

145. Israel
     Preston clearly makes a large number of assumptions that he does not explain.

     Look at Einstein's explanation this way: mass is the curvature of space. that's it. So, there is no meaning to the question "How does mass warp space?"

     LaSage theory offers a mechanism for gravity, while assuming conservation of momentum. What is the essential difference here?

     Distance shortening is the only explanation for the absorption of muons on the ground (muons formed in the upper atmosphere).

     I have no philosophical problem with changing probabilities at time 0. Suppose I lost the keys in one of the rooms in the house and have no idea where they are. Therefore - there is an equal probability of finding them in every room. When I found them, the probabilities instantly changed in all the rooms.
     So how is the situation different if the root of the probabilities?
     Of course this doesn't solve the quirks of interweaving. But to me it implies that there is really no contradiction here. Because, what is that wave function you mentioned?

146. Nissimyahu

     According to your logic, all Newton's theory is also full of postulates.. I am not claiming that Lesage's theory is correct, but that it offers a mechanism for gravity. No one else does.

     Can I get a photo from the observation deck of a train that is a centimeter long? This could definitely be considered a constructive step in relationship training.

     What about entangled particles? Do you accept that measuring one of them causes the wave function to collapse and measuring the other only reveals what is the quantum state the function collapsed into?

147. Israel
     Preston has a great many postulates, without any explanation: he assumes that applying force from a distance is not possible, he assumes that infinite speed is not possible, he assumes that there are particles that fill space, he assumes that their speed is the speed of light, he assumes that an action must take place in non-zero time (the reason is the invention of the ether, which he tries to prove - circularity again), he assumes that there must be an external force that holds the particles of a body together, and on and on...

     Einstein has less.

     And inch long trains? This is an observation, not a postulate. Parallel universes is a hypothesis, not a postulate. Remote influence... also observation, no? I don't think anyone said there wasn't a mechanism behind it.

148. They win - by postulates, not by proposing a mechanism or explanation.

     And they are extremely strange: trains are compressed to the length of a centimeter, parallel universes, going back in time, remote influence without a mechanism..

149. Israel
     Preston simply assumes that body particles cannot stay close together and therefore there must be an external force that unites them. And at the same time he talks about chemical bonds as an example of a very strong force that is in equilibrium ("standing waves").

     In my opinion the important point is the following: a theory is better the more it explains observations (there are more requirements). In this competition - modern physics (the theories of relativity, quantum theories) beat Newton, Le Sage, Maxwell, Preston and Yehuda.

150. Nisimov

     What is circular in Preston's thinking?

     And how did he manage to extract E=mc^2 from his hydrodynamic ether model?

     Perhaps using the same trick that Maxwell was able to extract his equations and the speed of light from his hydrodynamic ether model.

151. Yehuda
     I would give you as an exercise to read Preston's words.
     Like Einstein - he reached conclusions through logical analysis.
     Unlike Einstein, his thought is sometimes circular, and he ignores many observations that were already known at the time.

152. Yehuda
     A. You give one explanation for gravity, and general relativity is a different explanation. In the Kwandish experiment the distance between the balls was 23 cm. Even at this distance, your explanation and Einstein's explanation are different.

     Your explanation for gravity is small particles colliding with elastic bodies exert a force. Einstein's explanation is that "mass" is actually the curvature of space-time. Two very different explanations.

     From Einstein's explanation it can be concluded that the trajectory of massless particles will change near mass. It does not follow from your theory. From general relativity it can be concluded that time will slow down near mass, but this does not follow from your theory.

     Einstein's explanation was also observed at enormous distances - gravitational acceleration was observed and measured at a distance of 17 billion light years! http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6395/1342.full

     B. Intensities are a mathematical concept and not related to the world of physics. But, I see your point. I think you are wrong - because the quantum world is also continuous. Linear motion for example, is continuous. Energy is also continuous. And therefore - also the mass. True, there are discrete quantities, such as strangeness and charge. Pay attention to angular momentum - it has a discrete value, but this value depends on the direction of measurement, so it is essentially continuous.

     third. Our bitter argument stems from the fact that you insist on ignoring the very principles of physics I described. Perfectly elastic collisions cannot create gravity.
     In addition - the collisions will cause the material to heat up. The collisions will cause vibrations in the atoms, which is actually heat.

     d. In your theory there is a spherical universe that spreads within infinite space. According to observations we are in the center of this sphere.
     According to the theory of general relativity, the situation is not like this - space-time itself expands. Therefore - every observer will see that he is in the center of the "ball". This is the Copernican principle

     God. Your theory is based on the fact that matter is almost hollow, so there are relatively few collisions. An atom is not hollow (don't kid yourself that there are tiny electrons hopping around a concentrated nucleus, that's not the case).
     But, let's go to the basic particles: leptons, quarks and bosons. You cannot claim that your particles are much smaller than these - because the size of these is probably 0….

     Let's take a beam of such particles. Leave - let's take a single particle! According to your theory, if I send a single particle from point A towards point B, in a vacuum, at a non-trivial distance, the particle would not have to go to point B. Pushing particles would collide with it on the way. According to your claim, the rate of collisions is low, so it is unlikely that all the collisions will cancel each other out.
     If you claim that the rate of collisions is so high that we cannot determine it - then we will look at a beam of photons. According to your new claim, the beam should have contracted due to the gravity between the photons.

     and. "Very tiny differences". I noticed that this is how you hide a lot of contradictions in your theory 🙂 What you just said is "No, I don't accept the equivalence principle!!!".
     You have a right to say that. You owe it to yourself to have enough integrity to say it out loud.

     G. A black hole, right, we don't know what's going on there. But, we do know that general relativity works in the vicinity of neutron stars and white dwarfs.https://www.space.com/41077-einstein-general-relativity-survives-test.html

     H. "The Big Bang needs an upgrade". How did they not think of this 🙂 Do you know a single scientist who claims otherwise?

153. Sabdarmish Yehuda
     September 29, 2018 at 22:11 p.m
     Read
     Interesting article!
     The guy's name is Samuel Tolver Preston and he only appears in English. (In Hebrew, a singer with the same name appears)
     Indeed Israel, you are right. It was interesting to hear him respond with knowledge. What is it for him to give a jump of a hundred or a hundred and fifty years. He received Einstein's formula for mass and energy in his studies even before Einstein was born!
     And he also studied pushing gravity.

     Yehuda

154. Read
     Interesting article!
     The guy's name is Samuel Tolver Preston and he only appears in English. (In Hebrew, a singer with the same name appears)
     Indeed Israel, you are right. It was interesting to hear him respond with knowledge. What is it for him to give a jump of a hundred or a hundred and fifty years. He received Einstein's formula for mass and energy in his studies even before Einstein was born!
     And yes, he also studied pushing gravity.

     Yehuda

155. Dear Israel
     Happy holiday!
     Indeed, this sounds like an interesting and promising article, I will look for the aforementioned Preston and look at his mishnah. I also recommend Nisim to read
     Yehuda

156. for miracles
     I will try to explain to you again:
     A. My theory fits with the theory of relativity at small distances. It does not fit with the theory of relativity at large distances. But.. maybe it will seem strange to you what I'm about to say but... relativity doesn't get along with relativity at large distances either. For me, to change the measurements measured in galaxies with a huge amount of invented dark matter, this cannot be called "getting along", sorry!
     B. Regarding quantum theory, we have a serious problem of power according to "Cantor's group theory".
     The strength of quantum theory is finite or at most infinite A0 and this will never agree with general or special relativity whose strength of infinities is A1. One of the above theories, or both, must undergo an upgrade.
     third. Where do you find that the pushing theory, which is mainly momentum and energy, does not observe the law of conservation of momentum and/or energy?. You are the only one as far as I can remember who makes such a claim! I admit that we have a bitter debate about how the pushing works (plastic or elastic, remember?) but I am working on an experiment that will prove the existence of the pushing principle.
     d. Why would particles flying through the universe contradict the Copernican principle?? There are other masses flying like neutrinos, cosmic rays, Higgs bosons, axions and maybe photon gravitons from all directions and they don't bother you? Why don't they prevent you from giving up the Copernican principle? Why exactly do my pushing particles make you think that way?
     God. The atoms are huge productions compared to the pushing particles and are at least twenty orders of magnitude larger than the pushing particles. Why do you think they won't produce gravitation among the atoms?, make sure they do!.
     and. And regarding the equivalence principle that determines, for example, why bodies fall at the same speed regardless of their weight, the pushing theory does not need it because it is well explained by the two pushing pushing particles. Although there will be tiny differences in movement because in very heavy bodies some of the atoms are in the shadow of others and are not reflected in the creation of gravitation.
     G. Things you didn't mention :- For example, a black hole is a very heavy and very dense body for me, but I have no idea how much. No one knows how the laws of physics work near him, to justify his behavior based on the normal behavior of the laws in relatively tiny masses, is not acceptable to me and in my opinion should not be acceptable to any serious scientist.
     H. And also singular points?, I don't believe in that and I don't think anyone can use the laws of physics near an infinite density of mass. You will understand from this that in my opinion, the big bang that was established as if it started from a singular point, needs an upgrade.

     I'm sure there is still a disagreement between us, but please respond nicely and gently and only regarding the topics in question and not an analysis of my personality or level of knowledge.
     There is still a lot to find out and test and it provides an interesting challenge.
     Good week, miracles and others
     Yehuda
     http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

157. He acknowledges holidays and festivals.

     (not drunk!)

     Samuel Preston et al., who was a well-known physicist and engineer at the end of the 19th century, showed that if, like you, we attribute a large mean free path to the particles, then at large distances Newton's laws of gravity change.

     The interesting thing is that he did this long before Zwicky and Hubble and long before anyone thought about dark matter or energy.

     If this is not impressive enough, he and his students succeeded through hydrodynamic considerations and Lasage theory to arrive at the formula E=mc^2, decades before Einstein.

     Don't say preachy?

158. Has mass been added to the known universe? The universe is expanding, does the expansion preserve the mass of the universe or is there an addition of mass to the universe?

159. Yehuda
     I don't know much about physics, and neither do you, do you? So there are a number of other hypotheses that solve the dark matter problem.
     Some of these hypotheses also agree with quantum theory and relativity. Your hypothesis does not fit with these theories.

     Your hypothesis also does not agree with the accepted principles of physics (conservation of energy and mass, the Copernican knife principle, the principle of equivalence and maybe more).

     Your hypothesis also does not agree with certain observations (for example - gravity acts on individual atoms, contrary to what follows from your hypothesis).

     Therefore I would like to know - why don't you agree that one of these hypotheses is better than yours?

160. for miracles
     I still think that Vera Rubin didn't "explain", but you would like the rotation speed of the spiral galaxies in the presence of dark matter.
     An excuse is an explanation that has no real basis, and for me an "explanation" by dark matter is equivalent to an "explanation" by a higher power, believe me more people believe in a higher power.
     Eighty years of searching for the dark matter and not finding enough for me to erase this dark excuse.
     I tried to think of a time allocation option that should be given to a new theory/excuse/explanation in order to validate them, but I did not find how to do this time allocation.
     So it is true that in the meantime the "explanation" of dark matter also excuses a few other things, and really, why not??, it is found for free and always everywhere, and as much as is needed or needed and it is possible to give it all kinds of properties without any restriction, invisible, without friction , without taste or smell, in short - "all-powerful scientific miracle", just like a higher power, of course, you should avoid both and look for another explanation.
     Understand that as time goes by it is proven more and more that there is no way to disprove the dark matter. Therefore, according to our friend the philosopher Popper, it of course becomes clearly unscientific, and we are only looking for scientific explanations.
     And a humble request Nissim, I hope you will treat those whose opinion differs from yours with respect. And no derogatory names.
     Shabbat Shalom
     Yehuda

161. Yehuda
     "She will"? Maybe the polite wording is "she explained"?

162. to me. Porat
     Your claim is incorrect. Also, for the purpose of the research, terrestrial telescopes were also suitable, not only the Hubble.
     From Wikipedia:-
     "In 1933, Zwicky performed a series of measurements on the Koma galaxy cluster, which contains more than 1000 galaxies. Using the viriality theorem, he calculated the total mass of the cluster, and it turned out to be 400 times greater than the mass observed through the luminosity. From this Zwicky deduced the existence of dark matter. It was an idea typical of the scientist's strange way of thinking; However, the hypothesis was validated as an accepted theory, following later observations and calculations" end quote.
     The dark matter claim was also strengthened by the astronomer Vera Rubin in the seventies of the last century in the research she carried out on the study of the rotation of spiral galaxies. She proved that the visible mass in the spiral galaxies is not enough to create the large rotation speed of the spiral galaxies, and it would require the presence of additional matter in the galaxy - dark matter.

     Regarding my opinion on dark matter, please google "the story of the dark hurricane" and draw conclusions.
     Shabbat Shalom
     Yehuda

163. J. Porat
     Dark matter and dark energy were already "known" in the 20s of the last century.

164. The Hubble telescope was designed back in the 70s, long before anyone thought of dark matter or dark energy.

165. The best defense is offense, uh...

     And you also don't really believe in action and reaction, who started and who reacted..

     So just for the record, show me the single time I've ever started with you or anyone at all.

     In return, if you ask, I will be happy to show you about fifty times when you start dating, with me and others.

     Ready to take the challenge? Or maybe you too have completely lost touch with reality and believe that you are allowed to say whatever is on your mind and that people will just absorb and shut up?

166. Israel
     I was very angry with Albenzo, for the way he spoke to you. You very quickly reach the edge of a street.

167. Let's leave for a moment what I meant by the subconscious recognition of the secret in the subtext and the sermon - my question was very simple and I would appreciate an equally simple answer:

     "Please try to show me where I wrote virtual particles."

     Answer it.

     And also about: "You propose a quantum theory of gravity". eh?

     "How do you solve the problem of infinity?" Just like they solved it in the catastrophe of the ultraviolet, p.e. This is what led to the birth of quantum mechanics.

     "No derogatory language, okay?" Once again you are joking....

     (What not?)

     Are you talking about derogatory language? are you? You who always talk about "you're trying to sell" "what are you smoking" "I've already learned your method" "you're an expert in dealing with the drug" "the method is to quote sentences from scientists that fit what we're trying to push" "you state firm facts"..

     Not to mention the idiot and the liar who are a recurring motif in your poetry.

     Haven't you noticed how many times, even just in this article, you stated firm facts - for example, you wrote about the highway idea "and regardless, my logic is correct" only to later write "I need to think about what you said..." and admit at the end: "You are right" .

     And in general, I feel that you are not really interested in alternative theories but only trying to showcase their shortcomings, as if the mainstream theories have no shortcomings.

     I have no intention of defending Lasage and ether theory even though they managed to derive E=mc^2 long before Einstein and Zero-point energy decades before quantum.

     I showed you even in this article that it is possible to derive the inertia from the Lesage model and that the main problem - Feynman drag - can be solved in the same way. But do you want to believe it's all stupid bullshit? Give up!

     I have more important things to do than waste time with a teddy bear who is always trying to find fault and not really interested in the subject.

168. Israel
     If you didn't mean virtual particles, then what is normalization?
     How do you solve the infinity problem? This time - no disparaging language, okay?

169. To perhaps understand your way of thinking and discussion, please try to show me where I wrote virtual particles, and if you can't find it, how did you infer what I'm talking about.

170. Israel
     I totally relate to what you say. You talked about "simple" particles that move at all speeds. It is not possible.
     So now these have become virtual particles?
     Ok great - so you propose a quantum theory of gravity. So what's new here?

171. "Le Sage talked about clashes between fields? To remind you - this is the topic of conversation.'

     Lesage didn't talk about conflicts between fields because Lesage knew nothing about fields. Farday coined the term about 200 years after him.

     Lesage also could not know anything about protons and electric charges, they were only discovered about 250 years after him.

     But what exactly does it matter? If we can find a mechanism without contradictions to Lesage's theory, that is, of particles or radiation from all directions that create gravitation, does it matter exactly what Lesage thought and what he talked about?

     I don't think so. The only thing that really changes is the slam dunk experiment, there are dozens of gravity theories and a large part of them is based on Lesage, including formulas for the most part. for example:

     https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/479398.The_Final_Theory

     So what? So there are many theories of gravity!

     Feynman talked about them in his book "What do you care what other people think" where he asked his wife to remind him not to go to Kinsey Gravity again, with all the crackpots and their baseless ideas.

     Just a slam dunk attempt.

     "I didn't understand how we solved the energy problem. If there are particles at any speed then there is infinite energy everywhere.'

     Hmmm... didn't we go through the infinity problem several times during our physics studies? And don't we remember how we solved and normalized those infinitesimals?

     We... we studied quantum physics, right?

172. Israel
     Le Sage talked about collisions between fields? To remind you - this is the topic of conversation.

     I didn't understand how we solved the energy problem. If there are particles at any speed then there is infinite energy everywhere.

173. "You said there are particles at all speeds. This is not true?"

     So what?

     "A collision is between bodies, not between a body and a field."

     There are no collisions between bodies. All collisions are between fields.

