Astronomers taking pictures with the Hubble Space Telescope and the European Space Agency's Very Large Telescope (VLT) were able to look back in time at a galaxy as it looked when the universe was 600 million years old
Astronomers taking pictures with the Hubble Space Telescope and the European Space Agency's Very Large Telescope (VLT) were able to look back in time and discover the most distant galaxy to date. "We are observing a galaxy that existed when the universe was only 600 million years old, meaning it is 13.1 billion light-years away from us," says Dr. Matt Lennert of the Paris Observatory, lead author of an article that appeared this week in the journal Nature.
"The conditions then were completely different than today. The basic picture we discovered is that in that era the universe went from a neutral state to an ionized state. Lenhart and members of the international team led by him used the VLT to make several follow-up observations of the galaxy known as UDFy-38135539 that was discovered in 2009 by the Hubble observations. The astronomers analyzed the very pale light coming from the galaxy to measure its distance and age. This is the first confirmed observation of a galaxy that emerged from the reionization of the universe (reionization).
The Reunion Center is the most distant object in time that astronomers can observe. The Big Bang created a hot and dark universe 13.7 billion years ago. About 400 years later, the temperature dropped, the electrons and protons fused together to form neutral hydrogen, and the fog cleared. A little over a billion years after the Big Bang, the neutral hydrogen began to form stars in the first galaxies, which radiated energy and changed the hydrogen back into an ionized state. Although the era of the plasma soup did not return, the formation of galaxies began the process of reionization, clearing the hydrogen fog that filled the universe in that early period.
"Most of the history of the universe is from the post-reunion period," Lennart said during an online press conference. "The dark matter that filled the universe began to pull in the gas and dust and created the first galaxies, when the galaxies began to form they repopulated the universe."
UDFy-38135539 is about 100 million light-years away, even further than the most distant object observed so far - a gamma-ray burst. Studying these first galaxies is particularly difficult, Lannert says, because their dim light is mainly in the infrared region of the spectrum due to the fact that its wavelength has been stretched by the expansion of the universe - a process known as redshift. During the period of less than a billion years after the Big Bang, the hydrogen nebula swallowed all the infrared light from these galaxies.
Hubble's new Planetary Camera - Planetary Camera #3 discovered several candidate objects in 2009, and through a 16-hour observation at the VLT, the team was able to locate the pale glow from hydrogen at a redshift of 8.6. The team used the VLT's SINFONI infrared spectroscopy instrument and an extremely long exposure time.
"Measuring the redshift of most ancient galaxies is exciting in itself." said co-author of the paper Nicole Nsoavdeva of the Institute for Astrophysics Spatiale. "However, the astrophysical implications of this discovery are even more important. This is the first time we know for sure that we are looking at one of the first galaxies that dispersed the fog that filled the very early universe."
One of the surprising things about the discovery is that the glow from the galaxy doesn't seem strong enough to disperse the haze on its own. "It is possible that other galaxies, almost certainly paler and less massive, that accompanied UDFy-38135539 helped to disperse the fog, says another co-author of the article, Mark Swinback from Durham University in the USA. "This also helped make the space around the galaxy transparent. Without this extra assistance, the light from the galaxy, no matter how bright it was, would be trapped in the surrounding hydrogen nebula and we wouldn't be able to discern it."
233 תגובות
I agree thanks. I found one of the links from there particularly interesting:
http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/132
Thank you Meir. The appeal to the matter, without a doubt.
I will study the writer and the written a bit, and hope I can send them the question soon.
When I'm done with this issue, maybe we can go back to inertia. I could not see any flaw in your idea, but it is still not clear to me how Shime was able to derive the inertia in such a clear and mathematical way from Mach's principle, if there is no absolute truth in this.
On the other hand, Maxwell also determined the speed of light in a clear and mathematical way from hydrodynamic considerations, and Einstein, the world, and everyone here claim that he succeeded by chance, so anything can be.
We will wait for them to come, and good luck.
I don't think a temp watch is practical in terms of their location and the effects of the environment on them.
Measuring the microwaves (cosmic background radiation) is much more applicable.
Israel,
Regarding the temperature clock, perhaps Gerard Milburn is a suitable address for questions
http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/164
I don't remember pushing myself or grabbing anything during the discussion, except star flu.
I answered your last comments because they were to the point. It seems to me that you are now returning to personal papers. Since I have no interest in that, I'll leave you to argue with Ruby.
Israel,
I cannot speak for others. I can only tell you why I withdrew from the discussion at an early stage. The article discusses dark matter and I tried to develop a discussion about my conceptions of the metaphysics of the subject of the article. You pushed yourself into a discussion with an "active website" and then hijacked the entire discussion. I tried to answer your questions in terms of my definition of dark matter, but then it turned out that you have an orderly variant based on existing models, in which dark matter plays no role, and that you are not at all interested in metaphysics.
There are contradictions between the different models, and in order to clarify them it is necessary to enter the deep layers shared by the conflicting models. But you adamantly refuse to wring your hands with what you call "philosophical ideas". You entered into a long and exhausting duel regarding the lengthening of time without understanding at all what time is. I tried to convince you that time is not something to be taken for granted, but you refused to consider it.
You estimate, "almost without a doubt", that you have a "colossal" mistake regarding the website model. If you do have a mistake, which I don't think is at all certain, the surest way to check is to go to the root of things. Your real mistake, in my opinion, is your refusal to do so.
Israel, it's good that you wrote a contemporary theory.
It's a matter of definition and order.
The topic is suitable for the Seder of Passover...
Ruby
According to the current theory, at every point in the past the entropy was lower, even an hour after the bang, a million years and a billion. The universe today that seems so orderly is much messier than the relatively orderly structure of public hydrogen and helium that existed after the big bang.
jubilee.
First - I have almost no doubt that I have some kind of colossal mistake regarding the website model.
The reason is simple: I claim that I cannot see how Michelson could have succeeded in his experiment.
Because what was Michaelson looking for? the resting system of the site.
But if he found it, where is the homogeneity? Why this one?
This logic is so simple and self-evident to me that I cannot believe that scientists of the caliber of Maxwell and Lorentz missed it. There must be an explanation that I just don't know.
On the other hand, I have asked the same question here on the site several times and have not received any answer. ZA they either did not respond, or did not hear of an explanation. But it's clear that there isn't something obvious that I just missed (do you see something like that?).
And hence my explanation: if we take the idea of the ether and the electromagnetic waves in it as air and sound waves in it, then the air always has a reference system relative to which it rests (as in our case, an airplane in case you fly).
But in an open system like the universe, and certainly according to the picture of the universe in 1861 of an infinite universe, it is impossible to limit the velocities of the molecules and relate them to some kind of rest system, and this is because of the principle of homogeneity.
Therefore, the molecules will move at all possible speeds, they will become "transparent" at certain speeds because of the principle of the ballistic pendulum, waves that pass through them will move at all speeds, but we can only measure them at one speed (the speed of light in our case).
And the amazing thing is that it quite fits with what we know about the property of light, whose speed is the same for every measurer, allows for the possibility of non-locality, and explains the Wheeler experiment of the delayed choice, and this without the need for the assumption that the past can be influenced from the future, which is the accepted theory in quantum mechanics today.
The expansion of this idea can shed light on other things, for example the solution of the friction problem by Lesage and an explanation of the essence of inertia. But that's another discussion. We are currently in Gemini.
But there is a conflict of this idea with the lengthening of time, hence the discussion with R.H.
Israel, I am not talking about the beginning of the universe where everything was concentrated in a small point (absolute order) but after the big bang, when there was only pure energy, the crystallization of the subatomic particles, the hydrogen atom, helium and heavier atoms. After the formation of matter and galaxies, the familiar entropy process begins.
It seems that there is precisely an inverse entropy process of creating order here. Something like an entropic pendulum...
Israel,
First, I didn't quite understand what you wanted to say between "I'm not sure you correctly understood Ockham or the scientific method" and "and we're getting to landing an unmanned spacecraft on Mars", but on the face of it, it doesn't seem really important to me. Ockham's Razor, as I understand it, is a tool for making decisions, a sort of "rule of thumb" and nothing more. Your autostrada model is very beautiful, but if an explanation is found for the results of an experiment that assumes fewer assumptions, the opinion suggests that autostrada because of a simple explanation will be removed.
By the way, I remembered that I actually did study Maxwell: in the Air Force, at the Hebrew University and also this year as part of applied mathematics. Sorry I misled you.
In the question I raised about the possible contradiction between the two models, I actually meant to ask how it is that Maxwell determined only one final velocity while Shapiro found an infinite number of them. In connection with this, it is also interesting how Maxwell would have solved the mystery of the m-m experiment.
Before we continue, it is important for me to emphasize that I identify with the saphiraic intuition. In fact, there is something about the infinity of light speeds in your model that resembles the definition of time in my model.
If you have already addressed this question in the past, I will be content with the link.
Ruby
The universe did not start from a state of total disorder. On the contrary, according to the big bang theory, its initial state was very orderly.
Ruby,
If you have seen my correspondence with Israel, then you understand that I do not know any models - not even the entropy model. Please tell us when the universe was in a state of complete disorder, when it "sorted out" and when it returned to disorder
Unable to forward comments. Apparently WordPress immediately understands that when I write Michaelson I mean Michael, and immediately associates it with the explicit name.
from the waiting room
And regarding your question: the freeway model is simply the Maxwell model for an open system.
A closed system is a system like your room, where the air is at rest relative to the room, or relative to the flying air, or relative to the air. A sound wave that moves through the air in such a system will have a constant speed (the speed of sound) relative to that reference system (the room, the air, etc.).
But what will happen to such a wave in an open system like our universe? Relative to what he will advance? (After all, this is exactly what experiment M-M tried to find).
My answer is that in an open system the wave will advance at all speeds, because in an open system the air molecules will move at all speeds, from 0 to infinity. But we as measurers can only measure one speed: the speed of sound relative to us.
Replace air molecules with Lesage particles, the speed of sound with the speed of light, see the detailed explanation I gave in the previous article why I think this is necessary, and here is the freeway model.
And another thing that emerges from the description of the open system: how could the MM experiment ever succeed? If the universe is infinite isotropic and homogeneous, isn't finding a rest system for the site equivalent to finding the center of an infinite straight line, which is also infinite isotropic and homogeneous?
It was said that Michelson would have found it, and that it was moving relative to us at a speed of 4576 km/s towards Andromeda. So why this one? What about homogeneity? Isn't this equivalent to finding the center of the infinite straight line as being 4576 km away from us in the positive direction of the X-axis?
Until the patiently waiting Lizovsky is released, I will explain my intention.
As you already understand, I have no intention of going into the depth of the models right now, but only to examine their consistency. Maxwell's ether is made of elaborate particles (which raise heavy Ockhamian sufficiency in me, but it is a travesty). Shapira's site is also not simple at all. Since you seem like a follower of Maxwell, I assume you accept his site without question and just add features to it to fit your model as well. And my current question is whether Maxwell does not contradict Shapiro.
The response is pending
We returned from the mountains.
It's pretty easy when your house is in the mountains. You just open the door, and there, mountains.
Ruby
The universe did not start from a state of total disorder. On the contrary, according to the big bang theory, its initial state was very orderly.
jubilee.
I'm not sure you have understood Ockham or the scientific method correctly.
Take geometry for example. Its axioms are simple and basic, but you can use them to build more and more complex sentences, and arrive at complicated calculations that, if you didn't learn how they were arrived at, you would think that nature couldn't have built such a complicated thing by itself (why is the volume of the pyramid the product of the area multiplied by the height divided by 3? Where did it come from Suddenly the 3?).
Physics develops in a similar way: from the simple to the complex.
A good example is the subject before us: sine waves. Seemingly a very complex thing: a wave that propagates in space and time in a very complicated way. The equation that describes the propagation of sine waves is an equation of several variables, of time and space. Yabrady, what a mess! Could it be that nature has organized such a complicated thing, or maybe the whole story exists only in the fevered minds of deranged physicists?
However, if we freeze the sine wave in two dimensions moving forward in time - by photographing such a wave in a wire - we will see the sine wave in all its glory. Thus we neutralized the time factor.
Now what will happen if we fly over the wave and take a video of it? The wave will appear to us as a simple harmonic motion. Thus we neutralized the distance factor.
But what about simple harmonic motion? It's also quite complicated, isn't it? How did simple nature create such a complicated thing?
So this is it, if we take a rotating wheel, and take a video of the light projection of a certain point in the wheel on the table, we will get a simple harmonic motion.
And that's how we got from a three-dimensional sine wave moving through space as a function of three dimensions of space + the dimension of time, to the lid of a Nescafe can that can be rotated on the table.
And the same with the mathematical treatment of the wave: simply cut out the complicated wave partially, until you reach sixth grade algebra.
That's how all physics is built. We start with F=MA, and arrive at the landing of an unmanned spacecraft on Mars.
And regarding your question: the freeway model is simply the Maxwell model for an open system.
A closed system is a system like your room, where the air is at rest relative to the room, or relative to the flying air, or relative to the air. A sound wave that moves through the air in such a system will have a constant speed (the speed of sound) relative to that reference system (the room, the air, etc.).
But what will happen to such a wave in an open system like our universe? Relative to what he will advance? (After all, this is exactly what experiment M-M tried to find).
My answer is that in an open system the wave will advance at all speeds, because in an open system the air molecules will move at all speeds, from 0 to infinity. But we as measurers can only measure one speed: the speed of sound relative to us.
Replace air molecules with Lesage particles, the speed of sound with the speed of light, see the detailed explanation I gave in the previous article why I think this is necessary, and here is the freeway model.
And another thing that emerges from the description of the open system: how could the MM experiment ever succeed? If the universe is infinite isotropic and homogeneous, isn't finding a rest system for the site equivalent to finding the center of an infinite straight line, which is also infinite isotropic and homogeneous?
It was said that Michelson would have found it, and that it was moving relative to us at a speed of 4576 km/s towards Andromeda. So why this one? What about homogeneity? Isn't this equivalent to finding the center of the infinite straight line as being 4576 km away from us in the positive direction of the X-axis?
What strange questions! After all, I've already told you that I don't know any scientific models, so how would I know this type of model you're talking about? Could you, instead of referring to "self-study" links, tell your readers in brief what it is about?
And I've never heard William of Ockham recommend early study before speaking. As far as I understand, the opposite is true. The less you know in advance, the better.
But since you asked about Maxwell and Shapiro, are these two models compatible with each other? (I'm asking this seriously)
As for the entropy,
How did the universe go from a state of complete disorder to an "orderly" state and then return to a state of disorder again?
Regarding Ockham, I believe that if there are several good explanations for a certain phenomenon, the natural choice is simply the one that requires as few preliminary assumptions as possible.
Regarding your answer about your lack of orientation in the topics discussed: I referred you to the Maxwell model, the freeway model appears in the previous article, and the existing physical models can be studied in recognized academic settings or through self-study.
A question that stems from your answer "I have no idea in any of them."
Isn't it better to know what you are talking about before you talk? Isn't that what Ockham would recommend?
For example: Do you know any model that can predict what the speed of light will be from the constants of electricity and magnetism other than Maxwell's ether model?
Mountains, my heart.
No. I have no idea about any of them. Would it be useful to enlighten my eyes?
But before that, let's have a preliminary discussion about Ockham's Razor. For example, how relevant is its importance to the decision of which model to choose from a number of given models.
jubilee.
A few questions regarding your last response.
1. Do you know and understand Maxwell's website model?
2. Do you know and understand the autostrada model?
3. Do you know and understand the existing physical models as accepted by the mainstream in physics?
Succeeded him, Maxwell. Look at how many preliminary assumptions he placed on top of each other - spheres, currents, vortices, idler wheels, sine waves perpendicular to each other (only the latter were taken from physical observations that were already known), and Ockham didn't make a sound or a peep. Likewise, your autostrada model has a chance to be in the crowd, provided it proves excellence in something.
I, unlike you Shapira and Maxwell, do not like to get involved with William's hair, and prefer a model that presupposes as little as possible. Maybe it's just a question of style. After all, we are all mortal and we all follow changing fashions.
R.H.
"If there is nothing, what will they attack? If there is something to attack then it can be a reference system."
Not really. They can coordinate the clocks even without any additional system. Its addition is for illustrative purposes only. According to Einstein, the clocks cannot be synchronized by means whose speed is faster than light. Using temp clocks the synchronization is immediate.
"In every spaceship there is an observer who watches what happens with that watch"
As soon as the viewer looks at another system, it is synchronization using light rays. All the previous problems, including the lengthening of times, will re-emerge if we use such synchronization.
Brief history of thermodynamics:
It came to give a comprehensive explanation and description to the questions that arose due to the construction of machines such as a steam engine, and to give an answer to the question of whether it is possible to build a leading Perpetum (no).
Brief history of psychomechanics:
It follows the successful application of existing technologies to psychological measures. The requested name was "psychotechnology" but the domain with that name was taken, so I changed it to psychomechanics.
The question was whether the technology could be applied to a large number of details. It turns out that problems emerge that are very similar to the problems that exist in thermodynamics, with the entropy problem at the top.
This is where the idea for the second law plots came from.
I noticed the similarity between psychomechanics and psychohistory a few months after I wrote the story. (By the way, where is the second law mentioned in psychohistory? Is there any detail on how it works exactly?)
And that's more or less what I'm interested in discussing about psychomechanics. Whoever wants to believe in something else - let him be blessed.
Regarding the speed of light:
This is exactly the most amazing thing about Maxwell's ether theory: it is a completely hydrodynamic and mechanical theory, which makes assumptions that look like fragments from the world of fairy tales (a vacuum full of spheres, currents, vortices, idler wheels, sine waves that are perpendicular to each other) but it succeeds with this model, Which sounds completely delusional, to derive Maxwell's differential equations, and no less important, equation 136.
