Until today it was common to think that those primordial gas clouds contained very few molecules of water (H2O), and this for two main reasons: first, the oxygen needed to create water was very rare at the beginning of the universe, and second, molecules that were nevertheless formed in the clouds were exposed to ultraviolet radiation ( UV) - radiation that breaks down molecules - at a very high intensity.
The key to the search for other life in the universe is, first and foremost - water. Without water there is no life, and where there is water, there is a chance to find life. Now a team of researchers from Tel Aviv University and Harvard University has discovered that there was much more water in the ancient universe than scientists had thought until now. The meaning: an increased chance of the presence of water - and hence also life - in the planets in the vastness of the universe.
"All the galaxies, stars and planets we know today were born from large gas clouds, which were created in the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago," explains Shmuel Biali, who led the research as part of his doctoral thesis at the School of Physics and Astronomy at Tel Aviv University, under the guidance of Prof. Amiel Sternberg. "Until today, it was common to think that the conditions in those primordial clouds prevented the formation of water in significant quantities. In our research, we discovered, to our surprise, that the amount of water vapor in the gas clouds was much greater than we thought."
The research was carried out in collaboration with Prof. Avi Leib, Head of the Department of Astronomy at Harvard University, within the Tel Aviv University - Harvard University Raymond and Beverly Sackler Astronomy Program. The article was accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, And it can be viewed at the link.
Ancient gas clouds
"When the universe was young, only about a billion years old, the stars we know today were just beginning to form," says Biali. "Most of the matter in the universe was concentrated in large gas clouds, composed mainly of the lightest chemical elements - hydrogen and helium. The stars, like our sun, and the planets that revolve around them, were formed later, as a result of the contraction and collapse of the gas clouds - in a process that took billions of years, and continues today."
Until today it was common to think that those primordial gas clouds contained very few molecules of water (H2O), for two main reasons: "First, the oxygen needed to create water was very rare at the beginning of the universe," Biali explains. "Secondly, molecules that were nevertheless formed in the clouds were exposed to ultraviolet radiation (UV) - radiation that breaks down molecules - at a very high intensity. In gas clouds that exist today in our galaxy, the molecules are protected by a large amount of dust, which absorbs the radiation. But this dust was formed only over the ages, as a product of the processes of creation and explosion of stars. The ancient gas clouds were almost completely free of dust, so the radiation that penetrated them was much stronger and more destructive."
100 times more common
To check how much water there really was in the ancient gas clouds, the members of the group performed a theoretical study: they solved chemical equations that express the rate of creation and destruction of the water molecules under the conditions that prevailed in the cloud. "We chose to base the calculation on a (theoretical) environment where the amount of oxygen is a thousand times smaller than what we find today in gas clouds in our galaxy," says Biali. "That's why we expected to find a negligible amount of water molecules - a thousand times smaller than that in contemporary clouds. But the results were surprising: according to our calculations, the frequency of water vapor in the ancient clouds was 100 times higher than we thought - and very similar to their frequency in the gas clouds today! Although it is very important to note that in today's age, the clouds contain, in addition to water vapor, a large amount of ice - that is, water in a solid state of accumulation."
What is the explanation for this? Why, despite the harsh conditions, was a relatively large amount of water molecules formed in the ancient gas clouds? According to Biali, the answer lies in the temperature: "Previous studies, by Prof. Avi Leib and others, showed that in the clouds of the beginning of the universe a relatively high temperature prevailed, similar to room temperature - about 30 degrees Celsius. On the other hand, the temperature in the gas clouds today is very low - below 200 degrees Celsius. The cooling is caused by elements such as carbon and oxygen - products of stars and planets, which were rare in the early universe, but are abundant in today's gas clouds." Following the findings, the researchers believe that the high temperature accelerated the process of the creation of water molecules in the ancient gas clouds - to the extent that it was able to compensate and even overcome the impact of radiation and the lack of oxygen.
"The ancient gas clouds were the raw material from which all the stars and planets that exist today were formed," Biali concludes. "Therefore it can be assumed that the water contained in the clouds found its way to the planets, in our galaxy and in other galaxies. It is quite possible that the conditions for the formation of life already existed at a very early stage in the history of the universe, and what's more: the greater the amount of water - the greater the chance of finding life elsewhere in the universe."
98 תגובות
Shmulik: It's not that nature doesn't exist –> it doesn't *say* that nature doesn't exist
Raphael: Embarrassed –> ridiculous.
Yaron,
Of course it's you, stupid.
Shmulik,
Not everything you don't understand doesn't exist. For example, your understanding of nature is exactly zero. It's not that nature doesn't exist. (You will surely agree with me on this).
Miracles,
Again, nice that you believe. There are other believers in the world and their perspective on faith may be slightly different from yours. What to do not all clones of miracles.
Raphael and his friends,
It is your fault that you "express an opinion" regarding the validity or invalidity of scientific theories. It can be assumed that you have studied Gemara for many years. How about just analyzing the texts that appear there? Not enough complexity for you? Why talk about things you have no clue about, why are you making fun of yourself?
Yaron
What you wrote is not nice. This is very true, and I also know such studies. Someone might be offended. Then, he starts talking nonsense. The truth…. He started talking nonsense, for no reason. He deserves it…
What to do, many surveys done in the field clearly show that people who do not believe are smarter and have a higher IQ than people who believe. The truth is that it is not at all surprising and also very logical.
It is hard to believe that a smart person with intelligence would insist on believing in the existence of an imaginary entity that has no trace of its existence, and would waste his time and life on it.
again,
Where did I write that I am smarter than others? Where did you get it from? why are you lying? Is it good for you to lie? Do you consult anyone about your tendency to lie? If we talk about tendencies, talk to them about the masochistic tendency as well. How else can you explain your being here, only to be defeated again and again by us in everything you say.
Raphael
If friends like yours…..
Raphael
This is what happens when you stop using your mind. The shamoliks and nisim begin to be moved by the earthquake of their wretched soul as its foundations shake and crack.
This usually happens when the majority who are the sane part - puts a mirror in front of them.