     And what exactly does it matter to Lesage's idea if his particles exert the force through the magnetic field of the atoms of the material through which they pass?

     "How am I supposed to know that this is the speed of light?

     Oh, it's pretty simple. Because this is what I wrote:

     "And there is another interesting derivative of the idea: it can explain the constancy of the speed of light in any frame of reference and this time not as a postulate but as a mandatory development."

     From there.

     "What are you smoking there in Wally?"

     You don't need to smoke in Wally, it's enough to breathe the smog.

174. Israel
     You said there are particles at all speeds. This is not true?

     This collision is between bodies, not between a body and a field. There are forces on bodies in the fields, that's true. But - it's a complicated and misunderstood mechanism like gravity. How is that supposed to explain?

     How am I supposed to know that it is the speed of light? What are you smoking there in Wally? My question was - how does La Sage's model explain persistence.

     What's happening to you?

175. "Each unit of volume in space contains infinite energy"

     And why?

     "A proton passes through an electric field - there is no collision here at all"

     If he goes through a ring with a charge he will push it, won't he? So how is there no collision?

     "Explaining gravity using an electric field is a little lacking... in my opinion. So now do we have to explain the electric field?'

     Reading comprehension: "But what about collisions like in the case of a proton passing through an electric field?"

     It wasn't said it was an electric field - it was said like, and it was even noted that the collision could be like a body through a gravitational field. Much more likely than a normal collision between bodies, there are also beautiful theories that show that gravity is a product of electrical force.

     "Now, after we have added fields to the explanation, are we also introducing quantum theory? Maybe we will call these particles "gravitons" and close the matter?'

     Understanding what is written: We are not talking about gravity here, but about the speed of light and the particle that carries the light, the photon, a quantum particle to which the laws of quantum mechanics apply.

     "I thought the idea was to simplify. As far as I'm concerned - the curvature of space-time is already simpler to understand. Neither fields nor crashing waves..."

     Likewise, it is not about gravity but about quanta and the speed of light.

     The alternative is multiple nations, the splitting of the universe and influence on the past from the future. Undoubtedly simple and easy to understand ideas.

176. Israel
     Exact - every unit of volume in space contains infinite energy.

     A proton passes through an electric field - there is no collision here at all.

     To explain gravity by using an electric field is a little lacking... in my opinion. So now we need to explain the electric field?

     Now, after we have added fields to the explanation, we also put in the quantum theory? Maybe we will call these particles "gravitons" and close the matter?

     I thought the idea was to simplify. As far as I'm concerned - the curvature of space-time is already simpler to understand. No fields and no crashing waves...

177. "We accepted that space contains infinite energy."

     What's wrong with that? Infinite space, infinite universe, infinite energy.

     "We didn't get gravity" - we agreed that elastic collisions do not produce gravity and plastic collisions produce friction. But what about collisions like in the case of a proton passing through an electric field? This is not an elastic or plastic collision, despite the radiation created in the process. It is also possible to try a situation where a mass passes through a tunnel in the country that does not involve the loss of frictional energy.

     "Suppose there is a flash of light somewhere. So - according to this method, the flash produces an infinite amount of energy. Because at any point - every observer at any speed will see the flash."

     Not necessarily. The energy carrier - the photon - is a quantum object that cannot collapse at more than one point. In our case, if such a "long photon" collided with a measurement at a certain point, then its energy is expressed in the form of a light pulse at this point only and not at others.

     I tried to test this point using a laser device followed by a gear wheel as in the piezo experiment. The tooth in the wheel cuts off the laser beam immediately after passing through the slot, and a telescope 5 kilometers away checks if there is a decrease in light intensity that is not proportional to the square of the distance. I did not get unequivocal results and moved on to more interesting experiments.

178. Israel
     I agree that we solved Feynman's drag. But, we didn't get gravity.

     Another problem is that if the speed range is not blocked, then we have accepted that the space contains infinite energy.

     We have only partially solved the matter of the speed of light. Suppose there is a flash of light somewhere. So - according to this method, the flash produces an infinite amount of energy. Because at any point - any observer at any speed will see the flash.

179. Proximity is not important, what is important is relative speed. If the cars on track 1 were at a speed of 12 m/s they would be transparent to the viewer, while on track 213 at a speed of 3 m/s they would have an impact.

     So we reached a situation where no matter how constant the speed is relative to the freeway and the cars in which the body is, the sum of the forces on it is equal to 0. What happens when he changes speed i.e. accelerates? It is possible that at this point the sum of the forces is not 0 and thus we got inertia.

     Another thing we received is the solution to the Feynman friction problem in Lesage theory: the stars do not feel drag on their tracks, since the sum of the forces on them is equal to 0 at any constant speed.

     And there is another interesting derivative of the idea: it can explain the constancy of the speed of light in any frame of reference and this time not as a postulate but as a mandatory development.

180. Israel
     You're right. What you describe is a lot of tracks, where the distance between every 2 consecutive cars is a meter. I agree that every car will look the same.

     I also accept that it can be assumed that each car only "sees" those in the lanes closest to it.

181. Yehuda
     You wrote "There is no reason for this statement and as all things change, so does the speed of light and there is a good chance that it changes depending on the background temperature of the universe".

     You use what you want to prove to prove what you are trying to prove.
     1. There is a good reason for this statement - the principle of conservation of energy.
     2. Not all things change. On what basis do you say that? Again you cannot use your theory to prove your theory.
     3. What do you mean there is a high chance? Without assuming your theory, on what basis do you say that?

     You wrote "because the second one, as we know, may change from relativity calculations." This is simply not true. Suppose you have 2 grams of free neutrons in one hand and an accurate clock in the other hand. After 10 minutes - you will only have a gram of neutrons left.
     This will remain true even if you now accelerate close to the speed of light, and even if you fall into a black hole.

     Using an iridium rod as a standard is problematic. For example - it depends on the temperature. So now, we also depend on the degree definition?

     You are allowed to say that the principle of conservation of energy and mass is not true. You can also throw out the rest of the physics principles (conservation of momentum, conservation of angular momentum, conservation of charge, conservation of baryon number, conservation of strangeness, and so on). Really, if you have a theory that replaces all modern physics then great.

     Yehuda - "The universe is cooling and expanding". A high school boy knows that a gas that expands cools, and this is in accordance with the principle of conservation of energy 🙂

     "It was not claimed that the law of conservation of energy does not apply to universes" - I did not understand. What are universes? I think conservation laws require the universe to be finite, but that's beside the point.

182. Israel
     I need to think about what you said.

183. For miracles and others.
     On August 30, I wrote to you:-
     "Nissim, in your last comment you firmly state that in fact the entire universe has signed a contract with the speed of light of 299,792,458 meters per second and nothing will change that???,... even by XNUMX cm per second???,
     You know what?, "I won't see it". End quote
     To this you answered:-
     "Yehuda, two things.
     The first is - because that's how you *define* the meter. Can you set the meter in a different way?
     The second is - the law of conservation of energy. This law *requires* that the speed of light is constant. I gave a simple explanation why. If you find a mistake in the explanation, then say so. Otherwise, you have no choice. The law of conservation of energy stems from the fact that the laws of physics do not depend on time." End quote.
     reactive
     If that's how you define the meter, does that mean it's true? They defined the meter that way because they thought that the speed of light was constant, but I showed that there is no reason for this statement, and as all things change, so does the speed of light, and there is a good chance that it changes depending on the background temperature of the universe. So it is possible to define the meter as 1 part 299,792,458 of the speed of light per second when the background temperature of the universe is 2.73 kelvin, but this definition is also problematic because the second one, as we know, may change from relativity calculations, we have no choice but to return to the permissive rod made of iridium or similar in length of a meter, by which everyone will measure. But what about the kilogram, according to Yehuda it also loses weight, so over time the volume of a liter of water will no longer be a kilogram but already less. In short, we will have a problem (if I am right in my assumptions)
     .
     Regarding the law of conservation of energy, you claim that it stems from the fact that the laws of physics do not depend on time. The question that arises is whether the laws of physics given in our hands are the perfect laws or perhaps they require correction for example that they are also a function of the background temperature or are they a function of the variable Hubble constant or that in general all physical constants have a trace of doubt or change in them as in this article to which we are responding.
     And by the way, the universe is known to cool and expand, so where does this heat energy that the universe lost go??
     It wasn't claimed that the law of conservation of energy doesn't work on universes, right?
     In short, miracles, just Shabbat thoughts
     Good day for miracles and everyone
     Yehuda

184. You are right about a certain route, but miss the big picture.

     Since the qualitative consideration was not convincing, I will give you a detailed analysis and point out the section where I am cheating.

     1. You are on Route No. 0 on the 405 heading north. All the cars on the same track are at 0 speed relative to you. The track is wide enough to allow you to move freely on it, but at this point you are at rest relative to the track and the other cars on it.

     2. On route number 1 towards the south the cars travel at a speed of 1 m/s. In No. 2 2 m/s and so on until route No. 6 towards the south where they travel at a speed of 6 m/s towards the south.

     3. As above in routes 1-6 towards the north.

     4. The sum of the forces on you at this stage is equal to 0.

     5. You make a detailed list of the cars that passed you heading south for 10 seconds.

     6. The list will look like this:

     10 cars with a speed of 1 m/s from track 1.

     20 cars with a speed of 2 m/s from track 2.

     30 cars with a speed of 3 m/s from track 3.

     40 cars with a speed of 4 m/s from track 4.

     50 cars with a speed of 5 m/s from track 5.

     The cars from route 6 are transparent to you and therefore will not appear in the list.

     7. The list of the cars that pass by you heading north in those 10 seconds will be the same in track numbers and speeds.

     8. You are now driving on track number 0 towards the north at a speed of 1 m/s relative to track 0 and make another list of the cars driving south for 10 seconds.

     9. The list will look like this:

     10 cars with a speed of 1 m/s from track 0.

     20 cars with a speed of 2 m/s from track 1.

     30 cars with a speed of 3 m/s from track 2.

     40 cars with a speed of 4 m/s from track 3.

     50 cars with a speed of 5 m/s from track 4.

     The cars from route 5 are moving relative to you now at a speed of 6 m/s, so they are transparent and will not appear in the list.

     10. The same goes for the cars traveling north: the cars from track 1 that previously moved relative to you at a speed of 1 m/s will now be at a speed of 0, from 2 at 1, from 3 at 2, from 4 at 3, from 5 at 4, and the cars from track 6 that were previously transparent will move at a speed of 5m/year relative to you and you will count 50 of them.

     11. So what is the difference between the lists you made when you were at speed 0 and those you made at speed 1 north?

185. Israel
     You're right about this. But - you ignore the density of cars. The density, that is, the rate at which you pass the cars changes.

     I will repeat the example I gave earlier, with different numbers.

     There are many paths. One of 50 km/h, one of 60, one of 70 and so on. Of course, both ways.

     You drive at 80 km/h and see that the number of cars passing you, at any speed, is 1 per minute.

     Let's say you only refer to those who are plus or minus 10 km/h from you. These move at speeds of 90 km/h and 70 km/h.

     We will accelerate to 100. Now, the ones that are interesting are at 110 and 90.

     Everyone who comes "in front of you" seems more crowded. Anyone who comes behind you, looks more spacious.

     This is the Doppler effect.

     Therefore, the sum of the powers is not 0.

     Do an exercise. Let's say - you are standing and cars are driving in both directions at 100 km/h. Let's say you pass it in every direction - once a minute.

     Now you will accelerate to almost 100 km/h. Those in front of you - will pass every half a minute. Those behind - will hardly pass.

     This reminds of the wind problem in flight: in every flight that returns to the departure base - every wind will add flight time, and the direction of the wind is not important.

186. You are in a car on the freeway.

     Do you agree that no matter what speed you travel relative to the freeway, you are at speed 0 and with you all the cars traveling on the same route with you at the same speed?

     On your left in route number 1, the cars are moving relative to you at a speed of 1 km/h forward. In lane 2 at a speed of 2 km/h in 3 3, in 4 4 in 5 5, and all the cars in lane 6 that relative to you are moving at a speed of 6 km/h are transparent as far as you are concerned.

     You accelerate and reach a speed of 1 km/h relative to your previous speed.

     So the cars in track 1 move relative to you at a speed of 0, in 2 1, in 3 2, in 4 3, in 5 4 and the cars in track 6 that were previously transparent to you are now moving at a speed of 5 km/h relative to you.

     so far accept?

     And if so - what has changed from before?

     Note that I didn't even say how fast you are relative to the freeway. It is irrelevant.

187. Israel
     Here's a cheat:
     "What has changed? that you no longer have 0 speed relative to something. At whatever speed you drive, you can say that your speed is 0, and the cars pass in front of you or away from you at relevant speeds from minus 5 to plus 5."

     This is not true. Let's simplify, and assume there is one particle at each speed. And to simplify even more, let's say the speeds are whole numbers. And I'm going with you - the range of speeds is endless.

     The average speed is 0. There is a preferred frame of reference.

     And regardless, my logic is correct.

188. It is possible to calculate quantitatively and show you that the sum of the forces is 0 at any speed, but it is perhaps better to use only logic.

     You agree that if you are at 0 speed relative to the freeway the sum of the forces on you is 0, yes?

     So let's say that your reasoning is correct and when you are at a speed of 20 km/h the sum is not 0.

     According to the same consideration, even if your speed is minus 20 km/h the sum is not 0, accept?

     So according to your logic, if your speed is minus 20 and now you drive faster by 20 km/h, you will reach a speed of 0, as at the beginning, and now the sum of the forces on you will be 0, accept?

     Let's now remove the highway from the concrete and leave only the moving cars. Nothing has changed in terms of powers, get it?

     What has changed? that you no longer have 0 speed relative to something. At whatever speed you drive, you can say that your speed is 0, and the cars pass in front of you or away from you at relevant speeds from minus 5 to plus 5.

     see that? If not, choose some speed - say 60 km/h at which you are traveling relative to a tree - and also let the highway move at the same speed relative to that tree.

     Your speed now is 0 relative to the highway and the whole story repeats itself.

     getting?

189. Israel
     Let's assume that at speed 0, I see a car per second at any speed (it doesn't matter if we limit the range of speeds).

     Now - I drive 20 km/h. What will happen? The arrival rate of the cars in front of me will increase, and the rate of the cars in my direction will decrease.

     Therefore - the sum of the forces, in general, is not 0.

190. "I think the ballistic pendulum will also respond to very slow particles."

     Certainly, that's why the condition was: "The rope does not react to cars whose speed relative to it exceeds 5 m/s".

     This is indeed what happens with a ballistic pendulum. It does not react to bodies above a certain speed.

     "If you stand then the momentum is 0".

     A puzzling sentence. Did you mean maybe the sum of the forces is 0?

     "If you are in motion then more particles will hit the front part than the back part. It's actually a Doppler phenomenon.'

     At any constant speed that is relative to the highway, the situation is the same for the rope and the sum of the forces on it is 0. Do not forget that above a certain speed it does not react to particles, even those moving in the opposite direction.

     What happens in the speed change phase, i.e. the acceleration phase, is the interesting part, and there it is possible that the sum of the forces is not 0, especially if the ratio between the force that the particles exert on the rope is not linearly proportional to the speed.

191. Israel
     Still, there is another problem, as I mentioned earlier.
     If you stand still then the momentum is 0. If you are in motion then more particles will hit the front part than the back part. It's actually a Doppler phenomenon.

192. Israel
     Yes.
     I think the ballistic pendulum will also respond to very slow particles. But, you can think of a mechanical mechanism that looks at the speed of the particles and opens or closes some passage.

193. Actually, it doesn't really matter.

     To see this, let's go back to a particle model. We have an autostrada with twenty-one lanes numbered from minus ten to ten. . We are at 0 speed relative to the freeway and cars are moving at speeds from minus ten to ten meters per second on each lane. The distance between each car in the lane is one meter (small toy cars).

     We see that in such a case if we spread a rope across the freeway and ignore considerations of rotational torque, the balanced force on the rope is 0: the cars balance each other. getting?

     We will now introduce another condition: the rope does not react to cars whose speed relative to it exceeds 5 m/s.

     As strange as it sounds, this condition exists in nature, i.e. the ballistic pendulum.

     Therefore the rope does not respond to cars in lanes minus six to minus ten and in lanes six to ten. getting?

     But still the equivalent force from minus five to five paths on the rope is 0. Got it?

     What will happen if the rope moves at speeds of minus five to plus five relative to the highway?

     At whatever speed we will return to the same situation in terms of the rope: if it moves at a speed of minus 3, then it will only react to cars in lanes minus 8 to plus 2, and if it moves at a speed of plus five, it will only react to cars in lanes 0 to plus 10. Got it?

     And in terms of the rope, the situation is the same as before: the same number of cars pass in each lane to which it reacts, and the force acting on it is still 0.

     so far accept?

194. Israel
     Accepts, under restrictive conditions.

     The range of speeds is blocked, otherwise we would need radiation of infinite intensity.

     And another point, let's say I'm measuring red photons at a rate of 100 per second. If I double the speed (roughly) then they will be purple, at a rate of 200 per second.