And to that I ask: Did he succeed just like that? Calculation of the speed of light from a hydrodynamic model that assumes the ether behaves like a liquid? How can you abandon such a successful model?
And regarding the MM experiment: I believe that my autostrada model explains it quite well.
And believe that the freeway model is quite bound by the idea of absolute time, as shown by the clocks of the receding galaxies.
R. H.,
Even if he swears that he did not copy from Asimov, it seems to me that Asimov A.H. is now busy in other worlds and I would be very surprised if he bothered to be interested in the things that Y. XNUMX* writes. Although the great similarity between the two paragraphs does not leave much room for doubt, different physical models, such as the viscosity model of a liquid or the kinetic model of gas and the like, are a good approximation to sociological models. Lately I've been pointing out in my comments (click on my name) a YouTube video that illustrates this.
*Who is YZ and why do I mention him here?
Israel,
If there is nothing, what will they attack? If there is something to attack then it can be a reference system.
And you know what, we'll stream with you on your Tizenbee too. Spacecraft 18 stops. Takes out a cesium watch that shows 1000 and starts counting down.
Everyone is going wild in the amusement park, but in every spaceship there is an observer who watches what happens with that watch.
5, 4, 3, 2, 1, fire!!!
I don't know if you copied it or not, but the passage:
"Especially interesting was a group that called itself the "psychomechanics group". Its founder, who was known only as "the man of psychomechanics", claimed that human systems, which include a large number of individuals, behave approximately as thermodynamic systems. Just as there is no practical possibility to calculate the behavior of a single molecule but only the behavior of many millions of molecules, so psychomechanics does not deal with individual people but with large communities such as countries or continents"
Really reminded me of:
Psychohistory (Wikipedia): The science of psychohistory occupies an important part in the universe of the book series. The brainchild of Asimov, it is a branch of mathematics that deals with the statistical responses of a large group of people as a response to certain stimuli and under certain conditions, and is actually supposed to predict future sociological processes. According to the books, Harry Seldon used the kinetic theory of gases as a model for the development of psychohistory and established a number of basic laws for it.
That's why I wrote what I wrote.
The conclusion that light travels at all speeds (at least in some range) can be an attempt to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, it raises a number of new problematic questions. One immediate question concerns the nature and structure of the conducting medium: in this explanation, the ether is no longer just a collection of primitive particles, but each particle is a complex and sophisticated entity capable of changing the speed of conduction; On the other hand, if the ether particles are not sophisticated and complex, then there is a large (infinite) number of types of ether particles. Either way, there are many assumptions here that we try to avoid and its ilk. Another question is how it is that the interference image in the experiment is copied with exacting precision at every speed of light. I do not conclude from this that this explanation is incorrect, but I say that whoever proposes this model should answer at least some of the questions that arise.
R.H. Waiting from Amol.
And I copied from Asimov about as much as Yuval copied from Maxwell.
R.H.
From the Encyclopedia Galactica (an incarnation of Wikipedia):
"The experimental field in Tizenby"
Definition: -Let's say that in a certain area of space, in the eternal steppes that stretch in the twilight zone between the finite and the infinite, there are no stars, no nebulae, no zebras. Only darkness over an abyss. is nothing. Nada.-
And certainly not "moving galaxies away or super nova cooling or even a cesium clock on Mars that everyone sees. A phenomenon that will be everyone's reference system."
Nada is nothing. Ziltz
My comment: Einstein claims that they will not succeed. (How will they succeed in 1905? How many seconds have passed since when? From minus infinity?).
From Galactica:
"Tefdal, flow with you, let it be, I will not hesitate, why not"
Definition: -all they need is to find a phenomenon that changes over time that is not dependent on or affected by any of them-
My comment: So the spaceships that were caught against Tizenby will be able to achieve a fixed ratio of 1:1 in their clocks using galaxy clocks, and when they meet, the galaxy clocks will show the same time?
Let it flow, flow with you, let it be, I will not hesitate, why not.
Even so, you will get that there is no time dilation, and hence light moves at all speeds.
Do not believe?
Ready to go through the tube experiment with you again, and this time with galaxy clocks instead of temp clocks. I believe you will get exactly the same result.
Psychomechanics and psychohistory-
almost the same. The difference is in purpose: Harry Seldon planned that by means of psychohistory it would be possible in the future to rebuild the galactic empire from the ruins of the crumbling old empire.
The purpose of psychomechanics is primarily psychotechnology, immediate benefit in the present.
And all the Mossad books after the other Mossad are not worth much. Asimov wrote them 30 years later following the firm demand of the publisher, who wanted to reproduce the success of the best trilogy of all time.
The other institution calls for a rebellion - against the mule.
And as it is said in the XNUMXth prayer: And for those who copy, do not have hope, and all those who commit plagiarism at the moment will perish
And said Amen
The last unidentified message was from me. And indeed I read everything. You are right about R. Daniel. The truth is that I really didn't like this part. The artificial and crudely stitched connection between the steel caves and the real institution was disappointing.
We are Nimi,
You've probably only read the basic trilogy. In the later books it became clear that the inventor of psychohistory was R. Daniel
: )
I heard that the psychomechanics group was once called the psychohistory group and its legendary and mysterious leader was called Harry Seldon.
..it was written "response" not "speech", Israel.
Israel,
You say: "According to Einstein in 1905, there is no such thing as absolute time. Each surveyor has his own time, and there is no possibility to synchronize clocks without making contact between them. In no way would a simultaneous attack by ships be possible in the place known as "our testing ground in Tizenby".
I think you are wrong. All they need is to find a time-varying phenomenon that is independent of or affected by none of them, for example the receding of galaxies or a cooling supernova or even a cesium clock on Mars that everyone sees. A phenomenon that will be everyone's reference system. Just like the background temp you love so much.
decide:
A. point to — for example the clock on Mars shows 00:00 or the temperature of the super nova is set to 1000
B. Point t attack — for example the clock on Mars shows 100:00 or the temperature of the super nova shows 500 and then they attack.
We have already chewed and chewed on the point that your temperature gauge is not unique in that it can be synchronized to, any system outside of the attack spacecraft can be used for this.
In a survey conducted on behalf of the "Psychomechanics Group" and including a sample representing all strata of the country's population, the first question was: "Do you believe that the average person is richer today than in the past?"
A large majority of the respondents - 82% - responded positively to the question, and for understandable reasons. In the past, in many cases, it was considered "rich" to have more than one pair of shoes or one suit. The vast majority of the population worked hard in agriculture, for little pay, as serfs or slaves.
Only a small minority enjoyed a reasonable standard of living, and even that would not be considered particularly high by modern standards.
Also to the second question - "Do you believe that the average person is healthier today than in the past?" 78% answered in the affirmative. Indeed, modern life expectancy is infinitely greater than in the past. It is true that there were people in ancient times who lived long and healthy lives, but most people did not pass the age of 40, infant mortality was much higher than today, and diseases and epidemics shortened and made my remaining life miserable.
Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that the third question: "Do you believe that the average person is happier today than in the past?" Only 18% answered in the affirmative, while a similar number of respondents added that they believe the situation is the opposite!
why? We are healthier, richer, live longer lives - and still aren't we happier? How?
And as if to add insult to injury, today humanity has at its disposal a science that did not exist until the end of the nineteenth century: the science of psychology, whose entire purpose is the mental well-being of man, and whose purpose, it must be assumed, is to increase human happiness.
Are the respondents wrong? Of course, they cannot measure a vague and immeasurable state like happiness, especially in others, and certainly not in the past. This is also why the questions were formulated in the language "Do you believe?" But many people caught the intuitive truth in the answers.
The solution to the paradox apparently lies in the fourth question: "Do you believe that personal happiness originates from interaction with nature (fields, animals, the sea and against them natural disasters, hunger and cold, etc.) or interaction with other people (love, friendship, family and against them hatred, jealousy or human-made disasters and harms)?"
No less than 92% of the respondents answered that the main source of happiness is interaction with other people. And in addition, many respondents added on their own initiative, an intentional injury to people is many times more serious than an injury with similar damage caused as a result of an accident.
After analyzing the question, "the man of psychomechanics" defined the dilemma facing the group as follows:
1. Fact: Science and medicine have improved the state of health and life expectancy on earth.
2. Assumption: the actions and feelings of humans can be studied and improved through psychological methods (education, therapy, conditioning, etc.).
3. Conclusion: We can increase human happiness on earth by "mass production" of these methods, and apply them to as large a number of people as possible, just as mass vaccination eradicated most plagues.
4. Question: Regarding 3: Can we really?
Let's make the standards stricter: let's say that psychology will reach perfection, and genetic engineering combined with natural selection will create perfect people, so perfect that even the traits of contentment and happiness will be cloned for every person in the world. Will the star of Aquarius finally shine, and happiness and harmony will prevail in the world?
No, psychomechanics tells us.
Not with the means and methods used today. These can help the individual to improve his condition in relation to the general, but since happiness is a relative state, the improvement of the individual's condition must come at the expense of the general, or alternatively the caring body whose positive mental energy will be deprived of the general.
This is the essence of the second law of psychomechanics. Order in the thermodynamic system is compared to happiness in the psychodynamic system, and just as the tendency of order in a closed thermodynamic system is to decrease with time, so the tendency of happiness in a closed psychomechanical system, such as the earth, is to decrease, which causes the system to spread and push the dissatisfaction to the social margins that are left behind.
If you succeeded through hard work and study to improve your score on the psychometric exam or the QI test, you inevitably pushed someone else down, because I Q100 by its very definition is a measure that reflects average intelligence.
And the same will happen to you if you are forced to compete for your place at the university with a group of endlessly hardworking and devilishly talented Chinese, who will raise the grade bar and fix you without a way out on the left side of the bell curve.
An interesting thesis being researched by the group refers to the communities of addicts. The assumption is that under constant conditions, a certain and approximately constant percentage of the population will develop an addiction - to alcohol, drugs, food, gambling, etc. Addiction will focus on some people, and ignore others. Now, what will happen if we remove from the system to a lonely island all the drug addicts for example, and leave all the other conditions in the system as they were? According to the data of the original assumption, since the percentage of addicts is more or less constant, after the system reaches a new equilibrium, new addicts will spontaneously form to fill the ranks, while on the deserted island there will be a mass spontaneous withdrawal among the original addicts.
Although there is not enough experimental data to substantiate the thesis, the implication, if the theory is confirmed, is that the initial addicts, by their very existence, prevented the latter from becoming addicted, and this without them knowing them or even knowing their role in the system!
Equally interesting is the explanation given by the group to the problem of anti-Semitism. According to the argument of psychomechanics, it does not matter at all what the Jews will do, who they are, what they are and whether they even exist. The source of the problem is one group - the anti-Semites - trying to lower its own psychomechanical entropy by raising the entropy of another group, the Jews.
This claim fits well with the fact that anti-Semitism increases in times of crisis, when the psychomechanical pressure increases, and also with the existence of anti-Semitism in countries where there are no Jews at all. This is because, according to the fundamental law of psychomechanics, our feelings arise from the form in which we perceive reality, even if it is only a virtual reality.
However, even psychomechanics does not rule out the decrease of entropy in a closed psychomechanical system. It only claims that the mental energy must come from a source external to the system. In the past, most people believed in God, who is undoubtedly an adequate external source. Psychomechanics offers another, more accessible solution.
Just as the industrial revolution freed humanity from dependence on slavery by turning chemical energy into useful work, so the purpose of psychomechanics, and the good products of psychotechnology, is to turn mechanical energy into mental energy, thus reducing the negative aspects of our interdependence.
The mathematical tools used by psychomechanics are "reversible transformations into simulated vector fields, in order to create virtual spherical symmetry" - a slightly exaggerated phrase, the essence of which is to make the maximum number of people feel "on top" without losing their grip on reality.
jubilee
Thanks for the confession, and I actually do take it personally, but in a slightly different way than you might fear.
I am 55 years old, and quite aware of the emotions I arouse in people. There are those who don't really like me, and there are those who only swear by me.
And believe me honestly, that I am not hurt by the fact that you despise me. I am honored.
R.H. Expensive.
My argument was quite clear: if you were able to understand from Yuval's words that the trigger for his anger was like his words that I stole from his model and I didn't not understand, then it's clear that I missed something, and I have to check if I am indeed overlapping by reading comments.
But here, Yuval comes and says himself: even before the explosion he was looking for me, and the Maxwell model was not exactly the reason. Therefore I conclude that I did not miss anything in reading the comments, as I feared I might have done.
And I don't understand what exactly you mean by your writing "All I said was that it was very easy to see the flare-up of Yuval's anger from your writing."
Although I say I'm interested in technology rather than psychology, my second law stories all eventually boil down to the topic of psychomechanics, and more importantly, psychotechnology. (Not in the chapter you read in Galileo).
And I quite appreciated after reading Yuval's responses, I saw that he chose to put a picture, the incessant pursuit of people's emails (which I pretty much tried to avoid), the incessant preoccupation with who and what everyone is (including a search on Facebook) that Yuval will not let us have a quiet and scientific discussion without which will mention the main theme: Yuval and Yuval's model.
When I chose this article at the edge of the universe, it was to continue the discussion with you. I specifically asked that those who would like to join would be bound by business only. Nobody stayed in Cosmo after you and I moved here, and the result is that instead of finishing the scientific discussion we started, all we deal with is politics.
So I want to summarize what I said regarding the extension of time:
According to Einstein in 1905, there is no such thing as absolute time. Each surveyor has his own time, and there is no possibility to synchronize clocks without making contact between them. In no way would a simultaneous attack by ships be possible in the place known as "our testing ground in Tizenby".
According to the big bang theory, the universe is an inflating balloon of compressed gas. The very concept of time derives from this swelling, and does not exist without it and before it. Just as in a closed system the equality PV=NRT holds, where the temperature is an integral part of the system, so are the temperature, pressure, time, and density of the universe, they are an integral part of the fabric of the universe, are within the system, and one can be deduced from the other.
Therefore, a sudden attack like the one we described is definitely possible.
And A does not get along with B, hence our discussions.
And there is also the obvious possibility: that I don't know enough. So here, at least for me, is the huge advantage of the discussion with you: it is possible that because of the need to dig into the subject, I came to the source of the answers from the horse's own mouth: Susskind. And now that I will have time that I didn't have before, I will be able to devote more time to his lectures.
That's it, and thanks for everything.
Israel, in all sincerity,
I made a gross mistake that has no justification. All I know is that even before the explosion I started hating you, and I have no clue why. I searched again and again and couldn't find it. Probably some sort of fuse from my personal subconscious history popped up following a thing or two you said without any specific malicious intent on your part. I greatly appreciate your good intentions and feel deep sorrow for having hurt you, but the feeling of loathing remains as it was. I tried to force myself to like you (for example, congratulations), but I couldn't. You don't have to take it personally, since it's just my problem with myself. I imagine that among your family and acquaintances you are a supremely lovable person and conquers the hearts of many, and it is really not a bad thing if in some city in Scotland there is a complicated person who hates you for no injustice.
And it's only important to me that you know, regardless of the above, that on the intellectual side I appreciate you very much.
Israel and Yuval,
One last thing. Since I happily graduated from Hana Kindergarten with honors, I have no desire to go back there. From now on I will be happy to discuss many scientific and other topics with you, but with the garden of "you started", not you started and you will prove to me no and where I said it and where I didn't" I am done.
Israel,
And also using demagogic arguments of politicians who constantly repeat the same mantra until it gets stuck in the brains of the listeners is a wrong method.
You write: "But it also seems to me that you are unable to back up your words with anything, which makes me doubt whether all your other accusations against me, which I don't read, skim, don't take seriously, etc., are also supported by the same flimsy logic."
Go back and read and see how many examples I gave you of why you didn't read my words in depth in the discussion. After all, you only showed it in my last response, but you repeat and grind both to me and to Yuval "You are not able to back up your words with anything"
come on.
Israel,
As usual, you read quickly, draw conclusions in a flash and immediately go on the attack. This is where all the confusion comes from. It may be great as a strategy in blackjack when there is no time, but in a scientific discussion or a legal debate like you are conducting here it is a very bad strategy.
In your last reply to me you write:
"But Yuval is not the issue. The point is you. You said that you immediately understood why Yuval was angry (that is, that I stole and used his model)"
So if you really, properly, read my responses you will see that I never claimed that you did or did not steal anything. All I said was that it was very easy to see the flare of Yuval's anger from your writing. He asked, trying to understand, but you with the elegance of a hedgehog continued and didn't notice anything and he blew up at you. That's what the whole fight is about.
I understand you didn't mean it, but you don't understand that it's irrelevant to me.
What bothers me about the whole story is that you don't really read the responses addressed to you, but like I said above - you skim, draw a conclusion and go on the attack.
I dare not ask for what I do not deserve
And forgiveness?
Thanks
jubilee.
One of the problems of people who don't read to the end, is that they don't even know if someone is saying things in their favor.
Because if you go through the thread in the previous article, you'll see that I'm the only one who understood what you mean by your model, and while everyone without exception just brushed you off, I'm the only one who tried to develop a serious discussion with you, not without criticism, about your ideas.
And if you go through the thread in previous articles, you will also see that I am the one who proved to you the issue of non-locality, that until then you were convinced that there was some polarizing conspiracy there.
And although for your own reasons you dismissed me very quickly from responding, and that's because of the sympathetic responses of a student, period, etc., I believe I'm the only one who understood what you're aiming for, and I told you so (perhaps now that you've looked at the Maxwell model that I cite so much, and you've seen the general similarity to your model , you can understand what I'm talking about).