The whole mob comes out of the bibs and starts talking about how much smarter he is than a religious person.
About them it is said: Pethaiim. And it is allowed to add: arrogant.
Yaron
I think like you. I'm just emphasizing that there is a lot of such nonsense, like homeopathy.
Miracles, all I'm saying is that God is nonsense invented by humans, and whoever doesn't understand it himself is doomed.
Yaron
The whole idea is that the strength of your belief in what something should be depends on how much evidence there is. If you want to believe in something that has no scientific evidence for its existence - your right. Just don't be fooled that all scientists are idiots.
was Created
I exaggerate and say - there is no knowledge, there is only faith. But - faith, in my opinion, should be probabilistic, the more evidence there is, the stronger the faith.
The religious commenter also thinks so. The problem is what do you do when the evidence refutes the belief. I change my belief, and they deny the evidence. And when a scientist tells them that they are talking nonsense, they call him a fool and a liar.
This is where the anti-theism that Shmulik spoke to stems from - from the garbage that religious people here spew out to damage claims that they are unable to refute.
Again - I'm not an atheist. I am a naturalist, believe that everything can be explained naturally. I don't understand why you think this is idiotic.
"I have a problem with those who think they know what is good for the other to think. That is, I have a problem with those who think for others that this question is fiction"
Wow that's exactly me!!! God is really a fiction, and there is no doubt at all that I know much better than those who think otherwise.
(No, and I didn't say that sarcastically, I really mean it)
let's try,
was Created,
I have defined well in what sense I am an atheist. I don't accept the existence of God because I don't understand what that word means and if I do play the game and assume they are talking about some supernatural power I want to see evidence of it. Where exactly did I decide for others something other than in your mind?
I also explained why I loathe the idea of a dictatorship and unlike you, I really don't feel like a dictator. Unlike you, I don't think I'm different from my flesh and blood, I quite enjoy being in my flesh, unlike you apparently.
You also of course do not distinguish between a covenant and a belief, but there is really nothing to expect you to understand the difference between believing that you are going to succeed in an exam (for example) and believing in God. Search Google for "Amanah Amunah" and go to the first link, maybe it will sort things out for you.
Let's check: I don't believe you will do what I recommended. Believing in your unwillingness to learn anything that does or does not make me religious?
Miracles,
1) I am not religious and certainly not a representative of religious people. I'm not any kind of traditional either. I even agree with you that the religious who entered here to argue with professionals are pathetic and do a disservice to the community they come from.
2) I don't know what you believe but it's nice that you admit that even you believe. Let me tell you that there is no person in the world without beliefs. Furthermore, the picture of the world of each and every person, and I emphasize - each and every person - is a collection of beliefs, prejudices and non-prejudices, imaginations, and what not. A person's whole world is in his mind.
3) This is exactly the reason to ridicule atheism. Not that I have any problem with those for whom God is a fiction. I have a problem with those who think they know what is good for the other to think. I mean I have a problem with those who think for others that this question is fiction. It simply indicates infantilism, a kind of fanaticism - almost religious I would say.
4) Without any doubt, Albenzo is a professional in his field, a supreme professional. I can say this even from a professional private point of view. This does not make him a theologian or an a-theologian, it does not make him a great understander of what is right and wrong politically, in the social sciences, in religion or whatever. It does not even mean that there is a consensus on his views in his field of expertise. But this makes the argument of the missionary scholastics with him pathetic.
5) You are a hopeless chatterbox. But I already told you that.
Shmulik
I divide it into 2. It's one thing to be against the nonsense of religion, as you said. The second thing is to simply not accept that there is something "unnatural", by definition.
I support both approaches :)
was Created
Unlike the religious who comment here, I don't need to lie to justify to myself what I believe in.
I'll say it again - the religious responders here are liars or fools. The "or" is "or inclusive", to be clear. I did not say that there are no wise religious people and I certainly did not say that there are no stupid non-believers. I am proof of that 🙂
What do the religious even respond here (by religious claims I mean)??? To call Dr. Laphysik an idiot? To what level will you go to preach your faith? You really can't understand that it makes us mock you?
You guys are just awkward.
was Created,
Keep being a slave to your weird cult.
Nissim, as usual, you are quite a rascal.
"I, like you, cannot understand how an intelligent person cannot understand that there is no reason to believe these things."
Have you ever tested your intelligence yourself? Maybe it occurred to you that you are not able to understand because it is simply... said like Rafael does not understand Albenzo?
Shmulik:
God, how superficial you are!
The only (and terrible) dictatorship you experience in your life is that of your flesh. With a decisive and indisputable certainty, she will bring you down with grief and the only thing that will save you from her is death. This is the idea of misery...
Miracles,
In advance, the term atheist is problematic because you don't define yourself by things you don't accept. You are not an alfriconist, or an edkernist. Nevertheless, when I talk to people, I can define myself as an atheist in the sense that I do not accept the fact that God exists until I am told very strong evidence for his existence and I also insist that the term God is not defined or poorly defined and usually my interlocutor expects me to understand what He talks without bothering to define the term for me and then has to have an argument with my hands tied behind my back.
To go a little deeper, I like and adopt a term I heard from Hitchens: anti-theist. Opposition to the very belief in God. I mean I really loathe the idea that there is an eye in the sky that watches us, before we are born, after we die, when we dream, that judges us. This dictatorial idea makes me sick.
albentezo,
Did the analog black hole experiment provide new insights into a *normal* black hole?
It won't help against Raphael and R. Faim (a fact-extender). In the end, people of their type will always activate the mechanism of self-denial (so that God forbid they enter cognitive dissonance) and fade away until they come back again in another thread, with the same recycled arguments. This does not mean that you should not reply to them, in fact you should, since there are other people who read these threads
Maya
A religious friend told me that for him God is an axiom. He tried to claim that with me "there is no God" is an axiom, so I proved him wrong...
What I did understand from him, is that most people's faith is a social/family constraint. Many of them live in great dissonance, and make sure not to enter into discussions on the subject.
I, like you, cannot understand how an intelligent person cannot understand that there is no reason to believe these things.