195. Did you understand Professor Kim's explanation?

     In my opinion, it still lacks reference to the subject of the distinction between a body at rest and a body in acceleration.

     To see how the Lasage model can possibly explain inertia, let's try for a moment to switch to the Lasage model with radiation, although it can work just as well with particles with widely different speeds.

     So it is said that you are in space and radiation in a wide frequency range reaches you from a distance. You will of course only see the colors of the rainbow and any radiation more energetic than violet or less energetic than red you will not be able to see, even though it is there it is transparent to you. agree?

     What will you see if you move quickly in the direction of the radiation or back in the opposite direction? The same. If you move towards the radiation, the purple you saw will disappear, but the blue after it will turn purple. The red will turn yellow and the infrared you didn't see before will now appear to you as red.

     But from your point of view, or from the point of view of the photo you will take, the picture you will see will be the same as before: all the colors of the rainbow.

     The same will happen if you move in the opposite direction, backwards.

     so far accept?

196. Israel
     How does La Sage's model explain persistence?

197. She was finally released.

198. Yehuda
     two things.

     The first is - because that's how you *define* the meter. Can you set the meter in a different way?

     The second is - the law of conservation of energy. This law *requires* that the speed of light is constant. I gave a simple explanation why. If you find a mistake in the explanation, then say so. Otherwise, you have no choice. The law of conservation of energy stems from the fact that the laws of physics do not depend on time.

199. Nissim, in your last comment you firmly state that in fact the entire universe has signed a contract with the speed of light of 299,792,458 meters per second and nothing will change that???,... even by XNUMX cm per second???,
     You know what?,
     "I do not think so"

200. Yehuda
     There are things that are open to discussion, and there are things that are not - because they are facts.

     Let's start from the end - if the speed of light changes then there is no conservation of energy. You are allowed to say that you think the law of conservation of energy is wrong, but you are not allowed to say that the speed of light changes and also that the amount of energy + mass in the universe is conserved.
     The conservation of energy results from the time-independence of the laws of physics. With you, there is dependence. Every physical process is reversible, but not with you. Let's take for example a Boltzmann universe. Let's assume a huge container in which all the gas atoms are initially concentrated in one corner of the container, and each atom has a certain speed. After a while - the entire tank is filled with gas, quite evenly. The amount of energy has not changed.
     Now - we know that there is a possibility that at a certain point, all the atoms will again be concentrated in a corner - just like at the beginning. For each atom, the same speed as at the beginning.

     But this cannot happen with you - the speed of light has decreased and therefore the amount of energy is now smaller!

     Yehuda - you have no choice, you have to accept it.

     We have no argument about elastic collisions. You refuse to understand basic physics, that's all.

     If your particles hit atoms then we have 2 problems. The first is that we would have seen it: individual atoms should have moved randomly due to Brownian motion. After all, it doesn't make sense that an atom that we put above the ground will only be harmed by particles that come directly from above, and at a uniform rate so that all the atoms fall together.
     Second thing - if the particles collide with every atom, then they will damage every atom in the body, therefore the shape of the body will greatly affect its weight.

     The conclusions of the MM experiment are proven to great distances, but you deny that too. Photons reach us from a distance of tens of billions of light years - all at exactly the same speed, even though we are moving relative to this radiation. Relativistic Doppler effect is observed at enormous distances.

     The explanation on the subject of quantum is more complicated. So first - explain to me more about your particles. What is their average speed? What is their mass? What is their spin? What is their angular momentum? From this we will do some calculations and you will see what I mean.
     And you will have to explain to me again - why don't we see their collisions with the known particles?

201. for miracles
     It seems to me that in your last three responses you state facts that I did not base on my ideas (which are not necessarily my ideas) and draw conclusions from them that are unacceptable to me.
     Let's start from the end to the beginning.- The reference to the speed of light and the law of conservation of energy:-
     There is no miracle proof that the speed of light is constant! No experiment has proven this. The Michelson-Morley experiment determined that the speed of light was the same in every direction, but could not determine that the speed of light was the same for all time. For such a decision they had to do quick tests at different times and compare them. It is impossible based on a speed test at one point in time, somewhere in 1887, to decide that the speed has not changed.
     So why do you think that a change of, for example, one cm per second in the speed of light per year would violate the principle of conservation of energy?. Maybe it bothers you that atomic bombs in World War released more energy to a proton than they will release in the next war??
     In general, I don't see any disaster if the speed of light changes and is actually proportional to the root of the background temperature of the universe (which is known to change) just like all waves moving in gas (for example, in contrast, sound waves)
     It "seems to me" that in energy calculations it is perhaps even more logical to tie the energy of a body to its background temperature instead of the artillery factor "the speed of light of the year 1887, squared". That's what came out of my theory and that's what there is. The universe cools over time so the speed of light decreases.
     Understand miracles, that I see the universe and its background temperature as the reservoir of all energy and matter, there may be a reason to ask that if the universe cools then where does its energy disappear to?, but I did not notice that anyone concluded from this that the law of conservation of energy does not apply!

     Let's move on to the other four reasons you mentioned why my theory can't work.

     One reason is that elastic collisions do not create a force between bodies.
     My answer: We have an argument about this and unfortunately I can't find a suitable vacuum device to do my experiment.

     A second reason is that your particles cannot create gravity on individual atoms.
     My answer: I never said that. Pushing particles also hit single atoms and atomic particles.

     A third reason is that you are unable to explain the oddities that relativity does explain.
     My answer: I have already said that I have no objection to the Michelson Morley experiment and its relativistic conclusions. I only claim that the conclusions are proven only for short distances and not to the end of the universe, infinity, which I understand that you also understand that there is a finite limit up to which the oddities of the theory of relativity have been proven.

     A fourth reason is that your theory does not agree with quantum theory - neither observational nor theoretical.
     My answer: My particles are known to be discrete-quantums so you can't draw such a conclusion, but I haven't delved into it enough yet.

     Well, enough of that comment.
     Please respond gently
     Yehuda
     http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

202. Yehuda
     I thought of a fifth point. You said that the speed of light decreases with time. This means that the principle of conservation of energy is not true. It is hard for me to accept that such a basic principle is wrong.

     The principle of conservation of momentum is also in danger...

203. Yehuda
     do not get me wrong. I do not claim that Einstein is right and I do not claim that there is dark matter or dark energy.

     I claim that the two existing theories explain the world better than your theory.

     And more importantly - your theory cannot work.
     One reason is that elastic collisions do not create a force between bodies.
     A second reason is that your particles cannot create gravity on individual atoms.
     A third reason is that you are unable to explain the oddities that relativity does explain.
     A fourth reason is that your theory does not agree with quantum theory - neither observational nor theoretical.

204. Yehuda
     Einstein postulated very few axioms. The determination of the speed of light, there are no special reference systems and the principle of equivalence. From this he deduced the curvature of space. Observations have indeed verified everything Einstein predicted, including measurements of the curvature of space (recently).

     You assume countless strange particles, which do not obey the laws of quantum theory, or even Newton's laws. You assume that the speed of light changes over time - which is a logical contradiction (except when you rule out the theory of relativity).

     So again - Einstein's theory that explains wonderful things like mass increase, length shortening and time lengthening. And your Torah - which does not work... What is better?

205. For miracles and Israel
     The trick in taking axioms is that they will be concise and explain as much as possible. For example, in physics we took an axiom of momentum transfer in particle collisions. When you Nissim and others take in advance a postulate of a mass that distorts the entire universe, it surely gives up a reduction that is required. After all, our friend William of Ockham has already talked about the reduction that was required. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, you can say it's kosher but... not tasty.
     Just so you know my humble opinion on the matter.
     Good Day
     Yehuda

206. They don't pass.. They probably aren't important or will pop up in two days.

207. What's up with the comments?

208. Many - very - people will think that if you write about force and not gravity, you mean force and not gravity, if you ask a question about the source of inertia you intend to get an answer to what you asked, and that if I ask how Einsteinian gravity works then that is what I mean, and no that I claim that the explanation is bullshit.

     So if you have - serious - reading comprehension problems, please don't blame it on others, you squirming, sly eel.

     Do I understand how the Higgs mechanism works? Not really. What I fail to understand is how the Higgs field manages to distinguish between an accelerating body and one that is not accelerating.

     I had a long correspondence on the subject with Professor Kim Griest of the University of San Diego. He confirmed that the simple analogy of the sea opposing a ship sailing in it is incorrect, but I could not understand from his words how the business works.

     Some of the correspondence:

     > —–Original Message—–
     > From: Kim Griest
     > To: Snuz2001@aol.com
     > Sent: Mon, Aug 24, 2009 10:58 am
     > Subject: Re: Higgs field model
     >
     > Dear Israel, You have detected a flaw in my analogy! All analogies
     > have
     > their limitations, and my talk was for a lay audience and contained
     > many approximations to help understanding, but those approximations
     > have
     > limitations.
     > So, the anal
     > ogy of pushing your hand through water (drag force) is not
     > really right for mass. Mass is how things accelerate when they are
     > pushed. A better way to think about it is to look at Einstein's
     > relationship
     > E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4, where E is energy, p in momentum, m is mass
     > and cspeed of light.
     > (If you take something at rest (p=0) and take square root you get the
     > more well known E = mc^2)
     > So momentum has to do with speed (classical p=mv). When a particle
     > is pushed and moves faster, it is the mass that determines how much
     > pushing is needed to get the speed. (Force = dp/dt; force is the
     > change
     > of momentum with time)
     > What the Higgs vacuum coupling does is create the mass term. In
     > particle physics m = lambda ^2, where is the
     > Higgs field value, which is the same everywhere in the Universe. Each
     > particle (eg electron or quark) has a different value of lambda, and
     > therefore a different mass. So it is coupling with Higgs vacuum value
     > that give rise to mass. Since the is the same everywhere in
     > the universe, a particle has the same mass everywhere. In the early
     > Universe when ~0, particles were all massless.
     > (If lambda=0 for some particle, then mass = 0, and E=pc. The particle
     > always must travel at the speed of light)
     > Well good job noticing the flaw in the analogy. Regards, Kim Griest

     > On Aug 20, 2009, at 12:46 AM, Snuz2001@aol.com wrote: Hello. My
     > name
     > is Israel Shapira and I live in Los Angeles. I studied Physics at UCLA
     > years ago. I watched your video on the Higgs model, and I wonder if
     > you
     > can help me with a question I have regarding the model, either by a
     > direct explanation or referral to a web site, books, or best of all,
     > someone in LA who can explain it to me. The question: In the
     > lecture you compared the force that the Higgs field acts upon an
     > accelerating mass, to the drag that a fluid will act on bodies which
     > move through it. What I don't understand is how can the Higgs
     > field distinguish between accelerating mass and a mass which moves in
     > a constant velocity. (a fluid will act on any body moving through it,
     > accelerating or not). As I said, I will be happy for any answer, a
     > especially from a pro. If fee is required, its ok too. Sincerely,
     > Israel Shapira 17135 Clemons Dr Encino, ca

     The correspondence is still long, but did not lead to my understanding of the mechanism.

     On the subject of Lasage and inertia, I can try to explain how - in my opinion - the Lasage model can explain inertia. But I have no intention of starting to deal with the usual squabbling that results from misunderstanding and misinterpretation of my words.

209. Miracles

     Many - very - people will think that if you write about force and not gravity, you mean force and not gravity, if you ask a question about the source of inertia you intend to get an answer to what you asked, and that if I ask how Einsteinian gravity works then that is what I mean, and no that I claim that the explanation is bullshit.

     So if you have - serious - reading comprehension problems, please don't blame it on others, you squirming, sly eel.

     Do I understand how the Higgs mechanism works? Not really. What I fail to understand is how the Higgs field manages to distinguish between an accelerating body and one that is not accelerating.

     I had a long correspondence on the subject with Professor Kim Griest of the University of San Diego. He confirmed that the simple analogy of the sea opposing a ship sailing in it is incorrect, but I could not understand from his words how the business works.

     Some of the correspondence:

     > —–Original Message—–
     > From: Kim Griest
     > To: Snuz2001@aol.com
     > Sent: Mon, Aug 24, 2009 10:58 am
     > Subject: Re: Higgs field model
     >
     > Dear Israel, You have detected a flaw in my analogy! All analogies
     > have
     > their limitations, and my talk was for a lay audience and contained
     > many approximations to help understanding, but those approximations
     > have
     > limitations.
     > So, the anal
     > ogy of pushing your hand through water (drag force) is not
     > really right for mass. Mass is how things accelerate when they are
     > pushed. A better way to think about it is to look at Einstein's
     > relationship
     > E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4, where E is energy, p in momentum, m is mass
     > and cspeed of light.
     > (If you take something at rest (p=0) and take square root you get the
     > more well known E = mc^2)
     > So momentum has to do with speed (classical p=mv). When a particle
     > is pushed and moves faster, it is the mass that determines how much
     > pushing is needed to get the speed. (Force = dp/dt; force is the
     > change
     > of momentum with time)
     > What the Higgs vacuum coupling does is create the mass term. In
     > particle physics m = lambda ^2, where is the
     > Higgs field value, which is the same everywhere in the Universe. Each
     > particle (eg electron or quark) has a different value of lambda, and
     > therefore a different mass. So it is coupling with Higgs vacuum value
     > that give rise to mass. Since the is the same everywhere in
     > the universe, a particle has the same mass everywhere. In the early
     > Universe when ~0, particles were all massless.
     > (If lambda=0 for some particle, then mass = 0, and E=pc. The particle
     > always must travel at the speed of light)
     > Well good job noticing the flaw in the analogy. Regards, Kim Griest

     > On Aug 20, 2009, at 12:46 AM, Snuz2001@aol.com wrote: Hello. My
     > name
     > is Israel Shapira and I live in Los Angeles. I studied Physics at UCLA
     > years ago. I watched your video on the Higgs model, and I wonder if
     > you
     > can help me with a question I have regarding the model, either by a
     > direct explanation or referral to a web site, books, or best of all,
     > someone in LA who can explain it to me. The question: In the
     > lecture you compared the force that the Higgs field acts upon an
     > accelerating mass, to the drag that a fluid will act on bodies which
     > move through it. What I don't understand is how can the Higgs
     > field distinguish between accelerating mass and a mass which moves in
     > a constant velocity. (a fluid will act on any body moving through it,
     > accelerating or not). As I said, I will be happy for any answer, a
     > especially from a pro. If fee is required, its ok too. Sincerely,
     > Israel Shapira 17135 Clemons Dr Encino, ca

     The correspondence is still long, but did not lead to my understanding of the mechanism.

     On the subject of Lasage and inertia, I can try to explain how - in my opinion - the Lasage model can explain inertia. But I have no intention of starting to deal with the usual squabbling that results from misunderstanding and misinterpretation of my words.

210. Israel
     I already learned your method - you don't answer questions. You just find other people's sentences and grind them.
     And yet - I'm really trying to promote the discussion.

     "What is the connection between what you wrote:"

     "1. "You explain to me how Judah's particles exert force when they collide with the body"

     And gravity?”

     Judah's gravity comes from the force exerted by particles that collide in the body.

     "2.
     What is the answer to your question:

     "Explain to me why mass opposes force. Just that".

     Not the Higgs field?”

     I ask: how does this Higgs field cause persistence? I do not understand that. It's big for me. You probably do, or you wouldn't just throw it away, right?

     "3.

     And what is the connection between my question:

     "How gravity works according to Einstein. Time space warp? How does mass warp space-time? And why does this curvature make the apple fall?”

     For your response:

     The "Higgs field" is an excellent explanation, but the "curvature of space-time" is just stupid nonsense."

     Who said there was a connection? What I'm saying is, you're throwing out the "Higgs field causes persistence" concept, and expecting me to accept it. I said that given that mass distorts space, then I would be able to understand gravity. And I also said that I have no idea how mass distorts space.
     This is also Einstein's approach. He took observations and drew conclusions from it. He took the results of the MM experiment and concluded from this that the speed of light is constant in any reference system, and from this he deduced the shortening of the length, the slowing down of the clocks and the increase of the mass.
     He took the principle of equivalence, which I understand to be an observation, and deduced from it the theory of general relativity - and from this the slowing down of time in a gravitational field, the curvature of light, dragging frames, black holes and so on.

     It's just like Feynman's explanation of magnetism - you can always go deeper and deeper "but what causes..."

     And again - this is not the subject of the discussion. The discussion is about Judah's idea. An idea that I don't think can work.

211. Nissim, what is the connection between what you wrote:

     1. "You explain to me how Judah's particles exert force when they collide with the body"

     and gravity?

     2.
     What is the answer to your question:

     "Explain to me why mass opposes force. Just that".

     Not the Higgs field?

     3.

     And what is the connection between my question:

     "How gravity works according to Einstein. Time space warp? How does mass warp space-time? And why does this curvature make the apple fall?”

     For your response:

     "Higgs field" is an excellent explanation, but "space-time curvature" is just stupid nonsense.

     If you manage to give reasonable answers to these questions, we can move forward.

212. Israel
     How is La Saguet's model; Explains inertia?
     How does the Higgs field explain inertia?

     Do you know the development of Einstein's formulas?

