Comprehensive coverage

Astronomers measured the concentration of dark matter about 6 billion years ago

Astronomers have mapped dark matter on the largest scale ever observed. New findings reveal that the universe consists of a complex cosmic network of dark matter and galaxies that extends over a billion light years

An observation showing that the dark matter in the universe is divided in the form of a network of dense (white) and empty (black) regions. The largest white areas are the size of the full moon in the sky. Photo: van Weerbeek, Hymans and CFHTLenS partners
An observation showing that the dark matter in the universe is divided in the form of a network of dense (white) and empty (black) regions. The largest white areas are the size of the full moon in the sky. Photo: van Weerbeek, Hymans and CFHTLenS partners

Astronomers have mapped dark matter on the largest scale ever observed. New findings reveal that the universe consists of a complex cosmic network of dark matter and galaxies that extends over a billion light years.

Dr. Kathryn Hymes and Prof. Ludbeek van Weerbeek from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada presented the results on January 9 at the American Astronomical Union meeting held in Austin, Texas.

An international team of researchers led by van Weerbeek and Hymans arrived at these data by analyzing photographs of 10 million galaxies in four separate regions of the sky. They studied the distribution of light emitted from these galaxies, which are bent as if they pass through massive clumps of dark matter during the light's journey to Earth.

The project known as the Canada-France-Hawaii Space Telescope Survey (CFHTLenS). These images accumulated over five years using the MegaCam wide-angle field-of-view camera with a 340-megapixel resolution at the CFHT telescope in Hawaii.

The galaxies included in the survey are on average 6 billion light years away. The light captured and used for the study was emitted when the universe was 6 billion years old, or about half of its current age.

The study's conclusions were previously suspected based on computer simulations, but it was difficult to verify this due to the invisible nature of dark matter. This is the big glimpse of dark matter on a large scale that proved the existence of the cosmic web in all directions.

Dr. Thomas Kitching, center of the cosmological working group, says: "The dark matter map allowed us to back-map over 75% of the age of the universe today, to a time when it was completely different. Through the evolution of the universe over cosmic epochs, the team in Edinburgh will investigate how the activation energy came to be where it is dominant in today's universe.

Over the next few months we will use the information to map the evolution of the universe's expansion and learn more about dark matter, the cause of the universe's expansion. We will test the theories of gravity to determine if Einstein's theory of general relativity is correct or not. We will also use the data to determine the properties of neutrinos, the ghost particles that interact very weakly with matter.

The research was supported by the European Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and the Canadian Astronomical Data Centre.

to the notice of the researchers

 

 

1,188 תגובות

  1. R. H.,
    1) Very true and also beautiful 🙂
    2) Beautiful, but not. To get all dozen points you will have to put in a little effort. His name of the king appears in the Book of Kings more than once. By the way you mentioned Saul, this is the name of the kingdom of the dead and it seems to me that the giving of this name in the Bible was not done out of love.
    Indeed, a terrible waste of time, but not only yours but, and above all, his.

  2. Gracias Senior Jubilee, Gracias.

    R.H.
    This article is already pretty much over and done with, unless you're going to wait a quarter of an hour for comments to load. If you wish to continue, I found a calm and quiet article at the edge of the universe, which will not disturb anyone and where we can indulge to our heart's content. If someone else wants to move as well, I suggest that the rule be that whoever is moving undertakes to stick to matters only.

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/vlt-hubble-smash-record-for-eyeing-most-distant-galaxy-2310104/#comment-333491

  3. jubilee,
    1) "And he said to him what is your name and he said Jacob." (Genesis XNUMX:XNUMX)

    2) Are you sure about kings? Because in Genesis XNUMX:XNUMX it is said, "And Shamlah died, and Saul from the streets of the river reigned under him." is that what you meant?

    Israel,
    1) Excuse me but you don't really read what I write. I feel like I'm going back and forth and every time you dismiss me with some casual statement "not electromagnetic radiation". Sorry, but the Super Nova example does not refer to light or electromagnetic radiation at all, but to the temperature clocks themselves.

    2) Apart from that, you resolutely ignore the "disappearing" light in the car according to your model.

    3) You didn't understand my question "what gets cold". Your temperature clocks measure background radiation from the universe that comes out of the Big Bang and is getting cooler. If you deny the existence of the bang you have denied the basis of temperature clocks. Because otherwise what are they measuring?

    4) Doppler effect is not only in accelerated systems but in those that move away from each other, even at a constant speed. The evidence that for years they talked about an expanding universe according to Doppler and only recently about an accelerating universe. You fell for the "Doppler only in accelerator systems" argument.

    5) Regarding XNUMX-XNUMX, what do you want? You say they will see the same thing. I and Wikipedia and all the physicists who studied the elongation of the moons say "not true, each will see the other slow down". We probably won't know until we do the experiment. So why are you forcing some sort of agreement here?

    Please consider the points and do not dismiss them casually because otherwise I feel it is a terrible waste of time for me.

  4. R.H., Chen Chen. And now it's my turn
    a) Which verse ends with the words "and Jacob said"?
    b) Which king's name that preceded David is mentioned in the Book of Kings?
    8)

  5. jubilee
    South Los Angeles is to Los Angeles as South France (Morocco) is to France.

    Tzvi asked
    Do you find a flaw in my argument that if we use Friedman's formula to relate the time that has passed since the big bang to the temperature, then we can build a clock that will show the time that has passed since the bang just by measuring the cosmic radiation temperature?

    The formula + calculator linking the temperature to time are found in
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3

  6. Ruby

    You return to the same mistake I tried to warn against and treat the balloon analogy as the real thing and from here you get to the question of what happens in the center of the balloon.
    The balloon analogy is an analogy where the center of the balloon has no role in reality! It's not exist!

    I will explain in more detail how they arrived at the idea of ​​the big bang and then maybe you will understand to what extent you will not be able to ask about the "balloon center".

    After Einstein published the field equation of general relativity, a Russian named Friedman took the equation and tried to understand from it what was happening to the entire universe. He made only two assumptions about the universe, the main of which is that it is uniform everywhere and in all directions - that is, he assumed that there is no privileged point, the center of a black hole or anything else.

    From this assumption he got three possible matrices - that is, three possible solutions of Einstein's field equation.
    So there are only three principle structures that the universe can have* under the assumption that the universe is uniform. All three of these structures require a big bang. Since the assumption is that the universe is uniform on very large scales is a very reasonable and accepted assumption, and since evidence has been discovered that there was a big bang - it seems that Friedman's theory is quite close to reality - that is, the universe behaves broadly according to one of the three models predicted by Friedman.
    The meaning is that there is no privileged point (the center of the universe) - because it was precisely from this assumption that the big bang was born, and therefore to claim now that because there was a big bang that the universe has a center, it is simply a fundamental lack of understanding.

    To explain to people how something can expand without a specific point, they give the example of points on the surface of a balloon - but this example is really not the real thing and you can't learn from it about the thing it was meant to represent precisely in things where it doesn't illustrate reality.

    —————————————————————————————
    * As of today (since the discovery of the accelerated expansion of the universe in 1998), it seems that the universe does not behave according to the Friedman universe but according to another model called the CDM model. The error is not in Friedman's solution, but in Einstein's field equation, which is why it is so interesting. In any case, the current universe model also includes a big bang like the various Friedman models, and it is also a uniform model on a sufficiently large scale.
    It is interesting to note that Einstein's original field equation (the one with the so-called cosmological constant) which was later corrected to be the equation as solved by Friedman, is actually the correct one in the end.

  7. R.H.
    I don't think I've ever ignored anything you've said. The reason why I do not list an answer to all your reservations is simple: everything you bring up, starting with receding galaxies, for a radio source such as Greenwich, and ending with a supernova, deals with measurement by electromagnetic means, which are actually light at different frequencies. Therefore they are not admissible for our discussions.

    For your question number 2:

    A. Nothing cools down. Or if it cools, without formulaic dependence on a continuous function like the Friedman formula.

    B. The lengthening of times has been experimentally proven only for accelerated systems. Go for the ionizer or doppler test. You will find that they are on accelerated systems.

    third. If there was no bang, the extension of time makes sense, but is not obligatory. This is only one interpretation. See Susskind's lecture.

    d. The contradiction exists. In Hayat R.H., why don't you complete example XNUMX-XNUMX from the assumption that there is no difference between the inertial systems? If you prove to me that there is no contradiction after you have done this, you are worth your weight in gold.

    In fact, I don't see much point in continuing the discussion without reaching an agreement on this point. If you want to continue from where we left off, go ahead. But if you intend to continue to claim that there is a difference between the non-accelerated systems, that Jill's clocks will show a different relationship than Jack's clocks, that cameras at the same point and at the same moment take opposite pictures, then the basis for a logical discussion between us has been omitted, unless you explain what you mean when you claim it. I will continue to believe that there is a contradiction.

    A positive point - if you go through Susskind's lectures, not only on relativity, but also on quanta, entanglement, cosmology and more - you might agree with me that you don't need to go to university anymore. Put everything I've ever learned at UCLA in my little pocket.

  8. Israel,

    You ignored a good part of my claims/questions.

    1) Car - it is possible to make a light source release a limited number of photons quantitatively. This was done in the famous slot experiment. If we do this from a moving car then these photons, or at least a significant part of them, should disappear according to your model. Is this what is happening???

    2) Collision between big bang and time extension. I don't understand what he claims. If there is a conflict between these two then there are several options:
    A. There is an extension of time but there was no bang. So then what is cooling? How is it that the whole universe together is cooling down. And what are your temp clocks worth if there was no bang?
    B. There was a bang but no time extension. The lengthening of times has been experimentally proven and is not subject to debate.
    third. There is no elongation and there was no explosion - see A + B
    d. Both are true and there is no contradiction - in Israel, consider this option again.

    Of course, you can say that there is no conflict between the time dilation of bodies in acceleration, but there is no dilation of time in bodies at rest, but this has also been proven and tested by the Doppler effect, which you refuse to talk about.

    Finally, you ignored my analogy between the big bang and a super nova. Do you have an answer for this? Wouldn't there be a contradiction between the dilation of time and every super nova that ever happened?

  9. R.H.
    Regarding your reservation.
    I'm not ruling out the Big Bang - I just don't see how it works out with the lengthening of time, do you? So finish the 1rd-1rd pattern. Question: Say you accept that both Jack and Jill see a XNUMX:XNUMX ratio. Even then, don't you see a problem with the extension of time?

    And regarding the ballistic pendulum, of course the car will have a light. Our detectors simply detect the photon at only one speed, just as our eyes are sensitive to light of certain frequencies and blind to others.

    In the matter of Zarn. There is an explanation for why we can't accelerate protons above a certain speed, but it's not mainstream, so I didn't touch on it. We better get the other stuff done first.

    I don't know if you are interested in reopening the issue, but if so, I see no point in continuing it before we have reached an agreement on the main issue, the extension of time, hence XNUMX-XNUMX.

    Just one request: I gave you a thumbs up for the quick absorption of the details. But please, if we continue, that we don't discover after a month that we are both talking about different things, as happened with Jill's watches, that you thought I agreed that they show a different ratio than 1:1, while I clearly wrote that this is not the case.

    I would also suggest you listen to Susskind's excellent lectures on the subject, as on any other subject.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAurgxtOdxY

    Note also that in the 19th minute one of the listeners raises a question similar to mine, and that Susskind kind of overlaps him.

  10. Ruby
    I see you didn't understand what I wrote.

    Reporter:
    "Ignore the singular point and refer to the envelope of the point, that is, a few seconds of spreading out from there and then we will have the possibility to perhaps try to understand what is happening there in the center." - Unclear claim.

    and also:
    "I wonder why all the experts refer to the inflating balloon model of the universe that stems from astronomical observations of course and Einstein's equations for special and general relativity, but no one tries to address what happens in the center of the balloon." - Here, too, it is not clear to me what you are trying to claim. What did you mean by: "No one is trying to take care of what is happening in the center of the balloon."?

  11. R.H.
    I am familiar with the concept of a singular point and have had occasion to wonder about a jar in my engineering studies in the past.
    This is not the issue, I wonder why all the experts refer to the inflating balloon model of the universe which stems from the astronomical observations of course and Einstein's special and general relativity equations but no one tries to address what happens in the center of the balloon.
    According to our physical knowledge and observations of super novae, we know that the outward expansion of energy, light and matter also requires an inward contraction that is identical in intensity and deliberately opposite to it.
    Ignore the singular point and refer to the envelope of the point, that is, a few seconds of spreading out from there and then we will have the possibility to perhaps try to understand what is happening there in the center.

  12. Ruby
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-333377

    "The center of the singular point is ignored" - a singular point has no center. The singular point represents the center itself. The problem is with the center of the point. It can be argued that any point will be the center of the circle, and the center of the circle will also have a center. After all, when you stick the needle in order to draw a circle, then also the place where the needle is stuck (which is the center of the circle - that is, from this point onwards the diameter of the circle is measured) has a center. If you draw a circle with a caliper on the page then the center of the center of the circle will be a hole in the page itself, for example.
    In mathematics (according to Wikipedia) "a singular point is a point where a function (usually a complex function) or a differential equation is not well defined."
    In a physical universe like ours, the singular point has another meaning. It came to describe the system from which it all began. According to the big bang theory (or rather from the equations that arise from it) the singular point should be smaller than the Planck length. That is, all matter and physics and everything that exists was created from a 'thing' whose length is less than the Planck length. In other words, you can say that the first particle was created from something, which is both shorter than it and weighs less than it, and there had to be a place where the entropy was highest at the critical moment of the start of the big bang (complete chaos of the system due to the nature of the behavior of the particles that make up the system that are at temp. the tallest).

    The sth point is a process that takes place in the space that creates the center of the (circle) the 'sphere' which is called the 'universe'.
    After applying the center of the circle, it will be possible to calculate its diameter. (or in the case in question the diameter {and volume} of the universe).
    In mathematics, this center has no meaning because this center (singular point) by definition cannot be measured (in fact, it was determined that the singular point is a problematic case in everything related to definition and as such cannot be mathematically defined {the results, in the equations, do not add up in the physical world. The object that constitutes the center of the circle which is The universe - is not defined mathematically}).
    According to the English Wikipedia:
    "For example, the function: f(x)=1/x
    on the real line has a singularity at x = 0, where it seems to "explode" to ±∞ and is not defined. The function g(x) = |x| (see absolute value) also has a singularity at x = 0, since it is not differentiable there. Similarly, the graph defined by y2 = x also has a singularity at (0,0), this time because it has a "corner" (vertical tangent) at that point."
    Note that point H is a 'closed group'.
    That is, from a closed group an open group (which is the 'universe') is created (as in the action of the follower in the Fano system).
    After all, according to the bang, out of the closed and undefined group was created the swelling (which grew exponentially) of the space itself, that is, the coordinates of the physical space received values ​​greater than 0.
    If you understand this far, I can continue. It is important to understand one more thing, the singular point does not disappear following the big bang. It is still flexible and exists (thanks to the thermodynamic laws).

  13. Yuval, nice answer doz poa!

    Israel,
    Since you broached the topic of the Big Bang, Socrates came running all agitated:

    1) If you rule out the bang then you are omitting the ground under your temp clocks idea. Because if there was no bang then cooling of what are they measuring? The assumption at the base of the clocks is that the cooling is uniform everywhere and anywhere in the universe because there was a bang. If there wasn't, then what is measured are local temperature fluctuations and the whole clock idea is worthless.

    2) Socrates proposes the following experiment: Jack and Jill will detect a supernova and immediately position themselves there. What will be there is a gas cloud that is getting colder and cooler, wonder and wonder according to Friedman's formula. Jack and Jill will pull out their watches and start measuring, taking pictures to compare with the cesium clocks and all those things we discussed before.
    But then Mr. Israel Shapira will suddenly appear and tell them, "Hey guys, you imagined the super nova because its existence contradicts relativity and the lengthening of time. She couldn't possibly have happened!"

    And Socrates asks, do you see the contradiction?

  14. R. H.,
    In the book of Samuel XNUMX, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX, it is said that Bathsheba is Eliam's daughter. In chapter XNUMX verse XNUMX it is said that Eliam is the son of Ahitfel. If this is the same Eliam, then Batsheva's paternal grandfather is Ahitfel. The Book of Chronicles, on the other hand, calls her Bat Shua Bat Amiel.
    And I suggest not to continue feeding this tireless fire of debate. We are only causing him harm and wasting his time. He should delve into his ideas with professional researchers in the academy and not with the laymen here.

  15. Israel,
    And one more thing. According to your ballistic pendulum model a moving car should have had no light at all. You claim that we can only sense light at speed - C and that the speed of light is relative. If so, the light coming out of a car at a speed of C+100 km/h should have disappeared. In addition, you never gave plausible explanations why it is impossible to build a detector that "sees" faster light. For example, a hugely thick screen. Heavy pendulum in your analogy. You didn't explain why you don't see slow light from C, which is required by your model. You dismissed it as interesting but irrelevant.

  16. Israel,
    I'm sorry that after all the words that have been spilled and all the summaries, you see the essence of the debate between us only on the point you mentioned.
    The essence of the argument, in my opinion, is that you failed to show any new contradiction, one that has not been previously discussed and given solutions. Actually what I realized in the end was that you are simply talking about the twin paradox that has been researched proven and discussed countless times. You tried to avoid it by waving your hands that the paradox only applies to non-accelerated systems, which is not quite true. You ignored for some unknown reason the Doppler effect based proofs even though it does not only concern accelerated systems and for dessert you decided to ignore all particles with mass as well. Why? Because they don't suit you.

    Avshalom, I think this is about a frustrated guy whose sister was brutally raped and he saw in the poor brides that his father does not take any punitive action against the criminal. Then when he takes revenge, he is the one who has to run for his life. Then when he returns he is met with blatant disregard which probably increased the resentment he felt towards his father to the point where he erupted in rebellion.
    Riddle: Who was Batsheva's grandfather?

  17. jubilee

    "I am amazed every time again by your talent to draw people into debates that leave in their mouths the taste of no more"

    I am also quite amazed at your talent to read a quarter of a sentence and immediately draw conclusions, usually wrong.

    For example: You seem to infer that I'm interested in continuing the debate, and you seem to infer that I'm pulling in some direction. Since I am the only one who knows what my intentions are, I conclude that you are wrong. as usual.

    "Temperature clocks are creations of theory and imagination. It is worthwhile and desirable to build them, but as long as there is none, it is a shame to waste words."

    If you had bothered to read the discussion between me and R.H., you would have found that it is structured in the form of tiers, on each of which both sides have to agree. We agreed on the possibility of building temperature clocks and installing them wherever you want at a very early stage. You may disagree on this, as on any other issue, but it does not matter to the actual discussion, in which you did not bother to participate, you did not raise the above-mentioned objections, and therefore you did not receive an answer as to why this is possible. (Why not by the way? If time is related to temperature using the Friedman formula and the temperature can be measured, why can't the two be attached to a temperature clock?).

    "You testify that you don't understand "how it is possible to talk about the beginning of time, what was before", but between a misunderstanding and a negation there is a great distance."

    As usual, you didn't read or you didn't understand. Who looted? All I said during the entire discussion is that the lengthening of time in relationships does not correspond to the absolute time of the Big Bang. This. Because S.H. He concluded that I might be denying relativity, I mentioned that I personally prefer it to the bang, but I didn't deny either one, I just pointed out what I called a "supposed contradiction".

    To the point: some believe, probably rightly, that on the road, in politics and in love, justice is not important. I believe that in mathematics and physics it is important to be right, and that the opposite of right is wrong.

    The debate between me and R.H. We get stuck on the following question: R.H. Claims that there is an inertial system that we can say is truly "at rest" - in our example Jack, whose clock ratio is 1:1, and that there is an inertial system that is truly "moving" - in our example Jill, whose clock ratio is a billion to one.

    If R.H. Accepting my assumption, it seems to me that the contradiction between the assumption of the lengthening of time and the absolute time of the temp clocks was completely clear (if the ratio is 1:1 in both systems, then the cc and temp clocks in a given system always show the same time, and since the temp clocks show the same The time at the time of the meeting, after all, all 4 clocks show the same time, in contrast to the lengthening of time in which the CZ clocks show different times).

    And since I feel on completely solid ground when I state that inertial systems cannot be distinguished (except perhaps in reference to the CMBR system, which we did not refer to in the discussion, nor did Einstein in 1905 when he did not even know of its existence) I have no choice but to conclude that R.H. He did not point out any admissible error in that long discussion.

    Regarding his reservation for the supposed contradiction with the particle accelerators at Cern - could you explain the issue of the mass increase of bodies at speed according to your model? According to the active site model, the answer is quite clear, although I would not be interested in opening a new front without us being able to solve the simpler problem of the extension of time.

    And in the matter of David and Absalom - in my opinion, both of them discovered too late the pointlessness of breaking up the family on a background of rule and honor. Absalom may have thought of this when he was hanged between the branches of the goddess, and David when he voluntarily left the palace for his unfaithful wives.

    Absalom, Absalom sons of Absalom, may I die under you today. O my sons, my sons Absalom.

  18. Yuval, it seems to me that the hidden is more than the visible.
    I will try to look for answers and if there is anything to update, I will update the forum.
    Thanks for trying to explain

  19. Ruby,
    I don't have much to add to the words of R. H. and Zvi, but I will try to simplify things. Advocates of the Big Bang theory present a picture according to which the entire universe began with a microscopic point. The resulting impression is as if the universe was a large, empty space in which a singular point appeared and began to expand. But this description is not necessarily correct because this point is not a single point in an infinite space but is itself the entire universe. Since we do not know of other universes to compare with the universe in which we exist, if you will, this whole big universe is still the same microscopic point. It is permissible to say, and it may even be true and accurate, that the universe is not expanding but dividing. The point universe was divided into two (similar to the division of a living cell in biology), each part was also divided into two and repeats ad infinitum. In this way the universe remains the size of a point but from the point of view of its internal components it is growing and expanding without ceasing. From this description (and there may be other descriptions as well) it follows that there is no meaning to a singular point.

  20. Ruby,

    "This is exactly what bothers me, that the universe has no center. If everything started from one infinitely concentrated point, it doesn't make sense that everything came out (into the membrane of one balloon) without some part getting inside the center of a black hole."

    Why does it bother you? Does a black hole have two-way motion? Why can't it be a singular point that keeps increasing and there is no inward convergence? A kind of inverse of a black hole?

  21. Zvi, the idea of ​​the cosmic balloon spreading is well known and very popular, if we take the current situation and rewind back in time, we will get one point in the center and that's where the assumption that there was a big bang came from.

    The assumption that the universe is uniform is not compatible with the theory of the universe / an inflatable balloon means an inflatable envelope without matter inside the balloon.

    In my humble opinion, the balloon system of axes that grows / accelerates over time does not give a sufficient explanation for the question of why there is no black hole at the center of the universe (the origin of the axes).

  22. Ruby and Yuval,

    The universe has no "center" to find out what is happening in it.

    The idea of ​​the big bang was born from the work of Friedman who was looking for solutions to Einstein's equations based on the assumption that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic - that is, the assumption that led to the idea of ​​the big bang in the first place is that there is no unique point in the universe and that the entire universe on sufficiently large scales is fairly uniform.

    The question of what is the point where it all began assumes a kind of object that is expanding in Euclidean space and you ask what happens at the coordinate where it all began - but in general relativity it is simply not like that - what was created in the big bang is, if you will, the system of coordinates.

    The accepted analogy for this is as follows:
    Imagine a balloon that keeps on inflating, with the galaxies being dots drawn on its surface.
    The galaxies are getting further and further away from each other at a speed that increases with their distance from each other, and yet you cannot say which point is in the center - all the points are drawn on the balloon and for each of them it is stationary and all the others move.
    The reality is of course a bit more complicated than the analogy, since in the analogy the curvature is positive (the sum of the angles in the triangle on the surface of the balloon is greater than 180 degrees) while the reality is as far as you can see it is flat. Also there is nothing realistic that corresponds to the face of the balloon and yet I hope the analogy contributes something to the understanding.

  23. R.H.
    This is exactly what bothers me, that the universe has no center. If everything started from one infinitely concentrated point, it doesn't make sense that everything went out (into the membrane of one balloon) without some part going inside the center of a black hole.

  24. Ruby,

    The current Big Bang theory holds that there is no center to the universe and it is impossible to know where the singular point was. Imagine that you are a dot painted on a balloon without a nozzle that keeps on inflating. What you will see is that all the other dots drawn on the balloon are moving further and further away from each other and from you. There is no meaning to the question of where the inflation started or where the balloon was when it was itself a point.

    Now imagine it in 3 dimensions and this is what the theory claims.

  25. Yuval, I don't have much to expand on except that the big bang theory would not be complete without reference to what happens at the center of the universe. It doesn't make sense to me that the material only spreads outwards without converging inward to the center. I haven't seen any material on this topic yet. (Can't believe no one thought of this before).
    Maybe this is also a topic for my thesis in further studies at the university...

  26. Yuval, the inward convergence can be apart from gravitation also because of opposing forces (Newton's second law) that caused the expansion. I understand that before the bang there was no time and no physical laws, but seconds later we can talk about forces, speeds/accelerations and time.
    We always talk about the galaxies that expand/accelerate at distances of billions of light years but ignore the center of the singular point from which it all started. What is going on there? black hole? A spring of other universes? Do you have a link to this topic?

  27. Ruby,
    I assume that when you say "converged simultaneously also inwards like in super novae" you mean that the products of the explosion return and converge as a result of the gravitational force acting between masses.
    The association obtained from the name "big bang" can be misleading. The theory does not talk about an explosion like that of an explosive but about how all the matter in the universe was created and the laws of physics were created. For example, the matter, in the first moments after the big bang, was not the matter that physics knows today. Gravitation also did not exist at that time but was created a certain time after that moment.
    In light of observations of the spectrum coming from distant galaxies and the dependence of the explanation on the Doppler effect, most physicists assume that the universe is not only expanding, but also accelerating. Physics does not recognize acceleration without the investment of energy, but since no source of energy is visible, this phenomenon was named "dark energy". Therefore, before we turn to look for a comparison between the Big Bang and supernovae, we are faced with previous puzzles.
    If I understood correctly, then the analogy to the onion skins is in place. Since the universe does not spread only over a certain area but over a volume, it is not just one balloon but many balloons (or "onion shells") one inside the other

  28. Yuval, it seems to me that we have drifted too far away...
    Yuval, my father, I did not receive a response to my theory of onion skins. As someone who is interested in the subject and sees all the science programs that deal with astronomy (the universe, earth exploration, etc.), I did not understand why the big bang theory assumes that the same small point from which the universe spread only spread outwards and did not simultaneously converge inwards as in super novae?
    Does anyone have an answer?

  29. Robby, with your permission I will try to expand on your words to Sumerian mythology (with apologies to my father - my interest in the various mythological models of the creation of the world has nothing to do with my personal belief):
    "Before there was a beginning for the universe" and darkness (a translation from the word zero, the god zero. The Book of Genesis presents a play on words: the word darkness is used in two senses: "empty" and "dark") over Tham (infinity), this is a riddle from mythology. The metaphysical model from which Sumerian mythology was borrowed speaks of zero and zero, zero times infinity (darkness over the abyss) that constituted the primordial universe. I estimate that the dark matter we are talking about today is the result of a meta-mathematical operation of this type (zero divided by zero or zero multiplied by infinity) and it fills the entire space of the universe. The Sumerian model hits quite accurately in my estimation.
    The land was made up of the two rocks Tehu and Bohu that the Tehu monster swallowed before the coalition of gods managed to neutralize it. The head of the coalition of gods (Marduk) freed them from the womb of the abyss and created the earth from them. This story is taken from another metaphysical model, which was very popular, but I am not interested in it at the moment.
    What is in Genesis and not in Sumerian mythology is the creation of light. Sumerian mythology texts dating back to the sixth millennium BC have been found. The Torah was written several thousand years after them. If we start from a fairly well-founded assumption that the Torah underwent massive rewriting and editing in the days of Kings Hezekiah and Josiah, while the pre-Socratic philosophy flourished in the Ionian Islands, we can find a parallel between the creation of light and the ideas of Heraclitus: energy (light) and mass (dark matter) are two faces of the same Something as modern physics also claims.

  30. Father, who said they used cordless phones?
    I am not the representative of the Torah but as you know, everything we know about the universe is done with the help of observations and the use of our known senses and with the help of devices that pick up additional information beyond our senses such as electromagnetic fields and different wavelengths of radiation and sound waves.
    In my estimation, there is much more information that the current technology does not recognize and in the future we will probably reveal a small part of this information.
    So we need to be a little humble and not think we know everything...

  31. Robbie, by the same token, how do we know that two thousand years ago cordless phones were used? No cable was found in the ground from that time. That's about the level of your answer

  32. Maybe darkness over an abyss?
    Maybe star army and their tracks?
    As you know, the Torah is full of clues...it is already related to the occult.

  33. There is also an allusion in the Torah to the Big Bang:
    First of all, there was a beginning to the universe
    And suddenly there will be light...

  34. How would Shmulik Rosen say upon hearing your riddle:
    A disobedient son and a teacher, he kept his head, where the tongue of Chaim can be found.

  35. RH, exactly 🙂
    Avshalom asks for permission to go to Hebron on some kind of devious route. His father, who at this moment is wearing a prophet's hat, knows the future will happen and says to him as if he were "passed" like this, "Go Absalom." In this wording there is no blessing but the granting of permission. But by omitting the first letter of his name, "Go [a] in peace" which is apparently interpreted as a blessing, he prophesies that he will lose his head...

  36. jubilee,

    Did you mean David's blessing to Absalom who is supposedly going to sacrifice in Hebron and is actually going to rebel: "Go in peace"?

    If so why does this mark his bitter end?

  37. Israel,
    As someone who believes in the existence of free will, I must admit that you are not dragging anyone along against their will. That's why I marvel every time at your talent to draw people into debates that leave a taste of nothing in their mouths. It seems to me that what is attractive is the questions you raise, which are of utmost importance. What repels (me, at least) is the conclusions you arrive at in a tortuous way that is very exhausting for those entering into the discussion with you (here, too, I speak only on my own behalf).
    And to your questions about the time in your last post:
    1) Temperature clocks are creations of theory and imagination. It is worthwhile and desirable to build them, but as long as there is none, it is a shame to waste words.
    2) You testify that you do not understand "how it is possible to talk about the beginning of time, what was before", but between misunderstanding and negation there is a great distance. You live in time and are aware of it, and treat it as an eternal entity that exists beyond any physical phenomenon and therefore you cannot understand "time or anything else that precedes time". But it is not impossible that your reference is wrong, and time is not an eternal entity but rather a physical phenomenon. After all, you have a parable: the entire universe is a ticking clock; Every particle, whether matter or empty space, is one clock in this great whole called the universe; When a particle reproduces from another particle (or a living cell from another living cell) it inherits from the father the property of clocks; Now compare this cosmic clock with a clock of the type of devices we use to measure time - for example a clock that operates on the energy of a spring or electricity; This clock only starts beating after someone breaks it or installs a battery in it. This founding event can be called by many names, such as "Bereshit" or "Maftzgadol" 🙂 or whatever you want. Please note that the temperature clocks, my dears, do not measure absolute time but only starting from that defining event.
    ride in peace And on the way please try to solve my riddle. Neither Miriam nor her son, but some say a relative.

  38. R. H.,
    Not in the New Testament. in the Bible. The father blessed his son with a blessing that is customary to bless those who set out on a journey

  39. R.H. Rafai.M, 😀
    This riddle comes to fill the time and divert the energy from that exhausting debate.
    You are welcome to participate as well. The solution is beautiful and surprising. Hints on demand…

  40. Literally: Athos, Partos and Aramis.
    The title should be changed to: "The Three Musketeers - the blog"
    The Musketeer Socrates will ask questions in the style of Aristotle (who knows the house better - the one who lives in it, or the one who built it?) and will reward his readers with answers from the book.

  41. R.H. Expensive

    I do not drag anyone unwillingly into anything. If we've summed it up, then we should finish, even if we haven't been able to convince each other.

    1. The Twin Paradox - According to Einstein, it is possible to synchronize the clocks, but only by means of communication between them, and by means whose speed is below that of light. Hence the lengthening of times.

    By using the temp clocks the synchronization is immediate, therefore eliminating the lengthening of times.

    2. I argued I also argued. Don't you remember how many times I said that I don't understand how you can talk about the beginning of time? what was before Want me to find the specific posts?

    3. There are many such calculators. Obviously, this is what relativity claims. It is impossible to prove to me the birth of Jesus, if I do not accept the existence of Mary.

    4. The formulas and calculations cannot arrive before the principle is agreed upon. From here Tuesday-Tuesday.

    5. I also agree that such discussions are preferable to dry reading of material. They force you to be fully involved. Therefore, thank you too for the great investment.

    6. Esau. He was just harassed by the doss, in my opinion. A nice and innocent man, who takes care of his mother's and brother's problems. Let's not complain about Amalek after what we did to grandfather.

    I'm going to a show in Vegas so I won't be able to comment soon. In the meantime, think about the following topic:

    At the beginning of the 20th century, industry and transportation were quite developed. Trains crossed continents, ships the size of the Titanic crossed oceans, enormous economic interests were invested in the entire issue of transportation. Tens of thousands of engineers worked on building and improving existing measures.

    And so it's strange that the most important invention of all - the airplane - was left to two uneducated bike builders from Ohio, Wilbur and Orbill Wright.

    So what does that mean?

    It means demanding.

  42. Israel,

    Now you drag me unwillingly into the discussion.

    1) "Therefore it is clear that if the clocks can be synchronized without direct contact, as I suggested, the lengthening of time is eliminated." Why? In the twin paradox, is it impossible to synchronize the clocks even though the times are different for each twin? Couldn't your temperature clocks or any other cosmic change be an "anchor" for synchronization in accelerated systems? Of course it is.

    2) You claim that I am missing the main point "that I am not against relativity, but point to the contradiction between the 2 theories. Personally, I believe in relationships and its relative time much more than in the Big Bang and the absolute time implied by it."

    This is the sentence that brought me back to the discussion. How can you claim after over 1000 posts that we argue about relativity and you have not even once raised a reservation about the results that indicate the big bang, that you believe more in relativity and think that the big bang is wrong. You have opened a new front here the size of the Majino line.

    3) See the following calculator: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=time+dilation+calculator&a=*FS-_*RelativisticTimeDilationFormula.to-&f2=1+s&f=RelativisticTimeDilationFormula.to_1+s&f3=3×10%5E7+m%2Fs&f=RelativisticTimeDilationFormula.v_3x10%5E7+m%2Fs

    that calculates time extension. Note that there is no acceleration in it, only velocity.

    4) In any case, the reason I left the discussion is not that I was convinced or that I am trying to change the subject. I feel we have exhausted the philosophical discussion and the debate should move to lines of formulas and calculations. Since unfortunately I am not knowledgeable enough and I do not have, again unfortunately, the time to study the equations of relativity in depth, I leave the arena in favor of those who are versed in the matter.

    5) What's more, I thank you for the discussion, as a result of which my knowledge of the theory of relativity was deepened considerably and at least this is one positive result of all this terror.

    6) I will always be happy to revisit and discuss biblical characters

  43. Ruby
    When I made a trial for the second law, it is because of my belief that there is no such thing as bad people. If you take two people, one "good" by any standard and the other "bad" and tell them that a child is going to be born to them, and they can choose now whether when the child grows up he will be a good person or a bad person - both will choose good.

    Conclusion - we are all good, and evil is the result of circumstances, or the second law.

    My conclusion regarding systems that I call "psychomechanical" are not values ​​or morals. They are factual. About 60 million people died in World War II. Since then more than 100 million have died in wars. After the fall of the Eastern Bloc, there was a lot of talk about the "end of history" and world peace. Instead we are witnessing the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. The systems simply change, and this is what I tried to show in the example of Iran.

    Here is my prediction, based on the principles of psychomechanics, and which we will be able to see if there is any truth in it: in the current decade one of our main enemies, Hamas, Iran, Lebanon or Syria or someone else - will greatly moderate his attitude towards us, as compensation for the increase in the level of hatred on the part of other parties. This is by the way a necessary consequence of the first law of psychomechanics.

    R.H.

    We haven't finished the Jack-Jill example. If the roles were reversed, and you were in my place, I believe you would accuse me of waving my hands and trying to change the subject. I have always claimed that if the big bang is true, there is a lengthening of times in accelerated systems, but it is not real. If we separate two young carrots in their infancy and put one of them in the refrigerator, it will age more slowly than its brother and with it all its reference system: the other vegetables in the refrigerator. However, this does not constitute the "paradox of the carrot twins".

    According to relativity, two twins who meet are of different time, and neither has priority over the other. We cannot synchronize their clocks without a direct connection between them, and there is no such thing as "real time" that can be determined with temp clocks or galactic distance clocks. The whole issue of the lengthening of time stems from the fact that if we establish a connection between point A and B using light rays in order to synchronize the clocks, then if the points are in relative motion, the times change due to the constant speed of light.

    Therefore, it is clear that if the clocks can be synchronized without direct contact, as I suggested, the lengthening of time is eliminated.

    If you would like to continue the discussion at some point in the future, I will insist that it continue from the point where we left off: the thought experiment 2-XNUMX. All references to so-called "facts" and the so-called "scientific establishment" are irrelevant, especially because it seems to me that you are repeating and missing the main point: that I am not against relativity, but pointing out the contradiction between the XNUMX theories. Personally, I believe in relationships and its relative time much more than in the Big Bang and the absolute time implied by it.

    Yuval - words of occupation melt hearts. I have no problem opening a new page. I kind of miss the days when the three of us, R.H., you and I, used to debate mythological biblical figures (Tamar, Job, Balak...)

    But Deir Black from starting with Israel!

  44. RH and Israel, I have sinned against you.
    I fully understand Israel's struggle and sympathize with it. I assume that for RH this is a good practice (for free) of his excellent critical skills. From time to time I sent arrows of mockery at you, but I have to admit that I learned quite a bit from you and I benefited a lot also in the matter of my private model. I am sorry for the harsh words that were thrown between me and Israel and for a good friendship that was missed, but I am comforted by the fact that I found a person who is very similar to me in terms of fertile imagination, ambition and warm temper. It is very likely that I also have a lot to learn in human relations, but unfortunately I am not successful at all in learning lessons in this field.
    Israel! I agree with R.H.'s wishes, and absolutely not with cynicism. You are one of the most talented writers I've been lucky enough to be in contact with, and I'm sure you'll get positive headlines, even if not necessarily in connection with Stockholm.

  45. Israel,

    OK, as far as I'm concerned, the discussion can be summarized here. My summary:

    * After all the posts and all the claims you failed to convince me that there is a contradiction between the big bang and the lengthening of time.

    * Most of your claims concern the lengthening of time and is one of the heavy pillars on which relativity stands. The lengthening of times has been proven in a variety of experiments. However, you dismiss them with a wave of your hand as "attempts made on accelerated systems". I assume that if someone shows you an experiment in a system that is not accelerated, you will claim "these are experiments that were done near the center of gravity - the earth, sun, galaxy)" In my opinion, these are evasions and attempts to revive a theory that the evidence is against. I know many similar examples in biology. In oil exploration, this is called "diagonal digging".

    * There have been many discussions here with creationists like that Xingua who dismiss every claim that shows evolution with a claim similar to yours "No one has seen macro/micro changes in proteins and all kinds of other unfounded claims. And at the end they always conclude with a demonstrable disregard for all the facts "no one has proven to us". It is not science and neither are any researchers. Your claims, in my humble opinion, are not as far-fetched as theirs, but you also tend to dismiss anything that doesn't work out for you as "it's not the point, it's an accelerated system".

    * You failed to convince that it is likely that light moves at a speed other than C and our devices simply do not pick up fast particles. You gave a dubious analogy to a ballistic pendulum. You did not explain why it is not possible to produce better detectors? (In your analogy a pendulum made of steel impervious to balls). You didn't show why we don't see slow light from C. In fact you didn't show any evidence for it except for the claim that it might be possible. Beyond that when I showed you it was
    Not what happens in particle accelerators. You dismissed it again by digging diagonally on the grounds that we are not talking about particles with mass. Is it possible that C is true for particles with mass and not the light from which it is derived?

    In any case, the above is not to try to relax your hands. Rather, continue and be blessed and I wish you success and we will meet in Stockholm.

  46. Israel, regarding closed or open psychomechanical systems, they treat a person as a physical body without a mind or soul or brain that is able to set laws and apply them. The world is going towards globalization with a central government that controls order in the earth system despite all the resistance movements. To control 7 billion people and provide them with fuel and food and a warm bed requires a strong central organization. Social thermodynamics is equivalent to social anarchism trying to bring disorder to the sphere. The external force that causes the Earth to reset is a global disaster such as a mega meteor or super nova gamma ray pulse or a mega earthquake/volcano that will bring about a new ice age.
    Regarding the Big Bang theory, it is the prevailing theory by astronomers based on telescopic evidence that points to the simplicity of the universe. There are new theories that the universe is in the form of a membrane and there are other universes in the form of membranes and from time to time there is contact between one membrane and another and this causes a big bang and God forbid.
    I claim that in a big bang matter spread out in a spherical shape as in the prevailing theory but also contracted inward as in a super nova and caused the creation of a huge black hole and from time to time another universe bubbles up like in an onion skin, someone disprove my theory....

  47. R.H.
    That's not what I'm saying.
    Let me tell you exactly what I'm saying, so that there are no misunderstandings:

    The lengthening of time in relationships does not fit with the big bang theory. This.

    In my understanding, all the experiments you proposed, including muoners and doppler, are in accelerated systems. The lengthening of times in accelerated systems makes sense, if you followed the discussion about the essence of time with a student.
    You have not shown me any experiment that proves the big bang theory. If you know the underground physics literature, there is a lot of opposition to this theory.

    Anyway, I guess you gave up trying to prove to me that there is a contradiction in the thought experiment I proposed with Jack and Jill and the temp clocks.