I don't call myself an atheist, but use the term naturalist. I divide things into two - natural and supernatural. My logic is this: if there was something supernatural that affects the natural then we should see something in nature that cannot be explained. For example - if there was a "soul" then we would have to see something inside the brain that is not in accordance with scientific laws. As long as there is none - there is no need to assume that something is outside of nature.
This applies to religion, crystals, numerology, astrology, homeopathy and other nonsense that some people want to believe.
Raphael
It's better that way .. you've already eaten from the tree of knowledge once, don't do it again.
This discussion has become like chewing gum that has long since lost its taste. Unbelievable how many emotions there are here. chow
states,
1. Well, well. I thought you would try to divert the discussion to another scientific question, but you are trying to divert it to politics. In any case, you do not have the intellectual capacity required to address the claim.
2. I understood. Your problem is that you just can't read. Otherwise there is no way to explain the fact that you think "the same things that Raphael pointed out to you and you wave them off just so you don't have to deal with them and admit that Raphael is right."
Foam does not come out of my mouth. I'm not excited - I've been teaching for years and I've come across people who are dumber and smarter than the two of you. All in all, even by being trolls and trying to tattoo the achievements of science and its role, you are quite failures and have 0 creativity or original thought.
I never said that "you yourself admit that science cannot give answers to everything, and there are things that science will never be able to solve." it's a lie. The only thing I agree that science cannot solve is things whose definition is "what science cannot solve". I know you don't get it. I know nothing will help. But for the sake of correctness, we will mention it anyway. And because you asked so nicely, I won't use the word "liar", but I will just leave an open question - what do you call a person who says "you yourself admit that there are things that science will never solve" when I never said such a thing?
And regarding the fact that "it's not that you invented something or that you contributed something to humanity. After all, you barely learned what others already knew before you"... well, I understand that not only do you know what articles I published, what their contribution to science was, what awards I received and what my level was as a scientist, you probably also follow me for years and that's how you also know how difficult it is I had to learn the material and get to where I am today. You see, now you have exposed yourself. Because it is clear to everyone who reads this that even you are not stupid enough to believe that you can know what my scientific achievements are and how difficult it was for me to achieve them just from the correspondence here on the site. That's why every sensible person immediately sees that you're just a troll... You think you're annoying me, that I'm foaming at the mouth, that you're insulting me... and that in itself is almost as funny as your comments.
Miracles
I don't know if they believe what they say about science because I still haven't understood what they say about science. In everything they wrote I did not find any statement except: "Everyone doesn't know what they are talking about and we do" but without actually saying anything. There are indeed many intelligent religious people (I even know a few personally) and I must say that it always bothered me in the sense that I could not understand how such intelligent people manage to reconcile this contradiction for themselves. I never got a satisfactory answer on this matter. Not long ago I saw a neurobiologist at London and Kirschenbaum wearing a cap and they asked him about it. See straight away that the guy is definitely brilliant and probably also very good in his field and he gave them some kind of answer about a different belief (for example, he doesn't believe in a God who interferes in your life and to my understanding sees the whole thing more as a lifestyle, something I can relate to more, but still) that just didn't satisfy me .
On the question of how many people believe what they say and how "pure their intentions" are in this sense, I have had many discussions recently. I always tend to believe what people say (that is, to believe that they believe it) but then they call me naive. go figure.
Maya
Do you really think they believe what they say about science? I don't think they are that stupid. In my opinion, they are panicking. They realize that their religious belief lacks an evidentiary basis. They are like a cat stuck in a corner in front of a big dog.
There are many wise religious people. They will never argue against science.
Apparently our inflated friends are not in this group...
A few years ago I walked around a student test to answer questions. There was one student who asked me a question and I told her that I couldn't answer it for her (it was really something very basic that she needed to know and I couldn't give her the answer). Later on in the test, she pointed 4 more times and asked the exact same question, even without really changing the wording. 3 times I told her again that I couldn't answer and the fourth time I felt so helpless that I just stood next to her and banged my head on the table. I don't have a desk next to me right now and I really don't feel like getting off the couch, but that's exactly what I want to do right now.
Adon points out - in order to prove someone wrong, you have to say something. You and Rafael specialize in not saying anything. Albanzo's responses are really long (I noticed that it's really hard for you to read long texts, I wonder what that means) but at least there is content in them. Any observer from the side with a little intelligence and minimal understanding in his head can see who is the expert here and who, since I don't want to get into harsh expressions, no. So I don't know who you think is working on who. Even for those who do not understand the material (like me, for example) it is very easy to see who here is the one who understands the material and who comes with a clear agenda and does not try to listen and read at all (because it is long).
I'll just point out (in case you got to this stage of the response) as a scientist that I don't know a single scientist who says we know everything. If we knew everything we wouldn't have a job and honestly, we'd be a lot more boring. It's good that we don't know everything. We simply don't see any reason to come up with God-style answers to things we don't know, because it's much more interesting and fun to look for an answer that is somehow related to reality. So looking. That's what science does. We will know more later.
Albanzo
You're arguing because Raphael put you in the wrong.
My selfishness revealed your true face when you were challenged in front of the facts on the ground.
You were not able to refute any of my claims, therefore you chose to divert the discussion in the personal direction and decided to spoil your mouth in the hope that you will be justified.
You only work on yourself and miracles. And not on anyone else who understands even a little bit of the material.
You yourself admit that science cannot give answers to everything, and there are things that science will never be able to solve. The same things that Raphael pointed out to you and you wave them off just so you don't have to deal with them and admit that Raphael is right. Probably because of an inflated ego. Too bloated, and unjustly so.
The real problem is not your lack of knowledge (it's not that you invented anything or that you contributed anything to humanity. After all, you barely learned what others already knew before you), but your internal dishonesty and dirty mouth that doesn't allow you to admit some facts of life. Like for example the claim that God created the big bang which is equivalent to the claim that before the bang there was nothing (which in fact the latter claim is even less plausible and less accepted among the educated).
This is where the foam comes out of your mouth when you were put in your rightful place as a mad "scientist".