But your inflated ego and Middle Eastern temperament stood between you and the only serious discussion you might have had about your model, for better or for worse.
Because look for example what you did in this article: I chose it specifically to conduct the discussion with R.H., who already told you explicitly that he does not suffer from it at all, despite your many insinuations on the matter. It wasn't long since you entered the discussion, and the topic was changed: instead of talking about clocks, speeds and ratios, we returned to your favorite topic: the eternal quarrels and ego battles.
Because pay attention to your response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/vlt-hubble-smash-record-for-eyeing-most-distant-galaxy-2310104/#comment-333910
From which the whole mess started, after which we stopped talking physics and returned to politics.
So maybe it's a little late to say this to those approaching 60: start taking responsibility! And do it now! You understand very well now that I didn't use anything of yours, that all I meant was the Maxwell model. you were wrong point. He admitted it without any reservations. I have no responsibility here, I have no problem taking responsibility if I have, but I am not a politician who will admit to something I did not do.
And for the future remove from your lexicon every word starting with "I" "you" and everything that is not related to physics only. I have no problem accepting criticism, but I also have no intention of absorbing without any reason and going through unjustified character assassination, as you have done to me in the last two months.
Israel!
I was upset for all kinds of reasons. I blamed it all on you, but the truth is I have no one to blame but myself. I was so eager to discuss you in Ruthin, and I got caught up in that vain thought. The blood went to my head and you were kidnapped through no fault of your own.
It may not be to the point to say "a pathetic brat with a big ego and little intelligence", but it is true and accurate.
You asked how the structure described by Maxwell can be deduced from my model, and the answer is that it is not possible because my model reaches Maxwell's laws through a different construction. I assume that you are not interested in knowing the difference between time and a clock and you are certainly not interested in hearing how time is defined in my model, so I will not continue to bother you with this.
You asked for an apology but, as you can tell, I'm not good at apologies. If you still feel hurt, I'm at your service. Ask anything you want to know and I will answer you honestly. You want to send me, as usual, I will accept it with love. OK?
R.H.
I believe I read carefully. Maybe I didn't understand, but I certainly read carefully.
And regarding the Friedman formula: the way you proposed does not connect to anything we discussed. It is an empirical way, with which there is no possibility to derive a non-linear formula like Friedman's formula. That's why I went back to the original way we discussed, which is how we built the temp clock.
If you didn't understand what happened with Yuval and why it's important to me that you explain why you wrote "How come I knew what he was angry about and you didn't know until yesterday?" So here is my side:
I actually tried to protect Yuval and Ali, from all those who tried to mow down all the ideas that I called "delusional", and ghosts in their heads. That's why I came up with a model that on the face of it looks completely delusional, and would have remained so without the equations. I believe this is exactly what would have happened to the Maxwell model. Without the equations, he is not worth much, and his rightful place is in Lelaland.
Yuval read the first sentence, and since he is so in love with himself and his model, he came to the conclusion that I am probably using his ideas to hide a bin for ghosts. He didn't bother to read the rest, didn't understand that I was talking about the Maxwell model at all, rushed to accuse me in front of everyone of ridiculous accusations, theft, dishonesty, and other expressions that are his favorite.
I, who did not know what was going on in his fevered mind, tried like a fool to understand him, to please him, the main thing that came out of me.
Yesterday the awl came out of the bag. However, even after it became clear to him beyond any doubt that he was simply wrong, he continues in his characteristic irresponsibility to try to blame me, instead of doing the right thing: asking for complete forgiveness for the mistake that was all his, and for his wild attacks on me. His ridiculous request for forgiveness, which he clearly does not mean and which was made from the bottom of his heart and is reminiscent of Demaniuk's acquittal due to doubt, is dwarfed by his feeble efforts to continue pinning some blame on me.
But Yuval is not the issue. The point is you. You said that you immediately understood why Yuval was angry (ie that I stole and used his model). But it also seems to me that you are unable to back up your words with anything, which makes me doubt whether all your other accusations against me, which I don't read, skim, don't take seriously, etc., are also supported by the same flimsy logic.
Therefore, in order for me to know if you are a person whose word can be trusted, I would like you to either back up your words, or admit your mistake, or let's really cut loose and end it.
Israel,
Why do I say you are fluttering? So here is an example from the last comments
Me: "Let's say you don't know the Friedman formula and you want to build a temperature clock. What would you do?"
What do you answer me? "I gave you a link with the Friedman formula and a calculator"
Is this an answer to the matter?
In addition, if you read carefully you would understand what I meant by 1:1 and you would also understand how irrelevant what you wrote about dollars and shekels is.
And that's how it goes, just so you can see that I'm not slandering or harassing. And please don't start arguing with me about the details and references. not interesting.
In conclusion, you ask "how can the following be deduced from Yuval's model:"
However, I am not responsible for Yuval's model and I have no pretensions to explain it or what can be understood from it.
Plus I have no interest in digging through that endless thread just to show you when and how Yuval got hurt by you. I really have more interesting and important things to do. Just look, it's very simple. To the best of my recollection it was when he called you a thief or something childish.
By the way, it's also really not about the "petty jerk with a big ego and a small mind"
What is the difference between you two and the ghosts? nada
R.H.
My comment from this morning has been released. It has the explanation for building temp clocks.
However, in the meantime I believe we have a new problem, a problem of credibility, and it will be difficult for me to continue the discussion if this problem is not resolved.
And this is the problem: Yuval accuses me of not reading comments, not referring, skimming, not understanding, stealing from him, pimping, etc.
Since I consider Yuval to be a petty brat with a big ego and little intelligence, the only thing I ask of Yuval without success is that he bothers as little as possible.
But recently you joined these accusations, which made me suspect that there might be something to them.
More than that: you wrote earlier "regardless of whether you or Yuval are right, notice how long it took just to understand what Yuval wants." After all, if you had once carefully read his comments, as you should have done, you would have understood immediately, there was nothing hidden or complicated here. And that demonstrates everything.”
And adding "No my friend, not mind reading but reading comments on the science website, isn't that what we do?
How is it that I knew what he was angry about and you didn't know until yesterday? And believe me, we did not have an email discussion on the subject."
So it's clear that if you understood the reason for Yuval's anger just by reading the same comments as me and I didn't, then there is justification for the accusations, and that's why I wrote to you:
"You didn't show me exactly how I was supposed to understand from Yuval's reactions that he thought I copied something from his model and used it against him.
And you didn't show me exactly what the connection is between the model I presented to ghosts and the model Yuval presented.
I mean the specific reaction or reactions, so that I can learn if I really match according to your words."
I think it's very important that you can show me this (it's easy in science, everything is connected), because it seems to me that the discussion between us is taking on an impossible character.
For example: Your argument:
Jack measured a ratio of 1:1 100 hours.
Jill measured 1:1 100 min.
Similar to the fact that if we open a partnership, and the investment ratio is supposed to be 1:1, then if I invest a million dollars, you will invest a million shekels. 1:1 no?
Which raises some doubts for me about the rationality of the discussion as a whole.
And since I have no doubts about your proven intelligence, I must get a certificate of integrity, so that we don't get stuck in stupid ego battles where mistakes are not admitted like our mutual friend and the dyslexic.
And hence my request: since you took a stand, and asserted your claims, from which it can be concluded that I missed something obvious (a fact that you understood immediately), please back it up with evidence, but if you don't find it, be honest enough to admit that you were wrong, so that there is no problem of credibility.
So here is exactly what I am asking for:
How can the following be deduced from Yuval's model:
1. That in every sphere currents flow from one pole of the sphere to the other.
2. Between the balls there are flywheels and axles, idler wheels.
3. The currents create eddies.
4. The eddies progress in the form of sine waves perpendicular to each other in the universe.
5. This is how electromagnetic waves are created.
In addition, I would like to see the specific response(s) from which I could conclude, as you inferred, that Yuval is angry with me for using this material, which was supposed to be his.
Especially because I wrote next to the model "imaginary, nonsense in clothing" the explanation:
"This is Maxwell's ether model, the scientific masterpiece of the 19th century, with which he calculated the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism and his eternal equations."
This. If you don't want to do that, I'll understand that we've probably really run out, and I'll thank you once again for your investment. All in all, it was great, we learned a lot, and it's really better if I spend my time in Susskind's lectures, and you in your article.
R.H. Rafai.M,
True 🙂 luck. But we probably corresponded in one of the previous incarnations in the 19th century BC, and that's how the whole forest in the Sahara ended
Israel,
I know you want war and I'm not willing to give you this chopper. I really don't like it, so still a small bone: you asked "how come you didn't read it?". Instead of asking, you could say something like "that's exactly what I read" (and add, depending on the inspiration, a comment like "and I found it to be all gibberish"). So a) if you read, you would know what it is about; b) You chose to ask and not to declare, and that does not inspire confidence.
As before, if you say that you did read, I will confirm that I deduced incorrectly.
Lucky you don't correspond in the 19th century. You could make the forest disappear in the Amazon.
: )
jubilee.
I'm not trying to drag you into anything. I'm just trying to see if you can stand behind what you said, and prove that there is some basis for your slander.
If you made up a blood plot, it's nice that you apologized, but the question still remains, where exactly did you concoct all the delusional details that make up the plot.
Well, I'm going to work now. In the future, try not to let your developed imagination take over you too much, and learn to distinguish between the virtual reality in your fevered mind, and the objective reality. That way you'll look and sound a little less petite.
Bye.
Not Israel. Definately not.
I apologized, and that says it all.
I predict that what is going to happen from here on out is tireless attempts on your part to breathe life into a quarrel that has died and wants to go quietly to its worldly home. I do not participate in this game. It is clear to me that you will also try different techniques to drag me in, but I will try to ignore it and maybe I will even be able to withstand the burst for a long time.
jubilee.
You always accuse me of dodging, not reading comments, dishonesty, etc.
Isn't that exactly what you do?
So now I will repeat my questions, and ask you to answer them, or if they are not clear to you, ask for clarification:
1. How come you didn't read it?
2. What is the connection between the model I presented and yours?
3. Can you show me the specific response(s) by which I should have understood that you were angry with me for using your model for refutation?
Israel!
I didn't apologize
jubilee
Thanks for the apology.
Questions:
1. How come you didn't read it?
2. What is the connection between the model I presented and yours?
3. Can you show me the specific response(s) by which I should have understood that you were angry with me for using your model for refutation?
Thanks.
Dear Israel ♥
Harini asks you for forgiveness for all the things I said condemning you and others. I was wrong to think you used my material, when in fact you couldn't because you didn't read it at all.
Please accept a bouquet of flowers from me as a gift.
☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼
♫ ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪ ♫
jubilee.
Here is part of the response from 3 hours ago that for some reason has not been released yet.
jubilee
I swear to a committee that I meant only the Maxwell model and until yesterday I had no idea that all your anger was because you thought I stole from you.
Now excuse me.
Avi Blizovsky, can I please release my comments?
R.H.
You didn't show me exactly how I was supposed to understand from Yuval's comments that he thought I copied something from his model and used it against him.
And you didn't show me exactly what the connection is between the model I presented to ghosts and the model Yuval presented.
I mean the specific response or responses, so that I can learn if I really match as you say.
Little by little I understand your methods. Here, for example, is this exit that no mobster in Mahane Yehuda would be ashamed of: "Are you just difficult to grasp, or also a liar as a student claims." Such a sentence is very tempting to return an answer that invites an opposite answer and repeats, God forbid. Right?
Israel,
You write: "How was I supposed to understand why Yuval is angry with me, reading minds?"
No my friend, not mind reading but reading comments on the science site, isn't that what we do?
How is it that I knew what he was angry about and you didn't know until yesterday? And believe me we didn't have an email discussion on the subject.
It is not clear to me beyond any doubt that I was wrong. But if you swear, I'll believe you.
jubilee
I don't think you understand what's at stake, at least as far as I'm concerned.
This is the simple question, are you just hard of perception, or also a liar as the student claims.
Because I showed you in every way possible that not only did I not use your model, I didn't even know until yesterday that it was the trigger.
A ghost, whose whole purpose in life is to harass me, showed me with cheers a mistake I had made in the matter of the accelerated electric charge. I apologized for my honor, admitted my mistake, and sincerely thanked him for the constructive criticism.
The question for me is: now, when it is clear to you beyond any doubt that you were wrong, will you also admit your mistake and retract your false accusations, or will you continue to lash out at me with your imaginary accusations.
You have the choice.
Israel, please don't be offended by the things I just said to R.H. After all, I offered you a way to stop the nosy discussion in the style of "you told me, I told you, go get used to it". I will repeat: swear and apologize. You don't get it, it's a sign that I haven't missed much.
R. H.,
It seems to me that the discussion is not over yet. As I analyze our friend's personality, he is unable to let things end. He simply enjoys the attention, the righteous struggle and the commotion in general. The one who might be able to put an end to this discussion is us, simply if we stop participating in it. In that case I wouldn't be surprised to see him forgive his honor and hold an equal discourse with ghosts.
The copy is waiting (we hope it will go through).
jubilee
I swear to a committee that I meant only the Maxwell model and until yesterday I had no idea that all your anger was because you thought I stole from you.
R.H.
I explained to you earlier how to build temp clocks. You don't need to take any intervals. I gave you a link with the Friedman formula and a calculator, if its input is temperature, then the output is time in seconds since the big bang. I have explained several times why this time should be the same as the time measured by a cesium clock. If you don't get this point, say so.
Such a clock, if built, would show the passing time just like a regular clock. If you put it next to a cesium clock and the output of both is digital, and the cesium clock calibrates once to the same time as the temperature clock, then every photograph of them in the future will show the same time, as long as they are in an inertial system.
I also explained to you why there is a contradiction in your assumption that there is a difference between the various inertial systems.
If you still think I'm not an investor, if you still think after reading all the correspondence between me and Yuval that I used something of his against him, tell me now. I too have my standards and I need to know who I am dealing with.
R.H.
I don't understand your answer.
How was I supposed to understand why Yuval was angry with me, reading minds?
How many times have I asked him, including by email?
And what is the connection between the model I presented and Yuval's?
Do you understand what equation 136 is irrelevant to you? And didn't you understand from reading the model that those spherical particles described in it fill the entire universe? Where exactly do you think they are, if they are able to carry electromagnetic waves throughout the universe? Do you have a room only?
Israel,
Leave it, we're not in court and I really don't have the strength for it.
All I wanted was to demonstrate to you how you didn't pay any attention to what Yuval wrote, you skimmed over his comments and didn't really read. This was also the constant pattern, at least to my personal feeling, in the discussion with me. I have warned you about this several times. You didn't respond so leave.
What does it matter now the reference here or there? The very fact that only now after a few months you suddenly noticed that you generally do not know what and why Yuval is angry (and again I don't care who is right among you) shows how seriously you read and relate to the discussion.
I understand, you're a busy person and can't read long and boring comments, so fine, just say. My time is also precious and I have somewhere to spend it.
jubilee,
I really enjoyed most of the discussion and learned a lot during it. Too bad it ends on a harsh note.
I wrote to you, and you probably didn't read it, because you just retired for a night's sleep:
The painting does not refer to the "universe full of particles" but to a local explanation of electromagnetic phenomena. Equation 136 is not relevant at all
It seems to me that there is only partial justice in the words of R. H. who says that you do not read what is written to you. I believe that you do read, but selectively. In the terrible debate that is about to unfold between me and him we will need your help. Please stop.
jubilee
I repeat what I asked.
You wrote "when you were asked to produce a certificate you failed."
Did you read the reference I sent you? (Maxwell model). Did you at least look at the many drawings accompanying the model, most of them of balls.
Isn't that what you asked for?
Tireless Israel, kudos to you for your persistence in your righteous struggle.
Continue like this for another 65 years, and you will have a seat of honor in the days of Moses.
R.H. jubilee
waiting (Avi?). In the meantime, I would like you to look at the definition of the model I brought:
"The universe is full of a kind of small sphere-like particles, with currents flowing from one pole of the sphere to the other in each sphere. Between the spheres there are flywheels and axles, idler wheels, which flow and create eddies, which progress in the form of sine waves perpendicular to each other in the universe, and this is how electromagnetic waves are created."
And they showed me where, apart from the ball-like particles, there is something in it from what Yuval wrote.
R.H., I would also appreciate it if you could show me in the thread exactly where I was supposed to understand that, as you say, "regardless of whether you or Yuval are right, notice how long it took just to understand what Yuval wants. After all, if you had once carefully read his comments, as you should have done, you would have understood immediately, there was nothing hidden or complicated here."
Which comment exactly should I have read carefully to understand what Yuval wants.
Yuval - you write "when you were asked to produce a failed reference." Once again you didn't read what I sent you (the Maxwell model) and you're trying to drop the case on me?
jubilee
I swear to a committee that I meant only the Maxwell model and until yesterday I had no idea that all your anger was because you thought I stole from you.
R.H.
I explained to you earlier how to build temp clocks. You don't need to take any intervals. I gave you a link with the Friedman formula and a calculator, if its input is temperature, then the output is time in seconds since the big bang. I have explained several times why this time should be the same as the time measured by a cesium clock. If you don't get this point, say so.
Such a clock, if built, would show the passing time just like a regular clock. If you put it next to a cesium clock and the output of both is digital, and the cesium clock calibrates once to the same time as the temperature clock, then every photograph of them in the future will show the same time, as long as they are in an inertial system.
I also explained to you why there is a contradiction in your assumption that there is a difference between the various inertial systems.
If you still think I'm not an investor, if you still think after reading all the correspondence between me and Yuval that I used something of his against him, tell me now. I too have my standards and I need to know who I am dealing with.