    We can end here, unless you wish to continue. The next step is the cameras step.
    Anyway, thanks for the investment. I know it's pretty exhausting, but I'm still convinced of the truth of my claims until proven otherwise.

  48. Well, Israel, really, you do have a strictly scientific method.
    Any finding that contradicts your theory immediately becomes irrelevant.

    They tell you: your thesis contradicts the twin paradox. You say "we are not talking about accelerated systems"
    They tell you: time dilation in non-accelerating systems has been proven by the Doppler effect. You say "we are not talking about the Doppler effect".
    They tell you: the accelerator in the axis shows you that it is not possible to exceed the speed of light and there are no particles that disappear because they have reached a high speed. You say "we are not talking about particles with mass"

    As someone who claims to change one of the most well-established physical theories out there and claim that a site does exist against all consensus, you need to show something general and extensive. You cannot reduce and reduce to a private case that has not yet been tested and on the other hand say that any counter example is irrelevant.

    After all, if your theory was correct, it would be correct both in accelerated systems and in the Doppler effect and in the axis and in the butterfly effect in the eastern basin of the northern depression. In short, she was general and beautiful.

    I hope you at least educated your biochemist daughter in science better than that.

  49. Israel,

    In short, after all this lengthy discussion, your claim that you are actually challenging the lengthening of time can be simplified. Your argument is valid in my understanding even without the temperature clocks. What you claim, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if two bodies move without acceleration they will see the same time. This claim is in contrast to the claim of the lengthening of the time of relationships.

    I unfortunately do not have enough knowledge in physics, what I can do is search a little. So with a quick search I found the following site:
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Ives-Stilwell
    who brings experimental proofs to the theory of relativity. And according to section 4 there is good evidence for the lengthening of times by the Doppler effect (and note that this is not in accelerator systems).

  50. R.H.

    "They will look different things."

    Let's examine this for a moment, because this is a point that has been raised many times by others and therein lies the problem in my opinion.

    Let's act as usual. We have a car, on the roof of which is a large clock and a sharp resolution camera. Another car with the same device passes in front of her. When they pass each other, a proximity rumble causes the cameras to activate, and they capture the 2 watches together.

    1. At a relative speed of 100 m/s, do you have any doubt that both cameras will see the same photo in this respect that it will be possible to know what time each watch is showing?

    2. 1000 m/s?

    3. 10,000, 100,000 and so on until almost the speed of light? At what point will each camera see the opposite of its companion?

    What's more, there is no need to reach high speeds at all. Theoretically, with the cars driving long enough, the time difference can add up to several minutes even at low speeds. Can you imagine a situation where 2 cars pass each other at a relative speed of 5 km/h, the cameras are rattling, then when you open the film it turns out that the photos show an inverted image and each shot shows the other clock as slow?

    And let's not go far. In the original Jack and Jill example, the one you read in the link, both agree that Jill's time is 2 seconds behind. There is no claim from Jill that it is actually Jack's watch that is behind.

    Tell me if you still think any camera can shoot the reverse clock as slow.

    And don't treat ghosts. His job is to sit in ambush and wait to see if he can say something against me. Show me one comment from him in the last month that has nothing to do with me. Everyone and their obsession.

  51. R.H. and Rafai.M., please stop these insults that do not add respect to anyone.
    See, for example, what happened to me with Israel. You should always remember that every stick has two ends.

  52. Ronan H.
    "And she also knows about the sites with multiple X that you look at?" - Walla ? If we talk about Freudian mistakes.. (You probably wanted to write something else, right? D: )

  53. jubilee
    I hope you are right. If so, we'll all be lucky.

    Ronan... oops sorry, Freudian mistake. I meant "R.H.":

    Unequivocal.

  54. What happened? Casper? Are you back from the orb? Or stretching to absolute zero?
    Does mom allow playing on the computer at such hours?

  55. R. H. Rafaim,
    On the contrary. I think he knows exactly what he's talking about. The problem is, no one else knows. Everyone should be forgiven except him 😛

  56. Israel

    You say: "Don't forget that we have sharp resolution cameras in both spaceships. It's hard to argue with pictures. What Jack sees is what Jill sees."

    Not that I understand how it can be, but definitely not! In light of what is written about the extension of time:

    When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock.

    They will look different things. The truth is that it is an experiment to do! Two spaceships with clocks on the side camera each other.

    By the way, there is no connection to the second billionth, in my opinion even from a distance it will be the same story

  57. jubilee.
    As expected, you did not raise a single point supporting your claim as if I was evading something or trying to mislead.
    So I will summarize your last comment as another petty attempt to lower your entropy so that you increase mine.

    Also, when you bring up models or slanders, try to back them up with something other than the stupidity of your readers.

    Let's wrap it up here. There's really no need for you to answer. Everything that adds - subtracts.

  58. Michal Shapira!
    Accusations, defamations, apologies... are you sure you chose the right career? You review the law of the second law with unparalleled professionalism. I feel sorry for you, brother, that instead of making a soldier between the walls of the court, you are wasting your time (and the time of those who take you seriously) for nothing.
    you are a good guy salt of the earth. very talented Extremely intelligent. People like you should do it for their home sometime, and one hour before is nice.

  59. R.H.
    Maybe we should really sort things out.

    A. agree.
    B. Disagree.
    third. Hence the contradiction.

    we will continue "Jill has sped in the past" so has Jack. The Jack-Jill system can be reached in the following way: Jack and Jill are together back to back in the experimental field in Tizenby. Both are at rest. At some point, they both start the engines and move away from each other. After a minute for both, they both stop the engines and wait an hour, until there is a large distance between them. So they reverse the direction of flight and start the engines again for 2 minutes, then shut down.

    What happens is that each one is now moving relative to the other, and according to relativity, each one's time passes more slowly relative to the other. However, note that the system is completely symmetrical: there is no such thing as Jack "resting" and Jill "moving" even though this is what is seen from the point of view of each of them.

    In this situation we received the problem data. You assumed that Jill "moved" but Jill as far as she was concerned was resting. And so is Jack. Both are currently at idle. Both are resting.

    We will continue:

    There is no situation of A=B=C=D in the world.
    (Let's say: A and C Temp, B and D Cesium)

    Jack sees a = b = c and d slow

    Jill sees A = C=D and B is slow.

    No one in the world sees A=B=C=D.

    Don't forget that we have sharp resolution cameras on both spacecraft. It's hard to argue with pictures. What Jack sees is what Jill sees. We must agree on this point before we can continue:

    Do you agree that at the moment of encounter, in the billionth of a second that Jack and Jill pass each other, and the cameras on both spacecraft capture all 4 clocks, they will see identical images? Or you believe that the pictures will show different times on the clocks. (For example: that Jack's camera will show that Jill's clocks are slower than his, and that Jill's camera will show that Jack's clocks are slower than hers).

    We can continue if we come to an agreement on this point. (Which is not completely clear, by the way. As I recall, this is the stage when disagreement was expressed by ordinary physicists. It's fine, we managed to overcome it, but I want us to reach an agreement between us).

  60. jubilee
    You accuse accusations and slander slander. I showed you that in the points you brought up, either you didn't bother to read to the end or you simply didn't understand.
    You should do one of the two:
    1. Show me other places where, according to you, I evade, or explain why you think I evaded the places you brought up.
    2. Apologize and stop.

    And if I make you want to talk to me - why don't you just do it and completely ignore my responses?

    Ruby.

    A response awaits, which I hope will shed light on what I wrote.

  61. Yes, Israel,
    "As usual, you utter a general sentence without referring at all to the content of the things" and takes away my desire to talk to you.

  62. Thanks Ruby,
    The acceleration forward and the deceleration on the way back are the accepted solution to the twin paradox. But it seems to me that Israel is trying to assert something about other situations that so far no one here has been able to understand. Like an ordinary Jewish intellectual, he strives tirelessly to present his picture of the world, and along the way attracts a lot of fire.
    Since the Babylonian exile, and in fact even before, the Jews have always been a minority in the world. The human population goes from war to war, and in wars the minorities are the ones who are hurt the most. The question is not what is the cause of the harassment of the world but what is the secret of the survival of this particular minority.

  63. The headlines of the newspapers, announcing the opening of the trial, spoke of "the trial of all time".
    Most of the writers rained down fire and brimstone on the second law while using extremely harsh expressions. "Arrogant" "corrupter" "cruel" were among the mild expressions. One newspaper simply called him "monstrous" and added: "In a democratic country it is the people who set the laws. I don't see why we should continue to pay taxes and finance a system whose most fundamental law calls for the dissolution of all order and discipline."
    Conservative organizations demanded that the second law be immediately removed from all textbooks. They quoted a lot from the words of Professor Boltzmansky, and in particular they got angry at the assertion that "no system can decrease its own entropy unless it increases the entropy of other systems" which they defined as "absolute Darwinism!". Is this the image of the world in which we want to raise our children?" asked their spokesperson in a heated manner, adding: "It's worse than evolution."
    Here and there hesitant voices were heard arguing that the law is a necessary evil, and that there is truth in the claim that it is actually the source of life. Without the second law, we argued, how would the sun's radiation reach us? And how would all the machines work? And the mechanism of life itself?
    These voices were soon silenced by irritated scientists who explained at length that a more positive law could easily be organized, which would preserve the cosmic order without the need for constant disintegration.
    More pragmatic were those who argued that whether he is convicted or acquitted, the law is an existing fact, and we must adapt our lives to it and not try to change it. Just as the discovery of the law by Clausius in the nineteenth century caused a revolution in the science of thermodynamics and physics in general, we must accept the reality of the law in everyday life and act accordingly.
    Economists talked about the "second law in economics" - isn't the flow of capital and assets in the world parallel to the flow of heat in a thermodynamic system? Aren't there conservation laws for wealth and poverty in the world that are essentially similar to the first law of thermodynamics and explain why prosperity in certain geographic areas always involves depression in other areas? Nothing, the concepts of "wealth" and "poverty" themselves are relative, and only the difference between "rich" and "richer" will determine the direction of the flow of capital, just as in a given state of accumulation, only the temperature difference determines what is "hot" and what is "cold" and in which direction the energy will flow ?
    And if the laws of economics are essentially similar to the laws of thermodynamics - isn't it appropriate to recognize the existence of "economic entropy" - the recognition that any improvement in one economic system will inevitably cause a deterioration in another system?
    Sociologists spoke of "social entropy". Biologists on "entropy of immune systems" dieticians pointed to the well-known fact that despite all the effort invested in diets and gyms, the population is getting fatter and also that the vast majority of diets end up returning to the original weight with a little extra, just as happens to the temperature in a closed and active thermodynamic system.
    Particularly 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 aggregates such as countries or continents.
    The group, which it claims was aided by the latest equipment and used the most advanced statistical methods, was funded by an anonymous private source and attracted minds that were considered particularly brilliant. The symbol was a hologram of a ball, with the small letter i in the center. The main question she faced was: if, as claimed, human systems behave approximately as thermodynamic systems, does this not necessitate the existence of a principle similar to the law of entropy for human societies? A hair-raising answer: a probability that tends to one as the system is larger and more random, or simply: yes. And hence the fateful question: Can the earth, which is a closed psychomechanical system, reduce its total psychomechanical entropy? A disappointing and discouraging answer: not on his own. The "second law of psychomechanics" excludes the possibility that the entropy in a closed psychomechanical system will decrease, unless the entropy of another system increases.
    You can say hello to world peace and brotherhood. Any prosperity and abundance in one group will always come at the expense of another group. The hour of Aquarius will not come on its own, and it will not help if the moon rises in the seventh house and Jupiter and Mars line up as one man. Without an external source of psychomechanical energy, any closed system, be it a state, religious belief or economic status, and subject to psychomechanical pressure, is doomed to a constant tendency to expand as a way of reducing its own local entropy - and this in the absence of free psychomechanical space, at the expense of another psychomechanical system.

  64. jubilee.
    I have a growing impression that for some reason, perhaps dyslexia, you probably only read half a sentence and ignore the rest.

    So here is what I wrote about the root i. Please read to the end.

    "And regarding the 1- What about i, a root of 1-? Does he also have a root?

    And in general, what are the philosophical implications regarding the belief in L1? Can we perhaps also believe in God minus one? This is very logical in my opinion, because in the past we believed in many gods, we narrowed it down to one god, the atheists believe in zero, isn't this the required logical step, Doki?"

    Question: Do you seriously intend to answer the questions:
    "And in general, what are the philosophical implications regarding the belief in L1? Can we perhaps also believe in God minus one?"

    Don't you see that the whole thing was said in jest? I didn't mean at all for anyone to comment on that? The whole thing was "as if" a logical continuation of "essential" questions regarding the role of the fate of the 1- in our lives?

    Let's continue. "The speed of light is simply relative to the source".

    My first reaction was:

    "It's even possible to give up on the subject of fiction, and go straight to science. I explained to you the problematic that exists in your interpretation of the MM experiment. (I believe you meant Lorentz's interpretation, contraction).

    Question: Why don't you take the even simpler interpretation, that the speed of light is simple relative to the light source? That would explain the results of experiment M-M easily, wouldn't it?”

    And it came after I looked at your model. Because, in my opinion, the central question cannot be deduced from the model: why is the speed of light the same for every measurer? But only the question above, which is something different, I asked you the same question.

    You asked me to explain, and that's what I did. EMISSION THEORY nicely explains the results of the M-M experiment. (Is that what you meant? It's not clear to you why the theory explains MM? And isn't it explicitly written in the link after you had to scroll through the concept? And what's the big outcry that I didn't attach the explicit link for you. You don't know that such links delay the responses until they obsolescence?) You continued to pursue what seemed to you (as I understood) completely clear to which I meant: that I explain why the speed of light is the same for every measurer? But that's not what I said. Go to the thread.

    The same when you said that time and the second law are the same. It's like saying black and tooth decay are the same thing. This is true for someone who is a dentist, but not conceptually true.

    And your opinion regarding my "expansions" on the subject of ID is exactly that - your opinion. She has no priority in my eyes over my opinion, or anyone else's opinion. As usual, you utter a general sentence without referring to the content of the things at all.

  65. Israel,

    Now I'm really confused. Let's rewind and remember the debate between us.
    To remind you, the whole long and exhausting story started with you claiming that spaceships that accelerate and rampage can coordinate an attack based on the temperature clocks (which I agreed with) and then you claimed that this leads to a contradiction with the big bang (which I claimed was no contradiction)
    A. agree ?
    From that we came to Jack and Jill to simplify the story. If Jill accelerates,
    B. Do you agree that there will be a difference in the hours?
    third. If so, will there be a contradiction to relativity or bang?

    If Jill doesn't speed up but just drives fast at rest (obviously she once sped up to get there but we'll leave those subtleties behind) then you're right the two clocks will show the same and Jack's time will go slower in her eyes while her time will go slower in my eyes c And then, as it were, a contradiction arises in what you call A = B = C = D, but there is no contradiction here except that it is the principle of the lengthening of times.

    There is no situation of A=B=C=D in the world.
    (Let's say: A and C Temp, B and D Cesium)

    Jack sees a = b = c and d slow

    Jill sees A = C=D and B is slow.

    No one in the world sees A=B=C=D.

    This is the essence of time extension. Just like in Wikipedia from which you quoted:
    The point of view of the other observer will be that again the local clock (this time the other clock) is correct and it is the distant moving one that is slow. From a local perspective, time registered by clocks that are at rest with respect to the local frame of reference (and far from any gravitational mass) always appears to pass at the same rate

    When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the magnitude of time dilation

    So what's the secret?

  66. I agree with Yuval, the analogy of Israel versus the Arabs as a closed thermodynamic system is too simplistic.
    I would compare the State of Israel more to a small island in a stormy and overflowing sea that tries to cover it with its waves with temporary successes.
    The strategic location of the country and the right of the firsts that the Jewish people have to believe in one God with all that implies upsets many people, Muslims in the present and Christians in the past mainly.
    Regarding the twin paradox, it is clear that one of them is at rest or at a constant speed while the other accelerates and on its return slows down to meet its older brother.

  67. Israel,
    You asked, so accept (reminds me of the initials BZK. I wonder why 😀 ):
    a) You asked what is the root of i. I showed you a way to calculate it and I got no thanks or, in contrast, no kick, just total disregard. I asked you to comment and you didn't respond. I asked you twice more, and you just ignored me.
    b) You said/asked/claimed: "Why don't you take the even simpler interpretation, that the speed of light is simple relative to the source of light? This will explain the results of experiment M-M easily, won't it?”. I asked you to prove it and you evaded it for a long time until after a long time you came up with something irrelevant.
    And these are just examples.
    And what you have done now, when you chose to present the politics of the Middle East as "thermodynamics", is to repeat the approach that you take throughout the discussions that you are conducting, assuming a broad generalization of a phenomenon while neglecting the importance of essential details. Although it is true that "always" (as if the state already existed in the days of the Big Bang) the wars of the State of Israel were only against Muslims, and it does not matter where the shooter sat on duty, but these are only a few examples of a much broader phenomenon that began long before the establishment of the state and included narrow more From the time when the world did not yet know Muhammad's Islam and not even the Messianic religion.

  68. Ruby,

    "Think positive"? If this is how you are when you think positively (sections 1-4) then what happens when you think negatively? apocalypse? Doom's day ? Gog and Magog?

  69. R.H.
    "How C=D How?
    After all, you wrote several times on your keyboard that the hourly ratio of gel is 1:1000,000?

    So how did they suddenly become equal?

    In my opinion, every Jack-Jel story of yours is simply a version of the famous twin paradox.
    In this paradox, one of the twins does get old and the other doesn't.

    The only times I wrote that 1=1, that the ratio of Jill's hours was different from XNUMX:XNUMX were to show that such an assumption leads us to a contradiction.

    Once again: there is no difference between the Jack and Jill systems. If for Jack the ratio is 1:1 then also for Jill. Any other assumption leads to a contradiction.

    You might assume that Jack's system is really "resting" and Jill's is "really moving." However, there is no support for this in the data of the original problem. Any logic you use to show that Jill's clock ratio is different from 1:1 is completely valid for Jack's system.

    And regarding the twin paradox - as you know, this is an accelerated system, whose purpose of change is different from an inertial system. Also, all the confirmations I found for the lengthening of the times in the experiments (the airplane experiment, Moanim, Tsern) deal only with accelerated systems. I would love to hear about experiments in inertial systems in which the subject of time extension is expressed.

    jubilee.

    "The stealth trait I attributed to you."

    Since I believe that I answer every question on the subjects I raised in detailed detail, I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me on those cases in which I dodged, swindled, scattered smoke screens and other colorful expressions.

    If you ask, I will gladly do so regarding your responses.

    If, on the other hand, after going through the thread, you will prove that you will not find even a shred of evidence for the irresponsible accusations with which you are accusing me new to the morning, it is appropriate that you apologize and stop.

    Ruby.

    Regarding Iran, let's see if what we learned in this article can help us see other sides of the issue:

    The political situation as of March 2012:

    hot borders:

    Lebanon
    Gaza.

    Quiet Borders:

    Egypt.
    Jordan.
    Syria.

    Actual enemies: (those who shoot)

    Palestinians.
    Lebanese.

    Enemies in force (those who threaten)

    Iran
    Turkey.

    Sitting in relative silence:
    Egypt. (peace agreement)
    Jordanians. (peace agreement).
    Syrians (a quiet border for many years).

    The situation 40 years ago:

    hot borders:
    Egypt.
    Jordan.
    Syria.

    Quiet Borders:
    Lebanon.
    Gaza.

    Actual enemies (the ones that shoot)

    Egypt.
    Jordan.
    Syria.

    Sitting in relative silence:
    Palestinians.
    Lebanese.

    Friendships that are almost allies:
    Iran.
    Turkey.

    So what has changed?

    Simply, all the enemies and lesser enemies changed names and roles.

    conclusion:

    There will always be some Arab or Muslim shooting at us. He was once called Kaukji, then he changed his name to Abdullah, then to Nasser, Sadat, Arafat, Nasrallah, Yassin, now Haniya, and tomorrow Ahmadinejad. But in the bottom line, under all the pile of spoons, it's the same Arab (or Muslim).

    And so why?
    This is where this article comes to our aid. There is physics, and physics has laws, and physics has the branch of thermodynamics, and thermodynamics has the second law, and the second law says that in a closed system entropy cannot decrease by itself, and that we and the Muslims in this environment are quite a closed system.

    Therefore if you make peace with Egypt - Lebanon will shoot at you. And if you hit Lebanon, Gaza will shoot you. And if you strike Lebanon and Gaza - then Iran, which has never done it any harm, and which you have not usurped its land, and which you have nothing against, and which you will happily be its friend, (as you will be with the rest of the Arabs and Muslims) -
    She will suddenly be the one to pounce on you.

    Very simple: thermodynamics.

  70. Iran will attack Israel in any case of a combined American attack or not.
    The strength will be different and its arguments for attacking Israel will also not be valid although it will not matter to us.
    The Iranians should fear a situation where Israel will "go crazy" as a result of the "unreasonable" damage it will cause.

  71. Thanks Robbie, I feel the same way you do. But I am also afraid that an attack by the US or NATO will give Iran a sufficient reason to attack Israel even if it does not intervene.

  72. Regarding Iran:
    1. Iran can buy nuclear bombs from North Korea and bring them into Iran using a submarine, aerial or other land transport. The argument of the danger of keeping a bomb does not hold here.
    2. The ability to develop a bomb already exists, no shelling will definitively eliminate the ability, it may just delay it.
    3. The goal of Israel and the West is to pressure and ostracize Iran and bring about a process of changing the government
    4. Calm down, Israel will not launch the first bombardment and let the US and NATO carry it out
    In contrast to the shelling in Iraq, which was relatively isolated, Iran is an ally of Hezbollah, Hamas and others, so the response to Israel will be very painful.
    Think positive

  73. This is what I am trying to do with Israel, but it is not working.
    Maybe we should fly to Mars for that

  74. R.H., please accept my apologies. I didn't mean to mess with your political leanings. Simple, since we agreed that the State of Israel would not be able to act without its great friendship and one gets the impression that the current president is not in a hurry to get anywhere...

  75. R. H., the quality of your words is acceptable to me. Let's face it, if Israel is interested in a military attack, it will not be able to act alone. Everything else is speculation. Did you vote for Mitt Romney?

  76. Israel! Again you invent connections where there are none.
    I did not challenge the validity of the theory of relativity, but rather the validity of the conclusions you and R.H. may reach when you have no way to test them in practice.
    "Shows you where you pee from" is a combination of a well-known phrase with the stealth feature I attributed to you. I've already gotten used to not being understood, and that includes my attempts at joking.
    I cannot comment on your comment about girls in Glasgow bars, as I do not visit those places. And Point's comment can easily be applied to what you're running here as well.
    Once again you manage to drag me into stupid arguments. How do you do that? what's your trick Book please, book.

  77. jubilee,

    So how do you prevent them from getting a bomb without an attack? Maybe we'll ask for a very, very, very nice one? Maybe we'll send Bar Refaeli? Or Katelyn Reiter to sing for them?

    Can we build or rely on the Kykion opposition to topple the regime before Judgment Day? Is there any diplomatic step or sanctions that will convince them?

    Remember 1981 Kor Tamuz? Then Shimon Peres also stood up and said, woe betide if we attack. We attacked and it was lucky because otherwise in 1981 we might have captured an atomic Scud instead of the ones that fell with a concrete head.

    What's more, I don't think that Israel is capable of destroying the Iranian nuclear program alone and the attack must be international or at least American.

  78. R. H.,
    I assume that if Iran can drop an atomic bomb on Tel Aviv, it will not demand a withdrawal to the 1948 borders, but the return of all Jews to their countries of origin (and even better to destroy them, as recommended by the Koran) and the elimination of the State of Israel and the Zionist regime in general.
    Every measure must be taken to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, but war will not help but only harm. If Israel attacks Iran, the Iranian regime will receive full legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian opposition to obtain the bomb. In my opinion, attacking Iran will only cost more and will not be useful at all.

  79. jubilee
    And do it through thought experiments - the validity of which you challenge by saying: "This is an idle debate because it deals with thought experiments that we have no means to prove or disprove."

    And your words: "You inferred "against your will" from a completely non-empiricist approach (and also non-rationalist, by the way)."

    It can be inferred from things you said earlier like: "Showing you with endless patience that I miss where you pee from."

    So enough to play her little boy. Point has already pointed out to you in the past that your models are mainly based on the degree of ignorance of your readers. This also includes aggression models. And like the other models, it doesn't cross the threshold of girls in Glasgow bars. It can make an impression on them, not on us.

  80. jubilee,

    And what will you do as Prime Minister on the day the Iranians present an atomic bomb and announce that if by the end of next month Israel does not return to the 1948 borders they will drop it on Tel Aviv? What then? Let's play poker and see if they are bluffing or if they are serious?
    Can you take such a bet? And if we surrender? Will this be the end of the requirements?

    Against a blackmailer there is only one way.

  81. I did not understand the connection to the Iranian bomb. But since you asked, you have my opinion: a nuclear bomb, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is a deterrent device that gives its holder prestige and respect among nations. When Iran becomes like this, it will have a greater political scope than it has today.
    Humanity goes from war to war. Almost every country needs a war from time to time, and Iran is no exception. The State of Israel, on the other hand, has nothing to gain from war. She just has so much to lose.
    The war with Iran will not be nuclear, but the Iranians know many tricks and Israel must not underestimate them.
    They are waiting for Israel to attack so that they have an excuse to hit Israel without being accused of being an aggressor. They provoke Israel to attack. They do this with threatening announcements, with provocations such as the amateurish attacks on Israeli embassies in the world, by supporting regimes that hate Israel, by training military units in countries that are hostile to Israel, and more. Now they even present Israel as the one that is definitely plotting to attack first, thus preparing the ground for justifying a war on their initiative. Remember how the Second Lebanon War broke out: Hezbollah, a protégé of the Iranians, created a provocation to drag the State of Israel into a small punitive action that developed into a war during which it became clear that it was well trained and properly equipped with first class weapons. I remember an abandoned IDF bunker in Lebanon where Hezbollah soldiers hid and waited quietly for many weeks and the IDF was not at all suspicious.
    If in my opinion you will ask, then the State of Israel must not give the Iranians the slightest excuse to initiate a war. She needs to make a sweeping public statement that she respects the Iranian people and believes that they seek peace and that she will under no circumstances attack them. At the same time, it must reveal to the eyes of the world all the evidence that Israeli intelligence has (and there is certainly a lot) about the aggressive intentions of the current regime in Iran not only against Israel but also against other countries, and promote the expansion of international economic sanctions.

  82. Israel,

    1) How C=D How?
    After all, you wrote several times on your keyboard that the hourly ratio of gel is 1:1000,000?

    So how did they suddenly become equal?

    2) In my opinion, your Jack-Jel story is simply a version of the famous twin paradox.
    In this paradox, one of the twins does get old and the other doesn't.
    The paradox is not limited to acceleration.
    This paradox has been studied and studied massively and millions of words have been poured into it and the consensus is that it is not a paradox and there is no contradiction with the expansion of times. Moreover, it has been experimentally proven both in airplanes and in particles in an accelerator. So the story of Jack and Jill does not constitute a contradiction between the relation to the bang and there is no paradox here.

  83. man.
    Go to the site
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3
    There is a formula down there - the Friedman formula for the dependence of time on temperature.
    There is also a calculator there, which you can use to convert time to temp and vice versa.

    If there wasn't a direct connection between the times produced by the temperature and the normal daily time, we wouldn't be able to talk about a 13.7 billion year universe, because it would be interpreted as something different for everyone. Therefore a temperature year is equal to our normal year.

  84. R.H.
    It was a shortcut.
    The original sentence was: if a=b, c=d and a=c, then a=b=c=d.
    A - Temp clock Jack.
    B - Clock XNUMX:XNUMX p.m. Jack.

    C – Tempi Jill watch.
    D - Jill clock.

    A and B always show the same time (inertial system).
    C and D always show the same time (inertial system).

    A and C show the same time at the time of the meeting (temp clocks).
    Therefore: A=B=C=D.

    And there is no extension of time.

    parable.

    What I wrote in the link you added was:

    "The problem is this:

    1. Both Jack and Jill are at rest as far as they are concerned. Their systems are not accelerated, and are called in the language of relativity "inertial". If it were possible to differentiate between them by the operation of counting revolutions, for example, this would contradict the first postulate of relativity."

    And this is proof by way of negation that such a situation cannot exist.
    Therefore the ratio of Jill's clocks must be the same as the ratio of Jack's clocks.

    If you haven't read the summary yet, you can switch to another article from two years ago, so that the loading will be fast.

    Yuval - Einstein invented all relativity without leaving the office, elk thought experiments. Does this mean that we can stop fearing the Iranian bomb?

  85. OK OK OK

    This discussion is becoming more and more oppressive. Both the loading time of the page and the permanent blocking of comments.

    Avi Blizovsky,

    I suggest you do a rosy of your blocking words. They make no sense. See my last comment. You cause the discussions to be sterilized.

  86. Israel,

    How a=b and c=d so a=b=c=d?

    You forgot what you wrote in:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-331692

    ". If Jack Sofer compares the number of revolutions between the 2 clocks (and it is certainly possible to arrange that the cesium and temp clocks show time in clock revolutions) he will see a ratio of 1:1. He doesn't actually have to wait all the time until the encounter. At any given time period he checks, the ratio will be the same.

    2. If Jill counts, she will get a ratio of say, 1,000,000,000:1"

    So how a=b and c=d so a=b=c=d ?????

  87. Israel!
    A lot of things can be concluded, depending on the preliminary assumptions that are added to the pharmacy. You inferred "against your will" from a completely non-empiricist approach (and also irrational, by the way).
    It's an idle debate because it deals with thought experiments that we have no means to prove or disprove. I remember exactly such debates, about the theory of relativity and the twin paradox, that I had in seventh grade with two classmates (it was during the general rehearsal for the show, North Korea Style, on the eve of Independence Day at the stadium of the Hebrew University in Givat Ram in 1966, when most of the time we sat some kind of elevated surface and we waited for instructions) and even then I came to the same conclusions that I stick to to this day.
    I noticed that people tend to be drawn into such arguments. In the absence of a more precise definition for the causes of this time-consuming intellectual need, they are called "free will". The question of whether or not there was free will belongs in a jury trial. A few weeks ago it occurred to me to suggest that you become a criminal lawyer because it seems to me that you have all the talents required to succeed well in this field, and in this opinion I am getting stronger every day.

  88. to those concerned,
    Interesting to read the thread.
    Is it certain that temp is not a relative quantity?

  89. R.H.
    Since the flu, I go to bed early. You can see the beginning of our discussion at
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-331534
    Note that I never accepted the assumption that Jill's watches would show different times. This is a system at rest, with both clocks showing the same time, just like Jack's clocks. Otherwise it would be possible to distinguish between inertial systems, contrary to postulate A. And true, this does not agree with relativity, hence the discussion.

    d. I looked at your link. The younger twin turns around. You can't turn around without speeding up (or slowing down - we were you).

    Good night.

  90. Show me when I agreed to B.
    After all, I'm constantly trying to show you that Jill's watches must show the same time as Jack's. Remember: if A=B and C=D then A=B=C=D?
    C and D refer to Jill's watches.

  91. Israel,

    Regarding the quote, I already answered you above. But let's call Socrates again

    A. Do both of Jack's watches show the same time? I think we already agreed on that yes, right? To remind you 1:1

    B. Is there a difference between Jill's watches? We have already agreed that there is a difference, haven't we? To remind you 9^1:10

    third. If you answered yes to both questions, then how is it possible that in answer XNUMX you claim "I claim that for both of them the exact same time has passed, both in the CZ clocks and in the temp clocks"? Don't you see that you are contradicting yourself?

    d. How in the twin paradox does one twin (called Jack) grow old while the other one who went far away (called Jill in our story) remains young if the time is the same? And don't tell me accelerating systems, read the quotes I brought you above from the Twin Paradox entry that show it is not a necessary condition.

    God. This is not a question but a suggestion. Check your answers to A and B. It is not possible that you answered "no" because we already agreed on them and they were actually rhetorical as was the custom of old Socrates, is it possible that you did not read carefully and answered casually?

    and. Regarding your argument with Yuval, this is true and false. It is true that I am innocent of any wrongdoing and it is not true that you dragged me along against my will.

  92. R.H.

    If we do not change anything in the original data, then Socrates answers.

    A. No.
    without.
    third. Yes.
    D. No. (It seems to me that you reversed the order. With Jack, time passes quickly. With him, a billion years have passed.)
    God. No. (as above, reverse).
    and. I don't claim that. I claim that for both of them the exact same time has passed, both on the clocks and on the temp clocks. This is exactly the discrepancy with the bang theory - the subject of our discussion.
    G. If his student is Plato - then let him kill himself.

    Now, to my question: Do you accept that, according to relativity, Jack's clock moves slowly relative to the clocks in Jill's system just as much as Jill's clock moves slowly relative to the clocks in Jack's system?”

    You answered: "Of course not!"

    How does this stack up with:

    When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock.

    Don't Jack and Jill fit the definition here exactly briskly?

    And regarding Yuval:

    Note his comment:

    "Perhaps you will still be able to squeeze an answer from me that I cannot guarantee is correct, but it will be enough to drag me into an endless idle argument as you did with our friend who is innocent of any wrongdoing."

    From which it can be concluded that I dragged you against your will, like a captive baby, into some idle argument that you were not and are not interested in.

    And since in this matter I am an empiricist and do not engage in speculation, I will ask you directly: is this true? Did I drag you into some argument against your will? And more importantly, would you like us to finish now?

  93. Israel,

    Finally, my messages came out of the regime press clean and clear. So please scroll up to Ruby's post and refer to them.

    The lovely and pleasant Yuval and Israel,
    So have you moved on to the song stage? I am amazed at your love for women, have you reached it yet? Have you already organized a trip to Brokeback?

  94. And how does an empiricist like you conclude that this is an idle argument? And why do you think he was dragged? Did you go through the thread or do you only read your comments?

  95. Israel, little by little you reveal my face. Indeed, cruel of cruel selfish.
    I hid behind the sign "Empiricist" and with that I hoped you would understand why I don't answer. But you, stubborn in the world, may still be able to squeeze out of me an answer that I cannot vouch for, but it will be enough to drag me into an endless idle debate as you did with our friend who is innocent of any wrongdoing.
    By the way cruel, It takes one to know one

  96. jubilee
    Because here the head cleaning is running out,
    oh how beautiful tomorrow will be,
    oh how handsome
    and what is happy,

    And why to my question
    You didn't answer, cruel.

  97. Israel,

    As far as I know, the dela twin paradox is also valid in non-accelerated systems. I even went to check it out for you. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

    Especially under the sections:
    Specific example and Resolution of the paradox in special relativity

    Anyway. We got a little lost. What exactly is your claim? That Jill and Jack's cesium watch will show the same? You agreed not to. I mean Jack did get older than Jill so what do you want from me?

  98. ♫ So in the current situation, not everything is the best ♪
    ♫ Just what does the human need, if not to keep a clean head ♪
    If you call the endless trantella to the sounds of the (not so tuned) violin of the fastest violinist in the universe "cleansing your head", you are beckoning from extremely hard steel. Diamond steel. Kudos to patience and perseverance 8) (another positive thing I learned from you 🙂 )

  99. R.H. Share the article with us, throw a bone to magical mythological villains.

    Twin paradox is accelerated systems. We are currently in inertial systems. Do you agree with what is said in the statement, without the addendum that is not currently related to our affairs, and which we may get to later? Is it applicable to Jack and Jill systems?

  100. jubilee,

    I am also an empiricist. Actually this is my job. Science for me is therapy. In between the graphs and the article I'm writing, I take a look and clear my head a little.

  101. R. H. and Israel, the knights of the thought experiments
    I am an empiricist in blood, heart and soul. You don't really want to hear what I'm saying

  102. Conversely, of course, how is it that only the twin on Earth gets old and the one on Tess stays young if the time of each of them passes more slowly in relation to the other?

  103. Israel,

    Why don't you look a little further down on the page you copied from on the statement:

    Time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to travel further into the future while aging very little, in that their great speed slows down the rate of passage of on-board time. That is, the ship's clock (and according to relativity, any human traveling with it) shows less elapsed time than the clocks of observers on Earth. For sufficiently high speeds the effect is dramatic.

    Do you know the twin paradox? How is it that only the flying twin ages?

  104. R.H. I agree with you, the question is what Yuval claims.

    Before we continue, how about the following statement:

    When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the magnitude of time dilation.

  105. As usual, the response is awaiting confirmation. Does anyone have a list of "forbidden" words?

    Israel,
    What is the question? This is clearly the case. The temp watch is a probe or thermometer that goes out of the spacecraft into space and measures temp. What is in space is what the brown silk and the cameras that capture them will see.

  106. going for it The formula by the way is called the Friedman formula. Question: If we say there are two spaceships equipped with temp clocks and they pass each other at high speed, will the high resolution cameras in the spaceships that capture the temp clocks in both spaceships show the same time on both temp clocks?

  107. Israel,

    You completely miss the car model and the spaceship resemblance. If you insist, there is no problem in creating the distance function as a single-valued function (1-1):
    Two points at a distance of km from each other. Jack travels very slowly in a straight line between the points and completes the distance in an hour.
    Jill travels at high speed in zigzags between the points and completes the distance in an hour.
    Both have an odometer and GPS that produce a distance graph over time.

    Socrates asks:
    1) Will the graph that Jack's odometer shows be linear?
    2) Will the graph that his GPS shows be linear?
    3) Will Jill's graph from the wheel odometer be linear distance versus time?
    4) Will the graph produced by her GPS be linear? And I emphasize no repeats or declines, linear.

    You don't have to answer. The answer is yes to all questions. But don't worry there will be questions too.

    So what do we have here? A local system in the car that measures distance (completely analogous to the cesium clock) and an external reference system, i.e. the GPS (completely analogous to the temperature clock). The wonder and wonder of the external systems (GPS and temp clock) the distance in the car model and the time in the spaceship model are the same between Jack and Jill,
    A. Socrates asks: Agree?

    The wonder and wonder 2, in the local systems, i.e. the odometer in the car or the cesium clock in the spacecraft, there is a huge difference between Jack and Jill.
    B. Socrates: Agree?

    The analogy is clear. Time must be looked at as a dimension and then the analogy to the three "normal" dimensions becomes clear.

    To your question: ". Do you accept that, according to relativity, Jack's clock moves slowly relative to the clocks in Jill's system just as much as Jill's clock moves slowly relative to the clocks in Jack's system?”

    Answer: Of course not! Let's look at numbers. On the temperature clock, the temperature for both of them dropped from 6000K to 2.73.
    third. Socrates: Agree?

    In contrast, Jack's cesium clock had X decays that correspond to one hour.
    d. Socrates: Agree?
    Whereas Jill had X^10 decays that correspond to a billion years.
    God. Socrates: Agree?

    So in conclusion Socrates, before taking the cup of poisoning screams, I cannot die until I understand!
    and. How is it possible that Shapira claims that Jack's clock can move slower than Jill's?

    G. Will you let him kill himself in peace?

  108. These instruments calculate the time that has passed since the Big Bang according to the cooling formula (which is based on any assumptions about the expansion rate of the universe) and superimpose the cosmic background radiation temperature data at the moment being tested. If it seems to you that the name "temperature clock" embodies this function, then go for it.

  109. Regarding the debate about who travels at almost the speed of light and who rests, I have a solution for you, after the trip they will meet and see who grew old and who stayed young...

  110. R.H. In the example of the car with the GPS, it is absolutely possible that the same car at the same point will see different distances, which is not possible regarding the relationship between temp and time..

  111. R.H.
    Great deal, Socratic questions. I think we almost got together.

    First, answers to your questions:

    1. Yes.
    2. A-F no.
    G Yes.
    3. No
    4. No.
    5. Yes. The temperature clocks measure a unique temperature that depends on time according to a continuous formula whose result cannot be repeated for different parameters, the so-called 1-1 function. For each given time in the function, only a unique temperature is associated. In the case of cars equipped with GPS, it is absolutely possible that two cars at the same point will see different distances. In my opinion, you can quietly give up the cars with the GPS and go straight to an exercise bike: they will show you a huge distance, without moving a millimeter. In short - I don't see any relevance to our books.

    6. Yes.

    I think we have gathered enough to reduce everything to one question:

    1. Do you accept that, according to relativity, Jack's clock moves slowly relative to the clocks in Jill's system just as slowly as Jill's clock moves relative to the clocks in Jack's system?

    jubilee.

    I understood that you are saying that it is theoretically possible to build a clock that will show the absolute universal time just by measuring the temperature.

  112. Israel,
    If the communication protocol is not defined correctly then between what one says and what the other understands it is likely that there will be a gap. I said: "Assuming that the temperature of the cosmic background radiation is the same everywhere in the universe, we have an absolute universal time clock." Tell me what you understand and I'll see if I can deny or confirm.

  113. jubilee
    You write "assuming that the temperature of the cosmic background radiation is the same everywhere in the universe, then we have an absolute universal time clock ("Greenwich Galactic", according to your definition)" do you mean that?

  114. Well my answers are awaiting approval. By the way the voice face accidentally came out of eight + parentheses. From now on we only count with dots.

    So in the meantime, until it is released, my Socrates also has a few questions:

    1. Do you agree that Jack's cesium : temperature clock ratio is 1?

    2) Do you think this relationship will change if (mark the correct answers):
    A. Will Jill be at rest?
    B. Will Jill move at a speed of 100 km/h relative to Jack?
    third. Jill will move at 0.99 of the speed of light relative to Jack?
    d. Will Jill do a figure eight in the air, a backflick and a kungfu kick combo?
    God. Jill won't exist at all?
    and. Are all the answers A-F correct?
    G. Are all the answers A-E incorrect?

    3) Do you think adding Jane Arthur or Johannes de Groot to the story would change the 1:1 ratio between Jack's watches? Even if Arthur drives backwards?