: )
As expected of you, now you'll probably start scribbling all kinds of words like liar, zero and other insults just to get us down to your level 🙂
So come on, come on... uh... sorry: March! (Or "the shared list". Whichever is closer to your heart).
elbentzo
Your error is that they are not difficult to perceive. If they were like that it would be a step forward for them. They don't try to catch at all.
states facts
Why do you say that science does not know what happens inside a black hole?
Raphael and notes,
Tell me, are you doing a competition among yourselves who is more difficult-to-perceive? You are so cowardly that you are unable to admit a mistake. Every time I show you how much nonsense you are talking, you simply change your claim and give me a new task to prove something to you. You complain that my responses are long, but you forget that each of my responses responds to several responses from each of you, and that unlike you - I actually explain my claims...!
So first of all, now you ran away with your tail between your legs and decided to change the discussion from "it is impossible to study black holes (or the big bang)" to "science does not know what happens inside a black hole". Please go back 10 comments, when I wrote Raphael 100 explanations about how unrelated these claims are. I argued only with the first one - that it is impossible to investigate. I did not say that science knows everything, or that we have all the answers. But we have the tools to ask questions, and to answer them both theoretically and experimentally (as I have already written several times, Hawking radiation in analog holes was measured a short time ago precisely in the tiny Land of Israel).
But since you're going to complain that my responses are long anyway (otherwise you'll have nothing to say - after all, none of you have yet brought a shred of argument or evidence. I explained in detail and specifically why Raphael's claims are unfounded and all he had to say so far was "my examples are valid" !"), then I will expose your stupidity to everyone, and I will see that your current claim - that we don't know what happens in a black guy - is just the escape of two ignoramuses who feel that a scientific achievement = a violation of their stupid example.
We don't know everything about black holes and what happens inside them. But we know quite a bit. We know how the space-time inside the black hole is structured - theoretical predictions for this were given as early as 100 years ago, and their suitability in measuring the radiation I have already talked about several times (the radiation is emitted due to a feature of the internal structure of the black hole). We know how to describe microscopically all the possible quantum states inside the black hole, and count these states in a way that is verified to give all the known thermodynamic properties of black holes. We know how to calculate the tidal forces inside the black hole (how much pressure a person falling inside the hole would feel), and compare the size that determines them (surface gravity) to the thermodynamic properties in question.
We don't know what the singularity looks like face to face. We do not know what the microscopic mechanism is that creates the patterns in Hawking radiation. There's a lot more we don't know. But as I said - I never claimed that we know everything and that was not what the debate was about. The debate was about whether it is possible to investigate, and the answer is a resounding "yes!" But what will Raphael and the observer do when they reveal that they are two idiots talking about things they have no idea about? Soon there will be an issue and they will divert the debate in another direction. Let me guess - in a moment there will be comments like "But Albanzo doesn't know what the dark matter is! He's arrogant and smug and writes long comments, but he's just a Damicolo scientist, look, look, he can't explain to you what the nature of dark matter is!"....
Two clowns…
Rafael, Albenzo is a professional in physics and next to him you are absolutely nothing (in physics of course). And when I say nothing I really, really mean nothing. For my part, Albanzo can babble about religion or faith just like you babble about science. But this does not detract from him as a professional in his field. You should focus on what you really compare to him, that is, in the areas where his understanding compares to yours. Physics/mathematics/cosmology is not one of them.
Raphael
Science does not know what happens inside a black hole.
And you won't hear it from Albenzo either because he'll have to admit you're right. 🙂
That's why you see here the bilbuli eggs from his side. All so that he can divert the discussion in a religious direction and slander them. Just as Yehuda Sabdarmish expected from the beginning 🙂
Raphael
Science meanwhile has not reached any limit. We know how to explain the universe until very close to the big bang, and there is no reason to think that we will reach a limit that we will not understand.
We can't see beyond the observable limit of the universe but we have no reason to think that there is any different here.
In my understanding, you are trying to define God as an explanation for what science does not know, so the more science there is, the less God becomes.
It is very possible that there will always be things that science has not yet been able to explain - this does not mean that there is a God.
And on the other hand - the assumption that there is a God raises more questions than it answers the questions.
A creature to your credit will say that you believe you were created and did not hang from a monkey. The problem is that you think that Albenzo is the idol that created you and you worship him with awe and fear. Go ahead!
Raphael,
Only a completely blind person will not know the difference between a professional and a lunatic. The distance between Albenzo and sophists like you is like between a XNUMXrd grade student in math and a PhD in mathematics. Your arguing with him is ridiculous and disgusting. And no, Albenzo is not arrogant, he is simply loyal to the simple truth that even the simplest things that occur to him are beyond imagination for you. This is not an attempt to beat you or tease you. This is a simple truth.
Miracles, good morning. Everything makes sense to me. I repeat again - this all started because you said that there is nothing that science cannot investigate. If you repeat yourself - then everything is good.
Created, who created you? Albanzo?
Raphael
Both things I said are true. We still don't know exactly what an electron is, and we can still study them.
What doesn't make sense to you about that?
Albanzo go smear other people with your tireless answers. When you don't know or don't want to give a direct answer, then you delay it endlessly. You are also unable to write a single sentence without spewing your arrogance everywhere. Does science know how to explain and describe what is happening now inside a black hole or not?
Miracles if science doesn't know what exactly an electron is then this is another example for you of the limits of science. After all, this all started because you said that there is nothing that science cannot investigate.
states facts
Please, let's move on. State one fact that shows a physicist is wrong. It's easy for me to show that you too have no explanations for everything.
So come on. We're trying to have a discussion aren't we?
"states facts",
How blind can a person be to the point of not being able to distinguish between a supremely and supremely professional in his field and a complete ignorance immersed in a very poor imagination and devoid of any shade? How can a person be so indiscriminate as not to see the vast, unfathomable and unbridgeable distance between him and his interlocutor?
Raphael,
Look, look, what a growth spurt. A real wonder. A few hours ago you claimed that Hawking radiation does not extract information at all from the black hole but from its immediate surroundings, and here you are suddenly an expert on radiation and determines which theories are reliable, which are not, who believes what, and what are the consequences of the correctness of this or that theory. So I think what I'm going to say now is pretty clear, everyone can join me in the chorus:
Rafael, stop talking about things you don't understand anything about. You talk nonsense and embarrass yourself.