     And who attacked you?

213. Miracles

     I never wrote that space-time warping is stupid bullshit, I just asked for the explanation of how it works. If I'm wrong, show me where.

     It was much better when you admitted that your many mistakes are due to your poor Hebrew. Now you go to personal attacks like always when you have nothing to say. Your right, but also my right not to cooperate in this stupid game.

214. Israel
     I got you. The "Higgs field" is an excellent explanation, but the "curvature of space-time" is just silly gibberish.
     How did I not see this….

215. Israel
     How does La Sage explain inertia?

216. Wow miracles, you have to get together..

     "You wrote "Why does a particle exert a force in a collision - every mass exerts a force in a collision. We know this from experience and Newton quantified it in his second law."
     So did you say or didn't you?'

     Yes, I said, and it's also true what I said, but it's a little different from:

     "You are the one who claimed that gravity comes from the second law (the force that is exerted due to the collisions of the particles). That's the problem when you're not focused..."

     Because who even talked about gravity, miracles? You asked:

     "You explain to me how Judah's particles exert force when they collide with the body."

     So I answered:

     "Yoda's particles exert a force when they collide with a body because every particle or mass exerts a force when it collides with a body. Do you claim otherwise?'

     Did you ask something or did I answer something about gravity? Do you understand the difference between force and gravity?

     "You wrote "even though the Lesage model explains inertia as well."
     And you wrote "We haven't mentioned inertia to Sajit yet"
     Make up your mind."

     What is the problem with miracles? Lesage model can also explain inertia and we haven't talked about it yet. Is there any contradiction here?

     "Oh, now I understand. It says in the wiki that the Higgs field is the cause of inertia. A very simple and intuitive explanation.'

     I don't understand what the problem is, you wrote:

     "Explain to me why mass opposes force. Just that".

     And the answer is the Higgs field, so the Standard Model tells us. What's wrong with that?

     Are you sure everything is fine today?

217. Israel
     You wrote "Why does a particle exert a force in a collision - every mass exerts a force in a collision. We know this from experience and Newton quantified it in his second law."
     So did you say yes or didn't you?

     You wrote "although the Lesage model explains inertia as well."
     And you wrote "Inertia for Sajit Og we did not mention"
     You decide.

     Ah, now I understand. It says in the wiki that the Higgs field is the cause of inertia. A very simple and intuitive explanation.

218. When did I say that gravity comes from the second law? The memory is not what it used to be.

     The Higgs field appears on Wiki. is the cause of inertia.

     The bodies stop because of the drag, which is the main problem with Lesage, but it can be overcome. But we didn't mention this gravitation, inertia to Sajit Og.

     If inertia is not logically bound then what will be the result of the elastic collision between a rubber ball and the earth?

219. Israel
     You are the one who claimed that gravity comes from the second law (the force that is exerted due to the collisions of the particles). This is the problem when you are not focused...

     Higgs field? I do not understand what it is.

     Lesage model explains inertia? Didn't we say that bodies are supposed to stop because of the drag created by the particles (Feynman...)?

     Inertia warrants logic? I don't think it's right.
     I can imagine a world without mass, and I don't come to any contradiction. A world full of photons and maybe a few neutrinos.
     I think that if you assume Newton's second law, and that particles have mass, then it applies (not necessarily either). But that's the desired assumption, isn't it?

220. This is the problem when writing half a sentence. You wrote the second law, I should guess which one you meant?

     Mass opposes the force because of the Higgs field, the standard model tells us, although the Lesage model accounts for inertia as well.

     But if you dig deeper, you will see that inertia is logically required without any mechanism. If you dig deeper, you may also see gravity.

     deepened?

     (Hebrew Pansi Elek..).

221. Israel
     How did you get to thermodynamics??

222. Israel
     XNUMXth grade Newton's Laws….. Explain to me why mass opposes force. Just that.

223. What is Newton's second law? of electrodynamics?

     Because what is the problem with the second law of thermodynamics? A simple mathematical principle: statistically, there are many more unordered states than ordered ones. that's it. Simple, understandable, works.

     Are you comparing it to "mass warps spacetime"? Why? Why doesn't she straighten it instead?

     General relativity, like Newton before it, does not offer a mechanism and is therefore not an explanation. Pushing, whether true or not, offers a very logical mechanism and is therefore an explanation.

224. Israel
     How is this question different from "what is the mechanism of the second law"?

     I understand it this way: given the principle of equivalence, the mass distorts the space. Einstein developed an equation(s) that quantifies this curvature. Many experiments confirm the curvatures. We don't understand how all this relates to quantum theory.

     I don't know how to answer your question, regarding the geodetic line. I'll have to read up on that.
     I *think* the explanation is in the point of view. In this drawing, draw the curved space and the path of the apple as a straight line. If you "straighten the space", the path of the apple will indeed be crooked.

225. "A mass distorts the space"

     how? What is the mechanism? That's the question here, isn't it?

     And if space is curved then what causes the apple to fall straight to the ground? Shouldn't it fall on a curved geodesic line?

226. Israel
     In the first link they show that a straight line in curved space-time causes a body to fall from the building. As I wrote to Judah, there are two assumptions here. The first is Newton's first law, and the second is that mass distorts space.

227. Yehuda
     nice story. And there is some truth in what you say.

     Einstein postulated the equivalence principle. He said that acceleration and gravity are equal. That is, the mass in the formula F=ma is equal to mass b
     F=G*m1*m2/r^2

     His formulas express this equivalence. If one of them is assumed to exist, then the other is accepted. Einstein assumed there was persistence, and accepted gravity.

     You also assume the second law and deduce gravity from it. You didn't prove anything, because you didn't show that there really are such particles.

     so what are we doing? Looking at what the 2 theories predict. And what do you see?

     All the predictions of the theory of relativity are fulfilled. The bending of light, the slowing down of time, gravitational waves and so on.

     And in your case? All prophecies do not come true. There is no drag in space, no tremendous heating and no inexplicable movements in the case of very small bodies. And I'm ignoring the small point that particle collisions do not create gravity at all.

228. For miracles, Israel and others
     You have miracles, and Israel, a debate if:-
     "The curvature of space caused by mass is a legitimate explanation for gravitation, if not".
     Would you believe miracles that the background for such explanations is our friend Aristotle. And the explanation is pagan?
     So an act that was like this was:-
     Aristotle had a problematic problem, why do the streams flow to the sea, the smoke to the clouds, the stones to the earth and the fire to the stars?. His explanation was simple: - Everything strives to reach the concentration of its kind: the rivers to the sea, the smoke to the clouds and the illuminating fire to the stars. They are of the same species, and of course one can reach conclusions from this, for example, where do the raindrops end up?... Of course they will end up in the sea! An idolatrous attitude, to give things the appropriate attribute. Newton, who was still living at a time when Aristotle's views were at the top of knowledge, was of course influenced by this and when he had to determine why bodies attract?... the answer is simple:- because they have... right... "gravitational force!" Did Newton explain something here? Nada!, nothing!, gave the attribute to bodies just as Aristotle did to rivers and stones.
     The years pass, science develops and advances, and we reach our friends Albert (this is from attribution) he advanced a little more. He realized that giving the property to bodies is too idolatrous and therefore he gave the property of gravitation... to space itself. After all, the "attracting" bodies are always in space, so what's the problem with giving the property of gravity to space, we haven't changed anything. Did we explain anything?, nada!! , there is no explanation! The fact that you gave a block of stone miraculous properties of God does not explain what you want to explain, you just introduced another impressive mediator such as God, space, time space, etc., but there is no explanation here as to how this was done!
     Beyond the question of whether the explanation is true or not, among the few who came up with an explanation is Le Sage and your faithful servant, Yoda.
     But... I must point out that our friend Nissim is also right, because we also gave particles the ability to transfer kinetic energy or kinetic energy, but it "seems" to me that Nissim has such a "godly" fundamental property, which is the basis for many properties built on it and also the basis for the gravitation of the pushing, I can Compromise and accept. Let's not forget that even in the conventional academy they would be happy to find the two gravitational particles - the gravitons, and not leave everything in the hands of space!
     good day everybody
     Yehuda
     http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

229. There were many things in the link, I asked you to copy. If you don't know what, no problem.

     When I'm in space I don't feel weight, but not terribly.

     I probably won't get an explanation of how gravity works according to Einstein, but not bad. The main thing is that the equations work.

     True, Newton's equations also work well but not terribly.

     To Newton's credit, he did not claim to have an explanation for gravity even though the equations were considered perfect at the time.

     And it is true that there are those who claim that there is an explanation for gravity even though it is considered one of the most difficult problems in physics and there are many competing theories to explain it, but this does not bother the claimants.

     And that's already terrible.

230. Israel
     Regarding the withdrawal - I gave you a link. If you didn't understand what was said there, no problem.

231. Israel
     When you hold a mass in your hand, don't you feel it has weight?

232. It seems to me that we are starting to philosophize a little, and I don't have the energy or time for that.

     When a mass hits you - don't you feel that it exerts force on you?

     But what forces masses to attract each other?

     Are you going to answer how attraction works according to Einstein or will we call it a day?

233. Israel
     Each mass exerts a force in the collision. All 2 masses attract each other.
     Why is the first intuitive and the second not?

234. It is necessary to distinguish between the questions:

     Why does a particle exert a force in a collision - every mass exerts a force in a collision. We know this from experience and Newton quantified it in his second law.

     Why do Yoda's particles exert a force in a collision - because every mass exerts a force in a collision.

     Why do Yoda's particles exert a net force on the body, i.e. gravity - according to Sage.

     But our topic is relativistic gravity. You say that mass warps space-time and that this warping is the cause of gravitation.

     It is not intuitive and there is no explanation why. If there is, bring him as his word finally.

     Also E=mv^2 divided by two for kinetic energy is not intuitive and indeed Newton was wrong and thought that the energy of a body is the product of its velocity by its mass only. Leibniz corrected to square.

     So if you claim that a non-obvious assumption is reality, you must explain why or leave it as a postulate, as Einstein did in his second postulate.

235. Yehuda
     I agree with what you say.
     As for elastic collisions, yes - I think it can't work. Regarding plastic collisions, I read that there is a huge heating problem.

236. Israel
     on the contrary. I'm trying to refine. General relativity explains gravity as the curvature of space-time, and you asked "but how does mass curve space".

     So - if particle collisions create gravity, I ask the same question "How does a particle collision create force?".

     I'm not asking just to tease. We know today that gravitational mass and inertial mass are equal (I heard Feynman say that they know it to an accuracy of 9 digits, and it's been years since Feynman). Judah does not accept this principle of equivalence. Therefore, I would love to understand why a particle that hits a body exerts a force on it.

     And my second question is more fundamental - how does Judah's gravity work on individual atoms? Why, for example, does heavy gas sink?

237. You can copy the explanation so I know where "her name" is.

     You didn't ask why a particle exerts a force, you asked why Yoda's particles exert a force.

     Do you change the question now to "Why does a particle exert a force in a collision?"

     It seems to me a bit of an attempt to divert the discussion..

238. Israel
     There is a simple and beautiful explanation. If you didn't understand him, then I don't know how to explain better.

     "Yoda's particles exert a force when they collide with a body because every particle or mass exerts a force when it collides with a body. Do you claim otherwise?”

     The particles … exert a force …. Because every particle... exerts a force...

     I ask why a particle exerts a force, and you answer "because it exerts a force". seriously?

239. There are no explanations in your links, just a description.

     Could you perhaps explain yourself, you or someone?

     Yoda's particles exert a force when they collide with a body because every particle or mass exerts a force when it collides with a body. Do you claim otherwise?

240. Israel
     And here's another link:
     https://www.sciencenews.org/article/einsteins-genius-changed-sciences-perception-gravity

241. Israel
     You wanted a link:
     http://vis.sciencemag.org/generalrelativity/

     And now - you explain to me how Judah's particles exert force when they collide with the body.
     And if you have time - explain to me how gravity works on individual atoms.

242. So when you write "infinity has no meaning in physics" you only mean within the framework of this discussion.

     OK, creative Hebrew, but let's say.

     Maybe you didn't write either:

     "I don't think anyone mentioned the word infinity. This word does not exist in science."

     Probably someone else.

     "General relativity does not explain how the universe bends space-time, but given that it is, then it deduces gravity from this curvature.

     But as usual you miss the point. I said that there is evidence for gravity (according to Einstein's formulas) over a huge range of distances. And I said that if you want to come up with a theory to replace the theory of relativity, then it should (1) explain the existing observations in an equally good way and (2) work."

     I know what you wrote, not what you meant. And what you wrote is:

     "Einstein gave an explanation for gravity".

     So is there an explanation or not? Because if there is, bring it or a link. If not, rephrase.

243. Israel
     I am not claiming that relativity is right. I claim that Yehuda is wrong. I explained why.

244. Israel
     The statement is very well-founded. In the context of this discussion, infinity has no meaning. It is certainly possible to be satisfied with a few tens of billions of light years. No one claims that the laws of physics are valid at infinity. And beyond that - practically, infinity has no meaning anywhere in practical physics. After all, you can't measure something like that.

     In physical models there are endless. Also with Newton. That's not what I'm talking about.

     General relativity does not explain how the universe warps space-time, but given that it does, then it infers gravity from this warping.

     But as usual you miss the point. I said that there is evidence for gravity (according to Einstein's formulas) over a huge range of distances. And I said that if you want to come up with a theory to replace the theory of relativity then it should (1) explain the existing observations in an equally good way and (2) work.

245. "Infinity has no meaning in physics" - a firm and baseless statement.

     Many scientists, perhaps even most, believe that the universe - a physical entity - is infinite in its dimensions.

     Many also believe that quantum particles affect each other at an infinite - physical term - speed.

     You still haven't explained how gravity works according to Einstein. Time space warp? How does mass warp space-time? And why does this curvature make the apple fall?

     Please, if you know and understand, explain. If you reference, make sure an explanation is in the reference, not just sentences like "the mass tells the space how to curve and the curved space tells the mass how to move". It's not an explanation, it's a description.

     And if you don't know and don't have a link that explains, just say so.

246. for miracles
     We can prove that something has an end. The end of the Hades ball, the end of the Andromeda galaxy, etc. But we cannot bring evidence about the infinity of a body, at most we can say about a certain body that it is at least a certain finite size. A measurable quantity will never be infinite.
     You are actually saying that there is no possibility of gravitational pushing at all, neither in an elastic collision nor in a plastic collision. I will try to do an experiment that will show that there is (or isn't) and then the debate will be with certainty. There is no point in arguing now.
     So I will retire now. To shower and apply to bed.
     Good night
     Yehuda
     http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

247. Israel
     In practice, it is not always possible to prove that something has an end, so we can never know if something is infinite or not.

     One can assume that things are infinite, and this sometimes makes calculations easier, but that is something else.

     In quantum theory, we really talk about infinity (for example an infinity of photons that are emitted from an accelerated charge) but we can never prove that either.

     As far as our discussion is concerned, it makes no sense to talk about the laws of physics at infinity, and that is what is important here.

     Yehuda wrote "So I understand now that you also believe that there is evidence only for gravitational activity at finite distances only. The difference between us is that I see proof of gravitation for a finite distance and know that for a distance beyond that it will not be according to the same formula." - and that's what I was referring to.
     After all - every distance is finite. Every measurement we make is on a finite domain and within a finite range - that's why I said infinity has no meaning.

248. "Infinity has no meaning in physics."

     Can you explain or provide a link?

249. Yehuda
     Infinity has no meaning in physics.

     There are no proofs in physics. There is evidence. There is evidence for gravity from distances of a billion meters to billions of light years.

     I'm not talking about formulas, but the cause of gravity. We have explanations for gravity, and maybe one of them is correct. We also have explanations that we know are not true. They are not true because they do not describe reality.

     Pushing gravity is wrong for several reasons:
     1. If elastic collisions are assumed, then there is simply no gravity
     2. If plastic collisions are assumed, then there is a heating problem
     3. The drag problem raised by Feynman
     4. It does not work on very small bodies

     Beyond that, it does not explain phenomena that other theories do explain (gravitational waves, the bending of light, the slowing down of time, frame dragging, and so on).

     You are the one who has to explain gravitational pollution. How does light bend?

     Gravity on atoms surely disproves your theory. Take a very very very very very small body - and hit it, from time to time, from a random direction with particles energetic enough that they can move it - then it will accelerate uniformly towards the Earth? All atoms, the same way?

     Yehuda - in the study of elementary particles, the trajectories of particles much smaller than an atom are followed. So how is it that to date, out of the millions of particles that have been measured, we have never seen a single particle deviate from its orbit due to collisions of your particles? And on the other hand - do all the atoms in an atomic clock (of a certain type) fall towards the earth under the influence of gravity?

     You wrote "But for larger distances and therefore, I claim that there is no friction in the movement of the planets with my pushing particles because on average they also create a vector in the direction of the movement of the planet." How can it be? What will cause the particles to rotate around a certain body?
     Don't you see that you have invented a leading perpetuum here? Collisions between the particles themselves cause accelerated motion?

     "...therefore gravitation will not operate over tiny distances according to Newton. But she does work.