    4) Do you see a contradiction between the relationship to the Big Bang in the story of cars equipped with odometers and GPS?

    5) Do you see a fundamental difference between the story of the spaceships with the cesium clock and the Shapira temperature clock and the story of the cars equipped with odometers and GPS? If so, necrosis.

    6) Do you still see a contradiction between relativity and the big bang that stems from the invention of temperature clocks?

    The defense rests.

  115. 1) Yes
    2) Yes
    3) Yes
    4) Yes
    5) I didn't understand. Is Gene moving as fast as Jill? (I assume this is what you mean by "snoochronous"). What does distance have to do with Jack? And what about Jill's reference system?
    6) Not really. If Jill is the one who starts engines and puts out smoke behind her and approaches the Andromeda galaxy where Jack is then it is true that you can philosophize and say that actually Jill is standing in her place and the whole universe including Jack who rests in it is the one that moves. When you go to work, are you at rest and work is coming to you??
    7) No. If, as you say, Gene and Jill are in sync, then why would this happen?
    8) NA I might as well ask you if you accept what the theory of cell physiology and biochemistry claims.
    9) See answer 6. You can look at it this way, but it does not advance him anywhere, but only piles up difficulties. Like saying that when you are on a plane from California to Israel you rest and Israel flies to you.
    10) No. Jack's clock ratio does not depend on Jill Jane or Popcik's grandmother. It depends on the ratio between the speed of the cesium clock that it carries and the radiation that cools the outside wall measured by the temperature clock by Shapira.
    11) Indeed, that Jack
    12) No
    13) Yes, that you are wrong and have not been listening to what I have been writing to you for a month. A reference system, and no matter what it does, will not affect the relationship between local cesium clocks in a propulsion system and the temp clocks that measure time according to the background radiation in the universe.

  116. This is not Socrates' method. Socrates asks one question at a time and waits patiently for an answer. It didn't save him in the end from punishment, but he managed to live like this until he was 70 years old

  117. OK. Let's try Socrates' method one more time.

    1. Do you accept the fact given in the original experiment that the meeting seven shows that Jill's time is slower than Jack's time? Yes No

    2. Do you accept that this is because Jill moves relative to Jack's system?

    3. Do you accept that what we mean by "Jack's system" is simply Jack and his watch + the other watch that Jill passed on her way to Jack's, and that these two watches, Jack + another, are At speed 0 relative to each other and synchronized between them?

    4. Do you accept that we were able to show that by your logic the video recording of only Jack's watches would show a constant ratio of 1:1 and Jill's ram 1,000,000,000:1?

    5. Do you accept that if there is another clock after Jill, named Gene, and this clock is at the same distance as the Jack system clocks, and is synchronized with Jill's clock, then we have obtained the so-called "reference system Jill's?

    6. Do you accept that in Jill's frame of reference, Jack is the one moving, at the same speed that Jill is moving relative to Jack only in the opposite direction?

    7. Do you accept that, according to relativity, when Jack passes Jean, his time will show that time is slower than when he passes Jill?

    8. Do you accept what relativity claims?

    9. Do you accept that what we now have is the same picture only in reverse, and now Jack is the one moving relative to Jill's system?

    10. Do you accept that by the same reasoning as before the Jack clock ratio should now read 1,000,000,000:1?

    11. Do you accept that this is the exact same Jack that has so far been shown to have a 1:1 ratio?

    12. Do you see the contradiction?

    13. Do you have an explanation?

  118. Israel,

    1) Come on! Shit, after all Jill travels 600 km in a curve that ends 1 km from the starting point. Completely continuous.

    2) "It is absolutely clear that the system Jill is moving relative to is Jack's rest system. Hence also the exact rotation ratio." really?? You again return to your non-distinction between a reference system and an influencing element. And what if Jack doesn't exist? Won't Jill's watches show a ratio of 1:600?

    3) Same thing. If you don't understand the independence between Jack and Jill, I have no way to explain it to you. Specifically:

    "What will happen if Jack hits the gas and joins Jill in flying the building?" ==> In terms of Jill and her watch? Nothing, no effect
    "What will happen if Jack hits the gas and joins Jill in flying the structure?" ===> Even more nothing, no effect
    "Is this what's going to make Jill's temp watch go high?" ==> God forbid, why would her watch slow down depending on Jack? Do you think there is some mystical connection between Jack and Jill's watch?

    "After all, now there is no other system, only it and the darkness. What causes the gap between the clocks now?" ==> The difference between the hours was not caused by Jack. The gap between the clocks is caused by the fact that the cesium clock in the spaceship will speed up its course because the spaceship is flying fast relative to the cooling molecules outside, therefore the temperature clock will show that an hour has passed outside, while the cesium clock will show a billion years because it was in the spaceship where time was accelerated by the speed.

    "pointing to some virtual system, which no longer exists" ===> ???

    In conclusion: I don't know if you're not kidding me. If so, be healthy and have a wonderful sense of humor and let's say goodbye here as friends before it's too late 🙁
    If not then I really don't understand how you don't see that there is no connection between Jack and Jill and any result that will be in their clocks does not depend on the other system.

  119. Semantic introduction: in mathematics there are proofs. In physics there are confirmations and refutations but not proofs.
    The solution I found is based on the model I talked about too much and raised the anger of great and wise people who died with the waving of my hands - and rightly so. I gave a superficial explanation(*) that didn't generate any feedback. There is no point in providing an in-depth explanation, because this requires an in-depth understanding and study of the model from the basics. My model is another one of the theories that have been and will be sacrificed on the altar of the phenomena of physics, and as it embodies within it a possible solution to the problem you raised, it is not impossible that additional solutions - even more beautiful - will be found in other models.
    (* My model presents the movement of the photon and/or the electron as a two-way process, according to which what is considered early also has a late aspect. This explains the phenomenon discovered in Yang's experiment. The spin of the electron as well as the polarization of the photon are also determined in this two-way process, And this explains the results of the Aspect experiment and the like)

  120. jubilee.
    You claim that there may be another possibility. As I recall, you promised: "Israel! Please, do not rush to say "there is no escape from acknowledging the reality: the universe is a local island". I think I came up with a local solution to the mystery."

    I think it's time to throw a bone.

    R.H.
    Answer to your question: Jill moved 300 km north + 300 km south.
    This is not a continuous function (you can turn around in the middle), so the integration is in parts, which will not give 0. Friedman's formula is indeed a continuous function.

    I'll make it easy for you: it's perfectly clear that the system Jill is moving relative to is Jack's rest system. Hence the exact rotation ratio.

    Question: If the entire experiment XNUMX-XNUMX was conducted at our permanent test field in Tizenby, where there are no additional systems, only darkness over an abyss, what would happen if Jack put on gas and joined Jill for the flight in the structure? Or will he simply disappear? Is this what will cause Jill's temp clock to heat up? After all, now there is no other system, only it and the darkness. What is causing the gap between the clocks now? And another gap so precise, pointing to some virtual system, which no longer exists.

  121. Israel,

    Regarding your question "Why does Jill show a ratio of 1 billion to 1, while Jack is 1:XNUMX. Only it.
    relative to what it moves? Not general things, just the specific system that Jill moves in relation to."

    The revolutions of the clock are determined by the decays of cesium. Jill had a billion breakups and Jack a million. The difference is that Jill drove. Exactly the same number of disintegrations would happen in each of them even if the other did not exist.

    What is it similar to? That Jack will drive a slow car 1 km at the same time Jill will drive 300 km round trip. Both have:
    1) An odometer is attached to the wheels of the car
    2) GPS that measures their position relative to the starting point.

    Now they are in the same place comparing the measurement ratio between the odometer and GPS. Jack's ratio is 1:1 and Jill's is 600:1.
    Now let's go back to your question with a slight modification: "Why does Jill show a ratio of 600 to 1, while Jack is 1:1. Only it. relative to what it moves? Not general things, just the specific system that Jill moves in relation to."

    Now answer yourself.

  122. As mentioned, your command of logic is good. The wrong assumption is in section 4: "There are 2 options". If you said "there are only 2 options", then you were the main culprit. However you are only citing others and therefore found entitled due to doubt. Both possibilities are the result of thinking and not evidence found in the field. Do not rule out the existence of other options. We are aware of coincidences and therefore the fact that the experiment confirms the conclusion "overwhelmingly" may convince a jury in an average court but says nothing and a half about the truth of the conclusion.

  123. jubilee

    Let's go through the argument in stages. See if you can point to the step where there could be an error:

    1. Two electrons leave a common source in opposite directions.

    2. According to the law of conservation of spin, their spins must be opposite.

    3. The spin is along 3 axes. The spin is opposite about the 3 axes.

    4. There are 2 options:

    A. The spin is determined upon separation (hidden variables, Einstein).

    B. The spin is in a state of superposition, up + down, and the measurement of one of the electrons is finally determined. (quanta, uncertainty, Heisenberg, Bohr)

    third. If the situation is like B, when the spin mode is determined, his brother immediately chooses the opposite spin. non-locality.

    5. How will we decide between A and B?

    6. Bell's inequality theorem: mathematical proof that situation B is correct.

    7. Aspect experiments and many others (on photons, but the principle is the same). Confirm what is expected from Bell's sentence overwhelmingly.

    8. Question: What can be different? What's the deal with the track? After all, the result was mathematically proven in advance, the experiments only confirmed what was known to happen. Can anything in the experiment contradict Bell's inequality theorem and its corollary?

  124. Israel,
    I am not responsible for what you understood or did not understand, but I will try again. A photon leaves one point, and a photon arrives at another point (according to my model it is not the same photon, but we will leave my model). The experiment empirically records the starting point and the destination point and perhaps also a finite number of points along the way, but not the entire route. We have no way of knowing what exactly happened on the way. All God has to do is to use complementary thinking (for example, the intermediate value theorem) and thus draw conclusions that are not necessarily correct.
    Enter logic, for example modus operandi: if A then B; A; therefore b. But if A is not true, then B is false.

  125. Yuval, I'm not sure I understand.

    Bell's proof is mathematical. The experiments of Empiric Aspect. What could be wrong here? The logic? What other conclusion could be possible? Can you show me the details? Give what direction, what example?

    And I didn't understand the connection to photon moves either.

  126. R.H. That's not what I asked.
    simple:
    Why is Jill showing a ratio of 1 billion to 1, while Jack is 1:XNUMX. Only it.
    relative to what it moves? Not general things, just the specific system that Jill moves relative to.

  127. RH, thanks for the clarification.
    By the way Flatlandia, I found some nice PDF files, including a scan of a copy from the first edition. I would be happy to pass it on to anyone who needs it. A full-length feature film version was also recently released.

  128. Israel,

    I don't understand your objection to Jill moving and Jack not. It is true that one can philosophize that when Jill enters her spaceship, drives the atomic engines, sets off and arrives after a little while at Andromeda, in fact she stayed in place and Jack and the entire Earth moved away from her and Andromeda suddenly came to her. Indeed, it is also possible to see it that way... as your Mach believes.

    How do three relativistic physicists screw in a lamp? One holds the lamp and two spin the room (or the world or the universe, you choose).

    Another argument you have ignored is that a reference system is only a reference system and not causal. You claimed that something moving relative to you doesn't really affect you. The fact that now somewhere in space there is a spaceship that moves close to the speed of light relative to us does not affect my choice of pasta or rice as a side dish to the chicken.

  129. R.H.

    1. Let's say that temp clocks, galactic distance clocks and universal greenwich all give the same time for each system.

    Does this contradict the lengthening of times in a non-accelerated system - I believe so. I also believe that I proved this with the example of Jack and Jill. If you can prove me wrong - whip. If you add more measuring systems, just to show that temp clocks are not the only ones, you don't contradict my argument - you strengthen it.

    And I have no postulate. All explanations and proofs.

    2. How did I not convince you if I showed you that Jack and Jill must show the same time on their watches if they accept Postulate A? You may not have been convinced, but your argument, that Jill is "really" moving and Jack is not, is unacceptable to me. If that's the only thing you have, I'll keep my faith. If there is something new - whip.

    3. I do not analyze all the subtleties of the contradictions between all the existing theories. I am talking about one small topic: the lengthening of time and the speed of light. If you have something new - whip it. But one thing I must make sure: in the example of CJ: Is the only reservation you have is the issue that Jill moves and Jack doesn't, or is there something else?

    4. It is legal to count. But in Vegas, a casino is considered a private club that does not have to let you in if it is not interested. In Atlantic they are not allowed to prevent you from playing, and as a result the rules of the game have been changed so that it is impossible to earn even if you count. This is one of the reasons everyone goes to Vegas and not the Atlantic. Bottom line, they hurt themselves.

  130. Israel,
    Regarding the conclusions that people draw from the results of experiments, if I use your words: "The experiment is only responsible for what it shows." Claims such as "the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference" or "spin information travels faster than light" reflect conclusions but are not directly proven. When you say that EPR were wrong, you are judging by this kind of conclusion. Your logic is strictly Aristotelian, but the trick based on incorrect facts inevitably leads to wrong conclusions. As mentioned, the conclusion from the Bell experiment is only a possible conclusion. We do not have (and there is no way to get) a continuous record of the photons' movements all along the way. This is the flaw I find in your argument. RH is sharper and more knowledgeable than me, maybe he will find a more fundamental mistake.
    By the way, see what I found in the antiquities section:
    http://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.815624

  131. jubilee,
    That's not what I meant. What I wanted was to show our friend (you are friends right? Like status?) that his temperature clocks are nothing special but simply another normal reference system that behaves according to the glorified relativity.

    Israel,
    1) You dodged with the elegance of a hedgehog. Great, you thought about it too, so what's the answer? Do you still think temp clocks are different from the galactic greenwich mean? If so why and if not what is the meaning of your starting assumptions for your postulates?

    2) "Do you find a mistake in my argument? whip." Isn't that what I've been doing for several hundred posts? You ignore and wave your hands or give answers here and there, but you still haven't convinced me in the first stage of your structure that there is a contradiction between relativity and the bang.

    2.5) Speaking of Bang, so now you claim that you don't like it, do you have an alternative explanation for the distance of the galaxies + the background temperature? whip!

    3) ” According to this logic, then relativity is wrong. Spin information travels faster than light. Einstein was wrong about EPR. Shall we cancel the relationship? Will the particles pass through the accelerator now? Will we stop fearing an Iranian bomb? After all, there is no doubt that Einstein was wrong!" ====> If you think that you will slap me with "the relationship is wrong" and I will fall off the chair, you are wrong. After all, it is clear and obvious that quantum mechanics does not get along with relativity. It is clear and obvious that both of them have stood up to all the refutation tests that have been done to date and yet they contradict each other. The formulas of relativity break down at small distances. The gravitation in relations is the curvature of distance and is carried by gravitons in relations, your EPR and more. So what's new here? We all know there is a problem with theories. This is why we gathered here, this is why the senior physicists are sitting and trying to develop string theories.

    4) The only argument I don't find valid is about ghosts. Oh, and you convinced me about the casino as well. Are they allowed to throw away anyone who sits and earns? Is there a legal reason for this? Is there a law against counting in the heart?

  132. R.H.

    I have indeed recovered, and I am ready and ready for battle.

    1. Nice idea, I thought of it too. Read the following email, and note the date.

    From: snuz2001@aol.com
    to: arot43@aol.com
    Sent: 12/24/2011 2:30:44 PM Pacific Standard Time (Me
    Subject: (no subject)

    Hi Gil

    I would like to thank you for taking the time and discussing with me the issue of time dilation. After you left, I thought that what may demonstrate my idea of ​​an absolute time is the following example: suppose we have a powerful transmitter on earth which transmits, using radio, to the universe earth's time in 1 sec intervals.

    So the 0th' point will be for example Dec 31 2011 at 12 midnight Greenwich's time, and then every second it will send a short and powerful signal: 1, 2, 3, …..100^100.

    At each point in the near universe, a receiver which will receive the pulse can calculate earth's distance (at time of transmission) from the signal's strength and Doppler shift, and thus arrive at what will be called: "UNIVERSAL ABSULUTE TIME". in our example of attacking ships which try to synchronize their clocks, this universal time will give them a useful way to coordinate the attack. Note also that if there were more sources of signals which are arranged in the same way as the original one, and their clocks are synchronized initially with earth and they are moving in a constant velocity in space, no matter how far and in which direction, then every ship in the universe will receive from them the same "UNIVERSAL ABSOLUTE TIME", no matter which of the sources it will elect to use.

    A + B. I don't know the answer. I'm so busy here with discussions, experiment planning and all other daily activities, that I didn't get to go over the idea in detail. I presented it in several physics forums, no one answered.

    2. "You necessarily claim that the relationship is incorrect". This is a hasty conclusion. Like Yuval's conclusion, if I say that EMISSION THEORY explains well the results of the MM experiment, then it means that it also explains the fact that the speed of light is the same for every measurer. In both cases it is not what I say, and I am only responsible for what I say, not for the conclusions drawn from my words.

    I said here at least 10 times: I don't know. It is difficult for me to intuitively accept the idea of ​​the beginning of time (what came first?). I love the mathematical elegance of relativity. Something is not right. that's it. I have no pretensions to build TMG.

    Do you find fault with my argument? whip.

    3. "Sern does disprove your theory. The theory of relativity speaks of the speed of light as an upper limit for everything, mass or no mass." By this logic, then relativity is wrong. Spin information travels faster than light. Einstein was wrong about EPR. Shall we cancel the relationship? Will the particles pass through the accelerator now? Will we stop fearing an Iranian bomb? There is no doubt that Einstein was wrong!

    Do you find fault with my argument? whip

    4. For an entire generation, the Sinai desert was mainly the scene of skirmishes with Egypt every few years. The only Harik who was there was Sharon, who would appear adorned in a bandage on his way to the other side of the canal.

    5. Until about 50 years ago, blackjack was a rather marginal game. After Thorpe wrote the book beat the dealer, the game's popularity soared, everyone tried to beat the house, and indeed many succeeded. The casino immediately changed the rules, including adding decks, so people stopped coming.

    Today a status quo has been achieved: the house can be beaten, and this knowledge attracts crowds and has made blackjack the most popular game in the casino. However, only a few really manage to withstand the load, and especially at the speed required to count at a glance an entire table with 6 players. For them, the casinos set up a sophisticated surveillance system that includes a facial recognition system, computers that are able to tell based on the way the bet is played if a player is a writer or just a gambler, and even a special agency called Griffin, whose job it is to identify the writers, many of whom use disguises.

    It's an unusual experience when you're young, especially if you like to travel. You can travel all over the world, stay in the best hotels, eat in the most expensive restaurants, see all the most desirable concerts, hear all the singers, all for free - and leave with a salary the size of a plastic surgeon.

    Bottom line, and I mean it - it's a trap. Ken Houston was one of the stars of the financial system in San Francisco. Married, children, career. He left everything for an alcoholic lifestyle, devoted his unique mathematical talent to calculating card probabilities, and ended up alone in a Paris apartment surrounded by bottles.

    7. A ghost, as it is called, is a being that has no life, and its whole purpose is to harass the commenters without one substantive comment (correction yes one substantive comment).

    Do you find fault with my argument? whip.

    Ghosts - why don't you complain about the young and successful cousin and let the old people reminisce?

    What's new below absolute zero?

  133. R. H.,
    Assuming that the temperature of the cosmic background radiation is the same everywhere in the universe, we have an absolute universal time clock ("Greenwich Galactic", according to your definition). I wasn't sure what you meant.

  134. Ra-Pam,
    One more time to take the pink pills instead of the purple ones? It's not bad, sleep a little, play outside in the sandbox and it will pass.

    Just be careful not to fall below absolute zero.

  135. Shafira

    that's it?
    My cousin who is younger than me, is more successful than you (and I won't mention the others).

    By the way, this is not your exercise, Israel.
    It's your age.
    poof It's going to smell like old people here... what do you call it? Senility?

  136. Israel,
    I'm glad you came back and I see you're back full of energy and vigor.

    1) Socrates asks: We will build a facility that we will call the Galactic Greenwich that will contain a cesium clock that is at rest and transmits the time in all directions. Do you think your spaceships planning an attack would be able to coordinate an attack if they knew their exact location and the location of Greenwich?

    A. Yes ==> So what is the fundamental difference from your temperature clock?

    B. no ==> why? After all, all that each spacecraft needs is to receive the transmitter, analyze its distance from Greenwich, multiply this distance by the speed of light, add to the result of the transmitter and here it knows the exact Greenwich time. By the way, as of today there are several such facilities that work very successfully. They are called GPS satellites.
    This is also true for both of your pipes.

    2) You claim that there is a contradiction between the bang and relativity. Since I don't remember you ever making claims against proofs for the bang (and correct me if I'm wrong, after all >1000 posts) you necessarily claim that relativity is incorrect.

    3) Seren does disprove your theory. The theory of relativity speaks of the speed of light as an upper limit for anything, mass or no mass. Tachyons are imaginary particles that are not expected yet and they cannot go below the speed of light. You come and say, "Yes, regarding the essay, it's true. My active website is not effective and relativity takes hold, and I don't bother with it at all." However, regarding photons, ah, that's a different story." Isn't this hand-waving and introducing complications into the system?

    4) For me, Sinai is a magical place of clarity, the Nueva Festival, nudists, materials, an amazing amazing amazing desert. Tizanbi is the blue one at the Laid Jebel Baruch outpost at night among the red and green trackers that only stopped when Xuan Eric appeared on the Middle East channel.

    5) Thanks for the lesson. But she asked. If it's so simple and accessible how come blackjack hasn't been taken out of casinos? How come not everyone uses these methods?

  137. That's it, star flu summed up.

    (By the way, do you know the origin of the word flu?).

    R.H. darling.

    1.

    Have you ever done proofs in geometry?

    You cannot access an advanced stage before you have proven the previous stage. Be that as it may, at the bottom of the food chain you will come across axioms, those self-evident assumptions that cannot be proven, but on which every sentence is built.

    I will not be able to prove to you the correctness of the Pythagorean theorem if you do not accept the axiom that says that between every two points in the plane only one line passes, which is also the shortest distance between them.

    The equivalent of an axiom in physics is the postulate.

    And the first postulate of relativity (and not only of relativity) is the equivalence of all inertial systems. Any system that is not accelerated is essentially at rest, and cannot be distinguished from another system that is not accelerated.

    Our discussion about the lengthening of time was structured like a geometric proof, with each new argument built on the agreement of both of us on the previous one. At the end of each step I would raise a question and ask you if you agree or not.

    We have come to an agreement that two temp clocks at the same point will always show the same time, no matter what their relative speed.

    In the example of Jack and Jill's spaceships, we came to an agreement that in Jack's system, a shared video of the cc and temp clocks would show a rotation ratio of 1:1., or the same time in both always.

    We remain divided about Jill's spaceship. You claim that the ratio will be 1,000,000,000:1, because this system is in "real" motion, while I claim that there is no such thing as real motion, see Postulate A. Jill is in non-accelerated motion, therefore also in Jill's system the ratio will be 1:1, and both clocks will always show the same time.

    It is clear that it is impossible to continue the proof if we do not agree on such a fundamental point. Despite this, I showed that if you did accept my previous assumption, then there is no lengthening of time because if A=B, C=D and A=C, then A=B=C=D and therefore when Jack and Jill meet they will see that their poverty same time

    And so I showed you with the example of the moving tubes, that since all the clocks in both tubes always show the same time, and therefore there is no lengthening of time, there is no escaping the conclusion that the same photon moves at a higher speed relative to the tube that advances in the direction of its movement.

    parable.

    Unless, as mentioned, you do not accept Postulate A, the root of the dispute between us. But if you don't get him, how can you get anything in a relationship at all? After all, it is built on him!

    Show me another flaw in the argument besides this one, and we can argue. Otherwise I have to conclude that the only reason you still adhere to the lengthening of time, is your constant claim that there is a system that "really" moves (Jill for example). That being the case, I continue with a quiet heart to believe that my proof is flawless, until proven otherwise.

    2. Seren does not disprove anything for me in theory. I have mentioned several times that this is a different topic. Go to the thread. I agreed with you that there is an extension of times in accelerated systems. All the examples you bring to contradict my claims, the airplane experiment, Saran, are experiments with accelerated systems. Show me the point where I pretended to deal with masses, except for the gravitation and inertia model that was mentioned all the time only as a secondary presentation, where the friction problem in Lesage is solved using the model I explained. For a year now I have been talking about a problem on one subject: the extension of time. I have no problem with the rest. If I misunderstood, I apologize and correct. Only an extension of time. Let's finish with this - we'll see if there will be strength for the rest.

    And besides that, R.H. Dear, you repeat and commit the same mistake again and again: the claim that I claim that the relationship is wrong. This is despite the fact that I repeat and emphasize that if there is no continuous cooling of the universe according to the Friedman formula, as the big bang theory claims, then relativity is completely required. You constantly repeat the subject of the "external system" that can be used to measure time, such as the moving away of galaxies. Ready to flow with you: if you can indeed agree on an absolute time by means of galactic distances, I can still prove to you that there is no time dilation by using a galactic clock, but on one condition: you must adopt Postulate A to heart. How do I?

    So remember - I am not claiming that the relationship is incorrect. But it doesn't fit with the big bang theory. Why don't you claim that I'm deceiving Meftzadol?

    3. Show me the point where I claimed that my explanation of an active site explains non-locality. My contention has always been that it allows for non-local devices. ( he is not?).

    Einstein is the one who claimed that non-locality is not possible because of relativity (didn't he claim? Wasn't he wrong?).

    Summary: If you find a flaw in my argument other than my postulate in Postulate A - I have no problem admitting the mistake. Otherwise, I continue to stick to my claim: there is a contradiction between the lengthening of time in relationships and the Big Bang theory.

    4. Who was insulted? Did you hear a screeching sound? The name is a bit, well, how shall we say it, interesting?

    5. This is the problem with you young people. This strong smell, of the fresh meat from the Bakum. That you say Tizenbi and Jabalakhera, and don't know that these are real names of places where pazmniks like me (and Yuval and Meir I assume) served their service.

    6. Let's hope my father doesn't get too angry. If so, take responsibility for yourself.

    I always maintain that there are two things that seemingly sound complicated, and are actually quite simple. The first is private relativity. The second is card counting in blackjack.

    In the classical method of counting, the HI-LOW method, the same method that all MIT groups (which still exist today, by the way) use, two things are used:

    1. Basic strategy.
    2. Counting and summing up high and low cards.

    The basic strategy is a rigid line of action instructions for any given situation. For example: you have 16 and the dealer has 10 - you must take a card. Go 5 or 6 - you must stand. You have 11 - you must double.

    You can download online, or buy in dollars at the casino itself.

    2. Cards number 2-6 receive a value of +1.

    Cards #7-9 are worthless.

    Cards number 10 (including all pictures) and Aces get a value of -1.

    The course of the game in one package when you play alone Mo the dealer:

    1. Put the minimum bet amount.
    2. Play the first hand according to the basic strategy rules.
    3. Sum up all the card values ​​according to the key I provided. At the end of the round, you will be left with a counter tax: negative, 0 or positive. If the value of the counter number is less than 2, leave the bet amount as it was. With is 2, triple it. 3, five times. 4 or more, as much as you can, before security comes and escorts you out.

    If there are two packages - divide the counted tax by the estimated package tax that remained in the "shoe" (the box where the packages are housed. This way you will be left with what is called a TRUE COUNT. With 6 packages - divide by 6. 600 - by 600 and so on. (That's fine, the maximum is 8 packages).

    After two days of training you will see that it has become completely automatic, like driving or a foreign language that are difficult at first and then you don't even think about them.

    The main problem is not the counting, but how to stay cold as ice when the amounts are high, and how to prevent the casino from preventing you from playing (in the language of science - block your responses).

    That's it, I hope now my father won't block my comments. I've been banned from casinos for years, happily.

    Bottom line - waste of time. By KEN USTON, who wasted his life and his 170 IQ points there, destroyed himself and his family.

  138. jubilee,

    I did not claim that it is impossible to calculate time based on a decrease in temperature, on the contrary, my claim was that there is nothing special about it and in fact Israel's spaceships will be able to schedule a rendezvous even though each traveled at a variable speed close to the speed of light based on a variety of phenomena. The examples of phenomena for which it is possible to measure "absolute" time as required can be the moving away of galaxies, the rate of decay of stars, the evaporation of a black hole, the decay of a radioactive atom in a certain place. The latter is likened to a cesium clock on a planet that every time Israel's spaceships have to stop and check its condition. That is, these are also relative clocks and there is nothing non-relativistic as he tried to claim for the temp clocks.

  139. Ruby,
    If we look at each unit of time as something defined for itself, then our universe is made up of infinite dimensions. However, since we accept time as a finite (and single) dimension, the three dimensions we know are sufficient for orientation in space. The additional dimensions of string theory can be seen as a subspace of the existing three.

  140. R. H., thanks for the reference to Stohlandia. A beautiful book.
    But before you run to pay Amazon, please keep in mind that this is a text whose copyright expired many years ago, so you can download it for free from Project Gutenberg:
    http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search.html/?format=html&default_prefix=titles&sort_order=downloads&query=flatland

    Regarding the temperature clock, I wanted to tell you that it seems to me that you are not completely right. As the age of an object is calculated based on the decay of an isotope ("half-life"), it is possible to calculate absolute time based on the temperature's proximity to absolute zero. This is assuming that the rate of heat loss is also exponential.

    My explanation of the "return in time" phenomena is based on my model. Since I don't want to develop it here, I will only bring it up briefly:
    I presented the photon (as well as the electron) as a "piece of empty space". A particle entering the photon area results in the photon ceasing to exist, but at the same time a new photon is created where the particle was before. In this way, the movement of the photon in space is bidirectional. In the "delayed choice" experiment, the particles intended to be used by the photon on its way are replaced by other particles following the hiding of the screen.
    The change of the polarization of the photon (in the Bell experiment), as well as the change of the spin of the electron, is also explained in a similar way, and I will not expand on that for now.

  141. String theory is already in the consensus that allows the existence of 10 or more dimensions, it seems to me that this forum needs new "blood" to improve the discussion.

  142. Israel,

    Summary of my sons:

    1) You repeat and slam me for rejecting the relativity of time even though I think I have shown you in plain sight that this is not the case and that your temperature clocks are relative like anything else and you could also look at any slow phenomenon that happens "out there" over time such as the cooling of stars, moving away Galaxies, evaporating black holes, etc.

    2) You ignored a clear refutation of your model where in the axis particles were supposed to disappear at high speeds, but this does not happen. Saying you don't deal with mass particles is handwaving. Is it possible that relativity only applies to particles of mass?

    3) Your explanation for non-locality by the same active site is extremely weak. You did not answer me how an electron here "informs" precisely the electron in Hell behind Tiz a Nebi to change its spin without them actually being one unit.

    3.5) An explanation that the electrons are connected in another dimension does not fall into its plausibility from the fact that the photons travel above the speed of light, only what is unfortunately not picked up by our sensors.

    4) Worst of all, you underestimate what you don't know. If you don't mind Flatland is not a ghost book but an entertaining and thought provoking mathematical allegory as strange as it sounds about dimensions and social classes. A highly recommended book
    http://www.amazon.com/Flatland-Dimensions-Illustrated-E-Reader-ebook/dp/B004AM5AZO/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332208762&sr=1-1

    5) Pads ?? What were you in the brigade? Isn't this from Givat Halfon?

    In any case, it seems to me that we have exhausted ourselves and we are starting to chew chewable food. So unless you have some amazing brilliance let's put the discussion here until you publish the results of your experiment.

    In the meantime, can we discuss how you can count more than a package or two without a computer in the shoe, the finding of which will result in your bones being broken first by the casino security guards and then by the policemen paid by them and filing a lawsuit from here to the Bellagio?

  143. Yuval Thanks for the compliments, but I don't get them.
    Susan and Tomer, like Ishmael and Yitzchak, are one for their mother and one for their mother.

    So, yes, planting and watering for sure, but the growing and the investment and the credit is Lori's.

    A local solution? I have to hear this.

    R.H.

    1. "Einstein's first possibility is much more likely"

    It seems to me that if you accepted as you said the idea that a person in a stray spaceship could know that today is fasting because it is Yom Kippur just by measuring the temperature - then you rejected the relativity of time. The proof is only technical. But I think we're done, unless you'd like to continue.

    2. "By claiming that there are particles faster than light, have you solved the issue of locality?" I claim what I have always claimed: my solution of the active site allows the programming of non-locality.

    Everything can be explained through extra dimensions, magic, demons and spirits. Flatlandia sounds like the Ceftia unit we had in Rafidim.

    Question: After we have digested the issue of non-locality, could you explain the results of the delayed choice experiment without resorting to the worst of all: influence on the past from the future?

    3. I am very proud. I'd rather be less proud and have her be close to home, but what can you do, you don't expect Sanozi to go to USC, do you? What is she like her Persian friends whose wise parents do not allow them to study away from home?

    Like I said, the American trap. And when the time comes, if you can, you will allow the children the most "excellent" education, even at the cost of losing your daily contact with them, and you will sit with your partner in the empty house. But whatever - be proud.

  144. Israel Israel Israel trust in God,

    1) "Einstein's conclusion: the speed of light is constant for any measurer, what changes are time and distance. Question: Is this the only option available? Is the matter finally closed like the island of locality? My answer is no. There is another theoretical possibility: the speed of light is only relative to the viewer."

    True, agree, there is always a theoretical possibility. But Einstein's first possibility is much more likely in light of the countless attempts made since 1905 by heretics like you and up to today including the Oprah experiment have failed to demonstrate any error. If you succeed in your attempt, you have played it and even your daughter will salute you. And in any case, as you said, it will be fun!

    2) Non-locality - by claiming that there are particles faster than light, did you solve the non-locality? What do you say? Give me a break! How do you explain that one electron among billions sends information to another small electron that is light years away from it and is hidden on the way by 7 galaxies and 18 black holes and in a forest of billions of identical electrons? How does he know who is involved with him? And only to him?
    The most convincing explanation I have heard for non-locality, even if it has no experimental support, is that the two electrons are connected and actually form one body when the connection is made in another dimension where they are actually adjacent. Do you know Flatlandia by Edwin Abbott? There he clarifies how such a thing is possible in the transition from one dimension to 2 and from 2 dimensions to three.

    3) Cell and Molecular Biology is like saying astrophysics. It is a wide and extensive field under whose wings it is possible to include almost every recognized disease, every organism and almost every field of biology. So you need to find out more details. Also check pubmed for the publications of the lab she goes to and you'll see. Anyway U Penn is a great university and you should be proud and not just think about yourself and your handkerchiefs (I'm a hero with elementary school kids, my views will change in the future I guess).

    Yuval, come on, we're all tense, you've built up the expectations, now you're going to explode.

  145. All the best to the father who planted and watered and raised and invested 🙂
    Israel! Please, do not rush to say "there is no escape from acknowledging the reality: the universe is a local island". I think I came up with a local solution to the mystery.

  146. R.H. I heard

    philosophy.

    APR devoted 99% of their article to technical issues and formulas. At the end, in one sentence, they presented the alternative: non-locality. It sounded so delusional, so "SPOOKY" in Einstein's words, that its very presentation was supposed to close the door on the idea of ​​variables that are not hidden. Bohr himself did not believe in non-locality.

    If you remember Nick Herbert's paper, he starts with Nick saying "I'll prove it doesn't exist" and ends up finding a very elegant proof of non-locality.

    And we, Yuval, you and I, didn't believe it and looked for what was wrong: the polarizers? the middleman? The experimental setup? After all, no one really expects us to believe that the entire universe is connected by some mysterious "wave function", through which information flows, and in zero time!

    And yet there is no escaping the reality: the universe is a local island.

    Let's go back to the tube experiment.

    Two tubes move relative to each other and a photon moves relative to both. The measurements show that it moves at exactly the same speed, that of light, relative to both. Einstein's conclusion: the speed of light is constant to any measurer, what changes are time and distance.

    Question: Is this the only option available? Is the matter finally closed like the island of locality?

    My answer is no. There is another theoretical possibility: the speed of light is only relative to the observer. Just as you will not be able to see an infrared light beam unless you are moving at a certain speed relative to it, so you will only be able to measure that photon component that is at the speed of light relative to you. Everything else is unknown to you, like infrared or ultra light. It is there - but transparent to you.

    delusional? Maybe. The change of time and distance sounds just as delusional. Be that as it may, unlike in the case of non-locality, this is a possibility that exists.

    Moreover: it fits nicely with the assumption that the universe has a temperature that is a continuous function of time, and with the discovery of the photon's probabilistic and spread nature in the universe, something that Einstein strongly opposed all his life. For him, a photon was a quantum of energy that leaves point A and flies at the speed of light to point B, what we call in the barn: photon - photon.

    Is there something in my words? Probably not. Most likely there is simply an explanation, and it's probably quite simple, that I'm just not aware of.

    The advantage - you can do an experiment. I will of course continue to look for the theoretical explanation, but I will also continue to work on ideas for the experiment. Whatever it is, it will be a spoon.

    Your questions:

    1. I believe that according to the picture of the universe in 1905, his assumption made the most sense. Today it seems to me that he was hesitant.

    2. Temp gauges do not measure changes as far as I know. They measure the temperature, and it can remain stable for a long time. The thermometer will continue to show it all the time.

    3. My idea talked about photons, which are described in it as waves moving in the active site. He does not deal with essays at this stage. Your question is similar to the fact that if I present the properties of sound waves in air, I will also have to deal with the properties of air, or any other medium for sound waves. Not that it is completely irrelevant, but a definite distinction must be made between a wave and matter, between a photon and a proton, even though both seemingly fall under the category: elementary particles. they are not. A mass can move at different speeds, including 0. A wave usually has a constant speed, which is always different from 0 (unless it is stationary). According to my theory, a photon is only a wave, which, like a sound wave, carries with it momentum and cannot exist in a state of rest.

    4. I meant that you could perhaps explain to me what this field is, and what is expected of her. It's like if your child told you: Dad, I'm going to be the director of the cardiology department at Kaplan, you would be filled with pride and start saving, to help him with the NIS 5000 salary, unlike his millionaire plastic surgeon brother.

    5. Thank you and also Yuval for the good luck, I don't have any details just yesterday she informed me. As far as I know Snooze the Astronaut - only research, no private practice.

    Congratulations.. about what exactly? About the fact that even in the next ten years we will see her two days a year like in the last five? For the fact that we fell like everyone else into the American trap of chasing the best school without thinking about what happens to the family that is dispersing? Where are the sabbaticals? where is Dad? Where's mom?

    And where is the handkerchief?

    Tomer remains illiterate.

  147. Shema Israel,

    1) I don't know why Einstein devoted the first chapter to synchronizing clocks with light and not with a thermometer. Maybe because he thought this temp was also relative? What if there are other universes? Maybe because he didn't hear about the bang? Maybe because it was cold in Switzerland in 1905?

    2) If you don't care about relative thermometers either, then you check the temperature change from high heat to low. In a universe with no change with a constant temperature you will not be able to measure anything.

    3) Does your model distinguish between particles with mass and those without mass? That is, if there is mass, you get the speed of light as the upper limit and all relativity is correct, but when you switch to photons, suddenly everything changes and they can go through C, but they are no longer absorbed by our device? This separation sounds to me like a very serious handwaving.

    4) Hightkist? Stratfist?

    5) Congratulations, finally someone with feet on the ground to cure dad of his flu. By the way, with whom will you do your doctorate and for what?

  148. R.H.
    If there is no problem, then why does Einstein devote the first chapter of relativity to the problem of synchronizing clocks using light rays? Why not just pull out a thermometer and that's it?

    According to my understanding, absolute time does not exist in relationships and every clock is nothing more than a pace meter as Yuval claims. Synchronization through receding galaxies requires the use of light rays and is subject to all the limitations of the similar synchronization proposed by Einstein, from which the lengthening of time results, and from which temp clocks are exempt.

    And didn't I mention that our entire discussion so far has only referred to times and photons? That bodies with mass, in which the axis is dealt with, are a new topic that may take another 1000 responses?

    And that the particular contradiction you pointed to from Bell's theorem Einstein himself said could not exist because non-locality would contradict relativity? And it's not that there isn't a decision between them - there is a decision towards non-locality!

    Sailor, physicist…

    By the way, not me, but what is the definition of a PhD holder in mathematics who makes a living selling medical devices? Peddler?

    Well let's take advantage of connections. Today I received an email from the girl:

    Hi! I am going to the University of Pennsylvania to get my PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology

    So since you are in the field, and I am much more in touch with you than with her recently, could you explain to me what things are supposed to be?

  149. Israel,

    You didn't answer any of my arguments. I agreed that it is possible to determine time according to things that happen in an external system such as the temperature of the universe or the distance of galaxies, but I do not agree that there is anything to contradict or pose any problem.

    You didn't answer at all and the main thing is why the fact that you don't see particles disappearing in the axle does not constitute a blatant refutation of your theory which holds that things exceed the speed but are simply not picked up by our device.

    Bell's theorem is from quantum mechanics and we all know that quantum mechanics contradicts relativity and it is a real contradiction. This is why the whole world is looking for a unified theory.

    I am a sailor as you are a physicist.

    One thing we both probably agree on is the squealing of this parasite called ghosts. Absolute zero.

  150. R.H.
    I forgot to mention the first point you raised - the accelerated shortening of the bodies.
    The reason is that without the lengthening of time, there is no shortening of bodies at all. I brought it up just to show that even if it exists - it is not relevant.

    Ghosts, I don't catch, as you always say.

    I don't understand why you ranted about the discussion between me and R.H., you answered a question as if it belonged to the discussion, only to come back and reveal your parasitic nature.

    What are you, some virus that changes its genetic makeup to trick the cell's immune system? After all, as soon as she recognizes viruses like you, she immediately throws you out to return to the status you had before you were able to disguise yourself: a dead, lifeless bone.