And here's the explanation: First of all, the existence of Hawking radiation is an absolute consensus among the black hole research community. As I already wrote to you (you don't read my words, you just choose to ignore certain parts so you don't have to face the fact that you are wrong?) the radiation was even measured at the Technion. And the radiation certainly allows us to know what is happening in the black hole at any given time. Want to know what's happening right now? No problem. Jump into the black hole, and while you're inside take a pen and paper, and start writing down what you see. Take a small laboratory with you, perform experiments and all your questions will be answered. Record the results of your experiments and your discoveries. Of course you will not be able to send them to me, because you are inside the black hole, but I am guaranteed that sooner or later - maybe this year, maybe next year, maybe in the 28th century, I will be able to make measurements on the radiation that is emitted from the black hole, and all your lists will be found there. All I would need to do is know how to extract the information from the patterns in the radiation. And before you say that you did not mean that it is impossible to scientifically investigate what happens inside a black hole (note that you have already changed your claim: at first you claimed that it was impossible at all, then it became "it is impossible to know what happened inside the hole before the emission of radiation"), but you meant that in order Knowing what happens inside the black hole - even before the emission of radiation - has to wait, so let me tell you that there are mechanisms and even actual plans to accelerate the rate of radiation emission. So even I probably won't really have to wait long to get your measurements. Don't worry, I have no intention of sending you into a black hole. It seems to me that when the time comes to do such things, it would be better to send someone reliable who knows what he is talking about...
Stating facts, (I just can't write your name without laughing...)
Keeps claiming I don't know the material. based on what? The one you decided. okay, well. You know that everyone who reads the correspondence between us does not fall for your nonsense. It's clear to everyone that I really understand what I'm talking about (because whether you like my way of speaking or not, you can see that all my claims are explained - for example, when I refuted Raphael's nonsense claim that Hawking radiation only provides late information, I explained exactly how it is possible to extract early information), and it is clear to everyone that you have no clue.
So the only question left is: do you write what you write because you think you can annoy me (you have no idea how wrong you are, I'm really dying laughing on the keyboard here) or because you are so pathetic that you have to write these things so that you can believe the lies of yourself - and all this in order not to admit that you are talking about things you have never learned and you just *don't* *understand* *anything* about them?
Miracles
I mentioned a few.
Feel free to scroll back and learn.
Just please, study the subject first, otherwise you will sound, as usual, like a moron who doesn't understand what he's talking about but pretends to understand something.. 🙂
(What many good people point out here about you)
states facts
Point out one wrong fact about Albenzo. One, a little one...
Just, please, base it on a more solid foundation from Genesis, okay?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Raphael
Hana writes long and not concise comments because he himself does not understand what he wants to say and how to say it. Which indicates his lack of knowledge and lack of understanding of the material.
The thing is, he won't admit it because it will actually corroborate your claims and make him look like a Damicolo scientist. What he tries to avoid so that they don't find out the truth about him.
Raphael
Science does not know exactly what an electron is. We know a lot, and we don't know a lot.
Then?
ALBENZO Tell me, is this a well-known phenomenon among all scientists that they are pressured a little so they start talking?
The fact that according to a certain theory (which I understand not all scientists support) a black hole eventually evaporates does not mean that you know what is happening there now before the black hole evaporated.
Another thing - how do you have the strength to write such long comments? Scientists don't know how to write short and to the point?
I am not diverting the discussion. If you don't understand the connection, that's too bad. But we will try to explain one last time:
You wrote "You cannot prove that you will ever be able to explain what happened on the big map. You only hope, assume, estimate, etc." This is true. I don't know that we will ever have the solution. But exactly the same statement can be said about people in the 18th century and the lightnings - they did not know how to explain the phenomenon, and they did not know that they would ever have the solution. Looking at history, we can understand how stupid the attitude of "you have no idea if you'll ever succeed, so what's the point?" We see, time and time again, that scientific research *works*. We know that his profit is enormous, and even if we are not guaranteed to know the answer to any question, it does not mean that "it is impossible to investigate it" as you said, thus starting the whole debate here. If there was some Raphael like you in the 18th century who would have told Maxwell that lightning cannot be studied scientifically, then thank God Maxwell laughed at him and ignored him.
Let's look at your examples one by one:
1. Let's start with the visible universe, because in this example you managed to maintain minimal dignity. The example is indeed valid, but it is stupid. If you bother to learn what the visible universe is, you will see that what is not included in the definition of the visible universe is anything that, until this moment, could not have any interaction with our world. Note: Can't! Not "did not perform", but "could not perform". That is, 0% chance. no contact To say that we cannot study what is outside the visible universe is a true statement, but it is tautological - it is just like saying that a blind person cannot see, that a dead person is not alive, that red is not blue, etc. She doesn't say anything about science, she just says that if something is defined to be A, then it is A. Do you understand? I can only hope.
2. Black holes. Ok, so you ignored it, but the example isn't valid because it's just 100% wrong. If you weren't arrogant as well as ignorant, you would swallow your pride and try to learn a bit about the subject before arguing. You would see black holes indeed emitting the information (and matter, and energy) stored in them through the process of Hawking radiation. They even managed to measure this radiation in an analog black hole at the Technion a few months ago, a tremendous achievement that will make many waves in the research of the subject.
3. Regarding the big bang - you yourself admitted that it is not that it is impossible to investigate the point of the bang, but that we currently do not have the answer. Therefore your "example" is not an example at all. It's just another mistake you made because you're talking about things you have no clue about.
Well, come on then. Come again, ignore all the refutations given to your words and repeat your mantra again... After all, admitting a mistake, or saying, God forbid, that you don't understand physics, is blasphemy...
* All three examples I gave are valid...
Albenzo will not help you divert the subject to lightning and thunder. All three examples I gave are what. And you can't prove that you'll ever be able to explain what happened on the big map. You just hope, assume, estimate, etc.