     Yehuda - What is the density of these particles, and what is their speed?

250. Miracles
     So I understand now that you also believe that there is evidence only for gravitational activity at finite distances only. The difference between us is that I see proof of gravitation for a finite distance and know that for a distance beyond that it will not be according to the same formula. You also see proof of gravitation only for a finite distance, but believe that it will continue like this even for greater distances later according to the same formula. My pessimism against your unfounded optimism.
     And regarding the purification, it is a bit unfair that you base it on the "wealthy" purification with the help of a lot of dark mass. Please show me a void hundreds of thousands of light years away that is produced only with the bosonic mass present in the galaxy and,,, put my theory into trouble.
     The pushing theory works not only on bodies and not only on atoms but also on... my pushing particles themselves, so that gravitation on individual atoms does not determine the failure of my theory.
     But for larger distances and therefore, I claim that there is no friction in the movement of the planets with my pushing particles because on average they also create a vector in the direction of the movement of the planet.
     As for the "disobedient" who move against the preferred direction, I believe their lives are shorter.
     But if there are two atoms at very close distances, here the ping pong effect (familiar to you) of particles that will settle between the two atoms and prevent the attachment will enter into the calculation, therefore gravity will not work at tiny distances according to Newton. This is my opinion, apparently contrary to your opinion.
     The second half Maccabi Haifa Maccabi Tel Aviv has already started and we hope for a better game.
     Good Day
     Yehuda

251. What word did I take out of context and who said Einstein was wrong about gravity?

     Newton's theory also gives us many predictions that have been proven correct for years. So does that mean Newton explained how gravity works?

     And in general, if Einstein explains, then why are his theories based on postulates, findings that do not require explanation?

     So here it is for the 51st time:

     "What is Einstein's explanation for gravity? What is anyone's explanation for gravity anyway? What makes the apple fall to the ground?

     Please don't refer me, there are no explanations in the places you refer to, only descriptions. Don't tell me "curvature of space and time" - an explanation of why the apple falls to the ground because of that curvature.

     You can take an example from Pushing which, whether true or not, definitely explains why there is gravity.

     And most importantly - if you don't have an explanation then don't get angry and start pointing fingers and shooting in all directions.

252. Yehuda
     I don't think anyone mentioned the word infinity. This word does not exist in science.

     Gravitational dusting has been observed on whole galaxies, so gravity "works" even hundreds of thousands of light years away.

     The relativistic Doppler phenomenon is observed at distances of many billions of light years.

     Gravity was also observed on atoms - how does your theory explain it? Single sealed leaves in a vacuum - and they fall down, just like a glass falling from the table. In my opinion (this too) should disprove your theory. I'm wrong?

253. Israel
     "And what about what I've been telling you for years, that Einstein's theory *describes* gravity but does not explain it"?
     The fact that you say something, does not make it true (the "fix" referred to the fact that you chose one word from my quote, and then took it out of context).
     Newton's formula only describes gravity, but Einstein did not invent formulas and said they describe reality. On the contrary: he made assumptions about reality, and from these assumptions he developed the formulas.

     His assumptions are the explanation for gravity. So – you can (1) not accept his assumptions or (2) not accept his mathematical development.

     What is impossible not to accept is the many predictions that his theory was right about: the bending of light, gravitational obsolescence, the slowing down of time, gravitational waves, relativistic redshift, drag frames, black holes.
     In addition - gravity was tested for very short distances, and also for very long distances.
     So the theory has a lot of reinforcements, and there is not a single refutation. It doesn't prove anything, but you need a very good reason to think the theory is wrong.

     Worlind's theory is also compatible with general relativity at the level of the observations made. But - there are a number of experiments that have been performed that disprove his theory (of course the jury is still out...).

     I will repeat my point again: if Yehuda is right and gravity is the result of particle collisions, then space-time is not curved as a result of mass inventions. Therefore - Yehuda has to explain all the phenomena that the theory of relativity explains.

254. For miracles and others
     We will whitewash what I say about correctness for only short distances of gravitation and relativity and a few words about scientific correctness to infinity
     According to our friend Popper, every scientific claim should have the possibility of refutation which can only be done by measurements and since there are no measurements at infinity, a scientific claim that is true to infinity cannot be accepted in science!
     Quite simply, any claim about infinity should be outside the scope of science and is not scientific, just like God
     So it is true that Newton could have said a thousand times that the pull he determined is infinite, so he said, so what??? But in fact he only measured up to the planet Saturn, beyond that he knew nothing, not about the existence of Uranus, Neptune, galaxies, etc., and for him comets were atmospheric phenomena and the Saturn stars were holes in the crust of the sky through which the light of the Shekinah is seen.
     As above with Einstein and the theory of relativity, it is true that Einstein claims that the masses distort the metric of the universe but up to where??, he certainly could not say that it is up to infinity because he did not make measurements there - at infinity.
     And this is where Yehuda comes in (this is from the scientist) and claims that all these teachings are only partially correct only in the immediate vicinity of at most a few light years. Beyond that, there is a "turbidity" that prevents the teachings from continuing towards infinity with the same formula.
     So please, Nissim, don't give me as an example a previous article about the proof of the theory of relativity in a distant galaxy, only the cosmological principle was proven there, but the theory of relativity was not proven until there. And this was done with the need to add a huge amount of dark matter which is really "unacceptable to me".
     You have miracles and Israel has a debate whether the curvature of space caused by mass is a legitimate explanation for gravitation, or not. Would you believe miracles that the background to such explanations is our friend Aristotle. And the explanation is pagan?
     I will deny you the pleasure of receiving my explanation because I must have already bored you endlessly, so we will leave it for another time.
     Good week miracles
     And please respond gently
     Yehuda.
     http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

255. "You're an expert in dealing with a therapist."

     I expected that at some point we would move to personal attacks, and indeed I was not disappointed.. How come I'm not surprised?

     And what about what I've been telling you for years, that Einstein's theory *describes* gravity but doesn't explain it, does his omniscient genius understand the difference? Haven't you read Feynman? Don't you know that every other day another gravity theory pops up? If curved space explains gravity, then why do we need the graviton? Why does Professor Eric Verlind propose a new theory, what's wrong with Einstein?

     Read what is written in:
     https://www.universetoday.com/75705/where-does-gravity-come-from/

256. Israel
     The word "to describe" is interpreted. But, pay attention to the context - the formulas describe, not the theory.

     Einstein said that gravity is a result of the curvature of space-time. The formulas describe how the mass causes this curvature, and vice versa.

     There is no explanation in the theory of how mass warps space. Even in Yehuda's theory there is no explanation of how the collision of particles exerts a force.

     You are an expert in dealing with care. My point was that Yehuda accepts Einstein's explanation in short terms, and on the other hand he claims that his explanation is the correct one. And it does not work.

257. "General relativity is a metric theory of gravitation. At its core are Einstein's equations, which describe the relationship between the geometry of a four-dimensional, pseudo-Riemannian manifold representing spacetime, and the energy–momentum contained in that spacetime.”

     You can easily translate the word describe into Hebrew

258. Israel
     You are welcome to open a book, and/or read online.

     Go ahead... here is one sentence from Wikipedia, if you think otherwise, contact the editor.

     "General relativity is a metric theory of gravitation. At its core are Einstein's equations, which describe the relationship between the geometry of a four-dimensional, pseudo-Riemannian manifold representing spacetime, and the energy–momentum contained in that spacetime.”

259. "Einstein gave an explanation for gravity".

     So only for the fiftieth time, miracles:

     What is Einstein's explanation for gravity? What is anyone's explanation for gravity anyway?

     A common thing, don't mince words! Detail, explain, expand, describe - but in the end maybe we will all understand what causes the apple to fall to the ground.

     your stage

260. Yehuda
     No one has any problem with settings! Who mentioned settings? The subject is the explanation for gravity.

     You, you are wrong, Yehuda. Einstein gave an explanation for gravity. You give another explanation, completely different from Einstein's explanation. You also say that Einstein's explanation is good for short distances but not good for long distances.
     Then you say "I have no problem with Einstein". Yehuda - are you ready to decide?

     Where did I write that they measured gravity between atoms?

261. for miracles
     In my response I didn't talk about inertial mass and gravitational mass and I don't understand what you are talking about and I also state my opinion about them and I don't forget to state that I seem to have said things contrary to Einstein. Why??
     I'm surprised that they accurately measured the gravitational force of attraction between two atoms. I'd like to see the proof.
     And in addition, I don't know what Wellinger says exactly about gravity, but the spirit of his words is that there is a problem with the existing definitions of Newtonian and apparently also relativistic gravitation.
     Good night
     Yehuda

262. Yehuda
     The entire history of finding particles is based on the charge to mass ratio of these particles. Later, they managed to measure the charge, so we know what the (inertial) mass of the particles is.

     True, it's just Einstein's claim that inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass (and what does he understand?) But - gravity was measured at distances of one-tenth of a billionth of a meter, demonstrating the square relationship between distance and force.

     We also know for sure that gravity acts on individual atoms (in the context of Earth's gravity).

     So downwards - there is no debate. Gravity works.

     And by the way - what Verlind says about gravity is really, really unlike your idea. But you'll probably reject it anyway, so that you don't fall under the famous razor... 🙂

263. to Israel, Yosef and others
     Thanks to Israel for the health wishes. The cataract surgery went well and everything is fine. You only have to wait two months to order optical glasses. In the meantime, I walk around with my sunglasses like the best studs...
     to Joseph
     I entered (a little late) the Wikipedia entry "Eric Verlind", where it is written among other things:-
     "In 2009 (Eric Verlind) proposed a theory in which gravity is not a basic force in the universe but an effect derived from other causes. He explained in an interview that "in very small orders of magnitude, Newton's laws do not work, but only for apples and stars. You can compare it to the pressure of a gas. The molecules themselves do not have any pressure, but the barrel with gas in it has pressure." End quote.
     Note that I am not the only one who realizes that something is lame in the realm of gravity! And there are many similar things in my approach and Worling's:-
     "Gravity is not a fundamental force in the universe, but an effect derived from other causes." - Completely agree.
     "In very small orders of magnitude, Newton's laws do not work, but only for apples and stars" - partially agrees. In my opinion, Newton's gravitation is a local phenomenon. This is also true for the planets in their movement around their suns, but it is not true between stars at distances of several light years, and not true between galaxies. It is impossible from measurements made on falling apples to draw conclusions about sizes of a different order of magnitude. Newton drew a conclusion about the planets at a distance of less than a thousand light-years. (several tens of astronomical units) and this after checking measurements by Kepler, Tycho Brahe and others, but to continue to conclude from this about distances that are trillions times greater or trillions times smaller is something that will not be done and is unscientific.
     In addition, he brought the example of gas pressure and perhaps hints at a solution to gravitation that is also acceptable to me. (pressure difference)
     In short, it would be nice if he would respond here with knowledge and explain his principles.
     Shabbat Shalom
     Yehuda

264. Eric Verlind deduces from the amount of quantum information contained in space gravity and general relativity. It uses the same physics described in the article on Schrödinger's cat. Quantum thermodynamics. He explains a lot of empirical graphs and explains the component called dark matter among them.
     Winner of the Spinoza Prize (Dutch Wolf) 2009, Gravitational Entropy Paper 2011, Explanatory Paper on Variable Gravity and Dark Matter 2016. His lectures are divided into lectures for scientists and lectures for the public. And his glasses are the most expensive I've seen.
     He is still developing the theory: elastic dynamical equations for updated general relativity

265. You can find a series of lectures by Professor Eric Verlind on new physics on YouTube. Two lectures at the Technion. To his credit, he is not closed in four cubits and understands that in order to bring about a change, you have to put your feet up and convince. He combines leadership and scientific brilliance, a rare combination. Usually there is one of the features. Here we have both.

266. Get well soon Yehuda.

     For pushing to work, only zero percent of the particles are slowed down. Otherwise we will get the problem I pointed out, that the mass of two panels will not be double that of one.

     The ping pong commits to the case Yehuda described where most of the particles are slowed down. Do you see another possibility Yoda?

     But even in the realistic case, i.e. most of the particles pass, we will still get ping pong proportional to the penetration level. This is what eliminates the elastic collisions.

267. for miracles
     First of all, thank you for the health wishes.
     And regarding your explanation, it may be that in the case of smooth metal surfaces it is a different phenomenon (Casimir effect?) and not the pressure of gravity pushing. Check with a vacuum if the pull is maintained or if there is no pull.
     I will in any case advance the experiment I want to do.
     It will solve my problems
     good week
     Yehuda
     http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

268. Yehuda
     So before anything else - feel good!!!

     Plates close enough will indeed attract each other under certain conditions: I know from experience that a very smooth metal plate adheres as if glued. The reason for attraction is the same reason that causes the metal plate not to break down into elements - attraction between atoms.
     I've used boards like this to calibrate calibers before, and it's definitely a strange phenomenon.

     Israel
     If we take two thin and sealed plates, and if there is a stream of particles that causes a force from each other, then the force will be much weaker with the plates placed in the same plane, than if they are placed in parallel planes.

269. Miracles and Israel
     The truth is that I tried to calculate the case of a certain small percentage of particles recoiling back like the situation that really happens in reality compared to the majority that even pass through both plates, but I was not able to reach a conclusion. Only then did I decide to edit the question with sealed surfaces and only if there is an attraction to pierce them and see what happens, so it is important to me that you express your learned opinion on my idea. Only if in this case we come to the understanding that gravitation is created in the opaque surfaces, then we will pierce the surfaces and see what happens. There is no point in continuing with the hole experiment if there is no gravitation in the atoms.
     This is also the real experiment that I will do as soon as I find a vacuum device
     You will understand miracles and Israel, if in the case of the opaque surfaces gravity will not be created by an elastic collision, I believe that you will also have miracles in your perforated question, gravity will not be created.
     It's not that I'm avoiding your wish for miracles, I'm simply rejecting it because the part of ping pong particles moving between the boards "doesn't seem to me" although on the surface it looks like equality.
     I also have a personal problem of cataract surgery that I underwent about a week ago and it is difficult to see and concentrate.
     Good week my friend
     Yehuda

270. If the body stops all the particles - or even most of them - then a double mass, i.e. two adjacent bodies, will pull with the same force as one, right?

271. Yehuda
     At the beginning you said that a very small part of the particles recoils back - after all, this is the basis of the explanation that the shape of the body does not affect gravity.

     But, that doesn't change the correctness of my explanation.

     My explanation doesn't work if, for example, we take a panel that is permeable on only one side. In this situation - one side of the board will have a different number of particles than the other side, and an attraction can be created between the boards, but if you turn the boards over you will get repulsion.

     Yehuda - Is there a mistake in my explanation (except for what Israel said)?

     Please - do the calculation and look for an error there. If there is no error, then you have no argument against the explanation and must accept it.

     And please, without "I don't think so", "it doesn't make sense", and "I don't completely accept".
     It's only science, but it's still science...

272. For miracles Israel and others
     So here I understand the misunderstanding between us. To make the calculation easier, my surfaces are sealed!
     I will explain it again:-
     The two surfaces I took are completely sealed and the particles do not penetrate through them but recoil back after the impact. The penetrating particles can only penetrate from the sides of the two surfaces. If one particle per second comes from every square centimeter, then ten thousand particles per second hit each square meter surface (ten thousand square meters) from the outside, that is, 20,000 particles on both surfaces. On the other hand, the perimeter of the square is four meters and the width of the space is one cm (the distance between the surfaces) which is 400 cm square, allowing four hundred particles per second to penetrate between the surfaces.
     You claim that the particles penetrating between the bodies know exactly how much attraction they need to zero, and exactly zero?, not to push the surfaces further apart, just cancel the momentum of the outer ones??, according to these 400 miracles, in their movement between the two surfaces they will succeed in stopping the surfaces from getting closer. Exactly to brake not to move away only to brake the external pressure of the twenty thousand external particles. Well done to the 400 particles!
     Do miracles make sense to you?
     Now I make a change in the experiment and I bring the surfaces closer to a distance of half a cm. Now only 200 particles per second penetrate between the two surfaces. 200 particles that of course need to create double the force, but see it's a miracle, they also only succeed in stopping the surfaces from getting closer, the internal particles realized that they have to work harder and just prevent the surfaces from moving inward. We will make another change, we will increase the area of ​​the surfaces by four times, their volume will double.
     Sorry Nissim, your idea does not require that the internal pressure act exactly as strong as the external pressure.
     I will really try to do the experiment I planned!
     Good day miracles
     Yehuda Sabdarmish

273. Maybe I missed something in your explanation, but I can't understand how the business works without the ping pong I described..

274. Israel
     right…

275. Miracles are nice, but if you follow Yoda's example, you'll have to divide everything by 2 (not that it makes a difference).

     Elek details..

     And since Yoda will perhaps come up with the explanation that the particles slow down during penetration and therefore the internal pingpong is less effective - which is true - then the teeth of this argument can be dulled by saying that if it is less effective by half, say, then its duration will be doubled..

     Elastic collisions therefore do not work.