: )
jubilee,
What agony? I enjoyed almost every moment. Do you think if I had suffered I would have continued? Only at the end when I realized that the discussion is not symmetrical, I read and invest and Israel flutters and shoots, so I got a little lost in the mood.
R. H.,
It is important to me that you know that your suffering was not in vain. I'm sure he learned a lot from you, even if it's hard for him to admit it. I got a lot of education. Thanks.
Israel!
You are almost the only one who writes here with his real name, and I greatly appreciate your courage. Nevertheless, not everything smells like a garden of roses.
You said "I didn't steal from Haikin, but I quoted Maxwell", but when you were asked to provide a reference, you failed. You asked for an apology, which you will receive from me with a large hand, to the accompaniment of drums and dances (♫♪♥☺♠) if and when you swear accept Yadan and the five readers (unidentified) by cleaning your hands.
♫Good morning Israel to Israel♫
Israel,
It's ironic that after so many responses I ask and beg you to read and answer the substance of my claims and not to flinch and automatically shoot fire, then you slap me: "And if you don't intend to back up your words with facts and factual answers, then I guess we really got to the point."
Regardless of whether you or Yuval are right, notice how long it took at all just to understand what Yuval wanted. After all, if you had once carefully read his comments, as you should have done, you would have understood immediately, there was nothing hidden or complicated here. And it demonstrates everything.
The painting does not refer to the "universe full of particles" but to a local explanation of electromagnetic phenomena. Equation 136 is not relevant at all.
Following what seemed to me to be a distorted use that you made without permission of the material I sent you, I concluded that I could not trust your honesty, and I expressed it as well.
And on this occasion I will mention something else that is there to testify to an unpleasant quality that I found in you:
There are commenters here who find it important to remain anonymous, and they hide behind aliases. When the editor of the site mistakenly addressed one such commenter by his first name, you jumped on it as a great find.
And when you decide to go crazy, all the grace in your writing can't cover the bad taste.
Well I'm going to bed.
I believe I showed you that I meant the Maxwell model. In fact, until an hour ago, I didn't even know that you thought I meant your model (where in your model is it about flywheels and axles, idler wheels, flows that create vortices, which progress in the form of sine waves perpendicular to each other in the universe, and this is how electromagnetic waves are created?)
Whatever - that was my intention. You accused me in vain, because you jumped to hasty conclusions before bothering to find out the matter. I believe I deserve an apology. Do as you wish. Good night.
Go down to part 2 after equation 26
There are eye-catching paintings there, all of balls
Note also equation 136
Israel, thank you for the link.
The closest I found is:
(4) The vortices are separated from each other by a single layer of round particles, so that a system of cells is formed, the partitions being these layers of particles, and the substance of each cell being capable of rotating as a vortex.
But you wrote: "The universe is full of a kind of small sphere-like particles", and in the material I sent you it says: "The universe is made up of an increasing number of particles..." and later "...the average shape of a particle, within a group of particles whose number tends to infinity and which are scattered randomly, tends to a sphere".
jubilee
Here is the link.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
"And these things" include many things about which you wrote nothing and a half. I know what I meant, and I also wrote what I meant: the Maxwell model.
Take responsibility for a change. You just made a mistake and that's it. Yeruham thanks and leaves.
Israel,
Please provide a link to this particular description in Maxwell's model.
And if you didn't see that these things appear in the paper I sent you, then you didn't even bother to read it.
Tell me Yuval, did you fall completely on your head?
After all, I explained very well where exactly I got it from in this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-327569
In which it is clearly stated:
"jubilee
It is true that the exercise was not successful. Anyone who looked at the definition of the model I gave, should have come to the conclusion that this is a completely delusional model, a slob dressed in confused straw. In the original script, the gullible ghost was supposed to walk into a trap, mow down the model in his usual painterly way, and send me to the mental institution once again.
I was supposed to agree with him in principle, nod my head in agreement, inquire if he could arrange a comfortable bed for me in the institution, preferably by the window, and then point out in passing that this is Maxwell's ether model, the scientific masterpiece of the 19th century, with which he calculated the speed of light from The constants of electricity and magnetism and its eternal equations."
Have you ever read the Maxwell model? Did you even read what I wrote before you decided to open up about me? And in general, if I had a known problem of dyslexia, which by definition is a reading problem, I would ask for 100 clarifications before I would accuse someone of something.
Because it is absolutely clear that I did not mean your model at all or anything you wrote at all, but to show that models that seem seemingly delusional, suddenly become clear and bright if the appropriate equations are attached to them.
And this is exactly what I meant to say to all those who attacked the models, especially yours: wait for formulas or experiments. This is also what I said to the point, if you manage to extract the Schrödinger equation from your model, he will have to eat his hat.
And now that you've realized that it was a misunderstanding, that happened because of your irrational tantrum, that happened because you didn't bother to ask for clarification before jumping to your usual conclusions, are you going to apologize?
Yes, Israel! This reaction. You took "ball-like particles" from something I sent you in an email.
R.H.
Maybe I missed something. Here are your words:
"But, and this is the point: note,
Jack measured a ratio of 1:1 100 hours.
Jill measured 1:1 100 min.
The temperature clock of both measured 900 degrees.
Conclusion: there is no contradiction and no shoes"
Question: When you say "Jack measured a ratio of 1:1 100 hours." It is not completely equivalent to the statement: Jack measured a ratio of 1:1 6,000 minutes?
And isn't that exactly 60 times your statement "Jill measured 1:1 100 minutes."?
And what exactly do you mean by your statement: "By the way, regarding Jubilee, don't be fooled. You wanted to stretch Rap*'im and you used the materials that Yuval wrote"?
Do you mean the response in the following link:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-327500
in which it is said:
"Rafai.M, wait a minute, don't leave yet. I need your animal intuition. There is some model that I must accept a healthy critique of.
What do you think of the following model: the universe is full of a kind of small sphere-like particles, with currents flowing from one pole of the sphere to the other in each sphere. Between the spheres there are flywheels and axes, idler wheels, which flow creating eddies, which progress in the form of sine waves perpendicular to each other in the universe, and thus electromagnetic waves are created.
Honest review. You have permission to mow to your heart's content and use any language you choose."?
Because if you meant this response, I would like you to show me exactly where Yuval said it. If you didn't mean this comment, please show me the comment you meant.
And if you don't intend to back up your words with facts and factual answers, then probably we have really been concise.
Israel,
Roseanne Barr has an outstanding positive character beyond being an actress. If it were in my power, I would appoint her to the position of President of the United States.
Search the web for how to find LinkedIn.
All Unicode characters, including those not on the keyboard such as ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ ♂ ♀ ♫ ♪, you will find in combination of the Alt key with the numeric keys (not on the top row but on the right side).
R.H., thank you. you saved me
I was going to email him.
Israel,
What 60:1? You see? You didn't even read what I wrote. Sorry but I've given up on this kind of discussion.
By the way, regarding Yuval, don't be silly. You wanted to stretch Raf*'im and used materials that Yuval wrote, and when he warned you about it, you wrote to him "don't be a spoiler", which made him angry and start calling you derogatory names.
R.H. What is this, an April 1st prank?
After all, one of the famous ones is that every hour has 60 minutes. Therefore the ratio of 1:1 that you present is nothing but a ratio of 60:1. Try doing this with Jane's clocks, which measure a drop of a degree per second, and see if the ratio is still 1:1.
jubilee.
What is the problem with sexting the trigger here on these pages? After all, you had no problem attacking me here in a torrent of foam and slandering me. Isn't it appropriate that the purification also be public? And I don't deny that I cheated, or that I poisoned wells, or that I used the blood of Christian children for Pesach matzos. We should just see if the amount of poison and blood justifies the size of the blood plot.
Quit bullshit now. How do you manage to emphasize and add sounds? As you know, they don't tell me anything. Maybe we can get some useful information from you instead of an apology?
How about sending Roseanne Baer to the inner beauty pageant?
Israel: Beauty, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and for me only character determines ♫
The Essex trigger story is with you in another forum.
I do not require you to define the time. All in all, I'm trying to guide you to some kind of recognition.
fruitful work.
Sahtain Juveli. Maybe it's all a misunderstanding.
Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say: "You took a sentence I sent you in an email and used it for the purpose of attacking another commenter, I expressed my feelings with rage that was met with a tantrum "tenfold".
I don't remember using anything. Maybe we can clear up this misunderstanding once and for all, and you'll discover that I actually don't have a sister at all. (Which is not true, I have 3 sisters, whom I call pet sisters).
And to the point: when you ask me to define "what is time?" You are facing an impossible challenge. I recently bought an entire book dealing with the subject, and I was unable to extract an acceptable explanation from it. That's why I don't define it, but try to use its physical properties for calculations. In the specific case - number of particles per unit volume, from which you can derive the exact time that a clock will show, and this without defining what time is at all.
I'm also not trying to define what beauty is, but I have a strong intuition that in a beauty contest, Angelina Jolie has a slight advantage over Roseanne Barr, and this despite the fact that I haven't defined what beauty is. If you philosophize about fences and bet on Roseanne winning the pageant, I won't use your skills as a bookie with my money.
Come on, fly to work.
Israel! If you don't understand what I'm talking about, I'll explain.
But I am still firm in my opinion that you are an intelligent person who does not need explanations. Although it seems to me that you genuinely believe that you are speaking to the matter, and insist on it, but it is not necessarily a problem of intelligence. It is possible that you are simply very sensitive to comments that have some kind of allusion to personal qualities. I have nothing bad to say about you. on the contrary. As far as I'm concerned, you're really fine. Simply, I have learned not to expect you to jump over the navel to address matters that are not on your agenda, because you keep some regularities as we all do.
What happened once was the result of a misunderstanding. You came with "I'm just a question", and it turned out that there is an orderly and detailed subtext under you that you entrench yourself in deeply and discover difficulties in adapting to other ideas. When I realized that I had fallen into a trap, I kept silent. But when you took a sentence I sent you in an email and used it for the purpose of attacking another commenter, I expressed my feelings with rage that was met with a "tenfold" tantrum. But what was was was, and I'm not going back to it.
The question of defining the time that I opened recently is not a personal attack directed towards you. My opinion, which I have already expressed, is that the phenomenon of time should not be taken for granted. I understand that it is difficult for you to accept this approach (again, not because of cognitive problems, but because in your Mishnah there is no reference to this and it is difficult to go through all the sections in the long list that require expansion one by one) and you are naturally indignant. It's OK. This is your full right. I have no problem with you continuing head to head with R.H. on the contrary. His answers are smart and to the point and I learn a lot from them. But you surely also understand that I cannot give your words the full credit that I would give to the words of people who are less intelligent than you.
I suggested that you put a little more effort into giving respect to others. This is always good advice and I do not suspect that you despise the people you talk to, but that you are so engrossed in your righteous cause that you do not always see what is going on around you. All in all I'm trying to give you free advice. You can say "thank you" and you can also take it as a personal insult and respond like in your last sentence. The choice is yours, and if it has anything to say about you, then in the dialogue between people such things happen often and we should not make an elephant out of every fly.
Jubilee speech
Israel,
In my opinion, the root of the disagreement between us and your error lies in the understanding of what the temperature clocks actually are. In my opinion, this is simply a circular definition and that is where the problem comes from. Please read the following argument carefully:
Let's say you don't know the Friedman formula and you want to build a temp clock, what would you do?
1) Takes a thermometer
2) measures the temp at different times, of course to know the intervals you would need a cesium clock.
3) For the purpose of the demonstration, let's assume that you would accept that every hour the temperature drops by exactly one degree.
4) You would build a clock out of it. Let's say that T0 was set to 1000 degrees and you would measure 900 and you would know that 100 hours had passed. So far right? The ratio between the cesium and the degree clock is 1:1.
5) So far you have been Jack. Now you are Jill. You do exactly the same thing, take a thermometer and measure at different times, but you get that every minute the temperature drops.
6) You, Jill measure 900 degrees (note at exactly the same time Jack did). what do you conclude From T0 100 minutes have passed. The ratio between cesium and degrees is 1:1.
But, and this is the point: note,
Jack measured a ratio of 1:1 100 hours.
Jill measured 1:1 100 min.
The temperature clock of both measured 900 degrees.
Conclusion: there is no contradiction and no shoes.
jubilee
I don't understand what exactly you want from me now.
You asked me to define what time. I answered you that the question is big for me. (Is there any acceptable definition of time other than "rate of change of things"?)
Notice what state I'm in:
If I don't answer you - then I'm avoiding.
If I answer you to the best of my ability and the answer does not suit you - then I am annoying.
And as usual you try to imply that the problem is known, and that it is me. "I hope R.H. knows too"
When we moved on to the new article at the end of the universe, I suggested that those who wish to join, commit to sticking to matters only. That's what I do. I am not referring to the commenters themselves at all, but only to the comments. Since it seems to me that you are returning very quickly to the personal papers (upsetting, your positive public image, respect for your interlocutors, as has already happened here more than once) and other kinds of politics that you love so much, I suggest that you stop, or I will be forced to move to another article where I will explicitly ask you not to join.
In short - we are back to normal
Good morning Israel, I think you are wrong:
As long as the concepts we use behave "nicely", we really take them for granted and use them confidently. But this is not the case with the question of time. When we see that the clocks are starting to "go crazy", it is necessary to define what exactly they are measuring.
Regarding the irritations, check what I said. It seems to me that you won't be able to upset me anymore and I hope that R.H. also knows how to take you in a good spirit. But for the sake of your positive public image, try to show a little more respect to your interlocutors. I'm not saying, God forbid, that you don't respect others. Just suggest you do a little more.
jubilee.
There are many concepts that we use with great confidence without defining them first.
If you take a gas in a closed system and take the 3 properties: pressure, volume and temperature, I can tell you the value of the third property if you tell me the values of the other 2, and this without me defining which one.
And regarding the annoying thing - if I ask someone a question, he answers me to the best of his ability, and then I get angry - I take responsibility. It's not that he's annoying, it's me who's annoying.
In short, if my answers do not seem to you and upset you, it is better not to ask.
R.H.
The question may not have been quite understood. Let's look at it again:
"Do you accept that if Jill's clocks, like Jack's, also show a 1:1 ratio, then we've got a contradiction with the lengthening of times in the ratios?"
Note that this is a conditional sentence: I'm not asking you if you accept that the ratio of Jill's hours is 1:1 - I'm asking: if we start from the assumption that you accepted it as a given, don't you also see the contradiction in the lengthening of time?
The logic is this: if the ratio is 1:1, then both clocks always show the same time (get it?). During the meeting, we already agreed in the past that the two temp clocks will show the same time (show you where we agreed?) and therefore during the meeting all 4 clocks will show the same time. And this is in contrast to the lengthening of the times which claims that the times in the CZ clocks will be different.
You brought up a new argument the other day - that because of the radiation, the ratio of Jill's watches will be different from 1:1, which is true. But question 109 specifically referred to the assumption that you accepted that the ratio is 1:1.
What's more, a negative answer does not fit with simple logic. After all, you have been claiming all along that there is no contradiction because Jill's clock ratio is much greater than Jack's clock ratio. So how can it be argued now that even if the ratio is the same there is still a contradiction?
So now, after we clarified the essence of question 109: Is your answer still no?
Regarding the Friedman formula:
The formula is of course the same formula, but the output will be different. That's why I talked about the conversion factor, which weights according to the Doppler the speed relative to the radiation, and produces the absolute time as if the system was at rest.
Let's say there are 2 submarines that want to synchronize an attack on a ship according to the temperature of the water in a cooling swamp, but are moving at different speeds, which is why the temperature appears to each of them to be different.
Since the submarines know their relative speed to the water, they have no problem offsetting the simulated temperature increase as a result of the movement, and reaching the water temperature at rest, hence the absolute time, and hence the appropriate moment to launch the torpedo.
The same with temp clocks model X122. They weigh according to the Doppler the speed of the spaceship in relation to the radiation, and conclude what the temperature would be if the spaceship was at rest relative to the radiation, and hence what the absolute time is. So it turns out that no matter what the speed of the spacecraft is at the time of the encounter, they always show the same time.
And regarding the pace:
Here is what I wrote you before:
"Let's see what you claim. We'll take Jack and Jill. Jack is said to be stationary relative to the radiation, and Jill is moving relative to it.
Jack sees that Jill's season is lagging behind his. Everything works out, because he is indeed resting completely.
But what about Jill? She also sees that Jack's watch lags behind her (relatively), but what is her excuse? After all, there is no doubt that she is really "moving" and he is really "resting".
ZA that according to your logic, both of them should have agreed that the clocks in the Jill system are backward, but that is not what relativity claims."
And this is what I claim all the time: that the lengthening of time does not correspond to the absolute time of the Big Bang. If you decided that there is a "preferred" system - the rest system of the radiation, then it is true, you will accept that in another system that is in motion relative to the radiation, time is shortened. But this shortening will be agreed upon by both parties, because there is no doubt who moved and who rested.
But according to relativity, each side will see the other as lagging behind, and not just the side that is at rest relative to the radiation. Hence the contradiction.
R. H.,
Each dimension and its uniqueness together with its similarity to other dimensions. We measure the dimensions of space by comparing with a ruler and the dimension of time with a clock. However, it is important to emphasize that these are only means of measurement, and not the measured object itself. In the discussion you and our mutual friend are conducting, you do not make this distinction.
jubilee,
Why? You started your story about time by saying that it is a dimension (you called it a super dimension), so why is it different from other spatial dimensions?
R. H.,
That's not what I said. I was just pointing out your analogy of the rulers on Earth all calibrated to one standard. Like watches.