    So either you will answer, in physics, the question you claimed to answer, or you will admit that you have no idea what we are talking about here at all, leave and maybe get hurt, or you will return home: the absolute zero.

    And since all the commenters here are from Jerusalem and the surrounding area, maybe that's where you belong too. I heard there are a lot of haunted apartments there.

    And you didn't understand what I said. I said I'm not a physicist, not that I didn't study. I actually studied physics at one of the best universities in the world. And you, zero?

  151. Israel
    Quite a few have noticed that you are not a physicist. Only you don't understand it.

  152. R.H. darling.

    I am sorry to disappoint you at the opening of the second millennium for comments - I am not a physicist. (Does anyone here, by the way? I mean except for the healers "Israel you don't understand")

    Not that I didn't study physics - actually I did - but probably not enough. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

    I raise this topic here as in other physics forums in the hope of encountering someone with the appropriate background, or even not, who can point out a mistake in the argument.

    I still haven't been able to find someone qualified who would be able and willing to go through the issue with me from start to finish, including a fee, as you did.

    However, it seems to me that the conclusion that we both reached that a system could theoretically exist that would receive the absolute time from the universe in the same way that my cell phone receives the time from AT&T, and that this time would be automatically synchronized with any other similar system - goes against the basic idea of ​​relativity, as it is expressed in its first chapter: "The definition of simultaneity".

    Regarding Socrates' questions:

    In the entire long discussion we never mentioned bodies with mass. Only photons. There is a difference between a wave, a sound wave for example, which is massless but has speed, direction, and apparently carries with it momentum, and between the molecules it "uses" as means of transport (air, water, wire).

    The formula E=MC^2 implicitly refers to bodies with mass. It is actually a reincarnation of the E=PC formula from Maxwell's days. According to the mass increase formula of relativity, the mass of a body will increase as it gets closer to zero, and will reach infinity at its own speed. The situation is different with tachyons, which have never moved at a speed lower than light.

    Therefore, to your question, I have no problem with what is happening in Sarn. This is a different field.

    If it seems to you that it is impossible to exceed the speed of light - how do you explain Bell's theorem and aspect experiments?

    If it seems to you that there is no contradiction to relativity, say so, and I would be happy to quote a mutual acquaintance of both of us who definitely thinks that a spin transition at a speed exceeding that of light is a contradiction to relativity. Einstein, in a paper known as the EPR paradox.

    By the way, Chemist, if you put gas on your speedboat, there is one speed barrier you won't be able to pass no matter how powerful and heroic the boat's engine is: the speed of sound in water.

    This is also the reason why it is almost impossible for a propeller-driven plane to pass the speed of sound on its own.

    Meir - I didn't forget you, I was just busy as you can see.. I just have a question: have you heard of or have you read the book "UNCOMMON KNOWLEDGE"?

  153. Thanks meer,
    At that time I proposed an experiment parallel to the Boeing experiment: put one clock in the basement of a tall building and a second clock on the roof. My argument is that because of the differences in gravity the clock in the basement will lag behind the clock on the roof. When the lag is already visible, they will switch between the clocks and then the clock that was lagging before will now start to speed up. The purpose of this experiment is to show that the Boeing experiment did not prove that the deviations in time are due to speed. My lecturer canceled my proposal and said that because of the difference in height the clock on the roof will move faster around the center of the earth 🙂

  154. jubilee,

    "It is not accurate to say that clocks measure time. All conventional clocks, from sundials, sand and water clocks, pendulum clocks to atomic clocks, do not measure time but only count the beats of cycles that take place within them and display the result of the stock."

    So true.

    (Although those who did the Boeing experiment and those who cite it as a reference for something will not admit the truth of this statement even if they don't have something smart to say against it)

  155. R.H. Rafai.M
    To avoid losing a long response, I pre-write it in a word processor, which is what I'm doing now.
    You talked about a singular independent point by which clocks can be synchronized. Although the following things, about time and watches, are not intended only for you, but since you are the only one responding here to the matter and not sarcastically, I am attaching them to the response addressed to you.
    It is not accurate to say that clocks measure time. All conventional clocks, from sundials, sand and water clocks, pendulum clocks to atomic clocks, do not measure time but only count the beats of cycles that take place within them and display the result of the stock. In order to say that these pulse counters measure something universal, we have to assume that something external acts on everyone equally. Over the generations we have learned that external conditions do affect the operation of clocks. If we compare the stock result of a water clock or a pendulum clock with the daily cycle of the sun, for example, it seems that in the polar region we will get different results than in the equatorial region and this is because of the temperature differences or the change in the acceleration constant. Similarly, an atomic clock is also affected by temperature differences and the strength of the gravitational field. From observations we see that if we manage to maintain the same temperature and gravity conditions for two identical clocks, they will indeed show the same stock result even after a large number of cycles.
    When we talk about synchronizing watches, we mean making sure that two watches will show the same reading. In operations that require coordination between different parties (business meetings, missile launch, etc.), take into account that until the coordinated operations are completed, the various clocks will show the same number or close enough to the same number. The first question in relation to time, said to be of interest to physicists (more precisely, philosophers of nature), is what causes two clocks placed in different places to continue and show the same reading. If we only depend on the internal structure of the clock, we will have to assume, for example, that the clock is endowed with some kind of telepathic sense that allows it to know what is happening in other clocks. Such an assumption is very unreasonable, and we reject it outright. On the other hand, since we already know that external factors affect the operation of the clocks, it would be more likely to assume that there is an external factor that affects all clocks to the same extent. To illustrate this assumption, the entire universe can be presented as if it were pulsing. Not independent beats unique to each and every place but uniform beats throughout the entire universe. To illustrate this, we can bring a parable from the world of anatomy and medicine: for the circulatory system to function effectively, the heartbeat and arteries must be coordinated; This coordination is achieved through special cells that generate electrical signals; When these cells stop functioning properly, we can replace them with an artificial pacemaker that does the same job. If the pulses of the universe are coordinated by such a pacemaker, it can be seen as the singular point you were aiming for.

  156. Israel,
    Indeed a beautiful question you asked, do you train for Pesach? So:

    1) As you know I am not a physicist and my knowledge scratches the edge of your knowledge, but in my humble opinion the mistake here is in the sentence "David Israel calculated that at such a low speed the shortening is so negligible that it would be difficult to write it down here". Because even this neglect will result in there not being a contradiction.
    Let's look at what would happen if tube B moved at speeds close to the speed of light. Do you agree there that what will happen is that the length of the tube will shrink and time will move slower than A, so there is no contradiction?

    If so, in simple induction this is also what will happen at low speed and the difference you call "negligible" is the one that will make the difference.

    2) Socrates asks:
    Doesn't what is called an axle accelerator or any other accelerator constitute a refutation of the theory of particles disappearing above the speed of light?
    According to Einstein - E=MC^2, which means that no matter how much energy you invest, you will not be able to exceed the speed of light, and what will happen is that the mass will increase squarely. Invest infinite energy, you will get infinite mass and the C will remain C.

    According to Shapira - investing energy in the particles will accelerate them to high speeds above the speed of light and then what will happen is that they will disappear because our poor sensors will not see them according to the principle of the ballistic pendulum. So if we throw 100 protons and accelerate and accelerate by the monstrous magnets that are in the accelerator after a few turns the number of protons will go up and down.

    Now the question, what do you think you see in Sarn:

    1) An increase in the mass of the protons?
    2) Eliminating protons and maintaining the mass of those that are still absorbed?

  157. I don't intend to go into my model again, but only address the question I was asked following my use of "notov":
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-332405
    At the time, before many responses, I presented the photon as a piece of empty space. When a particle enters the place where a photon is, it leaves behind a photon. In this way the movement of the photon coexists with the movement of a particle in the opposite direction.

  158. Ghost.
    I have to go to sleep now. When those with the white coats come, don't riot.
    And there's really no need for you to respond to my comments. We have seen exactly what you are capable of producing.
    Why not try something simpler, perhaps embroidery?
    Good night.

  159. Israel
    bars? Tel Baruch? Not everyone has the same preferences as you.

    Beyond that, I wanted to respond to your comment, above, but after I understood what you wrote there, I realized that there is no need to repeat my words because you simply do not understand.

  160. Ghost.
    One of the conditions of your early release was that you use the leave to study mathematics and physics. Well, in your case - math and nature.

    According to your last response, we regretfully have to conclude that you wasted your time in bars and in Tel Baruch, and therefore have to return you to your permanent home - the closed ward.

  161. R.H.

    Let's see if we can draw any conclusions from what we've come up with so far.

    Go to the tube.

    which is long, as long as the exile. As usual, everything is exaggerated. Let's say 100 light seconds. Its diameter is 5 meters. will be marked as

    Every 100 meters, the well-known device is installed, which includes a time clock, a temperature clock and a high-resolution camera. All the CZ clocks are synchronized with each other in the way suggested by Einstein in the original article on relativity. They are calibrated to show the same time as the temperature clocks, which everyone knows synchronize independently.

    Inside it is an identical pipe but with a diameter of 4 m. we will mark it with B

    The entire facility is at our permanent proving ground in Tizenby.

    A is at complete rest by all standards.

    B can move freely inside A, along their common axis.

    Course of the experiment:

    1. We pull B slightly away from A, and after an hour we push him so that his speed relative to A is 3 m/s.

    What comes out is that B emerges from the right and at the time marked by T0, the rear of the two pipes coalesce. B continues his journey inside A.

    2. At time T0 a single photon is launched along the common axis of the tubes.

    The whole event is filmed in memory, but since everyone knows how shy and vulnerable photons are, nothing reaches our photons and glo functions, so that they don't crash on us in the middle of the experiment.

    now:

    Fotonino makes his way along the axis calmly and calmly. He is not at all aware of the fact that he is now moving relative to 2 systems moving at a speed of 3 m/s to each other.

    3. Photonino reaches the other end of A after exactly 100 seconds according to A's clocks.

    4. Photonino also reaches the other end of B after exactly 100 years according to B's clocks.

    5. But when Putt reaches the edge of B, B already protrudes about 300 m from the other side of A.

    I don't say exactly 300 m because of the shortening of the distances. David Israel calculated that at such a low speed the shortening is so negligible that it would be difficult to record it here. In half C the shortening is about 13%. Here - a clear fraction.

    The point:

    6. If we accept the assumption that all the temp clocks always show the same time in both tubes, and that because the systems are not accelerated the C clocks show the same time as the temp clocks, then any photograph of 4 clocks together from A+B will always show the same The time on all clocks.

    7. Since Foot reached the end of B at exactly the same time as he reached the end of A, and it took him some time to travel the additional 300 meters, there is no escaping the conclusion that he moved faster relative to B than to A.

    8. So far we have deliberately exaggerated slowly, to facilitate intuition. It will work just as well at any other speed.

    9. This will work even if B moves in the opposite direction. This way we can get slow photons as we wish.

    10. This quite fits with the description we have of a photon as a wave function spread over space.

    11. This opens a door to understanding non-locality.

    12. This can explain the results of Wheeler's "delayed choice" experiment without needing the worst of all - going back in time. (details - upon request).

    Apart from your usual objection to the principle of invariance, that A moves relative to B as B moves relative to A, can you find any flaw in the argument?

    I read all kinds of books about Einstein and also saw movies. I am his groupie no less than Gali.

  162. Israel
    The explanation is: by a different reference system than light or radio rays.
    Like for example an imaginary singular point that is being looked at by those aliens who came from the universe where you probably live.

  163. Israel,

    For me personally, it is much more difficult to understand what an eternal universe that has always been. Intuitively, a universe with a beginning sounds logical (not that logic plays any role here). What was before that? Wasn't before that. Do you remember what was before you were born? This is what it was like before the big bang. Or another way to explain it is as our friend Rafaim said in one of his flashbacks "a temperature below absolute zero", that's what it was before the big bang 🙂

    Regarding Einstein's biography, it is interesting that my friend just recommended Walter Isaacson's to me (which in itself is an interesting story) and I will try to get it. Is that what you read?

  164. R.H.
    4K? I checked on the calculator. It comes out about 6.5 billion years ago. Do you think there were already mechanized spaceships back then, or did they still use oars?

    Regarding the weighting of another component to the Friedman formula - little about Apple.

    Regarding relationships and Metzgadol

    Personal confession - dead on relativity and also dead on Einstein personally. I don't know if you've read his biography, or all his sayings on universe-wide topics. He put Newton the ill-tempered or Mach the astronaut in his little pocket. He is also more humble and simple than the mythical Feynman, even though he is a really, really genius.

    And I have never been able to understand intuitively how it is that there was nothing before the big bang and why the universe is not infinite. But this is what those who understand say, and the two teachings do not agree with each other in my opinion. I have no preference between the two.

    It seems to me that I could prove it to you right now using what we agreed on, if you accepted the equivalence of all inertial systems. I know it doesn't seem clear at all, but from the point of view of Newton or Einstein, a fish swimming in the ocean at a constant speed can certainly see itself as resting and the ocean and all of it moving. The same goes for an airplane or a rifle ball. Anyone in non-accelerated motion is actually at rest. Movement is only relative to another system.

    Let the current heatstroke pass, and I'll show you why I think if you accept the first principle of relativity, then using what we've already agreed upon, time dilation can be contradicted.

    Ghost.
    What was at t=0?
    As far as I know no one knows.

    But my question was:

    1. Will the spacecraft be able to synchronize their clocks so that they see the same time without using any means of communication such as light rays or radio?

    And to that you answered yes. Can you explain how?

  165. According to what happens in super novae, logic says that after the big bang a significant part of the original matter was compressed back into the singular core and the excess was dispersed in our universe.
    It is not clear to me why in all the articles and science programs I have read they do not talk about the possibility of matter being compressed into the nucleus as a black hole or some other singular name

  166. Israel
    You do not understand the point.
    Can you answer what was the state of matter in the universe at time t=0?
    It is known that there was some radiation that was transformed into matter at a time not equal to t=0.
    That is to say, as soon as there was any intervention from a third party towards the radiation, at that moment the radiation changed into matter.
    Definitions were given for this moment (the beginning of the bang) that include the (abstract) concept of time, following a change in the state of matter/radiation/space. And the definition states that time was not 0 at the moment of the creation of the universe.
    In short, (yesterday I started to write a comment here and when it was the length of the scroll of Esther it was accidentally deleted. So now I wrote briefly, and if you have questions I will try to answer.) There will always be some reference system in this universe.

  167. Student, Technion, for nothing
    And if you, or anyone reading this, has an opinion to express or a comment to comment on the topic in question, please don't mince your words. This is a complete contradiction to everything we know about the concept of time. After we have already learned to disagree with the idea embodied in the theory of relativity, according to which time moves at a changing rate but nevertheless maintains a forward direction, there are those among us who try to convince the innocent public that it is actually moving backwards. Even if you get down to personal lines, that's fine by me, since that's exactly what I'm doing here myself to pioneer the idea.

  168. Yuval, I just wanted to know who you are speaking for. thank you for the answer.

  169. Student, Technion
    It seems to me that this time, unusually, I was very clear. "We" is all of us, physicists and laymen alike. Even I, who claim to decipher all the secrets of the universe with my mysterious model, don't really know.
    If you think I'm wrong, meaning that you think there is someone who understands well the nature and behavior of the photon and/or electron and can explain the unclear phenomena above, please let us know.

  170. Student, Technion
    Your question reminds me of Isaiah Leibovich, peace be upon him. In one of the interviews, when the interviewer said "We...", Leibovitch said "Who are we? We are me and my worms!” 🙂
    You may settle for that, if you wish, but please allow me to ask you something. Do you have an explanation for all the known phenomena associated with electrons and/or photons (for example the results of the experiment presented by the Lord Israel Shapira to M.R.S.T.) based only on what you know about their structure and how they progress through space?

  171. M.R. S.T
    Please keep in mind that there may be phenomena that we are not aware of. For example, when a photon moves from a light source to a target, something else, for that matter we call it a "trickle down" (reversed photon), moves simultaneously from the target to the light source. In this way, blocking the screen after the photon passed did not affect the photon that passed but diverted the drip from the short path to an alternative path.
    As mentioned, I would be happy to correspond with you directly. You will find my address here:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-332386

  172. Israel,

    Regarding the Friedman formula, my argument is simple. The formula is probably correct from rest to limited acceleration. At high speeds you will have to add an additional component to it. Just as Newton's formulas are correct up to the high speeds when the relative component is added to them.

    Socrates:

    If you see a contradiction between the theory of relativity and the big bang (which I will admit and confess that I am not convinced that there is one) then what is your argument? That there was no bang or that the theory of relativity is incorrect? (I understand that you are against relativity, but I want to be sure that we are on the same page).

    Regarding the questions above:
    1) Yes, 100 spaceships will be able to agree on the time. They will be able to determine the opening of fire at 4 Kelvin zero zero. agree.

    2) What is relevant? 1905? infinite universe? Do not understand.

    Influenza - there is a good vaccine that is distributed every year. to take? The truth is that I read that this year he was not very successful. The problem with the flu is that every year it changes and there are new strains. They have not yet succeeded in creating a universal vaccine for all breeds, but only one breed each year. Luckily for us, the disease begins to break out in East Asia and migrates westward so that Europe + America has time to create the relevant vaccine every year. The problem is that sometimes there are surprises and the vaccine they prepared is not exactly suitable for the strain that broke out or it has undergone a change along the way.
    Smallpox is the only vaccine in history that actually resulted in the complete extinction of any disease. There are many reasons for this, including that smallpox has no host other than a person, so if you vaccinate you have eliminated it. Besides, the virus does not mutate efficiently. A vaccine is easy to produce (Jenner obtained it from a similar cow virus). Such a coincidence has not returned since.

    By the way today Edward Jenner would have gone to prison, so he is considered a hero.

  173. jubilee,

    "We absolutely do not understand the structure of the photon and/or the electron and also the way it progresses through space."
    - When you say "we are not", who are you talking about?

  174. Good Morning.

    It seems that the horizon is starting to clear up a bit. I even managed to eat an orange. Let's hope this is the end of this story of the rake.

    Ghosts I noticed that in your response you answered 2 yes. can you explain

    R.H.

    I believe we are clarifying the contradiction to the lengthening of time here now. Relativity is much more than the mere dilation of time. If you, or someone, can show me where my mistake is, I will thank you and leave happily. I hope their meal too.

    I believe the timeline is little more than an axis. If I remember correctly, Hawkins already said that the Big Bang created time, which did not exist before it. Do you really not see the fundamental difference between time in 1905, which stretched from minus infinity to infinity, and our picture of time today?

    But I don't want to entertain another front. We can certainly see if we reach conclusions if we continue in the direction we started.

    Regarding your thought experiment - I have no idea what the effect will be. I understand the logic, downsizing. But even Einstein did not treat time as the same dimension as the other 3.

    Regarding the Friedman formula - I do not understand your argument. Are you claiming that it is impossible to know the number of seconds that have passed since the big bang just by measuring the temperature? Is the little calculator at the bottom of the link wrong? This is therefore a completely new disclaimer, but I believed we closed the issue a long time ago.

    Let's get back to the point. If we agree on it, we can move forward:

    1. According to Einstein, different travelers in space who meet each other and each has a clock showing a different time, will not be able in any way to determine what the real time is. If Hanan's aliens abduct you, speed you all over the galaxy and then leave you in a spaceship astray in the heart of space, you will not be able to know in any way what time it is in DHA, unless you make contact with him. He can certainly already orbit a white dwarf.

    2. According to what we have discussed here, it is also possible. Radiation meter, computer, and let's go home.

    If you agree with 2, we can move forward.

    M.R.S.T.

    If you are still not convinced, go to

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A6ageOaS-E

    Alternative explanations exist, but as far as I know they are not mainstream.

    jubilee

    After the "brainwasher" "word pimp" and other colorful expressions - what is "sowing colorful and fragrant smokescreens" to me?

    Want to be annoyed - no problem. Just please don't start with Israel again.
    I solemnly promise not to start with you.
    And by the way - I don't remember ever being pressed by this or any other article, and I don't think I ignored any topic, unless I was specifically asked to ignore it. But who am I to know?

    The main thing is that we are done.

  175. Israel
    I have no problem with you hitting me ten times harder or however many times you see fit. I only have one "small" problem with you: you ignore things that don't flow in the direction you want and sow colorful and fragrant smokescreens when you're stressed. Fools like you are useless to me.
    "In the calf and during the crucifixion" is also from the Kaddish and is translated "quickly in our days."
    And to all Israel they said Amen

  176. M.R. S.T
    We must be careful and try not to jump to hasty conclusions. We do not fully understand the structure of the photon and/or the electron and also how it progresses through space. One possible explanation for the results of the experiment in question is that the factor being measured does not switch between the wave and particle states, but maintains both states simultaneously at any given moment.
    I would like to expand on the structure and behavior of these particles according to a model I built:
    ivrit.yuval00@googlemail.com

  177. M.R. S.T

    go to

    ftp://ftp.biu.ac.il/pub/physics/optics/optics12_YoungMichelson.pdf

    Scroll down until you reach "delayed selection"
    Note the following paragraph:

    "However, the decision whether to move the screen or not was made only after a transition
    The electron in the cracks. It therefore seems as if, after the electron has already passed through the cracks, it is still free to "decide"
    In retrospect, whether he passed through them as a particle or as a wave, and this according to our decision as to what type of measurement to perform"

    Note that many experiments have been conducted, mostly with photons, that have confirmed these strange results. The accepted conclusion is that we can influence the past from the future.

  178. R.H.

    We can expand after I age the sick family.
    And really, it's a shame and a shame that in the 21st century, after you managed to find an adequate arrangement for smallpox, you still haven't finished with the flu.

    In the meantime - Socrates.

    1. Do you accept that using the device that I call a "temp clock" if 100 spaceships pass each other at the same time at different speeds, and each spaceship has a sharp resolution camera, then the joint photographs of all of the clocks in each of the 100 photographs will show the The same time on all the clocks in the spacecraft?

    2. Could you do the same exercise with 3 spaceships according to relativity in 1905?

    Here are the times of the cesium clocks of the Einstein spacecraft:

    A. 1905.
    B. 17 trillion and 83 years ago.
    third. 564, 876, 456 years 165 days 14 hours and 43 seconds ago.

    jubilee.
    I'd love to go back to being Achot if you could stick to the facts and avoid personal injury. Otherwise, I will humbly accept my bitter fate, and we will not speak.

    "In the calf and during the crucifixion" - isn't this from the Kaddish?

    M.R. S.T

    There is definitely such a thing. I'll try to find you a proper link today, or I'll explain myself. Right now I'm a little done.

    Ruby.

    My daughter, who is starting her doctoral studies this year, claims that apart from the social aspect, university is so 20th century. Any normal lecture you hear at the university you can find on the Internet, and 20 better ones. All lesson plans, support, exercises, advisors, everything is there. Google any topic you want, find a lecture you like on YouTube, and unlike a real university, you can always repeat each point as many times as you want, or if you don't understand a concept, stop the train and come back to it after everything has been explained to you.

  179. on the dimensions of time and space
    Continued from: https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-330693
    As we know from arithmetic, the essence of the "negative" numbers is an expression of the operation of subtraction as a local single bond (or shorthand for "zero minus a number"). In a similar way, the negation is also a local singular connection (the phrase "not something" is shorthand for "truth and not something") and the same is the case with the root of the negation. And as we know from the operations in complex numbers, repeated application of the negative root also has a square cycle: negative root → negation → negation of the negative root → positive (negative negation), and again: negative root → negative → negation of the negative root → positive, and God forbid. The charge is a neutral member, because the application of any one-place relation to it yields the value of the applied one-place relation. In this cycle, four different values ​​are obtained, one of which is neutral. However, the same four values ​​are repeated without limit in the separate cycles. We call the difference between one cycle and the next cycle "time". Time is one-dimensional and infinitely long, therefore the dimensions of the universe are infinite, but because of the periodicity, four dimensions of space are obtained, one of which is neutral or "degenerate". Therefore, space (if we ignore the infinity of time) is three-dimensional.

  180. The previous comment was messed up.
    The entire part after Shabbat Shalom should be between "will relativity change as it is" and "regarding the Friedman formula"

  181. Israel,

    so what? We already know all this. Einstein assumed in 1905 that the universe is infinite in time and we are on an infinite "grid" of spatial X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis and the time axis. The Big Bang came and showed that at least the timeline has a beginning. That is, t0.
    From this you conclude a contradiction to the theory of relativity?

    Thought experiment: suppose one day they find a wall that blocks the universe from a spatial point of view, a kind of shell that surrounds everything (like in the good old stories in Fantasia 2000 ZL) will relativity change in this way?

    Regarding the Friedman formula, it is a theoretical formula that was calculated based on a lot of assumptions, one of which is that the cooling is the same everywhere and only time affects it, so what you say is circular. I am sure that only time affects the cooling because the Friedman formula that assumes this says that there is no additional factor. come on?

    In any case, I wish you a full recovery and that my dog ​​will not end up like the dog Laika, the dog of the Baskervilles or the old Led who was almost eaten.

    Yuval, wrong answer. Not a coil. A straight line.

    Shabbat Shalom

    1) If so, how?
    2) If not, why is the bang in conflict with it?

    Now let's think about the other side. We will move the beginning of the timeline to the end. Suppose we discover that the universe is not really expanding but contracting towards the big collapse. Does it affect the relationship?

  182. Great deal, star flu. Mainly this matter of loss of appetite. If this goes on for another two weeks I will be back to the shape I had when I was 20.
    and R.H. Canine influenza is not applicable to my dogs. My dog ​​is not an ordinary underdog, one that gets sick, gets old, or dies. My dog ​​is a mythical dog, about the size of the dog Led, Laika, or the dog of the Baskervilles. No he will be excited by some poor viruses.

    Ghost, your reservation is spot on, but minor. If you studied physics, you probably remember that systems are always idealized: the friction, the radiation, the zebras are ignored. The difference is not significant, and can be weighed later. I gave the example of the forgotten region in space mainly to overcome R.H.'s objection. Assuming that any system that is not accelerating is actually at rest. Except that it is possible to theoretically build a laboratory model of that area, where all the conditions I described will be met, only much smaller, which does not change the point.

    Yuval, you destroy happiness. But since you referred, then it is true: the paragraph I brought is from Einstein's original article which is widely known as the special theory of relativity:

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

    But pay attention mainly to the following paragraph from the article:

    must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by "time." We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events.

    And you tell me: isn't it so 1905? of a world image of an infinite and eternal universe, where things have always been and always will be. where you can quietly think about events from a trillion trillion years ago, as Poincaré thought when he proved the reversibility of the entropy of the universe in time, while our Technion student, proved that it is not reversible even for the much smaller system of the magnitude of Avogadro's number during the life of the universe.

    Because according to the world view in 1905, you really cannot know what the time is at a point you are not directly connected to. There is no such thing as an absolute time, and each surveyor has his own time. Therefore, if you continue reading the article, Einstein suggests synchronizing the time between two points using light rays, whose speed is the same for each measurer, and from this he deduces the lengthening of times and the shortening of distances.

    However, we have the advantage that Einstein did not have in 1905: according to the bang theory, there is no need to synchronize the times of systems at all: they are naturally synchronized, and all we have to do is measure them, as I suggested using temperature clocks.

    According to Einstein, when a hundred twins who were separated in the past met a second time, there is no such thing as "real time" for one of them. Everyone is right. This is different according to the big bang theory. It is certainly possible to know what the real time is, and even measure it. The reservation of R.H. Regarding the relative movement of systems, it can be repelled relatively easily with the new model of the temp clocks, where the relative speed is weighted in the time output. This is also applicable to Michael the absentee's reservation about the "return in time" of the temp clocks.

    And regarding the question of R.H. About the cooling factor - the answer is the Friedman formula and the small calculator attached at the bottom of the link I gave you. If there was another factor, the formula would not work.

    We will take a break to digest ideas and critique. If I've talked too much nonsense, my excuse is the thermometer, which reads 104 Fahrenheit.

  183. R. H.,
    I would take a box in the shape of a cylinder and roll the page outside it diagonally so that each line (except the first) is a continuation of the line that preceded it. Although the line that I connect all the points with will, in fact, be a spiral, but from the point of view of this particular plane it will be straight.
    I don't know much about Jack the Ripper. I've seen several movies that used his character (one of them took him forward in time to rip off young ladies in the 1979th century: XNUMX's "Time After Time"). The mention of the prime minister's killer in the context of Pinchas is interesting: those who admire Pinchas and those who admire this murderer have many shared ideological lines.
    post Scriptum. When Rabin was assassinated, the country died for me.

  184. Yuval, do you have any recommendations where I can take academic courses on these subjects? I am an engineer by education. I am very interested in astronomy, black holes and such.

  185. jubilee,

    Do me a favor, think outside the box. You can equally say that Jack the Ripper or Yigal Amir thought outside the box.

    Thinking outside the box is how you connect 9 points that are drawn on a page in the form of 3x3, by one straight line.

  186. R. H.,
    Pinchas thought outside the box. Sometimes you need people like that. While Moses and the entire congregation of the Israelites stood at the entrance of the tabernacle and wept, Pinchas stood up and did something. It's like, in contrast, the act of Alexander the Great in the Columbus swamp... oopssss…. Sorry. I got confused.

  187. Ruby
    Right. We expect to discover quite a "zoo" of particles. You "sin" in thought experiments, like all of us here. Welcome to the club. What you say, that the difference between the real velocities and the relative velocities translates into excess energy (apologies for my poor phrasing) could certainly serve as a nice thesis for an interesting study, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone had already thought of it before you. The theory of relativity introduced many paradoxes into our lives, but by correctly placing the numbers in the appropriate formulas, everything can be reconciled. It seems to me that in mathematics I am not stronger than you. Please put the data in the right places and tell me and the other readers what you came up with.

  188. jubilee,

    In light of how Aaron educated his grandson Pinchas, who became a symbol of fanaticism and religious murder, he is not exactly my model.

    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/כהני_פינחס

    Beyond the fact that the character of Aaron himself is nothing. After all, he was the one who led the sin of the calf and in the end because of his connections in the management he was completely justified while 3000 others were slaughtered. Don't bring me either Shmuel who slaughtered Agag with enthusiasm or Elijah who slaughtered the priests of Baal or Elisha who killed children who laughed at him for his baldness.
    If you insist then maybe Shaul or Samson the innocent Blaine.

  189. Israel,
    Right now, I'm not having fun talking to you.
    I will only wish you a speedy recovery and that you will be healthy until one hundred and twenty - in Agala and during the war.

  190. Yuval, thanks for the answer, but we still expect from the collision to find physical particles with the famous Higgs boson as their component.
    What I want to say is that the product of the collision is energy that breaks up the colliding protons with an intensity of MC**2 per proton while the speed of each proton was half C the intensity was MC**2/4 per proton. This means that perhaps the proton moving at speed C does not "see" the proton colliding at speed 2c but feels the magnitude of the collision as if the velocity vectors add up.

  191. R. H.,
    Thanks for your efforts 🙂
    There are stories about Aharon the priest who loved peace and pursued peace and made peace among mankind. If you donate a DNA sample, I'll bet you're one of his descendants 😛

  192. M.R. S.T
    You have nothing to strive for. There is no such explanation. The discussions we have here are mainly thought experiments. Such discussions usually refer to a limited number of facts or conclusions and ignore everything else. In this way, it is possible to reach interesting and surprising conclusions, but everything is only in theory and usually far-fetched.

  193. Ruby
    Your question opens the door to a very interesting discussion about what is actually accelerated in accelerators. In fact, the accelerated proton is a negligible factor. It is only used as a small "vehicle" on which a lot of energy travels. If we accept the formula of the relationship between mass and energy (E=MC^2) it will appear that what travels there is mainly energy. One of the conclusions from the theory of relativity is that a body moving at speed contracts. At the speed of light, the contraction of the body will cause its size to be zero. If the proton is accelerated to the speed of light, then all that will travel in the system will be only light.
    When two such accelerated protons collide, the product of the collision between them is negligible compared to the product of the collision between the two beams of energy that accelerated them. The answer to your question, why do you accelerate both protons instead of accelerating only one and leaving the other stationary, is that the purpose of the experiment is to create a collision between two energy beams.

  194. I'm having a fever that will probably last a few hours. I would like you to read the following paragraph, and see if it fits with the idea of ​​absolute time, which can even be measured using the device I call a "temp clock" or even your suggestion R.H. of the galaxies moving away, or any other external factor. The main thing is that we can synchronize clocks without any connection between them.

    § 1. Definition of Simultaneity

    Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the "stationary system."

    If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates.

    If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values ​​of its coordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by "time." We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events."3

    It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of "time" by substituting "the position of the small hand of my watch" for "time." And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or—what comes to the same thing—to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch.

    We might, of course, content ourselves with time values ​​determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space. But this coordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought.

    If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values ​​of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values ​​of events in the immediate neighborhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an "A time" and a "B time." We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time” $t_{\rm A}$ from A towards B, let it at the “B time” $t_{\rm B}$ be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time" $t'_{\rm A}$.

    In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
    \begin{displaymath}t_{\rm B}-t_{\rm A}=t'_{\rm A}-t_{\rm B}. \end{displaymath}

    We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:—

    If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.
    If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.

    Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of "simultaneous," or "synchronous," and of "time." The "time" of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock.

    In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
    \begin{displaymath}\frac{2{\rm AB}}{t'_A-t_A}=c, \end{displaymath}

    to be a universal constant—the velocity of light in empty space.

    It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it "the time of the stationary system."

  195. I'm relatively new here and I didn't understand how to go back to the past and change it. Israel Shapira said yesterday at 3:03 that it could be done with the help of quantum mechanics, but I could not find the explanation.

  196. Israel,

    "A spaceship, in the heart of Egyptian darkness, is able to tell what time it is based on independent measurements it made. This time will be displayed on the spaceship's clock face as the number of seconds that have passed since the big bang." ==>

    Yes. Provided you don't start going wild at speeds above the limit. If it starts to move, it will have to use a modification of your Friedman formula to which a relative component has also been added that refers to the change in time according to speed. As long as it rests it is a negligible component and the formula is strong. agree?

    "If the spaceship transmits this number via radio, and it is received by another spaceship at a light-hour distance from the original spaceship, then it will match exactly the number displayed on the clock face of the second spaceship, which it reached by the same route as the first spaceship, after offsetting the time difference between them. " ==>

    Again, provided none of them move. If one of them moves, it must take this into account when calculating the time according to the rate of temperature change.

    1. Agree to the terms and conditions I mentioned.

    2. No. But then it was possible to measure by something else. The rate at which galaxies are receding, the rate at which the light of an old star fades, or anything else that changes over time. It is true that no measurement will last forever, but the cooling of your radiation will not last forever either, but will asymptotically drop to absolute 0 until it can no longer be measured.

    3. You didn't answer me, what is your confidence that the only factor affecting the cooling is time?

  197. R.H.
    According to the Friedman formula, time is related to temperature in a formula that is a continuous function. Even with there being additional parameters, in the case we are discussing they are not reflected.

    Since we've come to an agreement on 2, I'd like to clarify this point before we continue:

    A spacecraft, in the heart of Egyptian darkness, is able to tell what time it is based on independent measurements it made. This time will be displayed on the clock face of the spacecraft as the number of seconds that have passed since the big bang.

    If the spaceship transmits this number via radio, and it is received by another spaceship at a light-hour distance from the original spaceship, then it will match exactly the number shown on the clock face of the second spaceship, which it reached by the same route as the first spaceship, after offsetting the time difference between them.

    1. Do you agree?

    2. Would the trick work in an isotropic and eternal universe where the temperature is always constant?

  198. Israel,
    1) I don't know, maybe we can think of a gloss other than your temperatures. Anything outside the spaceship that changes over time will help them. High half-life radioactive atoms to collect in space?, interstellar dust concentration?. I assume that even in the most distant prairies they will be able to see quasars in the distance and make some kind of measurements.

    2) Yes.

    Before you start arguing with me about the answers in section 1. "I said nada! Zip! There is nothing, there is no dust and there are no sprinklers" I want you to know that the exact answer is not interesting and most likely what I wrote there is not true, but surely you can think of something. And even if not, my whole intention is just to show you that your thermometer, even if it is a nice and maybe even useful gloss in the age of biggalactic flights that is excited for us, is nothing special. They measure an interesting parameter outside the spacecraft from which time can be calculated. Big deal. Does this mean that there is a contradiction in the theory of relativity?
    Also, to be petty, are you sure the temperature only decays with time? Maybe there are more parameters? Stellar density? Gravity around? Maybe the radiation is not really uniformly distributed?

  199. This "almost" is very principled, as you saw in the first half of the answer. If you invested X amount of energy to reach a relative speed of 0.99C between the protons, then if you invest another 1000X, you will reach a relative speed of say 0.999999C. If you do the energy calculations correctly according to the Lorentz equations, you will see that in the seemingly small difference of 0.009999C, a huge energy of 1000X is buried, 1000 times more than the amount of energy required to bring the protons to a relative speed of 0.99C.
    And to reach C itself, you will need nothing less than infinite energy.
    Perhaps you understand why the earth's crust rumbled when it seemed that some cheeky neutrino dared to exceed the speed of light? Impossible, Aliba D'Hissot.

  200. Israel, I return to basic physics: Ft=mV force and momentum. V should be the vector sum of the two bodies (protons).
    According to what you wrote, regardless of the speed above half C for each proton, the vector sum will always be almost C, and therefore the result Ft will always be the same.
    If so, it is enough to accelerate them to half C and there is no point in investing additional energy?

  201. Ruby

    There is a very big difference between the energy of a proton at 0.99C and its energy at 0.999999999C can quietly reach thousands of meters.
    The second part of the question is not clear to me.

  202. Israel, thanks for the answer, but it is not clear to me why so much effort is invested in accelerating the proton to almost the speed of light so that in the end the relative speed remains almost the speed of light.
    Regarding the collision energy, you did not answer if it would be the same at the speed of half C to C of each proton.

  203. R.H.
    It seems to me that any normal computer would be able to calculate the time that passed from the bang if the spaceship was at rest. Macintosh computers will do it even faster. This holds even if all we are actually measuring is the background radiation spectrum. Simply, you measure the temperature of the radiation, measure your speed relative to the radiation, and offset. Friedman's formula, and here is the exact time.

    but it does not matter. 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

    Let's say that two spaceships that are a light hour away from each other get caught in the same cursed area. Their speed is 0 relative to each other and also 0 according to your strict standards towards any external system. (What system? There is nothing there!).

    The crew in each spaceship pulls a shiny new cuckoo clock out of the package. The clocks, according to the manufacturer's instructions, show time 0 and start working only when you press the chopstick above.

    Socrates asks:

    1. Will the spacecraft be able to synchronize their clocks so that they see the same time without using any means of communication such as light rays or radio?

    2. Will they be able to do this using temp clocks?

  204. Ruby, there are the Lorentz transformations, according to which you can calculate the relative speed of bodies approaching the speed of light.

    Take an extreme example: Spacecraft A flies relative to the Earth at a speed of 0.9C. Spacecraft B flies at a speed of 0.9C relative to A, in the same direction. C at the same speed relative to B, and so until spaceship T. What will be the speed of T relative to the earth?
    The answer is that a little less than C.

    So the relative speed of your protons will be between about 0.7C, to almost C, depending on their speed.

    The reason for the light speed limit is mainly logical. It can be shown that if a body undergoes the MHA, the result will precede the cause. Were it not for the equations of relativity, each body would indeed see the other moving at a speed which is a simple vector sum, as with Newton, and therefore above the first.

  205. Israel,

    0. http://www.alfavet.co.il/kennel_cough.html

    1. No. We talked about it, I'll take your heat as an excuse for the one you forgot. If the spacecraft is moving at a speed close to the speed of light it will report a short time. If it is as fast as ours it will report 13.7 billion years. That means the report will depend on speed. How does this watch work? It measures the current temp, assumes temp t0. Then according to the cooling rate measured earlier in the system (which is exactly the speed-dependent element!) the watch will calculate the time.

    2. Yes. They can decide that when T=X they all meet. The first will arrive after an hour for him, the second after two days (for him) and the third after two years of wandering (again for him) but they will all meet at the same time when T=X. 50 years will pass for the SGH in the nearby star, but when he sees that T=X, he will also join.

    And again I say, there is nothing special about this temperature. They could just as well decide to meet when the distance between galaxy A and B, which are moving away from each other, will be Y. Even then, each will travel at their own speed and tear through the entire space, but when the two galaxies reach the desired distance, they will all meet.

    3. No.

    4. Do what you want. I'm not a free picker and I'm not a volunteer kindergarten teacher.

  206. Israel, you understood correctly, a collision of proton with proton when each is accelerated in the opposite direction at the speed of light (almost).
    If there was no limit to the speed of light, then KA would see the relative speed as twice 2, but because of the light speed barrier, you claim that?
    What would God see if the speed of each proton was half the speed of light, also the same?
    What was the momentum of the collision? If the speed of each proton was between half the speed of light?

  207. R.H.
    I caught a few quiet moments between one fever attack and another. Question, as someone who understands viruses: how is it that the whole family got sick except for my children? Maybe this is the direction?

    I am sorry that I am unable to convince you of the equivalence of all inertial systems, and that there is no such thing as a system that is truly "moving". But it is possible to continue even without this, with the help of an elderly Socrates.

    1. Do you agree that a spacecraft in empty space will be able to know the exact time that has passed since the explosion using the device that I call a "temp clock"?

    2. Using the same facility, would several spaceships, after tearing through the entire galaxy with terrible accelerations, in all directions, completely out of sync with their cesium clocks, coordinate a combined surprise attack on a planet, at a time when they would not have been able to without the temperature clocks?

    3. Do you agree that according to relativity it is impossible to coordinate such an attack?

    And regarding Yuval - did you see how many times I asked him to get off me, I offered him "Tahdia" I signed him on a peace agreement, what can I do if he continues? I would very much like things to go smoothly, but I don't think he can.

    Robbie - Collision with what? If I understand you correctly, the collision is with each other. The answer to my understanding is a little less than the speed of light.