276. Yehuda
     The example you gave is good, because it explains the misunderstanding. In my understanding, Israel also thought like you.

     Let's simplify the problem, and assume that particles move only along the X-axis, and that the plates will be placed perpendicular to this axis.

     Assume there are no panels. At each point we get that 20,000 particles cross in each direction.

     Now - we will start from a single board, which we will place on the 0 point of the X axis. From each side - 20,000 particles hit and 400 penetrate. That is - 19,600 particles are returned.

     what did we get Let's look at any point on the right side: 20,000 particles come from the right side. From the left side, arrive 400 particles that penetrated from the left side and another 19,600 particles that are returned.

     That is, we got the same situation as the situation where there is no plaque.

     Now - if you add another board - 20,000 particles will hit it from each side, and 400 particles will pass through the board. And again - there is no power on the board.

     Pay attention to two things. The first is that the collisions between the particles have no meaning. The second is that the percentage of particles passing through the plates is not important

     You can take the two boards and bring them as close as you like - no force will still apply.

     If the collisions are plastic - my explanation is not valid.

277. Yehuda
     This is exactly the matter of "I don't think so" compared to a mathematical calculation.
     I showed the calculation: no matter the amount of penetrating particles - the equivalent force is zero.

     If I didn't make a mistake in the calculation - then you must be wrong.

278. Yoda, our brother, Nissim is right about the elastic collisions.

     First of all, you have to remember that according to pushing, most particles penetrate, so in your example maybe 400 out of 20,000 failed to penetrate, but let's work with your example, where only 400 penetrated, and refine it: only one penetrated!

     It is clear that the same one is not able to balance the 20,000 who did not penetrate, however heroic and vigorous he may be. But he is not alone in the campaign. More particles penetrate from the sides, but that is not the point.

     To see this, think about your description: 10,000 particles hit from each side, and only 400 managed to penetrate.

     So those 9,800 particles from each side pushed the surfaces with a force of say 9,800 dynes to the surface and returned as they came to the vastness of space.

     The 400 who were captured, on the other hand, play ping pong between the surfaces and continue to push them all the time. Since the permeability of the surfaces is low, only one in 50 hits of the particle will manage to pass through them, so if you think about it, you will see that until all the particles penetrate and also disappear into the space, they will in the meantime exert the same force of 9,800 dynes on each surface, thus canceling the force of the particles that did not penetrate.

     If you don't see it, try it with that single particle that managed to penetrate.

279. Miracles
     I want to understand:- Anyone who does not agree with your solutions is defined as immature?? Why switch to personal lines??
     You claim that the particles penetrating between the bodies know exactly how much attraction they need to zero, and exactly zero?, not to move away, God forbid, just cancel the momentum of the external ones??, I will give you an example so that you will understand the nonsense you are saying. Let's say we take two square surfaces measuring a square meter each one cm apart. Let's say ten thousand particles hit the surfaces from the outside on each of them per second, which means they are pushed with a force of 20,000 particles per second. Only 400 particles per second penetrate between them because the surfaces are close, according to these 400 miracles, in their movement between the two surfaces they will succeed in stopping the surfaces from getting closer. Exactly to brake not to move away only to brake the external pressure of the twenty thousand external particles. Well done to the 400 particles!
     Do miracles make sense to you?
     Now I make a change in the experiment and I bring the surfaces closer to a distance of half a centimeter. Now only 200 particles penetrate between the surfaces, which of course need to create double the force, but see it's a miracle, they also only succeed in stopping the surfaces from getting closer, the internal particles realized that they have to work harder and only prevent the surfaces from moving inward. We'll make another change, we'll increase the area of ​​the surfaces four times, their volume will double, even now the smart particles will know exactly how much effort they have to make, and when they should stop making effort?
     Sorry Nissim, your idea does not require that the internal pressure act exactly as strong as the external pressure.
     I will really try to do the experiment I planned! And maybe... I'm wrong?
     Good day miracles
     Yehuda Sabdarmish - graduate
     Please respond gently - thank you

280. You don't know the exact location of the electron, but you know it is right here near you, and Andromeda is 2 million light years away..

     You don't understand what the problem is with special relativity..

     But do you understand that if Scientific American published an article titled "Quantum Threat to Special Relativity" and Albert Einstein published the APR article dealing with the same threat - then maybe the fact that you don't understand doesn't mean there isn't a problem, but simply as you said... don't you understand?

281. Israel
     How do you know where your electron is - by measurement, right? Before the measurement, you didn't know exactly where it was.

     We do not know how to create quantum particles in a deterministic way. We do not know details about the particles formed before measurement. So - your "passing of information" does not happen between two distant particles, but something more complex, and less understood, happens.

     That's why I say - you can't use classical logic to understand what's happening.

     And yet - I don't understand what the problem is with special relativity. Interweaving does not contradict the assumptions of special relativity.

282. By the way, if someone were to say a sentence like you said about a photon Ben Pence or an electron brother to a proton that are far apart in all space, and admit that he doesn't understand it but adds that you are wrong and that you should listen more and that your words are stupid and you state firm facts, you wouldn't think that he is a little... full of himself maybe ?

     Of course I'm not talking about you but about other, simple, mortal people, not about you of course.

283. Mmm... spread all over the space..

     But.. but.. what to do that my electron is here next to me and yours is in Andromeda?

     Once again the imagination and creativity take over us miracles?

284. Israel
     Until you measured the spin of the first photon - the two photons were spread all over space.

     I'm not saying I understand it! What I'm saying is, I think it's stupid to draw conclusions from not understanding something.

285. I actually believe that I am not wrong, but maybe I am wrong..

     So come explain to me what I'm doing wrong, oh all-knowing miracles?

286. Israel
     If you listened a little to Albenzo you would understand that you are wrong.

     Enough with these silly analogies. It does not advance the discussion.

     On the other hand, like Yehuda, you have no interest in advancing the discussion. You keep explaining how genius Einstein is, but also explaining how wrong he is.

287. Yehuda
     It's nice that my explanation is not acceptable to you. It didn't make the explanation wrong.

     I did the calculation and explained. You did not find any error in the calculation or explanation. And it is still not acceptable to you.

     very mature

288. for miracles
     Thank you for the explanation about drag, I understand that the question should be:- Is pushing = a simple universe, is there drag (your opinion) or is there no drag (my opinion)
     Regarding your comment: "Small enough particles will not collide with each other", it is completely unacceptable to me. If the particles are smaller their mean free path increases. That is, in my humble opinion, gravity will be created if I manage to increase the average free path.
     And regarding the question of whether gravity is created by an elastic collision of particles, the explanation you give as if a pushing particle that penetrates between the bodies and moves in a cyclical motion between the plates is the proof of preventing the possibility of pushing of elastic particles is completely unacceptable to me. It is not possible for a tiny percentage of particles that penetrate between the plates/or bodies to be able to cancel the effect of all the other majority of particles that work close to the bodies
     But why bother? I will free up and do a measurement experiment and the decision I hope will be one way or the other.
     Good day miracles
     Yehuda
     http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

289. "The sentence "particle A receives the quantum state of particle B, *or vice versa*." A red flag should be lit. Information has a direction, but something different is happening here, very different."

     We measure one of the particles first, and the other gets its quantum state (or the reverse), not the other way around.

     Therefore the direction is from the first to the second, not the other way around.

     "What happens is not between particles! Until we measured, that is, as long as there is no influence of the classical world on the quantum world - there are no particles. There is no... there are only probabilities.'

     Yes, there are particles. Electrons, photons, zebras. There is no quantum state for particles - spin direction, polarization, please ignore.

     'You have to accept that the quantum world is strange: photons have no mass, but momentum. An electron in an atom has no angular momentum, but has angular momentum. And so on".

     Strange - still.

     The world of epidemics was also strange before the discovery of viruses and people did not know the reasons for their outbreak: sins? Well poisoning? The Jews?

     "And I'll ask again - where is there a contradiction between quantum theory and the assumptions of special relativity?"

     And I will answer again: no. But this is what Einstein said in the APR article according to Wiki. After all, influence travels faster than light. Maybe he doesn't understand the relationship?

     There is no contradiction in the following paragraph either:

     "I had a terrible neighbor
     who didn't want to live in peace with me,
     When I was chopping wood, suddenly the poor man came
     and put his head under the axe.'

     and also:

     "To one lady on the bus
     I made room out of politeness,
     But due to overcrowding and suffocation -
     I put Thid in her purse.'

     What do we know, maybe this is what really happened?

     So why then:

     "Mr. Judge! Mr. Judge!
     This is the truth and the whole truth.
     So why do you give me a prison impression?
     I'm not guilty, I'm not guilty.'

     Judge Minyak, does not accept that the sentences above are without contradiction!

     Mr. Judge, don't be like that...
     Why don't you believe in man?
     Just not a prison, for God's sake -
     I'm not guilty, I'm not guilty.

290. Yehuda
     Small enough particles will not collide with each other
     On the other hand - a few larger particles create a problem of Brownian motion.

     And in any case - the explanation I gave does not depend on collisions between particles.

291. Israel
     The sentence "Particle A receives the quantum state of particle B, *or vice versa*." A red flag should be lit. Information has a direction, but here something different is happening, very different.

     And another point: what happens is not between particles! Until we measured, that is, as long as there is no influence of the classical world on the quantum world - there are no particles. There is no ... there are only probabilities.

     You have to accept that the quantum world is strange: photons have no mass, but momentum. An electron in an atom has no angular momentum, but has angular momentum. And so on.

     And I will ask again - where is there a contradiction between quantum theory and the assumptions of special relativity?

292. Yehuda
     You are right that the concepts are a little unclear. And what you wrote is of course true.
     two points:
     1. Drag depends on speed, and friction does not.

     2. Friction drag is a real concept in the aviation world. In airplanes, a distinction is made between shape drag, which increases with speed, and induced drag, which decreases with speed. A corollary to this is that each aircraft has an intermediate speed where the total drag is minimal. If I want to stay in the air as long as possible - I will fly at this speed. Another interesting result is that in fighter planes the landing speed is lower than this speed, so when landing the engines are at about 80%. In a forced landing - the speed is almost twice as high as the normal landing speed!

     Frictional drag is "bad" drag, which really comes from the friction of the plane's shell with the air. This is why they try to smooth the shell.

293. Feynman used the term resistance to motion.

     "You claim that information passes between the particles."

     I argue that they influence each other. Does anyone here disagree?

     Does information pass? In my opinion yes, they not only influence each other, they influence in a very specific way: particle A receives the quantum state of particle B, or vice versa.

     According to Wiki, the paradox is how does the particle "know" what state to get? know, from the root of knowledge, from which information is derived.

     Does it matter? Not really. If we accepted the assumption that the particles affect each other in zero time, then that is enough for me.

     And this is in contrast to what was implied in my opinion from arguments that were made here at the time: gloves that were separated, notes with numbers that were exchanged, etc. Because in these cases the results of one measurement did not affect the results of another measurement. So what is the relevance?

     According to Wiki, an impact at a speed higher than light contradicts special relativity.

     And by the way: air molecules can reach much higher speeds than sound, but information - sound - travels only at the speed of sound in the same medium, air in our case.

294. For miracles Israel and others
     I saw no point in joining the struggle going on here between the commenters, but sometimes words of wisdom are said here, and it is impossible not to intervene.
     For example, I had to find out what is the stubbornness of Nissim in using "drag" instead of friction. As you understand, that's exactly what Wikipedia is for, below are quotes:-
     Drag - in fluid mechanics, the drag force is the force that opposes the movement of a body moving in a flow (liquid or gas). Mathematically, it is the composition of the efforts exerted on the body in the opposite direction to the relative speed of the body in relation to the flow.[1]
     Friction - in mechanics, friction is a force that acts in the contact area of ​​two bodies that are in contact with each other, and acts in a way that opposes the relative movement between the bodies, or the tendency to such movement.
     Conclusion: The owner of miracles is right about the correctness of the drag. but…. As an example for the concept of friction, in Wikipedia they brought precisely the meteors that move in the atmosphere:-
     Meteors burn up due to friction upon entering the Earth's atmosphere, because the work done by the force of friction is converted into heat.
     So apparently even in Wikipedia they are not exactly closed on the definition. And not only that, among all the types of towing they mentioned, there is of course also the concept of "friction towing"! Conclusion, there is no need to be strict about the drag, but... Nissim is right (at least this time)
     Regarding the attraction in elastic collisions, I agree that it will not exist if the mean free path is very small relative to the distance between the bodies because then the differences between the internal and external pushing impacts are meaningless, but in my opinion if the mean free path of the two pushing particles is large relative to the distance between the bodies here gravity will be created (in my opinion) and this I'm planning an experiment that will soon be done nowadays Amen!
     So please respond gently and perhaps it is advisable that you also write down the above miracle sentence. It seems to me that it sometimes helps
     Shabbat Shalom
     Yehuda

295. Israel.
     now I get it. When you say "friction" you mean drag. two different things. Let's leave it at that.

     Regarding gravity - we'll also leave, because it doesn't interest you.

     So let's talk about special relativity and entanglement.
     There are enough articles that claim that there is no contradiction between relativity and quantum theory - so there is no point in bringing an article that claims otherwise as an argument.

     You claim that information passes between the particles. Let's start with the fact that it is clearly not "information" in the usual sense of the word.
     The transition speed is infinite, so there must be something very strange here.
     If I measure every single particle - you, who is next to the other particle - you will not know about it.
     Let's say that information has been transferred. Does it follow that one of the assumptions of relativity is incorrect? I think not.

296. "And where did Feynman talk about friction?"

     This was his main argument for rejecting the theory, the friction of the planets with the particles. See his lecture on this.

     "Non-locality does not contradict the theory of relativity".

     I didn't say contradicting, but Einstein according to Wiki said he also said.

     It definitely puts it to an unbearably difficult test since particles interact with it at time 0.

     "Do I have to find an article that says that? Should the article be longer than your article? Or maybe on better quality paper? And what if I bring you an article by physicists who have more publications?

     How exactly is it supposed to work?'

     Negative. This is your opinion and the opinion of others, this is my opinion and the opinion of others, many of them physicists as Scientific claims.

     That's what I've always said, it's a matter of opinion. Do you think a particle can be in two places at the same time? Give up! Does the universe split in every quantum event? Slamstick! Are there many dimensions and parallel universes? God forbid!

     In my opinion they just communicate at infinite speed and the story ends.

     "I explained to you why I think there is no contradiction. You did not refer to the content of my words.'

     Explain again.

     "Are you ready to stop the foul language? I didn't call anyone a liar. And I didn't threaten you.'

     Why did I call someone a liar? Did I threaten someone? Do you want me to show you how many people here curse me without provocation and call me a liar? Do you want me to show you all the places you start with me? Do you remember Moker? Stick with the dealer? Did you forget method?

     Can you show me once and for all that I go to personal lines first with you or with any other commenter?

     "I understand by "radiation in the entire spectrum" you mean photons."

     I told you several times that I don't know, just like I don't know what particles Lesage was talking about. I'm just saying that if there is radiation similar to electromagnetic radiation, i.e. whose speed is always constant relative to any body, then in an infinite spectrum Feynman's problem is solved.

     The point is that you don't need an infinite spectrum because most bodies move at relatively low speeds relative to each other, so in practice you only need a broad enough spectrum.

     And please, don't start with Israel demanding a description of the radiation and its nature. Don't know, don't know if it exists, nor am I particularly interested in it. This is Yoda's domain.

     I am interested in relativity and the contradiction that may exist with quanta.

297. Israel
     I understand by "radiation in the entire spectrum" you mean photons.
     If so, then we have a problem in that it requires an infinite amount of energy per unit volume.

     Beyond that - I see two more problems. The first is related to energy. Either the bodies will heat up from the radiation, or there is no gravity.

     The second problem is that the drag problem still exists. And drag is not friction.

     Now, if you're talking about particles moving through the entire range of speeds, then there's still the problem of infinite energy.

298. Israel
     And where did Feynman talk about friction?

     Nonlocality does not contradict relativity.

     Do I need to find an article that says this? Should the article be longer than your article? Or maybe on better quality paper? And what if I bring you an article by physicists who have more publications?

     How exactly is this supposed to work?

     I explained to you why I think there is no contradiction. You did not refer to the content of my things.

     Are you ready to stop the foul language? I didn't call anyone a liar. And I didn't threaten you.

299. What's up, grandson of Tamsah? Where did Lesage talk about friction? And do you see that radiation in the entire spectrum solves the Feynman friction problem, the main problem in the theory?

     And what about non-locality, not nearly collapsing private relativity? And if you believe not, then how is it that Scientific American says yes, that many physicists see it now and that the recognition of this has "entered the hallowed hall of physics"?

     Are Scientific American lying?

300. Israel
     OK

301. G

     Didn't we agree that you are releasing? What happened to peace and not goodbye?

     I told you not to enjoy the discussion, it's not pleasant when your mistakes are exposed for all to see.

     Since you mentioned Pesht and Drash, I'll tell you a secret: I really don't care what you think or write. In my opinion, you are just a troll, a common site parasite, and your whole purpose is to complain about commenters. If you don't believe me, show me one article where someone had a discussion with you (not just me), and show me one comment of yours that doesn't start with a disparaging statement towards the commenter.