Time in general, however, is neither a clock nor a ruler. He is a different entity and this analogy does not fit him.
jubilee,
what's right? Are you claiming that all the rulers in the world are synchronized by some external entity? If so what is it?
Like watches.
Israel,
This is the 110th and last time I answer your question
110) No I don't accept.
Reasoning: Answer for the 21st time the question you have already answered affirmatively and think about the meaning of your answer:
21) Do you accept that the Friedman formula is different in Jill's system to Jack's?
Israel, night of rest/good morning (delete the unnecessary),
You don't want to define the concept of time - you don't have to. But then you don't know what you are talking about with such great confidence. Please note that such behavior may upset some of those arguing with you - as has already happened here more than once.
jubilee.
I do not define the time. bigger than me I'm just saying that if the bang theory is correct, time can be tied to the amount of particles per unit volume, which will be expressed in the form of a unique number.
In the example of the inflatable balloon, we can associate a certain number, for example 546,879,876,821 which will express the number of air molecules in a pre-defined volume unit. This tax can be associated with a certain time in the history of the inflatable balloon, and will be the same at any point in the balloon, and with the exception of statistical exceptions, will never repeat itself.
The same with the universe. If we expand the Lesage model of particles, we will get a gas-like model in which time is defined according to the number of particles per unit volume, and with few statistical exceptions does not repeat itself, hence the irreversibility of the arrow of time and entropy.
1. Oh, countless numbers. Zamino was born in a small town in England, his father was Hawking who always used to say "The maniac who can stop time has not yet been born!" and many more to count.
I have no idea what the origin and definition of time is. I may be able to do this in the future, but it will take a long time and I have no idea what its origin is and what its definition is. Maybe I can eat..
2. No mechanism. What mechanism enables the inflation of a balloon and its absolute and synchronized time, apart from the laws of statistics that cause the molecules to occupy a larger volume and the balloon to inflate?
Good night.
Israel, in other words, you said something like a "temperature clock". In fact, you built a clock.
Indeed, if the gas expansion is uniform everywhere, then each such clock is synchronized with the others. I understood that you define time as the expansion of the gas. And for this I have a number of difficulties, for example:
1) What can you tell about this gas? Is it a substance defined by physics? What is its origin?
2) In order for the expansion of the gas to define not only the mechanism of a single clock but the time everywhere, it has to be the same at every point in the universe. What is the mechanism that enables this coordination?
R.H.
We must be precise, and not jump to conclusions.
1. I did not admit that the contradiction was resolved. That's your conclusion, and I think it's wrong. I explained to you where.
Until yesterday, we didn't talk about the radiation system at all. We talked about temperature, which is the same for every meter at a given point and moment. We agreed that it would be the same. The difference between us was that you claimed that Jack would have a clock ratio of 1:1 and Jill would have a much greater clock ratio, hence the lengthening of times. So I have no choice, I repeat the question you haven't answered yet, and now it's the 109th time:
"Do you accept that if Jill's clocks, like Jack's, also show a 1:1 ratio, then we've got a contradiction with the lengthening of times in the ratios?"
2. The question was: "If you install a device that releases photon after photon on a car driving towards a screen at 100 km/h, will the photons disappear and not be absorbed by the screen?"
And to that I answered: "The photon does not move at one speed, but at all of them, from 0 to infinity. We as observers can only measure that component that moves relative to us at the speed of light." Here is the continuation, which I thought was self-evident: the screen will absorb the same component that moves at the speed of light relative to it, but will not be able to absorb the components that move at speeds different from that of light. But still, it will absorb the photon.
Hence the analogy to the rainbow, which, although it is actually everywhere in a certain area, we are only able to perceive it at a certain distance from us, and we cannot see the component that is, for example, a meter in front of our eyes, even though it is there.
If you would like to know why I think the photon has this property (which is clearly different from Einstein's description of the photon, which according to him is always at a distance of CT from the light source, T is the time that has passed since you turned on the flashlight, but it completely fits the quantum description of the photon, the same description that Einstein fought against all his life and lost), I will gladly explain it to you. This is entirely dependent on the active website model.
But first - answer 109. You can't continue without it.
jubilee
almost. The gas particles are not flowed, they are there from the Edna coefficient. Remember the inflatable balloon? No need to put gas in it. The gas is there from the beginning and only expands, making it possible to put an exact time stamp on every moment which is simply by counting the number of air molecules in a given volume unit. This time will be exactly the same at every point in the balloon. If you take synchronized clocks, take a cubic centimeter at a certain point in the balloon (which can have a diameter of a kilometer), count the number of molecules in that cubic centimeter and mark this number next to the time shown by the clock, you will prove that at any other point in the balloon where the number of molecules per cm K is the same as the tax you received, the time will also be the same as the time another clock will see at the same point. To the same extent, you can measure the temperature, and see that it synchronizes your clocks automatically. Hence "temperature clocks".
Israel, another attempt to check if I understood before commenting on the substance of the matter:
You are trying to define time using the dimension of length (to the third power) which you take as a fundamental size. You do this through a constant flow of particles of matter (gas, in the last example you gave) into this (cubic) length. Every time we count the particles of matter in a certain volume unit (which for the sake of interest can be called a "clock") we will get a number indicating time. did I understand correctly?
R.H., to your response: "If time is a dimension, then the analogy to a clock is a ruler. To say that all the clocks are coordinated by some external entity is like saying that all the rulers are coordinated by an external entity.
If I understood correctly, then this is a nice analogy. All rulers are equipped with scales that are divided into identical length units (usually millimeters in most of the world and sixteenths of an inch in the USA). There is one and only standard ruler against which all rulers in the world are calibrated. correct.
Israel,
1) "And also show me the response in which I admitted that there is no contradiction between the extension of time and the explosion." Look at my last comment. Again once you agreed that the Friedman equation is different between Jack and Jill systems the contradiction is resolved.
2) a car? Is this your answer? That a photon in one at any given moment moves at any speed and we can measure it at any speed? It goes beyond even the collapse of the wave function. Are you saying that all the time, even after the collapse, there are infinite speeds?
3) Keshet - as I already wrote to you and you ignored, Keshet is not a mysterious or mystical thing. It has a very precise location and it is in the aerosol of the droplets where the light is refracted.
Nice, the response went through. we will continue You claim that I did not answer the question "If you install a device that releases photon after photon on a car that drives towards a screen at 100 km/h, will the photons disappear and not be absorbed by the screen?"
Look at answer 2 to your previous question in this link:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/vlt-hubble-smash-record-for-eyeing-most-distant-galaxy-2310104/#comment-333578
And tell me if this is not an answer to the question.
Where are many other things?
R.H.
Maybe I missed something.
Please show me the comment where you answered no.
And also showed me the response in which I admitted that there is no contradiction between the lengthening of time and the explosion.
Israel,
or! That's exactly what I'm talking about. You asked me the question a thousand times and I answered no a thousand times, but you don't listen (or don't read). Moreover, by Socratic questions and answers I have brought you, in my opinion, to admit that there is no such contradiction and you still insist.
You agreed that Friedman's formula needs a conversion factor according to the system in which it is given, look at your answer to point 4:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/vlt-hubble-smash-record-for-eyeing-most-distant-galaxy-2310104/#comment-333763
So why isn't the debate over? After all, you actually agreed that there is no contradiction. Why are you coming back now?
In addition to the fact that I showed you quite a considerable amount of things without explanation in your model that you did not give a damn and dismissed them with a wave. For example, if you install a device that releases photon after photon on a car driving towards a screen at 100 km/h, will the photons disappear and not be absorbed by the screen? After all, according to you, they move at a speed of C+100 and therefore the screen no longer receives them. And there were many other things.
We returned from Apota.
I try to observe all the mitzvahs, light and severe. And if I remember correctly, it is written "For six days you shall rest your God, and on the Sabbath day you shall worship"
Or did I get confused once again?
Jubilee, not volume, length. Multiply by 3 dimensions and you get volume. Fill it with expanding gas, and you have automatically synchronized time at every point, and here is your external factor that causes all the clocks to "beat" together as you say (what are beats? Beats are discrete units, what are we, the Palestinian Authority, with whom we make an agreement in beats?).
And it is true, I think it is possible to see that in such a model, if we apply it like the "autostrada" example I brought up earlier, we will get both gravitation and inertia without the friction of the Lasage model, and waves with properties similar to electromagnetic waves. I'm not saying that this is what really happens - I'm just claiming that if, for example, we build a laboratory model based on this idea, we'll get gravity, inertia, and waves propagating at the same speed for every meter.
R.H. - I have already discussed the matter with Berry Samka, and although you may accuse me of scorning scientists, I do not think that you are less intelligent or understand less than them, in this field that should not be your field. The only point you might be missing is the equivalence of the inertial systems, that there is no such thing as truly moving or truly resting. This is a point that has never been brought up by anyone except you, you can also see it on our websites in discussions with Adi or Michael, and I believe that you are simply wrong, plain and simple.
But if after two months of grueling discussions you write:
"Yuval, after we resolved Israel's apparent contradiction." Banon silence, without even reading my response to your so-called "solution", isn't it natural for me to conclude that you want to finish and leave?
Give me an example of why I didn't answer you. I can definitely show you where you didn't answer me. Here it is for the 108th time:
"Do you accept that if Jill's clocks, like Jack's, also show a 1:1 ratio, then we've got a contradiction with the lengthening of times in the ratios?"
As you remember, you were promised many rewards and eternal life if you answered this question. I will now add to it the links where there are answers to every question you asked in the past.
jubilee,
You say: "In order to establish the assumption that what one particular clock shows reflects the time everywhere, we will have to show that there is an external factor that affects all clocks to the same extent."
If time is a dimension then the clock analogy is a ruler. To say that all the clocks are coordinated by some external entity is like saying that all the rulers are coordinated by an external entity.
Yes. You can shorten it. But then someone will come like a dot and say that I say things that only I understand...
jubilee
You didn't understand. You don't need to expand, you need to shorten.
R.H. Rafai.M,
You must be joking, but in any case I would appreciate it if you could elaborate
jubilee
For this you will need to build a clock that will measure the frequency of dark energy.
Until we receive an answer from Los Angeles, a short continuation of the time issue from before:
In order to establish the assumption that what one particular clock shows reflects the time everywhere, we will have to show that there is an external factor that affects all clocks to the same extent. First we will have to show that the entire universe is pulsating and that it is possible to measure the readings of clocks at any point in it. Later we will have to show that the pulses of the universe are coordinated - not independent pulses unique to each and every place but uniform pulses throughout the entire universe.
Israel,
You wrote "For some reason, it seems to me that you simply want to conclude the discussion by proving your righteousness, and it doesn't matter if it's the truth or not."
Israel, for me this is the truth. I'm sorry but I'm running out of words especially when I don't get meaningful responses from you. I sit, rack my brain in a field that is foreign to me, read and study it and in the end you do not address the points I raise, or at most dismiss them with a wave of your hand. In a large number of cases you also read the claims quickly and it is clear from your reference that you didn't really bother to read and understand what I want. So OK, I can understand that you are looking to discuss with a greater authority than me on the subject, so say so and don't waste both of our time. And if I'm wrong and you are interested in continuing the discussion, then please address the points individually.
Israel, I have a feeling that I pick up on your intuition.
If I understood correctly, the basic dimension in your presentation is volume. The universe is made of units of volume and time is sizable particles that enter into this volume. From this you say that force (gravity, persistence), pressure, energy and so on can be derived, without requiring time. Before I make a sentence, please tell me if I understood correctly (not just "yes" or "no", but also an explanation, and please make it as simple as possible).
jubilee
Volume: length X width X height.
Basic unit: cubic meter.
Note that if there is anything to this, then space is always under pressure (the particles try to expand like a balloon) from this you can derive inertia (they resist acceleration within them) gravitation (you can tell Sage, but you don't have to. You can derive inertia from gravity and vice versa. Shaima did it's mathematical). and electromagnetic waves (Maxwell).
Israel, your definition is problematic, because it requires a preliminary definition of space (volume), which prevents us from defining space as a subspace of time, and that is what all mechanics is based on.
You asked "How does this help us calculate something?", but that is not the right question. A correct question is "How can we calculate something if we don't have the basis for the calculation?"
After we finish clarifying this issue, please remind me to address your other questions.
jubilee
Nice, but how does it help us calculate anything?
What do you think of my definition: the number of particles per unit volume, just like a balloon inflates every certain moment can be defined by the number of air molecules per unit volume. Can explain a lot, including the one-way arrow of time right? After all, unlike Einstein in 1905, according to my methods, the future is separated from the present and the past in an unambiguous way, which can even be quantified.
Note that this definition fits very well with the big bang theory with its expanding universe, but does not fit with the static universe picture of 1905. Time according to this assumption is not a parameter "outside the system", but an integral part of it, which is expressed in pressure, density, and temperature. And just as in the inflatable balloon system where PV=NRT, it is impossible to say that the temperature is a parameter "outside the system" but an integral part of it, so the temperature of the universe is not a parameter outside the system: it is a direct function of the essence of time.
On the other hand, if the universe is static as thought in 1905, this definition does not hold, the temperature of the universe does not depend on time, and Einstein is absolutely right in assuming that time is relative.
R.H. darling.
When we chose the Socratic method, it was "as a way of striving for truth".
is that what you do Because it seems to me for some reason that you just want to conclude the discussion by proving your righteousness, and it doesn't matter if it's the truth or not.
So let's see what you claim. We'll take Jack and Jill. Jack is said to be stationary relative to the radiation, and Jill is moving relative to it.
Jack sees that Jill's season is lagging behind his. Everything works out, because he is indeed resting completely.
But what about Jill? She also sees that Jack's watch lags behind her (relatively), but what is her excuse? After all, there is no doubt that she is really "moving" and he is really "resting".
ZA that according to your logic, both of them should have agreed that the clocks in the Jill system are backward, but that is not what relativity claims.
Dear Israel,
Read what you wrote "Didn't you read on the computer? It always calculates the time on the assumption that you were at rest relative to the radiation"
And concentrate on the words "assuming you were resting" and what if you are not resting???
parable
student,
Your spam against my spam. This is my way of showing that the celebrations are over and the war has resumed. what is your story
By the way, my very long response on the subject of time is awaiting approval. Apart from sarcastic reviews, what justification is there for your existence here?
time:
Everyday we are intuitively aware that time is a dimension above the three dimensions of space. Calculations of movement in space over time constitute a very important chapter in physics.
We also know time as a dimension above dimensions that are not the dimensions of space. We measure, for example, "half-life" (mass of isotopes or populations of creatures), age, obsolescence and practically everything that is not constant - in units of time. That is, time (until the theory of relativity) is a super dimension by which everything will be measured.
Attempts to define the concept of "time" have never gone well, because definitions of concepts are based on more basic concepts, and nothing more basic than time has been found. But we are aware of its existence and feel it, and as such it is "entitled" to a beautiful definition like any object in our world.
A proposal for an experiment: we will build two time-sensitive devices and make them as identical as possible to each other, for example two cesium or, preferably, aluminum clocks. Let's put each of them in a different place and occasionally read the numbers that appear on their displays. If we buy each of the watches with similar conditions we will find, "to our amazement", that the numbers are the same or very close to each other in each reading. In fact, each watch mirrors what is happening in the other watches with a great degree of accuracy. With a little exaggeration, the results of the experiment can be interpreted as if all the clocks are transmitting to each other what is happening in their guts. But for the purpose of this interpretation we have to assume the existence of transmitters and receivers in these clocks, and we built them beforehand without consciously planting such mechanisms in them. Another possibility, which is also not obvious but requires fewer assumptions, is that there is an external factor (which we call "time") that acts on each such pair of watches in the same way. The second option is better than the first because of some inference rule that we set for ourselves ("Ockham's Razor") and in the absence of a simpler option we accept it, that is, we accept that time works in the same or very similar way everywhere. But it is still not clear to us how this happens, since we do not know what the mechanism that activates time is.
The theory of relativity presented us with new challenges. One of them results from changing the subject in the formula and presenting time as a variable over the speed of light in a vacuum which we accept as a fundamental constant. However, even this arrangement does not explain to us the mechanism that activates time and even adds a new mystery - how light "knows" to maintain a constant speed in every void. At most it allows us to define the concept of time according to another, more basic concept, but this concept also needs clarification.
As long as we do not understand time we cannot say essential things about it. The most God can do is talk about the numbers clocks show. We see that changes in the clock's environmental conditions, such as acceleration or temperature, affect what it shows, but these changes occur in the body of the clock inside and not in time outside of it. We can assume that what a particular watch shows reflects the entire time, and for the most part we even act according to this assumption, but we must remember that this is only an assumption.
R.H.
It goes like this:
past - none (in a pinch)
The future - still
And the present - in the blink of an eye
And worry from where?
What solution are you talking about? equal to…
Didn't you read about the computer? It always calculates the time on the assumption that you were at rest relative to the radiation, and gives you the absolute time at that given moment, which is the same for every meter.
Yuval, what kind of student are you if you have so much free time - and more to add up?
Hop Hop Trallah
You grew up in the year heh heh
The celebration is over
Tarella remains
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0CndRrKIHA
Israel,
We do solve C-C. I think you are missing something very fundamental about the temperature clocks.
1) True, they immediately measure the background temp. But in order to know how much time has passed since the bang, you or that Friedman must know what the rate of cooling is. agree?
2) If the rate of cooling is different in different systems, then, yes, Friedman's formula should have a relative factor that speaks about the rate of cooling.
3) This formula was created according to resting conditions and therefore assumes a very specific cooling rate. This would not be true in a system that moves quickly relative to us, where there would be a different rate.