  208. A question for the esteemed forum,
    In the LHC particle accelerator at CERN, protons are accelerated to a speed of 99.9999991 percent of the speed of light, some clockwise and some counterclockwise.
    The question is what speed each proton sees before the collision and also what is the momentum created in the collision, of the speed of light or almost twice the speed of light.

  209. Israel,
    How do I have time to do anything if I'm dealing all day with invisible light rays at high speeds?
    By the way, I also had the flu until two days ago.

  210. I caught a violent strain of star flu. We will continue later.
    R.H., weren't you supposed to find a flu vaccine??!?

  211. Israel,
    2) Fortunately, my conceptions of your ideas are indeed supported by the mainstream and that's why I feel on solid ground, otherwise I wouldn't argue so much on a subject that I don't have 100% control over. Your Majesty will be told that I learned a lot from this discussion. Of course, it is possible that I and most of the physicists in the world are wrong, but you will have to work very hard and prove such a mistake in experiments with lights and clouds.

    – I would love to hear your ideas about the times and past future influences and their connection to your idea of ​​transparent rays.

    3) I agree with every word and therefore there is also no contradiction as those distinguished persons you mentioned would agree with me. By the way, note that none of them claimed that the reference system of the studied system is as influential as you claimed.

    6) But you answer your question in your own writing. Note that you wrote "sealed train car". What is an atom? Disconnected from any reference system. You will also probably agree that if the carriage is not sealed there is a way based on an external frame of reference in the form of a tree to determine whether you are moving or not. Likewise Jack/Jill who can look at Andromeda/Beetlejuice or the temperature outside their spaceship.

    7) Here too you missed my point. I am not a justice system, nor a natural sense of justice, and I don't care who started it and who brought it back. I see myself as a friend of both of you and I am happy to correspond with both of you, but it bothers me that you behave like two children. In the army, we would take you to a patrol tent in Tzalim, for two nights, and you would become lonely.

    8) There is also a sea here (blacker than blacker) and skiing (no snow this year...) so don't be arrogant.

    9) I agree with Merest's call, you don't need my OK. By the way, Yuval is not a bully, he just wanted a factual reference to his words.

  212. Israel, please ignore Yuval the bully and don't wait for Rah's OK. Continue with your idea because it is fascinating

  213. R.H.
    waiting

    jubilee
    Your talent for living in virtual reality is reaching new heights every time. You are the one who starts, and you are the one who harps. Take responsibility for a change. Go to the thread. See if you can ever pinpoint the point where I started with you or I ranted. Maybe you will also find the calculations you have on a hydrogen molecule.

    And I have no control over the fact that you are difficult to understand. The references I gave you are excellent. If you hadn't burned your bridges with me, like you did here with everyone, I would have gone through the whole idea with you slowly. But now, go find the friends you don't have.

  214. R.H.

    2. I would be happy to stay in the mainstream, but what should I do if the theories do not agree with each other? We haven't finished our discussion about the temperature clocks. If we continue, one of us might convince the other. If not, I am obliged to continue with the theory and find interpretations that make sense to me.

    If you want, I can explain to you how according to quantum mechanics the present can influence the past, and how my idea can get us out of the entanglement.

    3. The idea that every system is independent and there is no such thing as moving or resting is not mine. It is of Galileo, Newton and Einstein. This is actually the first postulate in relationships. In your GPS example, the boats move relative to the GPS system. If there was another GPS system, the coordinates would change accordingly. If Jack and Jill choose Andromeda, it will be a new arbitrary reference frame and everyone will have to do the coordinate transformations necessary to move to that frame. The results, by the way, will be exactly the same.

    Note by the way, that since we have not finished our discussions, in the Jack-Jill system there is no need for an additional external factor.

    6. I don't understand how things can be clear to you, if we came to the conclusion that the temperature and cesium clocks must show the same temperature in an inertial system, otherwise it would contradict the first postulate of relativity:

    The principle of relativity:

    The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. For example, a person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or is at rest.

    After all, according to you, all you have to do is look at the clock face. According to the rotation ratio between the temp clock and the cesium clock you will know exactly if you are moving, and at what speed. (Relative to why, by the way?).

    7. According to your logic, the kindergarten bully and the children he beats act like little children, don't they? Fact is, they're getting beaten up. Or a rapist and his victim, etc.

    The legal system and the sense of natural justice are very interested in the question of who started and who returned. The first will be valid. to prison The other defends. entitled to. Even if the second gave the first much stronger blows.

    In the confrontations between me and Yuval, Yuval always starts, even though he expressly pledged not to do so. The only way to deal with bullies is to hit them hard with a sledgehammer, before they pull out too much butt. By the other snoozer who left us already.

    And don't hold too much of your east coast for me. The main dilemma facing the people of the West Coast is that when they get up in the morning - well let's be precise, at 11 in the morning, after stretching until 12 and eating brunch until 1, is where to go today: to the sea (half an hour's drive) or skiing (an hour).

  215. student, Technion,
    You are absolutely right. It really doesn't work that way. I suggest we leave it to the hour and when I get the chance I will post everything in an orderly manner. Now I'm going to look up what "contact length" is. Thanks. Goodbye

  216. jubilee,

    "The explanations are there, but for now you are asked to trust only my word."

    - do not trust. It doesn't work that way.

    "Maybe I didn't understand your question about the length of the relationship."

    - So look up what bond length is.

    And sorry, I still don't understand what calculations you have for a hydrogen molecule.

  217. Israel,
    2) This is an observation that Einstein, the rest of the world, and you agree on. The problem is in your interpretation of the transparent cars and the ones that didn't arrive. But let's say if you show me that this interpretation has an advantage in explaining phenomena such as the influence of the past on the future (what exactly is meant??) Let's discuss.

    3) This is a point that I don't think you address. As long as there are two systems you are right, each is at rest and the other is moving relative to it. However, if we add another reference system like the tree outside or on Mars, it will be possible to know who is traveling and who is resting.

    Question: How can you specify the location of a point relative to another point without a reference system? With a reference system you can give XY or polar coordinates (distance + angle from the X axis). But you must have an arbitrary reference system.

    Another example - two boats in the middle of an ocean. Which of them moves and which rests? It is not possible to know. However, if two sailors in boats look at GPS, that is, in a satellite reference system, you can tell exactly who is moving and who is not. This is why they invented reference systems or axes for graphs.

    The same goes for your spacecraft example. Jill and Jack can agree that cosmic radiation or the Andromeda galaxy or any other factor outside their cells that is not affected by them, will be the frame of reference. With the Helz reference system, they knew exactly who moved and who didn't.

    About the smoke. You are right that I should have emphasized that smoke would indicate an accelerated system. A glider that emits smoke will remain in the cloud of smoke even if it moves forward, while an accelerating plane will pull a trail of smoke behind it. I thought it was obvious.

    6) I don't agree that there is a contradiction or problem in the matter and you still haven't been able to convince why the physicists got involved in it. To the layman things seem clear. But what do I understand? Biologist, you know.

    7) What I do understand is that you behave like two small children. He started, he told me like this and he answered me like this. Not handsome and not appropriate and not in your honor. Come on, raise a virtual glass of wine (and not some juice from your Napa Valley, ugh, something real, European) and get back to discussing like two intellectual cultured people who love science.

  218. student, Technion,
    Thank you for giving me the opening to purify my name. The explanations are there, but for now you are asked to trust only my word. Simply, they are based on definitions whose time has not yet come.
    Maybe I didn't understand your question about the length of the relationship. I probably thought you were talking about the covalent radius of the atoms involved in the bond. This is difficult to calculate in the chlorine atom but easy (relatively) to calculate in the hydrogen atom. I described the nucleus of the hydrogen atom, the proton, as a colony of particles that interact with their environment. I have not yet come up with a calculation of the order of magnitude of such a colony and I have not yet shown how the electron is called and how the forces used in the bonds between the atoms are created. The work on the model is a lot and the time available to me is short and I have no assistants. Sorry.
    I don't have a problem with references, but he didn't bring any because he sent me to look for them myself and eventually come to an article that refutes his claim. In light of this, he should have said that he was wrong, but instead he distracts the readers' attention from his mess and spreads profanity (albeit in high language, as befits a "civilized" person like him, but profanity is profanity) and takes away from me any desire to continue talking to him.

  219. jubilee,

    "The question of whether I lied or not is open to interpretation."

    - Definately not. If you had explanations for what I wrote when you wrote it, you didn't lie. If you didn't have them, you lied.

    From everything you wrote later, I did not understand what calculations you have for a hydrogen molecule.

    "The discourse here is public. If you prevent me from links and searches, then you are bothering not only me but also everyone who follows."

    - What to do, in science references are part of a discussion. Have you ever seen an article that doesn't refer to links?

  220. jubilee.
    Everyone here points to links. A student referred me to many links in this article alone. Unlike you, I bother to read them.

    emission theory of light explains the results of M-M nicely, and that's the only thing I said. It is clear that there are other problems with it, such as the interpretation of Lorentz, Einstein, and yours as well.

    And I really have no problem with my credibility in your eyes.
    I offered you a challenge. If you keep her, we can have a good fight. As soon as you return to the personal papers as usual, you will steal 10 times.

  221. R.H.
    We came back from work.

    2. In relation to the meter, the meaning is that no matter what speed you are at, you will measure the light as C. If you remember the autostrada model, too fast cars are transparent to you, and the slow ones haven't arrived yet.

    3. In the example you gave the tree is a completely subjective system, and to the same extent you could choose a tree on Mars. It seems to me, by the way, that you must internalize this point, that there is no such thing as an absolute system. As you said before, you will not be able to "take out smoke" from the spaceship and thus know if the spaceship is moving. A proton accelerated to 0.999C is at rest for him, as long as his speed is constant. A galaxy moving away from us at a speed close to the speed of light is at rest, and for it we are the ones moving.

    4. Like 3.

    5. I did not accept the principle that every movement is relative to the cosmic radiation. Neither did Einstein. He didn't even know about her in 1905.

    We didn't finish our previous discussions, but I believe you saw the problematic nature of the issue (believe me now that physicists also got into trouble?). If you want, we can continue, but I will certainly understand if you want to withdraw.

    Only one thing - the slow light is able to explain the puzzling phenomenon even more than non-locality - the influence on the past from the future.

    And in the matter of Yuval - there is this matter of the right of self-defense. You are welcome to go through the thread in this article and others. Prove that I never offend the commenters first. But I have no desire to absorb and clog.

  222. Honorable gentlemen Yuval and Israel,

    Are you ready to relax and remember that this is a scientific discussion for the fun of it? If you don't enjoy it, you make me and others not enjoy it either, and if so there is no point in it and let's stop the discussion.
    Unfortunately, there is no more snow and I can't go skiing, because last time it caused great love between you. So gentlemen, come to your senses, calm down, drink some water and start talking to the point and not to the point of style, honor and all that comes out of this nonsense. No one asked you to get married or even go out to the pub for a beer together. Come on, calm down.

  223. Israel,
    The discourse here is public. If you prevent me from links and searches, then you are bothering not only me but also everyone who follows. It would have been appropriate for you to explain things in your own words or at least to give a sense of place to the explicit things. In any case, I'm sick of my "honor", I looked around and couldn't find it, and I don't believe you.
    What I did find, in the above link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory, presents the explanation you speak of as far-fetched.
    If you want to maintain credibility, even if only in the eyes of a harried snoozer like me, you have to try harder.

  224. student, Technion,
    The question of whether I lied or not is open to interpretation.
    My model pretends to present all the elementary theorems of existing physical models as arising from one elementary particle. Once this task has been performed for some existing physical model, it is possible to continue from it. It is possible, as an exercise, to build everything directly from the basic model. It is an unnecessary but possible menial job. If it is implied from my words that I performed it for all existing physical models, then I lied and for that I apologize.
    You asked about the length of the bond between the hydrogen atom and the chlorine atom. The chlorine atom contains 17 protons and a similar number of neutrons. Each of these nucleons adds parameters to the covalent radius calculation equation. The contribution of each nucleon depends on several factors, for example its position within the nucleus in relation to other nucleons. Calculating the covalent radius of the chlorine atom therefore requires a lot of work. The nucleus of the hydrogen atom usually contains only one nucleon and its covalent radius is simpler to calculate.

  225. Israel,
    Well then let's continue.
    1) We agree

    2) What is it in relation to the surveyor? Is a sentence that is not equivalent to "the speed of light is not relative"? Can you demonstrate a system to which light will behave relatively?

    3) Agree, except for the statement that only the cosmic radiation is a rest system. Despite her name she is not magical. According to me, any third system that will be defined as a rest system will tell you exactly who is traveling and who is not.
    Example: You are on a train at a train station. In front of you next to the window is another train. We start moving between the two trains. How do you know who is moving? Your train or the other?
    Answer: You are looking to the other side of the tree that is visible from the other window. In relation to it (and note that it is not cosmic radiation) you can tell exactly who is traveling and who is standing.

    4) Like 3

    5) Why don't you settle down? If you accepted the principle that all movement is in relation to the cosmic radiation, why can't all movement in time be in relation to the 0-point of the Big Bang?

    6) We will wait a moment and check 1-5

  226. R.H.

    I just saw your comment.

    Here are the answers:

    1. There is a lengthening of times in accelerated systems. I don't know if this is true in non-accelerated systems.

    2. The speed of light is always C relative to the meter. The reasons why the speeds higher or lower than C are transparent to us are unknown, and were explained in the example of the ballistic pendulum.

    3. It is not possible to determine between two non-accelerating systems who is moving and who is at rest absolutely, unless you compare their speed to the rest system of the cosmic radiation. Apart from her, every movement is only relative.

    4. If you added another system and you arbitrarily decide that this system is at rest, then any movement will be relative to this system. Therefore the answer is no (although I didn't really understand what you mean here by yes or no). If the temp clock is included in the new reference system, then the movement will be relative to it.

    5. My whole argument is that relativity is incompatible with the big bang theory. I do not pretend to decide between the two.

    But if you accept the big bang theory, then you have accepted absolute time in an inertial system, hence the contradiction to relativity in which there is no such time. According to our discussions.

    6. If we finish the current discussion first, and on the assumption that you will be convinced of the correctness of my claims, you will see, I believe, that it is possible to explain in a classical way why the speed of light is the same for every measurer, and why there can be no lengthening of time in a system that is not accelerated. You will be able to see the advantage of the variable speed idea (which is not just a postulate, it is required by the active site model) when we approach quantum models.

  227. I have no control over what you understand from my words, I only have control over what I say.

    I suggested that you look up emission theory of light, if you had done so, you would have found it there: Emission theory (also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light) was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment .

    The fact that you are lazy to go to the links is not my problem.

    And regarding my obscurity: I accept it as a compliment from someone who testifies to himself that he is a troublemaker difficult to comprehend.

    Anyway, we were hoping that now that you have your own blog, you'll be busy answering the thousands of people responding to your model, especially those from Sweden, and stop ranting about those who really don't want to deal with you and your crappy temper.

    Come on, shoot a few more Kasams and Gards to show everyone who the man is here, and echo.

    Just don't make claims that if you bully Israel too much, they will destroy half of Gaza for you.

  228. Israel,
    Because of many bears, you can no longer see the forest. Let's step back for a moment and call upon the elderly and poisoned Socrates for help.

    Please, let's summarize clearly what your claims are:

    Please answer the following questions with yes and no and explain briefly if necessary (don't forget time and date)
    1) No extension of time?
    2) Is the speed of light relatively yes? (Well, I think I understood that, you claim yes, but in our device we only see the light moving in C and faster and slower is transparent to us for unknown reasons?)
    3) If we have two systems, it is not possible to determine who moves or who rests?
    4) If you answered yes to 3 then, if we add a third system that does not depend on Jill or Jack and treat it as the reference system, will the answer to 3 still be "yes"? (A third system could be, for example, Beetlejuice, a temperature clock or Edmond in a shiny spaceship)
    5) If you agreed with 4, do you still see a contradiction in the theory of relativity? If so what is it?
    6) Is the strange model of light rays at all speeds moving on unknown ether particles that are detected by our sensors in all their types - physical (photoelectric effect), or biological - (poor) only at the unit speed C an advantage over the existing and also the strange model of light With a speed that is not relative?

    Successfully

  229. Israel,
    I do not pretend to have infinite patience as our mutual friend. My patience runs out every now and then, and not just because of you. The trigger that causes my patience to explode time and time again in conversations with you is the opacity you demonstrate, whether real or imagined. You said "Question: Why not take the even simpler interpretation, that the speed of light is simple relative to the source of light? That would explain the results of experiment M-M easily, wouldn't it?” (https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-332017). From this I understood that you claim that the speed of light relative to the light source explains how the speed of light relative to the observer is constant, and I stated that you must prove this statement of yours. Maybe I misunderstood, but even then you have to make a statement along the lines of "My words were taken out of context" or something like that.
    Good night/good morning (choose the correct one).

  230. I'll ask you one last time: proof of what?
    And if you don't answer exactly this time, I will ask you to leave me alone.
    What if 2 in the morning in L.A. - Good night.

  231. I said what? One more time I'm supposed to guess your intentions? I don't remember ever avoiding any topic I brought up, see my detailed month-long discussion with R.H.
    But I have no obligation to discuss topics that I am not interested in.

  232. Student, Technion, welcome back
    The answer to your question is "maybe". And let me explain: my model starts from the most basic and goes up step by step. So far I have barely touched here on the gravitation and inertia of a single proton. Proton is a very complex system ("colony") that I have only touched on the very end. I still haven't shown how a proton and an electron "find" each other, how the neutron differs from the proton, how the strong force works and what causes the loss of mass in nuclear fissions. Also, I must explain the weak force and a considerable family of subatomic particles, the factors underlying quantum mechanics (including the lack of locality in quantum entanglement for which I have yet to find an explanation), etc., and finally also give "predictions for phenomena that have not yet been discovered" properly for the model who respects himself. A molecule of HCl is made up of several complex systems that are integrated with each other. The time has not yet come to deal with it and the very specific aspect you are asking about. And after all this I still only say "maybe", because as of now I don't have ready-made calculations beyond the hydrogen molecule. I may choose to deal with your question as well or I may leave it to someone who will follow things up, as an exercise. In any case, I will not do it here above the science pages but in the blog I opened for the purpose (thanks to you).

  233. Israel! It is neither nice nor honorable to behave like that. You must bear responsibility for what you say. You said something, so be a man and stand by your words. As long as you don't do that, I see no escape from the conclusion that you are a serial stalker.

  234. Friend, aren't we doing something in honor of Einstein's birthday?

    Of course Gali will give an article.

  235. Yuval, will we get to see you calculate the bond length of HCl using your model?

  236. OK Yuval. Can you maybe climb someone else? You fired me from responding to your model. Can you do the same with all my comments? just let go?

  237. Israel! Are you running a war of attrition? Send me to the links?
    You need to stand behind what you said, in the following simple way:
    Theorem A, from which derives Theorem B, Theorem C, etc... therefore "the speed of light relative to the light source explains how the speed of light relative to the eye of the observer is always constant".
    There are no "personal papers" here. This is just a criticism of the way you conduct a pseudo-scientific discourse.
    And the fact that I do not interfere in the content of the debate between you and R. H. is only because I believe that the basic assumption on which you build all your arguments is wrong, and I have already told you this several times, but you chose to ignore my words in a comprehensive and systematic way. On the other hand, R.H. is doing the right thing. He breaks down your arguments one by one and shows you where you piss off. His advantage over me is his inexhaustible patience. Mine has popped more than once.

  238. R.H.

    "Conclusion: There is a difference between the systems of Jack and Jill. ———-> True”

    Why Discrimination?

    1. Don't you see that the two systems are completely symmetrical? That just as Jill moves relative to Jack, so does Jack move relative to Jill, at exactly the same speed only in the opposite direction?

    2. Isn't this exactly what Galileo, Newton and Einstein would say?

    3. Because of the absolute symmetry, doesn't it follow that if Jill's clock lags relative to Jack's system, then Jack's clock will also lag relative to Jill's system?

    4. Isn't this exactly what relativity says? Will each system see the second's time as slower?

    Let's do a little thought exercise. It is said that a long time before Jack met Jill, a clock passed him that was synchronized with Jill's clock, and Jack's clock shows the same time in the passing clock + a certain constant.

    Note that all I have done here is a reversal of roles: we got the data of the original problem, only in the opposite direction. This time Jack is the one moving relative to Jill's system, so his clock lags relative to hers. Therefore, because of the absolute symmetry, we are forced to conclude that when Jack and Jill meet, Jack's clock will show a lag of one billion years relative to Jill, + the same constant as before.

    So, if we use the same analogy, Jack's video will show a rotation ratio of 1,000,000,000:1, while Jill's will show 1:1.

    And this is in contradiction to the videos we have, which show the opposite.

    But what did we do altogether? Did we put in another clock that no one even knows exists?

    Except that Yuval implies that I'm trying to avoid something, or that I'm wrong, and that in itself is strong evidence that I'm probably 100% right.

    jubilee.
    Burden of proof of what? That the speed of light relative to the source explains the results of the m-m experiment? Look at the experiment again, or refer to the emission theory of light entry.

    I also don't understand why with you everything is always dragged into a personal confrontation. Why don't you admit that you simply have no idea what I and R.H. talking? In general, if you can't stop with all the personal papers, maybe it's better to shut up and that's it? You know how to start a war, not how to end it.

  239. R. H.,
    From my experience with Helz I say with high certainty that there is no point in waiting for a reasonable answer from him. He enjoys causing riots but knows how to get away just when handed a broom and a broom

  240. Jack sees a 1:1 ratio
    1) Jill sees a ratio of 1,000,000,000:1.

    Conclusion: There is a difference between the systems of Jack and Jill. ———-> True

    Jack in a non-accelerated system.
    Jill in a non-accelerated system.

    Conclusion: There is no difference between the systems of Jack and Jill. We'll see how stupid you are when you say that it doesn't really make any difference to him if he's at the station or on the bus, in any case he's at rest.

    2) But if Pinkfloodjuice's star is moving relative to Beetlejuice at almost the speed of light, then Jill is relative to him at rest and Jack is in motion, no? Will it change the ratio of revolutions between their clocks?

    Israel, what kind of twisted thinking is this? What is the relationship between what Beatlejus, Pink Floydjus or Led Zeppelinjus does or doesn't do to the ratio between Jill's watches?? You are confusing here between a reason and an attribution system. The reference system does not determine anything. If we count the date according to the creation of the world, the birth of Jesus or the hijra does not change anything for the rate of time progress. It's just a reference system or a system of axes. It seems so trivial to me and I appreciate you very much, so I'm sure I'm missing something really fundamental here. just tell me what?

  241. R.H.

    Jack sees a 1:1 ratio
    Jill sees a ratio of 1,000,000,000:1.

    Conclusion: There is a difference between the systems of Jack and Jill.

    Jack in a non-accelerated system.
    Jill in a non-accelerated system.

    Conclusion: There is no difference between the Jack and Jill systems.

    Please resolve the discrepancy.

    Proposal:

    You say Jack at relative rest to Beetlejuice, Jill is close to the speed of light. Hence the differences.
    But if Pinkfloodjuice's star is moving relative to Beetlejuice at nearly the speed of light, then Jill is relative to it at rest and Jack is in motion, right? Will it change the ratio of revolutions between their clocks?

    Don't forget where we started: Jill only moves relative to a clock system synchronized to Jack's system. Relative to her, Jack moves exactly as she moves relative to him. If we were to check Jack's movement relative to Jill's system, we would see that time slows down for him, but not for Jill. So what, suddenly their attitude will change just because we decided that the system is different?

    Think of a synchronized system as a long train with carriages a kilometer apart. Einstein proposed in his original article on relativity how to synchronize the clocks using light rays.

    If a car is moving quickly along the train, it will see on each clock in the following car a time slightly more and more advanced than its own. This is our Jill.

    But the same logic also works in the opposite direction. If Jill is sitting in a locomotive, followed by many synchronized cars, and Jack is driving a train moving in the opposite direction, then if while the locomotives pass each other the clocks show the same time, both Jack and Jill will find the time in the following cars Accelerates more and more relative to them (this is because, relative to the trains, the locomotives are the ones in motion, therefore time in them slows down).

    Anyway, the symmetry here is perfect. The two systems are completely identical, and from the point of view of Jack, or every car on his train, Jill is in motion, while from the point of view of Jill, and every car on her train, Jack is in motion.

    Therefore it is not possible for there to be any difference in the ratio of clock revolutions. Outer stars, or traveling gerbils, are not relevant at all.

    If the speed of light is relative to the light source, this accurately explains the m-m experiment. That's the only thing I said. Obviously there are other problems with this, but so are the Lorentz theory (contraction) or the model that I am exempt from talking about.

    Casinos - for obvious reasons (children who can browse the site for example) I cannot expand without my father's approval. My email is with Yuval, if you want I will send you details.

  242. Once, when my comment was delayed, at least I could see it (with a note that it was awaiting approval). Now not even that. The system methods are wonderful

  243. Bypass attempt:
    R.H., Chen Chen on the back wind
    There are many Casino for dummies books, but the catch is that the casino owners also look through them 😛

  244. R.H., Chen Chen on the back wind
    There are many Casino for dummies books, but the problem with them is that the casino owners also read them 😛

  245. A small addition, velocity C will be measured by any vacuum meter in our universe
    There is a situation that in another universe the speed of light will be different, but this has to be ruled out or proven.

  246. Israel and Yuval,

    I agree with Yuval here that the even simpler interpretation, that the speed of light is simple relative to the light source, is irrelevant and does not work.

    According to the one from the old 5 lira bill whose name should not be mentioned on the science website the speed of light is constant for every viewer, operator or light source. No matter what he does or doesn't do, even if he stands on his head or flips backwards, he will always measure the speed of light as C. The same will be done by all those around him with their accelerations, speeds and flicks, they will all measure every light and it doesn't matter where it came from and when as speed C (under one and only condition, in a vacuum).

  247. I will start with the exemption. I don't usually take gifts back. The word "exempt" for our purposes means that you don't have to feel obligated to respond to what I say.
    Are you saying that from the fact that the speed of light is relative to the light source, the results of the Michaelson Morley experiment can be deduced? If so, the burden of proof is on you.

  248. jubilee.
    "Your proposal, "the even simpler interpretation, that the speed of light is simple relative to the source of light", is irrelevant and does not work."
    It works well to explain the results of experiment M-M.
    Regarding your model and the cancellation of the exemption - the condition from my side was and remains an express request from you, and a commitment from both of us to stick to matters only.

  249. Israel,
    This debate goes round and round.
    1) You say, "Remember, both of them are completely at rest." The only other caveat in the calculation that I know of is the relative speed to the cosmic radiation system. But this is not our topic, nor is it relevant at the moment. We are in 1905, there is no radiation."

    You don't necessarily need cosmic radiation. Jill and Jack can take any third object that is decided between them which is the frame of reference. Let's say a Beetlejuice star. Both Jack and Jill will agree that Jill is moving at close to the speed of light relative to Beetlejuice while Jack is moving slower (negative speed).

    The only exception is the light. I think you are missing something here. Suppose Jill sends a light beam and Jack measures its speed, he will get a C. Jill who measures the speed of that beam will also get a C, and Jorgenson on the Beetlejuice planet will get a C from that beam.

    2) You say: "In any case, if we return to our discussions, there is no escaping the conclusion that a photograph of the temp and cesium clocks will show the same time in both, both at Jack's and at Jill's. If not, show me where."

    Why is there no escape? Because you decided? As mentioned, Jill will see cooling at a rate of 1000 degrees per hour, while Jack will see 1000 degrees in a billion years. It is clear that whenever they both take pictures of the clocks, the exact same temperature will be measured. Again like the train example. If two passengers, a sitter and a runner take a picture of the view outside it will always be the same view even though one has traveled a much greater mileage. We chewed it up a bit, didn't we?

    3) What is the connection now to the big bang? The bang is defined as a singular point that there is currently no way to know what happened from its second past, yes time, no time, yes space, no space are irrelevant questions because there is currently no tool to check them. In general there is no time before the bang and this is an irrelevant question. It's kind of like the sound made by clapping one hand.

    4) Casino - leave you from the nonsense of Einstein Mach and all that. It's much more interesting. How is it possible that counting 6 packages is as simple as counting 1 package? Give me some Casino for dummies.

  250. Nice, part XNUMX is over. Let's try B.

    Don't forget that I'm not trying to disprove time dilation - I'm just pointing out its conflict with the big bang theory. Try to see it this way:

    1. According to the bang, is there any meaning at all to the question of what was 1000 years before the bang? What happened 20 billion years ago? Or is the very concept of "time" not defined before the bang?

    2. According to relativity in 1905, is there a problem with the question of what happened 100 billion years ago?

    In any case, if we return to our discussions, there is no escaping the conclusion that a photograph of the temp and cesium clocks will show the same time in both, both at Jack's and at Jill's. If not, show me where.

    Casinos: There is no particular problem for the dealer to count 4, 8, or 800 decks. The problem is in viability. In fact, there is a method that is specially adapted for places where only tables with 6 decks or more.

    Bottom line: It is not true that the casino always wins, but it is true that the gambler always loses. Even with he has an advantage over the house.

    Unless you're interested in devoting your life to ace offsets, sitting at tables, and mostly inhaling smoke.

    jubilee.

    "You don't need to be chilly to give a good fight".
    It is even possible to give up on the issue of fait, and go straight to the science. I explained to you the problematic that exists in your interpretation of the MM experiment. (I believe you meant Lorentz's interpretation, contraction).

    Question: Why don't you take the even simpler interpretation, that the speed of light is simple relative to the light source? That would explain the results of experiment M-M easily, wouldn't it?

  251. We'll try integration in parts one more time, we'll see if it goes through.

    R.H. darling.
    Ronan, eh? Slowly and carefully, like hedgehogs, we will reveal your true face.

    3. Rest: Galileo, Newton, Einstein. Any body that is not accelerating is at rest. It may be moving relative to other systems, but as far as its system is concerned it is at rest.

    Light: always moves relative to you at one speed: that of light. If you drive north on the coastal road at a speed of 200 m/s, a motorcycle drives south at a speed of 300 m/s, and as soon as you pass each other you turn on the headlights, then the light moves away from both of you at the same speed, the speed of light, even if you measure and If the motorcycle. This is despite the fact that the relative speed between you is 500 m/s. It will be the same even if the speed between you is 0.9C.

    Therefore, Jack is always at speed C relative to light and so is Jill. But both of them are at complete rest as far as they are concerned.

    4. Jill is moving relative to Jack close to the speed of light, but as far as she is concerned she is at rest, and Jack is the one moving. Jack's system cannot be preferred over Jill's, or vice versa. This is precisely the first postulate of relativity.

    5. Very principled. Because if there is no difference between the systems, and the ratio of clock rotations for Jack is 1:1, then this will also be the ratio for Jill.

    Remember, both of them are completely at rest. The only other caveat in the calculation that I know of is the relative speed to the cosmic radiation system. But this is not our topic, nor is it relevant at the moment. We are in 1905, there is no radiation.

    6-7. There is no speed in space for a system that is not accelerating, but only speed relative to another system. What was proven in the airplane experiment is that time is lengthened in an accelerated system. This is possible if you treat time as a number of particles per unit volume, according to my discussion with a student.

  252. R.H. darling.
    Ronan, eh? Slowly and carefully, like hedgehogs, we will reveal your true face.

    3. Rest: Galileo, Newton, Einstein. Any body that is not accelerating is at rest. It may be moving relative to other systems, but as far as its system is concerned it is at rest.

    Light: always moves relative to you at one speed: that of light. If you drive north on the coastal road at a speed of 200 m/s, a motorcycle drives south at a speed of 300 m/s, and as soon as you pass each other you turn on the headlights, then the light moves away from both of you at the same speed, the speed of light, even if you measure and If the motorcycle. This is despite the fact that the relative speed between you is 500 m/s. It will be the same even if the speed between you is 0.9C.

    Therefore, Jack is always at speed C relative to light and so is Jill. But both of them are at complete rest as far as they are concerned.

    4. Jill is moving relative to Jack close to the speed of light, but as far as she is concerned she is at rest, and Jack is the one moving. Jack's system cannot be preferred over Jill's, or vice versa. This is precisely the first postulate of relativity.

    5. Very principled. Because if there is no difference between the systems, and the ratio of clock rotations for Jack is 1:1, then this will also be the ratio for Jill.

    Remember, both of them are completely at rest. The only other caveat in the calculation that I know of is the relative speed to the cosmic radiation system. But this is not our topic, nor is it relevant at the moment. We are in 1905, there is no radiation.

    6-7. There is no speed in space for a system that is not accelerating, but only speed relative to another system. What was proven in the airplane experiment is that time is lengthened in an accelerated system. This is possible if you treat time as a number of particles per unit volume, according to my discussion with a student.

    Don't forget that I'm not trying to disprove time dilation - I'm just pointing out its conflict with the big bang theory. Try to see it this way:

    1. According to the bang, is there any meaning at all to the question of what was 1000 years before the bang? What happened 20 billion years ago? Or is the very concept of "time" not defined before the bang?

    2. According to relativity in 1905, is there a problem with the question of what happened 100 billion years ago?

    In any case, if we return to our discussions, there is no escaping the conclusion that a photograph of the temp and cesium clocks will show the same time in both, both at Jack's and at Jill's. If not, show me where.

    Casinos: There is no particular problem for the dealer to count 4, 8, or 800 decks. The problem is in viability. In fact, there is a method that is specially adapted for places where only tables with 6 decks or more.

    Bottom line: It is not true that the casino always wins, but it is true that the gambler always loses. Even with he has an advantage over the house.

    Unless you're interested in devoting your life to ace offsets, sitting at tables, and mostly inhaling smoke.

    jubilee.

    "You don't need to be chilly to give a good fight".
    It is even possible to give up on the issue of fait, and go straight to the science. I explained to you the problematic that exists in your interpretation of the MM experiment. (I believe you meant Lorentz's interpretation, contraction).

    Question: Why don't you take the even simpler interpretation, that the speed of light is simple relative to the light source? That would explain the results of experiment M-M easily, wouldn't it?

  253. Inshtein
    Einstein
    Einstein
    They are... right
    I suggest that the system send us, the respondents who passed the clean language test, the list of problematic words, and we will undertake to keep it a secret 🙂

  254. Father, welcome back. If there are experiences, please share.

    R. H.,
    My comments are blocked many times, but Israel is not a relevant keyword. On the other hand, the relative of a veteran singer who gave his name to an ancient word processor is suspicious.

    Israel,
    I will never be disappointed by you. You will always know how to fight back her hair. And the even better part is that we don't even have to be chillabauts to give a good fight.
    Since I started an independent blog (on the advice of a student, the well-remembered Technion) I was seized by a lazy composure and I did not upload anything new. But soon, inshallah, soon. I'm working on things

  255. Skeptic, Yuval has a special dictionary and you have to differentiate between what Yuval says and what is really happening.
    When Yuval says: "Only you didn't understand" - he means "no one understood".
    "You are evasive" - ​​meaning "you didn't answer what I wanted you to answer".
    "Enjoy the limelight" - the meaning is "why no one addresses the really important issue: Yuval's model".
    "Brainwasher" - you might mercifully convince someone of what Yuval doesn't believe or doesn't understand.
    "Word pimp" - as above.

    "Nonconformism" - dyslexia.

    And in general, not only regarding Yuval: those who start messing with you personally, instead of with your opinions, are not really looking for a scientific model, but an ego model. Otherwise he would leave you to your own devices and scroll to the next comment.
    And besides, Yuvli is pretty cute despite everything.

  256. Avi Blizovsky,
    If my and Israel's suspicion is indeed true that his name, the name of our country and the second name of Jacob our father is a forbidden word in science, I strongly protest!

    Israel,
    1) Agree
    2) Agree
    3) Don't know what rest is. We defined Jack as having a speed of 0 relative to the speed of light, Jill, the planet Saturn or the fly flying around it.
    4) Don't know what rest is. We set Jill up to speed so close to the speed of light that billions of Jack years have passed in her time.
    5) Don't know what it is in principle. Jill moves faster than Jack. Is it fundamental? Besides, she's blonde and he's Asian. Is it fundamental?
    6-7) do not understand the questions. As mentioned, the difference in speed in space that results in a slowdown in the speed of time that has passed. I don't understand why you insist so much on this, after all it was proven in the cesium clock experiment.

    Links to Galileo? There are those who know how to count cards and there are those who find anything, even what is buried in the dark basements of the Internet. By the way, I thought that since Bill Kaplan of MIT it is no longer possible to count cards because the casinos use a large number of packs. is not it?

  257. Time is relevant/significant when there is any movement of bodies, atoms or its smaller parts.
    As for entropy, it is relevant as long as there is some molecular structure in the universe, because once the cosmic soup is identical and evenly distributed, it will have no meaning.

  258. Time is a dimension that stands on its own,
    And it is attached to each dimension system in a different way.

    So far we have known time that moves forward,
    Later we will discover systems in which time behaves in a different way.

  259. Trying to sneak a response fragment before you fall asleep:

    R.H.

    I just saw your comments. It seems to me that you mentioned my name raises the wrath of the Inquisition. Next try to use code diseases. Try "Hatzvi" or "Yishuron" or in short energetically "Defence Army for.." I will already understand that you mean me and skip straight to the next comment.

    It seems to me that I am beginning to understand the root of the misunderstanding between us. The trigger is the sentence "The ratio between Jill's clocks will always be the same as a function of her speed relative to the state of rest or if you will to the speed of light."

    Here are the usual Socratic questions:

    1. Do we agree that the rotation ratio between the temp and cesium clocks at Jill's is 1,000,000,000:1?

    2. Do we agree that the rotation ratio between the temp and cesium clocks at Jack's is 1:1?

    3. Do you think Jack is at rest?

    4. Do you think Jill is at rest?

    5. Is there any fundamental difference between Jack's system and Jill's? Yes No

    6. If the answer to 5 is no, then how come there is such a gap in the relationship? Why isn't the situation reversed in relation to the revolutions, why isn't the ratio for Jill 1:1 or something in between, 100:1 for example, how is it that the ratio for Jill exactly matches Jack's speed relative to her?

    7. If the answer to 5 is yes, explain what the difference is. What do you mean when you say: "at its speed relative to the rest state or if you will to the speed of light." Why is Jack's situation different from hers?

    Talk about postcards, we're all brothers here. Do not darken and do not become extinct. Just remember, not to mention the explicit name.

    By the way - where did you get the links to Galileo? I didn't know about their existence. As usual, I am not told anything.

  260. R.H.

    I just saw your comments. It seems to me that you mentioned my name raises the wrath of the Inquisition. Next try to use code diseases. Try "Hatzvi" or "Yishuron" or in short energetically "Defence Army for.." I will already understand that you mean me and skip straight to the next comment.

    It seems to me that I am beginning to understand the root of the misunderstanding between us. The trigger is the sentence "The ratio between Jill's clocks will always be the same as a function of her speed relative to the state of rest or if you will to the speed of light."

    Here are the usual Socratic questions:

    1. Do we agree that the rotation ratio between the temp and cesium clocks at Jill's is 1,000,000,000:1?

    2. Do we agree that the rotation ratio between the temp and cesium clocks at Jack's is 1:1?

    3. Do you think Jack is at rest?

    4. Do you think Jill is at rest?

    5. Is there any fundamental difference between Jack's system and Jill's? Yes No

    6. If the answer to 5 is no, then how come there is such a gap in the relationship? Why isn't the situation reversed in relation to the revolutions, why isn't the ratio for Jill 1:1 or something in between, 100:1 for example, how is it that the ratio for Jill exactly matches Jack's speed relative to her?

    7. If the answer to 5 is yes, explain what the difference is. What do you mean when you say: "at its speed relative to the rest state or if you will to the speed of light." Why is Jack's situation different from hers?

    Talk about postcards, we're all brothers here. Do not darken and do not become extinct. Just remember, not to mention the explicit name.

    By the way - where did you get the links to Galileo? I didn't know about their existence. As usual, I am not told anything.

    jubilee.

    "You're evasive again, little eel, but I'm used to it."
    That's why you thought I was a Pisces, because of the eel, huh?

    No. I think you're the one avoiding it. Explain to us why time and Law B are the way they are. You raised this point.

    skeptic.

    An interesting point, but after two months and 900 responses, isn't it better that we focus on the open issues before moving on to additional fronts such as perception? We will leave that for the next articles. Even so, it takes me 5 minutes to get responses from most of the load.
    But you are definitely welcome to stay with us at Cosmo. Looks like you have something to say.

  261. safkan yakar, thank you for your consideration.
    Y.S. makes a regular habit of avoiding questions that do not fit his agenda. He probably understands that I tried to trick him, because he does not lack intelligence at all. All I tried to show, on the contrary, is that time is the constant dimension by which all world order (and disorder) will be based. For many months he has been playing with the equations of relativity that present time as a variable quantity and has reached paradoxes which he presents to us in a voice of heroic humility while ignoring the "small" possibility that the results of the Michaelson Morley experiment may have a different explanation than the accepted one.
    It goes without saying that the things you say are beautiful to me and acceptable to me.

  262. Y. H. Israel and all the rest.

    Time, like the dimensions of space, are concepts that our perception produced in an evolutionary way for survival.
    The fact that physics *took ownership* of the concept of time for the purpose of its models does not mean that it has actual ownership of it.

    Thus the concept of time, as a means of perceiving reality, is not necessarily defined by entropy alone, or by another physical concept. Every process (for example the movement of objects in the environment of living productions) requires a perception of time, just as it requires a perception of space. (Without these perspectives life forms will not obtain the life resources they need and will not be able to escape threats to their existence).