     And I'll give you a hint: come on, instead of writing LOL, if something is not clear to you then just ask. This will make you perhaps less ridiculous in the eyes of the commenters.

     Miracles

     Let's not start a discussion about God, this is another diversion from the topic and attention to minor details. I didn't write that God is a simple thing, I wrote that he is a simple solution. Do you understand the difference? Isn't it a simple solution?

     I agreed with you that elastic collisions do not create gravity. I said that regarding radiation I am not closed. But radiation in all spectra solves the main problem in Lesage: Feynman friction.

     You said Sage talked about friction, so where's the quote I asked for?

     And please don't preach to me about respectable language. You are the one who goes to personal elements first. Talk about science - you will get science. Open here, grab back.

302. Israel
     I can't explain to you what I mean. To say that "God" did everything is really a simple statement. But, it does not follow that "God" is a simple thing.

     on wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation:

     It says "Le Sage argued that no gravitational force would arise if the matter-particle-collisions are perfectly elastic."

     I'm not the one who has to prove that lasers don't create attraction between mirrors. And yet - I proved it.

     Israel - when you make a claim, you are the one who has to explain its correctness. Cherry-picking mockery and foul language is not an acceptable way of proof. I have already asked you to try to conduct a discussion in a respectful manner.

303. I will show you what it means to be smart.

     Israel:
     When have you ever turned to you?

     G:
     Today at 13:59 Israel time you addressed me with the following words:
     "
     G

     Your comments are irrelevant, you will take care of the commenters.."

304. First of all, thank you Israel. I'm glad I was able to get it out of you, too bad it was so hard. It was easy to say that right away!

     But as I guessed, this is simply cleverness, a reference to simplicity and not to demand. You said that I do not quote any scientist in response to the miracles he wrote to you, and I quote Nissim:
     I understand, the method is to quote scientists who fit what we are trying to push.

     What do you think? Shannisim got confused and thought you were taking things literally when you write: According to Wiki? Is his complaint about you taking things literally?

     Reading Comprehension: Nissim meant that you select with tweezers statements of scientists that are consistent with a topic you want to promote and brings them. And he wrote in short: quoting. The way you present the scientist's statement: quote, link, paraphrase or modern dance is not important at all in the claim of miracles.

     The point is this; If you understand Hebrew so well to get down on others - I'm sure you also understood what Nissim meant. And to say that I am not quoting any scientists is simply cleverness and evading the claim of miracles. If it is so principled for you to correct Nissim, you could write: This is not a quote, this is bringing Einstein's claim from Wiki. But then you have to refer to the argument of miracles. For example: You could say: Yes! What's wrong with Einstein thinking like me?

     Instead you made yourself to say that Nissim is not right about anything. Wow, beautiful.

305. Settle down, rely on Sahbak, settle down.

     "Please don't contact me and don't mention my name."

     lol.. are you talking about a good joke? When have I ever turned to you? When has anyone ever approached you?

     And for the forum for those who are interested, from Wiki:

     "A quotation (or quote) is a combination of a passage published in another work, as written and worded."

     And from the introduction of G. the linguist:

     "Einstein's right to disagree with you, as he did in the APR article. He actually says that non-locality in quantum entanglement does create a serious problem for special relativity, at least according to Wiki.'

     It is therefore clear that there is no citation here because not only did I not quote Einstein's words as written and in their language, I even stated that this is what Wiki says.

     Let's hope this is the end of it.

306. Hello and goodbye Israel.

307. Or Israel, Israel. If you are not evasive, then answer the question I originally asked, and since then you have cursed me and claimed that I do not know Hebrew, and now you are trying to pass the question to me.. come on.

     How do 1 and 3 fit together? I asked first. How do 1 and 3 fit together??

308. closed.

     But it won't be like the last time you wished me luck, we hoped we got rid of you, and then you came back.

     Goodbye and Goodbye.

309. Israel, I'm not interested in talking to you either. Please don't contact me and don't mention my name.

310. I've already asked you twice:

     What does not fit between 1 and 3?

     After all, this nonsense enters the discussion, doesn't it?

     So if you are not a troll as you claim, answer the question.

311. If it bothers you that you are being bullied, then you should not curse and you should treat it matter-of-factly and not avoid.

     You could have avoided cursing. And if you are offended, it is also permissible to apologize for swearing. Leave me alone, apologize to Nisim.

     Nisim wrote a few hours ago:
     - Why does every discussion with you become a personal argument
     Is Nissim also a troll?

312. I do not open any of my comments with a condescending personal address to the commenter, and I do not respond to those who ask me not to respond to them, you do.

     So what doesn't fit between 1 and 3?

313. Israel, are you talking about arrogance? On trolleys? good joke..

314. I think I actually saw a factual response, so what doesn't fit between 1 and 3 Ben Yehuda?

315. G

     Your comments are irrelevant, you take care of commenters who are not interested in your comments, you are condescending and talkative who only comes to harass.

     In short, you are a troll.

     I politely ask you not to take care of me anymore. I'll let you have the last word followed by silence, or we'll have to ask my father to tell you to stop taking care of the responders.

316. At 12:38 Israel writes:

     Your right to disagree, and Einstein's right to disagree with you, as indeed he did in the APR article. He actually says that non-locality in quantum entanglement does create a serious problem for special relativity, at least according to Wiki.

     On the other hand, what does he already understand, it's all Einstein

     And 9 hours later in response to miracles:

     1. I am not quoting any scientist.

     2. I'm not trying to push anything.

     3. Einstein did not say that there is a contradiction between quantum theory and general relativity, but rather special.

317. Israel, so who here does not know Hebrew? As of today, I have proof that you don't even understand the imperative form of the construction of marvel.

318. OK

     overlap

319. Does not release until you say the magic word

320. And I told you that 1 and 3 on the face of it do agree.

     Let the readers decide.

     release?

321. I told you that 1 and 3 on the face of it do not match.
     Here's your take so far:
     - You need to know Hebrew
     – You are a babbling ignoramus
     – Why are you hiding behind Nick, tell me what your education is
     - Maybe you don't know Hebrew
     - You are none of my business
     - You will say why they don't settle down

     What do I say and what will I say.. for the readers to decide if you are serious or trying to avoid..

322. By the way honey:
     We still haven't seen a single substantive response from you~ You said you said. Big deal. So why didn't you list all my comments and prove that none of them are irrelevant? Maybe because they are matter-of-fact?

     And why are you cursing? Maybe you're cursing because I'm right and you can't handle it any other way?

     What to do sweetie, it's hard to deal with looks.

323. Israel, if you want me to release you, just ask politely... without calling me names.

324. "The fact that God solves everything does not mean that the solution is simple! You claim that God is a simple thing - explain why.'

     What is simpler than God? Everything that is not understood, then what did your deeds increase, so see and sanctify, miraculously from you do not investigate, and the matter is closed, isn't it?

     To say that the same particle is found in two points also closes the matter, but the puzzlement remains what are all the galaxies between the two points, but here too, miraculously do not demand from you..

     Why won't there be an attraction between 2 mirrors illuminated by lasers? And what friction was he talking about to Sage? Is it possible to quote or maybe like G it is enough to say and you don't need to substantiate?

325. "I commented that your points 1 and 3 on his face do not match."

     Note - Note. You can also comment that what Einstein says doesn't add up.

     So you noticed. Big deal. But you didn't explain why they don't settle down... maybe because you have no idea? Maybe because, as I commented, your Hebrew is bad?

     We still haven't seen one substantive response from you, maybe because you have nothing substantive to say on any subject?

     Why are you hiding behind a snooze nickname, you don't have a name? Here, I'm Israel Shapira, Yoda is Yehuda Sabdarmish, Nissim is Nissim Hadar, and you?

     Come tell us a little about yourself, what is your name, what is your education, what do you do, which institution did you run away from..

     Then maybe we'll be able to better understand why a babbling ignoramus like you allows himself to constantly take care of commenters who ask him to release them.

326. G
     Successfully…..

327. Israel
     The fact that God solves everything does not mean that the solution is simple! You claim that God is a simple thing - explain why.

     "If you shine lasers on nearly adjacent two-way mirrors from all directions in the entire spectrum of light, you will get attraction but no Feynman friction."

     If the mirrors are relatively close to the size of a photon (not that I understand what that means) then there is an attraction between the mirrors due to van der Waals forces, and if it is not in a vacuum - then due to air pressure.
     Otherwise - there is no attraction.

     La Sage described the issue of friction. Leave Feynman….

328. Israel, right now I'm having a lot of fun, so I'll continue a little more... First of all - if you have no intention of talking to me, why are you answering?

     I commented that your points 1 and 3 on his face do not match. It seems that you are not going to address it, and are trying to avoid it. Too bad.

     And by the way, get a demonstration of what it's like to talk to Israel: to understand why my responses are relevant, you need to understand Hebrew and physics.

329. Of course God is a simple solution. He solves everything, doesn't he?

     How we were created - the boss.

     What causes attraction between 2 bodies - the boss.

     Why are there lazy snoozers like G and his ilk here who never respond to comments but only to the responders - the boss (or maybe the devil).

     If you shine lasers on nearly adjacent two-way mirrors from all directions in the entire spectrum of light, you will get attraction but no Feynman friction.

     What have I become to you?

     G

     Can you show me one substantive comment of yours that isn't trying to come down on anyone here?

     Unfortunately, this isn't going to be a moment of wisdom, but a moment of typhology, and I don't think you're going to particularly enjoy it.

     You wrote "Then I would appreciate it if you would tell me specifically how points 1 and 3 fit together."

     Since I have no intention or commitment to talk to you and the rest of your friends in Hatamba, I would appreciate it if you could show me and the forum why points 1 and 3 do not match.

330. Israel, aha, you have to understand Hebrew! LOL. So I would love for you to tell me specifically how points 1 and 3 fit together because I have a feeling that this is going to be a moment of wisdom and it will be very enjoyable!

     Until then, a story about another intellectual: my eldest is entering the third grade. Yesterday his mother asked him several times if he wanted to come shopping with her and he did not respond. So she went out. Then he got upset that she left without him. I told him but she told you and you ignored! So he said very angrily: But I didn't say I didn't want to go!

331. Israel
     I did not understand. Do you reverse the words I wrote and then refer to them? What is it good for?

332. Israel
     How can you say that God is a simple solution?

     You say "radiation", but I don't understand what problem it solves. I don't know of any radiation that causes attraction between bodies.

333. "black guy"

     Obama?

     "There is a contradiction between general relativity and quantum theory."

     In private.

     "I don't understand why every discussion with you turns into a personal debate."

     Because you are starting a personal argument. Always. I can show you that in any discussion. You always deviate from science and move to personal intrigues (you try to sell, you try to market, this is your method..you..you..

     Try to talk only in a matter-of-fact way and not personally. Did you get it, brother-in-law of a bat?

     "You say that maybe gravity is some kind of radiation, but you're not ready to talk about it."

     Ready to talk about everything but you miss the point: it doesn't matter what the radiation is, just like it doesn't matter what the particles are and what the particles that make up the particles are made of. Pushing will work in any case - and none of those who tested it deny it - and radiation solves most of the problems of pushing and it doesn't matter what the radiation is.

     "They ask you what you mean, and you get angry."

     angry? Moa? Mildly amused, nothing more.

     "Maybe try to have a discussion? Make a claim, and be open to discussing the claim. What do I care what Newton thought about God??'

     I am open to a discussion on any claim, but let it be a serious discussion, not nonsense. When you are sent to bomb targets in Syria, try to focus in the briefing on the strategy and not on the history and origin of the explosives in the bombs.

     And if you didn't understand, God was presented as an even simpler solution than the solutions offered to the wonders of the universe - a particle in two places, multiple dimensions, multiple universes, etc.

334. Israel
     Black guy there is a contradiction between general relativity and quantum theory. You are right - I did not find a quote that Einstein saw this as a problem.

     I don't understand why every discussion with you turns into a personal argument. You say that maybe gravity is some kind of radiation, but you won't talk about it. They ask you what you mean, and you get angry.

     Maybe try to have a discussion? Make a claim, and be open to discussing the claim. What do I care what Newton thought about God??

335. Believe it or not G, not only does point 1 align with my 3, it even aligns with my point 3.

     But to understand this, you need to know physics.

     (also Hebrew).

336. How does point 1 fit your 3.. LOL..

337. "I understand. The method is to quote sentences from scientists that fit what we are trying to push.
     Einstein is right when he says that there is a contradiction between quantum theory and general relativity, but he is wrong when he favors the theory of relativity.

     And no - metal shavings do not prove that there are power lines. Read about it a bit… .”

     You are absolutely right, except for the following points:

     1. I am not quoting any scientist.

     2. I'm not trying to push anything.

     3. Einstein did not say that there is a contradiction between quantum theory and general relativity, but special relativity.

     4. No one said that sawdust proves that there are lines of force.

     But other than that, you're right about everything else. (in nothing).

338. Israel
     I understand. The method is to quote sentences from scientists that fit what we are trying to push.
     Einstein is right when he says that there is a contradiction between quantum theory and general relativity, but he is wrong when he favors the theory of relativity.

     And no - metal shavings do not prove that there are power lines. Read about it a bit… .

339. So why is she gone now?

340. "So let's conclude that gravity is radiation"

     You can also conclude that gravity is cheese, if you enjoy it.

     What I said is that if instead of particles we use radiation, you have solved most of the problems with pushing, mainly Feynman friction. What is really happening, only God knows.

     "Regarding the article that says that relations have a problem - I do not agree with it. The theory of relativity does not say that a situation of interweaving is not possible: there is no acceleration of mass to a speed above the speed of light, and there is no ability to influence the past.'

     Your right to disagree, and Einstein's right to disagree with you, as he did in the APR article. He actually says that non-locality in quantum entanglement does create a serious problem for special relativity, at least according to Wiki.

     On the other hand, what does he already understand, it's all Einstein..

     "I don't understand what you're trying to say - it's still the simplest explanation that works. So what if it's terribly complicated?'

     You're right, it's still the simplest explanation that works. Still.

     Newton's theory also worked great and still works in most cases. Not to mention Clesius and Ptolemy.

     "The Genesis stories are also taught in high school."

     Not in physics studies, the subject of our articles.

     "Freddy believed that power lines existed."

     Very likely, you even see them in iron filings near a magnet. What doesn't make sense?

     "Maxwell believed in the site."

     The Ether has been making a comeback in recent years, see Brian Green of the Universe, "The Return of the Ether".

341. Israel
     So let's conclude that gravity is radiation. We have solved all the problem now.

     Regarding the article that says that relations have a problem - I do not agree with it. The theory of relativity does not say that a state of interweaving is not possible: there is no acceleration of mass to a speed above the speed of light, and there is no ability to influence the past.

     I don't understand what you are trying to say - this is still the simplest explanation that works. So what if it's horribly complicated?

     The Genesis stories are also taught in school.

     Freddie believed that power lines existed.
     Maxwell believed the site.

     Study all three because all three have contributed a lot to science. More than that, all three provided important tools for understanding the world, and especially for engineering.

342. "So - or gravity is waves in a field... . gravitation? Or is it particles... what particles?"

     How do I or anyone know? And what does it matter? Even with electromagnetic radiation you may get attraction according to the principles of pushing, without the problems of pushing.

     "Quantum theory does not contradict special relativity. The "problem" is with general relativity."

     The title of the article I brought at the time was "A quantum threat to special relativity". You can disagree with him, but according to what is written there there is a serious problem with special relativity, and many physicists are beginning to understand this.

     "I didn't say the explanation was simple! I said it's the simplest explanation that works.'

     Praised be his name is simpler and works better than a particle that is in two different places at the same time, 10 dimensions to the universe, invisible heavy matter and diverging and multiple universes.

     "Newton, Freddie and Maxwell were wrong about physics. So it can be assumed that they were wrong about God as well.'

     The physics of the three are taught to this day in all schools and their names are engraved in marble in the pantheon of science. So maybe they're not so wrong, at least about the physics? And what are Farday and Maxwell's mistakes?

343. Israel
     All the radiations you described are particles/waves.
     So - or gravity is waves in a field... gravitation? Or is it particles... what particles?

     Quantum theory does not contradict special relativity. The "problem" is with general relativity.

     I didn't say the explanation was simple! I said it was the simplest explanation that worked.

     Newton, Freddie and Maxwell were wrong about physics. So it can be assumed that they were wrong about God as well.

344. disappeared

345. "I don't understand what radiation is."

     By electromagnetic radiation, or any other radiation. Alpha, in the cell..

     "It is clear that quantum theory and relativity do not get along. Has anyone claimed otherwise?”

     Amusing you say as you amused the Egyptian?

     And if you agree that they don't get along - and as I remember Quantum won - then what does that say about relativity?

     Additional dimensions and so on? In the meantime, this is "the simplest explanation that explains everything".

     How simple and how do you explain everything? What about the paragraph above, contradiction between quanta and relativity? Explains? And what is simple in a multidimensional universe where small particles are in several places at the same time without spatial separation?