Take another example: science cannot know what matter is made of. And if you tell me about elementary particles - then what are they made of?
states facts Elek
You wrote "According to science: if A drags B and B drags C, then A drags C.
And according to this logic, Newtonian physics works.
And according to the first law of thermodynamics and the first law of motion, it can be understood that the explosion was also preceded by something."
to fantasize mistakes,
1. You did not provide evidence for your words, therefore refuting them does not require evidence. In order to disprove a claim, its evidentiary basis must be tattooed. If you establish facts on the ground, then to disprove them you only need to establish facts on the ground that say you are wrong. If you want, we can move our argument to the level of evidence. Bring evidence and proof for your claims that "what was before the bang cannot be tested in any way" and then I will bring evidence that will contradict them.
2. I didn't utter any nonsense. Unlike you, I talk about things I understand.
3. Without involving Judah.
4. And again the question arises - if I am one of the defective scientists, then how do you deal with the fact that I am so much smarter than you? That I really understand things that you won't be able to grasp even if you invest the rest of your life in them? Besides, thank you for evaluating my scientific abilities. When I apply for positions at universities around the world, the universities have to go through my work so far, the articles I've published, all the collaborations I've been involved in, and based on that assess whether I'm a defector or not. It turns out that all this is unnecessary, because you can do it according to comments on the science website. And even without understanding a thing and a half in physics! Amazing!
And by the way, yes. We notice that you avoid addressing the fact that you are simply talking about things that you have no clue about. That you say nonsense, and that you fail in reading comprehension.
Well done Raphael. In the end you succeeded.
Now, let's recall a little history:
1. Science once did not know the answer to the question of what is the source of lightning. It used to be thought that this was a mystical phenomenon. The same goes for most natural phenomena (the rainbow, why there is rain, tides, etc.).
2. Science once did not know the answer to the question why a son resembles his father and mother. As a result, they did not know how to deal with hereditary diseases.
3. Once upon a time, science did not know what light was. Needless to say, without an understanding of light and electromagnetic waves, the idea of communication other than messengers (postal juns, whatever) would have seemed like a dream.
continue? Or are you beginning to understand the difference between the correct claim "there are questions that still do not have a scientific answer, for example what happened exactly at the point of the big bang" and the psychological claim (which is completely wrong, to say the least) "science cannot investigate the big bang"...?
Well, so at first you had "lots of examples", after that you reduced to two (big bang and black holes, with your permission I don't consider the claim "science can't study the things you defined as "the things we can't interact with"), and finally You admitted that you actually don't have any examples, but only that we all agree that to this day we haven't been able to crack the riddle of what exactly happened at the point of the explosion (and was there anything before, etc.).
Miracles
You have problems with reading comprehension (what's new?).
I wrote: "If A drags B and B drags C, then A drags C."
You wrote: "The existence of C does not entail A." - What is the connection? You probably didn't understand the logic (what's new?)
Albentezo
Did you refute my words? 🙂
how?
You said: "They are wrong."
Walla?
A piece of refutation of my words.
And besides, you spew nonsense at a dizzying pace that has nothing to do with science or the article. Just as Yehuda Sabdarmish pointed out and rightly so.
Do you understand now why you are one of the defective scientists of this world? (Probably not, because I expect another round of spouting nonsense from you at a dizzying pace).
Nissim and Albanzo, to sum up your mutterings, then today science does not know how to explain what happened in the big bang, but maybe in the future it will. Good. But now he sure doesn't know.
Life
What judgment into observations?! What are you even talking about?!
To observe and investigate - this is behavior. not values.
It seems that you are the one who needs to repeat the material you "learned"...
indicates "facts" (have you considered changing to "inventor of nonsense"?),
1. I contradicted all your words. You just made claims without any proof, and I told you they were wrong. Great, so you decided that "scientists have determined" that it is impossible to know. Ok, if you feel like it, you can also write a comment that says that "scientists have determined that it is impossible to score more than 2 goals in a soccer game." So you said, so what…
2. So you don't understand at all what a bang is, and what a space-time layout is. You fail to grasp the concept of a starting point for the universe. Ok, how surprised am I…? Not much.
3. I will speak as I please, you piece of arse. "speak nicely…". Or her, stab me outside the club?
Like me, there may be a thousand in a dime, but I'm still smarter than you. I know what I'm talking about. I'm not stupid. So what does that say about you? That even someone who has a thousand in a dime spins you on the little finger, studies nature, promotes science and understands things you can't even begin to grasp?
states facts
What you say is simply not true. If A->B and B->C then A->C. Nice, but - the existence of C does not entail A.
Do you understand that Baruch?
Understand - we know that there are physical processes that happen for no reason. Radioactive decay is an example that every core studies graduate knows. Therefore, there is no obstacle that the big bang started "for no reason".
Life
Religion is belief in the supernatural. What do values have to do with the matter? The Union of Engineers also has values. Every group of people has values. But - this is not what distinguishes a religion.
Raphael
Enough with the bullshit, okay? You have a basic understanding of what science is. Science claims that the laws of physics that exist today were not valid before the big bang (let's assume that this is really true - that it was "before" the big bang, and that the laws were indeed not valid at that time). All that means, according to the same science you currently rely on, is that there were other laws back then.
How do you conclude that we will never understand these laws?
states facts
You put judgment into observations. These are two different things. Equations exist only in exact sciences. In the social sciences except economics there are no equations and in the humanities there are no equations at all. Read some books on the philosophy of science and you will begin to understand.
Albentezo
You didn't refute anything I said.
All you said was: "Special relativity stops making predictions close to the bang point."
"It could be that the bang is the beginning of our universe, and that there was simply nothing before it," - was there nothing? Did the bang go off just like that?
After all, according to science: if A drags B and B drags C, then A drags C.
And according to this logic, Newtonian physics works.
And according to the first law of thermodynamics and the first law of motion, it can be understood that the explosion was also preceded by something.
And start talking nicely.
Nobody here owes you anything.
And physicists like you are a thousand and one.