    In my opinion, the concept of time should be treated as a primitive concept that does not require reasoning, just as the concepts of three-dimensional space are primitive concepts devoid of reasoning. In my estimation, any attempt to define primitive concepts of space and time will lead to paradoxes in the definitions, a kind of bootstrapping in the definitions, since various physical phenomena implicitly use the concepts of space and time (therefore they cannot be used for the purpose of defining the latter concepts). The fact that time is not defined (that is, it is treated as a primitive concept) does not prevent the option of measuring it, at least for practical purposes (in my view, the cosmology of the universe is an impractical hypothesis, but that is another story).

    Regarding the increase in entropy. It probably exists in all dynamic systems that can be understood, since reversing the direction of entropy means processes that are difficult to perceive (and certainly difficult to analyze in mathematical models).
    It has nothing to do with one physical law or another, entropies can be defined on non-physical systems as well.

    I'm too lazy to say more about entropy, it's too complicated and philosophical, it's also impossible to give a full explanation of what I mean. Saying only this: an increase in entropy on the timeline corresponds to a cause-and-effect description of the type "*one* cause leads to many results", on the other hand, a decrease in entropy on the timeline corresponds to a cause-effect description of the type "many causes *synchronized together* lead to a single result". A cause-and-effect description of the second kind is very difficult to perceive, if at all possible.

  263. Arie - I'm glad you came to the end of my mind.
    Who knows, maybe in the center, there is a bubble that produces universes and that is what gives impetus to the expansion of universes.

  264. Ruby - now it's clear where you got the onion. You say about the balloon inside a balloon inside a balloon "is there any evidence that this is not the case?" This sentence can be said about any assumption... there is a flying spaghetti monster; Is there any evidence that it isn't? And I say: if there is more than one balloon - then each balloon is a different universe (even if they are inside each other)!

  265. You're evasive again, little eel, but I'm used to it.
    And for example from the legends: No! Time and speed are not the same but word and vice versa. But that's not how things are with time and entropy, that they progress together.

  266. Sorry I got away.
    As Donkey tells Shrek,
    example? (What do you mean).
    After all, if you remove time from the formulas, you will not have speed. Are time and speed the same thing?

  267. there is
    Since you avoid picking up the glove, I'll do it for you. My claim is that "time" and "the second law of thermodynamics" are two names for exactly the same thing. Remove time from the formulas and you won't have the second law of thermodynamics. You will ignore the changes in the state of order in the universe and you will not be able to measure time

  268. - Towards the end of the nineteenth century - the professor began - the physicists thought that their work was almost finished.
    - The English Newton's laws of mechanics, and the Scottish Maxwell's electromagnetism, gave an almost perfect description of the physical world as a composition of waves, matter..
    - Everything is waves - muttered the law.
    - Waves and bodies - corrected the professor.
    - Waves and compressed waves - the law insisted.
    -Thermodynamics, continued the professor, with its two powerful laws, was reduced with the discovery of atoms to a branch of kinetic mechanics, and now, everyone hoped, we could all relax in the comfortable and orderly world that the two British gentlemen had arranged for us, and sip a cup of after-dinner tea.
    - Ah, those were the times, it was a real time - sighed the professor and wiped nostalgia beads from his forehead. -Consider in your mind the magnitude of the idyll, the magic of a universe where space is absolute and time is absolute and compare them to the chaos that prevails today.
    - My grandfather says that in his hometown a wave was a wave, a particle was a particle, and no wave dared to behave like a particle or vice versa. Electrons were happily circling around the nucleus, clear, sharp, measurable, in perfect oval elliptical tracks. There are still some small matters to settle. Black body radiation, the speed of the earth through the ether - really not hunting bears and lions, but at most a lazy pursuit of field mice.
    - Well, then what happened? The law was interested.
    - The speed of light refused to cooperate - answered the professor sourly.
    - What does it mean?
    - She did not agree to sum up.
    -Perhaps it would be useful to explain to the poor and stupid law what you mean? The law got angry.
    A growl of approval was heard from the audience.
    -It did not agree to sum up vectorially like any other speed. The Michelson and Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is always constant, regardless of the speed of the light source, and in fact regardless of any factor.
    - And what's so terrible about that? The law is confused.
    -What's so bad? Now the professor is the one who got angry. - Do you not understand anything? Everything was already ready and ready for a simple and comprehensible grand unified theory of classical physics. All we wanted to know was our speed through the site. Is that so much to ask? turned to the audience with a crying voice.
    Stifled sobs rose from the audience.
    -But no, the prima donna did not agree to settle under any conditions. You know how much we asked, how much we begged... In the end, the idea came up to bring the wretch to justice, but it didn't come to fruition.
    -What happened?
    -Einstein announced that due to the grim circumstances it was decided to cancel the site, and it was agreed that the speed of light is the only absolute constant in the universe. Everything else is relative.
    -What exactly is relative?
    - All physical factors: time, distance, mass - everything.
    -Professor Boltzmansky - said the law with emphasis. Is it possible to exceed the speed of light?
    -No. is the upper limit.
    -why?
    - Because a speed greater than the speed of light would be a contradiction to... The professor fell silent.
    -Contradiction why? I thought you said she was the only absolute.
    The professor mumbled unintelligible words.
    -Are you going to answer the question or will we declare you a hostile witness?
    -Contradiction to the second law..
    -What second law? of mechanics? of electromagnetism?
    - of thermodynamics - whispered the professor.
    - And the time? The law whipped without mercy, - how is the direction of time defined?
    -Direction of increasing entropy - to Ale the professor.
    - Is it an increase? the law demanded.
    - The second law of thermodynamics..
    -Professor Boltzmansky - the law has now spoken graciously - you are no longer accused, and I am about to release you from the stand, but you must remember one thing for good:
    - There is only one constant in physics and it is the second law of thermodynamics.
    Everything else is relative.
    The professor smiled with a flash of sudden understanding.
    -Have we learned our lesson today?
    The professor nodded.
    - Because I don't want us to have to repeat this lesson one more time.
    The professor shook his head at the law and stepped down from the podium to the applause of the audience.

  269. Assuming the big bang theory is correct, the universe is expanding from the center outwards.
    The balloon analogy describes a single-layered sphere that inflates to infinity as it accelerates.
    In my opinion, the wall of the balloon has a thickness and perhaps it is a number of inflatable balloons one inside the other that the outer one spreads faster than the inner one and so towards the center.
    Is there any evidence that this is not the case?

  270. jubilee.
    Philosophy is not chatter. The combination of physics and philosophy is quite successful in my opinion. Simply, it's beyond our scope at the moment. That's all we're missing now for the 900 response, another direction to entertain him.

    In my opinion, if we accept the big bang theory, time is indeed an absolute physical factor, affected by acceleration but not by non-accelerated motion, and can be quantified as a function of the expansion of the universe. Before the bang, the concept of time has no meaning. There is no such thing as "what happened 20 billion years ago".

    On the other hand, if we go back to 1905, the picture of the situation is of an eternal, or almost eternal, universe. For Poincaré 100 billion years is child's play, and it is only a matter of time before every situation repeats itself, and entropy decreases. Therefore, in relationships, time is subjective and each measurer has his own time, and no time is absolute.

    By the way, your claim that we are at the center of the universe is not supported by the big bang theory. According to the theory there is no such thing as the center of the universe. Each point is allowed to see itself as a center.

  271. Ruby - not that I'm a great expert, but your onion model is incomprehensible and not suitable for dimensional reduction. You are trying to bring the onion as a three-dimensional model and that is what is not understood. The model worth understanding is a two-dimensional model (the surface of the balloon), only the surface is curved. Our universe is the same only with an added dimension (and not necessarily spherical in shape). That is, the surface of the balloon is analogous to a three-dimensional space.
    Yuval - As far as I know, no one knows clearly what causes dark energy. I think one of the thoughts is the energy of the void (EA)?

  272. Arya Seter, apologizing for the unclear wording.
    I didn't intend to give you a general knowledge test, but I asked for your opinion. What do you think causes dark energy?

  273. Aria - in my opinion, the onion analogy is better for infinitesimal calculations of the separation of the layers of the onion skins, i.e. accelerated expansion of the universe.
    From astronomical observations, is there a transition of galaxies from shell to shell if we continue with the onion analogy? If not, then you can stay if this is an analogy. If so, you need to check what the reason is.

  274. Jubilee - the persistence of the Big Bang with the addition of dark energy; No Yes? Ruby - why the onion? The balloon is our model reduced by one dimension to make it easier for us to understand. The galaxies do not move together with the envelope of the balloon (inflating space), only the distance between them increases as space expands.

  275. Arie - I would liken the universe to onion skins that inflate and not to a balloon since the universe is three-dimensional with the addition of the time vector.
    Still, the galaxies that are on the same shells move together with them at the same speed (greater than the speed of light?) and then this contradicts Einstein's axiom as science has verified so far except for deviations in certain cases.

  276. Ruby - the galaxies themselves do not move; The universe that carries them is the one that swells. Picture a balloon with spots on it that represent the galaxies. The balloon inflates and the spots that are far from each other move away from each other at a speed that exceeds the speed of light even though the spots themselves are not moving.

  277. lion,
    I thought the speed of light was maximal. How can it be that galaxies that are matter and not energy or photons can move faster than the speed of light?
    Regarding the known age of the universe, it is about 15 m years. If there are galaxies beyond a distance of 15 m light years and the big bang theory is correct, this means that their expansion was really beyond the speed of light.

  278. Ruby - the most distant galaxies that can be seen are from the beginning of the universe. Even the galaxies whose light will never reach us and even those farthest from us, their age does not exceed the age of the universe; They simply moved away (and continue to move away) from us at a speed that exceeds the speed of light.

  279. Yuval Shalom,
    You are right, I confused time and distance, but the question still arises:
    The rays observed from distant galaxies have traveled a distance of 14.5 m light years. While they made this distance, those galaxies continued to exist and move away for that amount of time I don't know what it is (I'd love to know what it is) but oh it must be twice the time it took the light rays to get here.
    The diameter of the universe must be greater than 58 m light years due to the acceleration of expansion as observed and published.
    How did I get to 58 m light years? 14.5 m light years initial distance and another such distance at least due to the acceleration multiplied by two due to the diameter.
    Ruby

  280. Yuval - indeed the galaxies beyond the visible universe are moving away from us at the speed of light and more than that - aren't they? (Their location in the universe is moving away from us at these speeds)

  281. Ruby
    From your claim it is possible to understand that at the moment when the light started its way from the distant galaxies to us, the age of the galaxies was 14.5 Ma.
    You also mix up the terms "time" and "distance" (a light year is a unit of distance, not a unit of time) and it is understandable that you believe that the galaxies are moving away from us at the speed of light.
    And finally, I'm not sure how you got to number 59. Did you mean number 58?

  282. Hello Arya,
    Regarding the visible universe, if the most distant galaxies sent us their light rays 14.5 m light years ago, I claim that the age of those galaxies is double that is 29 m light years because in the time it took for the rays to get here they existed and even spread for exactly the same amount of time, that is 14.5 m additional light years.
    That is, the diameter of the universe as of now (as it will appear in 14.5 m light years) is 59 m light years.
    am I wrong?
    Ruby.

  283. Aryeh Seter
    According to the prevailing model of the "big bang" the age of the universe and its size are inverse functions of each other (given the age of the universe it is possible to calculate its size, and given its size it is possible to calculate its age).
    On the other hand, I share the opinion you expressed in the sentence "The fact that the universe is much larger than the visible universe, does not mean that the age of the universe in light years is the size of the universe". The reason why I don't like the "big bang" model is that the assumption that there was indeed a big bang from which the matter in the universe was dispersed in all directions without favoring one direction over others, together with the observations that show the horizon of the universe at a fixed distance from us in all directions, puts us in a good place in the middle of the universe Right where the big bang went off.

  284. Israel,
    I seem to have been misunderstood again, as usual. I didn't mean to chat philosophy. We learned from relativity that time is not constant (because the speed of light is), so it can be seen as a changing physical factor. If until today we said that entropy (in the macro) increases with time, and the current assumption is that time is a physical entity, then time itself is the one that makes all the mess. To this day, mankind usually defines speed as a derivative of something (for example, distance) based on time, but since time is not the real constant (but the speed of light, as mentioned), the subject of the formula must be changed and redefined accordingly. Will you, under these new conditions, be able to show how time ("the teeth of time") gnaws away at the good order?

  285. friends; You didn't answer what Robbie asked. He confuses the age of the universe with the size of the universe. The visible universe extends to a distance of about 14 billion light years in every direction - because it is impossible to see something that is more light years away than the age of the universe because what is beyond that - the light rays will never reach us - due to the acceleration of expansion. But the fact that the universe is much larger than the visible universe, does not mean that the age of the universe in light years is the size of the universe.

  286. Because of the tensions in the south, the waiting period for responses is getting longer. We will try to integrate in parts. If the same things appear a second time soon, the blame lies in hurrying and waiting.
    Reminds a bit of the wait before the Six Day War.

    jubilee
    "The second law of thermodynamics is in the blink of an eye, it turns out."

    The second law is abu no small harm. If you check carefully, the bottom line is he is the one responsible for any trouble.
    There is no good and bad. There is only order and entropy. Every person, good or bad, if it depends on him, will choose the good for his son. If a person chooses evil for himself or others, it is only because of the dire circumstances, which are based on the second law of thermodynamics.

    "Can you show how time is not just an ethereal concept by which processes are measured ("over time", "over time", etc.) but it causes them independently (for example, "time will take its course")?"

    The philosophical factor interests me much less than the physical factor. It is very difficult to define time in physics. I believe that the treatment of time is different in the two theories accepted today, the big bang and relativity. According to the Big Bang, there was no time at all 13.7 billion years ago (what existed a billion years before the Big Bang? Not a meaningless question?). On the other hand, when Einstein conceived of relativity in 1905, the image of the universe was of an infinite and eternal universe. Hence the collision.

    In my discussion with R.H. He repeats the following argument: "It is a thermometer that measures a parameter outside the system." I'm trying to get him to see the contradiction that exists between the different data, and that the solution is that the parameter is within the system.

    Regarding the exemption - cancellation is not an explicit request. It seems to me that you get along pretty well with all the other company (or maybe not really? Compared to what they say, I'm a sliver of honey). But I still believe that everyone here is interested in hearing the continuation of the model, and when it leaves the stage of definitions to the stage of theory, proofs, formulas and refutation tests.

  287. jubilee
    "The second law of thermodynamics is in the blink of an eye, it turns out."

    The second law is abu no small harm. If you check carefully, the bottom line is he is the one responsible for any trouble.
    There is no good and bad. There is only order and entropy. Every person, good or bad, if it depends on him, will choose the good for his son. If a person chooses evil for himself or others, it is only because of the dire circumstances, which are based on the second law of thermodynamics.

    "Can you show how time is not just an ethereal concept by which processes are measured ("over time", "over time", etc.) but it causes them independently (for example, "time will take its course")?"

    The philosophical factor interests me much less than the physical factor. It is very difficult to define time in physics. I believe that the treatment of time is different in the two theories accepted today, the big bang and relativity. According to the Big Bang, there was no time at all 13.7 billion years ago (what existed a billion years before the Big Bang? Not a meaningless question?). On the other hand, when Einstein conceived of relativity in 1905, the image of the universe was of an infinite and eternal universe. Hence the collision.

    In my discussion with R.H. He repeats the following argument: "It is a thermometer that measures a parameter outside the system." I'm trying to get him to see the contradiction that exists between the different data, and that the solution is that the parameter is within the system.

    Regarding the exemption - cancellation is not an explicit request. It seems to me that you get along pretty well with all the other company (or maybe not really? Compared to what they say, I'm a sliver of honey). But I still believe that everyone here is interested in hearing the continuation of the model, and when it leaves the stage of definitions to the stage of theory, proofs, formulas and refutation tests.

    The trial of the second law.

    1. Boltzmannsky.

    But the trial is word of mouth.
    Indeed, it is not a common sight that a law is facing a criminal trial... and not just any law: the second law of thermodynamics, perhaps the most basic of all the laws of physics.
    It was not a trial in the usual sense of the word. The second law was not brought into the courtroom while handcuffed, no arrest warrant was issued, and most importantly - a judge was not present at the trial either!
    The second law set things straight from the beginning: as a condition for agreeing to stand trial, the law demanded - and received - full rights of both a defense attorney and a defendant. There will indeed be a trial, but it will be two-way, with each side having equal rights and obligations. Who is the judge and who is the defendant - this, the law claimed, will become clear during the trial.
    So ask: what is the point of such a sentence? Who will pass the sentence? And who has the enforcement powers?
    The answer to the first question is that the trial is extremely important, perhaps the most important ever held, and this will become clear during the trial. The answer to the second question: jurors. who will? This too will become clear during the trial. And for the third, the enforcement powers, you must have already guessed...it will be revealed during the trial.

    Therefore, we will not mince words, and proceed immediately to the course of the trial.
    The state prosecutor spoke first.
    - The honor of the court.
    I would like to introduce you to a very special criminal.
    The accused who stands before you today, the accused called "the second law of thermodynamics" and also known as "entropy", is not only the greatest criminal of all time - he is actually also the only criminal of all time.
    The angry Mia came up from the audience.
    -His crime, the bad guys claim in his voice, is causing every crime!
    Every fault, every pain, every sadness and every irritation - their source is the second law, it and only it.
    I claim that the second law has and has had only one purpose from the day of its birth fourteen and a half billion years ago until this very day: increasing disorder in the universe.
    The very word itself - entropy - means chaos, anarchy, disintegration of any order. The lawsuit will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the immorality of the law, the evil rooted in it, the distorted ideology....

    The prosecutor went on to graphically describe how horrible and cruel the law is. In his seat the law made a face of contempt, and let out laughs and sarcastic comments to himself. At some point, the law lost its patience and interrupted the prosecutor's words:
    - Maybe stop talking and start presenting the facts?
    A tumult of shaken voices was heard in the crowd. The prosecutor turned pale. His many years of experience were now in his hands: he had always been accustomed to the strict discipline of the courts, which would call for immediate order to anyone who dared to deviate from the proper legal procedure.
    Out of habit he sent a helpless look to the empty seat of the Father of the Court, realized that salvation would no longer come from there today, and accepted the judgment upon himself.
    - I call to the stand the first expert witness, Professor Boltzmansky, the country's top physicist.
    The second law's face lit up. -Physicist! cheered loudly. how wonderful! facts! Evidence! logic! He lowered his voice as a secret sweetener with the professor.- I like physics and physicists. You must know that I am also a physical law myself? I would be happy to put myself at your service, Professor. You can expect full cooperation from me.
    Professor Boltzmansky took a stern look at the law saying: "We will see at the end of the testimony how much you will like physicists, and how much cooperation we can expect from you."

    - The first law of thermodynamics, the professor explained, is actually the law of conservation of energy: energy cannot be created or disappear by itself. The gist of the law is this: in a closed system the sum of the energies - mechanical, electrical, potential, thermal, etc. - is always constant.
    - Big Brother - Lamlam the second law longingly when the first law was mentioned - a lovely law, but very very conservative.

    - This law - the professor continued, ignoring the disturbance, is fundamentally fair and moral. It provides an appropriate return for work, and an equal status for all forms of energy. Any energy can be replaced by another, and they are all equal before the law.

    The face of the second law crumpled. "Work?", Tsenf, -where did you get this term all of a sudden? Where would you even find a job in a closed thermodynamic system? Are you a physicist at all?
    - This is exactly the point on which you stand trial today, answered the professor ice coldly. - Although work is theoretically possible in any system - and we have never heard, for example, the first law against it - because of the existence of the second law, work is limited only to systems that include biological elements.
    The prosecutor intervened, happy to avenge his humiliated honor. - Do you mean to say - turn to the professor, - that in the whole vast universe you will not find work anywhere except on Earth or other places, if they exist, where there is life? And all this because of the accused??
    The shouts from the crowd were directed at the second law. -bum! lazy! Go to work instead of interrupting life!
    - Shut up! The law shouted back, - and say thank you for being alive at all, and thanks to me!
    - I want to say - Professor Boltzmansky tasted every syllable, - that since the creation of the universe until the appearance of life, no work has been done in it - in the physical sense - and this is thanks to our friend here, Mr. Entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
    -so what? The law was broken. - Who cares anyway? Why don't you let me rest, and do the same?
    The prosecutor, who felt that the idea of ​​the trial had fallen out of his hands, hastened to intervene. - Tell us about the nature and character of the accused - he said to the professor, and in a whisper added: - Turn him into dust and ashes.
    Professor Boltzmansky shook his head slightly, and began: - If the first law deals with the conservation of energy, then the second outlines the direction of its movement within the system.
    The second law states that energy will always move in the direction that makes it less concentrated.
    -And.. the law yawned.
    Heat will always flow from a hot body to a colder body. Never the other way around.
    -Mm,- continued the professor while holding a wooden disk that he brought for the purpose of the demonstration.
    He let the puck fall to the ground.
    The puck fell with a click.
    -If I roll her, she will always roll downhill.
    -If I light it, it will burn.
    But the process will never happen by itself in the opposite direction, although there is no theoretical prevention for this.
    - Not exactly... muttered the law.
    - Stop interrupting - commanded the professor. -You know as well as I do that this is exactly how things go.
    - Well, the law relented, so there is a preferred direction for the flow of energy in the system. Am I on trial for this? I immediately plead guilty. You are busy people, I am a busy law, maybe we will finish and turn to...
    - The end is still far away - the professor raised his voice. -Actually we are just at the beginning. Having described the physical nature of the law, I will proceed to describe its devastating consequences for everyday life.
    The audience was filled with anticipation.
    -However, first I must state a physical fact that follows from the law: in any active system there is always a certain loss of energy used for the purpose of doing work-
    -Once again you and your work-
    - All forms of energy always aim to reduce to heat energy. The heat - Boltzmansky's voice broke - the pleasant warmth we cuddle with - here is the lowest form of energy - his voice became a whisper - the most despicable -
    The audience came in tears.

  288. Ruby
    If you rummage through the comments at the beginning of the discussion, you will find that the question you asked has already been answered.
    In general, the discovery of the light coming from distant galaxies depends on the light reception capabilities of the instruments looking at those galaxies. As long as the capabilities of the device are more advanced at a technological level, it will be possible to expect a greater distance using the device. Today's telescopes can pick up light from a great distance, but there is still the problem of picking up light in real time. And what does it mean: the light that the telescope picks up from a distance of 14 m light years, shows the picture of the situation of the area as it was at the time the light left the same area that the telescope was looking at.
    It is known (and agreed upon by most scientists) that the rate of expansion of the universe is pushing the galaxies away from each other.
    This phenomenon points to a case in our universe: that the distant galaxies observed through the telescope are not really in the same area at the (real) time when they are observed. This applies to every galaxy. The galaxy closest to us is a few light years away from us - and this means that when still images are received from the telescope that show the galaxy, then the images show its condition as it was a few years ago.

    Today, the most distant galaxies show their condition as it was 14 million years ago.
    This means that today (due to the phenomenon of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe) the galaxies are supposed to be in an area where the distance to us is greater than 14 m light years. According to the speculation, the cause of the galaxies moving away is the dark energy. Therefore, according to the calculations (if dark energy is taken into account) - the most distant galaxies should be found today at a distance of 46 m light years. That means in practice, in real time (currently), the galaxies should be about 46 m light years from Earth.
    Hence the real diameter (as of today) of the universe is not 29 m light years, but 93 m light years.

  289. Ruby,
    Why do you think you are wrong?
    In every direction we look, the horizon is 14.5 billion light years away from us. If we see ourselves sitting in the center of the universe (and first we have to assume that the universe has a center), then the diameter of the universe is indeed 29 billion sha. But this assumption has nothing to rely on. It is not impossible that this number arises from the limitation of our instruments and not from the true state of the universe.

  290. Israel,
    "Only Jill's system is important. She sees the temperature clock spinning a billion times faster than the cesium clock. And why? Because Jack is traveling many billions of miles relative to her? What will happen if Jack changes direction and flies at 0 speed relative to her, will Jill's temp clock also suddenly slow down and turn at the same rate as the cesium clock?"

    What is the relationship between Jill and Jack??? The ratio between Jill's clocks will always be the same as a function of her speed relative to rest or if you will to the speed of light. Even if Jack God forbid is destroyed the ratio between Jill's hours will not change. There is no dependence between them. Do you think there is such a dependency??

  291. Israel,
    I have granted you an exemption so that you can devote your time to the things you truly love. But an exemption is not a prohibition. If you are burning to descend from the super-theories to my primitive level, feel free.
    The second law of thermodynamics is right before your eyes, it turns out. Can you show how time is not just an ethereal concept by which processes are measured ("over time", "over time", etc.) but it causes them independently (for example, "time will take its course")?

  292. I have a question about the age of the universe for experts:
    If the existing equipment in the possession of astronomers detects galaxies whose light arrived from 14.5 billion light years ago, this means that from the moment the rays came out in the direction of the Earth, those galaxies continued to move away and existed for the same time of 14.5 billion light years, which means that the age of the universe (at least those galaxies) should be 29 Light years as of now and not as stated.
    Can someone explain to me where I am wrong?
    Thanks
    Ruby (Reuven)
    Happy Purim and Shabbat Shalom

  293. R.H.

    If you answered yes to the 2 questions, then what is implied is (correct me if I'm wrong):

    1. If Jack Sofer compares the number of revolutions between the 2 clocks (and it is certainly possible to arrange that the cesium and temp clocks show time in clock revolutions) he will see a ratio of 1:1. He doesn't actually have to wait all the time until the encounter. At any given time period he checks, the ratio will be the same.

    2. If Jill counts, she will get a ratio of say, 1,000,000,000:1

    The problem is this:

    1. Both Jack and Jill are at rest as far as they are concerned. Their systems are not accelerated, and are called in the language of relativity "inertial". If it were possible to distinguish between them, for example, the operation of counting revolutions, this would contradict the first postulate of relativity.
    This reservation will be caught even if you say that one of the two moves relative to the CMBR system, although it is possible to argue with such a reservation. (No luck in my opinion. We'll get there if we get to CMBR).

    2. Only think about Jill's system. She sees the temperature clock spinning a billion times faster than the cesium clock. And why? Because Jack is traveling many billions of miles relative to her? What will happen if Jack changes direction and flies at 0 speed relative to her, will Jill's temp clock also suddenly slow down and turn at the same rate as the cesium clock?

    Yuval - of course you can continue, but remember that I have an exemption.

    Ghost where did you go? I missed the wild attacks of my secret admirer.

    By the way, is this response:

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/confusion-about-evolution-3008116/#comment-319326

    Make you shut your big, stupid mouth?

    Or put any comments from the editor and the scientific editor of the monthly sponsored by the Hebrew University?

    Shalom Israel,
    Listen - from the moment I started reading your chapter I just couldn't stop... fascinating.
    Scientific editor Zvi Atzmon was also enthusiastic. Please read his response, it has very important comments.
    Also attached is your text with Zvi's specific comments.
    (After we're done with this chapter, we'll talk about the sequel... It seems to me that in the next planned chapters the problem that exists in this chapter as well is exacerbated: you assume that all the readers are completely familiar with Matria and therefore can easily follow the reproaches and cynical comments. Here it may not be bad, but when you're dealing with Godel and Jacobians, etc. ' may lose the average reader completely...)
    Mickey

    First, we are scoundrels, and we should be put on trial, if we don't publish. Unequivocal.
    Let there be a shout, no big deal. This is worth arguing about.
    Second, I didn't understand everything, I admit. There is also a problem with this type (genre) - it is difficult to know with confidence who and when each speaker is telling the truth or being cynical or clever. And it may mislead readers. That is why it is necessary to make sure to give transparent hints when the claim is what the speaker really thinks, or when he is being cynical or trying to mislead. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.
    Thirdly, there are things that, assuming I understood, I do not agree with you, or I wonder how accurate they are. The part of the sociological-political matter: it is not entirely clear to me to what extent the written things are the opinion of the author, or a presentation of approaches that he opposes.
    I marked all this.
    deer

  294. The responsible or shall I count? 🙂
    The "killing" responses I have received so far, even if justified, are repeating themselves and are no longer useful to me. The encouraging comments are also not useful much beyond making a good mood.
    I've seen a lot of advanced modeling discussions here, but I haven't seen much interest in the underlying physics. Is it possible for me to continue?

  295. Israel, "If you have nothing to say - don't say it out loud." (Proverbs, XNUMX:XNUMX)

  296. I heard about a new service of the scientist: response is pending.

    In the meantime, more plots of the second law.

    Professor Boltzmansky sat on the defendant's chair, shaking slightly from a chill and fearing what was to come.
    The second law of thermodynamics surveyed him with a look that lasted, it seemed to the professor, an eternity.
    -Professor Boltzmansky- the law spoke quickly, - why do you scientists touch the laws of physics and frighten them out of their place?
    -what? added the professor in his chair. -Who is the caretaker of the laws of physics? The laws of physics are good, honest and friendly to life. You are the only saboteur!
    -Really so? Law asked dismissively.
    -exactly like that! The first law of thermodynamics is a wonderful law. Traffic laws - a work of thought. The law of attraction is genius. The laws of electricity, magnetism, fluid dynamics...
    - And quantum mechanics? The law interrupted him.
    The professor was silent.
    -The structure of the atom? The elementary particles? Radioactive decay?
    The professor filled his mouth with water.
    -something happened? Law put on a worried face.
    Now the professor spoke quickly. - I don't like quantum mechanics. The truth is that I don't like all modern physics. Particles that are waves, electrons jumping from place to place without being in the middle, the strong force that is estimated only as an approximation and changes its direction without prior notice.. Uncertainty... Uncertainty...
    - and the theory of relativity? The study of the law.
    -its Yes! The professor is happy. This is a charming theory of charms! However, the theory of relativity is fundamentally mathematical, wonderful and heavenly mathematics.. The professor was filled with excitement when he dealt with his favorite subject.
    - Its principles, especially that of general relativity, are somewhat difficult to understand, but from the moment they are understood they are consistent and unequivocal, even though - the professor chuckled to himself - its geometry is a bit crooked.
    -something funny? The law demanded.
    - No.. nothing.. a private joke.. I was thinking about Riemann...
    - Can you quote us anything from the famous equations of the theory of relativity?
    -of course! replied the professor knowingly. - The Lorentz transformations, which link the mass and length of a body to its speed, or the well-known formula: E=MC squared, the energy of a body equal to its mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.
    - Accused! - The law interrupted him dryly - Is it true that in the past you physicists wanted to prosecute the speed of light?
    Astonishment and shock in the courtroom named after Solonio!
    -No!!! exclaimed the professor. not exactly!! You take things out of context!
    -No? Do you want us to subpoena the speed of light? She's an old friend of mine, you know.
    - I... we... the professor had a hard time digesting the quick turnaround in the trial, and the treachery of the audience that now booed him. - Anyway, why am I being accused? This is the sentence of the second law! I protest! I want to go home! He turned to leave the dock but was stopped by two burly ushers.
    - You knew this was a two-way trial when you volunteered to testify, and now you will obey the law - said the law sternly. take your place I want to show Exhibit No. 1 - he pulled out a flashlight - and call prosecution witness No. 1 to testify, the quickness of the quickness - he pressed the button of the flashlight, - the speed of the...
    -no no! exclaimed the professor. I confess! Just let me drink a glass of water and recover, and I'll tell everything.
    - The second law turned off the lantern, a chain of victory poured over his face.

  297. Again the response is awaiting confirmation. Just unbelievable.
    It seems to me that your name Isr**el is the problematic word.

    Here is the previous comment without the explicit name

    Until my previous answer is released let's keep it simple.
    1) Yes
    2) Yes

    Note: in order to calculate the time from temperature or radioactive decay (ie cesium) you must add the speed of the meter to the formula. At low speeds it is negligible, but at speeds close to light it is significant. I didn't say it, it's Einstein.

    I still don't understand, where is the contradiction?

  298. Israel,
    Until my previous answer is released let's keep it simple.
    1) Yes
    2) Yes

    Note: in order to calculate the time from temperature or radioactive decay (ie cesium) you must add the speed of the meter to the formula. At low speeds it is negligible, but at speeds close to light it is significant. I didn't say it, it's Einstein.

    I still don't understand, where is the contradiction?

  299. Israel,
    First of all, the "temp clock" does not rotate. He will see a drop from 6000K to 3 in both cases. For Jill it will take an hour and for Jack a billion years.
    I think we both agree, don't we?

    now you are the hedgehog,
    1) What was the contradiction then?

    2) What do you think Jill and Jack's watches, cesium and temp will show at the moment of their meeting?

    Regarding the GPS. What I tried to do was to show on a "normal" dimension what happens in time. Note that GPS has three functions (there are more, but for this purpose three are important):
    1) Position meter - gives coordinates - analogous to your temperature clock
    2) Odometer - tells how far you have traveled —— analogous to the cesium clock
    3) Speedometer, tells how fast you drove in relation to some coordinate system (usually WGS84)

  300. R.H.
    I think the GPS example can be formulated like this: Jill rides back and forth on a bicycle, and every time she passes Jack, they compare the speedometers. Jill punches miles, and lazy Jack's speedometer reads 0, or little, or whatever: less than Jill. This is despite the fact that they both agree that they are the same distance from Auri. I understand it right?

    Note that this system is completely Newtonian, regardless of the Note also that she misses the next important argument: the relationship between temperature and time is given by Friedman's formula, which is a continuous and single-valued function. Your argument: "It's a thermometer that measures a parameter outside the system." We'll see if we can come to an agreement that we reach a contradiction between the assumptions of the lengthening of time in relationships and the Big Bang theory, or I will accept and entertain them, or we will both despair and screw up. But we can only do this if we work like hedgehogs: exact question - exact answer.

  301. R.H.
    My argument is built from stages. If we have agreed on one step, we can move on to the second. In this response:

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-331078

    in which it is said:

    Conclusion A:
    By measuring the temperature alone, it is possible to know the time that has passed since the big bang anywhere in the universe, with any precision we want and that is technically possible.

    The next step: installing temp clocks.
    This can be done by connecting a computer to the thermometer. (It doesn't matter right now if this is the CMBR temperature).

    Conclusion B:

    Anyone can be equipped with temp clocks.

    We agreed on the subject of the temperature clocks. It is hard to come and claim:

    "The fact that you call it a "temp clock" does not make it a clock that measures time."

    There is a small and simple thing you can do, but like a hedgehog, that will sharpen the subject:

    A. It was said that Jill had a device that I call a "temp clock". Next to this clock is a cesium clock. Video captures both. At the end of Jill's year-long journey, in which the temp dropped from 6000K to 3K, you run the video quickly, count the number of revolutions made by the temp clock and divide it by the number of revolutions made by the cesium clock.

    1. Do you agree that we will get a number that is in the order of billions? Yes No?

    B. The same arrangement also exists in the spaceship that Jill flew through. For her, 13.6 billion years have passed on that spaceship. Here too, you count the number of revolutions made by the temp clock and divide it by the number of revolutions made by the cesium clock.

    2. Do you agree that we will get a number that is of the order of 1? Yes No?

    If your answer to 1 or 2 is no, explain why.

  302. Israel,
    The fact that you call it a "temp clock" does not make it a clock that measures time. It is a thermometer that measures a parameter outside the system.
    Equally Jill and Jack could look at the rate of distance between Andromeda and the Milky Way.
    If you were to ask Gel (which is moving fast) what is the rate of distance? She will say that within an hour the galaxies moved away (let's say) 100 light years. If you ask Jack he will say the rate is 100 light years in a billion years.

    Regarding the temp gauge that knows or doesn't know that it will meet another gauge, in my opinion you are missing a fundamental point here. Jill and Jack's measurements are unrelated. Both measure the temp during the measurement. The question is how fast you got to the point.

    Think of time as a dimension. However, unlike the dimensions of location, we are constantly moving in the dimension of time at a constant rate.
    Picture Jill and Jack again on the train at a constant speed. Jill was running back and forth and pounding out the mileage on the train and Jack was petrified sitting. Every time they meet they look at their GPS (analog timer). Miraculously, the GPS will show that Jill has traveled a huge distance (analogous to time) in relation to Jack, but the GPS will also show that their location at the moment of meeting is the same despite the different distance they traveled.

  303. I was referring to the discussion from a month ago, but I agree with Neko that we got along.

  304. Israel,

    My question was in response to a question you wrote before: "Why, if we apply the exact same logic, wouldn't the system move towards higher entropy in the past as well?" After all, everything here is completely reversible in terms of Newton's laws."

  305. a student
    "A question for you - did you understand and accept the explanation given in the articles for the monotony of entropy and the solution to the "asymmetry problem" that you asked about?"

    Of course I did. I also didn't understand your question "It is not clear to me why you and Point insist on coming up with your own explanations for what has already been given a fairly reasonable explanation (as claimed in the article) by the great of you (Boltzmann, Feynman, Penrose...)". The whole matter was my question if given simply "Quantify" a certain moment. I have never tried to claim that there is no explanation, or that it is not worthy.
    But it seems to me that we have somewhat exhausted the subject, and now we are both on the same page.

    R.H. - A response to you in a security check.

  306. R.H.
    I will first address the problem of the hassles you raised.
    Since I am the only one between the two of us who knows about the "attack on the establishment" as you say, I can faithfully assure you that nothing is further from the truth. Communication was done through emails, with those people I contacted cooperating enthusiastically. In the disagreement between us regarding the essential issues, I was able to convince them of the correctness of my claims. When we got deeper, in most cases an apology was expressed for not being able to solve the problem I raised.

    The first claim that was raised regularly was that each system sees the other as submissive more slowly, as relativity claims.

    This claim can be easily rebutted by the use of high-resolution cameras and by means of video, because it is very difficult to argue with unequivocal images, which show the specific time shown by each clock during the meeting.

    We will now approach your argument, and try to realize the same principle of images, which can be observed long after the fact.

    "The cesium clocks will show a difference, an hour in one case and a billion years (according to your exaggeration) in the other case. The thermometer of both twins will show the same temperature (we agree on this). If these two guys were to draw a graph of the thermometer over time, we would see that the rate of cooling in the case of the one resting is slow (say from 6000K to 3K in a billion years) while the graph of the other would show a fast rate 6000K ==> 3K in hour. Pretty simple, isn't it? Unless I'm missing something very fundamental and I'd be happy if you enlightened me"

    Here is the explanation:

    In the case we discussed, it is about systems that are not accelerated. A nice girl named Jill is in a spaceship which, as far as she is concerned, is at complete rest. Beside her are two watches: one a cesium watch and the other a temperature watch. Video captures both watches together.

    1. If according to you "the other's graph would have shown a fast rate 6000K ==> 3K within an hour." After all, the video of the two clocks would show the temp clock spinning much faster than the cesium clock. In fact, for every one revolution of the cesium clock, the temp clock would spin many billions of revolutions.

    And so why? Because somewhere down the road is Jill going to meet some clock that moves relative to her? How do the clocks in Jill's spaceship know how fast that distant clock is moving, which is why they have to change their rate of rotation?
    Logic dictates that as long as the system is not accelerated the cesium clock and the temperature clock move at the same rate and each photograph will show the same time in both, because the system is actually at rest.

    we will continue At the time of the meeting, Jill passes by another cesium clock, which has another temperature clock next to it. This does not prevent the high-resolution camera in Jill's spaceship from photographing the 4 watches together. Let's say that there is also a camera at the point where the remote clocks are located, a discount relative to the clocks in place, and it takes pictures of the 4 clocks as well.

    2. Will the photos taken by the 2 cameras at the moment of the encounter be the same? Or do you think that the photographs will show that each system lags behind the other?

    3. What will the unequivocal photographs look like?

    Because this is the main point: each system is at rest, therefore the rate of progress of the cesium and temp clocks in each system is the same. Because we agreed that during the meeting the temp clocks will show the same time, and each temp clock shows the same time of the cesium clock adjacent to it (a non-accelerating system), and because if a=b, c=d, and a=c then a=b=c After all, all the clocks must show the same time at the moment of the meeting.

    And this is contrary to the original argument where there is a difference of 2 billion years between the 2 cesium clocks.

    Try to do it like a hedgehog, slowly and carefully, and write down all the times and video rates, see I believe this is an inevitable conclusion.

    On the other hand, if you're a bit tired of it, I'll understand. The last thing I want is to be a bother.

  307. Israel,

    "Is there some paragraph in the last article or in some other article, where you can give each moment in history a specific numerical value, as precise as you want, and also link it to physical factors?"

    – Entropy? Look towards the end of the first article I linked, there are mentioned approximate values ​​(by Penrose) for the entropy in different states of the universe. (I don't think it's serious to ask for "as accurate as we want" for such a figure)

    Regarding the second question - I am not familiar with the Wheeler experiment. I think Prof. Aharonov researched/researches topics such as influence on the past/present from the future (or variations of such), you might want to look for his articles on the subject. As far as I remember, this relates to what are called weak measurements in quantum theory.

    A question for you - did you understand and accept the explanation given in the articles for the monotony of entropy and the solution to the "asymmetry problem" that you asked about?

  308. The solution of initial conditions is not enough.
    In my opinion, the solution is that the universe has many possible states, and our consciousness travels through those states that allow its existence, that is, in those states where we see entropy increasing. There are other states (universes?) where this does not happen, and our consciousness is not there.

    In this sense, it can be said that all possible situations happen, and we are only in those situations that allow our inventions. To an outside observer it would appear that consciousness causes the wave function to collapse in a certain way.

  309. Israel,
    Since the response has not been released until now, I copied it edited without the link that was attached and we hope that this time it will pass.

    Israel,

    This discussion repeats itself in a circular fashion. I don't see any contradiction and I can't understand what contradiction you see.
    The answer to your questions is simple and coherent with the concept of speeding up time according to speed
    The cesium clocks will show a difference, an hour in one case and a billion years (according to your extreme) in the other case. The thermometer of both twins will show the same temperature (we agree on this). If these two guys were to draw a graph of the thermometer over time, we would see that the rate of cooling in the case of the one resting is slow (say from 6000K to 3K in a billion years) while the graph of the other would show a fast rate 6000K ==> 3K in hour. Pretty simple, isn't it? Unless I'm missing something very fundamental and I'd be happy if you could enlighten me.