     And if this explanation doesn't make you raise an eyebrow, then what's wrong with the simple explanation that explains everything that everything is in his word?

     To remind you, Newton Farday and Maxwell were not small doses at all, and their discoveries only strengthened the belief in them. Maybe geniuses of this magnitude see things that we mere mortals cannot see?

346. Israel
     I told you - I don't understand what radiation is. Particles or waves, or something third?

     It is clear that quantum theory and relativity do not get along. Has anyone claimed otherwise?

     Additional dimensions and so on? In the meantime, this is "the simplest explanation that explains everything".

     What could make someone think the universe is simple? The only reason I see - the inability to understand that the universe is complicated...

347. "Elastic collisions do not create gravity".

     agree. Regarding radiation - not closed.

     What about non-locality? Not endangering the relationship?

     And what about the explanations of additional dimensions curled up with immeasurable dark matter and the Torus universe? Not Hocus Pocus?

348. Israel
     I am very much in favor of a simple explanation. As long as it's not wrong.

     Yehuda's explanation is wrong: elastic collisions do not create gravity.

     And anyway it is - but to say that on the one hand the principle of conservation of momentum is true, and on the other hand "I don't see the conclusions arising from this principle" - is really insulting.

349. Miracles

     Who says scientists are stupid? I sure don't.

     On the other hand, see your explanations in many cases, which are also based on the scientific mainstream:

     "An electron is in two places at the same time, which explains non-locality".

     "Multidimensionality explains the finitude of the universe".

     "If we move in a straight line in space we will return to the same point".

     "The universe splits into many universes in every quantum event".

     "The universe is full of wondrous matter, heavy but invisible. But here in Israel you don't find a gram of it, even though it makes up most of the matter in the universe."

     Now, I'm not claiming that these explanations aren't true - how do I or anyone know - but they sure aren't intuitive or a "simple universe" agrees?

     So why, instead of getting complicated, don't we adopt the simple explanation, the one, of the one?

     As it is said: He is one, I am zero, together we are ten.

350. Israel
     When did I express an opinion about what scientists say? I just said I don't think most of them are dumb.

     I'm just referring to the things that certain people say here in the comments.

351. Yehuda
     Where did I write that scientists are not wrong?

     Regarding the principle of conservation of momentum - it seems to me that you do not understand what I am saying.
     1. The Earth loses momentum at a certain rate that we know.
     2. Momentum is added to the moon at a certain rate - and we also know this rate.
     3. These two rates are the same.
     4. There is a principle of conservation of momentum.

     This is my argument - why do you agree and why not?

352. Yehuda
     Where did I write that scientists are wrong?!?

353. To Israel
     Welcome!.
     Good night
     Yehuda

354. Israel is always here, Yoda.

     Nissim does not anger, only mildly amuses with his phantasmagoric belief that everything is perfect in the existing teachings and damn the facts. A bit reminiscent .. well never mind.

     You don't have to go far - just look at the title of the article:

     "The expansion rate of the universe is controversial - and we may need new physics"

     To see that there is no uniformity in the mainstream. A bit similar to the "quantum threat to special relativity" isn't it?

     But what do facts or logic have to do with ink.. ZA for miracles? The most fun is walking at the head of the crowd with torches in hands and righteous purity in eyes.

     No?

355. http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

     for miracles
     Where did you see that I oppose the law of conservation of momentum??, I object to the explanation he gives as if the moon is moving away because of the conservation of angular momentum.. You don't try to accuse me of plotting that I don't believe in the law of conservation of momentum. If you didn't understand, I'll give you an example:- My grandchildren walk away from the house to school every morning and again it's not because of the law of conservation of momentum. And if I state this then it means that I don't believe in the law of conservation of momentum?? And when Galileo opposed geocentrism then it was a sign that he did not believe in the law of conservation of momentum??,.The law of conservation of momentum exists. point. And in my opinion, he is not the one who determines the distance of the moon from the earth. Do you understand the difference?? Hopefully, because I'm not going to explain it to you again!
     You said the right thing at the end of your comment: - "There is no point in this discussion"
     But that shouldn't stop you from answering the other nonsense you stated in your last comments, that scientists are always infallible. It is clear that some of the scientists here were wrong and big. Stop being naive and believing in the victorious scientific honesty when all of scientific history proves the opposite. I would expect a person like you to question more what they "feed" him!
     What is more serious is from my experience and my intuition, I am sure that people like you do check and doubt, but they have (perhaps) a hidden pleasure in angering people like Sabdarmish or Israel. Just like that for fun!
     So that's it, it's over and done with
     Allowing you to respond not subtly because "there is no point in this discussion"!
     Israel, where are you??
     Yehuda

356. http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

     for miracles
     Where did you see that I oppose the law of conservation of momentum??, I object to the explanation he gives as if the moon is moving away because of the conservation of angular momentum.. You don't try to accuse me of plotting that I don't believe in the law of conservation of momentum. If you didn't understand, I'll give you an example:- My grandchildren walk away from the house to school every morning and again it's not because of the law of conservation of momentum. And if I state this then it means that I don't believe in the law of conservation of momentum?? And when Galileo opposed geocentrism then it was a sign that he did not believe in the law of conservation of momentum??,.The law of conservation of momentum exists. point. And in my opinion, he is not the one who determines the distance of the moon from the earth. Do you understand the difference?? Hopefully, because I'm not going to explain it to you again!
     You said the right thing at the end of your comment: - "There is no point in this discussion"
     But that shouldn't stop you from answering the other nonsense you stated in your last comments, that scientists are always infallible. It is clear that some of the scientists here were wrong and big. Stop being naive and believing in the victorious scientific honesty when all of scientific history proves the opposite. I would expect a person like you to question more what they "feed" him!
     What is more serious is from my experience and my intuition, I am sure that people like you do check and doubt, but they have (perhaps) a hidden pleasure in angering people like Sabdarmish or Israel. Just like that for fun!
     So that's it, it's over and done with
     Allowing you to respond not subtly because "there is no point in this discussion"!
     Israel, where are you??
     Yehuda
     http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

357. Yehuda
     NavStar satellites are at an altitude of 20 thousand km, which means that after 20 years they move away like the moon moves away in a year.
     this is not happening.

     I switched to these satellites - because I have no way to prove to you that DSCOVR is not moving away. Regarding the GPS I know for sure, and I explained how.

     Regarding the angular momentum: if your theory contradicts something as basic as the principle of conservation of angular momentum, then your theory has a very serious problem.
     And if you don't see it then there is no point in this discussion.

358. for miracles
     You asked about the DSCOVR satellite and then faster than the speed of light you zigzagged to the NavStar satellite (and by the way it would never rotate at an altitude of 20 km!) And regarding your endless question about angular momentum, my endless answer in Hebrew:-
     "Regarding the moon, the "principle of conservation of momentum" is not accepted for the purpose of calculating the distance." End quote.
     I have a feeling as if someone decides to pester me with trite questions. I don't want to start a discussion about GPS. The annual deviation due to the change in the speed of light for a distance of 300 km is a thousandth of a cm, the pressure difference in the atmosphere will require a larger daily light speed correction.
     So where is the evidence that contradicts my theory?, instead of excusing the dire situation in the measurements in the article you are trying to change the subject and confuse. And instead of understanding that scientists working under pressure sometimes say "inaccurate" things, you accuse me of nonsense.
     Show me one substantial piece of evidence that contradicts my theory?, I gave many options to prove a disproof, believe me Popper would have been proud of me.
     Good day miracles
     Yehuda
     http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

359. Yehuda
     What will? You won't get any evidence that contradicts your theory? 🙂

     This satellite is not at the Lagrange point - and you know it (if not... then you have something else to learn).

     NavStar satellites have existed for about 40 years and their orbit is about 20 km high. According to your calculation - some of them should have already moved away from us a considerable distance of a few centimeters. Now notice something you don't like - a bit of science: if that were the case, we'd get a systematic error in the GPS distances. That is, an error that is not due to stochastic noise.
     So how do you explain that this is not the case?

     I will ask again - and you will answer directly - do you reject the principle of conservation of angular momentum?

360. for miracles
     Regarding the moon, I do not accept the "principle of conservation of momentum" for the purpose of calculating the distance, and do not need it, for me, everything is well explained by Hubble's law.
     As for the DSCOVR satellite, it is located at a distance of one and a half million kilometers from the Earth, most likely at one of the Lagrange points. Usually these satellites are found with means of propulsion for appropriate determination in position. It doesn't seem to me that a check was made regarding the distance of a few dozen cm change per year. The satellite is not suitable for our eyes.
     Good night
     Yehuda
     http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

361. Yehuda
     DSCOVR satellite… read about it…

     In any case - I didn't understand your poor answer about the moon. I will ask again - do you accept or not the principle of conservation of momentum?"

362. for miracles
     Thanks for the correction and the reference to the source in the article that thinks about my/our conspiracy. Through the thought of the two different mourning constants, an interesting universe "throbbing, alive and kicking" is determined for us.
     I like miracles and I hope you do too.
     And regarding our moon, unfortunately, when I explain its distance according to the expansion of the Hubble (26 mm) and the change in the speed of light (12 mm), I have nothing (almost) left to explain the angular momentum.
     And regarding the "satellite that is in an orbit 4 times farther than the moon, and it is not moving away?" I have not heard of such a satellite and if it exists it should really move away four times, that is about 15 cm per year.
     Are you sure about the data you gave me??
     Good day miracles
     Yehuda
     http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

363. Yehuda
     You didn't answer me about the moon. I will ask again - are you claiming that the principle of conservation of angular momentum is incorrect?

     And if your explanation is correct - how do you explain that there is a satellite that is in an orbit 4 times farther than the moon, and it does not move away?

364. Yehuda
     I read the original article and you won't believe what it says!!

     Now it seems that this difficulty may be continuing as a result of two highly precise measurements...

     Is your response still "I do not accept your offer"? Maybe change it to "miracles, thank you for correcting me?"

365. Miracles
     I do not accept your suggestion that the measuring devices are very accurate, only that they have a deviation. I believe that the devices are accurate and that Woody does not have such a large deviation.
     And regarding the moon moving away from the earth, as soon as I decided that the universe is expanding both within the galaxies and within the solar system, I was interested in calculating the size of the expansion to the moon, about 26 mm, since the measured size is about 38 mm per year, I had to justify the difference in the change in the speed of light for a year.
     I have to mention miracles that it could be that both results in the article are correct, they are simply set for different times, but this is a conspiracy at all!!
     Good day miracles
     Yehuda

366. Yehuda
     Now - you mentioned the moving away of the moon. Are you actually claiming that the accepted explanation for the moon moving away (the law of conservation of angular momentum) is incorrect?

367. Yehuda

     According to the comparison to blueberries in a muffin cake, you can understand that the article was translated from English.

     And in English - there are two words that translate into Hebrew as "precise".

     One of them is precise. This word is translated into Hebrew as Deir. In a rough way - how many "accuracy digits" are there in the measurement.

     The second word is accurate. It means how close the measurement is to the true value.

     Let's say I have a stopwatch that measures in milliseconds, but the watch is behind by an hour a day. If I measure the fall of an apple from a shelf - I will get very high "accuracy", i.e. many digits, and if I perform the measurement repeatedly, I will get very close results.

     Now Judah has his own watch. The clock measures with a resolution of one second, but gives a very accurate time relatively (for example) to UTC time. He will also get an accurate time, but with a resolution of one second.

     So there is no contradiction here. There is a problem, yes, but it is not a contradiction.

368. L. A. Ben Ner
     Normally you are right. If the surveyors did not declare their level of accuracy, then the level of accuracy of about ten percent would be acceptable and appropriate, but, as soon as they declared the accuracy of their measurements, we reached a serious contradiction
     Here in the article the results are very accurate (+- half a kilometer per second to Mega Persec) and after I calculated and updated the various measurements that appear in the article then the results are (in units of km per second to Mega Persec)
     The first 66.9 to 67.9
     and the second 72.9 to 73.9
     That means there is always a difference of at least 5 km per second per mega-persec between the two "accurate" measurements!
     That's the problem!
     Good Day
     Yehuda
     http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

369. Why don't we assume the big bang is a local event. And outside the "bubble" that was created in its wake, there is another substance that pulls out.

370. Dear Yossi
     I could not define the situation in a better way than the way you explained the gravitational reality!. In my opinion, science needs a new explanation of the phenomena of attraction in the enormous ranges of the galaxies and the universe. It is not possible for properties (such as gravitation) determined in an area of ​​a thousand light years and less (our inner solar system) to determine the state and properties at distances of billions and trillions of times!. It's like determining the characteristics of the roads in the State of Israel based on the characteristics of a square centimeter in my yard. It's ridiculous and lame. I also liked the comparison of mass and dark energy to epicycles.
     I would be happy if you would come to my blog and express your opinion.
     All good and a good week
     Yehuda
     http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

371. Dear Friends. Don't you see that this article "plays with your mind"?
     A]. However, the difference between the results of the reported measurements is only about 8.3% - 9.4%. Anyone who has ever done a physics lab surely remembers that an inaccuracy of up to 10% is considered more or less accurate, for two reasons:
     The one reason - measurement inaccuracies.
     The second reason - possible inaccuracies in the theory. In any theory (!)
     B]. Just less than a month ago, an article was published here on the website offering a new and accurate method for measuring the cosmological constant, by measuring gravitational waves and HM radiation. which will be recorded and measured from the merger of a black hole and a neutron star. This method is expected, according to the theory, to provide a more accurate measurement result than the measurement methods used so far.
     third]. Therefore it is clear that, as accurate as the methods used today are, they are not the most accurate possible. You have to be patient and wait another two, three, four, five years... for the results of the new measurements.
     D]. Therefore we will all be blessed with the traditional blessing: be patient

372. Dear friends, we are playing tricks on you here.
     A]. After all, the whole difference between the reported measurements is between about 8.3% and about 9.4%.
     Anyone who has ever done a physics lab knows that an error of up to 10% (+-), is an acceptable error, for two reasons;
     The one reason - errors in measurement.
     The second reason - a certain inaccuracy that is possible and exists in the theory. In any theory (!)
     That is to say, the inaccuracy that exists today, in the measurement of the cosmological constant, not only does not challenge the theory but even strengthens it due to the relatively small rate of inaccuracy between the different measurement methods.
     B]. Just less than a month ago, an article was published here on the website, offering a new measurement method, more accurate than the two that exist today. It is likely that within a few years, when the proposed experiment of measuring gravitational waves and AM radiation waves resulting from the merger of a black hole and a neutron star is carried out, a more accurate result of the cosmological constant will be obtained.
     third]. And I will end with the traditional greeting: "Fuck each other with patience". There is simply no other choice

     D]. The link to the article
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/gravitational-waves-reveal-fast-universe-expanding-1507187

373. Little by little the cracks widen. As Thomas Kuhn claims in his monumental book - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, at first the scientific paradigm defends itself and proposes epicycles (dark matter, dark energy, etc.) and finally the time comes for a scientific revolution. The time of general relativity is coming. Science needs a new theory of gravity that will explain the gap between the observation and the theoretical prediction without adding 80 percent of dark matter which is not explained in any way by the standard model of matter.

374. The determination of the distance of the galaxies should be on the timeline and not in the present
     Because the resulting picture is from the past to the present

     Which basically means that the universe is slowing down

375. for miracles
     How do you, as a person who believes almost blindly in the "accurate" measurements made by scientists, and is angry at every faint doubt I cast??, how will you explain the strange result of two different results of the Hubble constant made by "very, very precise scientists" ?? You may realize that there is a strong psychological desire to claim that the measurements are very accurate even though this is not the case. I didn't say that the scientists are lying, God forbid, just a psychological wish. And by the way, the surveyors have two mistakes, the permission, that they do not agree that the propagation of the Hubble also exists within the galaxies and this is a source of error. And of course I also claimed that there is movement of galaxies to low pressure areas!
     In my theory I argued that the expansion of the universe is also taking place inside our galaxy and even in the vicinity of the earth, and what will be the result? Well, several things happen as a result of the expansion:-
     A. Bodies lose their weight as a result of expansion and it is easy to measure this, you just have to dare. Then under laboratory conditions a kg will be lost per year (estimated) about 0.423 micrograms per kg per year and accordingly to reach the mourning constant. Article number 65 on my blog.
     B. It is also possible to find the Hubble constant according to the speed of the moon's distance from the earth. Article 50 on my blog,
     third. And it is possible according to the variation of the "constant" speed of light, article 45 in my blog.
     Maybe the principles and assumptions I use will not be acceptable to you miracles, and maybe also to most other readers, but miracles the results speak!
     The result I got from all the above articles is pretty much the same - Hubble's constant is 70 km per second per mega-persec when the measurement error is 2 km per second, less than three percent.
     You just have to take the initiative and measure on Earth with a weighing device, a Lego device or the data of the moon's distance.
     There is no need to measure galaxies and their random motion at all. measurement which is extremely difficult.
     Of course, I would like to respond gently to this response.
     And please don't dismiss things outright because maybe I'm right.
     good week
     Sabdarmish Yehuda
     http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.