In conclusion, I am glad that you gave the answer to question 4: ". In that case, you need a different formula, or you need a conversion factor. Pretty simple it seems to me." —– (drum music) —– Congratulations!! You solved the contradiction you thought existed between relativity and the bang!!!! Nice birthday present!!
jubilee,
"After we resolved Israel's apparent contradiction. We can finally reach you. I have no idea what time is except for the trivial definition that it is what has passed from yesterday to today. Besides, it is a necessary mathematical entity in formulas. But it is elusive, as the Zen sages say, "The past has passed, the future has not yet arrived and there is no present, so what is time?" If you have any insights. You are welcome.
That's it, the festival is over. Every year the same story: what would you like for your birthday? Quiet! Just quiet! And then of course comes the production.
R.H.
I looked at the link. No time dilation experiment. It's all a book.
Your questions as prompts. Every problem - Malmilian. But I also just have a small question: weren't we supposed to ask and resolve them before we agreed that Jack's clocks would show a 1:1 ratio, and that two temp clocks would show the same time at the same point at that moment?
Because according to the previous agreements, there is no problem of rate (in fact, the clocks show 1:1, ZA that they are moving at the same rate, otherwise a gap would have opened up between them), and there is no question of what the temperature is at a certain point at a given moment, otherwise it is impossible to agree on it Systems that pass each other, and we have already agreed that it is possible.
So before we continue: do you agree that if it is possible to simply measure the temp with a Kelvin thermometer, and that it will be the same for every measurer at a certain point at a given moment, we have received a contradiction to the lengthening of time?
Let's continue.
First, due diligence. I never succeeded, even though I asked a lot and checked everywhere I could, what exactly is the same temp. The answers were divided between "it is absolutely possible to measure the temperature in the shade using a thermometer" and "we must measure the radiation spectrum".
In my opinion, it doesn't really matter. If you connect a computer to a radiation meter, or a thermometer if it is possible, you will be able, by reading the temperature and measuring the doppler, to know what the temperature of a system was at rest relative to the background radiation, and deduce from it the age of the universe in a resting system, which will be the same for each meter, and hence absolute time.
This time is the same at every point in the universe, and differs from a galaxy clock in that we must know in advance the data of each galaxy, and do the weighting accordingly.
Regarding the question of the rhythm: if it was not the same as cesium clocks, we would not be able to talk about the age of the universe of 13.7 billion years, but we would have to introduce a certain conversion factor, which would synchronize between Friedman times and KDA times. The fact that there is no such conversion factor shows that these are the same times and the same pace.
Note the first fact that jumps out from the assumption that temperature depends on speed: that inertial systems can be distinguished by measuring the radiation.
Poor Einstein.. First postulate B went because of Bell's theorem, and now postulate A because of cosmic radiation..
1. According to the Friedman formula, you do not need to be at different points. The measurement is of the radiation spectrum and not of changes, and the reading is immediate, like with a thermometer. In temp clocks, the computer gives the output as the number of seconds that have passed since the big bang.
2. Agree. The Friedman formula gives the rate of cooling.
3. As I explained above, the rhythm is the same as normal watches.
4. In that case, you need another formula, or you need a conversion factor. Pretty simple it seems to me.
5. True. There are many other problems with supernova clocks - first and foremost that we measure what happens in them using light rays. I flowed with you, to show that this argument does not contradict the problem of time dilation, but I don't accept that you can really build a clock from them, what's more, as you saw, we have to know in advance the data of each supernova.
6. The rhythm will be different. The absent Michael talked about it being possible to even go back in time. But if you start from the assumption that every modern temperature clock knows how to offset the speed relative to the cosmic radiation, you will prove that by means of the Doppler measurement it is possible to know what the temperature would be if the clock was at rest, and hence what the absolute time is.
Remember the train example? Each locomotive's clock moves more slowly in the other's system, although we did not specify who was moving and who was resting. Each train for its part is resting, and the other is the one moving, therefore each locomotive will come across clocks in the cars opposite that show more and more advanced times. If it was equipped with temp clocks, they would always show the same times, and these would be the same as the clocks adjacent to them, and there would be no time extension.
jubilee.
It is very difficult to define what time is. I don't remember who said that "when I'm not asked, I know, when I'm asked, I don't know". If you have an idea, share.
I tried to give time a physical entity, by defining it as the amount of particles in a unit of volume. This fits perfectly with the Friedman formula (which, by the way, talks about density, not temp. which is a derivative of this density). If I ever finish the discussion with R.H., I would like to try and calculate whether such a mathematical definition is compatible with Newton's formulas for example, which include time in their content (F=MA for example).
And I don't think we walk around like chimneys in our discussions. On the contrary, it seems to me that we made good progress, and that we both learn a lot from this discussion.
It's time for guiding questions.
Good night.
R. H. and Israel, in Metota, a small pause in your eternal discussion.
Before you continue your attempts to kill time, do you even know where to find it? Do you have a definition for this concept?
My question is simple: what is time?
Esau, please, I will sit down in this discussion, which in any case gives the impression that it is not progressing anywhere. Please try to understand what is the thing on which you rain fire and brimstone and a big explosion and a supernova. Then, after you agree on one definition, you might discover things you didn't know and all the vague concepts around which you run around like relativistic inertial chimneys will become dark.
Did you travel?
If so, I have prepared several guiding questions.
Israel,
You may have grown a year but you still ignore my questions and lead the discussion with yourself.
A simple question for which I have not yet received a simple answer:
1) How do the temperature clocks work? (That's not the question yet, it's rhetorical).
Do they measure the temperature at different time points and then according to Friedman's formula, since we know the cooling rate of the background radiation, they calculate the time? right wrong ? (Here you have to answer and give reasons if necessary)
2) If you agreed with 1, then would you agree that the assumption that we know the rate of cooling is at the heart of Friedman's formula? True/False Necrosis!
3) If so, suppose the cooling rate was different, would Friedman's formula show a different time? Won't we have to fix it? right wrong?
4) And what if you have two systems (for now theoretical) in one of which the cooling rate is faster than the other, won't your temperature clocks show that a different time has passed? True/False Necrosis
5) Let's say we go with what you said you would flow with me - super nova based temp clocks. Won't we have to sync them according to the cooldown rate of each super nova? right wrong?
6) In two systems moving relative to each other, will the rate of cooling of the background radiation to be measured be the same (emphasis on rate!) or will each have a different rate that will result in each seeing their clocks aligned while the other's are wrong in relation to the observer's private Friedman formula? True / False Necrosis!!!
7) Isn't this the situation between Jack and Jill? (This is rhetorical and obvious, you don't have to answer).
R.H.
You are generous to give it a chance of 1 in 100. Much lower RH, much lower.
And what are the chances that you will answer what I asked? Because if you answer, maybe you will see that there is a problem, and not that it has no answer, but that I don't know the answer to it. And you? point? someone?
But as I mentioned, there may be a way out, and I estimate that within a week I will be able to hear straight from the horse's mouth (Kind).
Come on, I'm flying.
Israel,
Say what you want from the bow? A rainbow is not a mystical or strange thing. Gone are the days when the Irish thought there was a freak who hid his treasure at the bottom of the arch and no one found it.
A rainbow is a refraction of light in an aerosol of water droplets acting at a certain angle as a mirror. If I take a prism and create an arc in the room, do you have a problem saying where it is? Same with the water.
Point, when will the day come when you add something constructive to some discussion and not just comments to the body of the other debaters? If you don't like it, don't read. What did you even come to the article from 2010? Let's go heal *im and establish together the brotherhood of the Nigs.
R.H. Regarding your question about Jill:
According to Einstein in 1905, there is no difference between Jack's and Jill's system. Each will see the other slowly yield, and since time is infinite, both are right.
Must fly to work, Elek's birthday.
Israel,
First of all, congratulations and until the 120th century that you will get to roar every morning like a lion!
Secondly, I have a school that gives thousands of examples of what you describe: http://bookme.co.il/Books/584-56/דבר-המומחים.aspx
On the other hand, does the fact that the experts are wrong a lot necessarily make what you, Yehuda, Yuval, Meir and the rest of the "new experts and modelists" say as pure truth? Do you know what book could be written about mistakes made by non-experts? Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia were smaller than this.
And now before you go tearing up the pubs of LA, like this between us, quietly without anyone hearing, with a hand on your heart in honor of your birthday, as an expert (and this time not sarcastically) of probabilities, what do you think the chances are between 1 and 100 that your model is correct?
R.H.
In the hijacked reply, I answered everything you posted. I will try to do it again in short:
Your questions are not disturbing - on the contrary, they raise points for thought, especially your claim of parameters outside the system.
1. Flowing with you. If you can get absolute time from supernovas or a supermarket - you're lucky. You'll still get a timeout discrepancy.
2. If you finish problem XNUMX-XNUMX, you will see that the solution I propose, that light moves basically at all speeds, solves the problem and pretty much agrees with what we know about the spread nature of the photon throughout the universe before it is measured. Therefore your A, B, D, and H are not defined correctly and the only answer I can choose is no.
If I ask you what is the distance to the rainbow and you answer 6754 m, you may have answered correctly for the particular conditions that day, but in fact the rainbow is at any distance from you, you will always measure it at the same distance, and you cannot stand under it or cross it to the other side. A bit reminiscent of the speed of light, isn't it?
3. I didn't understand what was meant by "what do you think?" On Mofaz's choice?
4. What I'm looking for is: an example of a real experiment done, not imaginary, in which the lengthening of times in a non-accelerating system was proven. The link you provided is a theoretical solution to some problem.
5. In my opinion, the temperature is a parameter within the system. The original Friedman formula talks about the density of the universe, the temperature is just an expression of this density and so is time, if you have read Hawkins.
6. The twin paradox is accelerated systems. Let's finish the subject of stationary systems first.
There were many other things in the response, including what happens to the particles in the cloud and why according to the inertia discussion we conducted earlier, which explains according to the extension of the Lesage model what stabilizes the wheel of Yehuda's motorcycle as it turns or you in slaloms on the black tracks in skiing, systems that turn quickly resist acceleration much more than systems at rest , and hence the difficulty of accelerating particles at high speeds, or what happens to the time that is "compressed" in the case of acceleration, and hence the artificial extension of time in the airplane experiment. But let's finish XNUMX-XNUMX first.
Point - what now? We intentionally ran away to the other end of the universe in the article from two years ago, so who prevents you from staying with the ultra-Orthodox in the news articles? Isn't this exactly your proposal for the "I have an idea" corner? Who exactly are we disturbing here, unless you are referring to "forcing delusions"?
Point as long as it is about the comments, the freedom is greater than in the articles. The only area in which I censor comments is an area where real harm may be caused to human life - advocating for the delusional movement that opposes vaccines. Of course I also censor commercial advertisements, which people mistakenly believe is an opportunity to reach many thousands of surfers a day without participating in the cost of maintaining the site.
jubilee
Thanks, and Sahtin for the memory. In the morning I roared "Another 65 years, Manaik!"
And to your claim that I didn't discuss the matter with physicists: so that's it, yes. You are the only one, by the way, that I sent you the email of the long correspondence I had with one of the senior physicists in Israel. Out of respect, I will ask that no names be mentioned. If you go through the correspondence, you will see that all the accomplishments of R.H. They also came up in this correspondence, including the claim that "each will see the other submit more slowly." If you continue, you will see that I managed to convince him of all my claims, except one: I claimed that the cosmic radiation system is in motion relative to us, he claimed that it was not. Here are his words in an email:
"I repeat what I wrote before. The sentence "If the sun and we move relative to the system
The cosmic radiation at a speed of 370 km per second" is meaningless. In terms of all systems
The cosmic radiation is at rest."
This is where the discussion ends. Since Wikipedia claims the opposite, and since even if he is right, it only strengthens my argument, then I cannot accept the supposed refutation of my argument.
Here are personal stories of why I don't take the experts' claims for granted (today is my birthday, and I'm allowed to!).
Many years ago, we were stuck in America, a bunch of undocumented kibbutzniks, with no way out. There is no problem leaving - the question is how will you return, if you have already exceeded your stay visa by 3 years.
A crazy idea came into my head, and I put it up for peer review, and also before two lawyers who worked at the time in the immigration authorities:
What will happen, I asked, if I simply fly to Europe to one of the countries where passports are not stamped and apply for a new visa to the USA? Who even knew that I have been illegal in the US for 3 years already? Why, for example, won't they think that I've been in Europe for 3 years already?
"Go home snooze" was the firm answer from all the experts "They are not little children." They know exactly where you are, when you entered and when you left. Sit back and wait for a green card like everyone else, or prepare to cross the Mexican desert at night."
Of course, such an answer does not satisfy Israel, so I took action: I sent the passport along with a visa application to a mine in Germany, which submitted it to the US Embassy in Frankfurt through the Ministry of Tourism. After I got my passport back with the new entry visa to the USA, I went to Israel for two months and came back without any problem.
Another story (birthday!). A few years ago, I submitted the following crazy idea to peer review on the card writers website:
As anyone who has seen the movie "21" or the articles on the History Channel knows, the main problem facing the writers is how to deceive the casino, so that they don't know you are a writer and think you are just a drunken gambler.
The solution of the good company from MIT was that at each table there would be a "spotter" - a writer who bets on the minimum amount, and when the count is high, signals to the "Big Player" who emerges and plays for $10,000 per hand. The casino doesn't make a connection between the spotters and the Big Player, thinks he's just a crazy gambler, and lets him run amok, until it's too late.
For the idea I brought up I called "STATISTICAL EV". The EV is a term in blackjack that means expected value - a term from the field of probability theory that gives a way to calculate what the advantage the dealer has over the casino.
And here's the idea: there are many tables where there is a "shoe" where 6 packages are mixed together. Instead of counting ourselves or using a spotter, I suggested, we use the casino's regular players and monitor their behavior from a distance. If many of them get up from the table as one man grieving and bareheaded, it is a sign that things are going badly for them, and probably a lot of small cards came out, which increased the count, and now you can go to the table and play for large sums without arousing suspicion.
Observations and preliminary counts that I made, reinforced my early assessment that it is indeed possible to get a statistical advantage in this way.
The reactions on the websites BJ21 and RGE21, many of whose members are renowned mathematicians, were terrible and horrible. (Israel suggests using "fluffies" (a derogatory term for laymen) as allies! Saint ET FAN (to which I replied ET, GO HOME, PLEASE) Don Schlesinger, the blackjack lights and toms, gently suggested that I keep the idea as an exercise Theoretically, and not to waste my money in vain.
But that's exactly what I did. I budgeted $10,000 for the experiment and made a weekly trip to the dozens of casinos that were opened at that time on the Indian reservations in California.
The house soon began to be upgraded: a new wooden floor, furniture, appliances. One day I brought my wife a new Lexus RX350, with the dedication: STATISTICAL EV - Ronit has an SUV.
luck? probability? Maybe. Maybe it's also a coincidence that the casinos rushed to replace all the "shoes" with automatic mixing machines, which can no longer be counted.
The lesson for me is that, as in the case of the immigration experts, and the blackjack experts, and the aviation experts who ruled out the idea of the heavy flying machine from the air, if they don't prove something to me clearly - I don't accept the opinion of the experts just because they are experts.
Happy birthday, and please respond gently (where is Yehuda?) today. All the rest of the year - as Sah.
R. H. and a student, thank you.
When the time comes I will try to calculate the length of the hydrogen chloride bond. It is much more complicated to calculate than the bond length of the hydrogen molecule, but I will try especially for you, student.
R.H., currently I'm leading in the XNUMXth league championship, barely. I have to jump many leagues until...
Period, I'm not in business. I have learned my lesson and I will not put unfinished product here again.
OK. So all you have to do is calculate the bond length of HCl from the spectrum I linked to in the previous discussion.
jubilee,
I think you missed his point. He didn't mean for you to go and learn about chemical bonding, but for you to see how from your model a result is obtained such as the length of the basic chemical bond of hydrogen or the charge of the electron or the speed of light or any other physical constant. I definitely agree with him that if you see something like this it will jump your model up a league.
Father, please.
This site is not meant for people to fill it with their theories. It's a tireless hassle that annoys most visitors to the site.
Ideas to be written, new points of view to be written, but to fill the comments with meaningless text that only the writer can understand? Let them write their own website and at most put a link in the response.
The father of your site was destroyed before your eyes and you do nothing to save it and bring it back to an adequate level of discussion.
This is not a mysticism or scientology site.
If you don't know what I'm talking about then it probably isn't you.
Doss is a site where pseudo-science is trying to prove that evolution is wrong, that the age of the world is 5700 years, that there are demons and spirits, and that every word in the Torah is true and contains no contradictions at all. In his opinion, of course, any finding that contradicts a comma in the Torah is wrong anyway and must be twisted and arranged so that it fits. On that site there is a commenter who calls himself a Technion student who answers with infinite patience almost every claim made by Doss and I thought it was you.
Sorry if that's how you understood my words.
In any case, the purpose of my work is to reach the existing models and not to replace them (unless my assumptions contradict them).
At the time you sent me to learn about the length of the bond within the molecule. I went to several sources, but didn't find anything I didn't know before.
R. H.,
Not that I remember. What discussion is this about? (Dos - referring to a religious person or a nickname?)
So you are misleading me in that message where you wrote that most of the things I mentioned find an explanation in you.
And I already thought that I could learn about the Raman effect without reading 700 pages and burning 10 pens trying to understand the developments.
Technion student,
Are you that patient Sisyphus student who constantly responds to Doss even though there is no shred of hope that he will listen?