    Beyond that, I really don't like your reference to the fact that you turned to professors and qualified scientists and they don't understand. There was a discussion above about mathematical and scientific problems and an attack leveled against Yuval. One of the main characteristics of a scientific bully is that the bully will usually attack the "scientific establishment" and belittle the scientists present who fail to see what the bully is passionately arguing. I suggest that you should not go in this direction, lest you become one. What do you need to attack the "establishment"? Stick to your science and believe me that if you prove your theory it will be accepted without conspiracies or institutional opacity.

  310. Maybe I missed something.
    Is there any paragraph in the last article or in any other article, where it is possible to give each moment in history a specific numerical value, as precise as one wants, and also link it to physical factors?
    Do you know something similar?
    I would be happy to receive explanations or references.
    Another question: are you familiar with the Wheeler experiment in which it is apparently possible to influence the past from the present?

  311. point,

    "What's the matter student, the things and problems I mentioned are exactly the problems these articles refer to.
    That's why I guess you didn't read them."
    - "Why"? The article presents the "problem" and offers solutions, as I claimed existed and denied (which is why I linked to it).

    Israel,

    OK. Note that this is in the paragraph dealing with the philosophical aspect of the concept of time (which he did not go into in the second article I linked - among other things, the reason I claimed that the second article is more concise).

    "Hence our previous discussions. According to my idea, it is possible to define absolutely what the phrase WITH TIME means.
    Time is directly related to the amount of particles, or whatever that is, in a unit of volume. Every moment in time is thus defined unequivocally, and the future is separated from the present and the past by a simple counter number."
    - I understood what you (and a point) mean by the "problem" you are talking about starting from one of your last comments, that's why I linked again to the above article.
    It is not clear to me why you and Point insist on inventing your own explanations for what has already been given a fairly logical explanation (as claimed in the article) by the great of you (Boltzmann, Feynman, Penrose...).

  312. student.
    From your reference in the response:

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-325851

    In a book entitled Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point"

    From your last reference:

    Once we accept Boltzmann's explanation of why macroscopic
    systems evolve in a manner that makes SB increase
    with time, there remains the nagging problem (of which
    Boltzmann was well aware) of what we mean by "with
    team

    Hence our previous discussion. According to my idea, it is possible to define absolutely what the phrase WITH TIME means.
    Time is directly related to the amount of particles, or whatever that is, in a unit of volume. Every moment in time is thus defined unequivocally, and the future is separated from the present and the past by a simple counter number.

    point.
    Could you expand on the subject of the one-way arrow of time as a result of the collapse of the wave function? Why does it prevent the increase of entropy also in the past direction?

    R.H. ???!?

  313. What's the matter student, the things and problems I mentioned are exactly the problems these articles refer to.
    So I guess you didn't read them.

  314. point,

    I know. It was written by a world-renowned professor in the field of statistical physics.
    It seems that you are trying to surprise me with what is written in the article, which is quite amusing. In any case, I recommend that you read the whole thing from beginning to end - maybe you will change your mind. Of course, you can stay/make up whatever explanations you want, develop theories from here to Caltech, but you will probably "lose" in the end.

    Israel,

    Ok, I understand your question. I suggest you read again (want to believe that you have already read once) Prof. Leibovich's article, to which I have already linked you before and here is the point: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Time%27s_arrow_and_Boltzmann%27s_entropy - He talks about your question, among other things.

    Regarding the aforementioned book - I do not know it, and I did not see it in the links I gave you.

  315. Nice point. We are of one mind regarding the bidirectionality of entropy in relation to time pressure.
    Can the collapse also explain the matter of the supposed influence of the present or the future on the past?

  316. Studanczyk, the article you sent is a good one. And I suggest you read it too.

    Boltzmann: "That in nature the transition from a probable to an improbable state does not take place as often as the converse, can be explained by assuming a very improbable [small SB] initial state of the entire universe surrounding us. This is a reasonable assumption to make, since it enables us to explain the facts of experience, and one should not expect to be able to deduce it from anything more fundamental"

    Once we accept the statistical explanation of why macroscopic systems evolve in a manner that makes SB increase with time, there remains the nagging problem (of which Boltzmann was well aware) of what we mean by "with time": since the microscopic dynamical laws are symmetric, the two directions of the time variable are a priori equivalent and thus must remain so a posteriori.

    And I say it's not a matter of initial conditions, but of the collapse of wave functions.

  317. point,

    1. If a physical law is explained through mathematical theory, can it not be considered a fundamental law of nature? It is a fact that you are shared by people whose opinion on the subject is likely to be higher than yours. Also in most of the contexts I studied, the laws of thermodynamics were mentioned as "fundamental laws of physics". They are also mentioned as such in the English Wikipedia.

    2. You said this several times and I responded, but I will not repeat my words.

    3. You are right that indeed the distributions I mentioned are obtained from certain assumptions, but these assumptions are what is assumed, not the distributions themselves.

    What is meant by "...there is no reason on the part of the laws of physics that such equilibrium systems would exist in reality." I don't understand, but in physics and statistical mechanics "in advance" an accurate description is given up. In general, there are very few physical systems that can be accurately described. And fact, statistical physics works great. The computer you are writing on is based on it, among other things.

    4.
    "The physical law is the Schrödinger equation for that matter, and the statistical law is the thermodynamic law. I think it's clear."
    - Obviously? I have never heard of such a division.

    "The statistical law does not separate a collection of molecules that make up a gas, from a collection of molecules that make up a zygote cell. Although the physical results of these two are completely different."
    - Sorry, I didn't understand what you were talking about. Is there no difference between gas molecules and a biological cell? What physical results are different?

    "Locally the statistical law is not valid, the laws of physics are valid, but when you look at the big picture it is certainly valid in our world, otherwise we would not have a physical arrow of time. And the question is how a set of reversible laws of physics become something irreversible. And I think it has to do with the mechanism of wave collapse."
    - Since I do not advocate repeating the work of others (and older than me), I will refer you to the article:
    http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Time%27s_arrow_and_Boltzmann%27s_entropy, in case you want. I think it will help you.

  318. Israel
    Newton's second law defines force as a change in velocity of a mass, and to verify this inertia (persistence) refers to velocity
    regular or rest read the link from last time.

  319. point.
    Do you know the mass of baryonic matter in the universe? What is the radius of the universe? If so, please write here, or contact the link.

  320. fire.
    How would you define F=MA? No law of inertia?

    student.
    Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing.
    If you have a system in a certain entropy state, then due to statistical principles it will tend to move to a higher entropy state in the future. There is no debate about that, I believe, and the link you gave also talks about it.

    The question is this:
    Why, if we apply the exact same logic, wouldn't the system move towards higher entropy in the past as well? After all, everything here is completely reversible in terms of Newton's laws.

    And this has nothing to do with reversible thermodynamic processes. This is a different topic.

    The subject is discussed in a book in one of the books in Link that you sent me, "The Arrow of Time and the Archimedes Point" p. 56. Poincaré's appeal is also described there, who claimed that not only is the decrease in entropy possible, but it is inevitable.

    R.H.
    You need to make series for all the comments before sending a comment, prepare them for the worst.
    Zanoha Alec wrote...
    All the action in Cosmo!

  321. Israel, I am not at all clear what you want. I told you what the formula for the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole is.
    Where do you get the M of the universe? From WMAP data? After all, these are the same data that show that the baryonic material makes up only 5%.
    Or maybe you want to play singles? You can start from the number 1 and by using units reach any physical equation you want. After all, the physicists make sure that the equations make sense (balanced with units on both sides).

  322. 1) The laws of thermodynamics are not elementary, and it is a fact that you studied statistical mechanics which explains how you get the laws of thermodynamics.

    2) There is no answer because the microscopic elementary laws are symmetric in time, and the macroscopic laws of thermodynamics are not. And yet both exist in our world. And there is no explanation of the transition from the micro world to the macro world and the whole debate revolves around this. Maybe when they start with the quantum computers we will know more about this matter.

    3) The distributions in the systems you describe are based on several assumptions. And that's exactly the point, that there is no reason from the laws of physics that such equilibrium systems would exist in reality.
    And why are such systems used? Because the Schrödinger equation (or its relativistic equivalents) cannot be solved for a large number of particles. If it were possible, they wouldn't have to use statistical mechanics at all.

    4) The physical law is the Schrödinger equation for that matter, and the statistical law is the thermodynamic law. I think it's clear. The statistical law does not separate a collection of molecules that make up a gas, from a collection of molecules that make up a zygote cell. Although the physical results of these two are completely different.
    Locally the statistical law is not valid, the laws of physics are valid, but when you look at the big picture it is certainly valid in our world, otherwise we would not have a physical arrow of time. And the question is how a set of reversible laws of physics become something irreversible. And I think it has to do with the mechanism of wave collapse.

  323. The response above is to the point.

    Israel,

    "And also last time I answered you that it seems to me that I am making a difference. According to the Carnot cycle. This has nothing to do with reversing the process."
    – You put in the coups, not me. If you want to omit this concept and return to what you wrote:
    "Why, if everything is reversible and symmetrical, and the laws of probability are valid in both directions, wouldn't entropy also increase in the direction of the past?"
    - Why would the entropy increase if you reverse the direction of the arrow (forward)? After all, from the definition of entropy you will accept that by reducing the statistical weight it will decrease.

    "What I'm talking about, and I believe it's also a point, is that theoretically, in terms of the arrow of time, entropy should increase both towards the future and towards the past, while in practice it only increases towards the future."
    - I do not understand what you (or you) do not understand. I think the link I gave you provided a pretty comprehensive explanation of what you are calling a problem here. Maybe if you give a specific example you can clarify what you are talking about.

    "If you think there is no problem here, you are in disagreement with Poincaré and Boltzmann."
    - do tell.

  324. "In general, in the link that you gave the answer is neither serious nor accurate at all."
    - and throwing out such a claim without even stating what - is very serious and accurate. In general, the same can be said about your words. Since the authors of the links I gave are graduate students and PhDs from the Weizmann Institute, credibility, until proven otherwise, remains with them.

    "The laws of thermodynamics are not fundamental at all."
    - They are, and this is not only stated in the links I gave, but in most of the contexts I have studied to date.

    "And the answer in my opinion is related to the transition from the quantum micro world to the classical macro world and it is related to wave collapses in some hidden way."
    - I mean, you don't have an answer and you refuse to accept the one that exists?

    "Statistical mechanics assumes distribution functions of particles. No one has solved the Schrödinger equations to get these functions.”
    - I did not understand what the connection is between the distribution functions in statistical mechanics (which are not assumed at all, they are obtained from an analysis of the system - whether it is classical which leads to Maxwell-Boltzmann or whether it is quantum which leads to Fermi-Dirac, Bose-Einstein or alternative alternatives such as parastatistics), and the relationship of the Schrödinger equation and the collapse of the wave function, for this discussion.

    "And if someone tried to queue still he would not reach these distribution functions, because the collapse mechanism is not part of the Schrödinger equation. It's another mechanism that is not clear."
    – Again, I don't understand the claim or what you mean. After all, the Schrödinger equation is not necessary at all (but it is necessary to take into account the quantum nature of the particles) to arrive at the Fermi-Dirac distribution (for example), so where is the connection?

    "The discussion of the question is as if philosophical. This is a physical question for everything. The fact that she doesn't have an answer right now doesn't make her philosophical."
    - I said that the discussion on the question of what the "laws of physics" are or what probability is and why it works, is philosophical.

    “And again about evolution, you are still confused. Evolution is an example that what governs nature is the physical law, and not the statistical law, this does not mean that the laws of thermodynamics have been violated, it just means that they cannot predict anything like life at all."
    1. What/who is the physical law and the statistical law?
    2. Why do you think they can't prophesy? Because you have no way to describe a complex system like the one that led to the development of life?
    3. I think you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say that the laws of thermodynamics are valid (not violated) and on the other hand you claim that they cannot predict what scenario will happen (like the creation of life) - which is part of the essence of the second law.

  325. Israel,

    My response is awaiting confirmation in the Stasi basements, poor thing they tore her apart with torture and yet she did not admit to trolling or any other harm. I guess she will be released soon.

  326. point.

    G = Gravitational constant.
    C = speed of light.
    M = the estimated mass of the universe. (can be found on Wikipedia).
    R = estimated radius of the universe. (same as above).

    So: GM=RC^2 approx.

    If we use dimensional analysis, after all the reductions on both sides of the beacon, we are left with only:

    F = MA

    Newton's second law, the law of inertia.

    the question:

    So how does this fit in with the idea that there is actually at least 5 times more mass than is accepted? Shouldn't we have added another factor in such an elegant formula? Shouldn't this inconsistency alone kill the whole idea of ​​dark mass? After all, there is almost no doubt about the values ​​of G, R and C.

    Or maybe M in the formula already includes the dark mass?

    student.

    "- Why and how did you come to the conclusion that the process described in the link I gave is reversible? Even the last time I discussed with you I got the impression that you do not distinguish between a reversible process and an irreversible process."

    And also last time I answered you that it seems to me that I am making a difference. According to the Carnot cycle. This has nothing to do with the reversal of the process. What I'm talking about, and I believe it's also a point, is that theoretically, in terms of the arrow of time, entropy should increase both towards the future and towards the past, while in practice it only increases towards the future.

    If you think there is no problem here, you are in disagreement with Poincaré and Boltzmann. There are several explanations for the phenomenon, and quantum is one of them.

    I was trying to show that the big bang theory might be able to shed light on the problem, but we're having a bit of fun, so we'll leave it at that.

    R.H.??? Clocks, Gemini, Umayat.

  327. All forms of energy always strive to reduce to heat energy. The heat - Boltzmansky's voice broke - the pleasant warmth we cuddle with - here is the lowest form of energy - his voice became a whisper - the most despicable -
    The audience came in tears.
    -Whoa, whoa- lapped the law. -Heat, energy, work - what's all this and me? you're hot? Turn on the air conditioner!
    - And what does the air conditioner do? roared the professor - cooling one closed system at the expense of another? - You must understand, address the audience, that an air conditioner, unlike an oven for example, cannot be included in a closed system. This is the reason why it is usually fixed on the wall - half of it in a closed system, the house, and the other half in the free air, and it is always necessary to supply it with energy from an external source. Do you understand the absurdity? The professor raised a finger in reproach - we have to invest energy to get energy out of the room. Really, how low can you go?
    -For exactly the same reason we cannot produce useful work from heat directly. An airplane will not be able to move forward by cooling the air it is passing through. All systems that produce work from heat - a steam engine for example - must be hotter than the environment. Their energy efficiency, which is very low, is limited to the temperature difference between the system and the environment, divided by the absolute temperature.
    -Professor Boltzmansky- the prosecutor intervened gently, -I do not intend to defend the accused, but haven't you deviated a little from the subject? After all, the defendant is not on trial for his thermodynamic activity. Can you describe to us the damage caused by his activity to life?
    - Very true - read the law - I, my new friend, the prosecutor, and my friends in the audience whom you anesthetized so beautifully finally want to understand: what did I do? why am i here
    -Mess. replied the professor.
    -what? asked the law, the prosecutor and a few other voices in the audience.
    -You made a mess. anarchy. mess. Because of the tendency of energy to dissipate, the direction of things in nature is always to increase entropy, or disorder. The house always gets messy by itself - but in order to get it in order, we have to put in the work. A china mug will shatter if dropped, but the shards will never stick together on their own. A car will rust and become old, and will not become new again without external work.
    - Not exactly.. muttered the law a second time.
    -Yes exactly. You have already acknowledged the direction of energy flow - to heat, the lowest energy - now acknowledge the direction in which you lead all things in the world: disintegration and disorder. If it weren't for life - everything in the universe would constantly strive for the lowest possible form of order.
    The very concept of work - defined in physics as the product of force along the way - is actually the inverse of entropy. Continuous work exists only in biological systems or in systems created by biological systems. In still life, there are no air conditioners, or any other machines, and a system can decrease its local entropy in only one way: expansion.
    In living systems, on the other hand, the local entropy can be reduced by absorbing external energy - as plants do in the process of photosynthesis. Man-made machines do this too. In fact, life is a complete contradiction to the second law and its lost goals, the victory of the good and the noble over the evil and the destructive..
    -If so good why so bad? Law asked in Russian.
    - Stop, cynicism won't help you. You try to present yourself as spotted and mischievous, but we will reveal your true face: a saboteur! destructive! You are the cause of all our troubles and illnesses! You are the reason for the malfunctions in our lives, for our aging, murderer! You're making us all . . . . . .
    The crowd sobbed bitterly.
    -Really breaks hearts - the law grumbled, -and you too will go the way of all flesh-
    - I'm done, the professor wiped his teary eyes with a handkerchief. - We can continue to describe the criminal exploits of the accused. But the principle will remain the same: until the second law is abolished, or its destructive nature is changed - life will continue to suffer forever from its disturbances and harassments.
    - Either us - or him.

  328. In general, in the link that you gave the answer is neither serious nor accurate at all.
    The laws of thermodynamics are not fundamental at all. These are statistical laws that apply in the macro world, when there are a large number of particles. And the whole question is how it happens. And the answer in my opinion is related to the transition from the quantum micro world to the classical macro world and it is related to wave collapses in some hidden way.
    Of course, in the course you don't learn about the collapse of wave functions. In statistical mechanics, distribution functions of particles are assumed. No one has solved the Schrödinger equations to get these functions. And if someone tried to queue still he would not reach these distribution functions, because the collapse mechanism is not part of the Schrödinger equation. It is another mechanism that is not clear.
    The discussion of the question is as if philosophical. This is a physical question for everything. The fact that she doesn't have an answer right now doesn't make her philosophical.

    And again about evolution, you are still confused. Evolution is an example that what governs nature is the physical law, and not the statistical law, this does not mean that the laws of thermodynamics have been violated, it just means that they cannot predict anything like life at all.

  329. Israel,
    Sorry, on second glance I saw that the comment on evolution was a point he said therefore the answer in this matter is addressed to him.

  330. point,

    You are wrong. There is an explanation of the time pressure, and it is given quite exhaustively in the two articles I linked to. I don't see the reason for your insistence that there is no explanation. In any case, of course I can't read for you.

    Some Comments:
    1. The laws of thermodynamics are considered fundamental laws of nature.
    2. The explanation for the second law is given in the framework of physics/mechanics/statistical thermodynamics. Quantum mechanics does come into statistical physics, but I didn't hear about the collapse of the wave function in the course, and to be honest, I don't really know what you're talking about in the context of the discussion.
    3. You are pulling the discussion in a philosophical direction and I am not interested in going there. What is probability and what are the "laws of physics" are philosophical questions. In practice there is no wave function, no laws and no physics - there is only what we infer from studying the world around us.

    "And I brought evolution as an example that we don't always get the lowest energy state."
    - and air conditioners are not supposed to work? There is nothing in this statement. You wrote:
    "There is no statistical factor that will cause exactly the component with the greatest number of states to occur. The best example of this is evolution."
    And that's just not a good example. The creation of life, even if you don't realize or see it, increased the entropy of the universe.

  331. Israel,

    This discussion repeats itself in a circular fashion. I don't see any contradiction and I can't understand what contradiction you see.
    The answer to your questions is simple and coherent with the concept of speeding up time according to speed
    The cesium clocks will show a difference, an hour in one case and a billion years (according to your extreme) in the other case. The temp gauge will show exactly the same. If these two guys were to draw a graph of the thermometer over time, you would see that the cooling rate in the case of the one resting is slow (say from 6000K to 3 in a billion years) while the other's graph would show a fast rate 6000K ==> 3 in hour.

    What's the secret??? What do the professors and qualified scientists think you don't understand, don't understand?
    Israel, there was a discussion here about mathematical and scientific hassles that was addressed to Yuval. One of the main signs of scientific troublemaking is an attack on the establishment and disdain for the scientists present who did not see what he sees, so you should not go in that direction, lest you become one.
    See for example here:
    http://www.gadial.net/?category_name=%d7%94%d7%91%d7%9c%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%a4%d7%a1%d7%90%d7%95%d7%93%d7%95-%d7%9e%d7%aa%d7%9e%d7%98%d7%99%d7%99%d7%9d

    Regarding the entropy, although you know a few more counters than me and I read your article on Galileo that you quote above, I think you are wrong when you say "there is no statistical factor that will cause exactly the component with the greatest number of states to occur.". Of course there is. Play for 5 minutes with a Hungarian cube and you will see marble.

    "From an energetic statistical point of view, the state without life has a lower energy than a state with life. And yet life happened. It just shows that there is no statistical factor imposing itself on the universe.”

    – This is one of the old and worn-out creationist arguments. The earth is not a closed system and there is an injection of energy from the sun, so locally there is an inversion of the entropy arrow. In the same way, one could ask how a fire is lit? After all, the lowest energetic state is a dead tree, but inject energy into it and it will light up and the fire will last and even spread.

  332. And I brought evolution as an example that we don't always get the lowest energy state.

  333. Hi student,

    See, according to the laws of physics, time is symmetrical, and we should not accept any difference between the past and the future.
    The second law of thermodynamics is not a fundamental law of nature (although it always exists in our world), it is the result of experiments and conservation principles.
    Classical physics which is symmetrical in time cannot explain an outcome like the second law. The only factor we know that can explain something similar to the second law is the (unknown) collapse mechanism of a wave function, because it is an asymmetric mechanism in which we pass from superposition to a single state.

    Student, probability is not part of the laws of physics, therefore it is not supposed to work in our universe just like that. The only place that introduces the probability of occurrence is a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics.

  334. Israel,

    "Why, if everything is reversible and symmetrical, and the laws of probability are valid in both directions, wouldn't entropy also increase in the direction of the past?"
    - Why and how did you come to the conclusion that the process described in the link I gave is reversible? Even the last time I discussed with you I got the impression that you do not distinguish between a reversible process and an irreversible process.

    point,

    "There is no statistical factor that will cause precisely the component with the greatest number of states to occur."
    - There is no such factor, it just happens. Are you wondering why probability works? Why does the second law exist? This is already a philosophical question. Most of the basic laws in nature have no explanation for "why". Link on the subject:
    http://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/online/askexpert/physics/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A2-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F

    "From an energetic statistical point of view, the state without life has a lower energy than a state with life. And yet life happened. It just shows that there is no statistical factor imposing itself on the universe.”
    - No. The creation of life does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics and that the entropy of the universe increases in the process of evolution.

    "Therefore, there is no real classical explanation for the entropy phenomenon."
    - I think there is.

    "Only quantum mechanics can explain this."
    - do tell.

  335. Israel, you did not explain what the constants are in your formula. Do you know that the radius of a black hole is R=2Gm/c^2?

    From a physical point of view there is nothing special at a certain time. The fact that your consciousness experiences a certain time has no physical meaning (as we understand physics today, consciousness has no function). Therefore it can be said that our consciousness as a whole wanders according to time. It's like in a movie you can't ask if what happened now will affect what will happen in the future or in the past of the movie (because the whole movie is already edited).

    You think I'm going to go through everything you wrote.
    Ask a specific question (and not a pretentious question as if trying to drag me into a certain discussion).

  336. to the knowledge system
    Lately many of my responses have been delayed for a longer time than usual. This makes me start to suspect that this is not a random coincidence. The current spoken response is
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-331370
    Please check and tell me what causes the delay and how I can avoid similar delays in the future. Also, it goes without saying that I would appreciate it if it was released

  337. point.
    If we talk here only about things that are unknown, we will hardly talk at all.
    I think there may be another reason, the pressure of time, but it's not worth looking into other directions at the moment.
    Your recent comments are logical and helpful and show great knowledge. I would be interested in your thoughts on a few topics that have been brought up recently:

    1. If we take the formula GM=RC^2, then we got a beautiful formula that describes a relationship between constants, and among them the mass of the universe but not dark mass.

    So how does this fit in with the idea that there is actually at least 5 times more mass than is accepted? Shouldn't we have added another factor in such an elegant formula? Shouldn't this inconsistency alone kill the whole idea of ​​dark mass? After all, there is almost no doubt about the values ​​of G, R and C.

    Or maybe M in the formula already includes the dark mass?

    2. Your words: "Regarding influence from the present to the future and the like. There are no such things. In a certain sense the past and the future already exist and we are just passing through them. Of course, questions from quantum mechanics come in here as well."

    I don't understand. Sounds a bit philosophical. can you expand

    3. If you could go through and find an error in the discussion I am having with R.H. Regarding the so-called contradiction between the lengthening of time in relationships and the big bang theory. Starting from:

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-330884

    If possible, only individual answers to the point, no generalizations.

    Thank you, and good night from Los Angeles.

  338. Student, this concept of molecular chaos cannot explain disorder. Were it not for quantum mechanics, there is no statistical factor that would cause exactly the component with the greatest number of states to occur. The best example of this is evolution. From a statistical energetic point of view, the state without life has a lower energy than a state with life. And yet life happened. It just shows that there is no statistical factor imposing itself on the universe.
    Therefore, there is no real classical explanation for the entropy phenomenon. Only quantum mechanics can explain this.

  339. Israel The matter of the arrow of time problem is well known.

    Apparently the solution was found in a very important factor in quantum mechanics that is not clear at all, the collapse of the wave functions. Only this unclear factor can explain unclear directionality of time (which is actually the famous roll of the dice).

    Regarding influence from the present to the future and the like. There are no such things. In a certain sense the past and the future already exist and we are just passing through them. Of course, questions from quantum mechanics come in here as well.

    In any case, these are known issues and there is nothing new here.

  340. With confident steps, the prosecutor stepped up to the stand and began his investigation of the second law:

    That. Defendant, could you tell the court why you always increase entropy?

    A. no reason It just happens.

    That. But why? Is it impossible to leave her as is? reduce it?

    A. Possible, but unlikely.

    That. What does it mean?

    A. The laws of mathematical randomness give an extremely low probability of decreasing entropy.

    That. i don't understand You claim that mathematics, the most logical and orderly structure, is the cause of increasing disorder? Does that make sense to you? The prosecutor addressed the audience sarcastically.
    The audience whistled in contempt.
    A. Yes.

    "I don't believe what I hear," said the prosecutor in disgust. "But I am not a professional mathematician. I would like to call Professor Leibnovitz, head of the Gauss Institute for Arithmetic Research, to testify."

    The law is filled with gaiety. "Beauty! A mathematician will surely prove my claims and my rightness. I like mathematical proofs. I wish this would be proof in the negative way, these are my special favorites." He leaned on the back of the chair expectantly.
    Professor Leibnovitz took his place at the lectern and opened the door. "Apparently, the law is right. In terms of purely mathematical probability, there are many more states of disorder to the system than states of order."
    The law modestly smiled a little as he said: "Well, didn't I tell you?"
    The professor pulled out a sealed pack of cards and opened it in front of the audience. "See? The cards are in a state of maximum order. At first the face series, when the cards are arranged sequentially from the smallest to the largest. After that is the heart series, then the clover and finally the diamond series when they are all arranged in the same way, from the smallest to the largest."
    "Now, if I shuffle the deck lightly, the order in the deck will decrease. There will indeed remain small series of cards that will "stick" to each other, but the order in the deck will decrease, and will continue to decrease as I continue to shuffle, until it reaches a state of maximum disorder, or entropy."
    In his speech, the professor shuffled the cards in front of the audience, while the law gloats from his chair.
    "The same thing will happen to a tidy room in which a gusty wind blows. The level of order will decrease over time. If we photograph the room in different situations and then mix the images, we can always arrange them back in chronological order according to the state of disorder in the image: the greater the mess or entropy in the image, the later the image. Do you agree?”
    The crowd roared in agreement, while the law beamed with happiness.
    "This is also why the arrow of time is defined as the direction of increasing entropy. In nature, in a closed system, as time passes the entropy increases, or unfortunately remains constant. Only in rare and special cases does it decrease.
    The reason for this is pure mathematics. There are simply many more possible states that are high in entropy, than ordered states."
    "parable." said the law with pleasure. I knew the math would expose my innocence!"
    "Not true!" said the professor. The math proves exactly the opposite! it's your fault!”
    "what?" cried the law "You have just proved to us that entropy must always increase for pure mathematical reasons of probability!"
    "True, but this is only a partial picture! The question still remains open: why?"
    "It seems to me," said the law coldly, "that you explained it well with the example of the deck of cards. "There are many more high-entropy states than ordered states" - he quoted.
    True, but why does entropy turn in the direction it chooses over time? Why doesn't shuffling arrange the cards in the deck instead of messing them up? Why doesn't the wind arrange the room? Why don't we get younger with time instead of aging?”
    "It's all my fault, as usual," muttered the law.
    "Exactly" agreed the professor. "You are quite a mess. You only know how to cause a lot of trouble. Is there any other explanation why entropy always increases with time? Newton's laws of motion do not require this! If we feed a computer the data of a certain star system, it will be able to predict with great accuracy its condition in a thousand years - but also its condition a thousand years ago! Why doesn't this equivalence principle also apply to a thermodynamic system?"
    "Like you said, the math.."
    "Oh!" The professor was enthusiastic. "In this matter you made a mistake, and I can demonstrate this if a blackboard and chalk are brought to me."
    The audience stretches in their seats in tense anticipation, as the sun shakes into the portable blackboard auditorium.

  341. a student
    From the link you sent me:
    "We can ask ourselves the following question: on the one hand, Newton's laws do not distinguish between past and future - the equations of motion are symmetrical with respect to time (that is, you can replace t with t- in the equations, and they will be correct to the same extent)."

    Look at the picture attached to the link. It has 3 states of entropy and a time arrow pointing to the right, to the future.
    The left state is a state of low entropy, the middle of medium entropy, and the right of high entropy.

    If we envisioned the middle position in the present tense, we can call the left-hander the past and the right-hander the future.

    1. Look at the middle position only, and reverse the direction of the arrow, to the past direction.
    2. Look at the quote above.
    Question: Why, if everything is reversible and symmetrical, and the laws of probability are valid in both directions, wouldn't entropy also increase in the direction of the past?

  342. Israel,

    http://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/online/askexpert/physics/%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%95-%D7%9B%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A1-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%90-%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A2-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%A5-%D7%94%D7%96%D7%9E%D7%9F-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7%93%D7%AA%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A6%D7%9E%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%90%D7%9C-0

    Regarding your question:
    "Do you think it is possible, in any way, to influence the past from the present or the future?
    ... "
    - I have no answer (or opinion) regarding this question and the ones after it. I think that Prof. Yakir Aharonov researched/researches areas related to questions like this.

  343. student.
    At the time, when we discussed the topic of entropy, the point I wanted us to reach and we failed to, was the reversibility of entropy in both directions of time.

    The idea is this: if Newton's laws are reversible with respect to time, if a computer can calculate the position of the heavenly bodies 1000 years from now, but also 1000 years ago, if a thermodynamic system is fundamentally no different than billiard balls on a table, if the laws of probability predict that entropy must increase with time , why does it not have to increase when we reverse the direction of time to the direction of the past?

    If there is a gust of wind blowing in the room and we can tell what is early and what is late in the pictures from the room only by the degree of mess in the pictures, and this stems solely from considerations of probability, why don't the exact same laws predict that the entropy will also rise in the direction of the past? If the ice in the lake melts in the spring towards the future, why won't it do the same towards the past, and this is exactly from the same probability considerations?

    But I don't want to open a new front. I'm pretty engrossed in relativity right now. I would just like to pose some questions to you, as someone who understands entropy and quanta.

    1. In your opinion, is it possible, in any way, to influence the past from the present or the future?

    2. If the answer to 1 is no, do you agree that this is exactly (influence on the past) what quantum mechanics predicts? (according to the Wheeler experiment).

    3. If the answer to 2 is yes, doesn't this contradict everything we said before about the irreversibility of entropy in time?

    4. Do you know any explanation for the Wheeler experiment that does not require going back in time?

    5. I don't know if you followed the discussion between me and R. H., but if the answer to 1 is no, and the answer to 2 is yes, and the answer to 3 is yes, do you see a way out of the worst of all (influence on the past) through what was brought up in discussion?

    Thanks, and sorry for the many questions.

    Meir.

    I've deliberately ignored the CMBR for now, but it's not critical to the main question: Would twins who separated when the temperature of the universe was 6000K agree on the temperature today, 3K, even though only one biological year has passed for one of them?

    What to turn on? Heating or air conditioning?

  344. Israel, you will not kidnap. Not this time.
    I don't remember exactly when I came up with the idea that the empty space is not empty, but I remember already in the Yod class (1969) that I decided that it was bound by reality.
    I formulated the elementary particle theorem almost definitively, when I studied biology in the first year at the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus in the year 1977-78. I discovered the connection between the asymptote of the hyperbola and the geometrical optics when I was already deeply immersed in the model (this particular discovery, by the way, came to me on the evening when Yevgenz Haber Kobohavn won the Eurovision. So I did not have a television at home in principle. I heard the song over and over from the neighbors. I wonder if I would have discovered That if I did have a television set..).
    After the second year, I left my studies in favor of family, children and income tax. From time to time I looked at the model for minor polishing. I returned to university in 1983 and did philosophy, mathematics and computer science for another three years. The idea that "there is" started from "nothing" came to me in 1983 in a dream, following a discussion of the pre-Socratic philosophers, but then I did not connect it with the model. Then I left it for a long, long time and only returned to it about a year ago when I did my first year of physics in Glasgow and became deeply acquainted with dark matter. I decided to return to it because the behavior of dark matter is almost identical to the particles in my model. Over the years, I changed word processors (primitive editor on the mainframe at the university, Einstein, Kiottext DOS, Kiottext Windows, Word 2, Word 6...) and twice my hard disk was destroyed without being able to make a backup. I started telling about him here out of curiosity, and in the meantime I had a megalomaniacal reflection that maybe he has the potential for a gold medal from the hands of the King of Sweden. I am now reconstructing and editing, and in the meantime I am sharing with you here the knowledge.

  345. jubilee.
    I don't want to bother. I also believe that I have learned the background to the topics I am discussing in a rigorous way, and in the appropriate academic institutions. Simply, something is not working out, and simply, I believe it is also something simple.

    The questions I raised and I am raising here, I also raised in front of highly qualified professors and scientists. I never got a satisfactory answer. In fact, I came to the conclusion (subjective of course), that they don't really understand the issue.

    My problem with your words is a little different: it doesn't seem to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you learned the things you're talking about in a rigorous way (recognized academic institution, homework, exams, labs).

    The reason I say this is that simple arithmetic will show you that the model existed before you could even study physics at university. Simply, you were too young.

    This does not mean that he is wrong - but in my opinion, you will have to bring beautiful formulas, or a convincing experiment, to explain the ear of your listeners.

    If you studied linear algebra, you probably know that it is possible to build "models" or "vector fields" that are completely mathematically closed, and without contradictions, but this does not make them realistic.

    The simplest example is a world with more than 3 spatial dimensions. It is not at all different from the mathematical point of view from the world we know, but our world, at least according to Newton, has 3 dimensions.

    So why then build a model? For the ego? For a mother who will be so proud of her smart baby that he even has his own model on the Internet?

    Many times you asked me why I don't write books. The answer is quite simple: why so? Are there any books missing in the world that far exceed anything I am capable of producing?

    This. Hope I don't grab too much for what I said.

  346. One two three quarter past one, experience
    I just founded a website:
    https://sites.google.com/site/darkmattermodel/
    There is an article there that you can download: Pattern of returning waves.pdf
    This article is "stand alone" so it is mathematically correct regardless of the rest of the model
    Please read carefully and keep in mind that this was written many years ago
    R.H. and Israel, you have already received it by email

  347. Israel,

    I only just saw:
    "How do you explain the temperature of the universe? And the CMBR system? And the relationship between the two?"

    I have no comments regarding the inherent connection between the two. I have significant things to say about the "interpolation" (the quotation marks express my opinion about it), from which the temperatures in the sub-particles of the first second of the bang are deduced (literally). I will tell them in a neat article.

    Regarding the temperature clocks you propose, I would like to comment (regardless of the MCS theory) that apparently anisotropies should arise in their measurements along the movement axis, that is, a small difference in temperature resulting from the differential Doppler in the wavelengths of the CBR measured with and against the direction of movement (and of course also the half differences in comparison for measurements perpendicular to the direction of movement). This difference should indicate absolute speed in relation to the rest system of the CBR. This should raise questions about the relativity of time, since it should decide between two inertial travelers who is traveling and at what speed.

  348. Israel,

    "If it seems to you that Yuval, Yehuda, or I, or whoever, are Finlayson's characters, why don't you browse?"
    - I already do. Please note that the only one I entered into a scientific discussion with was you - and it was only on topics that I thought were worth discussing with you. One of the important things you learn at the Technion is how to use time, you can be sure I won't waste it on discussions with the troublemaker on duty.

  349. Israel Shapira, thank you for the protection
    When they denounce me as a troublemaker, it's not malicious, because I really am, and not just from their point of view. R.H remarked to me, and quite rightly, that I was behaving like a troublemaker (not in those words, of course 🙂 ) and offered me a more successful wording which I embraced with both hands. I have no serious problem with being called a troublemaker. I know I am like that, and it's not from today. The comments of Studentechnion, Point and R.H. Refai.M (Where is he? Please assure him that we love him and call him to come back), beyond the somewhat barbed language, are absolutely helpful and I welcome them. In the end, I will get a beautiful, correctly formulated model out of my hands - and a lot of it is thanks to them.
    By the way, your sentence "I long for the moment when I find out that I have made a mistake, and I understand where" has lived by me for many, many years.
    in Bh

  350. student.

    The problem of troublemakers in physics is an old and familiar problem, especially in the matter of gravity. Feynman mentions it in his book "What do you care what others think". Google also PHYSICS CRACKPOTS.
    But our contemporaries have the advantage that was not there before. So you had to sit in meetings and listen to every snooze. Today in the internet age you can just scroll on. Some commenters will forgive me, but this is what I do with their comments.

    If it seems to you that Yuval, Yehuda, or I, or whoever, are members of Finlayson's character, why don't you browse? If I were to continue arguing with Dov Henis, the first question I would ask myself is what is my motivation in doing so. Feelings of superiority? Sadistic fun?
    And forgive me Deb. He may be absolutely right in what he said. Simply, I have no interest.

    I can only speak for myself: I long for the moment when I will discover that I am wrong, and understand where. This is what I am doing in the current discussion with R.H.

    However, it will be very difficult for me to argue with someone whose starting point is that he is surely right and I am surely wrong. Even if I know that his psychometrics are higher than mine, and his academic background in the areas I discuss is richer than mine.

    R.H.

    In the link I sent, when Jill reaches the C2 clock, it shows 10 seconds and hers shows 8.

    Let's stretch it a little, to make it convenient to work: 10 billion years and 8 billion.

    Question 1: If next to clock C2 there was also a temperature clock, P2, and C2 showed 10 billion, what would P2 show?
    Question 2: If next to Jill's clock 'C' was a temperature clock 'P, and 'C shows 8 billion, what will 'P show?

    Don't forget which systems are not accelerating, for which they are at rest.

    and most importantly:

    Question 3:

    We are told that we have a very high resolution camera. During the meeting, the camera is able to photograph all 4 watches together. What times on each clock will the shared unequivocal photograph show?

  351. jubilee,

    I prefer it to remain in the framework of a discussion here. Files can be uploaded to the Internet through all kinds of websites. If you want, write "file upload" in Google and I believe it will work out there.

  352. Israel,
    I do not understand what do you want. After all, the link you sent shows exactly that there is no contradiction in things.
    And I also do not agree with this definition "real time", what is real time? You mean that twin 2 that supposedly rests is real time? So call it "rest time" versus movement time. They all had real time, only that its rhythm varied from twin to twin due to their movement. Ask Einstein.

    I think what is confusing here is that, unlike the other dimensions, we do not know "rest" time but only time that moves at the rate of one hour per hour. It's similar to people who move all the time on a train, some sit and some run. Would you define a "real" distance for those who sit and those who run on the train not real?

  353. jubilee,

    The "graphics" you need were invented a long time ago - it's called mathematics. It's not for nothing that science students study it at university.

    And a tip: you can prepare whatever you want (images, equations, illustrations and graphs) in programs like word and excel or the openoffice package, turn the files into PDF and upload them to the Internet. Don't limit yourself to words only because of the comment system here.

  354. R.H.
    In fact, don't forget that before the twins separated they were together in the same non-accelerated system, and even after they got back together they were again in a non-accelerated system. If there were 10 twins instead of 2 who were separated and met again, it could be arranged so that exactly one year passed for all the traveling twins, despite the different routes they took. Of course, if there was a supercomputer in the traveling twin ships, then the line integral of the summation of speeds must include relative calculations.

    In any case, the whole problem you raised can be skipped if we switch to non-accelerated systems. For this, if possible, take a look at the following link:

    http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
    Note that in the example there, no system is accelerated, and therefore, as far as it is concerned, is at rest.

    (Sorry for the rambling, if it's complicated, you can also continue without the link, even though it's important). But I have to make sure we agree on the main point: at the time of the meeting, even with 10 twins who are now together in the same spaceship, they will all agree that the "real" time is that of twin #2, and the evidence is the heating running in the spaceship.

  355. R. H.,
    Thanks for the wise advice. The truth is that I followed it in some of my responses, but I probably didn't emphasize it enough. As a point noticed, and I confirmed, I build a world "like in a graphic engine of computer games". However, unlike in computer games, the building block is well defined in advance and I do not add ad-hoc definitions later.

    Point, Student, Technion and their opinion partners,
    The lack of graphic options in the scientist's comment system makes it difficult for me to illustrate my words, and forces me to explain with a lot of "hand waving". I write down your comments, even though they are "fatal", and learn from them in the hope that I will be able to formulate better in the future.

  356. point,
    I agree with the review. You can't just dismiss what Yuval writes as "nonsense".
    Yuval says "Let's assume axiomatically that there is A, B, C." And from here we will go and see what the conclusions are from these axioms. If they explain without contradictions controversial things in current physics then what is good and what is pleasant.
    You can deduce the sentences and the conclusions arising from the starting premises, but you cannot deduce the axioms.