Raphael,
If you repeat a lie it will not become the truth. Maybe you'll learn *a little bit* what cosmology is and what the big bang theory is, then you'll understand how much nonsense you're talking. There is no problem in principle to investigate what exactly happened in the explosion or even before it (if there really was such a thing, we don't know yet). We haven't been able to do this yet, because general relativity stops giving predictions at times close to the bang point. But general relativity is not an absolute truth from God. After all, we were once stuck because all we had was Newtonian mechanics. Then some smart people came along, thought about quantum mechanics, and boom! It is possible to answer questions that until then had no answer.
That's it, slow enough for you? Or are you going to post another comment that proves once again that you don't understand what you're talking about?
for stating facts,
There is no point in Raphael's words. You may think there is a point, because like Raphael - you also prove that you simply do not understand these things at all, so the question arises why don't you study them before you establish all kinds of facts on the ground?
In short - nothing you said was true. And if it is so important for you to depend on authority ("according to science...", "scientists have determined...", "determined by scientists...") then I tell you this as a physicist - a "scientist" in your language - who deals in the field. As I already wrote - in a super concise way - special relativity stops making predictions close to the bang point. It could be that the bang is the beginning of our universe, and that there was simply nothing before it, and there are also other possibilities (for example, the spread of certain dimensions as a result of a collision between membranes). The only thing you wrote that is not a complete mistake is that it is impossible to disprove or prove the sentence "God did it".
Life
Science is by definition a way of behavior.
To observe, to explore the world around you. Scientists are curious people. And curious people are the ones who developed the scientific discipline.
Science is not equations. Science is a method/way of how to behave in order to explore the world and understand it.
Albentezo
There is a point in Raphael's words.
After all, according to science - everything that was before the bang cannot be tested in any way because the scientists determined that all the laws of physics began from the moment the bang was created.
That is:
1: There was something before the bang.
2: Whatever it is, it cannot be tested by any scientific tool in any way and shape.
It is also possible to claim that God created the Big Bang - and this cannot be disproved/confirmed.
It's not like with black hole physics.
Before the big bang there were no known laws of physics.
Again: it's not that they don't know. Rather, it was determined by the scientists themselves that it would not be possible to know.
ALBENZO It's you embarrassing yourself. Regarding the Big Bang, science "by definition" cannot know what happened at time zero. Not to mention what came before that. Everything I said I said because Nissim said there is nothing that science cannot investigate and I showed him that there is. And there are other examples
Miracles
One last time I explain. Through values I judge whether a certain behavior is right or wrong according to belief or values. In sociology I examine behavioral patterns and social processes in isolation from values and it is a discipline for all interests. Why one value is more important than the other is a matter for the observer. What can be done is a typology for values and this is already a science for any matter. People build values for themselves because that is how they determine social norms. This is a necessity in sociology. I examine the very existence of values, the number of people living according to any values and how much these values change over time. All this very succinctly. In order to understand this in depth, I again refer you to the sociology books. This field is part of my academic training and therefore I have something to base my words on. If you want, get them, if you want, don't get them.
Raphael,
Why would I call my friends stupid? They are not like that…
Hawking radiation is the process through which energy from the black hole (and the information encoded in it) comes out. Again, if you even knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't make such embarrassing mistakes. The whole shock in Hawking's original paper was that if you take a black hole with mass M and leave it alone, then little by little its mass decreases (until it finally reaches 0 and it disappears) and miraculously radiation appears outside it, the total energy of which is equal to the mass lost by the hole . There are a few more things regarding the nature of the radiation (thermal, non-thermal, when it starts to emit, etc.) but this is not a private lesson, and in general - lessons are given to people who want to learn and not people who want to show off how much they don't understand...
There is no arrogance in saying that someone who says something stupid is stupid, or that someone who doesn't even bother to learn the basics of what they are talking about is ignorant. You accuse me of being arrogant to escape the obvious truth - you are talking nonsense. Every time you open your mouth, all that comes out is "My name is Raphael and today I will show you that I do not understand the following topic:...".
You promised lots of examples of things that science can't investigate. So far you have given only one, and it is things outside the visible universe, that is - a tautology. You basically said "Science cannot investigate what is by definition inaccessible to our universe". Do you want to continue to embarrass yourself, or simply announce that you won and hope that no one will actually read what you wrote...?
Stupid Alphonse call your friends. In the end you confirmed everything I said. Regarding Hawking radiation, we are not talking about information from the black hole but from its envelope. And say hello to the university management, a piece of arrogance.
Password FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read חחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחח
And allow me to add: Hahahaha
First of all, what you said - that we only know how to describe what happened shortly after the big bang - is true. But that doesn't mean you can't explore what happened before! It just means we don't know yet. So that you understand how stupid what you said is, it's like we used to meet at the end of the 19th century, when they still didn't know what nuclear forces were, and you would tell me that "science cannot investigate what matter is made of. It is a fact that we only know how to describe the electrons next to the nucleus and not what happens in the nucleus itself." It's not very surprising that you don't understand the difference between "can't investigate" and "not yet known".
Regarding the visible universe - it is true that it is not possible to receive any information that is outside the visible universe. The reason for this is that there can be no interaction between us and what is outside the visible universe. That is - just to be clear - your statement is "Science cannot investigate what by definition does not come into contact with us in any way or shape". Wow, you're a genius. A Nobel Prize is on its way to you. Soon you will explain to all of us that it is impossible to see invisible things or that if someone dies then he is no longer alive.
And finally - black holes. Ok, thanks for the update. I have to finish, I have to run to the management of the university where I work and submit my resignation. Simply, I work in the study of the holes and specifically, what happens inside them. So now that you've told me I can't do what I'm doing, I should probably quit. But before I do that, let me give you two little pieces of advice:
1. Don't talk about things you don't understand anything about. You're just showing how stupid you are.
2. Hawking radiation. Successfully.
Albanzo and miracles, it is a fact that science only knows how to describe what happened after X time after the big bang and not what happened exactly at the beginning and this is because the laws of nature known to us were not relevant at that time. Another example - science cannot investigate everything that lies beyond the visible universe. Another one - science cannot investigate what happens inside a black hole because no information comes out of it. Of course, theories can be developed from here until a new announcement, but these theories cannot be tested according to scientific experiments.