Student, thank you 🙂
And regarding my model, it is difficult for me to answer you. Now I mainly focus on the earliest metaphysical part, which has almost nothing between it and the known layer of physics. As of now I have finished in an orderly manner only the definition of time and the three dimensions of space 🙁
okay, well.
By the way, will we get to see the explanations for that list I gave you in the previous discussion?
student! Please no sarcasm. If you don't want to help, you don't have to. But your personal downs are pointless
And I am far from outstanding 🙁
Why me, who after all graduated with a bachelor's degree. We have you, the owner of the model formulated in countless word processors and with a background of 40 years of creative writing.
student! Please, don't be a snob. The man is desperately crying out for help
If I understood correctly, then his claim is that two models accepted by the scientific "mainstream" contradict each other. This should be the opening sentence, followed by a synopsis - a general explanation of a few lines. Then present the existing models while emphasizing the problematic points, then point out the contradictions and finally propose a corrective model. The idea is already formulated in detail. All he needs is just wording. Come on, student! you are better than us Tilt please Nablus
No thanks. I will leave the right to an outstanding second-year student in physics who builds physics from scratch.
Oh, student! And I thought according to Tomi Shafaresh.
Rather, offer him your help
Yuval... Oh, the irony.
Israel,
Regarding your C-C:
Let's go one step back and ask how the temp clocks measure time? They take the Friedman formula and say that based on the calculation the temperature drops at a rate of say 1K over a year. A year - a unit of time measured by a cesium clock.
1) So far agree?
But, this is true for our system (or Jack for that matter).
Let's say that Jill was moving fast since the Big Bang in relation to us, would Friedman's formula say an increase in a year for her as well? I don't think so. She would say up in a minute.
Therefore, in each system we would see 1:1, but between the systems there will be a difference.
Note that although the temp clocks seem to measure something that is not relative. The rate of change (in this case the cooling) is indeed relative and depends on speed.
Israel, on the occasion of your holiday, please receive free advice:
I'm only a second year physics student and pretty quickly I smelled the approaching black hole. The big calibers have long since left the discussion. You have an interesting and important claim that you should discuss with senior academic researchers and not with laymen like us. The years go by and you still wade through the waters of Ephesus. It's a shame of your precious time that you spend with us for pitiful pennies. You need to formulate your argument in a language and style that scientists like, and present it to them. I am ready to sit down with you on the wording
Beautiful Israel!
I assume that the deleted response also contained the proofs of the Goldbach hypothesis and the Riemann hypothesis?
Because I don't see in the current response any answer to my findings and questions and claims what 29 time 19:07
A hundred and twenty million or even more is also possible, as long as the number is finite
to the tireless subversive under the mainstream,
Congratulations on your 1000th comment
May you continue to enrich us with your innovative, original and refreshing responses up to one hundred and twenty thousand
I was just talking - confirmed.
Only by force, only by force.
I am here and released immediately.
Father, now I really don't understand.
A short response, no links, no forbidden words, so why are you waiting?
is it me huh? The conformist scientists harass those who challenge the mainstream theories, eh?
By the way, the game... it would have been better to watch channel 10 for that show, and stop watching channel 10 for the basketball game.
Let's hope that in the next game there will be something to look at.
R.H.
My last comment was disappeared by the dark mechanisms of the previous server, who was offended that he was replaced. It's quite a shame because it had everything: a grand unified theory of physics, a cure for the flu, cancer, and the secret of eternal life. I managed with a supreme effort to reproduce the bottom line: if you answer my question - i.e. do you accept that if Jill's poverty, like Jack's, also show a 1:1 ratio, then we got a contradiction with the lengthening of time in the relationship?
The logic is this: if the ratio is 1:1 in both, then the two clocks, C.H. and Temp., always show the same time in each separate system. You can actually only use a temp clock. At the time of the meeting, both temp clocks show the same time, and therefore also the clocks, so there is no time extension. It is even possible for each spaceship to digitally record its time on the other spaceship, so that there will be no doubt as to who is seeing what.
I'm not saying that you accepted the issue of the equivalence of inertial systems - that what happens to Jack must also happen to Jill - but I ask: let's say you accepted - do you then see the contradiction?
If you answer this question (that's right, I only asked 107 times) you will see a great blessing in your life. Research grants, lottery wins, great happiness and eternal life.
But if you don't answer.. then your punishment will be life imprisonment in this article with hard work: keep responding to this question every day until you answer.
Greetings.
Regarding the experiment, it was broadcast on the "London and Kirschenbaum" program and they talked there, if I remember correctly, about creating a system in which they caused a light beam to slow down on one side and a light beam to accelerate on the other side, thus creating a gap between the two beams in which information could be transmitted without being discovered for a short period of time.
It was not an experiment, we had to do a surgical operation to the site, because the server could not withstand the load.
I started watching channel 10 at the basketball game. If you have a link to the article on Mint 10 I can know what to refer to.
my father
What you described happened regarding Israel's reaction, is similar to what happened in an interesting experiment that Israeli scientists did in the UCLA labs. There was an article about it yesterday on TV (Channel 10). It was interesting to hear about such things on this site as well. Thanks.
The site has been upgraded to a new server. Anyone who wrote something between taking out the backup and downloading the server, as if they didn't write.
I asked my father
Mila is waiting, but why did I miss a response? (About 10 at night, Thursday).
Waiting since morning
Israel,
I apologize if my questions are bothersome, you ordered it.
Sorry, but right now I really don't have time to watch the lectures. Even so, I don't know how I spend so much time on the current discussion with all the other things I have to finish.
1. Sorry I don't understand. What is the difference between the radiation from the big bang and the clocks that Einstein proposed to hot gas ejected from a super nova and getting colder. Everyone measures time. The starting point of the timeline can be defined as the big bang or the super nova. That was us.
1.1. Question: How do you explain the uniform global cooling of radiation at every point in an eternal universe without a big bang?
2. Come on. How can you say no to A? After all, you defined that light moves relatively, so how could it not??????.
How can you say no to B???? You claimed with the whole story of your ballistic pendulum that we don't see fast light, so why not????? And it's not clear to me how you say no to D and H, which are logical developments of everything else.
3. Beauty. We made progress. That's really how it's a contradiction if A contradicts B then either A is true or B is true or both or we didn't understand something fundamental. what do you think?
4. See for example here: http://psi.phys.wits.ac.za/teaching/Connell/phys284/2005/lecture-01/lecture_01/node11.html
In the example below, do you see anything about acceleration?
5. True, but your temp gauge measures a parameter outside the system
6. Indeed I don't know what it looks like. Obviously, as soon as they were ejected from the spaceships, the clocks switched to a different reference system and will show the time relative to it.
In the example of the trains, you again describe the twin paradox in a pictorial language. They say goodbye in the morning. The first twin returns after an hour only to discover that for the second twin it is actually night.
Let's go back to real life and the article
I have déjà vu,
Reminds me of "Eternal Man": you hear only the brushing of swords in every site and across every time
A bit of a relief isn't it?
I am beginning to see the obvious advantage of discussing with you. Because of your annoying questions, I am now going through Suskind's lectures (recommended!), and it turns out that there is a place where you can get answers straight from the horse's mouth, or in our case, Suskind. He has a blog where he promises to answer everything. I hope that within a week I will be well versed enough in his lectures so that I can either understand on my own, or I can ask him in a way that doesn't make me look too much of a jerk.
Your questions:
1. Let's say that we do have such a gas. His problem is that he is in a very specific and defined reference system. Everyone who moves relative to him is seen as someone who moves relative to the air - and here is the way for us to distinguish between inertial systems. (Obviously, two planes can define their absolute speed through the air through which they move).
But let's exaggerate the data: the gas fields are far enough apart that the airs pass through them without interruption. In fact, it is possible to replace the mules with bowls of hot and cold water, which, according to Homan, we can tell what time it is.
So let's go to a more advanced stage: Einstein proposed to scatter clocks in the universe and synchronize them. Anyone who passes by them will be able to tell what the exact time is by looking at them, right?
So it's not. All the systems we have proposed so far are synchronized in only one inertial system. The gas, the bowls, the clocks - they all show the correct time only to those who move at a speed of 0 relative to them. If I emerge from the left at high speed and glance at the clocks, I do indeed see the time of that system, but it is different according to Einstein from the time of the clocks that I carry with me, and which are synchronized to my reference system. To synchronize the clocks with you, we have to start the well-known tedious process of synchronizing with light rays, and the whole time dilation problem will arise again. There is no absolute time.
It is different if we have an absolute time that every system can agree on - the time that has passed from the moment of the big bang as measured by every system located at a certain point A, if this system was at rest relative to the cosmic radiation (which we concluded is quite simple to calculate for Pentium computers).
2.
A. No.
B. No.
third. Yes.
d. No.
God. No.
According to what I suggested - and if we solve the 0-XNUMX system, I believe you will see that it is quite necessary - the photon does not move at one speed, but at all of them, from XNUMX to infinity. We as observers can only measure that component that moves relative to us at the speed of light.
Since speed is a quotient of distance and time, I will ask you a question that will hopefully help clarify my meaning: What is the distance of a rainbow from the viewer? Is it possible to approach her? to stand under it? Pass it to the other side? After all, we measure a certain and defined distance to it, and even see it in a certain place. So can you tell me exactly where she is?
3. I do see another possibility, but it is still possible to answer your question without expanding too much: A or B are correct. I don't know which one.
4. Maybe I don't fully understand what you mean about doppler. Can you give a specific example?
5. According to relativity, each sees the other moving slowly relative to his system, not relative to a certain and defined component in the system.
Example: If Joe is driving a long train locomotive with all its car clocks synchronized, Jane passes in front of him in a train traveling in the opposite direction, and as soon as the locomotives pass each other with their clocks showing 0, then according to relativity the following cars in Jane's train will see c and his own advanced times, (and the passengers in the cars will see his clock as falling behind respectively), and also Jane will see the times in the following cars in Joe's train as advancing and the passengers of his train will see their time as falling behind respectively.
Thus it turns out that each system sees the other as slow. This does not mean that they do not agree on what they saw. Both Jack and Jill in the original example agreed that Jill's season was lagging, and Jill did not claim otherwise.
6. Let's do it differently. At the moment of the encounter, from the force of the impact, Jack and Jill's clocks are ejected from the spaceships, stop working and the time in them is frozen (these clocks are particularly tough). We come later and collect the watches.
According to your logic, everyone sees time differently (for the sake of it, the difference is 4 years and 11 days, 15 hours)
So what do we see when we look at the watches we collected? Each of us will see a different time? Indeed a relationship at its best!
Much more logical, and also warranted from the data of the original question, that there is an agreement between them on the time they see on the other's watch. A sharp resolution camera will show the times on the 4 clocks, and the same picture will be the same if the camera on the opposite spacecraft is also taken.
(I'm just imagining a slow train entering the station with the rattle of wheels, on the front of it is a large clock with the time 10 in the morning, the passengers on the train are waving to their loved ones who came to greet them, but they are unable to see them because they see that the time on the clock on the front of the train is actually 3 in the morning, and therefore there is darkness ).
If we agree on this point - we have almost reached the root of the problem.
Israel,
1) Super Nova - very true
2) Israel, I will return again. Please read carefully. I didn't say the light doesn't exist. But according to your model:
A. The speed of light is relative and not constant in contrast to relativity —- agree?
B. The detectors are unable to see light traveling above speed C —- agree?
third. It is possible to build a flashlight that launches photon after photon at a slow rate so that it is possible to know exactly how many photons were launched, as was done in the slit experiment —– do you agree?
d. If a - d are correct, then it implies that if we put the above flashlight on a moving system towards a screen, not a single photon will "see" on the screen. This is an obvious conclusion from your model
God. Hence car headlights should have had no light at all.
Which of the sections A-E do you disagree with?
3) You say: "The lengthening of time does not agree with the absolute time of the bang. This.". It is not, sir. There are consequences to what you say. If they do not settle then as mentioned there are three options:
A. There was no explosion. There is no extension of time c. There is no time extension and there was no bang.
Assuming that the world is coherent and has no contradictions, do you see another possibility? And if you do not accept the coherent and objective assumptions, then the discussion is over because it is impossible to continue with an illogical world.
4) The Doppler effect is one of the ways in which the lengthening of time was measured. In fact, it ties the bang very nicely with the extension. You can't escape the consequences of the Doppler effect.
5) I didn't understand what you were saying. According to the Wikipedia entry that you referred me to and quoted from, every viewer sees the time of the second system as slower than theirs.
6) No. From what I understand what Jill sees on her own watch will be different than what Jack sees on Jill's watch. And what Jack sees on his own watches will be different from what Jill will see. What I understand from the principle of time extension is this:
A. Both will see the same time on the temp gauge
B. Both will see the same time on their cesium clock as the thermometer
third. Anyone looking at their friend's cesium watch will see that time has passed more slowly.
R.H.
I think your question about the supernova can be phrased like this (correct me if I'm wrong): What is this whole big bang story for? Fill the universe with hot gas, the gas will cool, and we have a cooling egg where every frog can know the exact time by measuring the temperature of the egg, and this time will automatically be synchronized with the time measured by every other toad croaking at the other end of the universe. I understand it right?
2. Why is it ignored? He repeats: the light exists, but we cannot measure it, just as we cannot measure the radio rays that pass through us, just as if we are in a completely dark area, it does not mean that there are no infrared rays there. If we rush in their direction, they will be revealed in full.
3. It is clear that if there is no explosion then the space temperature is the same over time. This was also the popular opinion in 1905, and even Jules Verne talked about it in his book "The First Men on the Moon". Why repeat the mantra "you deny the existence of the bang" or "you deny relativity" instead of referring only to what I say: the lengthening of time does not correspond to the absolute time of the bang. This.
4. The Doppler effect argument you are making here is about the bang, not the lengthening of time.
5. I'm not sure you fully understand the sentence "each will see the other slowly". This must not be true in the example of C-C - fact, they both agree that Jill's clock is slow, she does not claim that Jack's clock is slow, but agrees that it is faster. Jack's clock lags behind other clocks in Jill's system, which are synchronized with her.
Why don't you answer my simple question before we continue:
If we start from the assumption that the ratio of temp/temp clocks in both systems, both Jack's and Jill's, is 1/1, do you see the problem of the lengthening of the times? Yes or No.
Liron:
Read my response to this https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-323137 (in another discussion)
thanks for the reply,
What you wrote is clear and known, but it still doesn't work out if the problem I presented,
In order for the two objects to reach a distance of 13.1 billion light years, and assuming that the two objects left the same point (the big bang) they would have to move away from each other for at least 13.1 billion years (assuming that two objects cannot avoid each other with a speed that exceeds the speed of light) and only then the photon that you described will set off and arrive only in 13.1 billion years, that is, when the age of the universe will be at least 26.2 billion years
Liron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Misconceptions
Broadly speaking, what we see (the galaxies) is not what is actually there, at the time of observation, but what was there when the light - from that area - set off towards the telescope.
Imagine that you are looking at a certain galaxy, what the telescope is picking up is radiation from that area.
So the 'fastest radiation' will be a photon let's say, hence the light moving at the highest speed will reach the telescope first, and what you will see is the photons that traveled at the speed of light all the way from the moment the telescope aimed at them. But in practice it is not what is found there in that area.
In short, the calculations are a little more complicated than that, because a lot of data must be taken into account, not a few of which are "discrete".
a question:
How does it make sense that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years and the most distant galaxy is 13.1 billion light years away.
I will explain the logical problem:
Suppose all the stars came out of one singular point (as suggested by the big bang theory),
Therefore, the Earth and the distant galaxy can be treated as if they came from the same point,
The maximum relative speed between the two objects is the speed of light,
Let's see what happens after a year:
The two objects are one light-year away from each other, one of them emits a photon at the same moment,
The photon reaches the second object a year later,
An observer who is in the receiving object will see the photon emitted one year later, and he will be able to notice that the object is one light year away from him, the observer will see the photon when the age of the universe will be two years,
The conclusion is that the age of the universe must be at least twice the time it took for a photon to reach the farthest object,
In our example the age of the universe is at least two years, and the farthest object is a light year away,
That is, if the most distant galaxy we see is 13.1 billion light years away, the age of the universe must be at least 26.2 billion years.
Help me, where am I wrong?
Pine:
Space does continue, apparently to expand but you are using the word "evidence" incorrectly.
The current size of the visible universe is not "evidence" - precisely because it cannot be seen.
This size is a conclusion of the theory and not a finding that confirms its correctness (which is implied by the word "evidence" which can refer only to observations and not to conclusions)
Amos is right. Space continues to build, and at a speed faster than the speed of light. And for evidence, the limits of the visible universe are 13.7, but the size of the universe is 93 billion light years.
Thank you very much from *Kal
Saturn:
I started watching the link and despaired after nothing was said in the first two segments.
It looks completely like a commercial for UFOs (including the hoarse voice and the background music) and that in itself is suspicious.
I don't give credence (and I don't tend to spend much time) to theories whose PR system precedes peer review.
In relation to cold fusion - many people take the issue seriously and it is really not true that it has become an example and a joke.
What was, for example, witty were the claims of those two physicists, but not the subject as a whole.
Even in Israel there is a company that deals with the issue:
http://www.themarker.com/tmc/article.jhtml?ElementId=skira20090521_1086966
http://www.energianews.com/article.php?id=2938
Ghost:
It's not at all like numbers and that's for many, many reasons.
Someone who understands mathematics might compare it to something much more appropriate (like ordinals or cardinals), but here too the problem I mentioned from the beginning applies: there is a difference between a physical thing and a mathematical definition.
abandoned. Not important.
Machal and Zvi
The shell of all universes is probably also inside some shell.
In my opinion, one should go step by step and not jump straight to the question - in which envelope is the envelope of all universes.