    FYI the strings are built exactly the same way. "Let's assume that there is one string that makes up all the matter in the universe that vibrates at different wavelengths." This is where it all starts.

    jubilee,
    The review is also for you and I already wrote it to you before. You must start with the sentence "Let's assume that... and see what comes out of it" and to A with the sentence "There are precise particles and empty space and nothingness, etc." as if this is an existing fact.

  357. jubilee,

    Unfortunately, as the discussion progresses, I am converging on the point of view, and I get the impression that you are just another sexual troublemaker.

  358. Israel,

    Agree with everything you said. But something is missing here.
    What is missing in the description of the calculator you presented is the statement that the above calculator is only valid for rest.
    In fact, a factor of a relative velocity component had to be introduced. For each speed the calculation will be different (don't ask me which formula) and then everything works out and there is no contradiction.
    That is, in our example the temperature drop in 13.6 billion years at rest is equal to the same drop for one hour at speed X.

  359. Israel and Judah! Love it for the praise 🙂
    For a moment I thought of closing the basta and going home, but because of you I have to continue to grind my brain here 😀

    point,
    Your "killer" comments are very helpful. I will try to bring more "meat" here. Thanks.

  360. To Yuval Chaikin
    agree with you A theory is supposed to explain only what is known in the simplest way and is perfect if it did!. Prophecy was only given to prophets and scientists are not supposed to be prophets. Newton was perfect in his theories and he was not supposed to explain in his theories what was once known about the theory of relativity.
    I suggest you read my article here in Science called "Evolution of Theories" in which I show a great similarity between the evolution of life and the evolution of theories.
    Sorry I'm very busy with my issues and problems and it's hard for me to find the time for comments.
    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  361. I'm not sure you caught Yuval's head.
    In my opinion, Yuval is not trying to explain the existing physics in the way we are used to or understand it, but he is trying to create an alternative physics. Therefore, at least for him, he must first define the basic concepts so that he can continue to link his physics with conventional physics.
    To an outside observer, this can really seem like a brain dump, and maybe that really is what it is. But the same could be said about Maxwell's ether theory - except that Maxwell brought the equations.
    Consider in your mind what a big hat you will have to swallow, if Yuval can extract the basic Schrödinger equation from his model. Won't everyone start talking only about precise particles and empty spaces?

    So don't block a bull with a dasho. Not before the formulas stage, which Yuval promised.
    (And it's true, it's easy for me to talk. I have an exemption).

  362. My job is to come down on those who make plays. And anyone who fills in a million comments without saying almost anything, is making plays.

  363. Point, why are you attacking Yuval? Have you ever thought about how you would react if someone brought up here for the first time the delusional idea of ​​parallel universes? Or curvy dimensions? Or wormholes? Have you ever looked at Maxwell's theory, with all the tunnels, and flywheels, and currents, and vertical waves?
    Can you show us even one response of yours that doesn't amount to: "It's all nonsense!" or "go study!" Have you ever tried to solve the unsolved problems of physics yourself, or is your only job to come down on those who try?

    After all, you promised us links to solving the problem of non-locality in quantum entanglement. where are they? The world wonders and is bored.

  364. point,
    Since I received very few feedbacks here, I jumped on the correspondence with you as a great way out. I thank you for your responses and I'm sorry for wasting your precious time.

  365. Yuval, you are actually claiming that the test is based on the naivety of the examiner. The more naive the examiner is, and ignores unnecessary things, the simpler his model is and therefore more correct.

    This is roughly the model you are presenting. You've already written tens of thousands of words here, and apart from a sharp particle and an empty space you have no idea what this jumble of words means. You didn't say anything here.
    And wonder how many words you waste here on the site just to say that for you everything comes slowly.

    I noticed that what comes to you slowly is nothing. Only meticulous particles and empty spaces that have no meaning.

    In short, I changed my mind about you and now after your evasions and ignoring of simple questions that are asked of you here, I am throwing up on you as a common brain dump.

  366. Last attempt to pass the delay barrier (12 hours):
    point, justice is with you,
    This is exactly what I do: build a world like in a graphics engine of computer games. But that's not the point. The point is that I use a very simple building block, and try to show that it is enough to build the whole world so that it is identical to the world we know from physics.
    The definition of this building block consists of four sections (actually, I arrived at it from an even simpler definition but I am not bringing it here because of the technical difficulties: it needs a graphic illustration):
    A) The world is made up of an increasing number of particles and an infinite amount of empty space.
    b) Given enough empty space, the particles absorb themselves on their surroundings to create particles of their own size. A particle surrounded by very dense particles changes its state to a piece of empty space.
    c) A single particle occupies a defined volume in space, no part of which is simultaneously occupied by another particle.
    d) The particle has an independent self-motion that varies randomly in its direction and speed, except for one limitation arising from the previous section: the movement of a particle does not take place inside the volume occupied by another particle.
    The multitude of behaviors of the collection of particles derives from this definition alone, without additions.
    For this reason, an examination of the model for the new predictions of the future M y s h b a l h e f a c t d r m t m y m s h k n a ) , as i m b p h e s t u t o w b y c h o l t t h e s b i r h in her. The model for me is simple, just like the above, and what is the meaning of the model for the whole Physics. A m h a y t c l i h b m y m o t h u , h r y h a v a b a r a t h m b h a n b h c h a l h g l l l a t h a zi and T.

    The response is awaiting approval.

  367. Student, Technion and everyone who follows,
    After several visits to Meir's blog, I was convinced that his model is an immediate continuation of my model. I bring a plastic description, and Meir places formulas in it. I intend to adopt Meir's formulas as the basis for the quantitative calculations in my model. Until I finish the job, you are welcome to browse his blog. Please watch "MCS Physics".

  368. Sorry for the impersonation :)

    The previous message is of course from me to Israel (Israel does not usually talk to itself)!

  369. Israel,

    The spaces are dense spaces whose sticky sequence constitutes the "fabric" of the space. Towards the particle at the moment of its action, the fabric is stationary. The EMP "crawls" inside this fabric in measured steps, the length of each of which is a single spacent in a random direction, depending on the relative position in which the EMP arises between the sections of the fabric at the moment of operation. Between operation the EMP and the fabric are transparent to each other. The time interval between action to action (the cycle time of the particle) is constant, and very large (>>) than the interaction time, which is actually a "quantum leap" to a distance of a single spacent, at an "~infinite" speed, which averages to the speed of light times the root of two when dividing the length of the jump by the time the cycle.

    In order to understand "potential" energy as movement, we can refer to gravitational potential energy (MCS is gravity theory, and the tension of a spring involves electrical "potential" energy):

    Gravitational potential energy is an asymmetry in the gravitational field to which an elementary particle is exposed, which is expressed as the movement of the particle (always, even when we refer to it as a "particle at rest"). It is possible to argue and claim that a local "asymmetry" of a field towards a particle is "potential energy". Against this one can argue and claim that in order for this local asymmetry to have meaning, there needs to be a particle with an action potential on the field, therefore the particle also expresses "potential energy" which is its ability to do "something" to the field.

    Therefore, I think it is correct that energy is the interaction itself, i.e. the "realization" of the potential (on both sides of the barrier) which is always kinetic, thus remaining with one type of energy: interaction between a particle and space, which is reflected in the movement of the particle towards space at the speed of light .

  370. My opinion is that the test of a model is not in the predictions of phenomena that have not been observed before, but rather in its simplicity and its ability to explain a lot

    The response is awaiting approval.

  371. And on that occasion I will point out that an explanation (and in general, a model) should also be rigorous and mathematical.

  372. Point, in short until a delayed response is confirmed:
    My opinion is that the test of a model is not in the predictions of phenomena that have not been observed before, but rather in its simplicity and its ability to explain a lot

  373. Student, Technion
    I understand your heart. If I were you I would explode with impatience.
    But if I now write something like: "The path of light's movement is hyperbolic, but we refer to the asymptote and therefore it appears to follow a straight line; This explains why the angle of impact is equal to the angle of return" you would raise an eyebrow in lack of understanding or complete disdain.
    Yesterday I managed to recover parts of a hard drive that was destroyed 15 years ago and found some things on it that I had forgotten. I'm sorry for the slowness. That's all I can answer you for now

  374. jubilee,

    I still don't understand something. If you have the explanations for what I wrote, why don't you post them?

  375. My father, the science system:
    Delaying responses, however justified, spoils the dynamics of the dialogue. Is there no room to perfect the method?
    On this occasion, please release comment 331216 for publication
    Thanks

  376. Student, Technion
    For me, the explanations come slowly. Sorry, but it is what it is. I didn't find an explanation for one phenomenon, but I believe it's only because I wasn't looking. This is the question of non-locality in quantum entanglement that our colleague raised here. In the near future I will delve into it, and if I manage to explain it without adding clauses to the original definition of the particle, I will provide the explanation without delay.

  377. point, justice is with you,
    This is exactly what I do: build a world like in a graphics engine of computer games. But that's not the point. The point is that I use a very simple building block, and try to show that it is enough to build the whole world so that it is identical to the world we know from physics.
    The definition of this building block consists of four sections (actually, I arrived at it from an even simpler definition but I am not bringing it here because of the technical difficulties: it needs a graphic illustration):
    A) The world is made up of an increasing number of particles and an infinite amount of empty space.
    b) Given enough empty space, the particles absorb themselves on their surroundings to create particles of their own size. A particle surrounded by very dense particles changes its state to a piece of empty space.
    c) A single particle occupies a defined volume in space, no part of which is simultaneously occupied by another particle.
    d) The particle has an independent self-motion that varies randomly in its direction and speed, except for one limitation arising from the previous section: the movement of a particle does not take place inside the volume occupied by another particle.
    The multitude of behaviors of the collection of particles derives from this definition alone, without additions. In my opinion, a test of a model is not in the predictions of phenomena that have not been observed before (even if these have a convincing dramatic effect), but in its simplicity and its ability to explain a lot. My model is defined simply, as above, and it claims to build a model of כל known physics. If he succeeds in his mission, then he passed the test successfully even without predictions.

  378. Meir.
    Where does the excellent English come from? Father Eben can take an example.

    Questions about chapter 4.

    As I understand it, you claim that mass-energy equivalence results from the interaction of the space particles (which you call Spacent) with the elementary particles which you call EMP.

    Since the EMP is moving at a speed of the root of 2 times C, we get the equivalence as kinetic energy.

    1. did I understand correctly?
    2. Shouldn't it be the other way around? The Spacent are the ones that move, like air molecules, and the EMP moves through them?
    3. According to you, all forms of energy originate from movement (sounds very reasonable). What about potential energy? A compressed spring for example?
    Intuitively, it seems to me that according to your model it is quite clear why here as well, but I would be interested in hearing your explanation.

  379. Yuval, I can't believe you wrote what you wrote seriously.
    You can equally argue that the mere fact that the world exists is proof of your model. It's just ridiculous.

    Propose an experiment that predicts different results than what various theories predict.

    The thing is that you are not able to do this, because your model does not predict anything, it is a flexible model that allows adaptation to any universe imaginable.
    This is what is done with graphic engines of computer games, you can build all kinds of "worlds" with them.

  380. jubilee,

    Oh and yes, I (and I believe several others who are discussing with you) are still waiting for explanations about the topics I listed not long ago. If you don't have any, please say so.

  381. Student, Technion, justice is with you. The sting is out of the bag 😛 So let's continue:
    Although momentum conservation does not exist at the particle level, we have seen that at the proton level this phenomenon exists. The movement of a proton is an expression of density ratios between one side of it and the opposite side, and this density ratio is maintained over time. Motion of a proton is actually a motion of a wave. Two protons that during their movement bump into each other, exchange their density ratios, and this is exactly what an elastic collision looks like in physics. During elastic collisions protons exchange momentum. But protons not only get momentum from each other but also generate momentum from themselves. What causes the self-momentum of protons?
    Let's examine what happens in the "heart" of a proton: the density of particles in the center of the proton is high. A particle that is at a high density may "die" and turn into a piece of empty space - a hole. Into this hole some particle can enter and leave behind a hole which is also entered at some point by a particle that leaves behind a hole. Thus, due to the great density of the proton, a hole is formed in its central region, and it flutters out. Since there is no elastic collision between particles, the density in the center of the proton began to increase. At a certain moment another hole was formed there and it also flickered out. This process may repeat itself endlessly. Such a hole, which is created in the heart of the proton and flutters out, means that at a certain moment the local density in one area of ​​the proton shell is smaller than the density in the opposite area. The density difference causes the proton to move to the denser region. A new hole created in the center of the proton flutters out without a direction preference and may cause the proton to move in a new direction.

  382. R.H.
    OK, we agreed that they would agree on the temp.
    Next step: go to the website:
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3
    There is a formula down there - the Friedman formula for the relationship between the temp and the time that has passed since the big bang.
    There is also a calculator there - you can enter temp and get time, with any precision you want, or vice versa.

    Conclusion A:
    By measuring the temperature alone, it is possible to know the time that has passed since the big bang anywhere in the universe, with any precision we want and that is technically possible.

    The next step: installing temp clocks.
    This can be done by connecting a computer to the thermometer. (It doesn't matter right now if this is the CMBR temperature).

    Conclusion B:

    Anyone can be equipped with temp clocks.

    Next step: cesium clocks.

    These clocks show the time unique to the system, and are affected by accelerations.

    Conclusion C:

    If only one biological year has passed for Twin 1 since his separation from Twin 2, his cesium clock will also show that only one year has passed.

    And if 2 billion years have passed for Twin 13.6, its cesium clock will also show that 13.6 billion years have passed.

    (I assume that this is what you meant by: "The argument between them will be what is the rate of cooling of the universe. The first will say that the universe is cooling from an initial X to 2.75 per hour and the second will say - no, the rate is X-2.75 divided by 13.6 billion years.").

    Conclusion D:

    If we equip both of them with temp clocks + cesium clocks, then a video of the two clocks together will show that in twin 2 the rhythm of the clocks is the same or almost the same, while in twin 1 the tempo of the temp clock is much faster than that of the cesium clock.

    The conclusion of the Lord:

    When they meet, the two temp clocks will show the same time (13.7 billion years) while the cesium clocks will show a completely different time (100,001 years and 13.7 billion years).

    Please go through the conclusions and tell me if you agree, and if not where.

  383. Israel,
    Agreed, both will see the same temp in the first meeting - let's say X (a few thousand degrees) and in the second meeting today let's say 2.75K.
    The debate between them will be what is the cooling rate of the universe. The first will say that the universe is cooling down from an initial X to 2.75 per hour and the second will say - no, the rate is X-2.75 divided by 13.6 billion years.
    There is no wrong and right. Both are right, that's why there are wars in the world.

  384. jubilee,

    You talk more about your "model" than actually advertise it. It creates an image of a brat - just so you know.

  385. Obviously, in the science system they don't work on Saturdays. Otherwise, it is not clear to me what causes my innocent response to be waiting for approval for almost a day.

  386. R.H.
    We are really close to the root of the problem. With your permission, I'll skip right to your question 2 to see if we can come to an agreement. We'll see for ourselves where it leads. I will also try to use the Socratic method of questions and answers as a way to explore the truth.

    2) Regarding the "temperature clock" I still think you are wrong and there is no contradiction. Two twins, one flies and returns after a year. He will be very surprised to see that his remaining brother has aged 10 years. He will also be very surprised that according to Shapira's temperature clock, 10 years have also passed. If he had looked at a similar watch that he had with him in the spaceship he would have seen that the watch was constantly running 10 times faster than expected. Where is the contradiction?

    In the article with Hasoi, I gave an extreme example that the time difference between the twins is 13.6 billion years. Twin 1 claims that only a year has passed since the separation, while 2 claims that 13.6 billion have passed.

    I also stated that in my opinion 2 were right, and 1 was wrong. Evidence: It's cold, very cold outside, and they both agree on that. If 2 was right, they should have turned on the air conditioner. The fact that the heating is on, shows that XNUMX is right.

    Questions:
    1. Do you agree with me that the two twins during a meeting will agree on the temperature?

    2. Do you agree with me that both of them will agree that in terms of temperature, it is very cold outside (3K), and not a few thousand K as it was when they broke up?

  387. Point, my response to you has been "waiting for confirmation" for about 12 hours.
    In short, your proposal is acceptable to me, but I would add that an experiment that confirms is indeed convincing, but it is not the only test. Other tools are the simplicity test and the depth test. I claim that my model is simpler and more explanatory than the existing models. Also, I apologize for bringing things bit by bit.
    Thanks

  388. Israel,

    1) You answered my question about the lower limit to the speed of light: ". Nice point. But don't forget two things: first, that I don't know if according to the model light moves at all speeds. It may move at certain speeds, depending on the original oscillator speeds. And the second, important, what is important is the range of speeds to which the detector, or observer, is sensitive. Just like if you try to measure the distance to a rainbow, you will always see that it is at a certain and constant distance from you the viewer, no matter where you are."

    Forgive me, but this is not an answer, but a wave of hands that does not mean much. Saying that light moves in a limited range of speeds is just like saying that it moves at one speed. And secondly, is it possible that the detector is only sensitive to light at such a precise relative speed? If so, this is a very interesting question, how come no one has built a detector capable of measuring light at varying speeds? (Perhaps this is the direction you should go, it can be assumed that the person who built such a detector threw it in the trash because he thought it didn't work?)

    2) Regarding the "temperature clock" I still think you are wrong and there is no contradiction. Two twins, one flies and returns after a year. He will be very surprised to see that his remaining brother has aged 10 years. He will also be very surprised that according to Shapira's temperature clock, 10 years have also passed. If he had looked at a similar watch that he had with him in the spaceship he would have seen that the watch was constantly running 10 times faster than expected. Where is the contradiction?

  389. A rewording of a response that has been waiting for approval for 9 hours.
    Point, about your words: "Propose an experiment that anyone can perform that proves that your inner logic does indeed speak about reality... This is how science works, and this is the meaning of the experiment."
    What you say is beautiful and may even be convincing, but it is not enough to be used as proof. In the paragraph entitled "Lawrence contraction and gravitational contraction" (https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-329898) I proposed, in fact, to perform the Michaelson Morley experiment and the Eddington experiment and predicted (in hindsight) their results. If I had published my model in the middle of the 19th century, before the era of relativity, those experiments would have confirmed it. The test for a scientific theory includes not only an experiment with predictions that come true, but also a simpler explanation than the existing one. I claim that the model I bring is better than the physical models that exist today in two things: it is simpler and more explanatory. But even this still does not mean that my model is correct; It just makes it more likely.
    Harini apologizes for bringing things in a thin drip. As mentioned, this is a lot of old material that I have to retrieve from "ancient" storage devices, decode and edit.
    It has been suggested to me to open a blog and concentrate things in it, and I am seriously considering it.

  390. Point, about your words: "Propose an experiment that anyone can perform that proves that your inner logic does indeed speak about reality... This is how science works, and this is the meaning of the experiment."
    What you say is beautiful and may even be convincing, but it is not enough to be proof. In the paragraph entitled "Lawrence contraction and gravitational contraction" (https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-329898) I proposed, in fact, to perform the Michaelson Morley experiment and the Eddington experiment and predicted (in hindsight) their results. If I had published my model in the middle of the 19th century, those experiments would have confirmed it. But since Einstein brought the theories of relativity with those predictions, they became accepted. The test for a scientific theory includes not only an experiment with predictions that come true, but also a simpler explanation than the existing one. I claim that the particle model of the dark matter that I bring is both simpler than the physical models that exist today and also explains more than them. But even this still does not mean that my model is completely correct; It just makes it more likely.
    Harini apologizes for bringing things in a thin drip. As mentioned, this is a lot of old material that I have to retrieve from "ancient" storage devices, decode and edit.
    It has been suggested to me to open a blog and concentrate things in it, and I am seriously considering it.

  391. Tu-ob.
    There is a punch line that no northerner doing a post-doctorate in grass science can resist:

    "Slid Davin, enough with the Avante".

  392. Thank you Yuval. Here is the sequel:

    Rando told his story in his metallic, digital voice. And many people who followed the "Rebellion of the Fallen" in the media - a paraphrase of a well-known story in which the exact opposite happened - hundreds of millions of people who asked themselves every day what the purpose and meaning of their bland lives was, people who were not beautiful (relatively to whom?), not tall (relatively Why?), not rich (compared to a destitute but happy puppy?), not smart (compared to a monkey? a rabbit? or other people), heartless (could they really do anything else?), who worked, if at all, in jobs they hated for little pay without A real ability to move forward, they finally got the explanation for the purpose of their life without satisfaction and hope: to be the reservoir of low heat that allows the whole great psychomechanical system to unfold.

    Meir, I haven't forgotten you, I'm trying to free up a few hours so I can compare your theory with Shaima.

    Question: How do you explain the temperature of the universe? And the CMBR system? And the relationship between the two?
    By the way, do you or anyone know if it is possible to measure the space temperature with a simple Kelvin thermometer? And if so, what will he see in a shaded area?

  393. Yuval, very simply, will offer an experiment that anyone can perform that proves that your inner logic does speak about reality, and not about your illusions. This is how science works, and this is the meaning of the experiment.

  394. point,
    What you say is very true. Everyone has their own internal logic, and the test is external reality. My inner logic successfully passes the test of reality (according to my judgment 😛 ), but the problem I have been encountering for more than a thousand years is how to make my inner logic public domain.

  395. R.H., thank you 🙂
    Precisely in the negation of the negation there is no mysticism. We all know this action from everyday life as "payment". The "mystique" is in Spencer's innovation which I embrace warmly. As the "imaginary" numbers are in the outer set of the "real" numbers, so is the "negative root" in the set of truth values ​​outer to the set {"truth", "false"}. I needed it to avoid a circular definition of "there is" from "there is" (because the act of negation that we know also exists in the world of "there is").
    At the time, Israel Shapira raised the question of what root i is. The answer to this is ± half root twice (1+i) and it does not require additional imaginary numbers. In this way, the root of the negation root is also an expression consisting of the truth values ​​in the group {"negation", "the root of the negation" } and does not require additional truth values.
    In my opinion, the only obstacle in understanding this matter is our over-reliance on intuition.

  396. Perhaps it is not very pleasant, but one of the most obscure episodes of the kingdom of mathematics must be revealed in a pariah...perhaps the darkest chapter...the revolt of the simple numbers under the brave leadership of Rando, the humble and random number of all numbers.
    When the little i joined the mathematics family, they held a feast in his honor, which was intended, they promised, for the whole world of numbers. Who wasn't there? Every fat man of mathematics, every duke and every count, and everyone who is a little something. Endless columns, which had gathered especially for the occasion, marched in total. Entertainment stages were set up for series. It is understood that upper and lower barriers were placed in all the streets to prevent the proletariat from rubbing shoulders with the rabble and the nobles. Then, when the signal was given, the announcer announced: "Ladies and gentlemen, I ask everyone to kneel, and allow me to present before you the five princes of mathematics, 1, 0, i,e, and π."
    You already know 1, 0 and i. π is of course the ratio between the diameter of the circle and its circumference, approximately 3.14. The numerical value of e is approximately 2.72, and is defined in calculus as a number whose natural logarithm is equal to 1.
    The five of them stood on the platform of honor, sons of gods lifted up from the people, while the announcer details the lineage and virtues of each of them. "And here we are, we have reached the great moment, the redemptive formula that will forever unite the fields of algebra, calculus and geometry!"
    The lights dimmed, and to the sound of trumpets and drums, a huge fire inscription lit up above the stage, illuminating the night sky and the cheering crowd:

    e^iπ+1=0

    And only those numbers that were not invited to the party, 1995 the number known as Rando, and his companion 763 known as Willow, turned around and started walking towards the twilight zone between the finite numbers and infinity, the eternal willows where you can pass many millions of consecutive whole numbers without meeting even a single prime number. Soon there was a geometrically growing column of simple numbers behind them, unknown numbers and daily difficulties, never mentioned in any book, numbers that were not beautiful, not perfect, not prime, not even necessarily positive.
    All this huge procession slowly wound its way in front of the dais on which the princes of mathematics still stood, a terrified look in their eyes, because when all the simple numbers began to escape from the number line, all the prime numbers lost the support they always had on the right and left, and soon they were all reduced to one singular point: 0 .

    Because this is the nature of the number axis: each number in itself, however important and privileged it may be, is nothing more than a dimensionless point, but the successive addition of all of them turns them into a line with a dimension of length.

  397. The Jubilee of Science is based on things that others can understand. If no one understands you it's because you have your own inner logic, and you think it's right (naturally). The psychologically difficult part of science is to give up the firmness of that internal logic, because what determines is not logic but reality. And reality is defined as the same thing that everyone has in common.

  398. jubilee,
    Don't make such a sad face. I'm trying to understand. Even if I don't agree with a lot of things you say.
    For example, regarding the root of minus one (i), it simply follows if you add a vertical number axis to the real axis. That is, if you create a Cartesian system where the X are the real numbers as multiples of 1 and the Y are the imaginary numbers as multiples of i. Every number in the network is represented by two coordinates of the real component and its simulated component, therefore it is called a complex number.. There is nothing special or mystical about the negation of the negation, etc.
    Moreover, it is possible to complicate and add more axes and dimensions (although beyond the third axis it is really hard to imagine what is happening).

  399. For those who are still following, a supplement to the "mythological" section in the following response: https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/#comment-329001
    It was easy for me to cast from the negation that we know in everyday life the mechanism of the essence that preceded all "there is". However, in this way I arbitrarily state that the "nothing" that precedes all "there is" has properties that exist in our "existing" reality. This is a circular definition and therefore such a negation cannot be the genesis factor. In everyday life, we do not know a local logical connection whose application to itself creates a negation. Mathematicians encountered a similar problem when they tried to find among the known numbers a number whose result when multiplied by itself is a negative number. During the development of human thinking along with the deepening of understanding of the way of the world, it became clear that the existence of such a number is bound by reality even though in its pure manifestation it does not come to expression in the intuitively known everyday reality. This number was given the nickname, not so successful, "Imaginary". In the projection from the numbers to the logic, the logical counterpart of this number may be used as the root of the negation. Like the "imaginary" number of mathematics, we do not know it intuitively and have no use for it in everyday life; However, in its use as the source of the negation, it is not a projection from our everyday reality and thus his definition of "yes" is not circular.
    Full disclosure: the idea of ​​the negative root is not my original but that of a British mathematician named George Spencer Brown. Details about his teaching can be found in the book
    LAWS OF FORM

  400. Israel,

    Thanks for the compliment.

    "Or maybe M in the formula already includes the dark mass?"

    According to my homework, M does not include the dark mass, nor the dark energy (I got that M is 16.4 times smaller than the critical density).

    In my opinion though the cosmic mass including the darkness is probably around 10% of the critical density, so numerically the relationship is quite intentional. But in terms of physics, this connection is unnecessary for me. In a few tens of billions of years, long after the sun has gone out, the mass of the observed universe will be small and equal to the galactic mass, and still G will be R, G will be R and C will be C, that is, the relationship will be irrelevant.

  401. Meir.
    I started going through your articles a bit. First, get a compliment: there is no doubt that they are much better written than most of the articles I have come across on what I define as "alternative theories".

    It will take me some time to go through all the details, I'm quite busy and also have to deal with my idea. But I have a question related to your chapter 3, regarding dark energy, and actually also to this article regarding dark matter.

    If we take the formula of our friend from the blog, which as mentioned can be written as GM=RC^2, then we got a beautiful formula that describes a relationship between constants, and among them the mass of the universe but no dark mass.

    So how does this fit in with the idea that there is actually at least 5 times more mass than is accepted? Shouldn't we have added another factor in such an elegant formula? Shouldn't this inconsistency alone kill the whole idea of ​​dark mass? After all, there is almost no doubt about the values ​​of G, R and C.

    Or maybe M in the formula already includes the dark mass?

    Going to sleep, we'll discuss later.

  402. Meir
    I have to fly to work. Give me some time, your solution may be just what is needed. But you see, after all, Einstein… Schieme… Mach…
    Enjoy the snow. Don't snowflakes make the second law of thermodynamics a bit more difficult?

  403. Another thing. When Shaima claimed that G changes, he didn't say it in order to save Mach from Meir Amiram's claim.
    And the question arises, how does it happen that after a hundred years of plowing by Mach's principle, an ordinary citizen needs to discover that actually in order for the concavity of the water to change as a function of the universal mass according to Mach's principle, G necessarily needs to change with the universal mass.

  404. It's a shame to bother. That's not the issue. I know Dennis Schieme claims this, and I assume that when you talk about formalism, you're talking about Schieme's interpretation of Mach's principle.

    The question is whether Mach himself claimed this. Obviously not, because Schieme invented it after Mach was already in a gravity-free universe.

    After all, it all started when you asked me why I wrote that according to Mach the water would overflow because of a hydrogen atom ten billion light years away. I explained why. And any way we look at it, it's baffling that Mach didn't notice that the water would maintain concavity (since he didn't say that G changes. If he wanted to say that, he would have called the child by his name).

    So it is true that according to Schieme it has a resurrection (strange, and that the attempt to discover it through measurements failed), but is the historical Mach principle subject to Schieme's controversial hypotheses?

  405. I believe it is when the cosmic mass is more concentrated. Give me some time, I will try to bring you all the formalism.

  406. Is there some quote from Mach that is what he meant (that G increases as the cosmic mass decreases)?

  407. Not necessarily. What has changed is G, the universal gravitational constant. The mass is still the same mass.

  408. Israel,

    "Very simple: 5 billion years ago, for the same rotational speed you would have gotten more overturning. The reason: more influential mass, closer."

    What about gravity? Is he not a player in this game?

    Draw for yourself the force vectors acting on one water molecule that has gained height in the bucket.

    After all, if it rotates at the same speed as today, its radial acceleration is the same acceleration as today. If you claim that the centrifugal force acting on it is, say, twice what it is today, then the only thing that has changed is its mass.

    Same acceleration, double centrifugal force = double mass.

    If its mass is double, the force of gravity acting on it is double (and I made an assumption for you here).

    Now explain what happens to a water molecule that is in equilibrium between two forces, when the strength of the forces is increased in the same ratio?

  409. Period, come on.
    Maybe you can already focus on some specific topic?
    If "superficiality" describes two dimensions, then what will describe "pointiness"? 0 dimensions?
    What about the links to non-locality? The world holds its breath.
    If you have something specific to say from beginning to end, this is the place. Otherwise, please avoid the stupid generalizations, and move on to other articles. There is an open article about monkeys. Don't you think that's where your natural place is?

  410. Meir.
    First, let me clarify my position:
    1. I am not closed on Mach.
    2. As far as I know, Einstein was enthusiastic about Mach at first, and was disappointed with him later. Einstein claimed in general relativity, in fact like you, that even in an empty universe the bucket would spin. I don't understand how.
    3. Intuitively - I agree with Mach.
    4. Logical - if Einstein finally denied Mach, we must understand why, and I must proceed from the assumption that the mistake was mine.
    5. You claim what Einstein claimed. The water will swirl in the bucket no matter what.
    6. And hence our discussions.

    "The degree of radial acceleration is not affected by the size of the mass." I don't know if you mean the mass of water or the mass of the universe. I assume you meant water. According to Mach, it is the measure of the mass of the universe that determines the inertial force on a unit mass of water, so there is no contradiction in Mach's theorem.

    "If the water molecules in the bucket are almost inertialess (= tiny inertial mass), what will prevent them from climbing and creating the overflow?"

    Nothing will prevent them, but nothing will cause them either.

    "They will remain exactly in the same equilibrium between the gravitational force exerted on them by the earth downwards and the centrifugal force that accelerates them towards the side."

    In the example of the empty universe, there is no Earth and no centrifugal force. If you meant an empty universe where only the bucket and so on, this is a different system from what we have seen so far.

    "Do you want to make the delusional claim that the inertial mass is adjusted to the gravitational mass precisely in a universe that has exactly the same mass as our universe?"

    I don't understand the claim. If possible, detail.

    "The persistence mass of the nebula from which we were formed was much heavier because it was exposed to a cosmic mass eight times greater."

    I assume that according to Mach's principle the force acting on the bucket at those times was eight times greater. I don't see what the problem is.

    "The man was so busy with the question of inertia that he forgot to take into account the other forces that are responsible for the concave shape of water moving around in the bucket."

    What powers? Corilius? According to Mach there should be no more forces.

    "How and why will the contour of the water concavities in the rotating bucket on Planet X be affected for 14 billion years in a hypothetical universe where there is a linear decay of mass"

    Very simple: 5 billion years ago, for the same rotational speed you would have gotten more overturning. The reason: more impacting mass, closer.

  411. Israel, you are just expanding and inflating things that have been discussed and mined in the past. And you think you discover something new. It's a bit ridiculous.

  412. Israel,

    Check yourself. The degree of radial acceleration is not affected by the size of the mass.

    Mach claimed that the rotation of the bucket has no meaning if there is nothing to relate it to. For this purpose and only for this purpose I brought the hydrogen atom. Here we have a hydrogen atom 10 billion kilometers away, and here we have something to attribute the rotation of the bucket to.

    Will a bucket spinning in an empty universe (which has only a negligible observer at a distance of 10 billion km) be swept away or not?
    I argue that they will overlap to the same extent as they overlap in our universe. Mach and you claim they won't overlap.

    Is a bucket that rotates in an empty universe (in which there is only a bucket of water hanging on a tripod, and one lonely earth globe in the darkness on which it is placed, and which I added for practical reasons: that does not enter into the question relative to why the bucket rotates, what it hangs on, and why the water stays in the bucket and does not float in conditions of lack weight), will they be washed away or not? I argue that they will overlap to the same extent as they overlap in our universe. Mach and you claim they won't overlap.

    a question:
    If the water molecules in the bucket are almost inertialess (= tiny inertial mass), what will prevent them from climbing and creating the overflow? To the same extent that they lost persistence mass (as a result of losing the effect of cosmic mass) they also lost gravitational mass. The gravitational force acting on them is as small as the centrifugal force. They will remain exactly in the same equilibrium between the gravitational force exerted on them by the earth downwards and the centrifugal force that accelerates them towards the side.

    Do you want to make the delusional claim that the inertial mass is adjusted to the gravitational mass precisely in a universe that has exactly the same mass as our universe?

    By the way, note that according to your claim (and as a person following the path outlined by Albert) the laws of physics keep changing over time, since the mass of the observable universe is getting smaller. Every day of the expansion of the universe, we are losing precious galaxies. 7 billion years ago the mass content of the observable universe was about eight times what it is today, meaning the persistence mass of the nebula from which we were formed was much heavier because it was exposed to eight times greater cosmic mass.

    I can get the Mach principle out of this plodder with relative respect, but I can't save him from the embarrassing mistake regarding the bucket. The man was so preoccupied with the question of inertia that he forgot to take into account the other forces that are responsible for the concave shape of water rotating in the bucket.

    If you think this isn't an embarrassing mistake on his part, don't send me to spinning discs (which we've already discussed and allowed), but explain to me with your usual fine explanatory power, how and why the contour of the water concavities in the rotating bucket on planet X will be affected for 14 billion years in the hypothetical universe where it exists Linear decay of mass.

  413. Meir
    According to Mach's principle, if the bucket is alone in the empty universe the water will not overflow, no matter how fast the bucket spins. The fact that you added a single proton somewhere will have such a negligible effect that the effect can simply be ignored.
    If you add all the mass that exists today in the universe in exactly the same place it is but divided by 2 - the degree of overlap will decrease in the appropriate ratio. Triple the amount of mass - it will increase in the appropriate ratio. (Not 3 times, you can calculate exactly how much).

    This is exactly my original question: if 2 discs are rotating relative to each other - which is the real rotating one - relative to what?
    Eliba d'Mach - relative to matter in the universe.

  414. Israel,

    "I just have a question: I went through your blog a bit. Why do you think that according to Mach's principle (which is wrong for you) if there is a single proton in the empty universe surrounding the bucket at a distance of millions of kilometers from it, the water will overflow the bucket? Theoretically yes, but to such a negligible extent that there is no contradiction to the principle itself"

    Why to a zero extent?
    Radial acceleration is always Vsquared/R, regardless of mass (in our case, the mass of persistence). Therefore, reducing the mass of persistence will not change the degree of water overflow in the bucket.

    Thought experiment: given some particular angular velocity, will the concavity of mercury rotating in a bucket be different from the concavity of iso-pentane or water or any other liquid (considering mass, and ignoring differences due to different viscosity)?

    Of course not, because the smaller the mass, the easier it is to deflect from the center and pile up at the perimeter.

  415. R.H. Rafai.M,
    The question of whether I am ashamed or not is irrelevant. If all you see in my stuff is raw material for nagging, I can only feel sorry for you. I do not claim with absolute certainty that the universe is built from the particles I present here. All I pretend to do is to show how by simple means it is possible to build something that is like the universe we know. Maybe the particles I'm talking about are exactly the particles the universe is made of, or maybe not. But that's not the point.

  416. Lorentz contraction and gravitational acceleration:
    The mobility of the particles depends inversely on the density in which they are arranged, and accordingly also the mobility of the holes. As the density in which the particles are arranged increases, the volume of the holes between them decreases and their mobility decreases. This is manifested, among other things, in reducing the speed of progress of the holes. Let's look at Proton again. As the speed of its movement increases, so does the ratio between the density of the particles in front of it and the density of the particles behind it. The movement of a hole (or wave of holes) falling into a dense environment will be slower than its movement in a less dense environment.
    If we compare the photons of physics to the holes of the model, it appears that the speed of light varies according to the density of the environment in which it moves. Therefore, the speed of light towards a body in motion is the same as its speed towards a body at rest.
    A proton holds in its immediate environment particles with a higher density than the density in the environment far from it. The dense environment invites more particles than the sparse environment and therefore attracts more holes to it. Thus, the chance of a hole moving near a proton to move in the direction towards the proton is greater than its chance to move in the opposite direction.
    Here too, if we compare the photons of physics to the holes of the model, it appears that what physics calls the "curvature of space" is nothing more than a change in the density of the dark matter particles according to their proximity to the celestial gram.

  417. jubilee!!

    You started your comment: "More about particles and empty space:
    The term "piece of empty space" has not been defined in detail so far: it is a continuous area of ​​empty space..."

    Tell me, aren't you ashamed?
    Do you want us to keep nagging you?

  418. Point, thanks for the tip.
    I really need a computer model that will help me illustrate things and maybe also solve some open questions for me. I assume that by the word "naïve" you mean what I bring here. This is true, mainly because of the naive way in which I bring things without mathematical formulas, for now. Even when it's the turn of the mathematical formulas, they won't be complicated. The need for university mathematics (matrices, vectors, differential equations, etc.) arises when connecting a large number of individual structures but to these. But now I am still at the level of the individual structures.

  419. Yuval, you will learn OpenGL and you will be able to upload your universe on a computer and be proud of your work.
    The naive universe has nothing to do with the physics of our universe.

  420. More on particles and empty space:
    The term "piece of empty space" has so far not been defined in detail: it is a continuous region of empty space into which a specific particle can move freely. In this way, you can also look at the empty space as if it consisted of a kind of discrete particles and not just as a "cloud". Below, for the sake of brevity, we will call the pieces of empty space "holes" and the precise particles "particles". We will now look at the way a hole moves: when a hole is formed in a certain area (for example following the transformation of a particle into empty space due to high density) particles from the environment can move into it. When a particle moves into a hole, it turns empty space in the opposite direction and results in the creation of a hole in a new place. Particles can also enter this new hole and the hole moves on. Thus a hole can move great distances while each of the particles that contributed to its movement moves only a short distance.
    Now we will see how the empty space has a dual behavior:
    If there is an area that constantly produces holes, which below will be called a "focus" (and later we will see how such a thing can exist), then the holes will spread without preference for a direction from the focus outward. Each hole is an individual unit, but together the collection of holes forms a wave front.

  421. R.H.
    I re-read the original fish response. There is no reference to light. There is a reference to a fish. A fish is not light. A fish is a fish. Many people will think that when they write a fish they mean a fish. Mind readers will be able to tell that when they write fish they mean light. I don't read minds. I refer only to what is written. It was written fish. I was referring to the fish. If it had been written "read again what I wrote and instead of fish read light and then make up your own mind" as in your last comment, I would have done so. I suspected that was what you meant, but I wasn't sure. That's why I only referred to the fish. to fish

    Matter-of-fact.
    It seems to me that you went from an M-M experiment to Einstein's conclusion. This is a new topic, which we can get to later. However, I disagree with your assertion that "the MM experiment wanted to test the speed of the fish (light) in relation to the buoy (Earth) and what he found is that no matter how and where you measure it, the fish swims at the same speed." It's not accurate, not even very accurate. The results of the MM experiment can be easily explained by the assumption that light moves at one and the same speed (the speed of light) relative to the light source, like a rifle bullet moves at one and the same speed relative to the rifle. If you don't believe me, go for the experiment, you'll see that it's pretty clear.

    That's why many also believed in the Emission theory, which was a competing theory to relativity, according to which light moves at a constant speed relative to the source. However there are many problems with this theory as you can read on Wiki (Knafo). In any case - I have not yet received an answer to the question of the logical validity of the MM experiment.

    If you want, we can leave this question open for now and go over Einstein's conclusion, why I see it as a problem, and how my idea can help solve it.

    And regarding the Dorothy/Ishpah experiment, one of the famous ones is that the Scarecrow would always announce "And now a musical instrument is blaring, heralding the coming of the King of Oz!" Before the entry of Job the Jobnik.

    Meir.
    I just have a question: I went through your blog a bit. Why do you think that according to Mach's principle (which is wrong for you) if there is a single proton in the empty universe surrounding the bucket at a distance of millions of kilometers from it, the water will overflow the bucket? Theoretically yes, but to such a negligible extent that there is no contradiction to the principle itself

    jubilee…
    SIEMPRE PROBLEMAS CONTIGO!

    I don't suspect anything. Simply, you wrote that many understood how gravitation exists in your model even without the response I mentioned, and that the misunderst