Friend, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you live in a movie,
skeptical
Maybe think before you insult the religious?
Raphael
Physicists, but those who understand the subject, claim otherwise. What do you base this claim on? Do you understand better than people that this is their field?
Say - when you need surgery, do you go to a rabbi or a specialist?
Life
So Goethe refers me to sociology books, which you also say are scientific.
Values belong to philosophy, not science. But why there are values, and why one value is more important than the other, it is indeed scientific. In the end, values have an organic basis, and not slips from our bodies.
Another point against the "big bang" and the supporters of the theory...
Raphael,
What exactly is not subject to investigation in the question "what preceded or caused the big bang"? I personally know several people who study this topic scientifically. Do you have many more examples? Please bring them. But if possible, make sure your examples are true and not just lies/nonsense like it's impossible to investigate what caused the big bang.
Miracles, what happened and what caused the big bang cannot be investigated by science. There are many more examples.
Miracles
Every religious claim is a value claim. You say whether it is good or bad from the point of view of this or that religion. Scientific research is value-free. You try or try to understand what is happening and how it happens through different forms of observation such as laboratory or eye observation, or if we take the social sciences where observations are made by way of overt observation, covert observation and more. Whether it's good or background is a matter for a worldview that can also be religious. Take for example the concept of the social elite. Every society needs one or more elites. If you have a criticism of a certain elite, you may criticize it and, if necessary, overthrow it and replace it with another elite. Elitism is a universal social phenomenon as such for a deeper understanding of the issue read Michaels' "Iron Law of Oligarchy" or various articles on social deviance. Check the definition of social deviance without referring to its content, but to its structure.
Life
Of course sociology is a science, I didn't say otherwise. What I am saying is that religion can be studied through science. And more importantly - every religious claim about the world is a scientific claim.
Do you think there is anything beyond scientific investigation? I do not.
The unjustly offended...okay I wasn't offended
I'm not here to offend anyone. I am trying to explain what sociology is. Science is not a method of behavior. Which way to behave is a matter of one or another value judgment. In science, observations are made to understand. What is it about, read the books of Jonathan Shapira, Durkheim, Max Weber, Einzstadt and more. The books of these thinkers are also in Hebrew. I'll give you an example. You enter the synagogue to pray and in that case you can also examine what the role of the cantor is, what the role of the collector is, the dynamics and differences between groups of worshipers and much more. Value judgment is one thing and observational judgment is another. I come from political science and sociology and I know how to use these tools.
Life
Science does serve as a tool for behavior.
in its definition.
Science is a method of behavior.
And it's a shame that a person like you would treat study tools with such disdain.
Whether it's a scientific tool or a virtual spiritual tool or whatever you choose to call it and insult billions of people around the world who disagree with you...
Yoda
They are just looking for attention. pity them…
Nobody takes them seriously anyway. They have no other way to express themselves and globalization and the Internet are used as a tool for their self-expression and their opinions even if it comes at the expense of science.
So what if everyone else suffers from it?
Let's... let's leave it, before we become like them
Miracles
Sociology is an unequivocal science. I studied sociology. This is a profession that examines social processes and has its own rules.. Please don't underestimate just because there are no numbers. From the discussions I have with you, I get the impression that you are exaggerating the other side.
Life
Sociology is a science, isn't it?
And now, instead of talking about the essence of the article, they managed to turn the discussion into a religious discussion. Don't be dragged!, these are trolls from whom the science goes on and maybe even sent to our sites and other scientific sites by elements in the religious camp. Do not respond to them and Avi Blizovsky is asked to remove them from the site. They add nothing to the discussion here!
Miracles
Science does not serve as a tool for this behavior otherwise. religion yes To understand the topic, look for the entry structural sociology. It is equivalent to the concept of algorithm in computers.
Miracles
Religion is a worldview from which, according to one religion or another, the believers build a way of life whether it is right or wrong in its attempt to explain the world. Her explanations are not correct, but in order to understand her and the behavior of those who believe in her, read books or articles in sociology. This is the correct address for your understanding. Religion is not viewed through glasses of formulas.
It is impossible to understand the intention of the one who wrote the story of Paradise. It could be that the meaning of the story about the snake is to resist temptations that could be destructive. I'm not sure. As for curiosity, it may be consistent with the saying "in a miracle from you do not demand" which I categorically deny. All I want is to understand her. Understanding in itself is a fundamental concept in the teachings of one of the greatest sociologists, Max Weber. In phonetic transliteration from German to Hebrew the term is "Farstein". If you know Yiddish you will be able to understand it and get into the spirit of things..
Life
I do not agree that religion and science should be separated. That is - as soon as religion says something that contradicts science - then religion is wrong. Once the world was explained in a certain way, today we know that a large part of these explanations are wrong.
Stephen J. Gould also thought that science and religion were fields that did not overlap. And he was probably wrong...
Aesop's fables are understandable and clear what they say. I'm not sure the snake story is clear. My explanation for the story is that curiosity is the first sin. I don't know what the one who wrote the story meant thousands of years ago.
Miracles There are many snakes that talk endlessly
Miracles
Those you are arguing with come from a religious background and there is no point in arguing with them. They speak a different language. Science and theology are two disciplines completely different from each other. The one who understood this and wrote so much is Yeshayahu Leibovitz. The problem is that believers of all kinds are not ready to make this distinction. For them, this is how he sees and sanctifies. Those who wrote the books of the Bible came from a religious orientation. The example you give about the talking snake comes from the story of the Garden of Eden which is actually a parable. The best examples of books of parables are Aesop's Proverbs, and Krylov's Proverbs.
Kristina Golan
Some of us are still close in their behavior to monkeys. But, in the distant past we were indeed monkeys.
Yes, and we are made of monkeys... LOL…
Yoel
It is also written that the serpent spoke. Hellas nonsense 🙂
This is already written explicitly in the Euphrates in Genesis: And a distinction will be made between the waters that are under the sky and the waters that are above the sky
The title "Discovery" is incorrect, it is not an observation, it is a theoretical model.