First we will learn about our universe and then we will learn about other universes. But you have to take into account that there is a shell for our universe and this shell contains many other universes besides ours.
After we find proof for this claim, it will be possible to move on to the question of the envelope of the envelope of all universes.
By the way, Makal, you are absolutely right, there are endless such envelopes. But to consider all envelopes as a whole that is outside the whole? I don't know, it's like calculating the value of infinity. Maybe there are infinite dimensions? You will know.
To *Machal Rotch*ld
As an esteemed mathematician, I would love to hear your opinion on the next clip (the series of clips actually)
I don't have enough knowledge to deal with the truths in the clip
Anti-Gravity / Cold Fusion Explained In Detail: A New Era In Physics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgAzgnR18U
deer:
The truth is that I was trying to point out another point to the ghosts.
Since he did not state any reason why the totality of all envelopes is not "something", then this something - infinite as it may be - must also be inside an envelope.
Thus we pointed to a new envelope that is not in the collection of all envelopes - which is a contradiction.
It is very similar to Russell's paradox, but while Russell's paradox is mathematical and its solution can be achieved by appropriate definitions, what Rafaim claims is a physical claim based on terms that in his eyes are defined and changing the definitions will change the claim.
ghosts,
Michael's point is that the "envelope of the infinity of other universes" must also, according to your logic, contain another envelope and so on and so on - therefore there can be two things:
1. Or you are right and then there are endless envelopes upon envelopes and it never ends (which is strange but maybe possible)
2. That at some point there is a shell that has no shell - and according to what we see, our universe may be like that.
Since at this stage there is no observational evidence with 1 being true or 2 being true, Michael prefers to work under the assumption that what exists is only our universe because that is what is known for now. Maybe you are right and there are endless envelopes upon envelopes, but for now there is no way to check this.
Ghost:
You didn't understand the show you saw.
Instead of referring me to TV shows - maybe answer the question I posed to you?
If the answer is in that program then you must know it, don't you?
FYI - Hawking also knows cosmology and he does not think that everything has an envelope.
Machel
I recommend you watch the series 'The Universe According to Stephen Hawking'. (It aired today on the Discovery Channel and I saw part of the show and I think it was the Time Machine episode)
After you see it, you will argue that my words do make sense, and your words about my words are clearly illogical.
I will explain to you in simple terms: it is a very simple theory. And I didn't even invent it, and you must have already heard about it a long time ago.
But it is not clear to me why you continue to deny the logic in this theory.
Note, it's very simple:
As every shell has a shell, so the universe also has a shell.
The shell of the universe contains not only our universe but countless other universes.
You are just many questions,
If it is determined that the big bang - I wonder if God set a timer for the second of the bang or was it just spontaneous?! - was 13.7 billion years ago, and a galaxy was discovered from a distance of 13 billion light years, that means that the age of that galaxy was 13 billion years, as soon as the light rays left it, So she is considered somewhat older..
In terms of distance, if you had a spaceship flying at the speed of light, you would celebrate a billionth bar mitzvah when you reached the place where the light rays came from in the first place. Since the galaxies are receding in the accreting space, it would have taken you longer to find parking, because the old galaxy went on a galactic test drive.
Do you now understand the importance of wormholes?
Michael, was I wrong big or huge?
Ghost:
You did not understand me.
If you mean that everything, including every shell is inside a shell - you get an infinite series of shells.
It's already a pointless thing, but then you also have to ask "where is this whole endless series?" Then you have to answer "in another shell". But we asked where all the envelopes were, so how is it possible that there is another envelope?
In short - this is a illogical approach.
Regarding what does make sense - I really suggest that you read the book I recommended.
Ziv Vanzer
But this balloon is inside a room (envelope) that is inside a city that is on Earth and so on...
Assuming that the universe is the 'shell' of everything, why not have a shell for the universe as well? Or, how can the shell exist not inside something, or actually inside nothing? If it exists within nothing, then this 'nothing' also needs to be defined. And how do you check this 'nothing' is defined?
Machel
I didn't understand you, why can't the shell exist inside another shell? After all, everything is inside a *shell*.
If all there is is the two-dimensional surface of the balloon area... when it expands, all reality stretches after it
The universe does not expand in space,
The space expands... like stretching a balloon, the points on it expand and move away from each other..
The difference is that if the universe is another dimension then it is harder to see..
Ghost:
Your logic is inconsistent.
If everything exists inside a shell - then where does the shell exist? Inside another shell?
So that's it - what is inconsistent is not true. also in the present case.
I have already suggested to those who are trying to understand the matter to read the book "Poincare Hypothesis".
What do you want... the universe = everything that exists
In what shell does it take place?
Machel
In Wikipedia under the definition 'the universe' it is written: "The universe is the whole whose components are all the matter and energy that exist in physical reality, as well as the space (including space and time) in which all events take place"
According to logic (at least mine) everything in nature is or exists inside some shell.
According to my logic - I cannot understand how the universe itself is not inside some shell.
And I don't understand how the universe spreads in a space that is not inside any space/dimension.
I would appreciate it if you could explain these points to me.
Michael, of course I understand that the "age difference" between that galaxy and the Earth cannot be less than 13 billion years in the past (ours), but it can certainly be more than that, and this is the question I am actually asking, how can the age be determined The exact one if all we know is only the distance between the Earth and that galaxy.
I gave the example of approaching galaxies as an explanation that this is the only situation to the best of my understanding where 13 billion years of distance between us directly indicates the age of that galaxy, and that too provided that the two points/galaxies move at the same speed. This is of course not the case and therefore I fail to understand how it can be concluded that: 13.7 billion years that the universe has existed minus 13.1 billion light years between us necessarily equals that that galaxy is 0.6 billion years old. Why not 0.4 billion years because the galaxies move in different directions when the difference lies in the physical distance between them. After all, if two bodies leave one point and move in opposite directions at a speed of one meter per minute on one axis, five minutes later they will both be 5 meters from the start and 10 meters between them. It is said that the speed of light is 2 meters per minute. If one point observes the other, it will see the other point 8 minutes away (or a meter...) even though in fact the practical "age" difference between the points (the observer and the observed in its original state) is only 2 minutes. This is on the assumption that they originate from one point, if the currently accepted theory is that it is not a single point from which the galaxies "emerged", then all the more it seems strange to me that the distance/time between two points can directly indicate the absolute age of one of them. That sounds too simplistic to me, but then again, maybe I'm wrong.
Thanks anyway for the book recommendation, I will read it soon.
You just asked:
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking and why.
That is, if we know that the light from the galaxy traveled a distance on its way here that light cannot travel in less than 13 billion years, then it is clear that the age of the galaxy from which this light came cannot be less than 13 billion years.
This matter is so obvious that I'm almost convinced I didn't understand what you're asking.
You are also talking about a galaxy that for some reason is approaching from direction A or direction B while the galaxies are moving away.
This issue with the point where it all started is most likely your misunderstanding of the current theory which clearly does not speak of a situation where our universe resides in a higher dimensional space just as the (two-dimensional) balloon resides in the three-dimensional space.
It is about a space that expands without expanding into something that was there before.
Read the book "Poincaré's Conjecture" to get some intuition on the subject.
Again, the distance between KDHA and the point where we see the galaxy has already been clarified in the article (of course, since then that galaxy has already moved away from that point, developed and grown into a magnificent galaxy, but that's not the point). The question is how can one know the absolute age of that galaxy in relation to the general timeline of the universe if one does not know the distance (how much time has passed..) between that galaxy and the location where the explosion occurred. If this galaxy is moving in the direction of the Earth, a simple calculation of the age of the universe minus the "distance" from it will give its age, but if it is moving away from the Earth in another direction, it is not clear to me how it can be understood that what we see from it is necessarily the condition of the galaxy when the universe was between 600 million years ago.
By the way, the example of the balloon is indeed flawed because the very development of the balloon (inflating it) in three-dimensional space makes all the points on it (the galaxies) partners in three-dimensional space even if they see themselves as two-dimensional. Although those points may seem to live in a two-dimensional world, they live in a three-dimensional space where there is a three-dimensional meaning to the distance between them, and of course also to the distance between them and the point from which the balloon emerged. They may not "see" this location, but they are definitely at a defined three-dimensional distance from the starting point.
In addition, if we calculate the location of several points on the balloon at different stages of development of the balloon, we can surmise the pattern of their expansion and thus conclude about their initial location - the starting point.
Maybe another example can be clearer even if it is not accurate.
If we think about some kind of imaginary nuclear explosion in an infinite void - initially from one starting point (the atom) a cloud of matter and energy erupts, dispersing in the void for a billion years until the various particles crystallize into spheres of matter that revolve around themselves and continue to spread in the spaces of the void. Such an idea can explain why it is difficult to define the exact location of the beginning of the explosion, and perhaps the entire universe created by that explosion moved significantly away from that point, but there is still a point where it all started, and theoretically it is even possible to calculate the imaginary distance between any sphere and the starting point.
What interests me about such an example is that for a long period of time the universe was a cloud that spreads through space at different speeds, so it is not clear to me how the distance between a certain point (like the Earth) and another point (the same galaxy) can indicate the age of that galaxy in relation to the creation of the universe.
The explanation of the big bang that was created everywhere in the universe basically describes a collapse and not a bang. Explosion - from one singular point bursts material / energy into outer space to that point. Collapse - from the "everything" a process of releasing energy/matter inward is created (no relation to external or any other space).
I say again, I am basing myself on very little academic knowledge, and rather conclude from the article and your words regarding the matter. I would be happy if you correct me.
In short, the galaxy was formed about 13 billion years ago. But to calculate the distance to Aliya, you can use different beacons as needed. And in any case, the distance to Alia is not that relevant to the majority of humanity.
For accounts of ghosts at 8
The speed of light is not 299 thousand meters per second, because then we wouldn't faint, but 299 thousand kilometers per second.
I have a girlfriend for about 30, 40 years and I estimate that most of you are
are in my place so if anyone
I know someone who is working on a solution to get there, so he should try
Finish before my life ends. and good luck
Michael,
The Milky Way galaxy is a standard galaxy in the universe as it is in our area here and now. Therefore, it is probably much larger than the galaxy in question (since with the passage of time galaxies collapse into each other and become larger and larger) and therefore when I say that our galaxy is visible to those who are there in one way or another, I mean that our region (where the Milky Way is not yet but the galaxies that will be at a later date) is in a situation similar to the situation of the region where the galaxy in question is located.
Regarding my statement regarding the complexity of measuring cosmological distances, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_measures_(cosmology)
As far as I understand, the 46 billion light years you are talking about is the so-called proper distance, but if that is so, it is not a simple geometric distance (because this term does not exist at all - and it is enough to understand that we and that galaxy are not in the same Lorentz system since our speeds are different very).
The statement that the distance is simply the time multiplied by the speed of light corresponds to another type of distance (Light travel distance).
In short, saying what the distance to a certain place is is not correct on a cosmological level - it is necessary to define what distance it is.
deer:
The galaxy in question was formed about 13 billion years ago.
The Milky Way probably formed much later
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Milky_Way#Age
That's why we are probably still unseen in this galaxy.
Today this galaxy is probably 46 billion light years away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of_the_universe#Size.2C_age.2C_contents.2C_structure.2C_and_laws
Answers:
Stellar distances are estimated using photography from 2 points at the same time, just as we estimate distances and see XNUMXD with a pair of eyes.
A distance can be described in km or when it comes to huge distances it is more convenient in light years, this is because the speed of light is constant.
It is possible that the universe is much larger than 13.7 billion light years. The observable universe is 13.7 billion light years in size because the explosion happened 13.7 billion light years ago and we are at the center of it.
Where the bang occurred, there is no way to know, but we can observe it - this is the background radiation.
The age of the galaxy is calculated by the age of the observed universe from which the distance estimate to the galaxy calculated with the help of 2 photographs was subtracted.
Shaham (1),
The degree of redshift has no units and that's how it should be. A redshift of 8.6 means that light with an original wavelength of 1 micron (say) becomes a wavelength of 8.6 microns, since it is a ratio between wavelengths at different points, then it is a size without units (if we measure in inches it does not change anything since a wave with length of an inch, will become having a wavelength of 8.6 inches).
Zvika and many more good ones,
This galaxy is younger than the Milky Way because, due to its great distance, we see it at an earlier stage of its formation - that's the whole story. Talking about her current situation is incorrect because the concept of "current time" is not absolute and therefore it is also impossible to say absolutely that she is younger than us or older than us. What's more, if an alien sits on a galaxy in its location when his galaxy is in the developmental stage of the Milky Way - he will most likely see the Milky Way in the state in which we see his galaxy.
As for the distance - if light took 13 billion years to arrive, then the distance from us to this galaxy is approximately 13 billion years. I say approximately because in a non-static (and not even necessarily Euclidean) universe there are different ways to define distance and in fact there is nothing to talk about about the concept of distance in isolation from the concept of time (in this respect Amos was wrong in specifying current distance - since the concept of absolute time does not exist at all and therefore there is no "current" distance ).
I'm just a question,
There is no meaning to the question "where did the big bang occur" and therefore you will not find an answer to this question.
The accepted analogy for describing the Big Bang is something like a dotted balloon (a galaxy is a point) that inflates - the distances between the galaxies are increasing, each galaxy sees all the other galaxies as moving away from it, and galaxies that are far away will appear to be in a much more primitive state - but if this is not the case you will not be able to point to a point on On top of the balloon and say that it is the beginning of the universe.
It's just an analogy and thus it can be flawed (for example, the two-dimensional balloon inflates in a three-dimensional space, while in our case we can get by just fine without a fourth spatial dimension in which the three-dimensional "balloon" will inflate) - but I hope it clarifies the point
There seems to be a mistake in the article. If the galaxy appears to be only 600 million years old, it should be at least 30 billion light years away from us due to the expansion of the universe.
It is interesting how far away the distant galaxy was, from the point where our solar system clustered, when its light that we see now was emitted.
Legal
In theory there is also a horizon where the universe expands at a speed exceeding the speed of light, even what is beyond this horizon will not reach our eyes. (Regarding the envelope of the visible universe).
R. H. Refai.M, it seems to me that you are a bit confused: the beginning of the big bang is everywhere in the universe, since when it happened, the whole universe was one singular point. The dots you speak of are just the shell of the visible universe. Beyond that, (I just have a question) as written in the article, in the first billion years of the universe all the light rays that were produced were swallowed up and it is not possible to see anything from this period.
I just asked
Every point farthest from the earth is the beginning of the big bang.
It is not possible to determine at which point the big bang started, because all the farthest points are connected at the beginning of the bang and there is no way to determine at which point, from those points, the bang started.
Is it known what is the exact point where the big bang happened?
I tried to find answers to this and I didn't really find anything decisive about it.
The question popped into my mind as I tried to understand how the researchers came to the conclusion that this galaxy is 600 million years old. Although I'm ignorant of geometry, it seems to me that in order to know the exact (absolute) age of that galaxy (in relation to the timeline starting from the big bang) you also need to know where we are and where this galaxy is located in relation to the center point (the big bang). We can certainly know the distance between the Earth and that galaxy (13.1 billion light years), but in order to know the absolute age of that galaxy, it seems to me that we need to draw a triangle where one vertex will mark the location of the big bang, another vertex the Earth and the third the same galaxy. The distance between the bang and the galaxy will be one side, the distance between the bang and that galaxy is a second side, and of course the distance we know (13.1 billion years) is the side connecting the galaxy to the galaxy. Although there is a probability that that galaxy is indeed 600 million years old, but this will only be valid on the condition that we, that galaxy and the Big Bang are on the same straight line.
This question about the location of the Big Bang raised other questions for me -
Assuming we know where the big bang happened, if we point a strong enough telescope at it will we see the big bang happen? If we have already "reached" the situation where we observe things that happened billions of years ago, what prevents us from observing the big bang in its own right?
I'm pretty sure this idea is complete nonsense but I can't figure out where I'm going wrong.
I would appreciate any answer / response / sharp condemnation.
noname
Shaham answered precisely.
The distance from Earth to the galaxy is 13.1 billion years.
A 'light year' equals: 9,460,730,472,580.8 kilometers.
Light moves at a speed of 299 thousand meters per second (approximately).
That is, light moving (in vacuum) at the speed of light (299 thousand meters per second) travels 9,460,730,472,580.8 kilometers in one year.
Therefore (if you think about it) you will get a result that is 13.1 billion years in which it took light to travel the distance to the Earth. If you want to calculate it in kilometers then you will have to use other equations. (If it really interests you, learn math and then you'll know how to do it without confusing the minds of other people who read the comments).
to brown,
You didn't really answer the fan.
After all, how do you know how far the galaxy is from Earth? (And if you answer that this is the time it takes for light to arrive, you will return to a fan's question again...)
Sorry for the ignorance but I have a question
My understanding is that the more distant galaxies are the more ancient because they (supposedly) formed first
So with this galaxy about 600 million years old then when...
No, I didn't understand, it's beyond my understanding at the moment... Oh My God
I wonder what's going on with her today?!
The server cannot currently fulfill the request due to temporary load. Try the service again later.
To the fan and to their shame
This is assuming that the speed of light has been constant since the big bang. I regret to state that it is not at all certain that this is the case.
Generally, the speed of waves in the medium is proportional to the temperature, so it can be assumed that the speed in the early and hot universe was greater.
In my opinion anyway.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to the fan
Light travels at the speed of light
Therefore from a distance of 13.1 billion light years. It takes light 13.1 billion years to arrive
How do you know how long it takes for light to arrive?
"At a redshift of 8.6."
In this section from the second to last paragraph, no units are specified
That's why it makes it a little difficult to understand